James C. Burkee, Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod: A Conflict That Changed American Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011).

Editors’ Note: An excerpt of Burkee’s book will appear in the Spring 2011 print issue of Lutheran Forum. Another essay on the book will appear online on 1/22. Further reflections on Burkee’s book will be considered for posting on LF online: send your submissions to editor-at-lutheranforum-dot-org.

At the end of his twelve years (1969-1981) as President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Jack Preus granted an interview in which he lamented that the synod had become fully and openly politicized. James Burkee of Concordia University in Mequon, Wisconsin, has now published a thorough account of Missouri’s war.

James C. Burkee is the first professional historian to attempt an objective examination of those traumatic events in American Lutheran history. He executes his historian’s craft superbly. He has done enormous research into primary documents, interviews with willing primary actors, and contemporaneous news reports. He tells the story in a very winsome way but with full documentation at every twist and turn. He takes no side but remains objective.

Burkee’s book is sure to find many readers. It will be indispensable to those who have only heard about “New Orleans” (the LCMS convention of 1973) and “Seminex.” At the same time those who vividly remember will be surprised at what they did not know. And, as Martin E. Marty assures readers in his forward, there are many parallels outside Missouri to Burkee’s story.

Burkee reports that he was surprised while attempting interviews by the astounding silence from many key players. Finally he says, “It was this researcher’s journey—these unforeseen interactions and surprising nature of the documentation—that moved me to unforeseen conclusions.” His documentation demonstrates that the victors in that conflict would not have won without their secret alliance with Herman Otten, editor of the powerful weekly tabloid Christian News. Likewise they would not have won except for the cultural wars that erupted in the 1960s. Otten fueled suspicion and fear among convention delegates concerned about the erosion of society. Their votes were more about secular politics than about theology—more Republican than Lutheran.

Burkee seems to have been surprised at another unhappy aspect prominent among the conservatives: they were often duplicitous. For example, they courted Otten and depended on him for votes but disclaimed him publicly (and never did grant him official status as a pastor). The conservatives soon turned on each other, especially after the 1974 victory. In the end they “dumped” Jack Preus, forcing him out by 1981.

In the end, none of the efforts to restore biblical authority and “old Missouri” prevented the decline which the synod has experienced since Preus’s election in 1969. It has all ended as a very sad story.

Each reader will be prompted to reflect differently on Burkee’s report. Here are my reflections.

First, why did the synod buy Otten’s paradigm, namely: “We are locked into only two options. We can choose either mainline Protestant patterns or Evangelical, Fundamentalist patterns”? (Otten always features American fundamentalists in Christian News.) That is a false choice. We Lutherans are more “catholic” than we are Protestant (e.g., Book of Concord) and we have the theological heritage to remain above that conflict. Otten’s false choice seems to have equally disaffected the ELCA long after Missouri’s war. Our elegant liturgical heritage has suffered immeasurably from this false choice.

Second, with respect to the battle on behalf of the Bible: did the political methods and behaviors honor or discredit the Bible? The claim that historical critical tools must lead creedal denial is simply bogus. These tools can be employed responsibly and were at Concordia, St. Louis. Roman Catholic theologians regularly use critical tools without any denial of creedal commitments.

Third, are Conventions (or churchwide assemblies) the proper venue for deciding theological issues? Why should doctrine by subjected to political manipulations? Is it really fair to ask laypeople who have no theological training to make such decisions?

In any event, it seems likely that more studies of Missouri’s war will follow this. Burkee is a great beginning. I would hope that an equally thorough examination of the “moderate” documents will become available. A weighing of the competing theological contentions should be made by someone. (Burkee is not a theologian and makes no claim of theological analysis.) One thing is sure: regardless of what comes after, it will have to start with Burkee.

John Hannah is Pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in the Bronx, New York.