Freedom13: Wilhelm's Union; "religious liberty – a gift of God": The First Amendment… again

      This concludes from Part 12 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting an English translation of J. C. W. Lindemann's 1876 essay "Religious Freedom." — When I read Lindemann's conclusions, I considered this to be fit for this year's celebration of Reformation Day. How the German American Lutherans valued Religious Freedom!  And they testified of the dreadful situation in Germany, long before it became involved in 2 World Wars which reduced its stature in the world to rubble. Its leader would rule the conscience of its people, and thereby crush Lutheranism.  What a history lesson this is for America for today, on this Reformation Day.  May our readers celebrate the restoration of the Christian church on this day, and what remains of Religious Freedom in America.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religious Freedom. 

[by J. C. W. Lindemann] (concluded from Part 12) 

And what dreadful tyranny is being practiced in Germany just now in the name of the (Union) Kaiser Wilhelm! [Frederick William III] A general freedom of religion is not to be proclaimed; oh no; as long as at all possible the "Emperor" also wants to exercise the power to prescribe to the citizens of the Empire what they shall believe, and wants to be able to punish them if they are "disobedient". Nevertheless, Baptists, Mennonites, Old Catholics, freethinkers, Jews, etc., are permitted to believe, preach, and write as they please; only the Lutherans are to have no freedom of conscience and free exercise of religion. They are to remain in the disorganized and divided national church, which itself does not know what truth is; and if they do not want to do so willingly, they will be fined, imprisoned, harassed with police supervision and military quartering.

The so-called "Lutheran" regional and provincial consistories, too, have very often played havoc with the church, which they were supposed to protect and care for. Instead of serving it, they have dominated it, — sold dispensations for money — put openly false teachers into office or left them in office — but pressed [against] faithful witnesses in pulpits and schools, punished them and even chased them out of office. They [the consistories] were all too often willing tools of the sovereigns, who posed as "chief bishops," while they were frequently enough only soldiers, hunters, police officers, friends of the theater, and merry brothers. Pious princes, who knew their position towards the church and wanted to serve it only "as most distinguished members", — pious and conscientious consistorial officials should not be adversely affected by them.

But whoever wants to learn more about the horrible tyranny of conscience that a church regime that is "Lutheran" in name can lead, should read Pastor Hörger's booklet: Das Pabstthum der bayerischen Landeskirche nothdürftig beleuchtet (Memmingen, 1873; available in St. Louis from Mr. Barthel) [English translation]. And whoever wants to see what atrocious conditions prevail in the Saxon State Church, which only unjustly still calls itself "Lutheran," should look once into Pastor Ruhland's book, which bears the title: Der getroste Pilger aus dem Babel der sächsischen Landeskirche in die lutherische Freikirche [EN] (and is also available from Mr. Barthel) But from the same one can also learn that such godless conditions in the church are only possible where the pastors and congregations are asleep and are not aware of the fact that Christ has acquired for them freedom, also freedom of faith and confession, and that this freedom is more precious than good days according to the flesh, than silver, gold and precious stone, than honor and reputation among men. Oh, many Lutherans do not miss religious liberty at all and are completely content to be left alone. 

[Lindemann's Conclusion]

We Lutherans of America are in possession of this glorious good — and we enjoy it, not because we are worthy of it, or because we have acquired it for ourselves; for the religious liberty of this country is a gift of God, and it is He alone who has hitherto preserved it for us.

Let us be thankful and then watch that our freedom is not stolen from us!

He is grateful who recognizes the value of a gift, who knows that he has not earned it, and who praises the Giver and extols His deeds before others. — What about our gratitude with regard to religious freedom?

And it will certainly be stolen from us if we do not keep watch! Attempts have already been made, and will be made, to blend the State and the Church together again. The heart of the natural man is always inclined to this, especially that of the "great ones" in the State and in the Church. And we have an enemy in the country who has long been ready to secure religious liberty only for himself, but not to tolerate, oh no, to suppress all those of other faiths! That is the Roman clergy, — that is the many archbishops, bishops and priests, that is above all also the recently installed Cardinal of the Pope. This Pope, according to Roman doctrine, is also a temporal prince, over all Christian countries of the earth, therefore also over the United States; his servants are not merely church servants, but also state servants; and in particular the Cardinal, according to the oath he has taken, is obliged to help to exterminate all "heretics”.

