Forum

Thoughts on NA28

—By Jeffrey Kloha

For the first time in a generation, pastors are confronted with a new edition of the Greek New Testament. Since 1975 the text of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament and, matching it in 1979, the text of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece have been identical. Subsequent editions updated the apparatuses of the respective editions, but the printed text remained unchanged in spite of new manuscripts discoveries, refined knowledge of patristic and versional witnesses, and significant shifts in methodology. The Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28) marks the beginning of a new era in the history of the printing of the Greek New Testament, for the handful of changes made in this edition signal more changes to come throughout the New Testament text over the next decades and a shift from print to digital formats.

Four items will be of immediate interest to pastors. First, the changes to the text: Fifty-one changes have been made to the printed text, all in the Catholic Epistles. These changes reflect decisions made in the production of the Novum Testamentum Graece: Editio Critica Maior (ECM) published 1995–2005. The Catholic Epistles, having by far the fewest numbers of manuscripts and the least complicated textual tradition, were selected as the starting point for this comprehensive critical edition of the entire New Testament. Rather than produce a hand edition with a text that differs from that of the comprehensive edition, the texts of the two editions were brought into parallel. Work continues on the ECM; projections are that John and Acts will be completed in the next couple of years, with work on the rest of the New Testament planned to last until 2030. Given the relative simplicity of the text of the Catholic Epistles and the complexity of the textual tradition of John and Acts, we might anticipate far more changes in those texts, and more substantive changes, than are presented in the Catholic Epistles.

Space allows mention of only one textual decision made in NA28 at Jude 5. In a passage with important Christological implications, NA28 prints Ἰησοῦς as the one who “delivered his people out of Egypt” in place of [ὁ] κύριος in NA27 or ὁ θεός in other witnesses. The ESV has already chosen to depart from the standard text and prints “Jesus” in this passage.

The second item of interest to pastors is the adoption of a new methodology. Previous generations learned to classify manuscripts based on “text-types,” such as “Alexandrian,” “Western,” and “Caesarean.” However, more comprehensive comparison of all readings in all manuscripts, now made possible by computer analysis, shows that these classic divisions (first identified in the early eighteenth century, before the discovery of any papyrus manuscripts) are not meaningful, especially in the period of the greatest variation, the second and third centuries. The method now employed has been labeled the “Coherence-Based Genealogical Method.” Using comprehensive computer databases, the “coherence” of witnesses in their relationships to each other is able to be discerned over an entire book or corpus, so that the researcher can determine rather quickly if decisions made about the “initial text” could have produced the resultant stemma of manuscripts. It is important to note that the databases and software do not determine the “initial text” readings; the researcher, using any method (Reasoned Eclecticism; Thoroughgoing Eclecticism; even Majority Text Theory) determines the “initial text” reading in each place. The software then compiles a stemma based on all those decisions to determine if an accurate stemma results. Individual textual decisions can then be altered, the program run again, and refinements to the text made until a “coherent” stemma of witnesses is produced. This is certainly very different from the “Local Text-Type” theory that most pastors learned in Greek class, a method which, it must be said, fell out of disuse decades ago. Hence the changes to the text.

Third, this edition reflects a shift in assumptions about what the evidence allows one to reconstruct. Where previous generations, emboldened by a confidence in science which was possible only in the Enlightenment, claimed to be able to reproduce the “New Testament in the Original Greek,” late twentieth century scholars have known that extant evidence reaches only back to the second century, and that for only a scattering of passages. There may be nearly 150 years between the original writing/delivery of a New Testament text and the now-preserved manuscripts. Given the strong dependence on a genealogical method, this edition claims only to to reconstruct the “Ausgangstext,” or the “Initial Text,” defined as follows:

“The initial text is the form of a text that stands at the beginning of a textual tradition. The constructed text of an edition represents the hypothetical reconstruction of the initial text.” (ECM 2 Peter, 23)

This edition helpfully acknowledges that reproducing an “autograph” of any New Testament writing is an impossible task, given available evidence. This also leads to a perhaps surprising move by the editors: the removal of any reference to a conjecture in the apparatus. Since the editors claim to reconstruct only the hypothetical text that stands at the head of the manuscript tradition (and not the “autograph”), conjectures are not part of their project. So, for example, the conjecture that 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 is a post-Pauline interpolation has been deleted from the apparatus.

The final item of interest to pastors is a new “bonus” feature: the online version of the NA28. Whereas the new edition somewhat simplifies the apparatus, in particular by removing strings of irrelevant manuscript numbers, the online edition will be comprehensive. Variants not noted in the NA28 apparatus will be available in electronic editions, and in many cases full transcriptions of the manuscripts will be available so that the readings of a given manuscript over a block of text can be easily read. Indeed, the day may soon come when bringing a tablet to class or the study will replace the little blue book that so easily carries about.

Over the next few weeks I will be providing more thorough discussions of the changes and features of the new edition on the Concordia Seminary faculty site. The official website of the Nestle-Aland text is now live, and the digital Nestle-Aland will soon be available here. Other features of the new edition, such as simplifying the apparatus, removing Latin (unfortunately), appendices, and so on, might be welcome and make the edition slightly more user friendly. However, they will likely not persuade a pastor to purchase the new edition. Since the Catholic Epistles are not often then basis of sermons and Bible studies, some pastors may wish to forego purchasing this edition, waiting for the updated texts of John and Acts. But consultation of the electronic edition (when it becomes available) will be a necessary task.

The Greek New Testament was born in the premodern period, copied by hand on papyrus, then on vellum in majuscule and minuscule script, a process which brought with it inevitable errors and alterations. It entered the industrial age in 1516 with production via movable type, followed by lithograph printing methods. This gave the text, for 500 years, an appearance of fixedness and certainty it could not granted in previous generations. Now, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, the Greek New Testament has entered the computer era, with all the benefits and drawbacks of transient, erasable, and alterable dots on screen. Much like our modern translations are changed every few years, in some cases (like the ESV) virtually silently, now our Greek New Testament will enter the realm of instability. For careful students of the New Testament, this is a welcome development, for new discoveries and refinements in methodology can be incorporated immediately, rather than waiting for 35 years for a new edition. For pastors who serve people concerned “about changes to the Bible,” it is time to reacquaint yourself with your little blue texts so that you can point people to the locus of confidence, the Word.

