LOGIA is a publication of Luther Academy
Follow us on Facebook and X (Twitter)
News from Finland regarding their country's Supreme Court decision about a male pastor who did not allow a female pastor to serve with him at a church service where he was invited to guest preach. (Summary: ruled discrimination; Ari Norro fined 320-euros)
http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/10/male_pastor_fined_for_discrimination_2080361.html
Review of Essen zum Gedächtnis: Der Gedächtnisbefehl in den Abendmahlstheologien der Reformation. By Dorothea Wendebourg. Tübingen: Mohr, 2009. Review by Holger Sonntag.
Lutherans in this country may be familiar with the Reformed notion of the Lord’s Supper as a “memorial meal.” In the book at hand, Dr. Wendebourg, professor of church history (Reformation Era) at Berlin’s Humboldt University, not only traces the origin of this idea in late medieval piety, but also shows the form it received in the teachings on the Lord’s Supper of Erasmus, Karlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius on the one hand, and Luther and Melanchthon on the other hand. In other words, her study mainly seeks to answer the question of how the reformers of the sixteenth century – those who stayed Catholic (Erasmus) and those who did not – understood Christ’s words: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25). She traces this understanding and its modifications throughout their careers that often saw serious conflict between the leaders of the emergent reform groups and, eventually, churches.
Not surprisingly, the notion of “remembrance” plays a larger role in the teachings of those theologians who are generally considered the precursors of Reformed theology: Karlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius. Emphasizing the remembrance motif, they sought to strengthen their case for Christ’s real absence from the church’s observance of the Lord’s Supper. Taking their point of departure from merely human notions of remembering, they claimed that only an absent person is remembered. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial meal because the past action of Christ is remembered with thanksgiving in the same way the Passover Meal commemorates and celebrates the past event of Israel’s exodus from Egypt.
The Lutheran reformers, Luther and Melanchthon, did not especially highlight “remembering” in connection with the Lord’s Supper. While for Zwingli and his associates, “remembering” expressed the essence of the Lord’s Supper, for the early Lutherans it did not. Remembering Christ happens in preaching and believing the gospel of Christ’s death for the whole world – something that is to happen in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:26), but that is not the specific, essential characteristic of the Lord’s Supper. What is special about the Lord’s Supper is the oral eating of Christ’s body in the bread and the oral drinking of Christ’s blood in the wine. And this sacramental presence of Christ’s body and blood corresponds to Christ’s personal presence in his word.
While the Reformed model, therefore, uses the notion of remembrance to emphasize the absence of Christ, Lutherans understood it to be as relating to the present Christ. The Reformed pointed to the cross as the place where our salvation was once-and-for-all acquired by Christ, and left the delivery of that salvation to the Holy Spirit who, as Zwingli famously put it at the 1530 Augsburg Diet, does not need any created vehicle. Operative, not merely signifying, means of grace are, thus, meaningless for the Reformed. The Lutherans, on the other hand, distinguished between the winning and the distributing of salvation: the former was accomplished once for all by Christ on the cross; the latter happens until the Last Day by means of the means of grace, the word and the sacraments, including the Lord’s Supper.
Partaking of the means of grace is thus not man’s contribution to his salvation by means of a virtuous act (an idea that surfaces, for example, in the Catholic notion of the sacrifice of the mass) but his receiving of the salvation earned by Christ for all men. Reluctantly, and mainly in response to Catholic and Zwinglian urgings, Lutherans are able to describe this partaking as a sacrifice of thanksgiving, if it is done in faith in the gospel. However, Christ’s speaking the gospel and giving his body and blood are and remain the main thing in the sacrament. While Zwinglians would deny, with the Lutherans, that the Lord’s Supper is an atoning sacrifice (as taught by Rome in the context of the sacrament of penance), they would describe it as essentially the Christian’s sacrifice of thanksgiving (Eucharist) that is not only an ecclesial boundary marker (closed communion) but also goes hand in hand with a virtuous life displaying the fruits worthy of repentance.
In this, as Wendebourg demonstrates, the Zwinglian conception of the Lord’s Supper is quite close to late medieval forms of piety and the Humanist understanding of the Lord’s Supper, as exemplified by Erasmus of Rotterdam, who had a significant formative impact on Zwingli himself (Oecolampadius had imbibed Humanist learning in Italy): early Reformed, Humanist, and late medieval concepts of remembrance all seek to establish a connection with Christ’s past suffering on the cross, which is at times formulated as a re-presentation, a making present of Christ. This leads to the imitation-motif: worthy partakers of the sacrament are those who follow the crucified Christ in their lives. Reformation of the church, thus, means primarily reformation of life, even where this is not understood to be the way to salvation.
In that Luther’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper focused not primarily on Christ’s sacrifice (on the cross) but on the delivery of what was earned by that sacrifice by means of the word of promise, worthy partakers are those who believe this word of promise: given and shed for you. Christians neither need to “go to the cross” for forgiveness by their act of remembrance nor do they need to have the cross made present for their active emulation by means of a sacramental act of the church. They simply need to go to the Lord’s Supper held according to Christ’s institution and believe the word, eat the body, and drink the blood. Then they have what the words declare to them personally and individually: forgiveness, life, and salvation.
Studies like these have their context and their prehistory. In this case, it is important to note that it is the latest in a series of publications on the Lord’s Supper that Dr. Wendebourg has published over the last decade and a half. In all of them, she has vigorously and tirelessly opposed those who seek to mingle sacrament and sacrifice when it comes to the Lord’s Supper by a “eucharistizing” of the same by following the lead of G. Dix and others. Her most controversial contribution was her 1997 Tübingen lecture discussing whether Luther’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper merely represents the end stage of the Western Church’s so-called misunderstanding of the early church’s “eucharistic theology” in which consecration was supposedly done by way of first sacrificing bread and wine to God by means of the church’s prayer of thanksgiving (anaphora, canon of the mass), while the West – including Luther and the Lutheran Confessions (see SD VII, 75-82) – has traditionally insisted on consecration by the recitation of the words of institution alone.
As can be seen in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) hymnals published in the course of the last thirty years, all of which have featured a “great thanksgiving” (eucharistic prayer) in the service of the sacrament that incorporates the words of institution in the church’s prayer of thanksgiving, this thinking has borne much fruit among Lutherans in the United States as well. So it can be expected that the publication of that 1997 lecture in English in the Winter 2010 issue of Lutheran Forum will spark some controversy on this side of the Atlantic as well. Those interested in reading how she responds to her mainly Protestant (!) critics should get out their German dictionaries and pick up the 2002 issue of the Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche (pages 400-440), which, in my humble opinion, is even more illuminating than her original presentation and well worth the native English-speaking reader’s effort.
As can be learned from the study at hand, Zwingli’s approach to the Lord’s Supper—which defined it essentially and primarily as the Christian’s “memorial meal,” as the church’s “sacrifice of thanksgiving” (Eucharist), and as the Christians’ expression of mutual love—is much more akin to the “eucharistizing” and “ecclesializing” of the Lord’s Supper that has been afoot in the ecumenical discussions of recent decades. To be sure, it is not, as in Rome, thereby automatically transformed into the Christian’s virtuous contribution to his salvation, but it is the Christian’s work and action, even more exclusively so than in Rome. While recognizing the important differences between Zurich (or Geneva) and Rome in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, it is critical for Lutherans to recognize the striking similarity between both: they do not teach the Lord’s Supper as Christ’s testament in which he presently bestows his saving forgiveness by the word for faith and his body and blood in and under bread and wine for oral consumption. Both prefer man’s sacrifice and gifts over Christ’s sacrament and gift.
Worship services that are purely man’s praise and thanksgiving – including that famous “memorial meal” – find fertile ground on this theology of the Lord’s Supper, as do sermons that are long on man’s sanctification by love but silent on man’s salvation by faith in Christ’s work alone. Given man’s inherent legalism, this must cause problems, even in a theology that seeks to follow Zwingli’s (or Calvin’s) footsteps. Even though Zwingli agreed with Luther against Rome that man is justified by faith in the gospel of Christ’s atonement alone – something that is often forgotten among Lutherans who entertain a warm admiration for Rome’s “sacramental theology” that is totally devoid of the gospel – these problems are caused by the fact that, in Zwingli’s (and Calvin’s) theology, the gospel really has no concrete, creaturely form in this world to which the sinner can relate by faith.
This, to be sure, makes for a maximum of freedom in designing worship services that no longer need to conform to the concrete forms of the gospel that it has received in the means of grace at the hands of the Lord himself (see H. Sonntag, The Unchanging Forms of the Gospel, Minneapolis, 2010). What is more, the space vacated by God’s gospel activity in the means of grace is soon filled with man’s activities, preparations, and uncertain (and hence repeated: revivals, altar calls, etc.) decisions for Jesus.
Zwingli criticized Luther sharply for remaining stuck in popish sacramentalism. This is an accusation that is repeated to this day by Reformed theologians. However, after reading Dr. Wendebourg’s fine study, one can only wonder whether the understanding of the Lord’s Supper set forth by Zwingli and his associates, which excluded from it any present saving work of the Lord (sacrament) and thereby reduced it entirely to man’s or the church’s good work (sacrifice), is not paradoxically closer to Rome’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper than Luther’s teachings on the sacrament of the altar. What is denounced as “sacramentalism” and a deviation from the glory of the pure (purely spiritualistic, immediate) gospel may just be much more evangelical than Zwingli and his Evangelical and Reformed heirs can imagine.
Holger Sonntag
Hiram, OH
Essen zum Gedächtnis: Der Gedächtnisbefehl in den Abendmahlstheologien der Reformation. By Dorothea Wendebourg. Tübingen: Mohr, 2009. Review by Holger Sonntag.
Lutherans in this country may be familiar with the Reformed notion of the Lord’s Supper as a “memorial meal.” In the book at hand, Dr. Wendebourg, professor of church history (Reformation Era) at Berlin’s Humboldt University, not only traces the origin of this idea in late medieval piety, but also shows the form it received in the teachings on the Lord’s Supper of Erasmus, Karlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius on the one hand, and Luther and Melanchthon on the other hand. In other words, her study mainly seeks to answer the question of how the reformers of the sixteenth century – those who stayed Catholic (Erasmus) and those who did not – understood Christ’s words: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25). She traces this understanding and its modifications throughout their careers that often saw serious conflict between the leaders of the emergent reform groups and, eventually, churches.
Not surprisingly, the notion of “remembrance” plays a larger role in the teachings of those theologians who are generally considered the precursors of Reformed theology: Karlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius. Emphasizing the remembrance motif, they sought to strengthen their case for Christ’s real absence from the church’s observance of the Lord’s Supper. Taking their point of departure from merely human notions of remembering, they claimed that only an absent person is remembered. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial meal because the past action of Christ is remembered with thanksgiving in the same way the Passover Meal commemorates and celebrates the past event of Israel’s exodus from Egypt.
The Lutheran reformers, Luther and Melanchthon, did not especially highlight “remembering” in connection with the Lord’s Supper. While for Zwingli and his associates, “remembering” expressed the essence of the Lord’s Supper, for the early Lutherans it did not. Remembering Christ happens in preaching and believing the gospel of Christ’s death for the whole world – something that is to happen in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:26), but that is not the specific, essential characteristic of the Lord’s Supper. What is special about the Lord’s Supper is the oral eating of Christ’s body in the bread and the oral drinking of Christ’s blood in the wine. And this sacramental presence of Christ’s body and blood corresponds to Christ’s personal presence in his word.
While the Reformed model, therefore, uses the notion of remembrance to emphasize the absence of Christ, Lutherans understood it to be as relating to the present Christ. The Reformed pointed to the cross as the place where our salvation was once-and-for-all acquired by Christ, and left the delivery of that salvation to the Holy Spirit who, as Zwingli famously put it at the 1530 Augsburg Diet, does not need any created vehicle. Operative, not merely signifying, means of grace are, thus, meaningless for the Reformed. The Lutherans, on the other hand, distinguished between the winning and the distributing of salvation: the former was accomplished once for all by Christ on the cross; the latter happens until the Last Day by means of the means of grace, the word and the sacraments, including the Lord’s Supper.
Partaking of the means of grace is thus not man’s contribution to his salvation by means of a virtuous act (an idea that surfaces, for example, in the Catholic notion of the sacrifice of the mass) but his receiving of the salvation earned by Christ for all men. Reluctantly, and mainly in response to Catholic and Zwinglian urgings, Lutherans are able to describe this partaking as a sacrifice of thanksgiving, if it is done in faith in the gospel. However, Christ’s speaking the gospel and giving his body and blood are and remain the main thing in the sacrament. While Zwinglians would deny, with the Lutherans, that the Lord’s Supper is an atoning sacrifice (as taught by Rome in the context of the sacrament of penance), they would describe it as essentially the Christian’s sacrifice of thanksgiving (Eucharist) that is not only an ecclesial boundary marker (closed communion) but also goes hand in hand with a virtuous life displaying the fruits worthy of repentance.
In this, as Wendebourg demonstrates, the Zwinglian conception of the Lord’s Supper is quite close to late medieval forms of piety and the Humanist understanding of the Lord’s Supper, as exemplified by Erasmus of Rotterdam, who had a significant formative impact on Zwingli himself (Oecolampadius had imbibed Humanist learning in Italy): early Reformed, Humanist, and late medieval concepts of remembrance all seek to establish a connection with Christ’s past suffering on the cross, which is at times formulated as a re-presentation, a making present of Christ. This leads to the imitation-motif: worthy partakers of the sacrament are those who follow the crucified Christ in their lives. Reformation of the church, thus, means primarily reformation of life, even where this is not understood to be the way to salvation.
In that Luther’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper focused not primarily on Christ’s sacrifice (on the cross) but on the delivery of what was earned by that sacrifice by means of the word of promise, worthy partakers are those who believe this word of promise: given and shed for you. Christians neither need to “go to the cross” for forgiveness by their act of remembrance nor do they need to have the cross made present for their active emulation by means of a sacramental act of the church. They simply need to go to the Lord’s Supper held according to Christ’s institution and believe the word, eat the body, and drink the blood. Then they have what the words declare to them personally and individually: forgiveness, life, and salvation.
Studies like these have their context and their prehistory. In this case, it is important to note that it is the latest in a series of publications on the Lord’s Supper that Dr. Wendebourg has published over the last decade and a half. In all of them, she has vigorously and tirelessly opposed those who seek to mingle sacrament and sacrifice when it comes to the Lord’s Supper by a “eucharistizing” of the same by following the lead of G. Dix and others. Her most controversial contribution was her 1997 Tübingen lecture discussing whether Luther’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper merely represents the end stage of the Western Church’s so-called misunderstanding of the early church’s “eucharistic theology” in which consecration was supposedly done by way of first sacrificing bread and wine to God by means of the church’s prayer of thanksgiving (anaphora, canon of the mass), while the West – including Luther and the Lutheran Confessions (see SD VII, 75-82) – has traditionally insisted on consecration by the recitation of the words of institution alone.
As can be seen in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) hymnals published in the course of the last thirty years, all of which have featured a “great thanksgiving” (eucharistic prayer) in the service of the sacrament that incorporates the words of institution in the church’s prayer of thanksgiving, this thinking has borne much fruit among Lutherans in the United States as well. So it can be expected that the publication of that 1997 lecture in English in the Winter 2010 issue of Lutheran Forum will spark some controversy on this side of the Atlantic as well. Those interested in reading how she responds to her mainly Protestant (!) critics should get out their German dictionaries and pick up the 2002 issue of the Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche (pages 400-440), which, in my humble opinion, is even more illuminating than her original presentation and well worth the native English-speaking reader’s effort.
As can be learned from the study at hand, Zwingli’s approach to the Lord’s Supper—which defined it essentially and primarily as the Christian’s “memorial meal,” as the church’s “sacrifice of thanksgiving” (Eucharist), and as the Christians’ expression of mutual love—is much more akin to the “eucharistizing” and “ecclesializing” of the Lord’s Supper that has been afoot in the ecumenical discussions of recent decades. To be sure, it is not, as in Rome, thereby automatically transformed into the Christian’s virtuous contribution to his salvation, but it is the Christian’s work and action, even more exclusively so than in Rome. While recognizing the important differences between Zurich (or Geneva) and Rome in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, it is critical for Lutherans to recognize the striking similarity between both: they do not teach the Lord’s Supper as Christ’s testament in which he presently bestows his saving forgiveness by the word for faith and his body and blood in and under bread and wine for oral consumption. Both prefer man’s sacrifice and gifts over Christ’s sacrament and gift.
Worship services that are purely man’s praise and thanksgiving – including that famous “memorial meal” – find fertile ground on this theology of the Lord’s Supper, as do sermons that are long on man’s sanctification by love but silent on man’s salvation by faith in Christ’s work alone. Given man’s inherent legalism, this must cause problems, even in a theology that seeks to follow Zwingli’s (or Calvin’s) footsteps. Even though Zwingli agreed with Luther against Rome that man is justified by faith in the gospel of Christ’s atonement alone – something that is often forgotten among Lutherans who entertain a warm admiration for Rome’s “sacramental theology” that is totally devoid of the gospel – these problems are caused by the fact that, in Zwingli’s (and Calvin’s) theology, the gospel really has no concrete, creaturely form in this world to which the sinner can relate by faith.
This, to be sure, makes for a maximum of freedom in designing worship services that no longer need to conform to the concrete forms of the gospel that it has received in the means of grace at the hands of the Lord himself (see H. Sonntag, The Unchanging Forms of the Gospel, Minneapolis, 2010). What is more, the space vacated by God’s gospel activity in the means of grace is soon filled with man’s activities, preparations, and uncertain (and hence repeated: revivals, altar calls, etc.) decisions for Jesus.
Zwingli criticized Luther sharply for remaining stuck in popish sacramentalism. This is an accusation that is repeated to this day by Reformed theologians. However, after reading Dr. Wendebourg’s fine study, one can only wonder whether the understanding of the Lord’s Supper set forth by Zwingli and his associates, which excluded from it any present saving work of the Lord (sacrament) and thereby reduced it entirely to man’s or the church’s good work (sacrifice), is not paradoxically closer to Rome’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper than Luther’s teachings on the sacrament of the altar. What is denounced as “sacramentalism” and a deviation from the glory of the pure (purely spiritualistic, immediate) gospel may just be much more evangelical than Zwingli and his Evangelical and Reformed heirs can imagine.
Holger Sonntag Hiram, OH
by Mark P. Surburg
Prior to the year 2000, the most commonly used English translation of the German text for the Augsburg Confession was that of the Tappert edition of 1959. This edition translated the opening words of the German text of AC V (“Solchen Glauben zu erlangen, hat Gott das Predigtamt eingesetzt, Evangelium und Sakramente gegeben”): “To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the gospel and the sacraments” (Tappert, AC V, 1).
The appearance in 2000 of the Kolb-Wengert edition introduced another translation of the German text: “To obtain such faith God instituted the office of preaching, giving the gospel and the sacraments.” This article will demonstrate that the elimination of “that is” in the Kolb-Wengert edition provides a more accurate translation and avoids importing an incorrect interpretation of AC V. Ultimately, of course, every translation is an interpretation. The issue is whether or not it is a correct interpretation of the text...
Download the full article (in pdf, 209 KB)
Mark P. Surburg is pastor of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, Marion, Illinois.
On 11–13 January 2010, a model theological conference entitled “Toward a Theology of Worship That Is…” took place at Concordia Lutheran Church in Kirkwood, Missouri. The Commission on Worship and the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) sponsored this conference as a result of a resolution of the 2007 convention of the LCMS. It was resolved that these commissions “organize a model theological conference, including representation of pastors and laity from each district as well as representation from each of our schools of higher learning, in order to ‘build greater understanding of our theology of worship and foster further discussion of worship practices that are consistent with that theology.’” The location of this conference was appropriate, given that Concordia has two different worship spaces within its own congregation, namely, the Concordia Sanctuary and the Concordia Center. This is the case because at Concordia, as in our entire synod, there are diverse viewpoints concerning worship. The goal of the conference was to talk about those diverse viewpoints in order to begin easing tensions and uniting our synod in its theology of worship.
