Statu4.pdf

In Statu Confessionis: What Does This Mean?

1 of 4

http://reformationtoday.tripod.com/id3.html

In Statu Confessionis Home NEW ARTICLES FROM RT WRITERS Trust Not in Princes of the Church (Liberal or Conservative) Reforming the Parish Back to Lutheran Idenity Independent Confessional Lutheran Resources Eucharistic Theology, Practice and Piety Looking in on Supervison in the LCMS Selected Links Three Walls Preventing Reform of the LCMS

Something in the back of the tool shed: IN CASE OF FIRE, BREAK GLASS - A common understanding of what it means to declare a state of confession in our day...

"We believe, teach, and confess that in a time of persecution, when an unequivocal confession of the faith is demanded of us, we dare not yield to the opponents in such indifferent matters. As the Apostle wrote, 'Stand firm in the freedom for which Christ has set us free, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery' [Gal. 5:1]. And: 'Do not put on the yoke of others; what partnership is there between light and darkness?' [2 Cor. 6:14]. 'So that the truth of the Gospel might always remain with you, we did not submit to them even for a moment' [Gal. 2:5]. For in such a situation it is no longer indifferent matters that are at stake. The truth of the gospel and Christian freedom are at stake. The confirmation of open idolatry, as well as the protection of the weak in faith from offense, is at stake. In such matters we can make no concessions but must offer an unequivocal confession and suffer whatever God sends and permits the enemies of His Word to inflict on us" [Formula of Concord-Epitome, Article X,6].

A brief summary of what it is to be "in statu confessionis" "Nihil est adiaphoron in statu confessionis et scandali."

In Statu Confessionis Beware the Conservatives Fidelity to Augsburg XXIV Fidelity to Augsburg V & XIV Bringing Private Absolution Out of Disuse SELECTED LUTHERAN MULTI-MEDIA

SCRIPTURAL BASIS OF THIS QUARANTINE: 2 John 9-11 - Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching,do not receive him in your house and do not give him a greeting: for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deed.

1 Corinthians 5:11 - I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an idolater, or a reviler, or a swindler not even to eat with such a one.

Romans 16:17 - Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.

Mark 6:1 - Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake off the dust from the soles of your feet for a testimony against them.

Titus 3:10: Reject a man causing divisions after a first and second warning.

1/26/2009 8:48 PM

In Statu Confessionis: What Does This Mean?

http://reformationtoday.tripod.com/id3.html

What follows is simply a brief description of what it is to enter into a status confessionis and a few of its practical implications. These thoughts are gleaned from several essays and materials and are not original.

To declare that one is in statu confessionis is to pronounce a state of confessional protest against an ecclesial entity which has become heterodox, such an entity being in violation of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. This declared critical state of affairs is a public, churchly, and confessional form of protest and is the most potent type of protest that can be made. To declare a status confessionis is a solemn and weighty matter. It is an exercise of the office of the keys.

To declare a state of confessional protest is something done for the sake of the saving Gospel of Christ. It is done pastorally in concern for the faith of those in error and for preserving the pure preaching of the Gospel and the right administration of the holy sacraments in the Church. It is intended to bring to repentance those who have fallen into false doctrine and errant practice.

This state of confessional protest is exhibited by severing fellowship with those in one's church body which teach false doctrine and those which support false teaching either actively in word and deed or by indifference or sticking one's head in the sand. The status confessionis means that pulpit fellowship is suspended provisionally with those pastors and church officials of one's own church body which propagate false doctrine either actively or through passivity (2 Thess. 3:13-15; Romans 16:17).

In addition to this, to declare a status confessionis means to cease and desist from all activities of word and deed which support the ministry of those within one's church body who are propagating false doctrine actively or by indifference. Finally, it should be noted that being in statu confessionis is only to be a provisional (transitional) condition in which the orthodox party remains under affliction until either full doctrinal orthodox is reached or is summarily rejected in unrepentance. It is not meant to be a permanent state of affairs - something which would be harmful if allowed to remain permanent.

How A State of Confession Is Declared By Pastors and Congregations...

1. Pastors of congregation should thoroughly catechize prepare their congregations generally and in the issues at hand. Patience and perseverence should be counseled.

2. Pastors and congregations should draft a letter of protest outlining the issues at hand and giving a clear and consise explanation of errors being protested. Those engaging in the status confessionis are to publicly declare that the church body or synod (especially certain pastors, congregations, or officials) are heterodox, giving clear theological argumentation from Scripture and the Confessions, along with any relevant church law or the constitution of the church.

3. The orthodox party must declare itself out of external fellowship (pulpit and altar) with those within the church body (synod) which teach, practice, and support (actively or by indifference) the false teachings. This includes severing of pulpit and altar fellowship in parishes, church worker conferences, church conventions, and in heterodox missionary projects. This also implies that in the long run the orthodox party would only continue in such activities with those joining in the state of confessional protest, provided they are in full doctrinal agreement and do not merely have a common complaint.

2 of 4

1/26/2009 8:48 PM

In Statu Confessionis: What Does This Mean?

3 of 4

http://reformationtoday.tripod.com/id3.html

4. The orthodox party must declare that such heterodoxy is intolerable and an affront to Christ and therefore must be changed if the orthodox party is going to remain a voluntary member of the church body (synod). In effect, however, it is truly the heterodox party which leaves.

5. Pastors, professors, church officials, and other church workers joining in the public state of protest against the heterodox must explain to the church body and their congregations and institutions the nature of the heterodoxy and the reason for the action that is being taken and its necessity.

6. Clergy and congregations entering the state of confessional protest must not, by their stewardship of time, financial, and other resources,support heterodox pulpits, altars, nor missionary activities. Hence, this may imply that certain mission funds and efforts be redirected toward confessional Lutheran causes. If there are worthy mission projects and congregations being supported by districts or synods, they may be support by direct means rather than through the heterodox body.

7. It should be noted that a status confessionis doctrine and practice is fundamentally different from so-called "selective fellowship" in that in a state of confession view fellowship is established or broken on the basis of unity in confession whereas "selective fellowship" is based upon mere conservatism - establishing comfortable levels of error or agreement rather than orthodoxy.

A state of confessional protest is based upon sound doctrine, not preserving bureaucratic structures. A state of confession recognizes that external fellowship and unity is based upon agreement in orthodox doctrine and that practice is not unrelated (lex orandi, lex credendi and vice versa). A selective fellowship practice virtually understands these issues in reverse. Agreement in doctrine is made at the lowest common denominator or an Aristotelian "happy middle" within the already established external fellowship of the respective church body (synod). Orthodoxy in the selective fellowship paradigm then become more of a sociological description of theology (a kind of survey) rather than a confession of the canonical anad unchanging revelation of the living God in His written Word. In this sense "selective fellowship" exhibits enthusiasm - establishing orthodoxy on the basis of our own preparations, thoughts and works.

However, doctrine is not democratic.

Status confessionis flows from confessional subscription and a pastor's ordination vows, whereas selective fellowship practice requires now definite commitment or firm confession of faith. All selective fellowship requires is a general institutional conservatism -- and even that is negotiable. In the end selective fellowship relies upon tolerating falsehood and heterodox practice.

Finally a status confessionis perspective gives comfort in the Truth of Christ which remains unchanged, wheras selective fellowship finds comfort in organizations, bureaucracies, and ultimately results in a false sense of security placing faith and hope in an undeserving object, since it is not placed in Christ's purely preached Gospel and the rightly administered sacraments (Augustana VII).

8. In beginning the process of declaring a status confessionis, those involved should from the outset build as much outward and inward unity as well as communication and organization as possible in the event that an inadequate response to the concerns raised occurs. Both boldness and organization needed.

