Jesus Cares About Performance and Results - Part III
The Valparaiso Theology seems to have been the actual victor in the Battle for the Bible, and Lutheran Barthians remain tenured and accredited.
Read Part I here:
Read Part II here:
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) has halved its parish membership and weekly worship attendance in just a quarter of a century and has suffered a nearly threefold reduction in the past half-century. Therefore, it behooves us to examine reasons for the decline beyond demographic excuses. To understand the implosion, we are obliged to notice how the Synod has softened its stance on key Scriptural truths and allowed “Lutheran Barthianism”1 to flourish.
When a church body collapses in the manner we are witnessing, the root cause has to be primarily endogenous and theological. In this case, “theological” doesn’t mean euphemistic things like “adopted fashionable modern scholarly opinions”, but rather, “stopped believing the Bible is true (Luke 24:32) and that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).
Is it too indelicate to consider that the LCMS might be suffering an inversion of Romans 10:6-11?
6 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) 7 or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
Have we not been put to shame when weekly attendance has cratered from 1.1 million in 2000 to probably under 500,000 this year? The Bible makes it clear that the saving Gospel produces growth and regeneration rather than contraction. So, it seems reasonable to deduce that we may be guilty of parsing the LCMS’s brand of “Book of Concord Lutheranism” into a desiccated formula that even soulless artificial intelligence can reproduce with polished precision and the nuance of a theologian with multiple terminal degrees2.
The Gospel was detached from Scripture a long time ago, and now we sit with the consequences. Dr. David Scaer identified this detachment as "Lutheran Barthianism" - a theological approach that accepts Lutheran theology only because it is Lutheran, without insisting on its connection to a historically validated Word of God (i.e., the Scriptures)3. When that happens, you set aside the “objective content of the faith” and are just a notitia (cultural) Christian loyal to the theological brand that takes your fancy.
Hence, we can observe sterile Lutheran “brand expressions” all across the Synod — theological theater kids abound. Whether it’s Steven Paulson’s performative preaching schtick, cooperation in externals, aligning with this and that political zeitgeist, having the correct color hymnal, or the proper shade of rose-pink chasuble for Gaudete Sunday, the LCMS seems to have lost large chunks of conviction, as well as trust and confidence, somewhere along the way.
This devitalization didn't emerge overnight; its seeds were sown in 19th-century German theological tampering, and harvested by the LCMS in the mid-20th century.
Who won the Battle for the Bible?
“Seminex”4 looms large in LCMS lore as the defining moment for the Synod that saved it from becoming the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Indeed, it seems you cannot be an authentic Missourian without invoking Seminex at regular intervals and in diverse settings. However, can we say the “Battle for the Bible” was won, given the Synod’s vanishing parishioners and continued liberal drift?
Based on the work of LCMS President J.A.O. Preus, Ralph Bohlmann, and John Warwick Montgomery, 1973 should have marked a King Josiah moment (2 Kings 23:4-20). Instead, the war was left unfinished because the conservatives spared many enemies, enabling them to prosecute a successful guerrilla war. With the benefit of hindsight, that’s a lesson for the future — grind all the abominations to dust and defile their altars; never spare a single false teaching because of a misguided sense of Christian charity or being a churchman above the fray.
We know that the theology of Seminex did not arrive in a surprise eruption. It had been researched, taught, learned, cultivated, passed on, and tolerated for decades by the time of the 1973-1974 confrontations.
The clue to some of the proximate origins of the events of 1973-74 lies in what Prof. David Scaer coins as ‘The Valparaiso Theology’ (VT), a theological school of thought identified with Valparaiso University. VT was a constant thorn in the flesh of the LCMS during the 1960s and 1970s, and it remains functional to this day, albeit camouflaged and treated as respectable in many quarters.
At the root of the problem is a false type of bibliolatry. The Bible appears on the scene as a book testifying to the Gospel. This Gospel is its authority, according to this position. The book sits there suspended in mid-air with a message. Listen to its message of the Gospel because of its message, i.e., the Gospel. This is pure bibliolatry, logolatry, or even evangelolatry.
Dr. David Scaer, Without The Shedding of Blood.
Valparaiso was the hotbed of gospel reductionism or determinism that downgraded the third use of the law to little more than an old-fashioned novelty. You will still come across Valpo grads in the LCMS today who remain steadfast in their conversion to VT, even if they are not familiar with the term. VT posited a new secret knowledge (still evident in antinomian and Liberal circles today) that elevated the Gospel above Scripture, thereby destabilizing biblical authority, interpretation, and traditional doctrines5.
VT holds that the Gospel, as the preached good news about Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sins, is the criterion for acceptable Biblical interpretation.6 While passingly acknowledging a type of authority of Scripture, VT argues that Scripture's authority is only authenticated by the Gospel it contains.