Ted Kober, President of Ambassadors of Reconciliation, “an international ministry founded to serve Lutherans in peacemaking,” moderated the conference. His presentation, entitled “Addressing Theological Conflicts,” dealt with separating sin issues from theological issues, reconciliation through forgiveness, and how to work through substantive theological issues, even if participants end up agreeing to disagree. Areas of discussion included working toward a theology that is…scriptural and confessional, pastoral and sacramental, personal and contextual, missional and vocational, and practical and theological. The entire group worshipped together several times each day, being exposed to different worship styles throughout the conference. The group also met together for presentations and panel discussions that represented diverse viewpoints on worship. After each presentation and panel discussion conference participants went to assigned tables to talk in small groups made up of those who differ in their understanding of worship. This table talk, led by a facilitator, dealt with answering questions pertaining to each presentation and panel discussion.
Dr. Jeffrey Gibbs, professor of exegetical theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, led off with his presentation entitled “Laying the First Shingle.” He talked about corporate worship being set in the right story. This story is not a personalized, consumer-driven or escapist story, but rather God coming down in Christ for the world. This is the grand story of the Scripture and Confessions. He said that the corporate worship of the congregation must be shaped by tradition. Worship is the event when God becomes present with his people who are part of his great story.
The Rev. Larry M. Vogel, Associate Executive Director of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations for the LCMS, spoke on worship being both pastoral and sacramental. The presence of Christ is central to worship and “where Christ is, there is Word and Sacrament.” He focused on pastoral priorities being mission, doctrine, and the vernacular principle, meaning using forms that enable people to believe and worship. He said, “While the word service individualizes us, the Table is communal.” We are sacramental to be communal. As Christ gives us his very body and blood “we don’t just take communion, we become a communion.”
The Rev. Dien Ashley Taylor, pastor of Redeemer Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Bronx, spoke on dimensions of worship. He said that there are four dimensions, namely, personal, communal, contextual, and catholic. The personal dimension has to do with the profound “for you,” while the communal the profound “for us.” The contextual dimension takes into consideration the time and place while the catholic dimension connects worship with all times and places.
The Rev. Mason T. Beecroft, senior pastor of Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, spoke on a theology of worship that is missional and vocational. He defined missional as “Christ’s mission of salvation accomplished by his incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension delivered through his body, the church, in the preaching of his gospel and the administration of his sacraments.” He defined vocational as “God’s gift of placing people in various stations of life as the context for their good works.” He said, “The sacramental language, life, rituals, ceremonies and liturgies of the Lutheran Church are incomprehensible to the denizens of our insane post-Christian world. This unfamiliarity, however, provides an authentic opportunity to evangelize the lost wayfarer and to recover the bored consumer through meaningful signs of Christ and the gospel revealed in the mysterious, biblical, evangelical, confessional, catholic, and apocalyptic world of the Lutheran divine service…or mass…or divine liturgy.”
The Rev. Jeff Cloeter, associate pastor of Christ Memorial Lutheran Church in St. Louis, Missouri, also spoke on a theology of worship that is missional and vocational. He described worship as our theology. and in quoting the introduction to Lutheran Worship said, “Our Lord speaks, we listen. His word bestows what it says.…The rhythm of our worship is from him to us, and then from us back to him.” He said that the sacramental and sacrificial nature of worship is the paradigm, that worship can be seen as the Christian life in miniature. “The worship service on one day invites a life of worship on every day. While worship is missional, it is not attractional. It is God encountering his Church, the missionaries. Worship is about ‘making disciples,’ those who have encountered Jesus.” In speaking on the vocational aspect of worship he said, “The sacramental nature of worship invites the sacrificial. Divine worship makes good husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, children, employees, students, etc.”
The Rev. Dr. Charles P. Arand, chairman of the department of systematic theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, used the metaphor of a bicycle in talking about adiaphora and a theology of worship that is both practical and theological. He said that four principles need to be respected, namely, the Evangelical Principle (the marks of the church), the Contextual Principle (the expansion of the church), the Catholic Principle (the unity of the church), and the Collegiality Principle (the walking together of the church).
In addition to the presenters, panel members and respondents at the conference included the Rev. Dr. Steve Arnold, professor emeritus of Education and Chaplain at Concordia University, St. Paul, Minnesota; the Rev. Dr. Paul Grime, dean of the chapel and associate professor at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana; the Rev. Dr. Arthur A. Just Jr., professor of exegetical theology, director of deaconess studies, and co-director of the Good Shepherd Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana; and the Rev. Dr. James Alan Waddell, graduate instructor in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan.
The goal of this conference was to begin a respectful conversation within the LCMS about worship. This goal was accomplished as the speakers, panel, and various small groups of people listened and spoke to each other in a way that sought first to understand and then to be understood. It is clear, however, that there is a vast divide in the LCMS regarding its theology of worship. Like the culture in which we live, many within our church body are simply doing their own thing when it comes to worship. It is not due to a lack of sincerity, but out of a sense that the culture around us is indeed becoming a post-Christian culture. Many are trying different things in regard to how they worship, in some cases, anything that sticks, in an attempt to reach the lost. This has led to many questions. Is worship the Lord’s service, or ours to do with as we please? Do we offer what the Lord gives or what the world wants? How do we lead the lost into the presence of God to receive his gifts?
At our tables there was much discussion but little agreement. For example, questions like do you need to offer General Confession and Absolution, say the Lord’s Prayer or the Creed every week, or how often to celebrate the Lord’s Supper lacked any kind of consensus. The attempt made at contemporary worship at the conference was said by some not to go far enough while others thought it went too far. It was also disturbing to talk about the real presence of Christ in worship and the “holy ground” of worship, only to be distracted by someone texting during worship a few minutes later. Is nothing sacred?
In the end, I believe this issue of worship is about trusting the efficacy of the gospel of Jesus Christ and holding each other accountable to God’s word. This is really about faithfully delivering the Lord’s gifts of salvation. The introduction to Lutheran Worship says it well. “How best to do this we may learn from his Word and from the way his Word has prompted his worship through the centuries. We are heirs of an astonishingly rich tradition. Each generation receives from those who went before and, in making that tradition of the Divine Service its own, adds what best may serve in its own day—the living heritage and something new.”
I learned a lot from all of the presenters, as well as the panel and table talk discussions. It was good to meet face to face with fellow members of the body of Christ. The discussions should, and will, continue in our LCMS districts across the country. May God grant us a spirit of unity so that with one heart and mouth we glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Rev. Timothy J. Mech Sheboygan, Wisconsin
by Rev. Timothy J. Mech
On 11–13 January 2010, a model theological conference entitled “Toward a Theology of Worship That Is…” took place at Concordia Lutheran Church in Kirkwood, Missouri. The Commission on Worship and the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) sponsored this conference as a result of a resolution of the 2007 convention of the LCMS. It was resolved that these commissions “organize a model theological conference, including representation of pastors and laity from each district as well as representation from each of our schools of higher learning, in order to ‘build greater understanding of our theology of worship and foster further discussion of worship practices that are consistent with that theology.’”
The location of this conference was appropriate, given that Concordia has two different worship spaces within its own congregation, namely, the Concordia Sanctuary and the Concordia Center. This is the case because at Concordia, as in our entire synod, there are diverse viewpoints concerning worship. The goal of the conference was to talk about those diverse viewpoints in order to begin easing tensions and uniting our synod in its theology of worship.
Ted Kober, President of Ambassadors of Reconciliation, “an international ministry founded to serve Lutherans in peacemaking,” moderated the conference. His presentation, entitled “Addressing Theological Conflicts,” dealt with separating sin issues from theological issues, reconciliation through forgiveness, and how to work through substantive theological issues, even if participants end up agreeing to disagree. Areas of discussion included working toward a theology that is…scriptural and confessional, pastoral and sacramental, personal and contextual, missional and vocational, and practical and theological. The entire group worshipped together several times each day, being exposed to different worship styles throughout the conference. The group also met together for presentations and panel discussions that represented diverse viewpoints on worship. After each presentation and panel discussion conference participants went to assigned tables to talk in small groups made up of those who differ in their understanding of worship. This table talk, led by a facilitator, dealt with answering questions pertaining to each presentation and panel discussion.
Dr. Jeffrey Gibbs, professor of exegetical theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, led off with his presentation entitled “Laying the First Shingle.” He talked about corporate worship being set in the right story. This story is not a personalized, consumer-driven or escapist story, but rather God coming down in Christ for the world. This is the grand story of the Scripture and Confessions. He said that the corporate worship of the congregation must be shaped by tradition. Worship is the event when God becomes present with his people who are part of his great story.
The Rev. Larry M. Vogel, Associate Executive Director of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations for the LCMS, spoke on worship being both pastoral and sacramental. The presence of Christ is central to worship and “where Christ is, there is Word and Sacrament.” He focused on pastoral priorities being mission, doctrine, and the vernacular principle, meaning using forms that enable people to believe and worship. He said, “While the word service individualizes us, the Table is communal.” We are sacramental to be communal. As Christ gives us his very body and blood “we don’t just take communion, we become a communion.”
The Rev. Dien Ashley Taylor, pastor of Redeemer Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Bronx, spoke on dimensions of worship. He said that there are four dimensions, namely, personal, communal, contextual, and catholic. The personal dimension has to do with the profound “for you,” while the communal the profound “for us.” The contextual dimension takes into consideration the time and place while the catholic dimension connects worship with all times and places.
The Rev. Mason T. Beecroft, senior pastor of Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, spoke on a theology of worship that is missional and vocational. He defined missional as “Christ’s mission of salvation accomplished by his incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension delivered through his body, the church, in the preaching of his gospel and the administration of his sacraments.” He defined vocational as “God’s gift of placing people in various stations of life as the context for their good works.” He said, “The sacramental language, life, rituals, ceremonies and liturgies of the Lutheran Church are incomprehensible to the denizens of our insane post-Christian world. This unfamiliarity, however, provides an authentic opportunity to evangelize the lost wayfarer and to recover the bored consumer through meaningful signs of Christ and the gospel revealed in the mysterious, biblical, evangelical, confessional, catholic, and apocalyptic world of the Lutheran divine service…or mass…or divine liturgy.”
The Rev. Jeff Cloeter, associate pastor of Christ Memorial Lutheran Church in St. Louis, Missouri, also spoke on a theology of worship that is missional and vocational. He described worship as our theology. and in quoting the introduction to Lutheran Worship said, “Our Lord speaks, we listen. His word bestows what it says.…The rhythm of our worship is from him to us, and then from us back to him.” He said that the sacramental and sacrificial nature of worship is the paradigm, that worship can be seen as the Christian life in miniature. “The worship service on one day invites a life of worship on every day. While worship is missional, it is not attractional. It is God encountering his Church, the missionaries. Worship is about ‘making disciples,’ those who have encountered Jesus.” In speaking on the vocational aspect of worship he said, “The sacramental nature of worship invites the sacrificial. Divine worship makes good husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, children, employees, students, etc.”
The Rev. Dr. Charles P. Arand, chairman of the department of systematic theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, used the metaphor of a bicycle in talking about adiaphora and a theology of worship that is both practical and theological. He said that four principles need to be respected, namely, the Evangelical Principle (the marks of the church), the Contextual Principle (the expansion of the church), the Catholic Principle (the unity of the church), and the Collegiality Principle (the walking together of the church).
In addition to the presenters, panel members and respondents at the conference included the Rev. Dr. Steve Arnold, professor emeritus of Education and Chaplain at Concordia University, St. Paul, Minnesota; the Rev. Dr. Paul Grime, dean of the chapel and associate professor at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana; the Rev. Dr. Arthur A. Just Jr., professor of exegetical theology, director of deaconess studies, and co-director of the Good Shepherd Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana; and the Rev. Dr. James Alan Waddell, graduate instructor in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan.
The goal of this conference was to begin a respectful conversation within the LCMS about worship. This goal was accomplished as the speakers, panel, and various small groups of people listened and spoke to each other in a way that sought first to understand and then to be understood. It is clear, however, that there is a vast divide in the LCMS regarding its theology of worship. Like the culture in which we live, many within our church body are simply doing their own thing when it comes to worship. It is not due to a lack of sincerity, but out of a sense that the culture around us is indeed becoming a post-Christian culture. Many are trying different things in regard to how they worship, in some cases, anything that sticks, in an attempt to reach the lost. This has led to many questions. Is worship the Lord’s service, or ours to do with as we please? Do we offer what the Lord gives or what the world wants? How do we lead the lost into the presence of God to receive his gifts?
At our tables there was much discussion but little agreement. For example, questions like do you need to offer General Confession and Absolution, say the Lord’s Prayer or the Creed every week, or how often to celebrate the Lord’s Supper lacked any kind of consensus. The attempt made at contemporary worship at the conference was said by some not to go far enough while others thought it went too far. It was also disturbing to talk about the real presence of Christ in worship and the “holy ground” of worship, only to be distracted by someone texting during worship a few minutes later. Is nothing sacred?
In the end, I believe this issue of worship is about trusting the efficacy of the gospel of Jesus Christ and holding each other accountable to God’s word. This is really about faithfully delivering the Lord’s gifts of salvation. The introduction to Lutheran Worship says it well. “How best to do this we may learn from his Word and from the way his Word has prompted his worship through the centuries. We are heirs of an astonishingly rich tradition. Each generation receives from those who went before and, in making that tradition of the Divine Service its own, adds what best may serve in its own day—the living heritage and something new.”
I learned a lot from all of the presenters, as well as the panel and table talk discussions. It was good to meet face to face with fellow members of the body of Christ. The discussions should, and will, continue in our LCMS districts across the country. May God grant us a spirit of unity so that with one heart and mouth we glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Rev. Timothy J. Mech
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
Recalling a forum blog post from August 15, 2010 entitled Finnish Lutheran Bishop defrocked; defenses offered, Tapani Simijoki informs us of an update (published below by permission) which also appears on his blog SimonPotamos:
The first ordination by Bishop Matti Väisänen
Matti Väisänen, a bishop in the Mission Province of Sweden and Finland (Missionsprovinsen i Sverige och Finland), conducts his first ordination service on 2nd October 2010. The ordination, taking place in the Chapel of the Sacred Heart in Helsinki, will be the first Mission Province ordination in Finland.
The four candidates for ordination have been called by koinonias of Luther Foundation Finland. Sami Liukkonen will serve St.Titus in Mikkeli (S:t Michel), Eero Pihlava will become an assistant pastor in St. Mark in Helsinki (Helsingfors), St. Matthew in Hämeenlinna (Tavastehus) will receive Markus Nieminen, and Jani-Matti Ylilehto will shepherd St. Andrew’s koinonia in Kokkola (Karleby). After this newest addition, the network of koinonias in Finland will be served by fifteen employed pastors – among them the eight pastors ordained by Arne Olsson, now emeritus Mission Bishop of Mission Province – supported by a dozen or so retired shepherds .
The bishops of the established church, The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, have maintained that only those willing to work together with female clergy are eligible for ordination. The retirement of the last confessional bishop, Olavi Rimpiläinen, in 2000, meant that it has been practically impossible for those who reject the unbiblical doctrine and practice of women’s ordination to be ordained and thus admitted into the pastoral office. Many congregations and parachurch organizations would issue calls, but the ‘confessional quarantine’ imposed on the theologically conservative minority by the bishops of the established church has prevented this. The service to be held on 2nd October will thus be the first ordination in Finland for ten years with candidates fully holding to the apostolic understanding of the Office of the Ministry are ordained.
Matti Väisänen was consecrated as bishop on 20th March 2010. His responsibility is not only to serve congregations by ordaining pastors as they are called, but also to act as a seelsorger for those already in the Office, thus being a ‘shepherd of shepherds’. For young pastors, receiving their first call in a turbulent ecclesial situation, this kind of pastoral care is priceless. To share the burden, a consistory of five members has been assembled, entrusted with the tasks of, for example, examining new candidates for the pastoral office as well as handling disputes, if any arise.
Luther Foundation Finland is an organization founded in 1999 with the purpose of helping faithful Finnish Lutherans, left homeless by the increasingly liberal established church, to build up koinonias, i.e. communities formed around the pure proclamation of Word and the correct administration of the Sacraments. During the eleven years of its operation, the work has now spread to 24 cities, with the demand for new koinonias still being strong.
Esko Murto
Theological Secretary
Luther Foundation Finland
Reformation 2010, Volume XIX, Number 4Table of Contents
(A feature article from the journal: Origin of the Term Laity by Albert Collver)
The term laity first appeared during the time of the Apostolic Fathers in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians. According to tradition, Clement was the fourth bishop of Rome during the latter part of the /rst century.[1] Origen[2] and Eusebius[3] state that Clement is mentioned in Philippians 4:3 as one who labors with Paul in the gospel.[4] "A Clement is also mentioned in the Shepherd of Hermas, Vis. ii. 4, 3, in which it is stated that it was his duty to write to other churches."5 Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians has been dated between 75 and 110 A.D. Many scholars regard the most probable date as the last decade of the first century.[6] Although this is an early occurrence of the term laity, it occurs after much or all of the New Testament had been written.
Clement writes to the Corinthians because some thirty or forty years after St. Paul wrote them, the congregation was still troubled. In 1 Corinthians, Paul addresses - among other problems - a schism that developed in the congregation. Some claimed to follow Paul while others claimed to follow Apollos and still others claimed to follow Christ (1 Cor 1:23; 3:4-5, 22). Paul asks how they can be divided when Christ is not divided (1 Cor 1:24). He also asks them who is Paul or Apollos? They were merely servants who proclaimed the faith to the Corinthians (1 Cor 3:5). In part, the issue St. Paul addressed was "Which pastor should we follow?" Paul teaches them that what is important is not the man who does the preaching, but that the preaching is carried on, and by that preaching, faith is created and forgiveness is bestowed. The man who does the preaching is merely the authorized - that is, called and ordained - instrument the Lord uses to distribute his means of grace.
Thirty or forty years later, Clement, like Paul, is dealing with "an abominable and unholy schism."[7] Thee schism that Clement has to deal with is of a different sort than that of St. Paul. "Polarization occurred over regular church prayer meetings and, in particular, over the ministry performed by presbyters whose position the young laics (40:5) coveted. The strife reached its peak in the action of the more numerous party. They removed some of the duly appointed presbyters from their positions, although apparently not all of them. What made the action inexcusable to Clement is that the presbyters gave no occasion for it: They had fulfilled their ministry blamelessly (44:6)."[8]
...read or download the rest of this article here (free, PDF)
...purchase the full journal here
by Armand J. Boehme
All farmers would heartily thank God if he had given them fields with twenty-four inches of rich productive black earth for their farms. Rich black earth is the most productive soil in existence. To paraphrase the Scriptures, rich black earth produces an abundant crop yielding thirty-, sixty-, and a hundredfold (Mk 4:8).
Lutheran Christianity was born from the yield that came in part from another kind of black earth, a “black earth” that came from Germany. This “black earth” came into existence on 16 February 1497, when Philipp Schwarzert, the son of Georg Schwarzert, was born at Bretten, near Karlsruhe, in Germany. The name Schwarzert means “black earth.”
Young Philipp Schwarzert was trained at the German universities of Heidelberg and Tübingen in the humanist tradition so that he might teach the classical languages (Latin and Greek). His name was changed to Philipp Melanchthon by his uncle, Johann Reuchlin, a famed Hebrew scholar of that day. Melanchthon is the Greek form of his German name.1
In 1518 Melanchthon was appointed to be professor of Greek at the University of Wittenberg in Germany. There he joined such illustrious faculty members as Martin Luther, Justus Jonas, and Andreas Karlstadt. In 1519 Melanchthon became a Bachelor of the Bible and a lecturer in Christian theology even though he was not ordained. Melanchthon, a layman, taught theology and Greek at the most famous theological university in Germany. His popularity as a teacher is seen in the large number of students in his classes.
Part of what makes Philipp Melanchthon’s place in the history of Christianity and Lutheranism unique is the fact that his fame and notoriety came as he served God faithfully as a layman in the church. In Melanchthon we see part of the unique balance of Lutheran Christianity: the blessed working relationship between those who serve in the office of the holy ministry and those who serve God in the royal priesthood of all believers.
Luther (the ordained clergyman) and Melanchthon (the layman) became close allies and fast friends. Together they served the Lord faithfully and joyfully under some very blessed as well as some very difficult and trying circumstances.