 

The Rev. Dr. Jeffrey Kloha is associate professor of exegetical theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.

Can You Vote for a Mormon?

—by Gifford Grobien

Luther is famously misquoted as saying that he would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian, but this statement is utterly apocryphal. In fact, Luther deeply feared Turkish rule and wrote passionately that the empire should defend herself vigorously from Ottoman invasion. His fundamental concern was that Islamic rule would eliminate or hinder the freedom of the church to assemble and worship publicly, and that they would undermine faith in Christ by teaching falsely about Him.

What about a wise Mormon? Should a Christian embrace such rule or vote for it? Among the wider population, eighteen percent say they will not vote for a Mormon. To be sure, when such a question is asked in today’s context, most respondents are thinking of Mitt Romney, the Mormon Republican nominee for President. So some of this eighteen percent might really be saying they would not vote for Mitt Romney. Yet Gallup also suggests that the bias against Mormons is the only major bias to remain unchanged in the last forty-five years. The number of people who would not vote for a candidate because of a particular race or religion declined when considering Blacks, Jews, Catholics, and other groups. For Mormons, however, it remains effectively unchanged. Seventeen percent said they would not vote for a Mormon in 1967 (when Mitt Romney’s father was running for President), and eighteen percent said so in June of this year.

What is a faithful Christian to think of this? When considering whom to vote for, Lutherans typically appeal to the distinction between the two kingdoms. This distinction clarifies the authority for making such a decision. While God is the ultimate authority over all things, He exercises this authority in two ways: with law or with grace. Grace “rules” in the church. That is, by forgiving sins, God defeats sin and death and raises up believers to new life, a life that leads to resurrection.

In the secular, political realm, the law of God rules. Even the unbeliever has a limited awareness and understanding of God’s law via the natural law, the voice of reason that teaches human beings to pursue good and to avoid evil. So, when considering whom to vote for, one ought to vote for the candidate who will lead the country further toward good.

This question is obviously complicated by the numerous issues and laws that will be affected by the candidate. He may do good in some areas and evil in others. For example, some may judge that Mitt Romney will do a better job managing government finances, but are disturbed by his unwillingness to work actively toward the prohibition of abortion. Others may think that President Obama promotes an agenda that properly considers the poor, but has undermined the rule of law by his broad executive orders.

Although conventional wisdom speaks of an American separation of church and state, the practical reality is that Americans are deeply interested in a candidate’s faith. Faith is an indicator of values, and values indicate a person’s priorities, even in politics, where there are other strong influences, such as party platform, constituents, donors, and pragmatism. Indeed, this is what the two kingdoms distinction recognizes. The two kingdoms does not suggest that Christians check their consciences at the door, but that Christians participate lawfully in the secular political realm, obeying authority, but also using legal recourse to promote what is good (AC 16; Ap 16). Christians are to promote goodness in the law as they understand goodness through faith.

Perhaps faith is scrutinized heavily by some voters because they try to determine how a candidate’s faith stacks up in relation to other factors. Is a candidate’s faith strong enough to help keep him steadfast on an unpopular issue such as opposing abortion? Or is he only marginally religious, so that his espoused faith really would not play a great role in policymaking? To complicate matters further, his faith may interact differently between policy issues, so that, for example, his faith would play only a weak role in abortion policy, but a strong role in punishing criminals.

In theory, the question is simple: voters ought to vote for the candidate who will do more good, regardless of religion. In practice, however, determining who will do more good can be very difficult. Such a determination does consider a candidate’s faith and values, to what degree these will affect policy, and the relative importance of some issues over others. And such a determination requires a deep understanding of the doctrine’s taught according to the candidate’s faith, how faithful he is to these doctrines, and to what extent other factors may override his religious convictions.

Would you vote for a Mormon? The question is really better put: Would you vote for Mitt Romney? Or, would you vote for Barack Obama? Or would you vote for some other candidate? What is the faith of each of these candidates? What are the teachings of this faith? How loyal is the candidate to these teachings? What other values or loyalties does the candidate have, such as integrity to campaign promises, devotion to constituents, or allegiance to donors or party figures or policies?

As a faithful citizen you are called to participate in politics to the extent the law allows. As a dutiful citizen, these are the kinds of questions you should ask yourself and seek to answer as the election approaches. As a Christian, take part carefully yet joyfully and with thanksgiving in this process. Know that God works through means—and you are his means!—yet he directs events according to his will. He cares for his church and will not forsake her, even as the world faces great tribulation.

 

Gifford Grobien is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Choosing Hell: A Lutheran View of Free Will

By James Keller

The existence of hell is, for most Christians, an article of faith. Scripture and tradition leave little ambiguity with regard to a place of eternal anguish, one that is populated by those that have made a free, conscious choice for separation from God. Hell is an existential reality even among Christian universalists, who maintain that despite the certainty of hell, all persons will experience salvation due to the irresistible and gracious will of God.[1] The point at issue is free will. Universalists view the freedom of “choice” for hell over heaven as logically incoherent. How, they argue, can persons who repent under the duress of some forcibly imposed punishment be said to have made the choice freely? Opponents of universalism respond that some persons choose to be irrational and dispute even basic laws of logic. Scripture and experience point to continued human rebellion in the face of punishment or threats of punishment.[2] ...

DOWNLOAD FULL ARTICLE HERE

 

 

James Keller is Instructor of Theology at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.

 

[1] Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 9-34; Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 44-47.

[2] Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 52-65.