1/26/2009 8:48 PM

In Statu Confessionis: What Does This Mean?

http://reformationtoday.tripod.com/id3.html

A "Catechism" on the Dissent Process of the LCMS by Klemet Preus (offsite link)

(PDF) Kurt E. Marquart - Minority CTCR Report on State of Confession

David Petersen - Dissent from and Honor of the Position of Synod (offsite link)

(PDF) James Tauscher - "What Do You Mean: 'In Statu Confessionis'?"

Anthony Bertram - It's Nearly Hopeless to Dissent (offsite link)

(PDF) Alvin Wagner - "In Statu Confessionis (State of Confessional Protest)"

Three Walls Preventing Reform of the LCMS

(PDF) Michael McCoy - For Such a Time As This (State of Confession Study) (offsite link)

Information on the State of Confession at Trinity Lutheran Church, Herrin, Illinois

“This is something the Missouri Synod needs to remember! It should prefer to go out of business rather than to let the Church suffer harm by its continued existence. Those who want to see the synod continue under all circumstances, regardless of whether that would harm the kingdom of Christ, are not to being led by the Spirit of Christ, but by the spirit of selfishness.”

(PDF) State of Confession - Trinity Lutheran Church, Austin, Texas (offsite link) State of Confession - St. Paul Lutheran Church, Taylorsville, NC Rolf Preus - A paper on the relationship between justification by grace and church fellowship (offsite link)

(C.F.W. Walther, “The Duties of an Evangelical Lutheran Synod,” The First Meeting of the Iowa District, August 20, 1879, in Essays for the Church, vol. 2, p. 62.)

"Every prince, nobleman and city should boldly forbid their subjects to pay the annates to Rome and should abolish them entirely;[1] for the pope has broken the compact and made the annates a robbery, to the injury and shame of the whole German nation. He gives them to his friends, sells them for large amounts of money, and uses them to endow offices. He has thus lost his right to them, and deserves punishment."

Martin Luther, "Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate (1520)", published a year before Luther's excommunication in 1521 (Decet Romanum Pontificem) by the Roman Pope.

4 of 4

1/26/2009 8:48 PM

What Do You Mean: "In Statu Confessionis?"

[Delivered to the Fall Pastoral Conference of the South Central District, held at Immanuel, Fort Worth, TX, October 22, 1990]

by Pastor James W. Tauscher On a particular Sunday in the early 70's Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, Ph. D. Th. D. stopped for worship at the large St. Paul's Lutheran Church in North Hollywood, CA. He was invited to speak to the congregation's 200 adult Bible Class attendants on the crisis in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of which he was also a member. He stated there were three different ways to view the situation. The first was to say there was no crisis - that there is the same unity and unanimity of doctrine that there was in the early days of the Synod. But to hold that position was, in his opinion, impossible. The second possibility was to grant that there was no unity of doctrine, but the Synod was the most important value. Even a vast number of conservatives within the LC-MS had taken that position. But as he quickly pointed out: "When a church reaches the point where it is no longer possible to discipline those who deviate from its Confessions, the church is necessarily on the way out and those who remain after this point without protest aid and abet that situation."1 The third possible way to view the situation is: there is doctrinal diversity in the synod and this doctrinal diversity is dead wrong. A church should stand for one consistent doctrinal position. "Therefore, the people that adopt this third stance are saying that to maintain a good conscience it is necessary for them to enter into Confessional protest against the current problem within the church. To use the Latin expression which is employed in Lutheran theology: it is essential to enter into "status confessions," i.e. to go into the confessional state of protest over against a problem which is not being cleared up as it ought to be. This St. Paul's Church here in North Hollywood, CA deserves the highest commendation for being willing to move to this point. If this were done consistently across the board by Conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod members I think it would be possible to clean up the Synod. . ."2 In statu confessionis. The purpose of this paper then is to examine that term to understand its meaning, its original use in the Confessions, its Scriptural basis, its usage in the middle of this century, and some evaluation of the same. May the Lord bless our study!

Definition "In statu confessionis" means that a public protest of the strongest kind is being made.

This protest is demonstrated by not exchanging pulpits with those of one's own church body who propagate or support error; thus they refrain provisionally from pulpit fellowship. Furthermore this condition is demonstrated by not participating in the celebration of Holy Communion with errorists since the Lord's Supper is a public acknowledgement of the existing unity of faith and a public acknowledgement of the true doctrine confessed by the communicants. Finally to be "in statu confessionis" means to refrain provisionally from participation in activities by which error is promoted or supported. Such people will exercise faithful stewardship of abilities, time and possessions in accordance with sound Scriptural principles lest they compromise or appear to compromise their testimony to the truth.

Needless to say, this might seem to be an awkward situation, and it is. As Dr. Oesch comments: "This brings about the abnormal condition in which true confessors remain in a heterodox church in a state of affliction and Anfechtung. Such a state dare never to be accepted as permanent (church within a church) on pain of wounding consciences, loss of doctrinal

sensitivity, denial of truth and growing hypocrisy. It is also to be noted that the term partial restoration applies only to the members or individuals who can be won back to the truth at a given time, not to the truths to be restored. The goal must be restoration to the total truth. No errors may be left that "can be lived with," as the saying goes (Galatians 5:8)."3 Thus this position requires both patience and a definite progression toward the decisive either/or.

Temporarily, then, it is possible to have church fellowship with an orthodox communion in principle, while the practical union is for the time being postponed. This serves a double purpose: "(1) not compromising the orthodox communion and (2) not throwing back into error those within one's own organization who are actually making progress."4 But there is a good deal of subjectivity here as Dr. Oesch points: "Where specific steps of progress are not actually made, where evasions are in evidence, appeals to false love are persistently made or where church political maneuverings are resorted to instead of clear doctrinal admonition and discipline, there postponement of realignment becomes denial. Also where one's own position can no longer be maintained without wounding the consciences of members, there the time for action has arrived.

The time for realignment may not come for all :confessing groups within a church body at the same time; their growth of insight may vary. Pastoral wisdom and the concern for souls may dictate that realignment may take place in different stages for different groups."5 Later we shall have more to say about the implications of being "in statu confessionis." For now we turn to its:

Historical Background At the time of Luther's death in 1546 there existed an alliance of the Roman Catholic princes in Germany, whose aim was to destroy Lutheranism by force of arms, and there was an alliance of the Lutheran princes, called the Smalcald League. Only four months after Luther died the pope and the emperor entered into an agreement to compel the Protestants, by force of arms, to submit to the decrees of the Council of Trent, which was then in session. Soon afterwards the pope issued a bull, calling upon all Christians to assist in this war. In it the Lutherans under Elector Johann Friedrich of Saxony were defeated at Muehlberg in April of 1547. The result of this defeat was the imposition of the Augsburg Interim in the following year. This Interim reintroduced the Roman Catholic ritual into the Lutheran congregations, although celebration of the Sacrament in both kinds and marriage of the ministers was allowed for the time being.

However the supremacy of the pope was asserted and justification by faith alone was denied.

This document was called an interim because it was to be in force temporarily until the Council of Trent had completed its deliberations, at which time the Lutherans were obliged to accept all its decisions.. In southern Germany the Interim was enforced by brutal military action, and with 400 ministers banished, the churches stood empty. In northern Germany it was altogether unenforceable.