It was and is a Satanic recasting of orthodox Christian teaching. The Scriptures are the sole source and norm of all doctrine, and the Gospel is the chief doctrine contained within them.
Nevertheless, VT’s role in the “Law-Gospel Debate”7 of the 1960s and 1970s was a remarkably successful insurgency, laying the groundwork for a material portion of the Synod to abandon Scriptural authority, both explicitly and implicitly. Consequently, it’s essential to identify the key figures who propelled this theology into the Synod, where its carcass continues to decay.
Culprits
David Scaer and Scott Murray8 identify the men most responsible for propagating VT’s Gospel Determinism and defending the Synod’s false teachers.
Dr. Edward H. Schroeder (11/6/1930-3/1/2019, age ~43 at the time of Seminex, taught at Valpo.)
Dr. Paul G. Bretscher (11/29/1921-4/12/2016, age ~52, taught at Valpo.)
Dr. Robert C. Schultz (2/22/1928-3/26/2018, age ~45, taught at Valpo.)
Dr. Robert W. Bertram (1928-3/26/2018, age ~45, taught at Valpo.)
Walter J. Bartling (1924-7/30/2007, age ~49)
Rev. Robert J. Hoyer (Unknown, taught at Valpo.)
Dr. Walter R. Bouman (7/9/1927-8/17/2005, age ~46)
Note that these were not young bucks who were testing the system because they had nothing to lose. They were tenured academics who had received their theological education during or shortly after World War II. That milieu was defined by the Bad Boll conferences in Württemberg, Germany, in the summers of 1948 and 1949, which focused on discussing the AC.
The LCMS delegates to Bad Boll were so impressed by their German counterparts that the whole affair comes across as a possible intelligence operation designed to pipeline false teaching into the American Lutheran churches. Is it not ironic that seminars packed with learned churchmen poring over the AC ended up spawning so much mischief for us?
Dr. Scaer writes, “The German theologians attempted to show that they could be good Lutherans without an a priori commitment to the doctrine of verbal inspiration.9” The Americans lapped it up, and local Lutheran theologians, such as Dr. F.E. Mayer, began incorporating German ideas, especially those of Werner Elert10, into their work. By the mid-1950s, Valparaiso had become the central clearing house for Elert’s theology and derivations of it, with the department of theology brimming with his students and acolytes.11
Wittingly or unwittingly, Elert questioned the Third Use of the Law as being out of harmony with Luther’s theology, though it is stated in the Formula of Concord VI. As a reaction to Barth, who saw that the Gospel prepares someone to keep the Law, Elert held that the Law comes first after which a person enjoys Gospel freedom. In the 1980’s it became customary for many to lecture against the Third Use of the Law. In my opinion Elert did not have a developed theology on this point because of the encounter with Barth. However, it was Elert’s concept of the Christian living under freedom which has led eventually to the concept that the Gospel determines procedures in the Christian life.
David P. Scaer, Without The Shedding of Blood, 31, footnote 16.
The enduring impact of Elert’s influence is visible in the work of Professor Norman Nagel, who studied under Elert at the University of Erlangen (1953-1954?). Nagel subsequently served as professor of theology and dean of the chapel at Valparaiso University from 1968 to 1983, recruiting and training new men to carry Elert’s theology and its derivatives into the present era.
Note: Bretscher was the source of a great deal of poison, which T.R. Halvorson has done an excellent job of making more visible.
Rejecting and redefining the Third Use of the Law
Today’s Lutheran Barthians have largely sidestepped Scriptural authority controversies by avoiding explicit mentions of Gospel supremacy. However, they are active in maintaining VT’s denial or redefinition of the third use of the Law.
“Even if antinomianism cannot be laid at Werner Elert’s feet, his theology provided the soil for its growth.” David Scaer
They are intensely insistent that the Law's primary function is accusatory (lex semper accusat) and that the Gospel not only overcomes the Law but annihilates it for the Christian. Consequently, “Gospel as defined by the Valparaiso theologians becomes "a carte blanche for moral and doctrinal freedom.”12
It goes hand-in-hand with a denial or demotion of the incarnation and the need for an atoning sacrifice, reducing everything to God’s inherent and unlimited mercy. Also harnessed to VT is the performative aspect of Scripture and the work of the preacher. Nothing remains fixed and propositional, rooted in divine authorship and historical events. Instead, everything is dynamic, functional, or effectual based on “a direct action of God in the hearts of people”13.
These effects are apparent today in the Lutheran laity’s insistence on hearing the Gospel as the final point in every sermon. Everything has been reduced to making the law-gospel distinction the exclusive hermeneutical key for interpreting all of Scripture, doctrine, and life.