The Pastoral Character of Herman Bezzel

Translated and adapted by Matthias G. Hohls

EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION

 

Hermann Bezzel (1861–1917) was an influential Bavarian Lutheran churchman shaped by the confessional awakening associated with Erlangen. Unfortunately he is as yet little known in the English-speaking world. He served as the rector of the deaconess institution at Neuendettelsau from 1891 to 1909, when he became bishop of the Bavarian Church. He held this position until he died of an illness acquired while visiting German troops on the front lines in World War I. Bezzel is often cited positively by Hermann Sasse and J. Michel Reu as an outstanding voice for confessionalism over and against calls for theological diversity in the Lutheran Church. Nine devotional excerpts from Bezzel’s writings appear in John Doberstein’s Minister’s Prayer Book (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). Bezzel was known as a strong and courageous preacher of repentance who did not fail to deliver the comfort and consolation of the gospel to the broken. He is remembered for his accent on the “condescension of God” by way of the theology of the cross. This 1938 essay by Johannes Rupprecht (1884–1964) takes its place alongside Reu’s “Hermann Bezzel: Aspects of His Life for our Time” as a worthy introduction to the pastoral theology of this significant Lutheran.—John T. Pless

DOWNLOAD FULL ARTICLE HERE

 

A Lutheran Response to Justification: Five Views

—by Jordan Cooper

 If one were asked to explain the distinctiveness of Lutheran theology within the church catholic, one word would likely come to mind: justification. If one aspect of doctrine defines Lutheran theology over against other theologies, it is the centrality of justification by faith alone. This issue, described by Luther as “the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls,” was the heart of the conservative Reformation and remains so within churches of the Augsburg Confession. This being the case, it is surprising that the recent volume Justification: Five Views,1 neglects to include a Lutheran contributor. The editor explains that this is because Michael Horton’s confessional Reformed approach is thought to encapsulate confessional Lutheran approaches to the doctrine.2 Despite the similarities however, Horton’s essay fails to display the uniquely Lutheran approach to justification as it is expounded upon in Luther’s Galatians commentary and explained and defended in the Lutheran Confessions. This article is an attempt to bring a Lutheran voice into this dialogue, offering a unique and biblical approach to Paul’s theological concerns in Galatians and Romans...

DOWNLOAD FULL ARTICLE HERE

 

Footnotes:

1. James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy et al, Justification: Five Views (Westmont, IL: IVP, 2011). Contributors to the volume of essays include Michael S. Horton, Michael F. Bird, James D.G. Dunn, Veli-Matti Karkainen, Gerald O’Collins, and Oliver Rafferty.

2. “Horton’s traditional Reformed view is functionally identical in all the significant theological aspects to the traditional Lutheran view.” Justification, 10.

Walther and Giertz: Law and Gospel Properly Distinguished / But to How Many Applied?

—by Rev. Eric R. Andræ

Download full article here.

Dr. Robert Kolb calls it “perhaps the best treatment of the proper distinction of law and gospel in the history of Lutheran theology.”1 C. F. W. Walther’s The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, you say?2 No. Rather, the renowned Reformation scholar is referring to Bo Giertz’s beloved novel, The Hammer of God.3

It is natural and right to think of these two works together. They complement one another to such a great extent that one might say that what Walther expounds in systematic discourse, Giertz demonstrates in belletristic narrative.4 Nonetheless, Giertz wrote his literary masterpiece seemingly without knowledge of Walther’s classic. It was not until a dozen years after writing The Hammer of God,5 that Giertz received a copy of Walther’s Law and Gospel, apparently the bishop’s first.

 

Bishop Bo Giertz of Gothenburg (1905-1998; bishop 1949-1970) visited St. Louis in April 1953. On April 21 he was given a German version of Walther’s Gesetz und Evangelium.6 The book was given and dedicated to him by Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod President J. W. Behnken, “In fond remembrance of your gracious visit to our Synod and with best wishes.” Some marginal notes are found in the book, presumably made by Giertz: his ex libris is also in the volume. According to the pencil notes in the front of the book where the theses are listed, Giertz was especially interested in the later theses, IX-XV and XX-XXIV. He also made some indications in the body of the work, especially under theses XIII and XXII.7 Under the latter,8 Giertz noted the passage where Walther only recognizes two kinds of people from a pastoral perspective, “Bekehrte und Unbekehrte” [converted and unconverted]. According to the Swedish tradition of Nådens ordning [the Order of Grace / ordo salutis],9 three groups are recognized: the self-secure or self-confident, the awakened, and the converted. This understanding has had a tremendous influence on biblically conservative preaching and even pastoral care. Walther explicitly condemns this teaching as pietistic10 and connects it with Francke, Rambach, Bogatzky, Fresenius, and others. This means that Giertz’s theological standpoint here, in which he was influenced by Henric Schartau (1757-1825),11 would be heavily criticized by Walther.12

In the interest of promoting discussion, I think it worthwhile to explore this difference between Walther and Giertz.

 

One of the most distinctive features of Schartauanism is the style and structure of its sermons.13 After the Trinitarian invocation, the introduction begins with a verse of Scripture, followed by its interpretation or brief exegesis, and then the Lord’s Prayer. The proposition or theme is then stated along with its subdivisions or parts. The main body of the sermon consists of expounding the theme while addressing the hearer in the third person. The closing application has three sections, one each applied in the second person to the distinct hearers: one part addressed to the self-righteous “confident sinner,” another to the awakened stricken sinner or “mournful soul,” and finally one to the forgiven reclaimed sinner who knows and believes the “assurance of grace.”14

 