On May 18 of 1548 Moritz, the new elector of Saxony, notified the emperor that he was unable to introduce the Interim in his provinces at that time. Shortly after that he commissioned the theologians at Wittenberg and Leipzig to work out a compromise document that would be more acceptable to his subjects. Melanchthon, who for years already had weakened his stand on justification by grace alone, was the chief author of the resulting Resolution of the Diet of Liepzig, published on December 22 of 1548. The opponents called it the Leipzig Interim. Its purpose was to effect a compromise, in order to escape persecution and desolation of the churches, by adhering especially to the doctrine of justification, but yielding in matters of ceremonies. These ceremonies are known by the technical term "adiaphora" - they are spiritually indifferent. Thus this doctrinal controversy occasioned by the Leipzig Interim is called the

adiaphoristic controversy. It was not settled until the publication of Article X of the Formula of Concord almost thirty years later.

The Leipzig Interim avoided the expression "Justification by faith alone." It presented the matter of salvation in terms which Romanists could readily interpret in the sense of their gratia infusa. Other doctrines were passed by in silence. Regarding the ceremonies, extreme unction and the Corpus Christi procession with its public adoration of the consecrated host were reinstituted. In spite of protests, the theological faculties of these two schools stubbornly defended what they had written by saying of the published articles: "They can well be received and observed without violence to good conscience." And so the adiaphoristic controversy raged on.

By a strange twist of political events, the elector Moritz suddenly turned his army against the unsuspecting emperor, drove him from Innsbruck, and victoriously entered Augsburg where he was received with great rejoicing. The results of his victory were the treaties of Passau in August of 1552 and of Augsburg in 1555. For the first time religious liberty was granted to the Protestants according to the principle: cuius regio, eius religio. Dissidents had the right to emigrate. The political power which had enforced the Leipzig Interim was broken, but the theological controversies raged on.

These controversies did not subside, for the question was not one of passing judgment on past events, but, as F. Bente points out (in his Historical Introduction to the Symbolical Books, Concordia Trialotta): "to eliminate from our Church the spirit of indifferentism and unionism and of direct as well as indirect denial of the Gospel." Surely it is this common purpose which connects all the articles of the Formula of Concord. All the errors that surfaced after Luther's death have their root in the same place: a weakness at the point of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This leads to distortions in other doctrines as well. It is in this historical context that we view Article X of the Formula of Concord. This great Confession of the Lutheran Church is so conscientious in avoiding even the appearance of compromise that it disallows making concessions under certain defined circumstances even in matters which are not in themselves right or wrong.

The Thorough Declaration of Article X (Tappert edition) begins: "There has been a controversy among some theologians of the Augsburg Confession concerning ceremonies and church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God but which have been introduced into the church with good intentions for the sake of good order and decorum or else to preserve Christian discipline. The one party held that even in a period of persecution and a case of confession, when enemies of the holy Gospel have not come to an agreement with us in doctrine, one may still with a clear conscience, at the enemies' insistent demand restore once more certain abrogated ceremonies. . .the other part, however, contended that under no circumstances can this be done with a clear conscience and without prejudice to the divine truth, even as far as things indifferent are concerned, in a period of persecution and a case of confession."

Citing such Scriptural references as Galatians 2:5 where St. Paul states: "To whom (the Judaizing brethren) we gave place by subjection, no not for an hour; that the truth of the Gospel might continue among you," the formula of Concord in the Epitome, Article X, Antithesis 3 answers: "We reject and condemn as false and contrary to God's Word. . .that in a time of persecution and when public confession is required, one may make concessions to or come to an understanding with the enemies of the Holy Gospel. . .in such indifferent things and ceremonies." Thus the Epitome states that these restrictions apply "in casu confessionis." The

original German of the Thorough Declaration twice uses the term "im Fall des Bekenntnisses", the literal English for both phrases "in case of confession" (Concordia Triglotta. pp. 828 and 1052). From this term the later form "in statu confessionis" is derived. In general, the terns mean: a situation in which clear-cut confession is called for.

When such a confession is called for, not only is the Scriptural truth to be defended by entering a confessional protest and consistently maintaining it in all respects, but also the practices of the Church in matters that are neither prescribed or prohibited by Holy Scripture are to be examined as to whether they constitute cooperation with the errorists or give the appearance of cooperation or of implied approval, or give the appearance of indifference to the error, as though it were not important. This same sensitivity is found in St. Paul when he wrote in I Them. 5:22: "Abstain from all appearance of evil." This matter can be summarized as follows: "When even adiaphora may cease to be adiaphora, because of the circumstances under which they are practiced, how much more necessary is it to protest every deviation from the Scriptural directives by taking a firm stand on confessional integrity, an integrity which, under the circumstances, can be affected even by adiaphora."6 One application of this principle is that the organizational synodical superstructure is an adiaphoron. The faithful believer is to serve his Lord through that organization until the time comes when that organization is no longer faithful to the Scriptures and to its historic confessions. At this point then, the adiaphoron is no longer an adiaphoron. This is what Article X of the Formula of Concord is all about.

Scriptural Basis Although the term "in statu confessionis" does not occur in the Scriptures, yet the matter is taught therein, especially in the doctrines of Church Fellowship and Christian love. Paul deals with such an example in his second letter to the Thessalonians. In Thessalonica some of the brethren erred with reference to the nearness of Christ's coming and in the doctrine of the Antichrist. They not only held these false opinions, which they would not drop in spite of Paul's careful instruction, but they also began to act on their false assumptions. Were these minor points of doctrine where a difference of opinion should not be considered as divisive? Paul's words to them were: "And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother." (II Thes.

3:13-15) Paul advises that they treat the man as a brother and not as an enemy. Furthermore he expects the man to feel ashamed at the treatment he receives from the Christians. "Thus he evidently is not hardened in his error, he still wants to be a Christian; else he would not feel ashamed, but would rather ridicule his former brethren in the faith."7 The Thessalonians are to take special note of that man, indicated by the present imperative which literally means: mark him for yourselves. This verb form not only indicates the action, but also the duration: they are to continue noting him. The purpose? So they do not associate with him. Obviously Paul is speaking about church life and not business or social affairs. As Prof. Meyer continues: "But regarding church life his instruction is very definite: have nothing to do with him - no pulpit and altar fellowship, no prayer fellowship, nor even an occasional joint prayer. And this in spite of the fact that the break has not been consummated, and they still regard him as a fellow believer.

In this way they will show real brotherliness. They will show real brotherly concern. They will show how serious his error is in their estimation . . .by a 'conclusio a minore ad maius' apply Paul's instruction to a case where a separation because of doctrinal differences has already taken

place, and has been perpetuated through opposing church organizations."8Thus those who are in a state of confession are not practicing church fellowship with the larger body, but in Christian love, they are communicating with the erring brethren, admonishing them as brothers.

Paul gives similar words of instruction to Timothy: "And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will." (II Timothy 2:24-26) This passage likewise describes the aims and methods of status confessionis. Those who are in error are captive in the snare of the devil and thus they themselves are held in a dishonest kind of reasoning. Yet the brethren are to be patient when wronged, kind, able to teach and continuing to teach them, if perhaps God may lead them to repentance. Obviously this takes time, and Scripture does not set time limits. On the other hand, what the erring ones are doing is a most serious offense in the Church and cannot be tolerated indefinitely.

In Romans 16:17 the inspired Apostle writes: "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them." The infinitive used after the main verb is in the present tense, indicating durative rather than snap-shot action. This passage was studied and discussed at great length in the 1950's. A different interpretation of the verse (the time frame of the "marking" and the "avoiding") finally led some out of the WELS to form the Church of the Lutheran Confession. The present infinitive and the other passages which speak of patient dealings with those caught in error certainly lead us to believe that the "marking" may occur many times before the "avoiding" is demanded.