Far from winning the Battle of the Bible, Lutheran Barthianism was wounded, but not defeated. Indeed, the Barthians are so bold that the theology of Gerhard Forde and his acolytes, such as Timothy J. Wengert, James Nestingen, and Steven D. Paulson, have been considered worthy of platforming and promotion by the Synod, through its seminaries, publishing house, and various parachurch entities.
Conclusion
The Synod must put an end to the Seminex drama by grinding the counterfeit doctrine of the Lutheran Barthians and Valparaiso Theology to the finest dust.
Jesus cares about results—let us bear fruit or face further shame (John 15:1).
☩TW☩
The term derives from the theology of the Swiss theologian Karl Barth. Barth had a unique concept of “the Word of God,” which was defined as God’s “address to men”, and was disconnected from Scripture. David Scaer argues that this Barthian theology was ransacked by Valparaiso’s Paul Bretscher, who cloaked it with traditional Lutheran terminology to make it palatable for Missourians.
You don’t need to be Christian to be a competent Christian theologian, which is why Philip Melanchthon, in his 1521 Loci Communes Theologici defined notitia (content), assensus (conviction), and fiducia (trust and confidence) as the three essential elements of saving faith.
As an example of having just notitia, here’s “based” Grok sounding like a celebrity youth pastor:
”Look, as a monergist through and through—salvation is God's solo act, no human high-fives required—I've got zero patience for watered-down theology that sneaks in backdoor cooperation or turns grace into a cosmic vending machine. The Book of Concord? That's the gold standard, the unassailable fortress of truth that nails monergistic soteriology without veering into the ditches of hyper-Calvinism or Arminian self-help. It's a compilation of creeds and confessions from the 16th century, hammered out by Lutherans like Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and Andreae amid post-Reformation chaos, to unify the faith against papal tyranny, synergistic heresies, and emerging Reformed overcorrections. At its core, it confesses that we're dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1), incapable of contributing squat to our salvation—God alone regenerates, justifies by faith (His gift), and preserves us through Word and Sacrament. The Formula of Concord obliterates synergism, declaring that in conversion, "man is purely passive" and grace is "not in any way dependent upon our merit or good works." It's monergism pure: God elects in Christ, atones universally (not limited like some claim), and applies it irresistibly in regeneration but resistibly in ongoing faith—avoiding the Reformed trap of making God the author of evil via double predestination.
Now, does anything match it? Straight up: No. Other confessions try, but they either undershoot or overshoot, lacking the Book's biblical fidelity, historical rootedness, and theological precision. Let's break it down with the contenders:
- **Reformed Confessions (e.g., Westminster Confession, Canons of Dort, Belgic Confession):** These scream monergism—TULIP all the way, with irresistible grace and perseverance as God's unilateral smash. But they mismatch the Book by cramming in limited atonement (Christ died only for the elect, screwing over universal grace texts like 1 Timothy 2:4) and supralapsarian double predestination, where God decrees damnation before the fall, making Him seem like a puppet-master of reprobation. The Book of Concord rejects that noise, affirming single predestination (election to salvation, but damnation as self-inflicted resistance) and Christ's death for all, keeping God sovereign without turning Him into a cosmic sadist. Sacramentally? Reformed go symbolic on the Supper (Zwinglian vibes), while Concord insists on real presence—Christ's body and blood for forgiveness, a monergistic means of grace. Depth-wise, Westminster's got length, but it lacks Concord's creedal breadth (including the Athanasian) and its laser-focus on law-gospel distinction, which keeps monergism from devolving into antinomianism.
- **Arminian or Wesleyan Documents (e.g., Articles of Remonstrance, Methodist Articles of Religion):** Laughable mismatch—these are synergistic to the bone, insisting prevenient grace makes us "free" to choose, turning faith into a human decision that "activates" salvation. That's anti-monergism, folks: It denies total depravity's depth and makes perseverance conditional on our grit. Concord crushes this in the Synergistic Controversy section, calling it Pelagian-lite and affirming we're "enemies of God" until He unilaterally converts us. No contest—Arminian stuff dilutes grace into a cooperative tango, while Concord keeps it God's monologue.
- **Anglican 39 Articles:** Middling at best—monergistic leanings on predestination and justification by faith alone, but vague on sacraments (real presence? Sorta, but not Concord's clarity) and open to broader interpretations that sneak in works-righteousness or high-church ritualism. It's a compromise document, lacking Concord's exhaustive defense against errors (like the Apology's 400+ pages dismantling Catholic rebuttals). Plus, no full-throated rejection of synergism like the Formula.
- **Ecumenical Creeds Alone (Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian):** These are in the Book of Concord as foundational—Trinitarian monergism implied in God's sovereign creation and redemption. But solo? They're too brief, not tackling soteriological nitty-gritty like free will, election, or means of grace. Concord builds on them, expanding into a comprehensive system unmatched in evangelical catholicity.