Now everybody knows how the Pope's empire in America is growing larger and larger, — how great masses of the people blindly obey their ecclesiastical leaders; — everybody can also know how the papists seek and hunt for political influence, and have in part already attained it. They will gladly seize the reins as soon as circumstances are favorable to them!

Therefore we are to watch! That is, we are to discern the enemy [Page 28] from God's Word, to watch for his intentions and actions, and to testify against him to the best of our ability, so that he may be recognized and put out of harm's way.

But, though the pope is the most dangerous enemy of our religious liberty, there are others. Every one who attempts to command us in matters of faith, — to control our consciences, — every one who attempts, under the pretext of benefiting religion, to give laws of state which prescribe to any man faith, worship, etc., is an enemy to our religious liberty, — to whom we should resist by all lawful means, and not submit to him. But the country is full of such people; that is what all political and religious enthusiasts are trying to do.

Therefore it is not a matter of sleeping and snoring, of being indifferent and ignorant; but it is a matter of taking care and watching that no one robs us of the precious good of our American religious freedom. — Woe to us if we or our children ever again fall into such spiritual slavery, that we must believe what worldly rulers or wretched clergymen command us, — that we must arrange our worship as pleases "gracious lords in high places!"

God takes His gifts from the ungrateful, or lets them be his ruin; He gives more to the grateful, or at least blesses them in the enjoyment of His goods. We are to secure this blessing for ourselves and for our children, so that "religious freedom" may be preserved for us in the land, and we may serve our God as Scripture and conscience demand. 

- - - - - - - - - - - -  End of Essay  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Now we can clearly see just how precious Religious Freedom is when we look primarily at the persecutions of the Pope and the Reformed.  America now has a papist president – what does he care about religious freedom? Nothing, except he is bound by the Constitution. Now I would repeat Justice Joseph Story's explanation of the precious First Amendment to the Constitution from Part 1 (with my emphasis):

"The real object of this amendment to the Constitution is not to encourage, much less to propagate Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or unbelief, by setting aside Christianity; but to put an end to the strife of rank between the Christian parties of the church, and to prevent the rise of a national church, whose priesthood would have enjoyed the protection of the government exclusively. It cuts off all means of religious persecution (the abomination and pestilence of former centuries), and of infringing the rights of conscience in matters of faith, which had been trampled upon from the times of the apostles to the present." — Justice Joseph Story

Let this be the standard explanation of the First Amendment for all time. And let J. C. W. Lindemann's essay be our standard for true Church History on Religious Freedom.  God grant it, for Jesus sake! Amen!

Freedom12: Prussian Union–Reformed forced onto Lutherans

      This continues from Part 11 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting an English translation of J. C. W. Lindemann's 1876 essay "Religious Freedom." — In this installment, we see religious freedom removed in Germany by cunning political leaders. Then religion was directed towards the Reformed doctrine by a so-called "Union", the well-known Prussian Union. Persecutions followed, then emigration. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religious Freedom. 

[by J. C. W. Lindemann] (Cont'd from Part 11)

We also have to remember the United [or Prussian Union] king-bishops in brief. 

When the hitherto Lutheran Elector Johann Sigmund of Brandenburg was Reformed in 1616, he did not force his subjects to follow him in the change of religion; but he immediately reviled the Formula of Concord, forbade attendance at the University of Wittenberg, and sought to bring the Reformed doctrine to power in his capital Berlin, wherefore the Lutheran preachers Gedicke and Willich saw themselves compelled to flee. Frederick William, the great Elector (1640 to 1688), completely abolished the obligation of the Formula of Concord, as well as exorcism, and demanded of the Lutheran preachers that they get along with the Reformed in a Christian way, that they approve of the Reformed teachings and not punish them, and on the other hand that they should literally obey all orders of the Elector in matters of faith (!!). They were to commit themselves to this in writing; whoever refused to do so was — deposed.

In 1665, for this reason, the archdeacon Reinhart and the aged provost Lilius were removed from their offices. The latter was able to make a declaration the following year, by which he submitted to the orders of the Elector; he was reinstated; but he died soon after, having suffered "heart-rending anguish of conscience" and having shown sincere repentance. 