In the above passages we see both God's mercy and His judgment. Some additional passages speaking of God's mercy are Romans 2:4, Psalm 103:13, and II Corinthians 6:4. If God, being holy, has patience, how much more should we, being sinners and in need of His daily forgiveness, be patient and speak the truth in love! In that way at least some who have fallen into error may be led back to the truth of God's Word! On the other side of the coin is an emphatic witness against wrongdoing which may finally bring dorm God's judgment. We read of such warnings in I Timothy 5:22, II John 9-11, I Corinthians 5:11, and Mark 6:11. If we are to avoid those who deviate from the truth even in adiaphora in any context which might even seem to indicate approval of their wrong attitude, how much more should we avoid being associated with errorists in the same church body! Notice this was the same line of reasoning used in Article X of the Formula of Concord. "The time for and necessity of separation has come, according to the Scriptural directives: (1) When our duty of witnessing has been done and proves fruitless - Matt. 18:15-20 applies here, if not to the point of excommunication, then the vicarious atonement itself is directly denied, at least to the point of separation then it is indirectly attacked by error; for all error in some way affects the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Also: (2) The time for and duty of separation has come when further continuance in the same church body with errorists begins to give offense to those entrusted to our spiritual care by creating an appearance of indifference, or if it involves us in actual sin by involving us in participation in Holy Communion together with some whom we know to be errorists or in other point activity 'in sacris.'"9

Some have described "in statu confessionis" as simply the form which a Christian's permanent confessional witness takes at the times when error intrudes into a church body.

Implications After seeing the historical and Scriptural background of the term, return our attention to some practical implications of being "in statu confessionis." Although there are some differences of opinion, I believe the following excerpts from a paper written by Pastor Curtis Peterson are to the point. In response to the implications of the term, he writes: "I believe that it implies the following: 1. To publicly declare that the Synod is heterodox.

2. To declare that the situation is intolerable and that it must be changed if the person is to continue in membership in the LC-MS. As Biblical Christians loyal to their Lord and believing that His will is expressed clearly and infallible in the Scriptures, we simply cannot just "live with" error. The issue is very simple for me: loyalty to Christ!

We must ask ourselves whether there is any point at which we would leave Synod. Or is our membership in the LC-MS the highest good? Certainly, it can't be. . .

3. We must publicly declare ourselves out of fellowship with those who teach, practice, or tolerate false doctrine. This includes informing District and Synodical officials of our confessional state. This means that we do not exchange pulpits with them, do not commune with them at pastor's conferences and conventions, or engage in joint work with them where doctrine is involved. Ultimately, this would mean that we continue in fellowship only with those who are also in a public state of confessional protest...

4. Good men will differ on when the time to leave will come. Some have left already, and, like it or not, others will leave Synod in the months to come. The state of confessional protest provides a way of continuing to be in fellowship with such men and women. . .

5. We must inform our congregation about the real situation in Synod. Many of us must confess that we have been remiss here. Some pastors say that they would like to leave Synod, but their congregations are not ready. Then declare yourself in a state of protest and educate your congregation. . .

6. The state of confessional protest, since it hopes and prays that the situation in Synod is not irremediable, pledges one to actively fight to restore the Synod to orthodoxy. How we would do this depends on whether we are laymen, pastors, elected officials, or even the President of a District or Synod itself. . .I urge everyone to remain in Synod for now at least; since, after all, some fine resolutions were adopted at Milwaukee, and because we ought to leave as much time as possible for corrections to be made.

However, I do not believe we can wait forever. . .

7. Withhold or redirect funds. How much? This will be up to you. Our congregation will probably give a token 'for services directly rendered' contribution, while redirecting the rest of our mission money to orthodox, confessional causes. Failure to do this involves us in at least partial support of false teaching. . ."10 While some have decried "status confessionis" as unnecessary polarization or extremism, yet even its opponents recognize that it is the strongest kind of protest that can be made without

actual separation. It is still the desire of those practicing it to bring back their church body to Biblical loyalty. Thus "it does not allow them to close their eyes to developments within their synod be they for better or for worse. It does not permit a lackadaisical dependence on a few administrators who may be known as conservatives. On the contrary it obligates them to watchfulness and prayerfulness. And in case their witness fails to effect definite signs of reform, it requires continued wrestling with the question: How much longer can we and our people remain within this temporizing and deteriorating situation without hurting our consciences and suffering a lose of conviction, without acquiescing to error and growing gradually disloyal to the written Word and its Lord? Must we realign now? If so, with whom and how? It is apparent that only our Lord can answer these agonizing questions, but the Status Confessionis will hold His faithful in grace and good conscience until He gives the answer. . ."11 Many and far-reaching are the implications of being "in statu confessionis."

How is it different from Selective Fellowship?

Many in the LC-MS have been used to practicing selective fellowship. At first glance status confessionis may appear to be a practice of selective fellowship. However the two are really opposed to each other in the following areas: 1. Selective fellowship is practiced among those who assume a "conservative" position, whereas fellowship based upon the status confessionis is practiced only when there is complete doctrinal agreement.

2. Selective fellowship usually has as its goal the preservation of an organizational structure, whereas status confessionis has as its goal the preserving of sound doctrine.

3. Those who practice selective fellowship have no anticipation of a time when separation from an erring church body shall become necessary. Those practicing status confessionis clearly recognize the fact that organizational ties to their church body cannot be indefinitely continued if the error is not corrected.

4. Selective fellowship requires no commitment of those who practice it, whereas status confessionis requires a firm commitment to the beliefs and practices of Confessional Lutheranism in public form which immediately affects their altar and pulpit fellowship with the church body against whom they are in statu confessionis.

5. Selective fellowship amounts to a toleration of error, leading to the eventual erosion of the doctrinal foundation of the church. Status confessionis, on the other hand, publicly denounces error and the toleration of error, and thereby preserves doctrinal integrity among those who practice it.

6. Those who practice selective fellowship are led to a false sense of security and an appeasement of their consciences by the mistaken belief that they have offered a proper witness against the error of their church body. Conversely those who practice status confessionis have publicly stated that they are unable to find the security of truth in their present situation and have made a conscience bound commitment to sever their relationship with their erring church body unless the doctrinal error is corrected.12 Thus the concept of selective fellowship is not at all helpful - it detracts in all of the above-mentioned points from the proper understanding of status confessionis.

Use of the term in the latter part of this century As you may surmise, the term "in statu confessionis" was used extensively both within and outside the LC-MS from the early 1950's to the mid-1970's. I shall strive to give several examples, the first ones being from non-WELS sources.

In November of 1959 Prof. Milton Otto of Bethany Seminary presented a paper to the Special General Pastoral Conference of the ELS. In the paper he pointed to the ELS' 1955 suspension of fellowship with the LC-MS. But in the meantime things had appeared to be changing for the better, and he was therefore defending the patience which the ELS was practicing toward the LC-MS. Even though some voices were demanding a severance of fellowship, he felt they were following the right course. Obviously, this whole question also involved membership in the Synodical Conference. Defending their continued involvement, Otto cited a precedent for this in the Synodical Conference Convention of 1875 which stated: In this way someone may be a member of such a synod (which tolerates false doctrine) under protest for a while, so long as his testimony is not prohibited and he may still hope that it will bear fruit. . .there is a great difference between entering a unionistic body and being forced to leave it. The first is not permissible under any circumstances; in the latter case it may be necessary for a shorter or longer period of time for the purpose of testifying against error." (Proceedings, 1875, p. 24ff ).

