Back in 1998, at a theological conference, I heard a pastor (we’ll call himn Pastor V.) of my denomination (the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod) recountn what had driven him out of his second call, a mission church in Lawrence,n Kansas. It was the early ’90s, and Lawrence was one of the fastest-growingn cities in America. A number of businesses had seen the advantages of beingn near a major research university. Pastor V. said his “outreach strategy”n was to unlock the doors on Sunday morning. People streamed in, and then church grew impressively.
n Pastor V. was a traditional sort, an “evangelical catholic” like Richardn John Neuhaus, Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Jaroslav Pelikan, Robert Wilken,n Gilbert Meilaender, and other LCMS luminaries (and, for the sake of fulln disclosure, myself). This was Luther’s preferred term for excommunicatedn Catholics like himself of the sixteenth century. We never wanted to be partn of any church but the Catholic, and when Luther and his fellow travelersn got the boot from Rome, they called themselves “evangelical catholics”n because it was the evangel, the gospel of Jesus Christ, that defined theirn Catholic faith rather than the teachings of the bishop of Rome. Evangelicaln catholics maintain the ancient Mass and accompanying offices as the bestn way to worship the Holy Trinity. We draw our doctrine exclusively from then Scriptures as they have been rightly confessed in the creeds by the Churchn catholic, in the first four ecumenical councils, by the great fathers ofn the Church, and, finally, as they are set forth by the Lutheran Confessionsn over against the Council of Trent.n
n Pastor V. opposed any innovation in worship, doctrine, or practice. Hen followed the services straight-up from The Lutheran Hymnal,n preached on the Revised Common Lectionary (always the gospel appointed forn the day), taught classes on the Bible and the Church Fathers, visited then sick, taught and baptized the young, and communed those in fellowship withn the Church—emphasizing Christ and him crucified as the sole center ofn faith, worship, and life.n
n And this went over swimmingly—until it didn’t. The president of the Kansasn district, Pastor V.’s ecclesiastical supervisor, was a church growthn reformer. Like many in the LCMS leadership, he’d become enamored in then late ’60s and early ’70s with the Fuller Seminary church growth movement.n The idea behind the church growth movement was that the mission of then Church was to “reach the lost” and to evangelize the world by following then Great Commission to go out and make disciples of all nations. Luther andn the old fathers saw it not as a command to do Christ’s work for him, butn rather as a promise of Christ: that he himself will always accompany then proclamation of the gospel and the administration of holy baptism to maken the faithful hearers full members of the Body of Christ. This was then mission of the Church as evangelical catholics had always seen it. The goaln is not to grow the Church, but simply to be the Church by God’sn grace through the faith he alone bestows through Word and sacraments.n
n Pastor V. was happy to see many new members come into the church he servedn in Lawrence. He taught them the Small Catechism and received them. Theyn took to the Body of Christ like ducks to water. But this bothered then Kansas district president. The church growth ideology to which hen subscribed regarded traditional liturgy, doctrine, and preaching asn barriers keeping “the lost” from joining the Church. If you want to reachn the lost, you have to make the Church as much like the world as possible.n Kids like pop music, so the service should include it. Sermons need to ben practical, not doctrinal—teaching not Christ but morals, how to be goodn parents and successful workers, and, above all, how to persuade friends andn neighbors to join the church and give generously.n
n Pastor V. was urged to take a call to another church. He declined. Then district opened another “mission start” with rock and roll worship (“CoWo,”n “contemporary worship”) right down the street. That mission failed, whilen his congregation continued to attract more folks than the mission-mindedn congregations around him which hewed more closely to the officially favoredn “church growth” ideology. Finally, the members of the failed mission start,n along with a retired pastor, joined Pastor V.’s congregation and urged moren CoWo, small group ministries, and sermons that catered to individuals’n“felt needs.” Lutheran Pastor David Luecke’s book Evangelical Style and Lutheran Substance (which Neuhaus had pannedn for its shallow semi-paganism) served as their operations manual. Pastorn V. moved on, and the congregation became another little copy of Willown Creek Community Church. It has declined over the years.