Melanchthon wrote three documents that comprise a major part of the Lutheran Book of Concord: the Augsburg Confession, the Apology [Defense] of the Augsburg Confession, and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. These writings focus on the center of the Christian faith, justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ apart from the works and deeds of the law. The justifying work of Jesus Christ was at the heart of Melanchthon’s faith and life. In all of his work, Melanchthon wished to point sinners to the justifying grace of the Savior of the world. The theological fruit produced by Philipp “Black Earth” continues to bless us today. Lutheran Christianity is firmly rooted and grounded in the “black earth” of the confessional writings that God brought into existence through Philipp Melanchthon. The above-mentioned confessional writings are part of the theological foundation of Lutheranism.
Melanchthon was the author of theological books, works on education, poems, and hymns. His work as a theologian, author, and educator had a profound and lasting effect on Western culture and society. Many scholars credit Melanchthon with being the founder of the German educational system. This rich black earth indeed produced an abundant crop thirty-, sixty-, and a hundredfold.
However, as any farmer knows, rich black earth can produce an abundant crop of weeds as well as wheat. The black earth that was Philipp Melanchthon also produced some “weeds” in addition to the abundant crop of “wheat,” for he, like all of us, was a sinful human being. Melanchthon, like Luther, eagerly worked for the unification of evangelical Christians. However, some see Melanchthon’s eagerness to achieve outward unity among evangelical Christians as a spirit that led to theological compromises.
Part of that perspective arose from Melanchthon’s view of the Augsburg Confession. Many Lutherans saw it as the confession of the Lutherans. Melanchthon saw it more as one of his writings. So he continued to make improvements in its language, primarily to sharpen what the Augsburg Confession said about justification.2 These minor changes went mostly unnoticed until in 1540 Melanchthon made some changes to the Augsburg Confession that altered its bold confession of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar. This change, had it been accepted by the Lutheran Church, would have altered the doctrinal stance of Lutheranism. Melanchthon’s changes, known as the Variata, were later rejected by the Lutheran Church.3
After the Lutherans of the Smalcald League were defeated by Emperor Charles V in 1547, the Roman Catholic Church forced the Augsburg Interim on Lutherans.4 This Interim required the return of Roman Catholic theology and practices in Lutheran churches, for example, the use of the Roman canon of the mass.5 Melanchthon refused to accept the theology and practices of the Augsburg Interim.6 However, when the political situation became graver, Melanchthon and others wrote the provisions of the Leipzig Interim, a watered-down substitute for the Augsburg Interim, and agreed to abide by them.7 Some feel that in doing so, Melanchthon was giving in to the Romanist demands. Melanchthon saw his participation in the Leipzig Interim as a way to keep the emperor from invading Lutheran lands and forcibly removing Lutheran clergy from Lutheran pulpits.
Though Melanchthon made concessions during the Interim, he refused to concede that the canon of the mass could be returned to Lutheran liturgies. Melanchthon believed that the Roman canon was to be resisted because of Christ’s “command that the recognized doctrine of the truth of the gospel must not be denied.”8 Melanchthon and others saw that the doctrine of justification and the sola scriptura principle were at stake. Melanchthon “expressly refused as contrary to the article on justification, prayers to the saints, private masses and masses for the dead, and canon missae.”9
Melanchthon believed that the return of the canon to Lutheran liturgies was “something that could not be received without impiety.”10 When the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics met to discuss the return of the canon to Lutheran liturgies, Melanchthon noted that in Lutheran liturgies without the canon “all essential parts of the mass were retained: consecration, distribution, reception, prayer for forgiveness, and thanksgiving.”11
As a result of the work of Melanchthon and others, the canon was not returned to Lutheran liturgies. Melanchthon was convinced that by preventing the return of the canon to Lutheran liturgies, he had saved the Reformation and had preserved the biblical doctrine of justification by grace through faith in Christ apart from the works of the law. “The controversies about the canon were of the highest importance to me, and I thank God, if I succeed in preventing that these impieties are forced on the pastors.”12
Melanchthon was not entirely pleased with the outcomes of the Leipzig Interim, but he felt that it was the best that could be accomplished given the circumstances. Upon later reflection Melanchthon wrote that he had sinned by participating in the Leipzig Interim, and asked God for forgiveness.13 Some Lutherans today only fault Melanchthon for his lapses and concessions. Rather than focusing on his lapses, however, we should rejoice that Melanchthon confessed his sins and sought God’s justifying grace in Christ our Savior.
Like everyone, Melanchthon had his faults. Philipp Melanchthon was a sinner in need of a Savior. He, like Luther, was moved by the Holy Spirit to live in daily contrition and repentance. In faith he turned from sin and error to live under the blessing of God’s rich grace and mercy in Christ. Melanchthon found the comfort of the rich “black earth” of the gospel in his life. That gospel caused the “black earth” of Melanchthon’s life to spring forth with an abundant harvest of the fruit of faith.
God has called us to live lives of daily contrition and repentance that we too might be cleansed of our sins, and equipped for holy living. The holy gospel has been applied to our lives as Christians and has made us fertile fields of rich black earth producing the fruit of faith. By God’s grace our lives bring forth an abundant harvest of good works as we live as God’s justified people (Eph 2:8–10).
In the “black earth” that was Philipp Melanchthon God has richly blessed the Lutheran Church. God brought a rich theological harvest from this layman whose vocation and calling in life was as a Christian parent, theologian, author, educator, and confessor of the faith. By his grace, God made Philipp Melanchthon a treasured theological father to all Lutherans and many other Christians as well.
Scripture tells us to remember the leaders who taught us God’s word, and encourages us to imitate their faith (Heb 13:7). Thus this year as we observe the 450th anniversary of Melanchthon’s death (19 April 1560), we pause to thank God for the gift he gave his church in the rich black earth that was Philipp Melanchthon.
No better words could conclude this article than Melanchthon’s own words from the Augsburg Confession that speak about the center of his faith and ours, the rich black earth of the justifying grace of Christ our Savior which yields abundant eternal fruit: “It is also taught among us that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake through faith as they believe that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who by his death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God counts as righteousness in his sight (Romans 3 and 4)” (AC IV).
1. Unfortunately, there are few modern English biographies of Melanchthon. But see Clyde L. Manschreck, Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer (New York: Abingdon, 1958); Michael Rogness, Philip Melanchthon: Reformer without Honor (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1969); and Robert Stupperich, Melanchthon: The Enigma of the Reformation (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2006).
2. “Melanchthon followed John Frederick’s order to update the Augsburg Confession.… Philip revised the princes’ confession most extensively by expanding its rather brief explanation of the doctrine of justification. He did that because John Frederick wanted that doctrine more explicitly set forth in what the Elector regarded as his public statement of faith” (Robert Kolb, “Philip Melanchthon: Confessor of the Faith,” The Lutheran Witness 129, no. 2 [February 2010]: 19.
3. For the texts of the various Variata editions see Henry E. Jacobs, ed., Historical Introduction, Appendixes and Indexes to the Book of Concord, or, the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Decatur, IL: Johann Gerhard Institute 1996), a reprint of the original edition (Philadelphia: General Council Publication Board, 1908), 133–88.
4. For excerpts of the Augsburg Interim see Eric Lund, ed., Documents from the History of Lutheranism, 1517–1750 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 162–64. For historical background see Robert Kolb, Confessing the Faith: Reformers Define the Church, 1530–1580 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1991), 65–69; also Theodore E. Schmauk and C. Theodore Benze, The Confessional Principle and the Confessions of the Lutheran Church as Embodying the Evangelical Confession of the Christian Church (Philadelphia: General Council Publication Board, 1911), 587–640; Eugene F. Klug and Otto F. Stahlke, Getting into the Formula of Concord: A History and Digest of the Formula (St. Louis: Concordia, 1977), 59–64.
5. “His [Bishop Pflug’s] argument struck Flacius as ‘approving heathen sacrifice.’ Crucial to that interpretation was the use of the canon/eucharistic prayer. Its use by the Lutherans was demanded by the emperor himself” (Oliver K. Olson, Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther’s Reform [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002], 102; see also 116–23).
6. Melanchthon wrote that the Augsburg Interim “corrupted the truth in the doctrine of justification, and that he was unable to consent to its sophisms” (F. Bente, Historical Introductions to the Book of Concord [St. Louis: Concordia, 1921; reprint 1965], 97).
7. For a text of the Leipzig Interim see Jacobs, Historical Introduction, 290–302; for excerpts see Lund, History of Lutheranism, 165–66. For historical background see Kolb, Confessing the Faith, 69–82. Melanchthon rewrote sections of the Augsburg Interim “so as to preserve justification by faith, to omit the idea of meritorious sacrifice from the Mass, and to keep Scripture in the Church” (Clyde L. Manschreck, ed., Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: Loci communes, 1555 [New York: Oxford University Press, 1965], xvii).
8. Olson, Matthias Flacius, 95.
9. Matthew C. Harrison, “Martin Chemnitz and FC X,” in Mysteria Dei: Essays in Honor of Kurt Marquart, ed. Paul T. McCain and John R. Stephenson (Ft. Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 2000), 81. See also David P. Scaer, “Formula of Concord X: A Revised, Enlarged, and Slightly Amended Edition,” LOGIA 6, no. 4 (Reformation 1997): 27; Olson, Matthias Flacius, 85, 101–5, 116–23; and Daniel Preus, “Luther and the Mass: Justification and the Joint Declaration,” LOGIA 10, no. 4 (Reformation 2001): 13–19.
10. Olson, Matthias Flacius, 121.
11. Ibid., 123. Like Luther, Melanchthon recognized the difference between praying eucharistically (praying prayers in the liturgical celebration of the Lord’s Supper), and eucharistic prayers (prayers which enclose, surround, and bury the words of institution). Praying eucharistically is proper. Eucharistic prayers (the canon of the mass) are not. See Timothy Maschke, Gathered Guests: A Guide to Worship in the Lutheran Church, 2nd ed. (St. Louis: Concordia, 2009), 168.
12. Olson, Matthias Flacius, 123.
13. “I also acknowledge that I have sinned in this matter and ask for God’s pardon for not having fled far away from these insidious deliberations” (Lund, History of Lutheranism, 188).
Armand J. Boehme is associate pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church, Northfield, MN.
by Rev. Clint K. Poppe
When my boys were younger, one of their favorite cartoons was “Transformers.” I don’t remember the names of the characters anymore, but it seems like they all ended in “-tron” or “-con.” The one thing that did stick in my long-term memory was the cartoon theme, complete with heavy techno vibes, “transformers, robots in disguise.” The plot was a simple good-versus-evil theme, with robots having the ability to disguise themselves as regular cars or trucks while their real identity remained hidden. Over time, the original comic books and cartoon have morphed into major motion pictures. Is something similar happening in the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS)?
Many folks in the LCMS are at least vaguely familiar with the initials TCN, which stand for Transforming Churches Network. The LCMS in its 2007 convention passed a resolution to “revitalize” 2000 congregations by the year 2017. According to the official LCMS website, the congregations to be revitalized are those that are “stagnant or declining” and the process will help them become “mission outposts.” The website continues: “God desires all Christians to be missional, and in most cases, people have just forgotten what their first love was and why they existed as a congregation to begin with. As dying congregations begin to thrive, their success stories will encourage others in similar situations to seek help too.”[1] TCN is the vehicle through which this “revitalization” is set to take place.
In January of this year, TCN Executive Director Terry Tieman called for 2010 to be “The Year of Transformation” for the LCMS. How does he propose this to happen? By spending time with God, praying, fasting, and by asking him into your heart? No, I didn’t make that up. “Jesus himself has promised to build his church and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it (Mt 16:18). So, why don’t we invite the Lord of the church to do great things in our midst in 2010? Why don’t we ask him to begin a church transformation mvement in the LCMS? And why don’t we ask him to start in our own hearts?”[2] Has Dr. Tieman had a transformation himself? Perhaps when you work with Baptists, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals, you begin to sound like them; perhaps the transformation is more than just speech patterns.[3]
I would humbly submit that there is really nothing new with regard to TCN. The Charismatic Movement of the 1970s and 1980s transformed into the Church Growth Movement of the 1980s and 1990s. The Church Growth Movement has today transformed into revitalization, Natural Church Development, and, in the LCMS, the Transforming Churches Network. The techniques of TCN are widely available and accessible via the Internet, and are being used by many different denominations. Recently the Nebraska Conference of the United Methodist Church rededicated itself to the process of transformation. The LCMS has spoken clearly and faithfully in the past with regard to the Charismatic Movement[4] and the Church Growth Movement,[5] but there are few voices today that are speaking out against the push for revitalization and TCN in our midst.
I believe that there are two main forces at work with this new mind-set of missionism among us. Revitalization is just another way of saying “let’s have a revival” without the hillbilly accent. “Let’s have a revival but make it mainstream!” The Lutheran Church in America was nearly wiped out by the revivalism of the mid- and late-nineteenth century. Today the anxious bench has simply been replaced by finger snapping. The weekend consultant team has replaced the camp meeting. The new measures have been replaced by the consultant’s report. The hollering, shaking, rolling, revivalist preacher has been replaced by a transformation coach.
Second, to revitalize something implies that it is dead and we must make it alive again. The Pentecostals, Baptists, and “mature” Lutheran pietists have long said that the Lutheran Church is dead, or at least a sleeping giant. I have often joked with a brother pastor that all we need do is watch Trinity Broadcasting Network to see what the newest LCMS program will be. The “Revitalization Process” that is being forced upon many faithful pastors and congregations is no joke. To measure anything other than faithfulness to Christ and his word is an affront to the gospel and is a mockery of our crucified and risen Lord.
TCN is Pentecostalism in disguise and the transformation of the LCMS is happening before our very eyes. We are being told that congregations that resound with the doctrine of justification and the historic liturgy are dead because of measurable declining membership numbers. In order to make them alive we must incorporate revivalist worship and hymnody, be more welcoming at the communion rail, blur the distinction between the office of the holy ministry and the holy and royal priesthood, and focus more on relationships and the community around us. Theology by the numbers game is a theology of law and a theology of glory. It is that plain and simple.
If you are looking for new life in the revitalization process that flows from American revivalism, I beg you to look before you leap. You will be transformed. That much is certain. If you are promoting and forcing this “life” on supposedly dead congregations, I remind you of Christ’s words, “I know your works. You have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead” (Rv 3:1). After all, when Christ’s doctrine is attacked and those who confess it are silenced, where are you to turn? To yourself? To your own works? Your own methods? Charles Porterfield Krauth once said, “A man, or body of men, may cease to be Lutherans, but a doctrine which is Lutheran once, is Lutheran forever.” I suggest that the “revitalization process” as we know it be transformed into something Lutheran. Better yet, let it die a quick death and let us trust in what the Lord has given: preaching repentance and forgiveness of sins (Lk 24), baptizing and teaching (Mt 28), using the office of the keys (Mt 16; 18; Jn 20), and receiving his body and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar (Mt 26; 1 Cor 11). “Where there is forgiveness of sins there is also life and salvation,” the Small Catechism teaches. Indeed. Through these means of grace Jesus gives his church the Holy Spirit who is the Lord and giver of life! That same Spirit calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole church on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith! We are not in control. The Lord Jesus is, through the work of the Spirit in his mandated means of grace. Kyrie eleison!
Rev. Clint K. Poppe
Lincoln, Nebraska
[1]. http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavIP=8054
[2]. http://portal.tcnbackup.com/Home/tabid/36/ctl/Details/mid/661/ItemID/33/Default.aspx
[3]. Scott Diekmann has done an excellent job of tracing the non-Lutheran origins of TCN; http://soundwitness.org/misc/tcn.doc
[4]. http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/charismatic.pdf and http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/charismatic_Movement1.pdf.
[5]. http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Evang-011.pdf.
by John W. Kleinig
If we want to talk about theological education we need to agree on what it involves.1 How then, do we Lutheran teachers of theology understand the teaching and learning of theology? Is the study of theology like the study of any other academic discipline, or does it differ in nature and purpose from other areas of study?
You here at this seminary have been engaged in a debate on these and other similar issues as you have designed and implemented your new curriculum. I would like to add a few of my own observations on that topic and on how we can meet the challenges that may face us in this decade.
In recent times there has been some discussion in our circles in Australia as to whether we should view theology either as a body of religious knowledge, theory, or as a process of reflection on religious experience, practice. It is true that this alternative reflects much of modern critical theory in education and pedagogy. It is also true that this issue has led to a lively debate, particularly here in the USA, on the nature of theological education. Yet the trouble with this discussion is that the underlying distinction between theory and practice assumes that we learn theology in exactly the same way as we learn to master any other intellectual discipline.
But that is not so! It is instructive that the formal disciplined study of theology was not pioneered by philosophers but by catechists, such as Origen in the advanced catechetical school in Alexandria. They did so because they held that the study of theology differed from the study of philosophy and other disciplines in that it had its own unique ἀρχή, its starting point, its foundational principle, which was Christ and God’s words. They knew that the study of theology presupposed baptismal regeneration and realized that it was properly done in a liturgical context. We can see this, quite clearly, already in Hebrews 5:11–14. There its author distinguishes between “the foundational elements of God’s words,” τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ θεοῦ, and the mature understanding of “the word of righteousness,” wisdom that was learned from practice in the art of distinguishing good from evil. They knew that in the study of theology the student was addressed, critiqued, and reconstructed by God. And that most radically!
The discussion on the relation between theory and practice in the learning of theology is not new. Christian scholars in the Middle Ages, who had been influenced by Aristotle, engaged in a lively debate on whether the study of theology was best pursued in the contemplative life, the vita contemplativa, or by practical experience in the active life, the vita activa. Was it basically a matter of theory, or a matter of practice? Or was it a matter of wisdom that came from the interaction between theory and practice?
In a number of places Luther picked up on this question and gave it due consideration. While he was most inclined to view theology as the getting of wisdom, he was uneasy about the whole framework of that medieval discussion. He held that it was based on a false antithesis, an unhelpful distinction that failed to do justice to the gospel and the work of the risen Lord Jesus. He therefore made a significant counterproposal. He maintained that, basically, the study of theology was neither learning a body of knowledge (theoria), nor learning by reflecting on experience (praxis). He held that principally it was engagement in the vita passiva, the passive life, or, more accurately, the receptive life.2 It does not begin with what we see or do or think, but it derives from what God thinks of us and says and does to us. It depends on what we receive from God.
All other academic disciplines presuppose that we are active subjects who discover the truth with our own mental powers of observation and reflection. But in the study of theology we do not act; we are acted on. To use the title of Reinhard Hütter’s fine study, Suffering Divine Things: Theology as Church Practice,3 we suffer divine things.4 We speak only as we are spoken to; we work only as we are worked on; we appropriate what is given to us. In the study of theology we receive everything from God; we do nothing by ourselves and construct nothing for ourselves. Rather, we are deconstructed and reconstructed by the study of theology, if it is allowed to operate as God has ordained. The process of spiritual deconstruction goes beyond the normal mental reconfiguration that is part and parcel of study in any discipline. It includes all aspects of a person’s character from the conscience to the body. Yet it is largely ignored, even though it is an essential part of theological formation. Paul refers to it as the death of the old Adamic self, which clears the ground for the resurrection of the new receptive self in Christ.
Our ongoing reception from God governs all our theological thinking and doing. This, as you all know, has been explored at some length by Oswald Bayer in his helpful study, Theology the Lutheran Way.5 We are, of course, called to understand God’s way of working in the world, in the church, and in our lives. We are also called to work with God in the world and in the church. But we do not discover the things of God either by studying theology as a body of knowledge, or even by reflecting on our experience in the light of theology and other bodies of knowledge. We can only speak as we hear. We can only give what we receive. We can only know as we are known. We can only do God’s work if we are faithful recipients of God’s word, its hearers in the divine service and in our meditation on it. We can only be good stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1), if we ourselves have been initiated by his word and Spirit into the mystery of Christ and participate in it (Col 1:25–27). We know the things of God and work with him in the administration of his grace only as we are enlightened, transformed, and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
So, if we are to make sense of theology as a body of knowledge and understand our experience theologically (and that includes all the bad things that happen to us and others!), we need to be renewed in our νοῦς, our mentality, by the Holy Spirit, so that as we are conformed to Christ, we receive the mind of Christ. Before we can discern what God is doing in the world and in our own experience, before we can work with him both in the order of creation and the order of redemption, God must be at work on us and in us through his word and Holy Spirit in the church.
