Two quotes: MacKenzie and J. Fiene on LC–MS, Kolb

      In my readings I have recently come across not one but two writers in the LC–MS who have pointed out difficulties within their Synod:

Prof. Cameron MacKenzie on the LC–MS:

      Although I have pointed out some weaknesses of Prof. MacKenzie, yet he made a striking statement in his essay "The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and the Public Square in the Era of C. F. W. Walther", published in the 2004 CPH compendium The Anonymous God, p.93-94:

“The synodical forefathers [i.e. old Missouri] expressed their convictions as the clear teachings of the permanent and unchanging Word of God. In so doing, they imposed a theological imprint upon the LCMS that continues to shape the thinking and behavior of many in the Synod today, but not everyone, as many believe that new situations require new answers. Nevertheless, because the synodical founders articulated their positions on the basis of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, it may be possible to discern the outline of an answer to the Synod's problems today in their writings if [!] the LCMS maintains the same commitments as its founding generation.

Note that Prof. MacKenzie used, and italicized, the word "if", as if to doubly emphasize his earlier point that "not everyone" in the LC–MS has their theology shaped by the forefathers. But his conditional statement seems to suggest that he even thinks the "same commitment" to the "Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions" is already not being held now. No better example of one who does not follow the "theological imprint" of the "synodical forefathers" is Dr. Robert Kolb who has never truly honored the forefathers, and even crassly questioned Walther's explanations of the Formula of Concord. While MacKenzie does not explicitly call out Dr. Kolb, our next worthy writer does.

 

Rev. Dr. John Fiene against Dr. Robert Kolb:

      Dr. Fiene had been a pastor of a notable congregation here in Indiana, in Zionsville, Advent Evangelical Lutheran Church. According to KFUO in 2022, he was then "pastor at University Lutheran Chapel on the University of Colorado campus in Boulder", but is no longer today, presumably retired. 

      Admittedly this quote is from 1987, yet it is still significant for its rarity within the LC–MS, that any pastor would criticize Prof. Robert Kolb. Fiene did exactly that in his 1987 book review of Kolb's 1984 CPH Speaking the Gospel Today: A Theology for Evangelism. From CTQ 51 (1987), #2-3, p. 194:

“…much of the book is… weighted down with pious phrases and theological rhetoric. It is, moreover, disconcerting that Kolb speaks of the redemptive work of Christ as though it were a “means” to restoring us to the prefall Adamic state. He writes: ‘Furthermore, faith does experience the joy and peace which comes from realizing that God loves us, died for us and rose for us, so that He might give us new life, the life which He designed for us in Eden’ (p. 168). The book is filled with references to a nondescript ‘image of God.’ ‘Only when faith rests secure in Jesus’ hand can we truly function as God designed us to function, as the image of God which pours out its love, care and concern’ (p. 193). The impression given by words like ‘obedience’ and ‘God’s design’ could result in a Reformed notion of discipleship taking precedence over calling, or sanctification over justification. ‘Instead of a heavenly goal, the goal of Jesus’ design for Christian witness is discipleship’ (p. 152). To put the best construction upon such phraseology, faith without the additional context of the Christian as God’s workmanship is like an idea without an object. Yet the greatest problem we face in witnessing is a failure to comfort Christians with the knowledge that, unlike Adam who could proclaim God’s glory without sin, we always proclaim it despite our sin and at the foot of the naked tree, not as the naked man. The rub is not in the call to fulfill God’s ‘plan’ or design, but rather in the nature of that design. The design of God is experienced only in the continual justification of the sinner before God. In reality, the First Article, after the fall, now serves as an introduction to the Second. The idea that we experience the fulfilment of our design in terms of the First Article always leads to a theology of glory and not a theology of hope.”

I was amazed to read these very sharp critical remarks against Dr. Kolb's writing! I doubt that any theologian or pastor in the LC–MS has published anything like these serious criticisms. The points Dr. Fiene raises strike at not just Kolb's Reformed leaning, but his failing to properly distinguish Law and Gospel! I was reminded of another LC–MS theologian who wrote like Kolb, Dr. Scott Keith, Concordia–Irvine. — Kolb's 1995 second edition took no notice of Fiene's criticisms, making no changes to the wording of the quoted passages above. This type of theology has permeated Kolb's works since 1984. Lord, have mercy!