Paul Gerhardt, too, was to submit to the will of the Elector; [but] his conscience did not suffer — not even when only tacit approval was demanded of him. He left Berlin in 1668, and soon other preachers (Gigas, Fromm, Wolf, Lorentz) were shamefully expelled.

Through these events, however, the Lutheran courage to be a witness was awakened again in many cases; but this could not prevent that finally an actual "union" (unification) between Reformed and Lutherans was put into action, i.e. solicited and externally enforced by the king. A call of Frederick William III of September 27, 1817, who, in complete ignorance of the really existing great difference between Lutheran and Reformed doctrine, intended thereby to solemnly celebrate the third anniversary of the Reformation, gave this deplorable [Prussian] “Union" [or “United”] its first public recognition and state authorization. Soon other state and church governments followed Prussia's example, and also in Baden, Nassau, Rhenish Bavaria, Anhalt-Bernburg and Dessau, Waldeck, Hesse-Darmstadt, and to some extent also in Würtemberg, Electorate of Hesse and Weimar, the "Union" was introduced from above, without the "Christian people" in many cases even suspecting or knowing what was going on.

The Lutheran and Reformed Churches were henceforth to form only One Church, and the difference in doctrine was no longer to be thought of. In order to calm the people and to make them inclined to put up with such a union, they were lied to from the pulpits that the difference in doctrine was quite insignificant, — it was only Luther's well-known obstinacy that had prevented a "Union" 300 years before; such obstinacy must now be abandoned and "love" practiced. Luther's teachings were no longer to be preached, the Reformed errors were no longer to be punished. Since the devil had not been able to destroy the Lutheran Church with the "murder of the Pope and the Turks," he now tried it with cunning: Luther's teaching was to be brought from the pulpits in a good manner; then the Lutheran Church would have to die a death. — The "Union" spoken of here is nothing but an invention of the devil – the most pernicious and disgraceful thing that has been concocted in recent times in the ecclesiastical field. While the people were asleep, the devil came and sowed weeds among the wheat; but he did it with the permission of the royal bishop and — quite "in peace," so that no one would notice.

In Prussia, in 1821, the introduction of a common agenda was ordered, but for the time being it was carried out with great caution. One did not want to make the people (who were to become "unified") attentive and restless. But when in 1830 the third secular celebration of the handing over of the Augsburg Confession was approaching, it was thought that it could not be better celebrated than by the general and official introduction of the [Prussian] "Union". But this time, too, it was done as quietly as possible, so that no one would awaken from their accustomed sleep. The Union Agenda was placed on the altar and put into use, and with it the congregations had become United. Many congregations had no idea what had happened, and even today many Prussians come over to America who are very surprised when they are told that they are not Lutheran, but United. 

But there were also men who did not sleep, who appeared as witnesses and opened their mouths against this “Union”, which was in itself hideous and so secretly smuggled in; they were found among preachers (e. g. J. G. Scheibel, Wärmelskirch, Kindermann, Ehlers etc.) and laymen (e. g. Huschke). Now the despotic ministry of Altenstein proceeded against them in the name of the king in the tyrannical manner. The Lutheran preachers were deprived of their office, soon thrown into prison for longer, and shorter periods, placed under police supervision, and so on. The congregations that did not want to comply were forbidden all meetings of worship, [Page 27] even private ones; the police tracked them down, if they did take place, and chased the worshippers apart; they also arrested the leaders and punished them with fines or imprisonment. The Lutherans were supposed to pay dues to the Union preachers; they refused to do so and were now — by order of high authorities — seized! In the Silesian village of Hönigern, even saber and bayonet violence was used to bring the Union Agende to the altar. To escape this heavenly tyranny, many Lutherans at that time emigrated to Australia and North America. They had to leave churches and schools, which their fathers had built and cared for, in the hands of the loving "Union" who still own them today and have neither repented of this shameful robbery nor of their apostasy from Luther's teachings.