He then went on to say of the ELS: "This is, then, what we today would call being 'in statu confessionis,' the position our Synod has taken in the present situation."13 At its 1969 Denver Convention the LC-MS declared itself to be in pulpit and altar fellowship with the American Lutheran Church. For conscience's and doctrine's sake many in the LC-MS felt they could not offer the hand of fellowship to the ALC at that time. They pledged to work through the proper channels, but if there were no real progress, they would be forced to have the Fellowship Resolution rescinded at the next Convention. As one of these "conservative" voices stated: "In this ray we declared ourselves 'in statu confessionis.' And we have been heartened by the fact that many others have done likewise. It is generally publicized that only 20 pastors have separated themselves from our Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod pursuant to its Denver action, but it isn't emphasized that we have in our files no less than 246 pastors, 133 teachers end 295 laymen, a total of 655 people who took the time end effort to study the matter and with their own signature declare themselves 'in statu confessionis;' nor does this include many others who are expressing the same position in other ways."14 A different document denounced the LC-MS administration for suppressing status confessionis because they said it was contrary to Holy Scripture end the Confessions. In the same paragraph it was bemoaned that an official declaration stated that seminex professors were still members in good standing of the LC-MS. The document then goes on to say: "furthermore it is clear from recent experience that a strict and confessionally correct 'status confessionis' is a powerful weapon indeed. . .it is for this reason that it was so strenuously opposed by the majority of LC-MS conservatives who were caught up in a false order of priorities. For they knew full well that carrying through a correct 'status confessionis' would split the Synod. But they preferred the conservation of the organization (an adiaphoron) to a clean break. This is clearly the kind of case of which F. C. X speaks when an adiaphoron is no longer an adiaphoron, by having been given priority."15

The Evangelical Lutheran Church-Synod of France and Belgium reacted negatively to the 1565 Denver Convention by publishing a Declaration. That document reads in part: "In the meantime we, THE UNDERSIGNED - while waiting necessarily that our congregations and our Synod as a whole may be in a position to act officially for our entire Church – DECLARE OURSELVES herewith personally as being already 'IN STATU CONFESSIONIS' WITH THE LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD. . .By 'STATUS CONFESSIONIS' we mean a provisory suspension of our former fraternal fellowship, including pulpit and alter fellowship, with the LC-MS, that is with all those pastors and members of the LC-MS who accept and condone the present practice of unionistic fellowship with the ALC or otherwise, until with God's help such evil practice has come to a halt. . ."16 This Declaration was adopted in Strasbourg an October 19, 1969, bearing 42 signatures.

After the 1969 Denver Convention some conservative pastors and congregations of the LC-MS sought to organize themselves to protest the outcome of that meeting. But there was resistance to this status confessionis and that led to the formation of the Federation for Authentic Lutheranism, which was formed in 1971 as an outgrowth of the Conference of Authentic Lutherans. I found the following comment to be especially interesting because of its historical significance: 'Unfortunately, not to say tragically, the first convention of FAL in November 1971 eliminated the provision for non-voting membership in FAL of faithful Lutherans 'in statu confessionis' from its proposed constitution. Therewith, FAL was given an entirely different orientation, away from support of the vitally important struggle in LC-MS, important for the continuance of Lutheranism throughout the world, and toward close association with the existing orthodox Lutherans of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. By this action FAL, while continuing to recognize the validity of 'status confessionis' in principle, refused to recognize it in practice. The situation was aggravated by the suspension of Sola Scriptura in 1973."17 We now turn our attention to use of the term in WELS circles. In 1951 the Orthodox Lutheran Conference was formed as a result of the deteriorating doctrine and practice within the LC-MS. Especially did the OLC object to the Common Confession, a document which sought to find common theological ground between the LC-MS and the ALC. It became clear that this new group would seek to affiliate with the Synodical Conference. As Prof. Reim pointed out: "That this creates a rather strange situation will be clear to everyone. . .for while formal recognition of the new group must be held in abeyance for the time being, yet we must recognize even now that the reasons for which this little group has made its grave decision and taken its difficult stand are the very ones on which we have placed ourselves on record at last summer's convention, and by which we must stand unless we fail in the 'statu confessionis' into which we have placed ourselves by our New Ulm resolutions."18 Note the tension years before the separation was finally made.

In September of 1552 there appeared in THE NORTHWESTERN LUTHERAN a report by the Wisconsin Synod Committee on Church Union. In part that report stated: "the confessional basis on which the synods of the Synodical Conference have jointly stood so far has been seriously impaired by the Common Confession, we continue to uphold our protest and to declare that the Missouri Synod by retaining the Common confession and using it for further steps toward union with the ALC is disrupting the Synodical Conference. . .hence we find ourselves in a STATE OF CONFESSION (theologically expressed, IN STATU CONFESSIONIS). We hope and pray that the truth may prevail and that God in His grace may avert the threatening disruption of the Synodical Conference."19

On the very same page in that issue of THE NORTHWESTERN LUTHERAN appeared an editorial by Prof. Reim entitled: "As We See It." He spoke of the recent convention of the Synodical Conference, and of the opposition at that meeting toward the WELS position. At the close of the meeting President Brenner called for a meeting of the Wisconsin delegation. It was not a "walkout," but rather an attempt to formulate "a quiet, carefully considered statement on the part of those present, to the effect that they now declare themselves to be 'in statu confession' - in a state of confession - over against our sister synod of Missouri."20 The next paragraph of that article contains only four sentences in which Reim defines the meaning of the term. The only new thought which has not been discussed previously in this paper is that this delegation did not want to make a decision that must be reserved for the Synod alone. Reim concludes the article with a beautiful statement on what the term implies. He writes: "Lest our continued membership in the Synodical Conference be construed as a surrender of our convictions, it is necessary that no one be left in doubt. Such a procedure will, of course, defeat its own purpose as soon as it becomes weak and indecisive. We dare not overlook the fact that this term (which has real meaning and good standing in the Church) can present a serious temptation if it is made to serve as an excuse for adapting oneself to an unpleasant situation and learning to live with it, so to speak. We must recognize what deception would be involved against ourselves and others if we were anything but completely sincere in our protest. But if we accept these implications fully and meet them honestly, recognizing that this state of things can never become a long-term arrangement, then our declaration that we are in a state of confession - 'in statu confessionis' will not be a mere sham, not merely a clever explanation of how one can continue in a fellowship which is no longer based on full unity of doctrine and practice, but it will be a last effort to bring our Synodical Conference back to what it once was – a living fellowship of true brethren. This, and this alone, is our purpose."21 Can't you hear the power, conviction and emotion behind those words?

A recessed session of the 33rd Convention of our Synod met in 1956. The Floor Committee on Church Union gave its report. In the second part of that report the first "whereas" denounced the Common Confession, the second "whereas" deplored Missouri's stand on Scouting, the military chaplaincy, prayer fellowship end other issues. The immediate RESOLVED read: "That our fellowship with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod be one of vigorously protesting fellowship to be practiced, where necessary, in the light of 11 Thes. 3:14 and 15. . . "22 One wonders what the little phrase "where necessary" means. Perhaps a partial answer is found in President Naumann's pastoral letter dated September 25, 1956. He stated his view that "We intend, therefore, without declaring a severance of fellowship, to continue in fellowship, but in 'a vigorously protesting fellowship.' That means that we certainly cannot ignore the flagrant offenses that have been given by Missouri men in certain areas of our Synod."

(This letter was quoted by Pastor E. Schaller in his essay entitled: "The 'Status Controversiae' Within the Synodical Conference.")