While Giertz does not employ or propose the Schartauesque homiletical preamble,15 in The Hammer of God and in his theology as a whole he also utilizes the differentiation between what might be called the three hearers. He uses a series of names for each grouping. The first he calls the sleeping or indifferent sinners, the blind, or the self-satisfied, or self-secure; the second the anxious, the troubled, the heavy-laden, or especially the awakened or the poor in spirit; the third the faithful or the graced, perhaps even the converted.16 These distinctions Giertz sees as necessary if one is to lead people truly and concretely in the way of law and gospel, especially, but not only, through preaching.17 “All people are not the same – so says the Word of God.”18 Giertz usually employed these distinctions in his own preaching, sometimes in the concluding application but sometimes elsewhere in the sermon, even if he did not always explicitly name the hearers as such; keeping the hearers’ different spiritual states in mind, there was a direct address and concrete guidance:19Seelsorge and encouragement for the troubled and heavy-leaden was always of paramount concern for this preacher and pastoral theologian.20 It is these awakened “poor in spirit” whom Giertz would seem to identify with what Luther calls “those who have been humbled, that is…, those who bewail of their sin and despair of self-help;” in a section marked by Giertz in his copy of Law and Gospel, this is quoted from Luther by Walther to describe “in what condition those must be who are brought to true faith [by] God alone.”21

 

Giertz famously appropriates one of Schartau’s sermons in the novel.22 However, Fridfeldt’s closing threefold application directed to the different hearers is entirely left out of the English translation of TheHammer of God. In the original, Giertz addresses the “secure sinners,” the “troubled souls,” and those who know “the assurance of grace,” which, in the end, actually means a more gospel-focused conclusion to the homily.23

 

However, in his thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth evening lectures, under thesis XXII, Walther says that the pietists’ classification was utterly wrong. They would have been right if by people who have been awakened they had understood such persons as occasionally receive a powerful impression of the Word of God, of the Law and of the Gospel, but promptly stifle the impression, so that it is rendered ineffectual. For there are, indeed, men who can no longer continue to live in their carnal security, but suppress their unrest until God smites them again with the hammer of His Law and then makes them taste the sweetness of the Gospel. But the awakened persons to whom the Pietists referred are no longer to be numbered with the unconverted. According to Scripture we can assume only two classes: those who are converted and those who are not.24

Walther, using several biblical examples (Herod Antipas, Felix, Festus, Agrippa), goes on to state that “People like these must not be numbered with the converted. But it is wrong to call them awakened.”25 Notably, Pieper disagrees, writing, “The term ‘awakening’ has been used particularly by the Pietists to describe the condition in which a man has been roused out of his carnal security but has not yet come to faith in Christ. Felix was in that condition…; he ‘trembled’ (Acts 24:25). While Scripture never uses the term in this sense, such a use of it is not wrong.” He then goes on to state that it is wrong, however, to require certain “spiritual experiences” or “self-decision” before claiming that a man has been converted; “the one who ‘has the first beginnings of faith…’ has been converted.”26

 

Meanwhile, Giertz maintains that when, by the law, awakened sinners…see how badly things are with them, [then they] have the opportunity to understand in all serious why the Savior must die and why he is the only foundation for our salvation and our right to be called Christians. The one who preaches can, if need be, do without theterm “awakening,” but he must in any case teach about the thing itself. The Gospels give us countless examples. The disciples with their misadventures, their weak faith, their self-confidence, their arguments, and their ultimate flight [during the passion], give us wonderful possibilities in describing the modern disciple’s way through humbling experiences to a true faith in the Atoning Christ and nothing else. … The main thing is that one really speaks concretely, so that the awakened can recognize himself and understand that grace is really for him.27

Unrepentance needs to be described, but with an appeal to seek that help which the Lord so dearly wants to give. For he calls through the gospel.28

Walther, however, goes on to challenge us to:

Try to find a single instance in the Scriptures where a prophet, apostle, or any other saint pointed the people [to] another way to conversion, telling them that they could not expect to be converted speedily and that they would have to pass through such and such experiences. They always preached in a manner so as to terrify their hearers, and as soon as their hearers realized that there was no refuge for them, as soon as they condemned themselves, and cried, “Is there no help for us?” they told them: “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and all will be well with you.” Fanatics declare that this is not the proper order of conversion. It is not the order of fanatics indeed, but it is God’s order.29 As soon as the Gospel sounded in the ears of the persons aforementioned, it went through their hearts, and they became believers. We read that David, after receiving absolution, still had to suffer a great deal of anguish. But his penitential psalms are at the same time a confession of his assurance that God was gracious to him. It is sheer labor lost when a minister leads a person who has become alarmed over his sins a long way for months and years before that person can say, “Yes, I believe.” Such a minister is a spiritual quack; he has not led that soul to Jesus, but to reliance on its own works. In a certain sense the Pietists have been guilty of this awful sin. It is just those ministers who are manifesting great zeal that are in danger of committing this great and grievous sin. They are sincere and well-intentioned, but they accomplish no more than tormenting souls. To every sinner who has become spiritually bankrupt and asks you: What must I do to be saved? you must say: That is very simple: Believe in Jesus, your Savior, and all is well.30

Of course, through such means as Katrina and Pastor Fridfeldt’s aforementioned Schartau sermon on “Jesus only,” this is exactly what Giertz’s novel does, that is, proclaim: “Believe in Jesus, your Savior, and all is well.” “Amen. I believe!” the dying Johannes can thus say.31

 

As such, Giertz, like Walther, also warns against delaying the offer of forgiveness: “The Order of Grace can be understood as calendar of steps to be made and measures to be taken, a series of requirements, which must be fulfilled before you can believe the forgiveness of your sins. The result can be an anxiety and worry and torturous self-analysis which continue all the way to the death-bed. This is obviously the exact opposite of what is intended…. I have tried to depict this in my novel The Hammer of God.”32

 

It is interesting also to compare Walther’s perspective to Pastor Lindér’s climactic exhortation in the first novella, in which he, too, speaks of a “refuge” or “fortress” in his conversation with Pastor Savonius.33 I strongly encourage the reader to look up and read all five-and-a-half pages in the book. Here you may note especially the highlighted portions at the beginning and at the end where I have included the original Swedish:

