Open
Letter to the Bishops of the Lutheran Church of Australia
1
February 2021
It is with genuine anguish and great
sadness, that I have come to a point in my life where I have needed to write
such a letter. My reason for doing so is that it seems to me that the Lutheran
Church of Australia no longer seeks to be a church of the Word, which guards
the apostolic faith, and which makes the Evangelical Lutheran confession.
Preamble
St Paul writes in 1 Corinthians
1:10: Now I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you
be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
St Paul teaches here that the
church should be unified in its mind and judgment, and that there be no
divisions. If there is to be such unity, there must be a trustworthy principle
of unity. Lutherans have always believed that that principle is the Holy
Scripture alone (sola scriptura), for the simple reason that it is God’s
Word. All other words are merely human words.
Christians today may also look back
at church history and long for a time when the church was more seemingly
united. Many new Christian converts may seem perplexed as to which church is
the right one, and which one they should join. However, in the early church,
things were no better: there were Gnostics, Marcionites, Valentinians,
Donatists, Arians, Nestorians—all kinds of groups that to our ears are but a
distant memory. But your “average every-day Christian convert” in early times
still had to inquire as to which church was the true one. The way in which the
true faith—orthodoxy—continued was that Christians rejected heresy in their own
midst, separated themselves from those who believed contrary, and therefore
stood up for the truth. Unity could not be had at the expense of the truth.
Such was also the attitude of
Luther and the reformers. When they recognised that the Church of Rome was
against a genuine Reformation according to the Scriptures, the Lutherans had to
separate, not because they were schismatic, but because the Roman Catholic
church has separated itself already from the Scriptural truth. The same also
happened when Lutherans refused fellowship to Calvin and Zwingli—to compromise
on the truth was to bury the truth.
The same happened in the 19th
century. In 1817, King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia made a united church
out of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches. The principle of the new union
church was not preservation of the truth and purity of doctrine, but keeping
the political balance between rival parties and factions, until a time when the
entire church body would reject either doctrine as the one truth.
In our times too, Lutherans once
again find themselves at a crossroads. However, it is not just among Lutherans,
but among all Christians of the various historic confessions, where there is found
a cancerous spirit which is contrary to the Christian faith—it is what we might
call the liberal, progressive, modernist spirit. Such a false spirit
puts itself above the Holy Scripture as its judge, and subordinates the
Scripture’s contents and its declared truths to its own presuppositions,
prejudices and preconceptions. Such a spirit dethrones the Scripture—and enthrones
itself—as the sole principle of unity in the church, corrupting,
deconstructing and destroying everything in its course. That is not to say that
the church is not in need of genuine reform, but it always must be a reform
which seeks to return to Christ and his Word.
It is important for people all
throughout the world to be able to find the true visible church. Just as in the
times of the early church, new converts needed to seek out the orthodox
Christians over against the Arians, the Gnostics, etc., so too in our day,
there is a need to recognise what has become an invisible denomination, as
a kind of an underlying disease: the modernist false church. What we
often find today are church bodies where there exists an ever-increasing
syncretism between the Christian faith and the modernist false church. If we
should be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”
(Ephesians 4:3), it must be the unity of the right spirit. The false
church does not ask us to preserve the “unity of the Spirit”, but to preserve
its syncretism. The Holy cannot be enthroned in an idolatrous pantheon of false
gods. Rather, the Holy Spirit leads believers to “devote themselves to the
apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). St John says of himself and the apostles: “We
are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not
listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1
John 4:6). The modernist spirit listens only to itself, and cherry-picks what
it likes from Scripture to cover itself with sheep’s clothing, while its nature
is that of a wolf. This is not the spirit that preserves the unity of the
church in the bond of peace, but an unclean spirit which destroys the church.
In light of this preamble, I state
my confession of faith under various headings and topics.
A. Holy
Scripture
I.
“I believe without reservation the Holy Scriptures of
the Old and New Testaments, as a whole and in all their parts, as the divinely
inspired[1], written, and inerrant[2] word of God, and as the
only infallible source and norm for all matters of faith, doctrine and life.”[3] I reject “the attempts of
modern religious liberalism to make man the judge of the Word of God”[4].
II.