From the two statements above it appears that the state of confession may have been practiced rather selectively end even regionally. If indeed that is the case, then the Report of the Synodical Protest Committee to the 1957 Synod Convention is justified in its criticism: A number of later protests were possibly encouraged, and further warrant and justification may have been given to the earlier ones by the fact that in many instances all evidence of a 'vigorously protesting fellowship,' which our Synod resolved to practice, seems to have been lacking, and fellowship relations with the Missouri Synod seem to be

carried on as though there were nothing at all between us. Members of the Synod may need to ask themselves whether through possible neglect in earnestly observing this resolution of the Synod they have not augmented the problem which exists for some of our brethren. (Proceedings 1957, p. 197, 4. ) As a church body we did indeed use the term "in statu confessionis" during the 1950's.

Reflections During the 1950's I was beginning my educational career in grade school. I was personally unaware of the conflicts between the WELS and the LC-MS and the tensions within the Synodical Conference. Therefore I approached this subject with no personal experience nor with any emotional ties toward the Missouri Synod. But one question keeps haunting me: Was there a hesitancy in the WELS to practice "in statu confessionis," and if so, why? Of all the material I read there was only one WELS source that explained the term, and that was Reim's lees-than-one-page editorial in a 1951 issue of THE NORTHWESTERN LUTHERAN. That's an argument from silence, and it may be a dangerous one. Let me offer some thoughts in the form of questions on this matter: 1) Were the terms "in statu confessionis" and "vigorously protesting fellowship" used interchangeably within the WELS? 2) Does one term have a different connotation than the other?

3) Was it assumed that everyone understood what this term from the late 1500's meant?

4) Was there confusion about the term whether it was applicable to an individual, a congregation, or only to a church body?

5) Were some geographic parts of the Synod more inclined to attempt to practice "in statu confessionis" than others?

6) Was there a hesitancy to make that declaration for fear of the either/or decision that would have to be made later?

7) Did family and emotional ties between the two bodies make such a declaration difficult?

8) Were there not necessary delays caused by the amount of time needed to call meetings and even conventions?

Conclusion Understanding what has happened in the LC-MS over the years, we in the WELS need to be cautious and concerned about our own church body. If the need arose, would we be willing to stand "in statu confessionis" over against the WELS? Let's pray that we never have to answer that question. But if we do, we can perhaps answer no more clearly than did C.F.W. Walther who said at the origin of the Missouri Synod: Never allow the Synod to become your highest value. If the Synod ever deviates from Christian truth and you can't clean it up, let the Synod go. The important thing is God's Word!"

To that, we can only say: Amen!

Endnotes 1

"Three Stances Toward Missouri's Crisis," Sola Scriptura. March-April, 1971, p.3.

Sola Scriptura, op. cit., pp. 3,4.

3 "Status Confessionis and Selective Fellowship," Sola Scriptura, January-February, 1971, p.22 4 Sola Scriptura, January-February, 1971, op. cit., p. 22.

5 Ibid., p. 22.

6 "In Statu Confessionis," Adopted by the Conference of Authentic Lutherans, January 19, 1975, p. 6.

7 Joh. P. Meyer, "Prayer Fellowship," Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. 47, April, 1950, p. 134.

8 Meyer, op. cit., p. 135.

9 :"In Statu Confessionis," op. cit., p. 10.

10 Curtis A. Peterson, "The Case for Remaining in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod in a State of Confessional Protest," Sept., 1971, pp. 3-6 11 "Creative Realignment: The Hope of Authentic Lutheranism," Sola Scriptura, November-December, 1970, p. 6.

12 "In Statu Confessionis," op. cit., p. 2.

13 Milton H. Otto, "When is the Charge of Unionism to be Applied to Brethren?" November, 1959, p. 4.

14 Alvin E. Wagner, "Confessional Declaration," Evangelical Directives for the Church, p. 55.

15 "In Statu Confessionis," op. cit., p. 13.

16 "Reactions to Denver," Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. 67, 1970, p. 66.

17 "In Statu Confessionis," op. cit., p. 11.

18 E. Reim, "The Orthodox Lutheran Conference," Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. 49, 1952, p. 59.

19 "Wisconsin Synod Committee on Church Union," The Northwestern Lutheran, September 7, 1952, p. 282.

20 E. Reim, "As We See It," The Northwestern Lutheran, September 7, 1952, p. 282.

21 Reim, op. cit.,, pp. 282,283.

22 Proceedings, 33rd WELS Convention, Recessed Session (1956). Published in the Proceedings of the 20th Convention of the Southeastern Wisconsin District, 1956.

2

Jesus’ prayer for such a time as this ...

I am coming to Thee, Holy Father, keep them in Thy Name, which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, even as we are one. ... I have given them Thy Word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that Thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that Thou shoudst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Thy Word is truth. As Thou didst send Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate Myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in Me through their Word, that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.

for such a time as this in statu confessionis The Church’s one foundation Is Jesus Christ, her Lord, She is His new creation By water and the Word.

From heav’n He came and sought her To be His holy Bride; With His own Blood He bought her, And for her life He died.

John 17:11b & 14-21

Let us reflect how near He is, and that none of the thoughts or reasonings in which we engage are hid from Him. It is right, therefore, that we should not leave the post which His will has assigned us. Let us rather offend those men who are foolish, and inconsiderate, and lifted up, and who glory in the pride of their speech, than God. Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, Whose Blood was given for us; let us esteem those who have the rule over us; let us honour the aged among us; let us train up the young men in the fear of God; let us direct our wives to that which is good.

The First Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, chapter XXI Anno Domini 97

This booklet was prepared by Rev. Michael L. McCoy and is provided through www.scholia.net without charge.

The Church shall never perish!

Her dear Lord, to defend, To guide, sustain, and cherish, Is with her to the end.

Tho’ there be those that hate her, False sons within her pale, Against both foe and traitor She ever shall prevail.

Though with a scornful wonder Men see her sore oppressed, By schisms rent asunder, By heresies distressed, Yet saints their watch are keeping; Their cry goes up, “How long?”

And soon the night of weeping Shall be the morn of song.

4 May Anno Domini 2004 for “both our contemporaries and our posterity,” especially Samuel Rick McCoy born this day 16

And who knows whether you have not come to the Kingdom for such a time as this?

Esther 4:14b 1

in statu confessionis (in a state of confession)

1

What does this mean?

In statu confessionis is a phrase meaning “in a state of confession or confessional protest.” This refers to a declaration that an individual or a congregation makes when the intrusion of false doctrine and/or false practice has taken place. This is a “protest.”

Therefore, it consists of speaking for the truth of God’s Word while condemning the lie of man that is being tolerated and promoted.

“The Word of God is clear that you have chosen a course of separation that leads to spiritual destruction. Because we love you, we cannot let that go unanswered. If your hearts remain hardened to what the Bible clearly teaches, and your ears remain deaf to the cries of other Christians, genuine love demands that we do not pretend that everything is normal. As a result any delegation you send cannot be welcomed, received, or seated. Neither can we share fellowship or even receive desperately needed resources. If, however, you repent and return to the Lord, it would be an occasion of great joy.”

Note: You may download the entire letter from:

http://www.scholia.net/pdf%20files/uganda.pdf •

Compare the intentions of the Church of Uganda’s declaration and letter with the purposes of a state of confession written on insert # 4 of this series of inserts.

•

Note the following with respect to this issue:

What is the Scriptural basis for such a state of confession?

There are many Biblical references. A few of them are ...

Romans 16:17 — I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

Jude 3 — Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

1 Corinthians 5:11 — ... I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber — not even to eat with such a one.

Titus 3:10-11 — As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

2

The lie to God, self and others, even in prayer.

The Pious Lie

“Dear God, I thank You that You have given me the gift of homosexuality and that You accept me and approve of me in this lifestyle.”

The Edifying Lie

The lie promotes oneness apart from the truth.