The Lutherans who had remained behind in Prussia (the "Breslau Synod") were finally recognized by the state as a "tolerated" party by a "General Concession" of July 23, 1845, but they were only allowed to build "prayer houses" without bells and had to renounce — oh shame — all rights to church property. —

The Lutherans were treated in a similar way in other countries, e.g. Saxony, Nassau, Baden. They had to pay bitterly everywhere that they did not approve of the great Union lie, but wanted to stay with the truth.

- - - - - - - - - - - -  Concluded in Part 13  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

     It was good to read of where the master hymnist Paul Gerhardt fit into this history.  Do the Calvinists who sponsor their Hymnary.org website realize that, as a Lutheran, Gerhardt's greatness stemmed from his staunch stand against Calvinism? —  Next the concluding Part 13, on Reformation Day.

Freedom11: Germany – Zwingli, Calvin spread, take root

      This continues from Part 10 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting an English translation of J. C. W. Lindemann's 1876 essay "Religious Freedom." — The story of the people of Schmalkalden was about the center of conflict between the Reformed and the Lutherans. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religious Freedom. 

[by J. C. W. Lindemann] (cont'd from Part 10) 

In 1626 the dominion of Schmalkalden came for a short time to the princely house of Hesse-Darmstadt, which was Lutheran. It had been agreed: "that the state of the church and the practice of religion should remain and that nothing should be forgiven to the church law of Landgrave Moritz"; but still at the end of the year it was announced to all preachers and school teachers that the forthcoming feast of the Purification of the Virgin Mary (February 2, 1627) was also intended for the purification of the church, — that all those who would persist in the Reformed confession had to expect dismissal from service, — that, however, with good conduct, they would be allowed to keep their salaries until Easter. When the Reformed church servants replied that the freedom of the previous religious practice was assured, the Chancellor Crysheim replied: that it depended only on the well-being of Landgrave George to tolerate Calvinism or not. The city and the country were now suddenly made Lutheran again; all Reformed pastors and school teachers were deposed. — It is true that this was a retraction of what had previously been forcibly stolen by the Reformed, but it is still a crying injustice that Lutheranism was reintroduced in this way. It could not possibly have won the hearts! 

Already in 1648 Schmalkalden fell again to Hesse-Cassel, and now the Reformed again came to rule. The Lutherans only had the pious Bet-Ernst, the Duke of Saxony-Weimar, to thank for the fact that they were not completely driven out and exterminated, as he asserted his intercession and objection with the reigning Landgravine Amalie Elisabeth. She decreed, then, as Madam Superior Bishop, that the Reformed service should be restored in Schmalkalden, — that in all places where two churches existed, one should be given to the Reformed and that the parish revenues should be divided, — but that where only one church existed, the members of both confessions had to hold their services one after the other.

In many places, especially in Schmalkalden, these decrees met with the most vehement opposition. The Superintendent Prätorius steadfastly refused to hand over the keys to the former Lutheran deacon's apartment, which was now to be given to the Reformed. However, the door was opened by a locksmith. — Furthermore, the Lutheran pastors did not want to enter the pulpit in the "dead Church" because it was also open to the Reformed; indeed, the Lutherans declared that they would rather hold their services in the open air than use a church with the Reformed.

At the beginning of the year 1651, Landgrave Wilhelm VI personally came to Schmalkalden to settle the turmoil. By his order, Reformed services were to be held in the Lutheran town church on February 2. The Lutherans, however, had locked it, and the order to the sexton to open it and to the cantor to lead the singing at the service remained unheeded. A locksmith finally had to open the church doors, and now the Landgrave could have a morning and afternoon service held.

Also in other ways the Reformed government allowed itself the most violent acts against the Lutheran congregation. Thus, the salary of the Lutheran Rector was withdrawn and given to the Reformed Rector. The same happened with the salary of the Lutheran deacon, which was assigned to the Reformed second preacher, who also had to be granted the parsonage apartment. Yes, by sovereign order the Lutheran senior pastor and superintendent was deprived of his former official residence and given to the Reformed inspector. The Lutheran congregation had to purchase a new parsonage apartment from its own resources.