I believe that the Holy Scriptures are a totally
unique book, unlike any other book. I believe that each of the books of the
bible has human authors, who were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter
1:21), in such a way that the Scriptures were “breathed out” (2 Timothy 3:16) or
inspired by the living God himself. Therefore, the words of the Holy Scriptures
are nothing less than the very Word of God. I reject all false ways of speaking
about inspiration, as if the Scripture is inspired (1) only in the same manner as
artists, poets and composers, or (2) in the same manner as famous theologians,
or (3) that the Holy Spirit was merely “involved” in the inspiration process,
or (4) that the Scripture is inspired only because the Holy Spirit makes use of
it in our lives.
III.
I believe that, just as in the incarnation, Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, was a true human being, yet without sin, the Holy
Scripture is a word of human authors, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and
that therefore the Scripture is without error (Titus 1:2). The Holy Scripture is
the infallible truth and is “perfectly inerrant in all of its words and in
every one of its words”[5], “whether they pertain to
doctrine or morals or history, chronology, topography, or nomenclature”[6]. I reject all opinions to
the contrary, which treat the Scripture as an imperfect or erring book. I
reject the opinion that the Scripture is only inerrant in that it does not lead
into error, although it may still have factual errors. I reject the opinion
that each human writer of the Scripture has his own theology which contradicts
the others.
IV.
I believe that the Holy Scriptures are sufficient,
clear and authoritative. They are the “only rule and norm”[7], the “pure, clear fountain
of Israel”[8], and therefore are the
sole principle of unity in the Christian church. If certain passages are
perceived to be unclear, this is not a problem with the Scriptures themselves,
but because through the passage of time some detail is unknown to us. I reject
the opinion which states that Scripture is not sufficient or clear, and needs another
external light to shine upon it, such as tradition, reason or church authority.
V.
I believe that the Holy Spirit, being the primary
author of Scripture, is therefore its best interpreter, who “opens the
intellect and the heart to understand the Scriptures and to heed the Word”[9]. I believe that the
primary task of exegesis is to find the plain, literal and native sense of the
Scripture and particular passages. I reject the so-called “historical-critical
method” of exegesis, which seeks to deconstruct the text and undermine its
objective meaning. I also reject the exegetical methods which leave the meaning
of the Scripture up the subjectivity of the reader.
VI.
I believe that the entirety of the Holy Scriptures,
both of the Old and New Testament, are to be divided into the Law and the
Gospel. These two teachings differ fundamentally from each other, and should be
rightly distinguished in teaching and preaching, as the highest art of the
pastoral office. I believe therefore that the good news of Jesus Christ runs as
a thread throughout the entire Scriptures, giving them an intrinsic theological
unity. I reject all confusing and mixing of the Law and the Gospel, such as the
rejection of the law in the life of Christians, or the preaching of the Law as
Gospel, and vice-versa.
B. The
Church’s Confession of Faith
I.
I believe without reservation that the Confessions of
the Evangelical Lutheran Church as contained in the Book of Concord of 1580 are
a true and faithful confession of God’s Word, and are my own confession of
faith. “By God’s grace, with intrepid hearts, we are willing to appear before
the judgment seat of Christ with this Confession and give an account of it.”[10]
II.
I accept these confessions because (quia)
they are a true and faithful presentation of God’s Word in the Holy Scripture.
I reject the opinion which only accepts these confessions insofar as (quatenus)
they are a true and faithful presentation of the Scripture.
III.
I reject any indifferentism to the Lutheran confessions
as antiquated and irrelevant books. I also reject sophistic distinctions
between descriptive and prescriptive statements in the Confessions, in such a
way as to justify deviations from this confession. I also reject the use of
synodical or ecumenical statements to dilute or taint this confession of faith.
C. Theological
Presuppositions
I.
I believe that Jesus Christ, as the Word of God made
flesh, is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6). I believe that the
written Word of God in the Holy Scripture is truth, and contains nothing but
truth (John 10:35). I reject the opinion that there is no objective truth and
error, or that we cannot know the truth from the Scripture. I also reject the
deconstruction of language, such that words mean nothing apart from the
interpretation of the reader.
II.
I believe that the Christian faith is built on the
objective works of God in human history, and not on the clever use of language.
I reject all rhetorical attempts to muddy this principle, including the
rejection of the Virgin Birth, the miracles of Jesus, and the historical resurrection.
III.
I believe that the Holy Scripture makes definitive
doctrinal and dogmatic claims, to which Christians should assent. These claims
are not simply human doctrines, but the Word of God itself, in its truth and
purity. I reject an indifferent attitude towards doctrine, which treats it as a
dead thing. I also reject the opinion that purity of doctrine does not matter
or is an impossible pursuit.