Henrik!” There was suddenly a powerful eagerness in his voice, as he stood still on the walk and reached forth his hands. “We have never understood this matter of salvation before, even though we have stood amid the storms of a spiritual springtime. We have divided people into converted andunconverted [omvända och oomvända], we have applied every sermon to the self-secure [säkra] and to the believing ones [trogna – could also be translated as “the faithful ones”], we have imagined that when a man was brought under conviction, it was only necessary that he should see his sins, contritely confess them, and come to Jesus in faith and he would be born again. And all that we accomplished in three days, or three weeks, or months at the best. No, my boy, it could take three years, or thirty sometimes. One sees the Lord’s happiest disciples going about and singing about salvation only because they have stopped living in drunkenness and adultery and contempt for God’s Word, having felt some blessed movement of grace in their hearts. In Lund, they call that the state of being awakened [uppväckta]. And the hardest bit of the road remains. If the Spirit of God has been allowed to crush the outward sin, so that one begins to live without intentional transgression, that is only the first, small beginning.” … Lindér had already started speaking again. “As you say, what is now to happen? Justus Johan Lindér is now condemned to death and lives as a lost and condemned sinner – day by day by the grace of his Lord. He sits like a bird and eats from his Redeemer’s hand. And in between he sings happily in the sunshine. Henrik, we must start again from the beginning. We have thundered like the storm, we have bombarded with the heaviest mortars of God’s law in an attempt to break down the walls of sin. And that was surely right. I still load my gun with the best powder when I aim at unrepentance. But we had almost forgotten to let the sunshine of the gospel shine through the clouds. Our method has been to destroy all carnal security by our volleys, but we have left it to the souls to build something new with their own resolutions and their own honest attempts at amending their lives.34 In that way, Henrik, it is never finished. We have not become finished ourselves. Now I have instead begun to preach about that which is finished, about that which was built on Calvary and which is a safe fortress to come to when the thunder rolls over our sinful heads. And now I always apportion the Word ofGod in three directions, not only to the [1] self-satisfied [säkra] and the [2] believers [trogna] as I did formerly, but also to the [3] awakened, the anxious, the heavy-laden, and to the poor in spirit [de uppväckta, de ängsliga och betungade och andligen fattiga]. And I find strength each day for my own poor heart at the fount of Redemption.”35

Some seventy years later, Pastor Fridfeldt, quoting Schartau, summarizes it in this way: “That which once and for all, and at once, is reckoned as yours in justification will be worked in you little by little in sanctification.”36 Indeed, it might be argued that Walther understands the pietists as applying the notion of the three different hearers within justification, while Giertz’s chief use of the distinction is actually in regard to sanctification and its proper relation to justification. As a matter of fact, when Giertz speaks of those who might be “born again,” such as above through Lindér,37 he uses this and similar phrases to indicate that the application of law and gospel unto conversion has transformed not only the person’s relationship to God (justification), but also to other people (rebirth, “born again”).38 As Giertz writes elsewhere: “At the same time as justification occurs in heaven, something also happens on earth: man is born anew.39 … And with this then we are already [discussing] sanctification.”40

 

As Giertz scholar Anders Jarlert of Lund importantly points out, when Lindér/Giertz above laments the division of folks into merely converted and unconverted,41 this is not a critique of orthodox proclamation, but rather of a radical pietism. In the passage cited, it is especially the understanding of the nature of sin which marks the difference. When sin is understood in all its magnitude and depth as, actually, unbelief, then it becomes rather shallow to speak of people as “converted” simply because they have laid aside cursing and other outer sins.42 Paradoxically, such an externally based understanding of conversion would actually be a rather law-oriented one.

 

To a great extent, Walther’s general argument is certainly and simply against any role or decision of man in conversion. Giertz wholeheartedly agrees, while at the same time integrating this contention with the idea of the three hearers and the awakening; to wit: “Certainly [Satan] will be concerned when a man begins to seek the Lord’s Supper or comes within hearing distance of the Word of God. But as long as there is preaching of such a kind that it does not awaken a sleeping sinner, and as long as the system only creates self-satisfied work-righteousness among Christians, so long Satan himself could be, officially, a church Christian.”43

 

Walther claims that:

When the Pietists had brought a person to the point where he considered himself a poor, miserable sinner, unable to help himself, and asked his minister what he must now do, the minister did not, like the apostles, answer him: ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,’ but, as a rule, they told him the very opposite. They warned him against believing too soon and against thinking that, after having felt the effects of the Law, he might proceed to believe that his sins had been forgiven.44

Again, not so Giertz! To reiterate: See the Fridfeldt/Schartau sermon on “Jesus only.”45 The law awakens and the gospel converts: law and gospel. See also Pastor Bengtsson’s sermon, in which he speaks of the “awakened,” the “sinner,” and “a true faith in grace,”46 as well as his earlier advice to Torvik, whereby he mentions the awakening by the law and then quickly shares the converting gospel.47

 

Finally, Giertz’s The Message of the Church in a Time of Crisis has a closing chapter entitled, “Your Conversion.”48 In the original there is a section of the essay answering the question, “Who then are the converted in a parish?,”49 but this is omitted in the English translation. In this part Giertz addresses the issue of the three hearers, and also maintains that only God knows the border between the converted and the unconverted.