Later, the widow of Wilhelm VI and sister of Friedrich Wilhelm, the great Elector of Brandenburg, the Landgravine Hedwig Sophie, did even worse. She had been residing in Schmalkalden since 1680 and made every effort to spread her allegedly "true religion" there and to bring it to honor. She commanded that of the twelve members of the town council, seven must be Reformed. She gave no public office, even the most minor, to anyone who did not profess the Reformed confession. [Page 26]  In order to obtain the position of a tax inspector, a begging bailiff, a thürmer, a gravedigger, a brewer's servant, one had first to be reformed. Whoever wished to escape public punishment could save himself by denying the Lutheran doctrine and becoming a Calvinist. She founded Reformed parishes and forced the Lutherans to maintain them. Yes, this woman even paid 10, 15, 20 florins for conversion to the Reformed Church. 11)

11) ^ Everything concerning the church relations of Schmalkalden is taken from the following work: Geschichte der Stadt und Herrschaft Schmalkalden. By Dr. J. G. Wagner. Marburg and Leipzig. Elwert'scher Verlag. 1849.

Thus the doctrine of Zwingli and Calvin has spread and taken root more and more in Germany; the princes, who were averse to the Lutheran doctrine, which was so inconvenient to the old Adam, and who, quite contrary to God's order, arrogated to themselves the office of "chief bishops of the land," have imposed it on their subjects, have introduced and maintained it by force and cunning, by the use of carnal means! —

- - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 12  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

     Note well: Lindemann criticizes a Lutheranism that forces itself on others. — In the next Part 12…

Freedom10: Reformed "Improvements" takeover Germany; Schmalkalden holds line

      This continues from Part 9 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting an English translation of J. C. W. Lindemann's 1876 essay "Religious Freedom." — It was saddening for me to read of how the Reformed forced their "Improvement Points" on… Lutheranism.  Lindemann brings us the gory details.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religious Freedom. 

[by J. C. W. Lindemann]

Through negotiations in Witzenhausen, Allendorf, and Eschwege, to which the nobility and the pastors of the Werra region were summoned, and which the Landgrave personally conducted, it came about that he almost universally asserted his will. There were also enough people who abandoned the truth in order to save the bread sack. Thus, for example, a large meadow belonged to the salary of the pastor of Oetmannshausen. When he was summoned before the landgrave, his wife called out to him: "Man, believe what is to be believed, and think of the large meadow.” This he then also saved.

Only nine pastors at the Werra resisted the soul-dangerous impositions of their sovereign. They were all deposed, and now (1608) Moritz also proceeded to the forcible introduction of his "Improvements" in Schmalkalden, where he personally decreed. The bailiff Hermann von Wersabe was deposed, because he did not meet the prince's intentions decisively enough. The chancellor Siegfried Clotz, on the other hand, soon had all the pictures removed from the churches by force. At Pentecost the prince, together with his wife, children and court, received communion according to the Reformed custom in the former Lutheran castle church, but without finding many followers. Immediately thereafter, he issued an order to his landlord, the pastors and mayors of Schmalkalden, in which, as he said in his error and presumption, "for the sake of conscience as well as for the sake of his princely office," he instructed them to strive for uniformity in doctrine and ceremonies, therefore to introduce the "Improvement Points," — to discontinue the presentation of a cross at corpses, — to remove all "superstitious idols and images," be they carved, carved or painted in stone, in churches, on church walls and other places, — to teach the Ten Commandments, as they were written in the Cassel Synod, in churches and schools, and to see to it that in time the Lord's Supper with the ceremony of breaking bread is introduced, and to set a good example to the citizenry.

Such means were used to make the Lutheran congregations of Hesse Reformed!

The Diaconus Niclas Merkel warned in his sermons against these innovations and exhorted the people to remain faithful to the Lutheran doctrine. He was called to account, suspended from his office, later transported to Cassel and imprisoned for a year in the so-called light chamber. [See below "Read more" for the balance; Part 11 is next.]

