Neither Safe nor Right

Offering uninvited correction is always awkward and difficult. Whether correcting employees, friends, or family, at some level we feel vulnerable and place our self esteems at risk. We all want to be liked by others and correcting them might jeopardize their perceptions of us. We ignore many of the errors we see around us because we perceive the negative risk of correcting the error outweighs the positive benefits. Receiving correction is even more difficult because it requires we leave the comfort of our pride, recognize the error, and humble ourselves to make amends.

In matters of Christian faith some errors may lead to heresies with eternal consequences. For those we love dearly—especially brothers and sisters in faith—correction is necessary, and Apostle Paul encouraged it.

“Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.”

(1 Corinthians 16:13-14)

Many years ago I noticed symptoms of change within the Church.[1] I didn’t understand there were underlying causes, but the changes began to accelerate. After rediscovering the pure doctrines of Scripture during the last several years, I was finally able to identify the source of the changes. The Church was becoming infected with basic doctrinal errors! Is it possible to correct such errors?

If the errors were limited to individuals or just a minister or two, the remedy steps defined in Matthew 18:15-17 could be used. Instead, the errors appeared to be pervasive[3] and deep. I began detecting these errors across many of the sermons from most of the ministers. These errors weren’t just forgivable slips of the tongue, they were frequently repeated, using slightly different phrasing, and used similar erroneous supporting contexts. And the congregation just went along with them. Since the errors weren’t being corrected, through inaction the entire congregation was becoming complicit in them, and that includes me!

Imagine trying to correct an entire congregation, how would that work? In my congregation[4] there are several hundred confirmed members. I would need to meet with each member, screen them for each error, then for each that fails correct them in God’s Word and start the Scriptural correction process for each that resists. And why would anyone consider being corrected when the congregation at-large (through inaction) supports the errors? It would be a futile, unscalable effort.

The only viable option available was to sound the trumpet to get the attention of the Church leaders. After all, it is the Church leadership that is responsible for maintaining sound doctrine and the evaluation and selection of ministers that support that doctrine[5] within the Church.

In June of 2019, I began a more detailed examination of the errors by searching the Scriptures to verify and refute them. I also began learning more about the disputes encountered during the history of the church, particularly around the 16th century Reformation. I was shocked to discover that many of the errors present today have already been rejected in times past, but now are being embraced! To document these findings I composed[6] an essay, Be Zealous And Repent.” The essay includes about half of the errors and deficiencies that I have observed in the Church. I tried to focus on the errors that seemed the easiest to refute and the easiest to correct.

“If the Word does not put down error, error will stand, though the world were drenched with blood.”

(Martin Luther)[7]

In October 2019, I sent[8] the essay to the chairman of the Church, requesting that Church leadership address the issues I documented, and I offered my assistance in the process.[9] On December 22, 2019[10] after Church services, the chairman agreed to meet with me briefly to discuss the matter, but we were unable to arrive at any level of agreement. On March 11, 2020[11] the chairman arranged a private meeting that included a trustee and a minister[12]. The minister asserted the specific issues in the essay could not be discussed because they contained biblical citations and are not debatable. He also asserted the very existence of my essay was proof that I “did not trust in God,” and that I should agree and declare that the essay was wrong. I could not and did not recant the essay.

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason… I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.”

Martin Luther[13]

The meeting confirmed that Church leadership would remain silent, would not provide a formal written response to my request, and would not address any of the issues identified. In April 2020, I sent[14] a follow-up letter to the chairman and the trustees to verify my interpretations of their conclusions, especially their embrace of errors that lead to heresy.[15]

“A teacher who is silent about errors and nevertheless wants to be a proper teacher is worse than an overt enthusiast, and he does more damage with his hypocrisy than a heretic. He cannot be trusted.”

(Martin Luther[16])

Don’t all believers have the responsibility to use God’s Word in love for reproof, correction and instruction, regardless of how awkward and difficult it may be? Is there a better way to defend the truth of God’s Word and correct pervasive errors[17] within the Church? Please reply and share your insights.