IV.
I believe that there is a supernatural realm, which
includes heaven and hell, the devil, angels, demons, etc. I reject the opinion
which denies the existence of these things, as if they are figments of
imagination, or psychological illusions. Such opinions deny the inspiration of
Scripture itself.
V.
I believe that the goal of the Christian faith is the
“resurrection of the dead and life everlasting”[11], “to live under [Christ]
in his kingdom, and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence and
blessedness, just as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all
eternity”[12].
I reject all attempts to make the Christian faith only a matter of this earthly
life and existence.
D. God
and Creation
I.
I believe that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity— “that
we worship one God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in three persons and three
persons in one God without confusing the persons nor dividing the divine substance”[13]—is essential to the
Christian faith. I reject all opinions to the contrary, as is summarised in the
Augsburg Confession Article I. Also, I reject the attribution of the feminine
sex or female gender to the persons of the Trinity.
II.
I believe that the words of Genesis 1-3 are to be
taken as a factual and historical, including the six days of creation, Adam and
Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the fall into sin. I reject all attempts to
interpret these chapters as myth, legend, or poetry, and the opinions that view
humans and animals as having evolved from simple into complex beings, from one
species into another.
III.
I believe that God is the creator, giver and taker of
human life, from conception to death (Psalm 139:13, Job 10:10—12). I reject abortion
at all stages of pregnancy, and euthanasia. However, this is not to exclude the
God-given use of arms to those who have the particular vocation to use them in
service of the state (Romans 13:1—7, 1 Peter 2:13—17, Luke 3:14), for example,
soldiers, police, etc.
IV.
I believe that God created human beings in his image
as male and female, and that marriage is only be between a man and a woman. I
reject all opinions to the contrary.
V.
I believe that
the true doctrine of the Holy Scripture as the inspired, inerrant and
infallible Word of God, is necessary for the true doctrine of sin (Psalm
19:12—13, Jeremiah 17:9, Psalm 51:5). The Scripture (and also, the Lutheran
Confessions) teaches original sin in a way that completely lays bare all human
opinions, reason and philosophy (Romans 3:9—18, 2 Corinthians 10:5—6). I reject
any opinions which assume that humans are essentially good, or have some good
part in them which enables people to justify themselves, therefore making them
think that they do not need a Saviour, Jesus Christ.
E. Jesus
Christ
I.
I believe that Jesus Christ is both completely true
man and true God in one person, according to the historic confession of the
ecumenical Creeds and the Lutheran Confessions. With the whole orthodox church
everywhere, I reject all denials of Christ’s true humanity, his true divinity,
or the inseparability of his two natures in his person.
II.
I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ in his suffering
and death, made the one, true perfect and sufficient sacrifice for all the sin
of the whole world, in such a way that his holy precious blood and his innocent
suffering and death was the only atonement, payment and propitiation for sin,
which has satisfied the wrath of God which we justly deserved, and which has won
the victory over sin, death and the devil. I reject any attempts to lessen the
importance of Christ’s vicarious atonement as the centre of the Christian
faith. The vicarious atonement does not infringe upon God’s fatherhood, nor is
it child abuse, but rather: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son”
(John 3:16).
III.
I believe that Jesus Christ alone is true God,
together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, who called the world into
existence. I reject the so-called “Word of Faith” movement, which views Jesus
as essentially no different from Christians, who, like little gods, should attempt
to call into existence various desires of their hearts.
IV.
I believe, because of the fact that he “ascended into
heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father”, that Jesus Christ both in
his humanity and divinity is truly present in his church, physically and
bodily, as he has promised (eg Matthew 18:20, 26:26, 28:20), through the
proclamation of his Word and in the administration of the Holy Sacraments. I
reject any theology of Christian worship which assumes that Christ is
essentially absent from, or only “spiritually present” in, his church on earth.
F. Justification
I.
I believe that people are justified by faith, when
they trust that Jesus Christ died on the cross for their sins, “not by their
works, or their own doing, but as a free gift of God, so that no one can boast”
(Ephesians 2:8—9). This justification is not in any shape or form whatsoever
the same as universalism, which essentially denies the doctrine of sin,
repentance, missions, evangelism, the church, the sacraments, the Gospel, and
the whole Christian faith. I reject the opinion that mission work or evangelism
or proselytism is now wrong, misplaced or unsuitable.