“Gottesdienst” not Romanizing? Neuhaus, Piepkorn, Benedict speak (Part 4-Liturgy/Vestments)

     This concludes from Part 3 in a short series on Liturgy and Vestments. — This blog has not focused on the well publicized para-LCMS organization called "Gottesdienst", mentioning it only a few times. They may not be an official Synod organization, but members occupy the office of Vice-President, Coordinator of LCMS Stewardship Ministry, Director of Worship and perhaps others. Years ago I distinctly recall searching the "Gottesdienst" materials for signs of real Lutheranism, but came away with the clear understanding that, apart from liturgics, here was a group with Romanizing doctrine, a clear departure from Lutheranism.  But my recent blog posts on matters of Liturgy and Vestments has made it more evident than ever that this group needs to be defended against because they are attempting to avoid this perception by deceptive means. They are educated, they know the Lutheran Confessions, they know theological languages, they keep up on church events worldwide, they are articulate, they can be persuasive because they mix in legitimate Lutheran teaching with their materials.  But their defense falls flat.

      Admittedly, the "Gottesdienst" founder The Rev. "Father" Burnell Eckhardt stated the following in a blog post defending against the charge of Romanizing:

"What’s especially amusing about this slight is that it presumes that we look to the Pope, or at least to the current Church of Rome, for “liturgical guidance.” We actually find that Christendom would have been better off if Vatican II had not been born, since it brought so much mischief into the ceremonies of Rome, mischief which always has an uncanny way of trickling into our churches [i.e. LCMS congregations]. For that matter, Vatican I was problematic [not blasphemous?] too, with its eye-rolling ["eye-rolling"?] declarations of papal infallibility. And, come to think of it, we haven’t much use ["haven’t much use"? What "use" do they have for Trent?] for the Council of Trent either, especially since it anathematizes people who believe like Lutherans ["like Lutherans"? not "as Christians"? Why no specifics of sola fide ("faith alone")?].

Yes, "Father" Eckhardt, in order to dispel the fears of his "weak brethren", could have been less tepid in his renunciation of Romanism. But let us be charitable towards him and say he sounds "like Lutherans". But…:

• that would ignore his praise of Father Richard John Neuhaus who left Missouri Synod Lutheranism for Catholicism (more below), 
• that would ignore his praise of Prof. A. C. Piepkorn who taught Neuhaus to do just that, and called Reformation Day a day of "ambivalence" (more below),
• that would ignore the praise expressed for Pope Benedict in the comment "the friendliest pope in memory" (also here) while Benedict explicitly contradicted the Gospel (more below),
• that would be ignoring that "Gottesdienst" (and the LCMS) publicly rejects the teaching that the person sitting as Pope is the "very Antichrist", and only teach that it is the office of the Papacy, thereby rejecting the wording of the Smalcald Articles. 

     Now we see what "Father" Eckhardt means, that when he calls papal infallibility "eye-rolling",  that when he says Vatican I was "problematic", that when he does not have "much use" for Trent ---- he is willing to overlook all of these as not church divisive by praising "Father" Richard John Neuhaus who left Lutheranism saying:

“The Church is not…formed by…formulas such as ‘justification by faith alone’”. — Father Richard John Neuhaus (Catholic Matters, p. 56) [2023-11-03: Internet Archive p. 56]

Now we see that when "Father" Eckhardt cries out "Romaphobia!" against "weak brothers", he is actually doing the same work as Prof. A. C. Piepkorn († 1973), as "Father" Neuhaus testified of him:

“Although he remained a Lutheran until his death, at age sixty-six, in 1973, Piepkorn gave me an understanding of Lutheranism that required my becoming Catholic.” (Catholic Matters, p. 55)

That is "Catholic", with a capital "C". Now if Eckhardt tries to downplay these quotes, that Neuhaus did not really believe what he said about "justification by faith alone", then Eckhardt would be detracting from a theologian that he, and others, regularly quote as praiseworthy, never criticizing him. They would be saying that Piepkorn taught a confusing doctrine of Lutheranism. If they do not try to downplay these quotes, they would be openly admitting that they are not Lutheran, no matter how correct on liturgical practice they were, no matter how devotional they were.  — What did Piepkorn teach that may have pushed Neuhaus over the edge?  Among other things, could it not have been that his attitude towards Reformation Day was

“…the annual ambivalence with which a Lutheran theologian normally faces the last day of October.”

We see that as "Father" Eckhardt has so far ignored the above published statements of Neuhaus, and uses the term "catholic" uncapitalized, he is using a "smokescreen vocabulary" to hide his very real Romanizing disguised as "Lutheranism". (As an aside, Walther's response to the  defection of associates Ed. Preuss and H. M. Baumstark to the Roman Catholic Church was poles apart from Gottesdienst's response to Catholic convert "Father" Richard John Neuhaus.)