Theological education therefore involves the reception of Christ’s performative teaching of law and gospel; it involves the transformation of our minds through our growth of faith in him and our insight into his word, so that we, in turn, can pass on to others what we ourselves have received. In theological education what is taught cannot bypass the learner, but it must, as it were, become incarnate in him, so that it can become incarnate in others.6 So the primary goal in the study of theology is spiritual formation by the Triune God. It may, quite incidentally, result in the making of meaning from experience, making sense of what happens to us, which, by the way, is always a communal enterprise. It will, of course, equip students for the work of ministry. But that is not its main purpose. Its main purpose is the renewal of the mind, the acquisition of a new mentality and a godly vision of life that sees as Christ sees, and thinks as he thinks, and judges as he judges, a mind that resonates sympathetically with his mind.
In short, as St. Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 2 we gain “the mind of Christ” by the study of God’s word and the reception of the Holy Spirit, the mind that is assimilated to Christ, the enlightened mind that knows God’s way of thinking and understands “what God has freely given us” in the risen Lord Jesus. This helps us both to work with Christ and to suffer with him in the administration of God’s grace, for working with him involves suffering with him. So in his second letter to young pastor Timothy, Paul urges Timothy to prove himself as a good workman in God’s house who “rightly divides the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15) as he is daily empowered, by the Spirit, to “suffer abuse” with Christ for preaching the gospel (2 Tim 1:6–8; see also 2 Tim 2:3, 9). The ability to endure abuse that is meant to silence and intimidate and shame qualifies him to be a good pastor, a herald of the gospel who by that endurance displays the gospel in all its life-giving power.
As I see it we will continue to face many challenges to our Lutheran theology of reception in this decade. Here are but a few that we face in Australia.
To face these challenges confidently and faithfully, we who confess the receptive life of faith in Christ may need to attend to the following things in theological education.
1. We may do well to focus on the mystery of Christ present and active in the church.
2. In our seminaries we should build our teaching and learning around the practice of daily worship and weekly congregational worship as the means by which the Triune God speaks his critical and constructive word to us and acts on us through his recreating and renewing Holy Spirit.
3. We should promote Lutheran spirituality as the personal appropriation in faith of what God the Father offers us through his Son by the Spirit.
4. We should teach our students how to use God’s efficacious word in the divine service and in pastoral care.
5. We do well to regard our seminary curriculum as advanced catechesis, the process by which baptized people receive the whole Christian faith through the church and understand it fully for themselves, so that they can, in turn, pass it on relevantly and personally and faithfully in all its fullness to others.
6. We need to provide proper pastoral care for students within the seminary, so that they integrate what they learn, by understanding God’s word in the light of their experience and their experience in the light of God’s word.
7. We need to understand all theological disciplines as modes of pastoral theology that finds its proper context in the liturgical life and mission of the church.
8. We need to acknowledge and promote learning within community.
I would like to conclude by recalling the words of our Lord in Matthew 13:52. They are recorded only by Matthew, a scribe who had, most likely, been trained in the law of God, but had used his knowledge to enrich himself as a tax collector. You may remember that after teaching in parables, our Lord asks his disciples whether they had understood his teaching on the mysteries of God’s heavenly kingdom. Then he concludes: “Therefore every scribe [every theologian] who has been discipled for the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” That is what we will be called to do this year and in the years to come until the close of the age.
1. This article was presented to Concordia Theological Seminary’s fall faculty forum in Fort Wayne, Indiana, 2 September 2009.
2. Here Luther uses passive in its grammatical sense as in his teaching on passive righteousness and passive holiness.
3. Reinhard Hütter, Suffering Divine Things: Theology as Church Practice (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).
4. See also Edward Farley, Theologia: Fragmentation and Unity in Theological Education (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983).
5. Oswald Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, Lutheran Quarterly Books (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).
6. Claus Harms puts this well in a memorable mixed language pun about preaching: Was nicht per du geht, sei perdu. We could translate this in an all too clumsy way: “Teaching that is not personally assimilated is lost teaching.”
7. See the perceptive remarks of James Torrance in Worship, Community & the Triune God of Grace (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1996). He distinguishes between unitarianism of three kinds: the first article with liberals, the second article with evangelicals, and the third article with Pentecostals.
John W. Kleinig teaches at the Australian Lutheran College, North Adelaide, South Australia, and is a contributing editor to LOGIA.
If we want to talk about theological education we need to agree on what it involves.1 How then, do we Lutheran teachers of theology understand the teaching and learning of theology? Is the study of theology like the study of any other academic discipline, or does it differ in nature and purpose from other areas of study? You here at this seminary have been engaged in a debate on these and other similar issues as you have designed and implemented your new curriculum. I would like to add a few of my own observations on that topic and on how we can meet the challenges that may face us in this decade.
In recent times there has been some discussion in our circles in Australia as to whether we should view theology either as a body of religious knowledge, theory, or as a process of reflection on religious experience, practice. It is true that this alternative reflects much of modern critical theory in education and pedagogy. It is also true that this issue has led to a lively debate, particularly here in the USA, on the nature of theological education. Yet the trouble with this discussion is that the underlying distinction between theory and practice assumes that we learn theology in exactly the same way as we learn to master any other intellectual discipline.
But that is not so! It is instructive that the formal disciplined study of theology was not pioneered by philosophers but by catechists, such as Origen in the advanced catechetical school in Alexandria. They did so because they held that the study of theology differed from the study of philosophy and other disciplines in that it had its own unique ἀρχή, its starting point, its foundational principle, which was Christ and God’s words. They knew that the study of theology presupposed baptismal regeneration and realized that it was properly done in a liturgical context. We can see this, quite clearly, already in Hebrews 5:11–14. There its author distinguishes between “the foundational elements of God’s words,” τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ θεοῦ, and the mature understanding of “the word of righteousness,” wisdom that was learned from practice in the art of distinguishing good from evil. They knew that in the study of theology the student was addressed, critiqued, and reconstructed by God. And that most radically!
The discussion on the relation between theory and practice in the learning of theology is not new. Christian scholars in the Middle Ages, who had been influenced by Aristotle, engaged in a lively debate on whether the study of theology was best pursued in the contemplative life, the vita contemplativa, or by practical experience in the active life, the vita activa. Was it basically a matter of theory, or a matter of practice? Or was it a matter of wisdom that came from the interaction between theory and practice?
In a number of places Luther picked up on this question and gave it due consideration. While he was most inclined to view theology as the getting of wisdom, he was uneasy about the whole framework of that medieval discussion. He held that it was based on a false antithesis, an unhelpful distinction that failed to do justice to the gospel and the work of the risen Lord Jesus. He therefore made a significant counterproposal. He maintained that, basically, the study of theology was neither learning a body of knowledge (theoria), nor learning by reflecting on experience (praxis). He held that principally it was engagement in the vita passiva, the passive life, or, more accurately, the receptive life.2 It does not begin with what we see or do or think, but it derives from what God thinks of us and says and does to us. It depends on what we receive from God.
All other academic disciplines presuppose that we are active subjects who discover the truth with our own mental powers of observation and reflection. But in the study of theology we do not act; we are acted on. To use the title of Reinhard Hütter’s fine study, Suffering Divine Things: Theology as Church Practice,3 we suffer divine things.4 We speak only as we are spoken to; we work only as we are worked on; we appropriate what is given to us. In the study of theology we receive everything from God; we do nothing by ourselves and construct nothing for ourselves. Rather, we are deconstructed and reconstructed by the study of theology, if it is allowed to operate as God has ordained. The process of spiritual deconstruction goes beyond the normal mental reconfiguration that is part and parcel of study in any discipline. It includes all aspects of a person’s character from the conscience to the body. Yet it is largely ignored, even though it is an essential part of theological formation. Paul refers to it as the death of the old Adamic self, which clears the ground for the resurrection of the new receptive self in Christ.
Our ongoing reception from God governs all our theological thinking and doing. This, as you all know, has been explored at some length by Oswald Bayer in his helpful study, Theology the Lutheran Way.5 We are, of course, called to understand God’s way of working in the world, in the church, and in our lives. We are also called to work with God in the world and in the church. But we do not discover the things of God either by studying theology as a body of knowledge, or even by reflecting on our experience in the light of theology and other bodies of knowledge. We can only speak as we hear. We can only give what we receive. We can only know as we are known. We can only do God’s work if we are faithful recipients of God’s word, its hearers in the divine service and in our meditation on it. We can only be good stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1), if we ourselves have been initiated by his word and Spirit into the mystery of Christ and participate in it (Col 1:25–27). We know the things of God and work with him in the administration of his grace only as we are enlightened, transformed, and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
So, if we are to make sense of theology as a body of knowledge and understand our experience theologically (and that includes all the bad things that happen to us and others!), we need to be renewed in our νοῦς, our mentality, by the Holy Spirit, so that as we are conformed to Christ, we receive the mind of Christ. Before we can discern what God is doing in the world and in our own experience, before we can work with him both in the order of creation and the order of redemption, God must be at work on us and in us through his word and Holy Spirit in the church.
Theological education therefore involves the reception of Christ’s performative teaching of law and gospel; it involves the transformation of our minds through our growth of faith in him and our insight into his word, so that we, in turn, can pass on to others what we ourselves have received. In theological education what is taught cannot bypass the learner, but it must, as it were, become incarnate in him, so that it can become incarnate in others.6 So the primary goal in the study of theology is spiritual formation by the Triune God. It may, quite incidentally, result in the making of meaning from experience, making sense of what happens to us, which, by the way, is always a communal enterprise. It will, of course, equip students for the work of ministry. But that is not its main purpose. Its main purpose is the renewal of the mind, the acquisition of a new mentality and a godly vision of life that sees as Christ sees, and thinks as he thinks, and judges as he judges, a mind that resonates sympathetically with his mind.
In short, as St. Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 2 we gain “the mind of Christ” by the study of God’s word and the reception of the Holy Spirit, the mind that is assimilated to Christ, the enlightened mind that knows God’s way of thinking and understands “what God has freely given us” in the risen Lord Jesus. This helps us both to work with Christ and to suffer with him in the administration of God’s grace, for working with him involves suffering with him. So in his second letter to young pastor Timothy, Paul urges Timothy to prove himself as a good workman in God’s house who “rightly divides the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15) as he is daily empowered, by the Spirit, to “suffer abuse” with Christ for preaching the gospel (2 Tim 1:6–8; see also 2 Tim 2:3, 9). The ability to endure abuse that is meant to silence and intimidate and shame qualifies him to be a good pastor, a herald of the gospel who by that endurance displays the gospel in all its life-giving power.
As I see it we will continue to face many challenges to our Lutheran theology of reception in this decade. Here are but a few that we face in Australia.
To face these challenges confidently and faithfully, we who confess the receptive life of faith in Christ may need to attend to the following things in theological education.
1. We may do well to focus on the mystery of Christ present and active in the church.
2. In our seminaries we should build our teaching and learning around the practice of daily worship and weekly congregational worship as the means by which the Triune God speaks his critical and constructive word to us and acts on us through his recreating and renewing Holy Spirit.
3. We should promote Lutheran spirituality as the personal appropriation in faith of what God the Father offers us through his Son by the Spirit.
4. We should teach our students how to use God’s efficacious word in the divine service and in pastoral care.
5. We do well to regard our seminary curriculum as advanced catechesis, the process by which baptized people receive the whole Christian faith through the church and understand it fully for themselves, so that they can, in turn, pass it on relevantly and personally and faithfully in all its fullness to others.
6. We need to provide proper pastoral care for students within the seminary, so that they integrate what they learn, by understanding God’s word in the light of their experience and their experience in the light of God’s word.
7. We need to understand all theological disciplines as modes of pastoral theology that finds its proper context in the liturgical life and mission of the church.
8. We need to acknowledge and promote learning within community.
I would like to conclude by recalling the words of our Lord in Matthew 13:52. They are recorded only by Matthew, a scribe who had, most likely, been trained in the law of God, but had used his knowledge to enrich himself as a tax collector. You may remember that after teaching in parables, our Lord asks his disciples whether they had understood his teaching on the mysteries of God’s heavenly kingdom. Then he concludes: “Therefore every scribe [every theologian] who has been discipled for the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” That is what we will be called to do this year and in the years to come until the close of the age.
1. This article was presented to Concordia Theological Seminary’s fall faculty forum in Fort Wayne, Indiana, 2 September 2009.
2. Here Luther uses passive in its grammatical sense as in his teaching on passive righteousness and passive holiness.
3. Reinhard Hütter, Suffering Divine Things: Theology as Church Practice (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).
4. See also Edward Farley, Theologia: Fragmentation and Unity in Theological Education (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983).
5. Oswald Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, Lutheran Quarterly Books (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).
6. Claus Harms puts this well in a memorable mixed language pun about preaching: Was nicht per du geht, sei perdu. We could translate this in an all too clumsy way: “Teaching that is not personally assimilated is lost teaching.”
7. See the perceptive remarks of James Torrance in Worship, Community & the Triune God of Grace (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1996). He distinguishes between unitarianism of three kinds: the first article with liberals, the second article with evangelicals, and the third article with Pentecostals.
John W. Kleinig teaches at the Australian Lutheran College, North Adelaide, South Australia, and is a contributing editor to LOGIA.
by Brent Kuhlman
A few years ago at a district convention we were given the typical harangue about how the membership of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) continues to hemorrhage. Then came the typical canard. The speaker snapped his fingers over a period of time and informed us how many people had died and gone to hell during his little object lesson. This happens in sermons, Bible studies, and various other speaking engagements throughout North American Lutheranism. And it’s been going on for quite some time.
Richard John Neuhaus in his Death On A Friday Afternoon: Meditations on the Last Words of Jesus From the Cross recalls a Lutheran mission festival he experienced as a young boy in Canada:
For such a special occasion, a guest preacher was required, and this year he came all the way from “the States,” which meant two hundred miles away in upstate New York. This preacher had a most dramatic flair in making the case for the urgency of world missions. Well into a sermon that lasted an hour or more (which was not unusual for something so auspicious as the annual mission festival), the preacher suddenly stopped. For a full minute there was complete silence as he looked intently at his wristwatch. Then he tossed his head, threw out his arm and, pointing directly at me in the third row, announced, “In the last one minute, thirty-seven thousand lost souls have gone to eternal damnation without a saving knowledge of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!” It was, I believe, the first theological crisis of my life. This seven-year-old boy was electrified. I immediately put my mind to work figuring out how many minutes we had been sitting there while thirty-seven thousand people per minute were going to hell.
Recently I was “blessed” to hear a special Lenten “Ablaze” sermon in which the preacher contended that every sixty seconds, eighty-three people die who do not know Jesus. Again, do the math. If the preacher’s statistical memorandum lasts for fifteen minutes, one thousand two hundred and forty-five people die and go to eternal damnation!
All right. So what’s the point? Really? Are we supposed to drop everything and knock on doors 24-7/365? Do I dare go home to be with my wife and children? Am I allowed to attend my daughters’ softball games? What about golfing a round with my son? Am I even allowed to go to bed at night? Do the math! Horror of horrors! In all the time I spend being a pastor, husband, father, substitute bus driver, substitute school teacher, eating, sleeping, attending required synodical conferences, or whatever else—thousands if not millions upon millions have died and gone to hell! And all because I didn’t.…Woe is me! Woe is me! Woe is me! What will the Lord Jesus think of me? Will I end up in hell too because I wasted so much time? Because I didn’t take the preacher’s words to heart and immediately forsake all my God-given vocations to join the fulltime modern Protestant version of the observant mission monastery?
Just silly remarks? Not hardly! One mission exec whom I know warned that those who refuse to be mission-minded will hear the damnatory words of Jesus addressed to the goats in Matthew 25 on the last day (Richard Boring, “Marks and Assets of a Maintenance Congregation,” Issues in Christian Education 41, no. 3 [Winter 2007–2008]: 8–13). The effect of this kind of preaching is very serious, deadly serious. As I have served in the office of the holy ministry, I have had to deal pastorally with the consequences of this despotic preaching, teaching, and writing. Many consciences are hurt and troubled because they take the mission preacher seriously. They are crushed because of their supposed monastic mission “failures/sins.” They cannot, despite how hard they try, fulfill the relentless mission requirements. Consciences are bound. People are living in man-made institutional prisons! I know. I hear confessions. In addition, how many times have you been popishly forced to confess specific imaginary “sins” against the Great Commission at the beginning of “creative/contemporary” services in the “general” confession that the institution or creative pastor invented? (Talk about out-poping the pope! The pope only requires the sinner to confess sins that he actually commits!) This worry about such “sinning” also comes up in regular conversation with the people I have served. It is as if their salvation depends on being a mission monk! Their consciences sorely oppressed because they take the time to be a parent, go to work, eat, sleep, and whatever else God has given them to do. This is one of the worst ways of religiously tyrannizing consciences and creating theological crises of the highest order for people.
That’s one very serious predicament. Neuhaus speaks of another that resulted from that mission festival a long time ago. I struggle with it too:
In my agitated state, I wanted to jump up and shout that we had better get going right now to tell all those hell-bent people about Jesus. The real crisis came later, however. I was excited all day and had spent a restless night contending with dreams about all those people in hell. The next morning I discovered that the visiting preacher and my Dad, who was the pastor of the host church, were taking three days off to go fishing. Thirty-seven thousand people going to hell every minute and they were going fishing!
Isn’t that precisely how it goes? After the mission messages or mission minutes are over it’s off for a couple rounds of golf, Gemütlichkeit complete with some serious adult beverages, and a long night of solving all the church’s problems. Then it is another week of meetings and more speaking engagements of preaching to the choir!
But what about the preacher’s words? How many people are dying and going to hell while the mission experts gallivant all around the world at endless meetings? Shouldn’t we adjourn and start pounding the pavement? Or is all this just church talk? Something for which the mission execs get paid and we are supposed to listen dutifully? Maybe these men don’t really mean what they say! Has this just become some religious “racket” or Ponzi scheme? If so, no wonder it has become so ho-hum for people in the pews. It is no wonder that many others hardly take such talk seriously at all any more. “But I only meant it for good,” the preacher may contend. Indeed. No doubt. But isn’t that how much harm occurs in a family?
As for my household, my congregation, and me, we will continue to go about our God-given vocations. Part of that “mission” includes making sure that our children are baptized, instructed, and commune faithfully. It also means the baptismal mission of daily dying to sin (death to the old Adam) and daily trusting in Jesus and his forgiveness (resurrection of the new man) so that we can love the people God has put in our lives throughout the various stations of life in which we live. This can and certainly does include inviting and bringing unbelievers to the divine service to hear about and experience the God who justifies the ungodly all because of Jesus who died and rose again. It certainly does include the exhortation for people to receive holy baptism and be gathered in the church to the glory of God’s name. This kind of living is not a prison. It is the free life of living in the Father’s house as his died-for-and-forgiven sons and daughters who confidently trust that the Spirit creates faith when and where he pleases in those who hear the gospel.
Brent Kuhlman
Review of The Historical Jesus of the Gospels by Craig S. Keener. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. 831 pages. Review by Peter Scaer.
What can we know about the historical Jesus? Plenty, according to Craig Keener. Of course, you would already know that from the book’s refreshing title. For Keener, the historical Jesus—the real Jesus—is found not beyond or behind the pages of the canonical Gospels, but within the Gospels themselves. Believe what you want, Keener would say, but the best way to get know the genuine Jesus is through the pages of the Gospels, which are the best sources available and bear the marks of true history.
Keener’s basically conservative approach to the Gospels is sure to have its detractors but no one, I would wager, can doubt that he has done his homework. The book weighs in at book-bag breaking 831 pages, but its main argument takes only 393, leaving over half of the work to footnotes, bibliographies, and appendices. So if from time to time readers find Keener’s arguments less than compelling, they can check out the original sources and come to their own conclusions.
Keener begins by presenting “Disparate Views about Jesus” (1-69) in which the author traces the development of modern Jesus scholarship, reviewing the work of von Harnack, Weiss, Schweitzer, Bultmann, and others. Young students in particular will find this section helpful as they can learn here that even the most “academic” scholarship is biased and influenced by cultural tendencies of its time. Indeed, as Keener demonstrates, scholars have often concentrated their historical study on Jesus not for the sake of knowing the true Jesus but have “used respect for Jesus to promulgate their own ideology” (6). Thus the Enlightenment gave us a Jesus without miracles, the Romantic era offered up a Jesus of noble sentiments, von Harnack’s Jesus promoted a life of civility, and Bultmann presented a demythologized and “relevant” Jesus. What is striking about all these paradigms is how quaint and, in fact, irrelevant they appear today.
After addressing the older quests for the historical Jesus Keener turns his attention to his contemporaries, including Burton Mack, Dominic Crossan, and Bart Ehrman. To give an example, consider Crossan’s view of Jesus as a “Peasant Cynic.” Keener meticulously combs through the sources and shows that calling Jesus a Cynic is simply another example of putting a round peg in a square hole. Cynics were rude and asocial, essentially negative in their critique—hardly the stuff of a Kingdom Builder like Jesus. Moreover it is not right, Keener notes, to think of Jesus simply as a lowly carpenter’s son. To be sure, Joseph’s occupation was not especially prestigious but neither was it despised. Even more, Keener notes, “Carpenters were artisans, not peasants, and many assign them to the upper ten percent of nonaristocratic Galilean society”(21). What Crossan has done is create a Jesus in his image, a true sandal-wearing cynic, at home in any protest, carrying any billboard. (I suppose it would churlish to add that Crossan, the would-be-peasant and scourge of wealthy empires, has become every bit as wealthy as the capitalists and empire-builders he mocks.) Now, whether one wants to believe Keener or not, the footnotes are available and plentiful, and the reader can draw his own conclusion. What is nice, I think, is that Keener not only takes to task the heavy-hitters of liberalism but also may disabuse some of us of our own romantic notions of “Jesus the lowly carpenter.” Just because Jesus was born in a manger did not mean he lived in one.
Those enamored with the conspiracy theories of Dan Brown will be sure to appreciate Keener’s section on “Other Gospels?” As the question mark would indicate, Keener finds the Apocryphal and Gnostic gospels more akin to modern romance novels than to genuine historical documents. Written in the second and third centuries, Keener argues, the works as the Gospels of Thomas and Peter have little to tell us about who Jesus really was because they came too late to the party.
What about the canonical Gospels themselves? In what way do they present the history of Jesus? Here Keener spends some time demonstrating that Jesus and his disciples were born into a society that promoted both memorization and note-taking and, as Keener notes, “We should recognize a point that some skeptical scholars often neglect: during most of this period, Jesus’ closest disciples remained the Jesus movement’s leading teachers” (138). The manner in which Jesus taught and the way in which his disciples transmitted that teaching is consistent with high standards of historical reliability.
Having set the stage, Keener then walks the reader through the Gospel, and asks “What We Learn about Jesus from the Best Sources” (163-348). Keener’s argument is basically this: what we know about Jesus is congruent with what we know about ancient society; furthermore, the Gospel writers often include items that they never would have written if they were not true. One of Keener’s favorite tactics is to argue from embarrassment. The Gospels simply do not fit the paradigm of religious propaganda. As he writes, “No one would invent Nazareth as a background for Jesus”(182). Again, “No one would make up fishing villages as sites of a great person’s ministry” (182). And again, “No one would invent rural Galiliee, fishermen, or tax collectors” (183). This line of argument is carried through to the very end of the book where Keener underlines the resurrection’s plausibility by noting, “The witness of women at the tomb is very likely historical, precisely because it was so offensive to the larger culture – not the sort of testimony one would invent” (331).
Some would say that Keener’s work is unnecessary because, after all, we believe that the Gospels are God’s word. True enough. Yet the Gospels are also historical documents, written in time, and are just as open to scrutiny as, for example, the Koran or Book of Mormon. Keener is in no position to “prove” anything in the Gospels is true but he is very good at showing how negative claims are often little more than unfounded and biased criticism.
The meat of the book is found in Keener’s observations about various aspects of Jesus’ ministry. He speaks about Jesus as a Galilean Jew, a Teacher, a Prophet, and a Messiah. He addresses Jesus’ teachings on Discipleship and Ethics and explores the reasons for Jesus’ death. Any of these sections could be read separately and profitably.
I have yet to see other reviews on this book but I imagine that while some will find the book nearly exhaustive, others will find it simply exhausting. Keener’s work is not ground-breaking nor is it essentially original. What it is, though, is a sober-minded antidote to much of sensational biblical scholarship. Keener is a man who has done his homework. Before he became a biblical scholar he studied the classics and ancient history. As such he was well prepared for the task that became this book.
Towards the end of the work Keener speaks about his own personal journey from atheism to Christianity. As the author tells his story, he was at first put off from Christianity because of its supposedly shaky intellectual foundation. In some ways this book may be seen of a self-defense for his intellectual journey. For what it’s worth, Keener also includes this bit of spiritual autobiography: “When I later encountered the risen Christ in an unsolicited and unexpected personal experience, hence came to the conviction that he (not to mention the God with whom he was associated) was in fact alive, I understood the reality of Jesus rises or falls not on how successfully his professed followers have followed his teaching, but on Jesus himself” (385). Of course none of us have any access or way of knowing the nature of Keener’s personal experience. Be that as it may, Keener offers something more substantial: a well-grounded and reasoned assessment of the Gospels, through which Jesus continues to speak to all of us.
Peter J. Scaer
Fort Wayne, Indiana
by Kurt E. Reinhardt, pastor of Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church in Kurtzville, Ontario
Editor's Note—This article first appeared in Lutheran Theological Review (Vol. 21). Apologies go out to Editor Tom Winger of LTR for our failure to realize this prior to our publishing of the article here.
In St. Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, with these profound words, he lays out the heart and center of all Christian proclamation. A Christian sermon should have something to do with Christ. It is a truth that should perhaps go without saying, but sadly all too often the word that comes from many “Christian” pulpits lacks this one needful thing (Luke 10:42). A question that rightly belongs in the sermon writer’s repertoire for constructive critique of his own work should be precisely this: “What have I said about Jesus?” The answer will help him to identify to what extent his work is truly Christian. Again it should go without saying that a sermon that has nothing to do with Christ cannot be truly Christian. Yet as one of C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe characters, Professor Kirk, rightly wonders: “Logic! Why don’t they teach logic at these schools?” In our reason-phobic world the logical must often be stated.
A Christian sermon should have Christ at the center of it. Simply tacking the name of Jesus onto the end does not fit the bill. Otherwise we would have to admit that Christian sermons are being delivered all over the world in school yards, alleyways, offices, on television, at the movies and wherever else our Lord’s name is used in its predominant form as an “expletive to express shock or surprise.” A Christian sermon is not delineated by a few nice words about Jesus’ love or forgiveness at the end of ten, twenty or even thirty minutes. As St. Paul rightly lays it out for us, the sermon should preach Christ. He should be the heart and center of the whole proclamation. He should be its whole point and raison d’être. Without Christ the words should tumble into a pile of letters at the bottom of your page and the words of your mouth should degenerate into nonsense. Again, such truths should perhaps go without saying, but a quick examination of a completed sermon can reveal surprising results to the most faithful of preachers. How much air time does our Lord get in comparison to that cute story or funny joke that will get a laugh or smile out of the hearers? How much time do we spend talking about ourselves compared to the time we spend talking about Christ? How long do we spend inviting the listeners to examine themselves compared to the time that we fix their eyes on Jesus?
A Christian sermon should have Christ at its center, but not just any Christ as St. Paul further tells us. The Christ at the center and heart of the Christian sermon should be a crucified Christ. The nail marks in his hands and feet and the spear wound in his side should distinguish the greater prophet we proclaim from the lesser one who came before him. A sermon can have a high Christ content yet still fail to be Christian if the only Christ who is proclaimed has more in common with Sinai than Calvary. A crucified Christ has a lot to say about sin, since the wounds he bears make a powerful declaration about its depravity, gravity and toxicity. These wounds leave us without a doubt that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). They also declare our own inability to free ourselves from our sinful condition and the bonds that so entangle us. Yet these wounds also speak the most powerful and dramatic word about the love of God and the forgiveness his Son has accomplished for us. A crucified Christ is a Christ who has earned salvation for his people by paying for their sins. He has delivered them from the dominion of death by his own journey into it with their burdens around his neck. Although this Christ is the one who placed the tablets into Moses’ hands, Christ’s hands are the ones that suffer their consequences for Israel and all mankind (John 1:17).
Yet again, another self-evident truth about this wounded Jesus, who stands in the center of the Christian proclamation and so should have pride of place in every sermon that aspires to be Christian, is that he has such hands that can be wounded. A crucified Christ is an incarnate Christ. The word that the Christian Church proclaims is an enfleshed word. As St. John lays out for us in his gospel, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).” The incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ involves the permanent binding of the Word of the Father with the flesh and blood he took on in the womb of the blessed virgin Mary. The only begotten Son of God was for us and our salvation made man, and remains man to this day. There is no Word of God that can be encountered apart from the flesh and blood of Jesus of Nazareth. We have no Gnostic Christ who encounters us in some spiritual way floating down to us from the heavens on the whims of fancy. We have no Christ who is present with us everywhere who is not present bodily. Mary Magdalene grabs hold of a real body when she lays her hands on to her beloved Lord (John 20:17). The Emmaus disciples are not accompanied by a spiritual Christ on their evening journey. Hands made of real flesh and blood break the bread at the table to reveal the identity of their companion of comfort (Luke 24:30). A real man eats fish and bread before the disciples in the upper room (Luke 24:41-43). Thomas puts his fingers into real tangible wounds in living hands and feet and side of a human body that his doubt might be fleshed away (John 20:27). This incarnate Christ is the one who promises to be with his people even unto the end of the age as they gather in his name (Matthew 18:20; 28:20).
This incarnate Christ and no other is the Christ of the Christian proclamation. To proclaim a Christ who has not been made flesh and who does not continue to come in the flesh is the not the task of the Christian preacher but, as St. John declares, the work of the antichrist (1 John 4:1-3). The Christian preacher does not proclaim a Christ who is far away but a Christ who comes to his people and dwells with them. The incarnate nature of our Lord determines the means that he uses to abide with and in them. The sacramental life of the church is not simply a product of her whim[1] or for that matter the Lord’s whim, but rather naturally and necessarily flows from the Son’s incarnation. The necessity of the sacramental life of the Christian does not exist because God simply wanted it that way. This sacramental life is not something that exists purely because of our weakness and our need for tangible things to assure us of the Lord’s active presence in our lives. Although both of these things may be said to be true, the sacramental life of the people of God necessarily flows out of the personal union of the divine and human natures in our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no true Christ who is not a sacramental Christ. An incarnate Christ is a sacramental Christ. When our Lord became incarnate, the sacramental nature of our life with Him was determined and fixed. As our Lord was made flesh, that flesh, true to its nature, encounters us in fleshly things. As the Son took on our matter to redeem all matter, he determined that there would be no other means to deal with us than through that matter. This is not to deny the almighty will of God or limit his power as though something from outside himself was imposed on him, but rather to simply recognize that his decision to become incarnate for our salvation included the sacramental life that flows from that incarnation.
The Christ that the Christian preacher is called to proclaim is not a God who is far off but a God who is near in the flesh and blood of Jesus. To preach Christ rightly, then, involves preaching an incarnate Christ who encounters his people sacramentally. The preached word in and of itself has a sacramental character when Christ is proclaimed rightly. The called and ordained servant of Christ who stands in the pulpit proclaiming the word of God does so in Christ’s name but also in Christ’s stead. The Lord says of those he sends out to proclaim the Gospel, “He who hears you hears me (Luke 10:16).” The voice of the preacher becomes the means by which the Lord speaks his word into the hearts and minds of his people (John 13:20). This word is powerful and effective and creates saving faith in the hearer where and when the Holy Spirit pleases. As St. Paul indicates in his epistle to the Romans, “And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (10:14)” The pastor becomes a meeting point between the Lord and his people, as through the church the Lord identifies the pastor as the one who speaks for him. To hear from him in his office is to hear from the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:20). Interestingly enough, the great writer of letters to the churches emphasizes that faith comes through hearing rather than from reading. Our Lord does not write any letters that we know of in his own hand to the church, but rather appoints apostles and sends them out to preach the good news (Matthew 28:19-20). The good news is meant to be proclaimed from a living mouth to living ears. The Lord, through the pastor, comes not simply to inform the hearer of certain truths but to declare a truth in person to them and about themselves in Christ. The pastor is called to make a “for you” declaration to the Lord’s people, which is from the Lord himself. Thus, the pastor can even boldly take up the voice of Christ in the first person, as he speaks in the stead of the Lord for the benefit of God’s people, as Luther often does when preaching.
Although the preaching office may be recognized as having a sacramental character that naturally flows out of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, it has not traditionally been identified as one of the church’s sacraments.[2] The Lutheran Confessions identify three of our Lord’s gifts as belonging to this category: holy baptism, absolution, and the sacrament of the altar.[3] If the proclaimed word of God creates saving faith in the hearts and lives of God’s people, and if our Lord is present in the pastor to proclaim such a word, why does he give such gifts to the church and command their observance (Matthew 28:18; John 20:21-23; Luke 22:17-20)? The sacraments are not optional; they have a divine mandate and are also a divine imperative. The church is not given the option to baptize; she is told to baptize. The church is not given the option of forgiving sins; she is told to forgive sins. The church is not given the option of celebrating the Lord’s Supper; she is told to celebrate it. Thus we see in the book of Acts that these very things are taking place as sinners are baptized and forgiven and as the disciples meet every Lord ’s Day to break bread together (Acts 2:40-47). On occasion, in wrestling with the question of the necessity of these gifts for salvation, it is possible to slip into considering them as in some way being optional. Our Lord Jesus, however, does not say, “If you want to, you may do these things”. Rather, he states them in the imperative which, granted, establishes the church’s mandate but also speaks of necessity.[4] The Lord has commanded these things to be done and, for the church to be church, she needs to be doing them (Luke 12:35-48). The right administration of the sacraments is rightly identified by the Lutheran Confessions as one of the marks of the church for this very reason.[5]
Although the three sacraments along with the proclaimed word of God serve the Lord’s purpose of creating faith in Jesus Christ, their individual mandate and command argues for a unique purpose in the lives of Christians. Our Lord never lists them as options to be chosen from depending on the circumstance or preference of the hearer, and the church historically has not offered them buffet-style either. They form a cohesive whole and are meant to work together for the new life of faith. The question of whether or not one may subsist on one portion alone sadly can degenerate into the laying aside of one or the other because faith does not “need” them to survive. The Lord, however, did not just give us one or the other but gave all and commanded their observance. Faith may indeed survive on one or the other, but our Lord’s commandment would imply that faith would be much healthier with a well-rounded diet of all that he has laid out for it. Simply because we can does not mean that we should. The proclaimed word and sacraments are not independent options but interdependent parts of the life of the Christian. Understanding this interconnectedness can help the preacher to proclaim rightly the incarnate crucified Christ who lives out life with his people sacramentally. In baptism we know that we have a new birth into Christ Jesus where the Holy Spirit is given and our sins are washed away (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27). In absolution we know that we have a return to our baptism where our Lord Jesus cleanses our feet from the dirt of our journey through this world (Matthew 9:8; John 13:10; John 20:23). In the sacrament of the altar we know that we have a place at our Lord’s table where He joins himself to us with the feast of his life-giving body and blood (1 Corinthians 10:16). In all of these three we have an encounter with our incarnate Lord where he creates, renews, and nourishes our unity with him. The proclaimed word as it presents the incarnate Christ to his people should direct, encourage, and create a hunger in them for an encounter with their Lord in these places where he has promised to be found.
The proclaimed word of God undoubtedly creates a bond between the Lord and his people as he declares his love and forgiveness to them. Faith is created through this word as the Holy Spirit works through it to convert the hearts of the hearers. Yet the sacraments play a unique role in the life of the Christian in uniting them to their Lord through his flesh. In baptism the Lord unites himself with the sinner to take on his sins while imparting his holiness in return. In private confession the Lord meets intimately with the sinner to touch him to remove the leprosy of his sin. In the sacrament of the altar our Lord most clearly comes bodily to his people in his flesh and blood to give them forgiveness, life, and salvation through their union with him. These sacraments are all given through the word of God and derive all their power from it, yet remain distinct in that they involve an incarnate impartation of the Lord himself to his people. In marital terms we see the wooing of the bride in the proclaimed word which leads to marriage and a life of love together in a unity of one flesh that unfolds in the sacraments. The bride and bridegroom share a life of mutual conversation but also a sharing of themselves in physical union in love. Mutual conversation involves an impartation of themselves to one another as they share their life together, yet it is distinct and different from the physical impartation. Both are essential parts of the unity that the bride and bridegroom share. Both are important and should not be pitted against one another. Neither is dispensable. Yet they are distinct and involve a different facet of the relationship. The relationship of the preached word to the sacramental word can be viewed in a similar way as two distinct but indispensable facets of the life of our Lord with his church. The incarnate Lord speaks to his bride and shares his flesh with her. This truth has been lived out in the life of the church where, from the beginning, the divine service has comprised both word and sacrament. The neglect of either is an aberration from the practice of the church catholic and so also from the Lutheran confession.[6]
The framework of our Lord’s life in the synoptic gospels follows this pattern. The preaching of John flows into our Lord’s baptism followed by the continued proclamation of his life which culminates in the intimacy of the supper table on the day of his passion. The Gospels follow the framework of the divine service as we see it being lived out in the book of Acts in accord with our Lord’s command and institution on the night that he was betrayed. Once again, our Lord’s life does not exhibit any conflict between these two elements of his incarnate life with his people, but rather shows them abiding in harmony with one another, the one leading to the other and back again. The interplay between the proclaimed word of Christ and the physical contact between him and those he has come to save is reflected in his earthly life. The Lord not only proclaims but he reaches out, repeatedly, to touch, to release, and to heal. The Lord not only touches but also proclaims. The word is an enfleshed word that not only rings through the air but also reaches out through it to touch. This enfleshed word establishes not only the communion of the heart, but the communion of the body as well in order to save both from sin, death, and hell. The Lord’s proclamation creates a longing in the hearts of the hearers to reach out and touch him. The striking image of the woman with the twelve-year issue of blood demonstrates the heart of faith that longs for contact with the divine flesh, knowing all that is contained within in it. She reaches out to touch the hem of his garment, believing that what contains his body bears life and healing for her (Matthew 9:20-22). The Lord’s proclamation leads to outstretched hands. He stretches out his hands on the cross to save us. He stretches out his hands to touch us with his healing in the sacraments. He stretches our hands out to touch him in turn, to chase away our fear and doubt. The outflow of his sacrificial life is shown in the resurrection narratives where the spoken word is paired with both touching and eating. The Lord’s word of promise to his church is not only a spoken word but also an embracing word that binds his life with hers in Spirit and truth. The proclaimed word presents Jesus and leads the hearer to Jesus.
Preaching’s role of leading the hearer to sacramental union can be seen throughout the book of Acts, as the apostles fulfill their mandate of preaching the word of God to all nations. The church’s inaugural sermon that Peter gives on Pentecost leaves his hearers with one burning question: “Brothers, what shall we do?” to which he replies, “”Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Luke further provides the connection between the preaching of the word and baptism with the assessment, “so those who received his word were baptized.” Philip’s proclamation to the Ethiopian eunuch leaves him questioning, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” The Lord’s interaction with Saul also leads to baptism at the hands of Annanias (Acts 9:18). The gentile Cornelius and his whole household are brought to baptism after Peter’s preaching as the descent of the Holy Spirit indicates that they also are to have this intimate communion with Christ (Acts 10:48). Lydia has her heart opened by the Lord to what Paul said and she and her household were baptized (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer and his whole family receive baptism as a result of Paul’s proclamation of the word (Acts 16:30-33). The apostolic preaching and teaching is not an end in itself but leads the hearers to Christ. Their purpose is to preach Christ crucified. Through the preaching of the incarnate, wounded Savior of the world the hearers are led to the place where he is to be incarnately found in his sacraments. The proclamation makes the Savior known to them and then draws them into intimate communion with him. This communion is lived out in the sacramental life that involves a continuation and development of the intimacy between saved and Savior. The proclaimed Word continues to play this role in the life of the baptized Christian as he struggles through this world with his own sin and the sins of others. This word proclaims Christ crucified to him and leads him to the basin and towel, to the supper table, and to the intimate care of his Savior, where he learns to live out his life in communion with his Lord.