The Dogmatic Lie

The dogmatic lie can not refute false doctrine.

The Institutional Lie

“God accepts and approves of all people regardless of what they believe or do.”

“Given the realities, challenges, needs and opportunities that exist in our present culture, this may well be an irresolvable tension.”

The lie becomes legislated, supported and defended.

Behold the election of a clergyman who promotes, and who can’t continue in office without, ..... the lie.

Thus, because the religious group has rejected the Word and institutionalized and sanctioned the lie, the basis for Christian reformation no longer remains.

15

in statu confessionis (in a state of confession)

Is in statu confessionis in the Lutheran Confessions?

7

Provide a practical example of the declaration of this state of confessional protest.

Certainly.

Rev. Gene Robinson is an openly gay man and a clergyman in the Episcopal Church in the United States, which is part of the Anglican Communion throughout the world. Rev. Gene Robinson divorced his wife in 1986 and has been living with his homosexual partner since 1989. He was elected bishop by the New Hampshire diocese on June 7, 2003. In August of the same year Rev. Robinson was confirmed in this position by a vote of 62 in favor and 45 against. His election set the stage for his consecration as bishop. On November 2, 2003 this consecration took place at an ice hockey arena in Durham, New Hampshire.

Now the Scriptures are clear concerning the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. It is clearly a sin and is most certainly forbidden by God. Those who live in such a state of gross, manifest sin are outside the Kingdom of God and are not to be considered Christians.

This was recognized by the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda in Africa. On Dec. 16, 2003 a letter was sent from the Church of Uganda to the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the USA. Portions of that letter read ...

“Recent comments by your staff suggesting that your proposed visit demonstrates that normal relations with the Church of Uganda continue, have made your message clear: ‘If we fall silent about what you have done promoting unbiblical sexual immorality and we overturn or ignore the decision to declare a severing of relationship with ECUSA, poor displaced persons will receive Aid.’ Here is our response: The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not for sale, even among the poorest of us who have no money. Eternal life, obedience to Jesus Christ, and conforming to His Word are more important.”

14

Yes, it is described quite clearly in the Formula of Concord ...

“We believe, teach, and confess that at a time of confession (when a confession of the heavenly truth is required), as when the enemies of the Word of God desire to suppress the pure doctrine of the holy Gospel, the entire community of God, yes, every individual Christian, and especially the ministers of the Word as the leaders of the community of God, are obligated to confess openly, not only by words but also through their deeds and actions, the true doctrine and all that pertains to it, according to the Word of God. In such a case we should not yield to adversaries even in matters of indifference, nor should we tolerate the imposition of such ceremonies on us by adversaries in order to undermine the genuine worship of God and to introduce and confirm their idolatry by force or chicanery.”

Solid Declaration, Article X. Church Usages, paragraph 10.

Prayer for such a time as this ...

Lord Jesus Christ, with us abide, For round us falls the eventide; Nor let Thy Word, that heav’nly light, For us be ever veiled in night.

In these last days of sore distress Grant us, dear Lord, true steadfastness That pure we keep, till life is spent, Thy holy Word and Sacrament.

O God, how sin’s dread works abound!

Throughout the earth no rest is found, And falsehood’s spirit wide has spread, And error boldly rears its head.

The haughty spirits, Lord, restrain Who o’er Thy Church with might would reign And always set forth something new, Devised to change Thy doctrine true. Amen.

(The Lutheran Hymnal, # 292, stanzas 1, 2, 5 & 6)

3

in statu confessionis (in a state of confession)

2

The Pious Lie

Why is in statu confessionis a “protest”?

Protest means to “testify for” something. Christians testify to the pure truth of God’s Word for the sake of the Gospel — the Good News that salvation is by the grace of God through faith in the Incarnate Son of God Who died for the sins of the world and rose again from the dead. When a congregation or a Christian declares and carries out statu confessionis such an action is a confession of the faith.

The Edifying Lie

Is there another part to this protest?

Yes. Part of speaking for and defending the truth of God is the rejecting of and condemning the lie of man. One who does not care about the pure teaching of the truth will hardly be concerned about the consequences of false doctrine. Or, stated another way, if one does not stand for the truth of God’s Word, he will fall for the devilish lie. When the intrusion of error, false teaching and/or false practice enters into one’s own church body, God requires that it, as well as those advocating the lie, be opposed, exposed and rejected.

Galatians 1:6-9 — I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting Him Who called you by the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel — not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so now I say again, If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

2 John 9-11 — Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.

4

The Dogmatic Lie

The Institutional Lie

The most fearful thing about the pious lie is that it will lie not only to people, but also to God in prayer, in confession, in the Holy Supper, in the sermon, and in theology. The pious lie has the direct propensity to become the “devotional” or edifying lie. ...

This “edifying” lie also forces its way into the sphere of the church, which teaches the truths of revelation. After sufficient preparation it can obtain the status of “doctrinal maturity.” Thus it becomes the dogmatic lie.

A church can fall into terrible dogmatic error, it can open door after door to heresy by tolerating it and doing nothing about it. ... It can then no longer fight against heresy, and a burning struggle against false doctrine in its midst would be an entirely illegal fight of one wing of this church against another.

Alongside the pious and dogmatic lies, there stands an especially dangerous form of lie which can be called the institutional lie. By this we mean a lie which works itself out in the institutions of the church, in her government and her law. It is dangerous because it legalizes the other lies in the church and makes them impossible to remove.

Union and Confession (1936) by Hermann Sasse Essay in The Lonely Way, volume 1, CPH

13

in statu confessionis (in a state of confession)

6

When does an individual and/or a congregation declare a state of confession?

The likely time to enter in statu confessionis would be when the false doctrine and/or false practice is sanctioned by the religious body. In other words, it may happen when the false doctrine and/or practice is approved as being the official position of the religious body; that is, when the truth is denied and the lie is institutionalized. Rev. Hermann Sasse describes the decay ...

“The lie is the death of man, his temporal and his eternal death. The lie kills nations. The most powerful nations of the world have been laid waste because of their lies. History knows of no more unsettling sight than the judgment rendered upon the people of an advanced culture who have rejected the truth and are swallowed up in a sea of lies. Where this happens, as in the case of declining pagan antiquity; religion and law, poetry and philosophy, life in marriage and family, in the state and society — in short, one sphere of life after another falls sacrifice to the power and curse of the lie. Where man can no longer bear the truth, he cannot live without the lie. Where man denies that he and others are dying, the terrible dissolution [of his culture] is held up as a glorious ascent, and decline is viewed as an advance, the likes of which has never been experienced. If, according to the irrefutable testimony of history, this is the judgment of God on the lie, should God then not also punish the lie in his church? Truly he who is the Judge of all the world will do this!

For the power of the lie extends right into the church. Since the days of the apostles this has been as true in the church as in the rest of the world. For men in the church are and remain poor sinners until their death. Lies have been told in the church because of cowardice and weakness, vanity and avarice. But beyond all these there is in the church one particularly sweet piece of fruit on the broad canopy of the tree of lies. There is the pious lie. ...

12

Are these two parts (standing for the truth and condemning the lie) part of the Lutheran Confessions ?

Yes. The Lutheran Confessions state what is believed, taught and confessed. Often follows a section rejecting and condemning teachings and practices that are contrary to God’s Word. Those two parts are demonstrated in the following section from the Formula of Concord — a paragraph concerning our topic: in statu confessionis.