Baptism means…that God himself makes a person into a Christian. God consecrates the person into a Christian. From that moment on he is required to live as a Christian. Naturally he can fail that responsibility, but he cannot revoke it. He can become a lousy Christian, a backsliding Christian, a Christian who is a disgrace to his Lord and His church. But he can never again be a heathen. … The outer border of the Church is baptism. What lies beyond this border is heathen ground and the mission field. But all that lies within this border, the Church counts as hers, often with shame but always with a mother’s love and intercession.50

One needs to remember the historical context in which Giertz writes in 1945, in which nearly every Swede was a member of the Church of Sweden and a local parish, but did not necessarily practice the faith given in baptism. Thus:

The first border within the church goes between the self-secure [säkra] sinners and the awakened [uppväckta] sinners, to use the old terms. Self-secure sinners do not think on their baptism and do not care about their salvation. They might have an obvious faith that a God exists and they might live a rather decent life, but they have no concept of what sin is, and they therefore see no need for any forgiveness either. They do just fine without worship, the Bible, or the Lord’s Supper.51

As the self-secure are awakened by the law, an observer probably cannot see when it happens, but can notice that it has happened. As such, Giertz maintains, it is the hidden life under the forgiveness of sins that is the sole basis for salvation. One clings to the promises of Christ, remembers one’s baptism, hears absolution’s word, meets one’s Savior at the table of grace, hears the Word, and reads the promises of God in one’s Bible. In other words, Giertz exhorts the Christian to “make use of the Means of Grace, faithfully use God’s Word and prayer, go to communion, be faithful in your vocation, and fight the daily battle against the Old Man. As such, you can be confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.”52

 

Giertz concludes: “In the end, conversion depends upon something which only the Spirit of God can accomplish: creating faith within a sinner: that faith in Christ, the Son of God, my Atoner, who justifies.”53

 

May the discussion commence.

 

by Rev. Eric R. Andræ

1 Robert Kolb, “Bishop Giertz’s Use of History in Stengrunden” in Eric R. Andræ, ed., A Hammer for God: Bo Giertz (Ft. Wayne: Lutheran Legacy, 2010), 71.

 

2  C. F. W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, trans. W. H. T. Dau (St. Louis: CPH, 1929). See also, Walther, Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible, trans. Christian C. Tiews (St. Louis: CPH, 2010).

 

3  Bo Giertz, The Hammer of God: Revised Edition, trans. Clifford Ansgar Nelson and Hans O. Andræ (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005).

 

4  See Eric R. Andræ, “The Hammer of God: Law and Gospel Enfleshed” in Eric R. Andræ, ed., A Hammer for God: Bo Giertz, 151-169, in which Walther’s theses are directly engaged, specifically theses XV, V, XXV.

 

5  Giertz, Stengrunden (Stockholm: SKDB, 1941).

 

6  Walther, Die rechte Unterscheidung von Gesetz und Evangelium (St. Louis: Evangelisch-Lutherischen Synode von Missouri, Ohio und anderen Staaten, 1946).

 

7  Walther, Die rechte Unterscheidung von Gesetz und Evangelium,249-254, 351-363, as well as 376, corresponding to Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, 260-265, 363-375, as well as 388.

 

8  Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, 362-381, specifically 363.

 

9  For more on the Order of Grace, see Eric R. Andræ, “Was Bo Giertz a Pietist?: Bishop Giertz and the Order of Grace,” Logia IX:4, Reformation 2000:43-50, or, in more detail, Eric R. Andræ, “Bishop Bo Harald Giertz: Pietism and the Ordo Salutis” in Eric R. Andræ, ed., A Hammer for God: Bo Giertz, 19-69. Giertz presents the order thusly, with baptism as foundational: Call, Enlightenment through the Law, Enlightenment through the Gospel, Justification and Rebirth, Sanctification.

 

10 It is well beyond the limited scope of this essay to explore the nature and varied forms of pietism. Pietism has become rather narrowly understood and almost universally disparaged, at least in today’s Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. However, as Kolb points out, “the terms ‘pietist’ and ‘revivalist’ mean so many different things to different people that they are about as worthless -- or more so than -- as liberal and conservative” (Robert Kolb, personal e-mail to this writer, 16 May 2010). Even Francis Pieper maintains, “As for ‘Pietism,’ it has been said with good reason…that the term has not always been employed in the same sense” (Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, vol. III[St. Louis: Concordia, 1953], 174), and Walther himself adds that “the writings of Pietists…contain a great deal of good…. These Pietists were well-intentioned men and by no means wished to depart from the right doctrine;” Walther “does appreciate Pietists on some level” (Walther, Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible, 409; including editorial note). In The Hammer of God, Giertz is not countering all forms or all aspects of pietism, nor does he lump them all together; indeed, at least four different Swedish strains are addressed in the novel: that is, Old Pietism, New/Rosenian Pietism, Schartauesque pietism, and Waldenströmian pietism, and even a Baptistic version. Giertz is against legalistic pietism. For more on Giertz and pietism, see Eric R. Andræ, “Bishop Bo Harald Giertz: Pietism and the Ordo Salutis” in Eric R. Andræ, ed., A Hammer for God: Bo Giertz, 19-69; and Eric R. Andræ, “Pietism According to Bo Giertz,” Lutheran Forum web-site (<http://www.lutheranforum.org/extras/pietism-according-to-bo-giertz/>), January 25, 2010.

 

11 For more on Schartau see Eric R. Andræ, “Was Bo Giertz a Pietist?: Bishop Giertz and the Order of Grace,” 43, material which is expanded in Eric R. Andræ, “Bishop Bo Harald Giertz: Pietism and the Ordo Salutis,” 20-42; and Henrik Hägglund, Henric Schartau and The Order of Grace (Rock Island, Illinois: Augustana Book Concern, 1928). Among the abundant material available in Swedish, see especially Anders Jarlert, ed., Henric Schartau 1757-1825: syfte, samtid, samhälle (Skellefteå, Sweden: Artos, 2005).

 

12 Rune Imberg, of the Lutheran School of Theology in Gothenburg (Församlingsfakulteten) [LSTG], provided the information for this paragraph via the Society for Scandinavian and American Lutheran Theology e-group (27 May 2011) and he thanks colleague Daniel Johansson, who alerted him to the book’s presence in the LSTG Library. He also provided me with photocopies of the pertinent pages.

 

13 For fifteen examples of Schartau’s sermons see Henrik Hägglund, Henric Schartau and The Order of Grace, 38-216; Henric Schartau, Femton Predikningar och ett Skriftermålstal (Lund: Fr. Berlings förlag, 1859), 79-88. Cf. Gösta Nelson, Hur Predikan Bygges Upp (Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups, 1952).