The sacramental life of the church, it must be remembered, provides the historical background for the reading of the New Testament. The church who receives these documents is the church who is following her Lord’s mandate to baptize, to forgive, and to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The church who is reading the Old Testament is the church who knows that the Hebrew scriptures proclaim Christ crucified and so also foreshadow the sacramental life that flows forth from Him (Luke 24:25-27). The scriptures are being read by a sacramental people as they are written to be read and understood by a sacramental people. The church and her sacramental life predate the writing of the New Testament. The New Testament does not establish the sacraments, but rather the Word of Christ, who institutes and commands their observance by the apostles. The evidence of this sacramental life is woven into the very fabric of the New Testament writings. The burning question with regard to gentile Baptism resolved through Peter’s interaction with Cornelius demonstrates the essential nature of Baptism to the life of the church in accord with our Lord’s command at His ascension. The living out of the baptismal life in communion at the Lord’s table is laid out in the apostles’ practice observed at the beginning of the book of Acts, but also by St. Paul’s correction of the sacramental infraction of the Corinthians, where the underlying assumption is that they meet regularly to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in accord with our Lord’s command to do it often (1 Corinthians 11:20-34). Paul emphasizes how this sacrament forms an essential part of what He has handed on to them from the Lord. The Gospels themselves must also be read keeping in mind the truth that the sacramental life of the church is fully established when they are written. They are not written to establish this life, even though they record its establishment and unfold its meaning for the church. To assert this is not to say that the New Testament material is fabricated to bolster the practice of the church, but rather simply to bear in mind that the writers of the Gospels would have had a sacramental mindset as they organized and recorded the events of our Lord’s life.
A further important christological truth that should be kept in mind is that, due to the personal union of the divine and human natures in Christ, the Lord Jesus fully knows the plan of the Father for the salvation of the world. He knows about the cross and how the fruits of that cross will flow out to his church through the gift of the sacraments that he himself will establish. Understanding this truth dispels any difficulty with the Lord speaking in a sacramental way prior to the establishment of a given sacrament. To assert that passages like our Lord’s great discourse about the benefits of the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of the Son of Man in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel cannot have any sacramental import or inference because He speaks these words before the institution of the Lord’s Supper, negates the truth that the one who speaks is true God, who knows all things and in a way akin to the prophecies of the Old Testament may speak of the gifts before they have been given. For the Lord to speak of these gifts prior to them being given would be consistent with his parabolic teaching where truth is revealed even as it remains hidden. The gift of the Holy Spirit was the Lord’s way of revealing these things to the church as the disciples were led into all truth after our Lord’s ascension. Repeatedly we hear throughout the Gospels that the disciples only understood certain things after our Lord’s resurrection (John 2:22; 12:16). The beloved apostle who lay on our Lord’s breast when the gift of his heart was given in the sacrament of the altar certainly must have at least given some thought to the Lord’s Supper when he recorded the sixth chapter of his Gospel for the church. If the hearer can rightly understand that the sacraments naturally flow out from the incarnation of Christ and from the beginning are meant to and in fact do form an integral part of the church’s life with her Lord, then there need be no hesitation to see a wealth of sacramental inferences within the scriptural texts even if they are not explicitly mentioned. The historical grammatical method of interpreting these scriptures would in fact demand such an approach, as the writers and hearers of these writings would in fact have had a sacramental outlook. The early church knows no non-sacramental church, which according to the Lutheran Confession is an oxymoron.
Faithfully proclaiming Christ crucified then involves the preacher fixing the eyes of the hearers on Jesus and directing them to the places where he is waiting for them with outstretched arms. The word comes through the ears into the mind, but its goal is man’s twisted heart that needs to be turned around and brought running back to his Lord. The encounter of the hearer with the living Lord who became man that he might dwell amongst His people should be the preacher’s goal. Although intellectual in nature in the truest sense, as it brings true wisdom to the hearer, it should not simply be an intellectual exercise but a word that draws the hearer to Jesus. The effectiveness of that word lies solely in the purview of the Holy Spirit but, if it is not a faithful word that seeks to lead the hearer to Christ, it cannot be a vehicle for the Spirit. The word needs to be the right word. The goal needs to be the right goal. Otherwise, as stated at the outset, the proclamation is not Christian and so the Holy Trinity will not be involved with it. We do not preach an aimless word, but a directed word that leads people to the risen Christ for the salvation of their souls. The proclaimed word should leave the hearer longing for and looking for the font, the basin, and the table. As Luther rightly points out, we force no one to receive the sacraments, but we should preach about them in such a way that people demand them of us.[7] In convicting the sinner through the law and wooing him with the gospel, the hearer should be left with the question, “Brothers what shall we do?” to which the faithful preacher should point to the crucified Christ in His gifts. The preached word should create a hunger and make the mouth water. It should make the heart yearn, the mind quest, and the soul long for an encounter with Jesus so that the hearer might be touched and be healed, and so that the believer might touch and believe.
Sacramental preaching is not just a matter of the interpretation of the sermon text, but an understanding of the whole ethos of our Lord’s sacramental life with his people and the impossibility of a life with him outside of it. If this is rightly understood, then every sermon will have sacramental focus in one form or another as it presents the Christ crucified who dwells among his people in his flesh. As previously stated, the texts of scripture provide ample opportunity for directing them to the sacraments, as they are not an added appendage to the word of God but are an integral part of it.[8] They are a part of God’s plan of salvation from the start and so are prefigured along with Christ from the beginning and are reflected upon with him from the moment of the incarnation. A sacramental interpretation simply takes the end result of the life God has given us and reflects back to see it prefigured from the beginning in the word of God. St. Peter does this when he makes the connection between baptism and the flood in his first epistle (3:21). As God unfolds the history that leads to the incarnation of the Son and the salvation of the world through the cross which flows forth from Calvary in the sacramental word, the history itself reveals its end goal. The genealogy of Christ contains many who provide insight into who their mighty descendant will be and what he will accomplish. The same is true of that salvation history with regard to the sacramental life that will flow forth from Christ’s pierced side. The flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the crossing of the Jordan, the Passover lamb, the manna in the wilderness, the whole sacrificial life of the people of Israel, and countless other events and mandated observances have all been recognized as prefiguring the sacramental life of the church even as they form part of God’s plan to bring it all about. The life of Christ himself, as well as his teaching, follows a similar pattern in particular with regard to his cross and so also with regard to the sacraments. Our Lord repeatedly speaks of the cross before it occurs, unfolding its import to His disciples prior to its victory (Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). As he speaks of the cross in this way, the gifts of the cross may also be seen to appear in similar allusions and events. This homiletical approach to the text does not argue that such texts are to be used to establish the doctrine with regard to a given sacrament, but in accord with the clear truths we know about them, may serve as signposts for the Christian as well as the preacher to these great gifts.
If the sacramental life is embraced as the outflow of the incarnation through our Lord’s crucifixion and resurrection, and the notion of its prophetic prefiguring in the events leading up to its gift is not rejected out of hand, then the scriptural texts open up before the preacher filled with a veritable gold mine of sacramental references. This treasure trove is brought into deeper relief when the preacher approaches the text looking for its sacramental connections. Some texts speak of the sacraments directly and there can be no question of expounding the truth about them as well as directing the hearer’s attention and faith toward them. Other texts, however, contain allusions or elements that certainly raise the opportunity to direct the hearer to God’s grace in the gospel that flows to them from font, basin, and table. With regard to baptism, its earthly element of water as it occurs in a text certainly provides the opportunity to speak of it as does any references to new birth, new life, sonship, fatherhood, cleansing, drowning, citizenship, kingdom, exorcism, new clothes, and so on. The gift of holy absolution may be evoked and so referenced with regard to many themes as well that speak of release and forgiveness, such as slavery and freedom, deliverance, cleansing, washing, as well as any references to touching and healing. The sacrament of the altar, with its earthly elements of bread and wine, is brought to mind by the meal references throughout the New Testament. These meal references bring to mind our Lord’s gift of love in Holy Communion, as do references to the bridal relationship, to blood, to flesh, to sacrifice, to wine, to bread, and so on. If the preacher identifies the directing of the hearer to the sacramental life that flows out from the pierced side of the crucified Christ as part of his task in Christian proclamation, then indeed he will find sacramental connection points within the scriptural texts as is evident in the work of the early church fathers.
The scriptural text, however, is not the only source for sacramental direction in the Christian sermon. The liturgical and social occasion may also provide opportunity to direct the hearers to Jesus in his sacramental gifts. When a baptism occurs, obviously it is a good time to talk about baptism and remind all the hearers of what great gifts the Lord has given them in their new baptismal life with him. The prepared altar of the divine service is also a reference point within the sermon. A preacher’s hand pointing to the altar, where the crucified Christ will soon be enthroned before his people as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, speaks volumes without directly addressing the sacrament in speech. The preparatory seasons of Advent and Lent both provide a liturgical context to encourage the hearers to prepare their hearts for their coming Lord through confession and absolution. The feast of our Lord’s nativity is the perfect setting to talk about the gift of our new birth. The journey of the shepherds to Bethlehem begs the preacher to invite the hearers to the altar to see this thing that has come to pass which the Lord has made known. The great Passover of Easter from Maundy Thursday to the glorious first day of the week is one big invitation to the feast of victory for our God. A wedding opens up the opportunity to speak of the new life the Lord shares with his bride the church at his banquet table. A bride and groom making their vows between the font and the altar provides an entry into addressing how the Lord would have the couple live out their new life in forgiveness as children of God nourished from the life of Christ given at his table. A funeral provides one of the greatest opportunities to proclaim the objective working of God’s hand in a person’s life through the incarnate Word in baptism, absolution, and the Lord’s Supper – not only for the soul but for the body as well. Thanksgiving allows the preacher to speak about the great thanksgiving of the Lord’s table where just as we show appreciation to Mom by loading our plate at dinner we also give thanks to the Lord by eating of the bounty of his table.
To preach sacramentally, the preacher needs to understand the essential nature of the sacraments to the life of the Christian. They must be seen as an integral part of the word of God, rather than a distinct entity from it. The sacraments are simply the Word made flesh. They are the word of God given in a tangible form, distinguishable in the manner of their giving and their purpose for the life of the Christian, but not separate from the proclaimed word. The sacraments are not only all about Jesus; in a very profound way they are Jesus. We are baptized into Christ. Baptism’s whole purpose is to unite us with Him. He is in Baptism. In holy absolution Christ hears us as we hear Him. The pastor’s forgiveness is God’s forgiveness. Sins are confessed as to Christ himself and the absolution is given by Christ himself. The Lord’s Supper is none other than the true body and blood of Christ given under the bread and wine for us Christians to eat and drink. This sacrament is the gospel in the purest form, where the church proclaims the Lord’s death to her children and to the world until the Lord comes. The sacrament of the altar sets the cross and its victory before the eyes of the faithful, even as it delivers the fruit of that cross to them. As the Christian preacher seeks to proclaim Christ crucified, his hand should naturally rise to point to the font, to the altar rail, and to the altar itself, where that crucified Christ comes to His people. Sacramental preaching is simply preaching Christ crucified in the fullness of His incarnation and the incarnate life he shares with his bride the church. Here the preacher faithfully gives answer to the believers’ plea, “Please sir, we would see Jesus” by presenting their Lord to them and directing them to the places he has promised to be in his gifts for them. In Christian proclamation the preacher takes his brothers and sisters and invites them to come and see Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, about whom Moses and the prophets wrote. He points them to the one who loves them in word and in deed, in spirit and in truth.
The temptation for the preacher, particularly in modern society, is to feel that a faithful hand that repeatedly sets Jesus before the eyes of the people in word and sacrament is tiresome and boring. How many times does he need to repeat himself to the people of God? How many times do they need to be reminded of their baptism? How often do they need to be encouraged to go to confession? How often do they need the menu for the supper set before them with the required nutritional analysis? How much do they need to hear about Jesus? The question really answers itself, does it not? Can poor, miserable sinners ever hear too much about Jesus? Can poor miserable sinners ever have too much Jesus? Can there ever be a day or a week that can go by that I do not need Jesus? As Luther points out in his questions and answers for those who intend to go to the sacrament, if you do not feel a need for it you should pinch yourself to see if you still have your wicked flesh, take a look to see if you are still in the world, and know you have the devil around you. The sinner can never have too much of Jesus, as the saint well knows. Faith as it grows stronger only grows in its thirsting for its Lord; it is never so strong that it can survive without its object. An objectless faith is an illogical construct. Faith requires an object to be faith. Furthermore, a faith that claims it can forego the Lord’s gifts is no faith at all, as pride is diametrically opposed to faith. Faith thirsts for Jesus with an unquenchable thirst that even in heaven will not disappear, but will rather be continuously satisfied. We will thirst no more, not because we will not desire the water, but because the water will be continuously flowing into us. As a foretaste of that perpetual spring the church therefore as a whole, and the servant of Christ in particular, proclaims Christ crucified week after week, knowing that the bride never tires of hearing of her beloved, of gazing on him, and of being made one with him.
We preach Christ crucified. Sacramental preaching simply strives to do this great task in faithfulness to the truth of our Lord’s incarnation and its resulting life for the church. The task is no easy one, given the depths of the mystery that we encounter at the heart and center of the Christian faith. The new life we have of birth, washing, and nourishment is a simple reflection of our life in the world, as our Creator made us, and so is recreating us. The sacramental life is simple, and yet its depths descend far beyond all human understanding within the heart of the Trinity. A lifetime is spent not only being nourished by them, but also reflecting on them. The preacher who seeks to faithfully fulfill his calling has a wealth of wisdom to relay to his hearers that can only be understood and imparted with the Spirit’s aid and counsel. How humbling it is to see God’s great grace that imparts such treasures to the care and keeping of sinful men. May the Lord make us faithful, dear brothers, to our Lord in leading his people to him, even as he works to draw us to himself as he is lifted up before our eyes for our salvation in his word and gifts.
Notes
1. “For the sacrament has not been invented nor introduced by any man. Without anyone’s counsel and deliberation it has been introduced by Christ” (LC V.4).
2. “But if ordination is understood as carrying out the ministry of the word, we are willing to call ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of the word has God’s command and has glorious promises, ‘the gospel… is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes’… If ordination is understood in this way, neither will we refuse to call the laying on of hands a Sacrament. For the Church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry and is present in this ministry” (Ap XIII.11).
3. “Therefore, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and absolution (which is the sacrament of repentance) are truly sacraments. For these rites have God’s command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. When we are baptized, when we eat the Lord’s body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us for Christ’s sake” (Ap XIII.4).
4. “For Christ has not instituted it to be treated as a show. Instead he has commanded his Christians to eat it, drink it, and remember him by it” (LC V.42).
5. “The church is the congregation of saints (Psalm 149:1) in which the gospel is purely taught and the sacraments are correctly administered” (AC VII.1).
6. “Furthermore Baptism is most solemnly and strictly commanded so that we must be baptized or cannot be saved” (LC IV.6). “Rather we give this counsel: If you are poor and miserable, then go to Confession and make use of its healing medicine. He who feels his misery and need will no doubt develop such a longing for it that he will run toward it with joy. But those who pay no attention to it and do not come of their own accord, we let them go their way. Let them be sure of this, however, that we do not regard them as Christians” (LC V - An Exhortation to Confession). “At the outset, we must again make this preliminary statement: we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously keep and defend it. Masses are celebrated among us every Lord’s Day and on other festivals” (Ap XXIV.1). “Nevertheless it must be known that people who deprive themselves of and withdraw from the Sacrament for such a long time are not to be considered Christians” (LC V.42).
7. “Last, since the tyranny of the pope has been abolished, people are no longer willing to go to the Sacrament, and thus they despise it. Here again encouragement is necessary, yet with this understanding: We are to force no one to believe or receive the Sacrament. Nor should we set up any law, time, or place for it. Instead, preach in such a way that by their own will, without our law, they will urge themselves and, and as it were, compel us pastors to administer the Sacrament” (Preface to SC 22). “Only set forth clearly the benefit and harm, the need and the use, the danger and the blessing, connected with this Sacrament. Then the people will come on their own without you forcing them. But if they do not come, let them go their way and tell them that such people belong to the devil who do not regard nor feel their great need and God’s gracious help” (Preface to SC 24). “In conclusion, since we now have the true understanding and doctrine of the Sacrament, there is also need for some admonition and encouragement. Then people may not let such a great treasure – daily administered and distributed among Christians – pass by unnoticed. So those who want to be Christians may prepare to receive this praiseworthy Sacrament often. For we see that people seem weary and lazy about receiving the Sacrament…They act as if they are so strong Christians that they have no need of it… Some pretend that it is a matter of liberty and not necessary. They pretend that it is enough to believe without it” (LC V.39-41). “So here there also is need for us to continue to preach so that people may not become weary and disgusted. For we know and feel how the devil always opposes this and every Christian exercise. He drives and deters people from them as much as possible” (LC V.44).
8. “When we are baptized, when we eat the Lord’s body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God forgives us for Christ’s sake. At the same time, by Word and by rite, God moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, ‘Faith comes from hearing’ (Romans 10:17)” (Ap XIII.5).
Announcing a Latin e-mail discussion group on the Lutheran confessions: Confessionum Lutheranarum Studiosi
A new Latin e-mail discussion group on the Lutheran confessions has recently been founded, and you are invited to join in the colloquium. Dr. Jon Bruss, Dr. Benjamin Mayes, and Seminarist Josh Hayes started this group to have a place where the confessions of our church could be discussed by those who are able to read them and discuss them in the Latin language, the language in which many of them were written and which still has so many theological treasures that have never been translated. The two rules of the group are that the conversation is exclusively in Latin, and one does not correct anyone else’s Latin unless the writer wants to be corrected. Lurkers are welcome. The group also provides two additional web pages: one that gives aids for Latin conversation and composition, and another that lists Latin editions of the Book of Concord. Check out the group and join here:
http://groups.google.com/group/confessionum-lutheranarum-studiosi
by Rev. David Ramirez
ELCA “traditionalists” upset about the 2009 Churchwide Assembly’s actions concerning homosexual behavior have laid out their plans for the future and are meeting August 24-27 in Columbus, Ohio, for a theological conference on “Seeking New Directions for Lutheranism” and to form a new church body, the North American Lutheran Church (NALC). To describe the emerging situation simply:
1. There are already “reform groups” and organizations formed by traditionalists inside and outside of the ELCA such as the Word Alone Network (WAN) now Word Alone Ministries (WAM), Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), The Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Texas, Augsburg Lutheran Churches, and many more.
2. There are still a large number of traditionalists who are going to stay in the ELCA at the present time.
3. Many of the traditionalists are starting a new national denomination (the NALC), which will have a little bit more structure than is offered by the already constituted LCMC.
Lutheran CORE is the umbrella organization for all these “traditionalists,” the glue that holds together this emerging confederation. The proposed NALC will be the new home of many of the traditionalists of the ELCA launched by Lutheran CORE. Perhaps one could think of the NALC as the flagship of this new moderate Lutheran confederation, structurally and theologically tied most closely to Lutheran CORE. In the document “A Vision and Plan for The North American Lutheran Church and Lutheran CORE,” the purpose of forming the NALC is described by The Lutheran CORE Vision and Planning Working Group:
The NALC is being established in response to those members and friends of Lutheran CORE who have expressed a preference for completely withdrawing from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. They are looking for a Lutheran church body that stands in the tradition of the Church, is denominationally structured for leadership, oversight and accountability, enhances representative governance by congregations and affirms and supports ministry and mission at the congregational level. The NALC will be structurally lean and will look to Lutheran CORE, a community of confessing Lutherans in North America, for many resources.
Lutheran CORE, elsewhere spoken of as “a community a confessing Lutherans,” is described in the same document: “Lutheran CORE will include in its membership Lutheran church bodies, synods, congregations, reform movements and individual members. All of its members, as a basic requirement for membership, will endorse the Common Confession.”