[1] Finnish Independent Apostolic Lutheran Congregations (I.A.L.C.)
[2] Krauth, Charles Porterfield (1871). The Conservative Reformation and its Theology. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Originally published by the United Lutheran Publication House. (2007 ISBN: 978-0-7586-0994-6)
[3] Historians have identified a common pattern whereby error is admitted into a church. It often infiltrates in three stages: 1) Toleration — Those in error are few and weak and only ask to be left alone and promise not to disturb the faith of others. 2) Equal Rights — Truth and Error become balanced forces, the Church shall do nothing whereby it appears to be deciding between them and remain impartial. The parties agree that commonalities are based on fundamentals, whereas the differences are considered simply non-essential. 3) Supremacy — Those in error assert those remaining in the truth must repudiate their faith and accept the errors as truth. Krauth, 195-196.
[4] Minneapolis Independent Apostolic Lutheran Church (M.I.A.L.C.) at Dayton, Minnesota.
[5] Augsburg Confession Article XXVIII:20-25
[6] Although it took a few months (in my spare time) to write and cite the essay, it still took less time than the Lutheran Reformers to formulate the Augsburg Confession in 1530, especially if the earlier development of the source materials is included in the timeline. A truncated copy of an English translation of the German version paraphrase can be found near the back of the white book, “A Catechism According to God’s Word” published and used by the Independent Apostolic Lutheran Congregations.[1]
[7] Krauth, 174.
[8] Certified mail receipts; Delivery tracking confirmation.
[9] See: Activity log. Also, additional personal post-meeting rough notes can be made available. Contact me for a copy if you think they would be useful for understanding the nature of what transpired in each meeting.
[10] The short meeting on December 22, 2019 exposed the depth of some of the false doctrines embraced within the Church. It inspired me to write several article posts to refute them: “Special Delivery,” “Spirit of the Letter,” “Use the Force, Luke!,” and “Upsetting the Apple Cart.”
[11] The longer meeting on March 11, 2020 exposed additional misconceptions held within the Church, inspiring me to write a couple of article posts exploring the topics and refuting their perceptions: “Lost in Translation,” and “Acting in Trust.”
[12] The name has been kindly withheld for privacy concerns, unless otherwise warranted.
[13] Martin Luther (1521), Diet of Worms
[14] Tracking label and letters; Delivery tracking confirmation.[18]
[15] “An error, however great it may be, neither can be called heresy, nor is heresy, unless it be held and defended obstinately as right. Erring makes no heretics; but the defending and protecting error with stiffness of neck, does. There never has been a heresy which did not also affirm some truth. Wherefore we must not deny the truth (it contains) on account of the falsehood (it mixes with it). Heretics not merely err, but refuse to be taught; they defend their error as right, and fight against known truth, and against their own consciences — self-willed and consciously they remain in their error… Let us ward against them with the Scripture…” (Martin Luther) Krauth, 142-143. Also: Werke, Walch. xvii. 2624
[16] Georg Major’s last conversation with Luther (Jan. 1546), WA Br 12:362, no. 4298.
[17] “Athanasius Contra Mundum“; Reformation
[18] Names have been redacted and/or obscured. Please contact me if you prefer that your name be displayed.

One thought on “Neither Safe nor Right

  • To-date, Church leadership has not responded to my follow-up letter.

    Shortly after our March 11, 2020 meeting, the Minnesota Governor declared a “Peacetime Emergency.” We all have been under his executive order to “Stay at Home” and Church services have been canceled due to the global pandemic.[1]

    One would think that ample time has been available to contemplate the issues I have raised and formulate a concise response. Yet the chairman has not contacted me by phone, email, or postal mail. None of the trustees have been curious enough to contact me directly.

    I can only surmise that the conclusions in my follow-up letter were indeed a clear representation of their message. Very sad! Apparently, Church leadership has chosen to defend and protect errors within the Church. Luther said those who obstinately defend errors are heretics, do great damage to the church, and cannot be trusted.

    How would you interpret their (lack of) response?

    It’s remarkable how history sometimes repeats itself, even in small ways. Their refusal to respond in writing to my request or follow-up letter regarding the correction of errors echoes historic events in the 16th century. In 1530, Church laymen confessed their faith through presenting The Augsburg Confession to the Emperor and the world at-large. The document included a refutation of errors embraced by the established Church centered in Rome. Almost 40 days later, the Romish Church leaders doubled-down on their errors and refused to provide their response (known as the Confutation) in writing. (Eventually, 43 years later it was finally shared and published in 1573 and had served as the basis for the Council of Trent (1546-1563) which firmly established the heretical doctrines of the Catholic Church.)

    Should I expect a written response in the year 2062?

    [1] “The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent…” (Revelation 9:20a)

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply