The details of early Finnish (Laestadian) Lutheran history in North American reveals a repeating pattern behind several of the schisms[1] leading to the present-day branch known as the Independent Apostolic Lutheran Church. (I.A.L.C.) However, since 1962 the pattern has been broken, resulting in Church doctrines indistinguishable from the preceding schismatic branches.
The most common cause of past schisms was a rejection of the Law. Those that left the pure doctrines of Scripture rejected the holy moral Law as the rule and norm for guiding the lives of believers. In 1872, the first Laestadian congregation in America was established in Calumet, Michigan[2] and the first example of such rejection occurred just 14 years later.
1886: American Laestadians vs. Hallites
In 1885-86, the haalilaiset (Hallites) split away from the American Laestadians. A primary point of dissension was the use of instructions and the Law, rejected by the Hallites:
“No commandments nor rebukes should be preached to Christians and preachers should be careful and discreet in preaching repentance…”
(Saarnivaara)[3]
Back in Finland, a similar schism occurred whereby one side retained the use of instructions and the Law, and the other side rejected it.[4]
In 1896-97 America, many continued to be comforted by the doctrine of a beloved traveling minister:
“[He] believed that the commandments, teachings, counsels and reproaches of Christ and the apostles should be preached and taught to Christians…”
(Saarnivaara)[5]
1921: Pollarites vs. Heidemanians
In 1921, dissension arose between the Heidemanians and Pollarites. The primary issue was whether public confession was required or private confession was sufficient. The Heidemanians initiated a schism by abruptly rejecting several ministers[6][7] from their ranks without any attempt to examine or correct them, thereby rejecting Christ’s instructions in Matthew 18:15-18.
Commenting on Pollari’s view of confession during the schism, a secondary issue of the relationship between instructions of the Law and repentance is noted:
“I have spoken with some who understand confession of sin as repentance, but repentance is to cease from the former life, whether it was false worship of God or overt commission of sin, for both are the result of unbelief, and then, on this journey, to stand against the devil on both the right and left, armed in faith with the weapons of God.”
(Matt Reed)[8]
1940: Pollarites vs. Koskela
In 1940, the koskelalaiset split away from the Pollarites. A primary point of dissension was the use of instructions and the Law, rejected by the followers of John Koskela.[9][10][11] The Pollarite ministers that retained the proper use of instructions and the Law included John Pollari, Sam Kovala, Alex Pesonen Sr., Walter Isaacs, Matt Reed, etc.
“Matt Reed and some others began to teach that these commandments, counsels and admonitions belong to Christians and are necessary for them as a norm and rule for their walk and behavior.”
(Saarnivaara)[12]
Commenting on those that left in the Koskela split:
“[We] are in disagreement with them… Some of them use such blatant carnal liberty that everyone may live as he lists; as long as you believe, you will be saved. These indeed do not tolerate the counsels of the apostles but consider them law. These are those antinomians, who take the gospel as a cloak for evil. But from this you can see that we have a pure scriptural doctrine when such people appear. They appeared already in the time of the apostles and Luther. Nothing like this can appear in legalist Christianity. Luther says that if we cover the gospel because of the hypocrites, the poor will die of hunger.”
(John Pollari)[13]
1962: Reedites vs. Aunesites
In 1962-63, the auneslaiset (Aunesites) split away from the riitinmattilaiset (Reedites). A primary point of dissension was the use of instructions and the Law, rejected by the followers of Aunes Salmela.
The Reedite ministers (Matt Reed, Arvid Isaacs, and William Prusi) retained the proper use of instructions and the Law, stressing the use of the Word, counsels, instructions, exhortations, teachings, love, and unity. The Aunesites adopted the Koskela doctrine from the schism of 1940 and received the support of Antti Koskela, a son of John Koskela.[14]
“We don’t need [the Bible’s] instructions, they can be fed to the cows.”[15]
In later years, the Aunesite disdain regarding Biblical instructions and reading or teaching basic doctrine continued to increase, adopting sheer Enthusiasm[16] or a Gnostic-like spirituality:
“The world has the Word, but we have the Spirit.”[17]
1537: Lutherans vs. Antinomians
A rejection of instructions and the Law is not a modern phenomenon. During the 16th century Reformation, Dr. Martin Luther fought against Johannes Agricola and others as being against Law, or “Antinomian.”
Yet, Luther’s works are replete with the necessity of instructions and the Law to guide the lives of believers as espoused in Scripture.[18]
“Christ says in Matthew 5:17, which means: My office is not to eliminate the law but to fulfill it, and to fulfill it in such a way that those who believe that they are redeemed from the curse of the law because of this, my fulfillment of the law, might also know that the law is now to be fulfilled by them, especially since they have already received the first fruits of the Holy Spirit. [Thus Paul] says in Romans 3:31 and Romans 8:3-4… [Therefore] this doctrine teaches true repentance, which lasts throughout our entire life.”
(Martin Luther)[19]
The Antinomian controversy (and several others) continued to rage after Luther’s death. While the Lutheran churches retained The Augsburg Confession[20] nevertheless many began to stray from the pure doctrines of Scripture. To rebuke these controversies, in 1573-80 the Reformers composed a more detailed document (based on Scripture) to address each. Known as the Formula of Concord the heresy of Antinomianism is discussed in Article VI, titled The Third Use of the Law.
“[The Law is] and remains both to the penitent and impenitent, both to regenerate and unregenerate men, one [and the same] Law, namely, the immutable will of God; and the difference, so far as concerns obedience, is alone in man, inasmuch as one who is not yet regenerate does for the Law out of constraint and unwillingly what it requires of him (as also the regenerate do according to the flesh); but the believer, so far as he is regenerate, does without constraint and with a willing spirit that which no threatenings [however severe] of the Law could ever extort from him.”
(FC Ep VI, 7)
In 1580, the Reformers assembled many of Luther’s works, the Augsburg Confession, and the Formula of Concord into a collection generally known as The Lutheran Confessions.
1923: Informed vs. Uninformed
In 1923, an brief controversy erupted in one of the branches of American Laestadians that is noteworthy.[21]
Evert Määttälä was a minister and recent convert to American Laestadianism. He wrote a book, Jeesuksen askelille which included a quote supporting the third use of the law from the Formula of Concord. Visiting ministers from Finland discovered the quote and immediately accused Määttälä and the entire Church group of adopting a heretical legalist doctrine.
The incident illustrates the problem of being uninformed and choosing to remain uninformed. They were obviously unfamiliar[22] with the Scriptural teachings found in the Formula of Concord. If they had simply read the article on the third use of the law, they would have discovered it does not in any way support a legalist doctrine of works-righteousness. Apparently, they were also unaware that the first generation of Laestadian ministers (Laestadius, Raattamaa, etc.) consulted[23] the Bible, the Lutheran Confessions, and Luther’s works whenever questions arose regarding doctrine or practice.
2020: Yesterday vs. Today
If the Church[24] today has remained within the pure doctrines of Scripture and has avoided the false doctrines of past schisms, then one should clearly see no difference in doctrine or practice over the generations since then. Has the Church at-large stayed within the truth or has it split away from its former self?
Sermons are a reflection of current doctrines and in recent years many have included statements[25] such as:
“We’re not under the law, but under grace.”[26]
“We have no standards or written rules, we rely on what’s inside our hearts as our rule and norm.”
The contexts in which these statements are used supports the heresy of Antinomianism — a rejection of instructions and the Law.
In 2019, I documented several errors in doctrine and practice that had developed within the Church and formally submitted[27] them to Church leadership for correction. Instead of earnestly examining and correcting the errors[28] they asserted that it was wrong for any believer to attempt to correct another believer in love because it (supposedly) demonstrated a lack of trust in God.[29] In other words, their response reiterated their rejection of instructions and the Law, despite Apostle Paul’s example of frequently admonishing others in love.[30]
In recent months, a new false doctrine has emerged that has been reflected in sermons that cautiously accept some level of instruction, but limit them to individual internal use, detached from the external Word and prohibited from use in service to our neighbors in love:
“Because we’re loved, we’re also given instructions that believers hear for themselves, not for others. And one by one.”
(I.A.L.C. Minister)[31]
“Believers should be open to correction, but the source of the correction is only internal through the Holy Spirit.”
(I.A.L.C. Minister)[32]
This new false doctrine appears to be a hybrid of half-Antinomianism coupled with a Gnostic spiritualism.[33] I can not find support for such a doctrine in the Bible, the Lutheran Confessions, or Luther’s works.[34]
Church practices are a reflection of current doctrines, and some of the practices observed in recent years include:
- Abhorring the need to correct others using instructions and the Law.[35]
- Ignoring prescribed Church discipline per the instructions in Matthew 18:15-18.
- Endorsing (and in some cases celebrating) sin, ignoring the Law and using forgiveness as a cloak for maliciousness. (1 Peter 2:16, Galatians 5:13)
- Opposing exhortation as a self-righteous judgment and rendering repentance obsolete for believers.[36]
- Disregarding Christ’s instructions when administering Holy Communion.[37]
These kinds of practices observed within the Church are the visible fruits of an overt rejection of instructions and the Law. During past schisms (as noted above) there was a common repeating pattern of a rejection of false doctrines.
Conclusion
Has the pattern been broken? After so many generations of attempts, has Satan finally gained the victory over the Church remnant through the rejection of instructions and the moral Law?
“Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it… [How] shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?”