II.
I believe in “one baptism for the forgiveness of sin”[14], which bestows upon
people individually the gifts of salvation that Christ won on his cross and in
his resurrection. I reject all opinions that see baptism as a human work,
rather than a work of God.
G. The
Office of the Holy Ministry
I.
I believe that there is one Office of the Holy
Ministry which was instituted by Christ (John 20:21—23), and that Christ also
established a Priesthood of all the Baptised (1 Peter 2:9), the two of which
should not be confused. I reject the so-called licensing of approved laypeople
to carry out the normal duties of the pastoral ministry.
II.
I believe that in receiving a regular call through the
church, a candidate for the ministry should be examined according to the
criteria in the Scripture (eg 1 Timothy 3:1—13, Titus 1:5—9), approved, and
ordained publicly with the laying on of hands. A person’s inward sense of call
to the ministry should be tested according to the Word of God. I reject the
opinion that graduate or other pastors should be “regularised” sometime after ordination,
after having served a parish for a set time, as if their approval and
ordination to the ministry is not already completely regular[15]. Such a process turns the
pastors into people-pleasers, and interferes with the divinity of the call. I
reject the opinion that a call to a certain parish can be limited in advance to
a certain number of years.
III.
I believe that, “though women prophets were used by
the Spirit of God in the Old as well as the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 14:34,35
and 1 Timothy 2: 11—14 prohibit a woman from being called into the office of
the public ministry for the proclamation of the Word and the administration of
the Sacraments. This apostolic rule is binding on all Christendom; hereby her
rights as a member of the spiritual priesthood are in no way impaired.” (TA VI
11). The attitude of devout women which is praised by the apostles (see 1 Peter
3:4) is the same attitude which all Christians, both men and women, should have
towards Christ and his word (Ephesians 5:23-24). Therefore, the approval of the
ordination of women necessarily requires an attitude in the church, which
places itself above in judgment above the Scripture[16].
IV.
I believe that the call to the Office of the Holy Ministry
is for life (1 Peter 5:1—4, 1 Timothy 4:16, 1 Corinthians 4:4). I reject the
creation of a sub-class of pastors, such as the so-called Special Ministry
Pastors (SMPs), where their call to the ministry is limited only to one
particular congregation or parish.
V.
I believe that hierarchy in the church (such as bishops,
etc.) exists not by divine right, but only by human right, for the sake of
peace and order. I reject the use of public vows to bind the consciences of
pastors to the unqualified doctrinal and pastoral oversight of their bishops (as
if such submission is divinely commanded as obedience to the fourth commandment),
and vows to any teachings of a particular synod which undermine Scripture or
the Lutheran Confessions. I reject the arbitrary power of bishops used to undermine
the right of congregations to call their own pastors. I reject the so-called
distinction between a “call to a parish” and an “assignment by bishops to a
parish”. Rather, a congregation should issue a call together with the advice of
bishops, and may delegate their power to call to the bishops who then assign a
pastor. This process of delegating is as much a regular call, as if they
had chosen a particular pastor themselves.
VI.
I believe that there may be a situation where a pastor
may need to be removed from the ministry, because of false teaching or a
manifestly ungodly life. However, just as the call to the ministry is through
proper and orderly means, so also the removal of a pastor can only be
considered legitimate if an accurate judicial examination of the case occurs,
as well as the careful observance of legitimate procedure. In the judicial
process, the normal rules of evidence should apply. I reject the arbitrary
power of bishops to remove pastors from parishes or from the ministry without
examination and proper process.
VII.
I believe, in accordance with Book of Concord, that
the papacy does fulfil the marks of Antichrist also in our day, as an office
which has been established against the Word of God (cf 2 Thessalonians 2:1—12).
The clear and sufficient Word of God, and not the papacy, is the only source
and norm of matters of doctrine and life, the only true principle of unity in
the church. Of course, there many true and faithful Christians in the Roman
Catholic church, who are our brothers and sisters in faith. I reject the
opinion that this doctrine is simply an anti-Catholic insult resulting from
Luther’s bad temper, or from mediaeval superstitions. Luther, rather, made it
clear that he was not attacking the papacy for its immoral life (as Wycliffe
and Hus did), but because of its false doctrine. A rejection of this doctrine of
,Antichrist by Lutherans not only means that it does not subscribe to the
confessions in their entirety, but also opens the door wide for lack of
vigilance to the unbiblical (and potentially totalitarian) use of authority, even
in the Lutheran Church, against the clear, inerrant and infallible Word.