“We believe, teach, and confess that in time of persecution, when a clear-cut confession of faith is demanded of us, we dare not yield to the enemies in such indifferent things, as the apostle Paul writes, ‘For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery’ (Gal. 5:11). ‘Do not be mismated with unbelievers, for what fellowship has light with darkness?’ (II Cor. 6:14). ‘To them we did not yield submission ever for a moment, that the truth of the Gospel might be preserved for you’ (Gal. 2:5). In such a case it is no longer a question of indifferent things, but a matter which has to do with the truth of the Gospel, Christian liberty, and the sanctioning of public idolatry, as well as preventing offense to the weak in faith. In all these things we have no concessions to make, but we should witness an unequivocal confession and suffer in consequence what God sends us and what he lets the enemies inflict on us.”

Epitome, Article X. Church Usages, paragraph 6.

Prayer for such a time as this ...

O Lord, look down from heav’n, behold And let Thy pity waken; How few are we within Thy fold, Thy saints by men forsaken!

True faith seems quenched on ev’ry hand, Men suffer not Thy Word to stand; Dark times have us o’ertaken.

Defend Thy truth, O God, and stay This evil generation; And from the error of its way Keep Thine own congregation.

The wicked everywhere abound And would Thy little flock confound; But Thou art our Salvation.

Amen.

(The Lutheran Hymnal, # 260, stanzas 1 & 6) 5

in statu confessionis (in a state of confession)

3

How is statu confessionis carried out?

How does doubt in God’s Word lead to the promotion and supremacy of the false doctrines and false practices of man?

Truth

This state of confessional protest is carried out ...

— by informing and teaching the congregation concerning what the state of confession is, why it is necessary, the Biblical and Confessional bases for the declaration, how and when it is carried out, what the intended results are and what the results might be.

— by denying altar and pulpit fellowship with those in one’s own church body who have taught and do maintain false doctrine and/ or practice.

— by not participating in the Holy Communion with those in one’s own church body who have taught and do maintain false doctrine and/or practice.

— by suspending altar and pulpit fellowship with those pastors, teachers and church officials in one’s own church body who promote false doctrine and/or practice whether actively or passively.

— by not engaging in activities with those who hold the false doctrine and/or practice wherein such activities would promote or support the same.

— by the pastor and/or the congregation making a public declaration of being in a state of confession.

“But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ... And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’ We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ ...” (Galatians 2:11, 13-16) 6

Error

Toleration of Error

When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of the others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions

Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights.

Truth and error are two & balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks Equality of Error and Truth like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.

Truth Error

From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and then only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their Truth Supremacy of Error departure from the Church's faith, but in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate the faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skilful in combating it.

Error

The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology (1872) Charles Porterfield Krauth (p. 195-196)

11

in statu confessionis (in a state of confession)

5

How is it that the church gets into the situation wherein a state of confession is necessary?

The list is a long one. Here are a few reasons why the Christian is called to live in a continuous state of repentance and why the Church must always abide in the state of reformation ...

—

the heart of sinful man [Psalm 51:5 Mark 7:20-23]

—

the corrupted reason of sinful man [Genesis 6:5]

—

the corrupted feelings of man [Proverbs 14:10-14]

—

the pride of fallen man [Psalm 10:2-11]

—

the pride of fallen men [Genesis 11:1-4]

—

the Old Adam seeks a theology of glory [Matt. 27:39-44]

—

the offense of justification by grace through faith in Christ [Romans 3 - 4 - 5 1 Corinthians 1:22-29]

—

the failure to properly distinguish Law and Gospel [Galatians 3]

—

the desire from within man that leads to the exchanging of the truth of God for the lie of man and the approval of this lie for others to believe and practice [Romans 1:20-32]

Into such a fertile setting of discontent comes the words of Satan, first hissed in the Garden of Eden and murmured by false sons within the pale of the Church ...

Did God say, ...?

Genesis 3:1 10

Is such a declaration for the truth and against the lie consistent with the Lutheran Confessions ?

Yes. Making such a declaration in such a time of persecution is taking one’s stand on the prophetic, apostolic and evangelical proclamation of the Word, just as the faithful have done from the beginning and particularly when they bore witness to the truth in Augsburg in the Year of our Lord 1530.

It must not be thought that anything has been said or introduced out of hatred or for the purpose of injuring anybody, but we have related only matters which we have considered it necessary to adduce and mention in order that it may be made very clear that we have introduced nothing, either in doctrine or in ceremonies, that is contrary to Holy Scripture or the universal Christian church. For it is manifest and evident (to speak without boasting) that we have diligently and with God’s help prevented any new and godless teaching from creeping into our churches and gaining the upper hand in them.

In keeping with the summons, we have desired to present the above articles as a declaration of our confession and the teaching of our preachers. If anyone should consider that it is lacking in some respect, we are ready to present further information on the basis of the divine Holy Scripture.”

The Augsburg Confession, Conclusion, paragraphs 4-7.

Prayer for such a time as this ...

Lord, keep us steadfast in Thy Word; Curb those who fain by craft and sword Would wrest the Kingdom from Thy Son And set at naught all He hath done.

Lord Jesus Christ, Thy pow’r make known, For Thou art Lord of lords alone; Defend Thy Christendom that we May evermore sing praise to Thee. Amen (The Lutheran Hymnal, # 261, stanzas 1-2) 7

in statu confessionis (in a state of confession)

4

What does a state of confession intend to do?

A Scriptural state of confession is a loving, churchly declaration that is entered with the intended purposes of ...

— excusing and keeping the conscience of the confessor from guilt.

— keeping the confessor (both the individual and the congregation) from partaking in the sins of others.

— providing the confessor (both the individual and congregation) the opportunity to make a public declaration.

— uniting and strengthening the confessors for the mutual preservation of the Christian faith and its practice while remaining within the erring religious body.

— maintaining and preserving the ties that bind those individuals and congregations in the unity of the faith.

—

bearing witness to the truth for our posterity.

— calling the individual, erring members of both clergy and laity to repentance.

—

calling the erring congregations to reformation.

— teaching the church about the necessity, not only of declaring the truth in the formula of “we believe, teach and confess,” but also in exposing the lie with the formula of “we reject and condemn.”

I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth.

1 John 2:21 8

Has such a declaration for the truth and against the lie been the practice of the faithful in the past?

Yes. The faithful in the past have, during times of persecution when the confession of the truth and the rejection of the lie are called for, made such declarations. This was done for the peoples then, as well as for us now. We have the opportunity to make the same stand here and now, as well as for those who come after us. The last words of The Lutheran Confessions declare this very thing.

All these and similar articles, and whatever attaches to them or follows from them, we reject and condemn as false, erroneous, heretical, contrary to the Word of God, to the three Creeds, to the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, to the Smalcald Articles, to Luther’s Catechisms. All pious Christians will and should avoid these as dearly as they love their soul’s welfare and salvation.

Therefore, in the presence of God and of all Christendom among both our contemporaries and our posterity, we wish to have testified that the present explanation of all the foregoing controverted articles here explained, and none other, is our teaching, belief, and confession in which by God’s grace we shall appear with intrepid hearts before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ and for which we shall give an account. Nor shall we speak or write anything, privately or publicly, contrary to this confession, but we intend through God’s grace to abide by it. In view of this we have advisedly, in the fear and invocation of God, subscribed our signatures with our own hand.

Dr. James Andreae, subscribed Dr. Nicholas Selnecker, subscribed Dr. Andrew Musculus, subscribed Dr. Christopher Koerner, subscribed David Chytraeus Dr. Martin Chemnitz

Prayer for such a time as this ...

Thine honor save, O Christ our Lord!

Hear Zion’s cries and help afford; Destroy the wiles of mighty foes Who now Thy Word and truth oppose. Amen.

(The Lutheran Hymnal, # 265, stanza 1) 9