(Hebrews 2:1..3a)
Should there have been a house-cleaning within the Church sometime during the last 50 years to purge it of such false doctrines? Are there better ways to maintain an unshattered pattern of pure doctrine? Please reply with your observations and your interpretation of the current situation.
[1] Branches of Laestadian Divisions in America.
[2] Foltz, A., & Yliniemi, M. (2005). A Godly Heritage: Historical view of the Laestadian revival and the development of the Apostolic Lutheran Church in America. Frazee, MN: Self-published by the editors (19505 County Highway 39, Frazee, MN 56544). p159.
[3] Saarnivaara, Uuras (1947). The History of the Laestadian or Apostolic-Lutheran Movement in America. Published by the National Publishing Co. (Ironwood, Michigan 49938). p23.
[4] Saarnivaara, p33-34.
[5] Saarnivaara, p35.
[6] Saarnivaara, p48: John Pollari, Isaac Lamppa, Sam Kovala, Alex Puotinen, etc.
[7] The Laestadian Movement: Disputes and Divisions 1861-2000, Chapter 7, Heidemanian Accusations.
[8] The Laestadian Movement: Disputes and Divisions 1861-2000, Chapter 7, The Reaction of the Evangelicals. (Matt Reed, in a letter to Uuras Saarnivaara, 1945.)
[9] Saarnivaara, p87-88.
[10] Foltz, p206.
[11] The Laestadian Movement: Disputes and Divisions 1861-2000, Chapter 7, Lamppa, Mäki and Koskela.
[12] Saarnivaara, p87.
[13] The Laestadian Movement: Disputes and Divisions 1861-2000, Chapter 7, Lamppa, Mäki and Koskela. (John Pollari, in a letter to Uuras Saarnivaara, 1942.)
[14] The Laestadian Movement: Disputes and Divisions 1861-2000, Chapter 7, Matt Reed vs. Aunes Salmela.
[15] Oral tradition regarding Aunesite beliefs recalled by Reedites. It is also documented in a sermon by Matt Reed transcripted and translated into English.
[16] Enthusiasm is a heresy that asserts the indwelling Holy Spirit may speak outside of, or apart from, or contradictory to God’s written revealed Word.
[17] The Laestadian Movement: Disputes and Divisions 1861-2000, Chapter 7, Melvinites and Davidites.
[18] See Luther’s works, such as the Small and Large Catechisms, The Smalcald Articles, Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, his sermons, various treatises regarding Antinomianism, et al.
[19] Sonntag, Holger (2008). Only the Decalogue is Eternal: Martin Luther’s Complete Antinomian Theses and Disputations. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Published by Lutheran Press. ISBN: 978-0-9748529-6-6, p35, 36.
[20] A truncated version of The Augsburg Confession can be found in the white paperback book A Catechism According to God’s Word used by the I.A.L.C.
[21] Saarnivaara, p51-53.
[22] Saarnivaara, p52.
[23] Foltz, p93, 120, 130, 169.
[24] Finnish Independent Apostolic Lutheran Congregations (I.A.L.C.)
[25] These commonly heard statements are paraphrases from several sermons from several I.A.L.C. ministers across several locations over several years.
[26] This statement is extracted from Romans 6:11-18, but within the context of the sermon it is used to assert that believers may safely ignore instructions and the Law, an interpretation diametrically opposed to its true Scriptural meaning clearly contained within the full context.
[27] Out of Love for Truth
[28] Neither Safe nor Right
[29] Acting in Trust
[30] Galatians 2:11-13, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 1 Corinthians 11:19, 1 Corinthians 5:1-2, 2 Corinthians 11:3-5.
[31] I.A.L.C. telephone call-in broadcasted live from the Dayton church in Minnesota (M.I.A.L.C.) on Friday, Aug 21, 2020, 7:00 PM service. Minister’s name redacted.
[32] Heard through the I.A.L.C. telephone call-in broadcasted live from the Duluth church in Minnesota on Sunday, June 14, 2020, 10:30 AM service, 2nd sermon. Minister’s name redacted. (This quote is not verbatim, if you can reproduce it please let me know.)
[33] Contrast the false doctrine with passages such as: “But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today,’ that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” (Hebrews 3:13) See also: Philippians 2:3-4, Matthew 18:15-18, Philippians 2:14-16, 2 Tim 3:16, Philippians 1:9-10, Proverbs 12:15, Genesis 4:9b, et al.
[34] If you can find Scriptural support for this new doctrine, please let me know!
[35] Course Corrections, Acting in Trust, Neither Safe nor Right.
[36] I recall (maybe 10 to 15 years ago?) a sermon from a popular minister spoken during prime time at Labor Day services in Negaunee, Michigan — who declared that the entire concept of repentance should be purged from the Church. He based this on the sole premise that since televangelists often spoke of repentance it was therefore wrong and should be eliminated. Minister’s name redacted.
[37] Anticommunion