H. The
Holy Supper of the Lord
I.
I believe that the Lord’s Supper is “the true body and
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ
himself for us Christians to eat and to drink”[17]. I reject the Calvinist
and Zwinglian positions, which do not confess the bodily, fleshly presence of
Christ’s true body and blood in the sacramental elements. I also reject the opinion
of the Roman Catholic church that the Lord’s Supper is a propitiatory sacrifice
on behalf of the living and the dead.
II.
I believe that the entire external, visible action of
the Lord’s Supper instituted by Christ comprises of the consecration, the
distribution and the reception[18]. The consecration and
distribution are part of the duties of the Office of the Ministry. This
three-fold action of the sacrament is the institution of the Lord, and as a
general principle this action should not be separated[19].
III.
I believe that the presence of Christ’s body and blood
is immediately effected by Christ’s Words which are spoken and recited
in the consecration, so that what the communicants receive from the altar into
their hands and mouths is the true body and blood of Christ, in accordance with
his words, “This is my body”, “This is my blood”. It is a clear doctrinal
consequence of the Words of Institution to consume the remaining elements in
the Lord’s Supper, in accordance with Christ’s words: “eat”, “drink”[20]. This practice also avoids
unnecessary scruples, has good historical precedent, and was also Luther’s
advice. I reject the practice in the Lord’s Supper of consecrating elements other
than bread and wine. I reject the practice of treating consecrated elements no
differently from that which is unconsecrated. I reject the false interpretation
of some Lutheran theologians who say that the body and blood of Christ is only
present in the eating and drinking.
IV.
I believe that the body and blood of Christ are
distributed to and eaten by both believers and unbelievers. For those who eat
and drink worthily, the Lord’s Supper is for them a medicine of immortality,
where “forgiveness of sins, life and salvation”[21] are given them, but for
those who eat and drink unworthily, they eat to their judgment. There is
nothing wrong with the supper or its institution, such that it is unhygienic or
communicates sickness to the communicants who receive it in a worthy manner. However,
this does not mean that pastors should distribute the supper with dirty hands,
or that Christians should not be mindful of spreading infectious diseases when
attending church. The use of a common chalice is part of Christ’s institution
(in accordance with the words, “He took the cup”), and need not be substituted
for individual cups. The use of individual cups also interferes with the
practical ability to consume the remaining elements, as described above.
V.
I believe, in accordance with the Augsburg Confession,
that communicants should be admitted “after they have been examined and
absolved”[22].
I reject the practice of open communion, as against Christian love and the
doctrine of church fellowship. The rejection of the biblical and historic practice
of closed communion is against the subscription to the Book of Concord.
I. The
Liturgy
I.
I believe that the Lutheran Church is a liturgical
church, in accordance with the statements of the Augsburg Confession: “Our
churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. The Mass is held among us
and celebrated with the highest reverence.”[23] I reject the modern deconstruction
of the liturgy and reverence in the church.
II.
I believe that the Holy Spirit promises to speak to
people through the Word of God as it is found in the Scripture. I reject the
opinion that the use of the church’s historic liturgy works against the Holy
Spirit. Rather, the historic liturgy of the church is saturated from top to
bottom with the words of Holy Scripture.
III.
I believe that the Holy Spirit promises to call and
gather the church when and where it pleases him through the Word and Sacrament.
I reject the so-called “Church Growth Movement”, which seeks to abandon the liturgy
or doctrine in order to increase attendance numbers. Genuine mission work
should be done, and Christians should have a desire to see the church grow, but
it should be because of a desire for the salvation of souls, and not for a business-like
growth of an institution for its own sake.
IV.
I believe that all music and song in the church should
have texts that are theological sound, that are in accordance with the Word of
God and which confess the truths of the Christian faith. I reject the practice
of making the purpose of church music to manipulate or illicit from people an
emotional state or response, or to create a contrived religious atmosphere.
J. Church
Fellowship
I.
I believe that the Scripture and nothing else should
be taught in the church, that to “teach differently” (1 Tim 1:3) is forbidden,
and that Christians are commanded to avoid those who do so (Rom 16:17, 1 Tim
6:3, 11). Where truth and error have equal rights in a particular church, that
church is a heterodox church.