 

14Eric R. Andræ, “Bishop Bo Harald Giertz: Pietism and the Ordo Salutis,” in Eric R. Andræ, A Hammer for God: Bo Giertz (Ft. Wayne: Lutheran Legacy, 2010), 34-36. See Henrik Hägglund, Henric Schartau and The Order of Grace, 125, 126. See also Adolf Hult in C. O. Rosenius, The Believer Free from the Law, trans. Adolf Hult (Minneapolis: Lutheran Colportage Service, 1923), 19.

 

15Giertz writes that the sermon “must not be especially ‘liturgical.’ It must not in any special way become liturgically constructed. Many pastors have a dangerous inclination to do this. The sermon is introduced by a special small liturgy which includes an apostolic greeting, hymn reading, set prayers, the Trinitarian formula and other things. Such a fixed introduction to the sermon is often only a meaningless duplication of the liturgy already celebrated. The greeting was already there (in the Salutatio), as was the appropriate prayer (in the Collecta); and the sermon hymn should have completed the essential preparation of prayer. Personally, I am of the opinion that sermon preambles in the pulpit should be as short as possible. A brief prayer, usually a free one, will in most cases be sufficient (Giertz, “The Meaning and Task of the Sermon in the Framework of the Liturgy” in The Unity of the Church [Rock Island, Illinois: Augustana Press, n.d.], 138). “For him who has learned to understand [Schartauesque preaching], it has more to offer and is easier to remember than any other manner of speaking. ... But if you lack sufficient preparation and knowledge, this kind of a sermon is rather unfathomable” (Giertz, “The Gothenburg Diocese” in Robert Murray, ed., The Church of Sweden: Past and Present [Malmö, Sweden: Allhem, 1960], 154).

 

16See, e.g., Giertz, TheHammer of God, 98-103; and Giertz, Den stora lögnen och den stora sanningen (Stockholm: SKDB, 1945), 120-37, especially 134-137; much of the latter is left out of the English translation found in Giertz, The Message of the Church in a Time of Crisis and Other Essays, trans. Clifford Ansgar Nelson and Eric H. Wahlstrom (Rock Island, Illinois: Augustana Book Concern, 1953), 58-64.

 

17 Giertz, “En själavårdande predikan: 1. Att göra skillnad på folk [A soul-curing sermon: 1. To make distinctions among people],” Svensk Pastoraltidskrift 16, no. 34 (1974): 616. See also Giertz, “The Meaning and Task of the Sermon in the Framework of the Liturgy,” 135, 138-139.

 

18 Giertz, Giertz archives, homiletical seminar, Gothenburg Archives (GLA), as quoted in Hans-Olof Hansson, “Biskopens homiletiska seminarium” in Anders Jarlert, ed., Bo Giertz – präst, biskop, författare (Gothenburg: Församlingsförlaget, 2005), 98, this writer’s translation.

 

19 Hans-Olof Hansson, “Biskopens homiletiska seminarium,” 103.

 

20 For a collection of Giertz’s sermons in two volumes, see Giertz, Söndagsboken (Gothenburg: Församlingsförlaget, 2006, 2007). On the other hand, the English title of Giertz’s Preaching from the Whole Bible, trans. Clifford Ansgar Nelson (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1967. Reprinted: Ft. Wayne: Lutheran Legacy, 2007) is actually misleading; it is not so much a homiletic text, but rather presents briefly and helpfully the Gospel lesson’s theme for each Sunday and is aimed at least as much at laymen as at pastors. The Swedish title is Vad säger Guds Ord?, that is, “What does the Word of God Say?”

 

21 Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, 369.

 

22 Giertz, The Hammer of God, 170-75: the English translation of the sermon can be found in Hägglund, Henric Schartau and the Order of Grace and is also available at <http://thefirstpremise.blogspot.com/2009/08/henric-schartau-jesus-only.html.>; for the original, preached in the Lund cathedral in 1795, see Henric Schartau, Femton Predikningar och ett Skriftermålstal, 79-88.

 

23Giertz, Stengrunden, 170, this writer’s translation. The conclusion of Fridfeldt’s sermon in the original is thus more evangelical, more gospel-centered. While the version in The Hammer of God ends with an exhortation to “be like Jesus…by walk[ing] in your Savior’s footsteps” (175), in Stengrunden Schartau/Fridfeldt concludes with the gospel by reminding us that “When the peace of Christ has brought you comfort and his promises have given you the assurance of grace, then it shall also be your lot, at the approach of death, when your eyes can no longer see the things of this world, that the eyes of your soul shall be opened and given heavenly clarity to behold, in the great eternal glory, face to face, Jesus only” (170, this writer’s translation). Note also that in the original, being “like Jesus” is something ultimately “granted by your election” (Stengrunden, 170; this writer’s translation); this, too, is omitted in the translation.

 

24Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, 363. Ironic, or at least interesting, that Walther uses the term “the hammer of His Law.”

 

25 Ibid., 364.

 

26 Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, vol. II, trans. Theodore Engelder and John Theodore Mueller (St. Louis: CPH, 1951), 501, emphasis added.

 

27 Giertz, “En själavårdande predikan: 2. Att leda lärjungarna till tro,” Svensk Pastoraltidskrift 16, no. 35 (1974): 638, this writer’s translation.