What is this emerging confederation reminiscent of? Perhaps The American Lutheran Church of 1960? The acronym is a veritable “shout out” to the bygone (T)ALC so many of the traditionalists miss. Maybe. But a much better comparison would actually be the American Lutheran Conference of 1930.
Why the Comparison Works
A moderate confederation—with one leading church body amongst equals and unity based upon a recent statement of faith—all certainly sounds similar to the American Lutheran Conference. That conference’s biggest player was of course the “old” American Lutheran Church, also of 1930. The church bodies in that conference were united on the basis of the Minneapolis Theses of 1925. The Common Confession, written by traditionalists in 2005, serves a similar purpose for the church bodies/organizations affiliated with Lutheran CORE. Theologically, the American Lutheran Conference was considered “in between” the two other Lutheran groups at that time, the Synodical Conference and the ULCA. Lutheran CORE also postures itself as centrist or moderate, to the right of the ELCA and its ever leftward drift, but to the left of Missouri and other former Synodical Conference synods.
Where the Comparison Breaks Down
This comparison has its weaknesses. Lutheran CORE does not yet have a clear big-dog-on-the-block church body. This is not necessarily good or bad. As of right now, LCMC is the largest group in the mix and will remain so for the near future. The church body launched by Lutheran CORE (the NALC) may well catch and surpass the size of LCMC. There are many congregations waiting to see what comes of the meeting in Columbus. Yet it remains to be seen how large the NALC will grow and how quickly.
The Minneapolis Theses of the American Lutheran Conference were not entirely satisfactory to Missouri and the Synodical Conference Lutherans. Complaints about clarity existed. Yet compared to the Common Confession, the Minneapolis Theses were far more detailed and clear. Outside of the definite stance against homosexual behavior, the Common Confession tends to be vague on questions with which American Lutheranism has historically struggled. In particular, the statements on Scripture and its confessional subscription raise more questions than they answer. It would be beneficial for Lutheran CORE to clarify what they actually mean by this Common Confession concerning issues beyond parochial ELCA concerns. This leads to where the comparison truly breaks down.
The American Lutheran Conference, while positioned between the Synodical Conference on the right and the Eastern Lutherans on the left, was still at that time in the “Old Lutheran” camp. This confederation was much more oriented to Missouri and the Synodical Conference, especially when it came to its commitment to inerrancy. This cannot be said for Lutheran CORE. They are indeed more “conservative” than the ELCA, but to consider them “centrist Lutherans” or “in the middle” certainly is a stretch. Any group that ordains women can only be considered “liberal” or “left wing” by any fair historical standard of Lutheranism. The only reason that Lutheran CORE has any claim to the middle is due to the extremes of the ELCA.
The New ELCA
“Will the NALC and Lutheran CORE be any different than the ELCA of 13 months or even 22 years ago?” is a question I hear often. History never repeats itself in precisely the same manner, and thus this new venture will not merely be an “ELCA reboot.” However, minus the stance against homosexual behavior, it is hard to see any huge differences on paper between Lutheran CORE/NALC and the ELCA. Certainly the leaders and members will be wary of the pitfalls of the ELCA, but what are the concrete guards in place against walking down the same path that the ELCA has taken? What precisely are the lessons that have been learned by the failed ELCA experiment? Less centralization of power, no special interest quotas, more focus on missions—is that it? Surely the problems are theological and run deeper, as so many Lutheran CORE leaders alluded to at the Fishers meeting last summer. But where is that reality reflected in the NALC’s constitution? Where is a detailed diagnosis, and potential cure, officially spelled out by Lutheran CORE that actually affects what they confess? The Confession of Faith in the NALC’s proposed constitution is virtually identical to the ELCA’s Confession of Faith. The only deviations are an additional quote from the Epitome of the Formula of Concord in the section on Scripture, “according to which all doctrines should and must be judged,” and a statement that they honor and confess the Common Confession. As noted before, I can see few clear, substantial points in the Common Confession besides its clear stance against homosexual behavior.
As things stand, it seems hard for traditionalists to answer the “revisionists” in the ELCA who say, “See, it is just all about sex!” How is reheating the ELCA’s Confession of Faith and adding the Common Confession truly “seeking new directions for Lutheranism”? Which is it? Was the ELCA fundamentally flawed from the very beginning or was an originally sturdy ship taken over by pirates? Lutheran CORE needs to put its finger on “the deeper theological problems” and make some fundamental distinctions between itself and the ELCA precisely, clearly, and quickly.
Quibbles and a Critique of “A Vision and Plan for The North American Lutheran Church and Lutheran CORE”
The Constitution of the NALC has not yet been passed; however, one may read “A Vision and Plan for The North American Lutheran Church and Lutheran CORE” to understand Lutheran CORE’s direction.
1. Why is the designation “confessing Lutherans” found all over the document? Modern Lutherans would do well to get over the desire to be connected, no matter how tenuously, with the Reformed/Barthian “Confessing Church” in Germany. Let’s focus on the content of the confession being made instead of getting excited over the mere act of confessing.
2. The “four key attributes” that Lutheran CORE will be centered on are, “Christ-Centered, Mission-Driven, Traditionally-Grounded, Congregationally-Focused.” Hyphenated terms, while perhaps well-intentioned, come across as poorly defined catchphrases.
3. While the NALC wisely will not be joining the National Council of Churches or the World Council of Churches, it “will apply for membership in the Lutheran World Federation.” Why bother, considering that the LWF is about as consequential to Lutheranism as the Jesus Seminar is to exegetical studies? Isn’t that the party they are trying to leave?
4. I also do not understand the readiness of Lutherans to engage in programs and work with movements clearly at odds with the faith confessed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Consider:
Our shared ministry will make use of Christ-centered approaches that the wider body of Christ finds useful and effective, tailored to the Lutheran context. For example, Lutheran ministries such as Word and Witness and Crossways International might be complemented by Alpha, Intervarsity, Mothers of Preschoolers and many other proven vehicles that God is using across denominational lines to transform the lives of countless people.
5. To another serious matter, the NALC, following the lead of Lutheran CORE, leaves affiliation with the ELCA as one faithful choice among many. Of course pastors and congregations must take seriously the state of their congregation as they seek the best way to flee from flagrant and stubborn error. Yet the question by this stage in the game surely ought to be when, not if. No doubt, as lines are further drawn and positions harden, Lutheran CORE will inevitably firm up against continuing relations with the ELCA. Yet the description of the relationship between Lutheran CORE, the NALC, and those who remain in the ELCA seems as if Lutheran CORE is trying to be “all things to all people”:
Lutheran CORE affirms the faithful call of confessing Lutherans, some of whom will remain in the ELCA and ELCIC and some of whom are now called to different affiliations. We envision a reconfiguration that maintains the highest degree of ongoing unity and cooperation possible among those who leave and those who stay.
This is an extremely rosy position, which will undoubtedly be proven untenable by time. Ironically, if the ELCA follows the precedent set by the way it has dealt with congregations joining LCMC, the ELCA itself will force the issue by not allowing congregations to have dual membership in the ELCA and NALC. It is baffling how little import is placed upon broader affiliation.
Many supporters within Lutheran CORE have indicated that they will remain members of ELCA (or ELCIC) congregations or on their clergy rosters, at least for a season. Some of these mention that they intend to remain within the ELCA on a limited basis - mostly at the congregational level, often re-designating their benevolence outside the mission support system of the ELCA. While these individuals and congregations may remain within the ELCA only in a formal sense, they may look to the Lutheran CORE community as their church beyond the congregation.
Others intend to remain more broadly engaged within the ELCA as faithful witnesses. Lutheran CORE recognizes and affirms those congregations and individuals who feel called to remain within the ELCA and who wish to continue to work for the reform of the ELCA and to witness to Biblical and confessional teachings and practices, as well as to support others remaining in the ELCA. Some of these congregations and individuals may choose dual membership in the ELCA and the NALC. Others may be members of Lutheran CORE on an individual, congregational or partnership basis.
How is all of this not saying, “Stay married to him, but spend your time with me?”
Fault Lines
If Lutheran CORE is going to work as an umbrella organization, it will have to be ready to deal with potential sources for huge friction. I see two fault lines, ripe for trouble, which must be recognized and dealt with by the leadership of Lutheran CORE. One is the potential rivalry between LCMC and the NALC, the two big wolves in the pack. The other is the relationship between the traditionalists who leave the ELCA and those who are remaining within. I cannot see how the two will not be connected.
Word Alone Ministries has already moved to a firmer position against remaining in the ELCA. LCMC will almost certainly take a much harder line against the ELCA—and those who remain in it—than the emerging NALC. First, LCMC is made up of people who already left the ELCA back in 2001. Secondly, LCMC has picked up the majority of the congregations that have left the ELCA since last summer. This means that the LCMC has by and large gotten the congregations that were the most prepared, the best informed, and the most willing to leave. These “first wave” congregations left as soon as possible and needed a place to land. LCMC, as an already constituted and functioning body, aside from any other reasons, was obviously an attractive choice. The NALC on the other hand will not get many of those “first wave” congregations. Rather, as compared to the LCMC, the NALC will pick up more churches that were not as well informed, prepared to leave, or unanimous. In my estimation, over the next several years it will most likely be the NALC that will gain many of the congregations making a slower exodus from the ELCA. Regardless of whether one considers these “second wave” and later congregations timid or careful, this uneven distribution will shape the relationship between the LCMC and the NALC. Additionally, “evangelical catholics” and former LCA congregations who leave the ELCA are more likely to join the NALC, giving it a more varied composition than the LCMC. But perhaps most importantly, as mentioned above, the NALC will allow congregations within the ELCA to join. To a much greater extent than the LCMC, the NALC will have to guard against merely being the ELCA pre-2009.
Drawing Lines and Coming Home
Of course, at the heart of this potential friction are the nature of fellowship and the necessity of drawing lines. Quite possibly, I may just be an old Lutheran worrying about problems that are rendered passé in the world of trans-, non-, and bi-denominational ministries, not to mention para-church complexities. But I don’t think so. At the meeting at Fishers, Indiana, last summer one could already sense the difference between the Lutheran CORE people behind the microphone and the rank and file in the pews. One very earnest woman spoke twice, once each day, pushing the assembly to have nothing to do with the ELCA, immediately.
It has been said that a conservative is just a liberal who has been mugged. Or to put it a different way, a liberal is merely a conservative who has not been mugged yet. The people of the ELCA have been mugged, and they have been mugged so ruthlessly and obviously by revisionist Christianity that many have begun seeing the necessity of drawing lines. It is always a good sign in pandering modern Christendom when the example of Elijah versus the prophets of Baal is invoked, as it was at least three times by my count at Fishers. I hope and pray that the traditionalists from the ELCA continue in this spirit and zeal. But even more should we hope and encourage the traditionalists of the ELCA to see that the heralds of neo-orthodoxy (orthodox words with liberal substance) are still picking their pockets as they pose as authentic orthodox Lutheranism.
How serious can Lutheran CORE actually be about “seeking new directions for Lutheranism” if many of the “traditionalist” theologians of Lutheran CORE are merely the radicals of yesterday? I cannot help but wonder how serious Lutheran CORE’s theological conference will be considering that one of their presenters is Dr. Paul Hinlicky, a traditionalist who has publicly suggested that gay unions have “goods analogous to marriage,” and in certain situations might be “recognized” by the church. I fail to see how Dr. Carl Braaten and Dr. Robert Jenson will produce a coherent vision for North American Lutheranism, seeing as after having helped lead mid-twentieth-century Lutheranism “out of the ghetto” into a brave new world, it blossomed into the ELCA. It is akin to watching modern neoconservative Republicans champion and “conserve” the liberal traditions that they as Democrats built a generation ago.
Perhaps I am overly pessimistic. Hopefully, the new direction for moderate Lutheranism is repentance and a return to the confessionalism of their fathers, for the cure must certainly go deeper than anything seen or heard thus far from Lutheran CORE. At Fishers, the refrain of, “We must all repent!” rang loudly and clearly. However, besides the concrete repentance of not being nice enough to those who struggle with homosexual desire and the vague repentance for not doing enough to stop the ELCA’s slide into liberal Protestantism, of what precisely have the traditionalists repented? The tired, old, dead end road of neo-orthodoxy is not a very promising path to follow for theologians, pastors, or laymen. Specific repentance for actual errors is what is always needed for Christians in this earthly life.
What does all this mean for Missouri?
The Missouri Synod and the confederation of church bodies and para-church organizations united under Lutheran CORE’s banner are nowhere near church fellowship due to great divergence in doctrine. However, there is hope for fruitful discussion between the LCMS and Lutheran CORE. The issue which would perhaps be an important starting point is the issue of the ordination of women. Director of Lutheran CORE, Rev. Mark Chavez, who gave an excellent presentation at the Fort Wayne Symposium this past winter, thought a discussion of the issue between the two groups would be beneficial. An obvious “deal breaker” for Missouri, women’s ordination would not only be of extreme importance in and of itself, but provide an opportunity for each group to observe how the other treats and what it confesses concerning the Scriptures.
I doubt there will be many surprises at Columbus, but it will be important for the Missouri Synod to carefully watch how this venture of moderate Lutheranism unfolds.
Pastor David Ramirez
Zion Lutheran Church, Lincoln, IL
Bishop Matti Väisänen, recently consecrated as assistant bishop in the Mission Province in Sweden and Finland, has been defrocked by the Tampere Cathedral Chapter.
The following explanation was offered by Tapani Simijoki (by permission) from his blog SimonPotamos:
Bishop Matti Väisänen of Luther Foundation Finland (LFF), the Finnish partner to Mission Province in Sweden and Finland, was defrocked on Wednesday 08/11 by the Cathedral Chapter of Tampere Diocese led by Bishop Matti Repo. The basis of defrocking was the episcopal ordination of Väisänen in last March. Prior to this, Väisänen had served as a pastor in the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland for 46 years, and is a well-known figure in the confessional movement inside the Finnish national church.
Väisänen was called to serve as a bishop in the Mission Province, the care of Finnish pastors and congregations as his primary task. Luther Foundation and Mission Province are reacting to the rapidly increasing liberalism and secularism inside the Scandinavian established churches, the key issues being the ordination of women and - lately - blessing of the same-sex partnerships. For already ten years, it has been practically impossible for candidates refusing to accept female clergy to receive ordination into the pastoral office, while the members of the church with similar conviction find it increasingly difficult to find places to worship in anymore. Luther Foundation has countered this problem by calling and ordaining its own pastors via Mission Province, assigning them with the task of serving new congregations in Finland. Neither these pastors nor the congregations they serve are recognized by the established church.
Väisänen continues to serve as bishop in the Mission Province of Sweden and Finland.
Read a response in support of the Bishop (an English translation in pdf) by Luther Foundation Finland.
Read also the personal defense by Bishop Väisänen himself (offered here by permission):
TO TAMPERE CATHEDRAL CHAPTER
SUBJECT
Response in a case concerning a disciplinary procedure
RESPONDENT
Matti Väisänen ThD
DISCIPLINARY CHARGE
The disciplinary charge by the disciplinary commissioner of Tampere Cathedral Chapter, Kari Ikonen, concerning my deposing from the pastoral office 9 June 2010
RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE
I am opposed to the disciplinary charge. I do not consider myself to have acted contrary to the responsibilities of my pastoral office.
In my ordination oath I have primarily bound myself to remain faithfully and purely in God’s holy word and in our church’s confession founded on it. According to the confession, the church’s highest rule is that all doctrine must be examined and evaluated according to God’s holy word. This biblical principle — sola Scriptura – and commitment to the Lutheran confessions is even today the legally in force in our church and is recorded in the first article of the Church Law, the so called Confessional Article. For that reason, the church’s confession binds not only the pastor but also the church’s order to being primarily obedient to God’s holy word, which is the Bible.
Because shepherds who bind themselves to the apostolic view on the office of the ministry are no longer being ordained in our church, I have received the office of bishop. The justification for this ecclesial emergency right is based on the Holy Bible and the Lutheran confessions. It is not an offence against the ordination oath but in the most profound sense precisely acting in accordance with the duties of that oath.
On the precise basis of the ecclesial emergency right, I refer to the attached article by pastor Anssi Simojoki, ThD. [Editor's note—There is no link to the article referenced by the author here]
Arguments
Concerning the episcopal consecration
I have been ordained as bishop by an association called Missionsprovinsen i Sverige och Finland (hereafter Missionsprovinsen). The association is not outside the Church of Sweden but works within the Church of Sweden. However it — any more than any other association — cannot be an actual member of the Church of Sweden. Missionsprovinsen defines itself as a non-geographical diocese in the tradition of the churches of Sweden and Finland.
Also Luther Foundation Finland, in which I am a member and vice chairman of the Executive Council, works within the church. In Luther Foundation, we are concerned about our church’s current theological-spiritual orientation, which is detaching itself from God’s word. We are especially concerned that shepherds who bind themselves to the apostolic view on the office of the ministry are no longer being ordained.
It is my understanding that bishops have begun to impose this ordination block after bishop Olavi Rimpiläinen retired in 2000.
Concerned about the state of our church we have been forced—being guided and obliged by the Confessional Article of our Church Law and the Lutheran Confessions (Treatise, 60ff.), and with their justification—to take action in order to preserve apostolic worship and teaching in our church and our land.
Because Luther Foundation Finland is an associate member of Missionsprovinsen, this relationship has made it possible to begin the founding of an independent Mission Diocese / Mission Province in our church with its own worshipping communities / congregations, pastors and bishops.
Concerning the use of the external marks of a bishop
I have been elected bishop by the provinskonvent of Missionsprovinsen. The consecration was carried out by the Mission Bishop of Missionsprovinsen, Arne Olsson. He was assisted by the Archbishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Kenya, Walter Obare, and Missionsprovinsen bishops Lars Artman and Göran Beijer.
Arne Olsson was consecrated bishop by Archbishop Walter Obare in 2005. Walter Obare was consecrated bishop by the Archbishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania, Samson Mushemba, in 2002. One of the assistants at the consecration of Walter Obare was bishop Olavi Rimpiläinen.
Because I have been called and properly consecrated into the office of bishop, I have not used the external marks of a bishop in any way without justification, for in terms of church law,† I am a Lutheran bishop.
Concerning the conducting of an episcopal mass
I have conducted an episcopal mass, including the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, as part of the carrying out of the duties of my office on 16 May 2010 in a place not authorised for that purpose.
Our church’s cathedral chapters, which are negatively disposed to those who have an apostolic view of the office of the ministry, do not permit us to celebrate the mass and the Lord’s Holy Supper in church and would not allow us to celebrate it outside the church either. Knowing this, why would we trouble ourselves any more than the cathedral chapters with our applications . In this matter, too, we have had to resort to the rights given to us by the Lutheran confessions and to seek for our congregations alternative premises, trusting that God’s word and prayer consecrate them as sacred spaces.
Concerning the alleged misleading of members of the church
When I accepted the call to become a bishop of Missionsprovinsen, and in serving the congregations that have been born in Finland as a result of the work of Luther Foundation, I am misleading no one, for we have made, and will continue to make, clear to everyone that I am a bishop of Missionsprovinsen, not a bishop according to the our church’s parochial diocesan order.
Nor have I taken a leading role in another denomination or another religious organisation, since Missionsprovinsen is registered as an ideological association. In terms of its organisation, it does not work within the administrative structures of the churches of Sweden or Finland. Rather, it continues the church’s spiritual heritage as a free diocesan structure, serving here in Finland those members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland who have been left homeless because of their traditional view on the office of the ministry.
Concerning the alleged breach of the ordination vows
Therefore, I absolutely deny having broken the ordination vow I swore in 1964. If Tampere Cathedral Chapter deposes me from the office of the ministry, it will take place precisely because I have remained faithful to my ordination vow.
It is characteristic of our church’s current theological-spiritual state of humiliation that the church has increasingly replaced its own ecclesiastical justice‡ with civil service law and secular laws, seeking again to become a state church. The governing organs of our church have brought our church to a situation where the church’s constitution (Bible + the Lutheran confessions) and the church’s order have come to a conflict. At the same time, the bishops and cathedral chapters demand obedience to church order against the church’s constitution. That which is human takes precedence over that which is divine. Man’s word and man is elevated in our church above God’s word and God. Thus the church, having broken its judicial foundation, changes increasingly into a travesty of a church with its rites and blessings of civil religion.