      This is confirmed again as Eckhardt's "Gottesdienst" blog had several warm comments for Pope Benedict (e.g. here), but Pope Benedict stated that "on justification… Luther was right, so long as you don't exclude charity." How is that supposed to go along with Luther's "faith alone"? (It doesn't.)

      We see that when Eckhardt claims in the same blog post that "we respect the guidance of the Augsburg Confession", that it is a sham, that he is a charlatan, because his group does not warn against "Father" Neuhaus, but praises him, even in the face of Neuhaus's clear public testimony against the foundation of the Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification. Eckhardt may cry "Romaphobia!" against me all he wants, to which I would answer "Please do"! I would be honored by this, as I stand with the Smalcald Articles and Holy Scripture and… sola fide.

Not in "Gottesbibliothek"

      And any true Lutheran pastors who associate with "Gottesdienst" are partaking in their dreadful deception under the cover of Liturgics, and should depart from them and rather study Old German Missouri Synod's Friedrich Lochner's book on true Lutheran Liturgics, a book still not on the recommended list of books in the vaunted "Gottesbibliothek" after 1 year. Prof. Friedrich Lochner used source material that was far different from that of the Catholic sources of "Gottesbibliothek". Surely the educated "Father" Eckhardt understands the German language enough that he could have used only Lutheran sources, Lutheran sources that had already purified the Christian practices from the Roman Catholic Church?  But he does not use the excuse of a language barrier, he recommends Catholic sources. — Even the "liturgical" Berthold von Schenk had to leave his own St. James Society because of "too much emphasis on externals, ritual, and ceremonial."

      Today's LCMS cares nothing about sola fide, about by "faith alone".  And "Gottesdienst", instead of deserving the charge of having a "choke hold" on the LCMS, is only blythely following today's LCMS!… an LCMS that is falling headlong back, not to Luther, but to the Walkout Crowd.

      Is it any wonder that "Father" Burnell Eckhardt's "Gottesdienst" slogan of "The Divine Liturgy is not adiaphora [indifferent things]" is directly contradicted by Lochner. While deploring a misuse of Christian freedom, Lochner spoke of ("Preface", p. xix) [updated 2023-11-03]:

"a severe lack of precise liturgical understanding, … a diminished desire to retain the liturgical legacy … there will be an increasing tendency recklessly to dispose of the beautiful historic ceremonies, since as adiaphora they lie entirely in the area of Christian freedom."

But "Father" Burnell Eckhardt's "Gottesdienst" slogan says:  

"The Divine Liturgy  is not adiaphora." 

      Is it any wonder that "Father" Burnell Eckhardt's "Gottesbibliothek" still, after 1 year, has not added Lochner's book to his listing?  (Poor David S. of ctsfw.edu is still wondering why.) Because if or when Eckhardt does, he faces a direct contradiction between his slogan and the teaching of Prof. Friedrich Lochner. Lochner wants to defend, as an evangelical Lutheran teacher, against a misuse of Christian freedom, "Father" Burnell Eckhardt (not Romanizing!?) wants to remove Liturgy from God-given Christian freedom, he wants to remove a Christian freedom that every Christian possesses. "Father" Eckhardt does not want to have to deal with the difficult business of counseling against a misuse of Christian freedom, he wants to take away this God-given freedom. Oh, but he is NOT Romanizing…? While Lochner goes to Golgotha to convince his readers, Eckhardt goes to Sinai against his "weak brethren".

⇒> Could it be that today’s "Gottesdienst"-LCMS pastors do not have to follow in Neuhaus’s footsteps of converting to Catholicism because the LCMS is already Romanized? … because they can cry “Romaphobia!” [WB] at true Lutherans who still believe the Lutheran Confessions' warnings against the doctrines of the Pope? They can shout this not only without being disciplined, but can boast that one of their editors is now an LCMS Vice-President. No, they are not Romanists, but “true Lutherans”!

      In a crass blog post title of 2009, it was stated "It is Liturgy or it is nothing".  To that I would respond:

"It is sola fide or it is nothing!"