II.
I believe that there are still children of God within
heterodox churches, insofar as they hold to the Scriptures despite the doctrine
or practice of their churches.
III.
Although patience and time is required in the church
to correct those who err, where there is a partial apostasy from the Word of
God, the Word of God prohibits us from having church fellowship with those who
teach differently (1 Corinthians 1:10, Romans 16:17, 1 Tim 6:3, 11, 2 John
10-11), for danger of committing the sin of unionism and syncretism. This kind
of separation is not schism, because it is commanded in the Word of God.
IV.
I reject the principle of “unity in diversity”, which
undermines the Word of God as the unifying source of truth. I reject the kind of
church unity which gives truth and error equal status. I reject the ecumenical
movement, insofar as it seeks to unify church bodies without agreement in
truth. Rather, Jesus says: “Sanctify them in the truth; your Word is truth”
(John 17:17). “Love rejoices not in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth” (1
Cor 13:6).
Conclusion
In light of these things, I have
come to the conclusion that the Lutheran Church of Australia is no longer an
orthodox church. Truth and error have equal standing in the name of unity in
diversity. No longer is the Holy Scripture the only source and norm of all
matters of doctrine and life, and the only principle of unity among us. It
seems to me that there is no unified intention in our church to cling to the
Holy Christian, catholic and apostolic faith as it was once delivered to the
saints. What we see in so many of its parishes and hear from so many of its
pulpits is no longer that faith. Lutheran doctrine and practice are often
conspicuous by their absence. Only God himself knows whether the Lutheran
Church of Australia is reformable. But in obedience to the Lord of the Church,
our Lord Jesus Christ, and his holy command to avoid false teachers, I hereby
resign my membership from the Lutheran Church of Australia and as a member of
her pastorate.
My intention from here on is to
continue to fulfil my ordination vows, which I promised before God. However, in
good conscience, I renounce before God the vow requiring submission to the
doctrinal and pastoral oversight of the bishops of the LCA, and to uphold the
doctrine and practice of the LCA (whatever that means!). Many pastors of the
LCA, like myself, oppose these vows, and yet feel as though they have no choice
in the matter.
Therefore, I pray that God would
help me, by his grace, to establish at least a Lutheran congregation
independent from the LCA, which I also pray would light a candle in our country
and beyond, and hopefully grow into a fellowship and synod of many more
confessional, Lutheran churches, with the blessing of God’s hand. Whether the
Lord blesses my work with outward success and growth, I leave to him and his
good and gracious will. In the meantime, it is my intention to seek to be
faithful to him, whether or not my work seems “successful” by the standards of
the world.
Those who read this letter may
think to accuse me of self-righteousness, or that I am looking for the perfect
church. That is not true. I know there are many faithful people in the Lutheran
Church of Australia. Many of them don’t know or can’t see the trajectory their
church has been on for many years, or may not yet be convinced that things are
sufficiently bad to warrant leaving. To seek a perfect church is to deny
original sin. However, when Christians have the perfect Word of God as their
only guide, they have a perfect standard and norm.
To leave the church of my
childhood, my youth, and my life thus far, is a very serious and painful matter
for me—I have served this church as a pastor for 12 years. I assure you that I
have come to this decision with the utmost seriousness. My reason for doing so
is to use the pastoral office given to me by God’s mercy to preserve
the faith from those who want to see it destroyed. In fact, I am not
leaving the Lutheran church at all, but rather returning to her, as to my
mother, while the modernist, liberal, false church continually paints their apostasy
as their great work of “Christian piety”. They may label me a schismatic, a
heretic, a separatist, a maverick, or whatever. They know that as long as I am
with them, they can corrode my witness. My intention has been simply to act
with good conscience in accordance with the Word of God, and to stand up for
the truth. I commend what I have written to Almighty God, and ask for his
gracious blessing.
I shall not die, but I shall live,
and recount the deeds of the Lord.
Psalm 118:17.
