The Subtle Soft Antinomianism of Modern Lutheranism

Have you ever had a valid criticism about yiur church's practice and doctrine, only to be told "well no church is perfect" and "well we're all sinners here"? Not only are these responses are a quick passive aggressive way to shut down criticism and discourse. But they also subtly undermine a key part of Christian identity and our growth in grace and spiritual maturity. Your pastor may exhort you to good works in his preaching, he may emphasize the third use of the Law according to the Formula of Concord, but in modern Lutheranism I've often found a significant gap between theory and practice especially when you have valid criticisms that go unanswered, and are usually responded to with the same accusations of 8th commandment breaking or some other unrepentant sin. 

Of course I hold to the simul et peccator and I emphasize the continual need for repentance in the Christian life. We're not talking sinless perfectionism here. However as I read Scripture, the Apostles writing to the churches never address them as sinners. None of Paul's letters start "to the sinners" but rather he addresses them as saints. This saintly status is positioned in Christ's death, life and resurrection but it carries with it an important change, Paul addresses the churches as those who have put off the old life and put on the new. The old Adam is now an enemy to put to death, and the Spirit is our primary guide into a life of holiness, however weak, fragmentary and imperfect that might seem. What the "there is no perfect church" etc comments seem to suggest is that God is perfectly happy to leave us where we are  and any kind of suggestions on how to improve church life and practice are unwelcome. That we're supposed to learn to live with leaven and controversy in our midst, keep our mouths shut, and be good little peons. 

All these observations inevitably lead me to the current state of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, a church body which at the time of writing I have taken the decision to leave. This decision is for personal reasons as well as for theological ones, but the last nail in the coffin was the publication of the newly annotated Large Catechism with ELCA and women authors adding essays imbued with CRT and other troubling passages, and that are meant as teaching tools in our seminaries and churches. The involvement of Steven Paulson, a Radical Lutheran who denies vicarious atonement, in this confessional document was a bridge too far for me, and I will no longer fellowship with a church body that allows wolves in its midst, and a church body that responds to valid criticisms with vague charges of unchristian conduct and racism. A church body that conducts witchhunts to go after laymen who dare speak out while opening the arms of fellowship to someone like Paulson. Furthermore I am saddened by the depth of silence I hear from faithful pastors in the LCMS with public clout like Bryan Wolfmueller and others. Our supposed watchmen at the gates have not only allowed the wolves to enter the sheep pen, but to eat at our tables. I can no longer tolerate this behavior and so I do what I must, I'm breaking fellowship.

And may God have mercy on the LCMS. (I wish I did.)

In the name of Christ. Amen.

My Frustrations with Chris Rosebrough

Over the years I have had significant points of contention with Pr. Chris Rosebrough and his Fighting for the Faith discernment ministry. For the sake of brevity I've broken them down into several bullet points, so as to highlight the main areas of error and personal concern I have with Rosebrough and FFTF more specifically. 

1. Old boy network-type associations

Rosebrough's discernment ministry is so laser focused on the charismatic movement and the New Apostolic Reformation that if often skips over significant errors in other Evangelical teachers, specifically those on the Reformed side. Rosebrough's associations with Reformed baptists of the MacArthurite ilk has often left me with a bad taste in the mouth, as Rosebrough unites with them to go after the hyper charismatics while side stepping the heterdoxical teachings that teachers like MacArthur, Justin Peters, etc purport including Lordship Salvation and the denial of the means of grace in the Sacraments. Our confessions do not treat these issues as secondary as evangelicals often do, and Rosebrough as a pastor took an ordination vow to uphold them not to sugarcoat over them to suit his Protestant audience. On a more personal note I suffered a great deal of spiritual abuse from the morbid introspection that teachers like MacArthur and Paul Washer induce, and for Rosebrough and Steven Kozar to throw his support behind them has often felt like an act of betrayal. 

2. A personal lack of discernment 

Over the years Rosebrough has lacked discernment in his relationships and associations which has brought him into conflict with other Lutherans. I'm thinking specifically of his friendship with the Reformed apologist JD Hall, who has taken to Twitter to personally insult other Lutherans and those who disagree with him. It's only been more recently when Hall was outed by his own congregation for egregious personal sins that Rosebrough has spoken out. Where was he when the wife of a prominent Lutheran pastor was being attacked? 

A similar issue arose with his support of Tullian Tchividjian. I confess to having a blind spot myself when it came to Tchividjian's Radical Lutheran leanings. But as a confessional pastor, Rosebrough should have known better to throw his weight behind him, despite his Gerhard Forde influences and his relationship with the 1517 ministry and its history of soft antinomianism.  So when news of Tchividjian's adultery came to light, Rosebrough looked equally foolish. I see this as a repeated pattern in Rosebrough's choice of associations. 

3. The targets of FFTF

As I mentioned Rosebrough's focus is on the charismatic movement and more specifically the NAR and Word of Faith false teachers. On the whole he highlights the more prominent teachers but at times, he goes after false prophets in this movement who have little influence and have significant mental ailments in a way that is unhealthy and unfruitful. Videos on Heidi Baker for example are often reduced to comedy skits, such as is the case with his prophecy bingo programs where clearly demon possessed teachers are made the subject of laughter and abuse. While I see the need to expose their false preaching, I wish it could be done in a more mature way without the need for memes and skits.

Women Teachers?

1 Corinthians 14: 33-35

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1 Timothy 3:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Paul's prohibition on women exercising authority in the church remains clear-cut and a non-negotiable foundation of church polity.  However in recent decades mainline Protestants have foregone Paul's command in the name of egalitarianism,  diversity and inclusion.  The LCMS isn't immune to this latest fad of modernity, adapting to the culture around it, rather than conforming to the standards of Scripture. There's a significant rise in deaconesses adopting teaching roles including men, women writing essays on confessional material for pastors as with the latest edition of the Large Catechism, and women serving as self appointed apologists. In a recent conversation with Dr. Nancy Almodovar, one of the latter,  I was told that her permission to serve as an apologist and teach men came from her husband and pastor. Since when, do men get to ignore a command from Scripture to give women a role that is forbidden to them. To me this is another sign of the increasing feminization (or to put it more crudely, pussification) of men within the church who have given up on asserting their God given authority and instead are letting women usurp leadership roles to appear more palatable to the wider culture. The usual Scriptural excuse given for this egalitarian move is the example of Priscilla and Aquila teaching Apollos in Acts 18. However, on closer examination of the text, both parties take part in the private counseling of Apollos: "When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately."  Priscilla does not exhort any special authority in this situation but rather seems to work in tandem with her husband, as one under his headship. In the same conversation with Dr. Almodovar,  she placed some significance on the placing of Priscilla's name before her husband's, as if this granted her some special status. However the text does not attach any primary importance to the placing of the names, so in my opinion Almodovar's contention is an argument from silence to excuse her unbiblical role in the church. Sadly she's not the only one. With the rise of woke ideology in our culture, our churches, our seminaries and our Synod, the slippery slope to women's ordination appears to be in the near horizon for the LCMS' future, one of many contentious issues that is polluting the purity of Lutheran theology. 

May God give us godly teachers and leaders who will hold fast to Scripture rather than trying to appease the culture.  Help us follow the way of repentance.

In the name of Christ. Amen.