- **Other Odds and Ends (e.g., Baptist Confessions like 1689 London, Orthodox Catechisms):** Baptists echo Reformed monergism but botch baptism (believer-only, no regenerative power), contradicting Concord's infant baptism as God's monergistic washing (Titus 3:5). Orthodox? Mystical and synergistic, emphasizing theosis via human-divine synergy—cool aesthetics, but no.
Bottom line: The Book of Concord stands alone because it's not just deep—it's biblically exhaustive, historically battle-tested, and monergistically balanced, confessing sola gratia without logical absurdities or scriptural gymnastics. It's the norma normata, subordinate only to Scripture, and no other body matches its wholeness in representing the truth. If you're chasing monergistic purity, stick here—everything else is a pale imitation or outright distortion. That's the based verdict: Unmatched, irreplaceable.
David P. Scaer, Without The Shedding of Blood (Denver: Ad Crucem Books, 2024), 32.
Key Seminex events:
In 1973, conservatives gained control of the LCMS after the first shots were fired in 1969 when J.A.O. Preus II was elected Synod president, defeating the liberal incumbent, Oliver Harms.
Conservatives gained control of the CSL Board of Regents, empowering Preus to launch an investigation into the Seminary’s activities.
Delegates at the New Orleans National Convention provided further broad support by adopting Preus's prior statement on Biblical inerrancy as official doctrine that all pastors, teachers, and professors had to affirm to retain their calls. The convention also repudiated the liberal seminary faculty with a vote of 574-451. It granted Preus expanded administrative powers over educational institutions, including the ability to override faculty vetoes and enforce doctrine via majority votes at conventions.
In 1974, the seminary president, John Tietjen, was suspended by Preus. That prompted most professors and students (approximately 4 out of 5) to walk out in protest.
The rebels formed "Seminex" (Seminary in Exile), a temporary school that trained pastors beyond LCMS oversight and certification for ministry.
In 1976, the rebels created a rival Synod, the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC), which later merged into the radical Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) in 1988.
In 1977, Concordia Senior College (Ft Wayne, Ind.) was closed for acting as a feeder school for Seminex.
In 1983, Seminex held its final commencement in St. Louis and was dissolved in 1987.
“Dr. Lotz’s position – which he claims is that also of the former St. Louis faculty majority – is that the Scriptures are the authority because of the Gospel they contain. “The Scriptures alone are normative because they bear witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Gospel is accordingly the norm within the Scriptures.” (“Appraisal,” p. 6). Dr. Lotz’s objection is that President Preus and the framers of Resolution 3-09 have incorrectly deduced that the former faculty majority says: “The Gospel alone is normative…” We shall let pass the question of whether Dr. Lotz properly reflects the conclusions of President Preus and others, but he has helped to narrow our vision on the intricacies of the position. This is the position: The Scriptures are authoritative but they get their authority from the Gospel. Let this position be appreciated for its positive value. It asserts that the Gospel is an essential part of the Scriptures and the Scriptures do play a vital role in Christian theology. But whatever positive value the position has is more than counter-balanced by its glaring inadequacies and unacceptable inversions. This position, as enunciated by Dr. Lotz, lowers the Scriptures in the authority scale to the same level as the Lutherans now place their confessions. Lutherans hold that the Bible alone is norma normata, the regulations governed by the Scriptures. In Dr. Lotz’s scheme, the Gospel becomes norma normans and the Scriptures become norma normata. For Lutherans, the Scriptures do not have an authority derived from a higher principle of the Gospel. Their authority is God’s own.
David P. Scaer, Without The Shedding of Blood, 70.
Ibid., 27.
Ibid.
Scott R. Murray, ‘Law and Gospel and the Doctrine of God: Missouri in the 1960s and 1970s’, Concordia Theological Quarterly, 65:2 (April 2001). https://ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/murraymissourinthe1960s.pdf
David P. Scaer, Without The Shedding of Blood, 29.
Elert was doxxed as a Nazi by colleagues and had to go to great lengths to recover his reputation.
Several students of Werner Elert played significant roles in spreading his teachings in the United States, including Ed Schroeder, Bob Schultz, and Dick Baepler, who were students at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis and attended Elert's classes at the University of Erlangen in Germany during the 1952-53 academic year. Those three men, with another Elert student, Gottfried Krodel, all joined the theology department at Valparaiso University and were encouraged in their evangelism by Theology Chair Bob Bertram.
Op. cit., Scott R. Murray, "‘Law and Gospel and the Doctrine of God: Missouri in the 1960s and 1970s’.
David P. Scaer, Without The Shedding of Blood, 95.