Summary Of A Conflict That Changed American Christianity, By James C. Burkee

In the monograph Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod: A Conflict That Changed American Christianity, James C. Burkee argues that the 1974 schism of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod commonly called “Seminex” was not only about theology but something more. Burkee is able successfully support his thesis. He does so by using quotations and observations from the time and from those who lived during seminex. Burkee also is able to show how seminex was about more than just theology by setting up the history of the LCMS before the actually event. Burkee makes reference that he was warned when he started his quest to learn more about seminex, this supports his claim in an interesting way. In Burkee’s book, he is able to uses quotes and first-hand

It allowed for resolutions to be passed for the better. Burkee chose to show two resolution that seemed to give the President “dictatorial control” for one resolution centralized power from the congregations to the district office. Another resolution made it more difficult for people to submit petitions to the synod but allowed the President to decide matters are “submitted for presentation to and consideration by the convention” These two resolution are good supporting examples because they are brought a layman, Marcus Braun who wanted what was best for the LCMS and not see it fall into corruption that can fall on those in power. This supports Burkee’s argument on how seminex was more than theological. It provides the thoughts of a non-ordained man who thought that the LCMS was heading down a bad road. None of Braun’s argument was against the theology behind it but against the dictator like power given to those in

He says that “many who had lived through the period, cautioned me to back off.” When he began to find those who are willing to be interviewed “many were unwilling to talk” for different reasons, some personal other professional. This, like the previous point, is not a given in supporting Burkee’s thesis but can help. If the problem lied solely on theology, and had little to nothing to do with politics or other means, more would talk about it and discuss their side of the argument. Many he interviewed are scholarly men who have debated before over different topics. Theology is probably one of them, for it in a seminary and denomination that this event took place. It does not prove the thesis but helps at least question if there is something