I am saddened that this distortion leads to oppression against those who consider the Bible the unchanging word of God. Today it looks like holding to Gods word is a crime in our church. By contrast, those who deny Christ’s divinity and atoning work, and even the existence of a personal God, and those who live immorally, are allowed to work in our church as pastors and bishops, destroying our church without any disciplinary consequences, while those who want to be faithful to God’s word are dismissed from their posts.
Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise. So help me God! (Martin Luther, 1521)
DATE AND SIGNATURE
In Ryttylä, on the Ninth Sunday after Pentecost, AD 2010
Matti Väisänen
Bishop
Missionsprovinsen i Sverige och Finland
Jyrki Anttinen
Solicitor
The Bishop’s Attorney
† That is, ecclesiastical jurisprudence (Kirchenrecht), not the Church Law of the Republic of Finland. Tr.
‡ See previous note. Tr.
Editor's note—Thanks to contributing editor John Stephenson for the heads up concerning this news.
Book Review of The Church Event - Call and Challenge of a Church Protestant. By Vitor Westhelle. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. 181 Pages. Paperback. Review by Mark D. Menacher.
Vitor Westhelle, Professor of Systematic Theology at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, has produced a curious work. The back cover quotes Nancy Elizabeth Bedford, describing Westhelle’s “inimitably poetic and theologically incisive way” of presenting “the paradoxes and the promises of the Church event.” She praises the “beauty of the book’s language” to appeal “to our senses, and the acuity of the analysis.” Contrary to her sentiments, at least in this case, poetic language does not seem to be best suited to attempt either theological incisiveness or acuity of analysis.
An introduction (1-10), ten chapters (11-168), acknowledgements (169-170), and an index (171-181) comprise this volume. In his acknowledgements, perhaps placed deliberately towards the end of the book, Westhelle mentions that Chapter Four, part of Eight, and most of Nine have been published elsewhere. Having read the acknowledgements first helped this reviewer understand why the book actually reads like a collection of essays of varying quality pressed into one volume, with obligatory but less than satisfactory cross-referencing.
The book’s introduction sounds promising with its goal to “address ecclesiological disputes that have assailed the church and are symptoms of its infirmities” (1). The “[c]hurch is an event that takes place,” which like subatomic particles can be located either in time or in space but not in both simultaneously. In seeking spaces of security, however, the church falls into captivity, a preoccupation with either “its inner institutional formation or its integration into the politico-cultural order” of society (2). Because the church is beset by territorialism, it seeks to protect itself, even from the kingdom of God (3). In contrast, for Westhelle, church happens on the margins (5). Thus, to be daring, Westhelle seeks to use metaphors other than Matthew 16 and Pentecost “for the sake of destabilizing an ecclesiological discourse that has been held captive by images of the church” reflecting such territorialism (5). Those goals sound exciting. Unfortunately, the general “instability” of the rest of the book undermines its ability to approach its goals.
Westhelle believes himself to be following Luther’s lead when employing a dichotomous analysis of the church based on two institutions mandated by God, the household (oeconomia) and the street (politia), with the church falling somewhere in-between and characterized by a “marginal existence” (8). Variations on the metaphors of house and street provide the guiding construct for Westhelle’s discussions of the church as it gravitates toward dysfunctional existence in one or the other place. Unfortunately, Westhelle’s exuberant use of other metaphors calls the Lutheran foundations of his analysis of the church into question. For example, by employing the orchid figuratively, Westhelle says that “the living church is to the forms of its self-representation what a parasite is to its host...In theological jargon, the host is the law, but the bud and its blossoming are the gospel” (10). This representation of law and gospel seems not only disproportional but also contrary to scripture and the Lutheran confessions.
This book, however, is not without its value with regard to presentation of thought. Westhelle discusses the impact of the Enlightenment on theological and ecclesial reality (17). He touches on interpretation of scripture in relation to fundamentalism and foundationalism (60-62), scripture’s interpretation of itself (63-64), the sufficiency and overabundance of scripture (65-66), and scripture as that which interprets over against that which is interpreted (67-68). Westhelle likes to stress the Reformers’ notion of scripture having an “open canon” (27-28, 49). He seems to derive considerable strength from his use of etymological analysis to define and refine his thought. His use of varied imagery is extensive. Although seeming to favor Bonhoeffer as well as certain liberation theologians, Westhelle’s continual quotation of a broad spectrum of authors and thinkers across many centuries both within and without the Christian tradition demonstrates a respectable breadth of knowledge. Whereas Westhelle supports Article VII of the Augsburg Confession as a principle for defining the church and its unity, he prefers Luther’s seven notae ecclesiae of the church (On the Councils and the Church) due to their inclusion of the cross and suffering (84-87).
That said, Westhelle’s ever extending development of the dichotomy of house and street, with the church marginalized in-between, could be held together more coherently. Apart from Chapter Four, his use of Lutheran content seems to be diluted by the breadth of his quotation of various thinkers. This relentless quoting presumably supports his own thesis, but unfortunately it lends the impression that his own argument is partially dependent upon the varied thoughts of an eclectic selection of individuals. This, unfortunately, causes Westhelle’s argumentation to meander. Westhelle’s use of certain aspects of liberation theology with its inherent biases seems not only outmoded but is analytically more stifling than liberating. The considerable work embodied in this book seems very well intentioned but, like his favored depiction of the church as a tapestry (137-139, 141, 143), the weaving of Westhelle’s material is not only too loose, but it also has too many loose ends. To cite one example, in reference to John 3:16, Westhelle writes without qualification or clarification, “The Giver gave herself in the gift as the Gift itself; God became spacious in surrendering Godself up to the emptiness of a space” (138). That sounds more like Westhelle misinterpreting scripture than scripture interpreting human reality.
As the book moves towards its end, Westhelle hopes to “offer” the power of the truth as a tour de force. The book’s concluding thoughts are “not a closure but an opening for the truth lying beyond this text or in its interstices to come forth as a flaming power” (155). Whereas this “flaming power” sounds ominous, in reality Westhelle’s text is a damp squib. There is no doubt that the power of the truth can devastate all obstacles in its path, as is demonstrated negatively by sinful humanity’s relentless attempts to suppress the truth. In Westhelle’s case, except for a few autobiographical “liberation theologian moments” (reviewer’s terminology) drawn from his life in South America, the author fails to unleash the truth over against any specific or concrete maladies and fallacies or injustices and injuries in the church, especially the one at his doorstep, namely the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). For example, instead of boldly stating that the so-called Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) was not signed in Augsburg, Germany in October 1999, as the ELCA routinely claims, and likewise instead of pointing out the “grand deception” and ecclesial idolatry involved in the ELCA’s adoption of Called to Common Mission (CCM), the ELCA’s ecumenical accord with the Episcopal Church, Westhelle uncritically describes both these documents and others like them as “landmark bilateral (sometimes plurilateral) agreements...that have been celebrated as accomplishments.” (15). Furthermore, because CCM puts sixteenth- and seventeenth-century, Episcopalian, religious intolerance (historically responsible for all manner of persecution, torture, and death) at the heart of the ELCA’s ordained ministry, one would expect a theologian with liberationist tendencies to be holding the ELCA’s feet to the fire of the truth. Instead, Westhelle’s “text” smolders away silently on such matters.
Although one can write theology creatively, theology is not an exercise in creative writing. If the flowery language and the majority of extraneous quotations were removed, this book would probably be reduced by half. Furthermore, if the bulk of Westhelle’s circuitous redevelopment of the house and street metaphors was curbed within constructive parameters, then little of the book would remain but Chapter Four. Since Chapter Four has already been published as “On the Authority of the Scriptures: More than Enough” (Lutheran Quarterly 19 no. 4 [Winter 2005], 373-392 [see Acknowledgements, 169]), then perhaps obtaining a copy of this essay from the local library via interlibrary loan would be the most efficient and cost-effective way for this book’s potential readership to become acquainted with the Lutheran aspects of Westhelle’s thought.
Mark D. Menacher
A book review of A Daystar Reader. Edited by Matthew L. Becker. Daystar.net, 2010. xx, 245 pages. Review by Dr. Holger Sonntag.
1. According to the Preface for this collection of essays by Rev. D. Stein, the president of Daystar.net, “the Daystar Network was designed to be a forum for gospel-oriented members of the LCMS who desired to work together to demonstrate the light of Christ as it illuminates the mission and ministry of the church ‘until the day dawn [sic] and the day star arises in your hearts’ [Second Peter 1:19]” (v).
The present Reader “is a gift from this association to key leaders in the LCMS” (ibid.). It “looks forward.” And its editor, Rev. Matthew Becker, regards it as “kind of contemporary ’95 Theses’ for the LC-MS.” Matthew Becker teaches theology at Valparaiso University in Northern Indiana. Its theology department website is graced by a picture of the cupola of St. Peter’s in the Vatican. Those who know church history will see the connection between Luther’s 95 Theses and St. Peter’s cupola.
First of all, if you look for Daystar.net on the internet – it, after all, calls itself a “cyberspace association” in keeping with the internet craze of the late 1990s when it was founded – don’t look at www.Daystar.net. This address gets you to a telecommunications company in Southwest Florida. Go instead to www.daystarnet.org.
Second, if you scan the three pages listing the contributors (p. vii to ixi [sic]), then a single word stands out: “retired.” The Reader might be conceived as forward-looking, containing pieces written in the last decade. But the bulk of its contributions come from people who due to age are no longer holding any office in the church they seek to reform. (Others – two of the three female contributors – are no longer members of the church they wish to change.)
This, in addition to rhetorically hanging on to the burst internet bubble of the past century, gives the Reader a decidedly backward-looking feel. The past things looming large in the hearts, biographies, and essays of the contributors are the “walk-out” and Seminex in the 1970s. Neo-orthodox Erlangen theologian Werner Elert is still their ticket to theological respectability. One gets the impression that in the early 1970s a key opportunity was missed to bring the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod up to speed with all the exciting things going on in society and other churches.
For those were the heady days when the world’s reforms and revolutions began to make their way into many church bodies in Western countries and when, as a result, social ministry (man’s work) overtook word-and-sacrament ministry (God’s work) in importance. Because this opportunity was missed when the change seen in other church bodies (along with the exegetical methods making it possible) was rejected by the LCMS, the “Daystars” of today need to remind this church body of what could have been – and what still could be, if only their reform proposals were heeded.
It is important to remember that Daystar was started during the presidency of Rev. A. L. Barry, the first synodical president to die in office (March 23, 2001). His time in office was perceived by some as theological stagnation in that he simply did what he was called to do as a Lutheran church leader, that is, preserve the faith given to the saints once for all (Jude 3). Under him, so the perception, the issues on the minds of those coming together in Daystar.net would never be openly discussed and decided in their favor.
Those issues are familiar: fellowship with other Lutherans and Christians; ministry and women’s ordination; and science and theology. And these are, not surprisingly, the main topics also discussed in the collection at hand. To summarize the findings briefly, fellowship with other Lutherans and Christians should be easier – not tied to a legalistic doctrinal maximum (including the sacraments!), but to an evangelical minimum, also by means of seemingly mere social ministries.[1] All the baptized should be recognized as ministers which conveniently paves the way for women pastors. And science should be magisterial where it collides with the bible, including evolution and homosexuality.
2. In that these are all significant innovations in doctrine and practice, one sees immediately the difference between these “95 Theses” and the original ones. And this sheds some important light on the difference between reform and reformation. All these issues raised and decided in a certain way by the “lights” gathered in this volume have their origin in social changes and historical developments. They, thus, are not at all about what Luther’s work as a reformer was all about: the undoing of deformations originating in social changes and historical developments. In fact, not only are they not about Luther’s concerns. They represent the very thinking that made Luther’s work of reformation so necessary.
Because of this, they are also very provincial and tied to a specific time. Because they are not firmly grounded on God’s universal Word, they merely articulate the particular “issues” well-educated men and women in affluent Western societies in general have had with God’s Word since the age of Enlightenment. In each generation since, there have been at least some whose education and affluence did not lead them to become atheists, but who, claiming to continue Luther’s reformation, instead have sought to eliminate from the Church unenlightened “leftovers” of some previous “dark age.”
Christians in ages past, but also Christians in other parts of the world today, do not agree with this call for enlightenment in the Church. They are often silenced and maligned as benighted, uneducated, and fundamentalist by the “enlightened” Christians of the West because of their resistance. Nonetheless, those Christian contemporaries of ours from, say, Africa, Asia, or Eastern Europe are now beginning to turn away from what they see as Western Protestantism’s apostasy from God’s Word. What prevents them from freely doing what they believe to be right according to God’s unchanging Word is often only “the power of the purse” still wielded by the corrupt churches in the West. Moreover, there is a growing number of Christians in the West – e.g., in Scandinavia, but also in the US – who, while originally members of those church bodies that presently enjoy all the convenient “blessings” the Daystar network wishes to bestow on the LCMS as well, are turning their backs on these blessings in disappointment and disgust.
Of course, it is conceded that such “movements” that are often sketchy theologically go this direction today and that direction tomorrow. Still, it is important to point them out to break the arrogance of the late 1960s and early 1970s which believed that the particular developments in the West at that particular time axiomatically show the way the whole world is going to go. However, the direction of these movements at a given time cannot finally be the decisive criterion for the truth in God’s Church.
This is why Luther is so important – not as a quarry for ideas that we can still fit into our own preconceived notions, but as a teacher of the Church faithful to the bible whose “ideas” are connected into a meaningful and correctly assembled whole. For instance, he deliberately did not jump on the bandwagon of the reform movements at the time. Had he done so, either he might have stayed a Roman Catholic like Erasmus, being content with making some proposals for external reforms – or he might have become an “enthusiast” like Zwingli who threw out the baby with the bathwater. Instead, he, at a time of God’s choosing, was granted to see the light of the gospel from the pages of Scripture, which, in time, led him to do away with the deformations that had crept into the various areas of doctrine and practice due to a flawed doctrine of justification.
3. It must be remembered that all of Daystar’s proposals for innovation are not made for the sake of change. They are made with the good intention of reaching more people with the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is very positive. Yet this is also very dangerous and deceptive. For here we see a flawed doctrine of justification show itself in practical and doctrinal terms. It is as if we, the Christians of today, bear the burden of making or keeping the gospel relevant to modern man who seems to have the power to accept at least the gospel’s core message. Yet as can be seen especially during the past 250 years of church history in the West, whenever this burden is taken up by (regenerated) man – and not left to God’s omnipotent, self-authenticating, efficacious Word – then disaster ensues. Since we cannot bear this burden, and since sinners are unable to believe anything of God’s revelation out of their own powers, we make it lighter for ourselves and others: we strip what seems non-essential from the church’s message and thereby self-servingly accommodate what we say to what others expect us to say. Why make believing the gospel harder than necessary – for others, but also for ourselves? Our legalistic intransigence when it comes to doctrine might prevent people from being saved!
Unsurprisingly, what is non-essential is identical with what seemingly causes people (and us?) to reject some evangelistic “core message.” For those associated with Daystar – and this is currently at least one sitting district president of the LCMS – this is concretely the LCMS’s insistence on a male-only clergy, on marriage to be exclusively between a man and a woman, on a scriptural doctrine of creation, but also on baptismal regeneration and the presence of Christ’s true body and blood in the bread and wine of the sacrament of the altar. This is how, in a Pharisaic manner, the appearance of godliness and newness can conveniently be maintained while hearts and minds remain captive to old Adam’s resistance to the underlying and transforming power of God’s Word (cf. Rom. 12:1-2).
The doctrine of justification of the Pharisees was wrong because it attributed the justification before God to man’s obedience to the law. Therefore, they had to limit what God actually demanded in the law because man’s powers and free will are not that free and powerful after all. That is, instead of calling for obedience growing out of a new heart, they reduced the demand to exact external fulfillment of the traditions of the fathers at the expense of God’s Word (cf. Matt. 15:3!). This was not easy, but dedicated individuals like one Saul of Tarsus could pull it off.
Similarly, these new lights also seem to have gotten something central terribly wrong: because man “cannot by his own reason or strength come to Jesus Christ or believe in him” (Luther), “winning” unbelievers for the gospel is not (and cannot be) our work. And we also don’t have to do our part for it to happen, e.g., by stripping God’s Word of what is not central in our own mind because it offends the modern mind. Bringing sinners to saving faith in Christ is entirely God’s work which he accomplishes when and where it pleases him through the Word his Church on earth proclaims in law and gospel. As Luther put it, we are servants of the Word, not its lords. God is its Lord, as He alone has the power that makes it grow and prevail (cf. Acts 19:20) as he sees fit.
Flawed doctrines of conversion and evangelism and flawed hermeneutics point to a flawed doctrine of justification in that they attribute more to man’s free will and reason than God’s Word does (e.g., modern man can believe in Christ as virgin-born Savior, but not in baptismal regeneration, six-day creation, or male-only clergy). At the very least, they point to a doctrine of justification that is not allowed to guide the interpretation of all other articles of the faith in a proper way (cf. Rom. 15:4; SD XI, 12). For as we remain passive in justification, so we remain passive in conversion. As we remain passive in conversion, so we also remain passive when it comes to simply receiving from God’s Word all the articles of the faith revealed there. No human creativity, individuality, activity, or critical thinking is called for in this place. When it comes to God’s Word, we can be, and by faith are, freed just to be receivers of the gift of his doctrine.
The survival and growth of the Church, in other words, does not depend on our ability to adapt the message to modern sensibilities, but on God’s operation through his unchanging Word of the bible. The ends need not justify the means because God justifies the ungodly for Christ’s sake by means of the gospel in Word and sacraments.
4. Zwingli and his associated berated Luther for being loveless because he would not have church fellowship with them “just because” they didn’t believe the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. In their mind, this was a minor matter, given that all Protestants agreed on some basic message of forgiveness and gospel and held God’s Word in high regard, generally speaking. One wonders: if this was such a minor matter, why did they spill so much ink on it instead of simply following Luther’s lead?
The modern heirs of Zwingli, who have made their teachings known in A Daystar Reader, call on the unenlightened heirs of Luther not only to have church fellowship with them and non-Lutheran church bodies, but also actually to make their points of view their own. They issue this call even though they wish to introduce major changes into the scriptural teachings of Christendom, such as denying the inspiration of Scripture, tolerating heterodox views of the sacraments, ordaining women, teaching evolution, and blessing homosexual marriages. As they see it, these are all minor matters when compared to some basic “agreement” of honest Christians concerning the gospel message, defined as narrowly as possible. One again wonders: if these are all minors, why make them into majors by dedicating a whole reader to them? Maybe they only need to be majors until the rest of us finally see the light and realize that they are negligible minors? May God protect us from ever following these will-o’-the-wisps!
5. Since with A Daystar Reader we are supposed to have in our hands the 95 Theses for our times, let us give the author of the original 95 Theses the last word. He certainly understood better than anybody else what he meant and what he didn’t mean (cf. SD VII, 41). Concerning Zwingli and company he wrote (AE 37:26-27):
[It does not] help them to assert that at all other points they have a high and noble regard for God’s words and the entire gospel, except in this matter. My friend, God’s Word is God’s Word; this point does not require much haggling! When one blasphemously gives the lie to God in a single word, or says it is a minor matter if God is blasphemed or called a liar, one blasphemes the entire God and makes light of all blasphemy. There is only one God who does not permit himself to be divided, praised at one place and chided at another, glorified in one word and scorned in another. The Jews believe the Old Testament, but because they do not believe Christ, it does them no good. You see, the circumcision of Abraham [Gen. 17:10 ff.] is now an old dead thing and no longer necessary or useful. But if I were to say that God did not command it in its time, it would do me no good even if I believed the gospel. So St. James asserts, “Whoever offends in one point is guilty in all respects.” He possibly heard the apostles say that all the words of God must be believed or none, although he applies their interpretation to the works of the law.
Holger Sonntag
Hiram, OH
[1] In light of the most recent decision by the 2010 LCMS convention in Houston, TX, to continue cooperation “with integrity” in external matters with the ELCA (Res. 3-03), it is interesting to see that the person chairing Committee 6 on social work (“human care”) was Rev. Dr. Benke, president of the Atlantic District of the LCMS and the author who wrote for the Daystar Reader the piece on social ministry as a welcome leaven in the fellowship debate. As Paul says, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9).