Yours in Christ,
Pastor Stephen van der Hoek
Abbreviations
AC Augsburg Confession
Ap Apology to the Augsburg Confession
FC
Ep Formula of Concord, Epitome
FC
SD Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration
LC Luther’s Large Catechism
SC Luther’s Small Catechism
TA Theses of Agreement, adopted by The
United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Australia and The Evangelical Lutheran
Church of Australia
Appendix
Quotations
from Lutheran writers about leaving heterodox churches
Martin
Luther: “Now it is high time for him to run and flee, who is able to flee; let
everything he has behind and depart; the sooner the better; not with his feet
but with his heart, in such a way that he will be rid of the abomination and
enter the kingdom of Christ through faith. But to do this reason and a keen
insight are needed rightly to discern the abomination. It cannot be seen in any
way better than when we compare it to Christ who teaches, as stated above, that
we are reconciled to God, and are saved through his blood. But the Pope
ascribes this power to our works. Thus you ever see that to be saved through
works and not to be saved through works (to believe on Christ as our
justification before God) are contrary to each other. If you then want to
remain with Christ, you must flee from the Pope and let him go.” (Church
Postil, Sermon for Trinity XXV)
Philip
Melanchthon (Book of Concord): “All Christians ought to beware of becoming
partakers of the godless doctrine, blasphemies, and unjust cruelty of the Pope.
On this account they ought to desert and execrate the Pope with his adherents
as the kingdom of Antichrist; just as Christ has commanded, Matt. 7:15: Beware
of false prophets. And Paul commands that godless teachers should be avoided
and execrated as cursed, Gal 1:8; Tit 3:10 And 2 Cor. 6:14 he says: Be ye not
unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with
darkness? To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called
schismatics is a grave matter. But divine authority commands all not to be
allies and defenders of impiety and unjust cruelty. On this account our
consciences are sufficiently excused; for the errors of the kingdom of the Pope
are manifest.” (Tractate on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, 41—42)
Franz
Pieper: “By the term “schism” we mean a division in the Church which God’s Word
does not enjoin, but which is begun by men for carnal reasons and therefore is
sinful, e.g., a separation because of differences in church customs, church
terms, order of worship, etc. In practice it is important to distinguish
between schismatics acting from spite and schismatics acting from weakness in Christian
knowledge and prejudice. Such, however, as separate from a church body because
it tenaciously clings to false doctrine are unjustly called schismatics,
separatists, etc. This separation is commanded in Scripture (Rom. 16:17) and is
the only means of restoring and maintaining the true unity in the Christian
Church.” (Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, vol III, p 427)
The
Lutheran Church of Australia’s Theses of Agreement say: “We believe that
where differences in teaching and practice exist or arise between Churches
uniting, these differences are to be removed by willingly submitting to the
authority of the Word of God. Where a difference in teaching or practice is a
departure from the doctrine of the Bible, such difference cannot be tolerated,
but must be pointed out as an error, on the basis of clear passages of Holy
Writ; and if the error is persisted in, in spite of instruction, warning, and
earnest witness, it must at last lead to a separation.” (TA I 4a).
Bible
passages: Psalm 26:4—5, Psalm 94:20, Jeremiah 15:19, Romans 16:17, 1
Corinthians 11:19, Matthew 7:15, 1 Timothy 6:3—5, 2 John 10—11, 2 Corinthians
6:14.
[1] 1 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:21. FC SD XI
12.
[2] Pr 30:5, Jn
10:35, Tit 1:2. LC IV 57.
[3] Schubert, David (ed), 1994, Church
Rites, prepared by the Commission on Worship, Lutheran Church of Australia,
Openbook Publishers, Adelaide.
[4] TA VIII 10.
[5] Pieper, Francis, 1953, Christian
Dogmatics, vol 1, p 221, Concordia, St Louis.
[6] Pieper, Francis, 1953, Christian
Dogmatics, vol 1, p 223, Concordia, St Louis.
[7] FC Ep Summary 1.
[8] FC SD Comprehensive Summary 3.
[9] FC SD II 26.
[10] FC SD XII 40.
[11] Apostles’ Creed, Article II.
[12] SC II The Creed.
[13] Athanasian Creed, 3—4.
[14] Nicene Creed, Article III.
[15] See AC XIV.
[16] For a fuller presentation of my
opinion concerning the ordination of women, see Women’s Ordination: Why is
this issue important and what’s at stake? Stephen van
der Hoek, 30 August 2018. http://owl.lca.org.au/?p=1085. (Accessed 31 December 2020)
[17] SC VI The Sacrament of the Altar.
[18]
FC SD VII 86.
[19]
FC SD VII 83.
[20]
See Luther’s Letters to Simon Wolferinus.
[21]
SD VI The Sacrament of the Altar.
[22]
Ap XXIV 1.