n Pastor V. said he’d learned some hard lessons. First, that not alln numerical growth in the Church pleases those who claim such growth is alln that matters. Second, that the so-called “Battle for the Bible” thatn resulted in the ouster of many of the brightest and most evangelicaln catholic types from Concordia Seminary in St. Louis and from leadingn parishes of the synod was really less about “higher criticism” than aboutn clearing the way to turn the LCMS into a ’70s-style, nondenom Protestantn type of church. Third, that the LCMS had for many years pursued a consciousn project of staffing churches in demographically favorable areas withn “church growth/CoWo” pastors. He came to the conclusion that his districtn president would prefer to see no growth in Lawrence than to see growth inn evangelical catholic parishes like his. This was part of the vision ofn leaders of the synod such as the late Ralph Bohlmann. By making sure LCMSn congregations in the fastest-growing areas were staffed exclusively by CoWon pastors, they could say, “Just look at the stats! All our largest andn fastest-growing churches do CoWo! If you want to grow, this is the way!”n
n Pastor V. was an embarrassing counterexample. Which was Pastor V.’s finaln point: The CoWo church growth ideology is an ideology. It pretendsn to be purely pragmatic, but it demands that it alone reign, and will taken measures against any who oppose it, no matter how badly it fails to delivern the promised goods and services.n
n Back in 1998, I thought Pastor V. was a little paranoid. I’d seen evidencen for what he presented but did not want to believe things were that bad. Wen had a “confessional Lutheran” for synod president at that time whon ostensibly was opposed to this. Surely things would straighten out soon!
n But matters only got worse. Twenty years after that conference, I’ve comen to realize that Pastor V. understated the case. There is an unofficialn group in our synod called the Pastoral Leadership Institute that, for aboutn $10,000, will train a pastor in a two-year CoWo/Fuller Seminary–stylen program. In the “mission-minded” district I serve, it is rare to see anyn but PLI pastors in demographically favored parishes. It would ben interesting to see how a Pastor V. would fare in such a parish, but then powers that be seem even more eager today to avoid such clinical trials.n
nThere is an irony that Martin Luther pointed out in Bondage of the Will: The harder we try to reform ourselves, then worse we get. The more we harp on good works, the more evil worksn proliferate. Only when we give up trying to reform ourselves can Christn Jesus reform us by his cross, through gospel Word and sacrament, as hisn free gift through faith alone. Similarly, when we try to reform the Churchn to make it larger and more appealing to the masses, we separate ourselvesn from the Word of the Cross that truly reforms all, and we usually end upn shrinking or sinking the Church.n
n Since the late ’90s, the LCMS has declined for the first time in itsn history—and precipitously. We’ve lost almost 20 percent of our membershipn since 2000. In striving to reach the world, we’ve become worldly.n
n Those who preach the gospel faithfully as the apostles delivered it andn administer the sacraments properly have a rough road in the Church thesen days. I spent a couple years in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American (ELCA), and I found that it was easier to be a liturgical traditionalistn there (somewhat). But it was much harder to be a committedn supernaturalist—someone who believes Jesus rose bodily from the grave on an spring Sunday morning around a.d. 30, ascended into heaven, and will returnn bodily to judge the living and the dead. If you believe the thingsn confessed by the apostles of Christ are really so, really happened, andn will all happen as promised in Holy Scriptures, you will end up on then sidetracks of mainline liberal Protestant churches. Such preaching isn dangerous. It could draw a crowd, and if it did, suddenly there might ben copyists, and then a whole movement could start of churches demanding suchn preaching and teaching and worshiping of Christ Jesus as Lord.n
n After twenty-five years of parish ministry, I am not despairing, though. I’mn not even discouraged. The pseudo-Christianity that has ravaged Americann Christianity is collapsing. Americans are smarter than the ecclesiasticaln elite give them credit for being. They may not read much theology, but theyn have a keen nose for trimming. The “missionalizing” and mass marketing ofn the Church have neither increased the numbers in the pews nor filled itsn coffers. But they have led to millions of people being lost to then Church.
nI remember a scorching article Richard Neuhaus wrote when he edited the old Forum Letter before he started First Things, in which he rippedn contemporary worship as a betrayal of the gospel and called for getting then worship right because then the doctrine and the practice will falln into line. I believe he was right then and is still right on this today.n
Kevin Martin is a parish pastor serving Our Savior Lutheran Church (LCMS) in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Photo by Justin Brendel.