 

28 Giertz, GLA, as quoted in Hans-Olof Hansson, “Biskopens homiletiska seminarium,” 98, (my translation.

 

29Giertz is not so concerned with the “order of conversion,” as Walther calls it. Rather, the bishop maintains that it is not a matter of “stages or steps in the process of grace.... One must be careful not to make the Order of Grace a staircase on which one gradually moves up to God.... It is rather a descent, a process of impoverishment, in which God takes away from man one after the other of his false grounds of comfort. At its heart it is a description of how God’s love overcomes the obstacles and breaks down the dams which prevent the divine grace from freely pouring itself over a life. These obstacles usually are in a certain context and group themselves in a complementary order. Therefore grace also has its order. But this order is not to be forced and is never allowed to be made a law. God’s grace works everywhere it is given the opportunity. Therefore everything becomes intertwined in the work of conversion. Already in the call [the calling grace] there can be a deep insight into the mystery of the Cross. Every meeting of the law and every new confession of sin usually carries with it a new revelation of grace. And when finally faith victoriously enters in, then “justification” and “rebirth” is already a reality. (Giertz, Kyrkofromhet [Stockholm: SKDB, 1962; first edition, 1939], 40, this writer’s translation. A portion of this book [15-40] has been translated as Giertz, Life by Drowning: Enlightenment through Law and Gospel, trans. Eric R. Andræ in Eric R. Andræ, ed., A Hammer for God: Bo Giertz [Ft. Wayne: Lutheran Legacy, 2010], 221-239, see specifically, 239.) The most recent edition of Kyrkofromhet is appropriately sub-titled “God’s way to man’s heart” (Kyrkofromhet [Skellefteå, Sweden: Artos, 2001]). While for Schartau, “a conversion that has not occurred according the specific order [in the ordo salutis] is no true conversion,” this is not exactly the case with Giertz. “Even if Giertz considers it important to have knowledge of the Order of Grace – especially for the one who is doing pastoral care – it is clear that he does not want to make the Order of Grace into an outline or plan that is applicable in every conversion. He simply maintains that the Order of Grace describes that which usually occurs at conversion…. This is an important difference between Giertz and Schartau” (Rune Söderlund, “Trons ABC” in Rune Imberg, ed., Talet om korset – Guds kraft: Till hundraårsminnet av biskop Bo Giertz’ födelse [Gothenburg: Församlingförlaget, 2005], 242, this writer’s translation). “The essential in the order of grace is not the order but rather the grace” (Giertz, Herdabrev Till Göteborgs Stift [Stockholm: SKDB, 1949], 151, this writer’s translation). Furthermore, in his preaching, Giertz did not apply the Order of Grace as a definitive outline of the biblical text (Hansson, “Biskopens homiletiska seminarium,” 103), but rather used it as “a map and an address-book, so that the message reaches” the hearers and makes an impact (Anders Jarlert, “Ordets sakrament – om en predikotradition i nutiden,” Svensk Pastoraltidskrift 31 [1990]: 658, this writer’s translation).

 

30 Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, 366-367.

 

31 Giertz, The Hammer of God, 23-26, 171-175. Again, the original’s closing application of the sermon directed to the three hearers is entirely left out of the English translation of The Hammer of God.

 

32 Giertz, “Västsvensk undervisning,” in Lars Eckerdal, Giertz, and Roland Persson, Västsvensk kyrka: om nattvardsliv, undervisning och andaktslitteratur (Gothenburg: Gothia, 1984), 39f., as quoted in Hans-Olof Hansson, “Biskopens homiletiska seminarium,” 182, (my translation).

 

33 Giertz, The Hammer of God, 98-103.

 

34 Walther concurs: “A minister must first cause people to hear the thundering of the Law and immediately after that the Gospel. Otherwise many a precious soul may be led to despair and be lost” (The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, 370).

 

35Giertz, The Hammer of God, 98-99, 103, emphasis added, adapted for clarity from the original.

 

36 Giertz, Stengrunden, 169, this writer’s translation; cf. Giertz, The Hammer of God, 175.

 

37 Giertz, The Hammer of God, 98.

 

38 Giertz, Kyrkofromhet, 40. See Eric R. Andræ, “Bishop Bo Harald Giertz: Pietism and the Ordo Salutis,” 56; and Giertz, “Life by Drowning: Enlightenment through Law and Gospel,” especially 239.

 

39 Or, “born again.”

 

40 Giertz, Kyrkofromhet, 44, 45, this writer’s translation.

 

41 Giertz, The Hammer of God, 98.

 

42 Anders Jarlert, personal e-mail to this writer, 29 July 2011.

 

43Giertz, Liturgy and Spiritual Awakening (Rock Island, Illinois: Augustana Book Concern, 1950), 29, emphasis in quotation and in title added; document available at the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod web-site.

 

44 Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, 372.

 

45 Giertz, The Hammer of God, 171-175.

 

46 Giertz, The Hammer of God, 269, 270. My translation from Giertz, Stengrunden, 260, 261.

 

47 Giertz, The Hammer of God, 264-269, 249, 251. Bengtsson actually speaks of two awakenings by the law: the first in which sin is marked and obedience attempted; the second in which one sees the true miserable condition of the sinful heart. (249). Note, too, the title of the second chapter of the first novella! – “Awakened by the Law” (Giertz, The Hammer of God, 43). See also Giertz, “Life by Drowning: Enlightenment through Law and Gospel,” especially 232-237; Eric R Andræ, “The Hammer of God: Law and Gospel Enfleshed,” especially 164-166; and Eric R. Andræ, “‘The best treatment of the proper distinction of law and gospel in the history of Lutheran theology:’ A Historical and Systematic Overview,” a lecture given on 7 June 2011 at “Scandinavian Lutheranism: A Conference,” Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines, Canada, available at https://picasaweb.google.com/103000629941768945067/ScandinavianLutheranismConferenceVideos?feat=directlink (video) and http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32513489/Scandinavian%20Lutheranism%20Conference/Andrae1%20-%20Hammer%20of%20God.mp3 (audio); the printed version is expected to be published in 2012 in Lutheran Theological Review.

 

48 Giertz, The Message of the Church in a Time of Crisis and Other Essays, 58-64.

 

49 Giertz, Den stora lögnen och den stora sanningen, 120-137, specifically, 134-137.

 

50 Giertz, Den stora lögnen och den stora sanningen, 134, 122, 135, this writer’s translation.

 

51 Giertz, Den stora lögnen och den stora sanningen, 135-136, this writer’s translation.

 

52 Giertz, Den stora lögnen och den stora sanningen, 136-137, (my translation); see also Giertz, The Message of the Church in a Time of Crisis, 64.

 

53 Giertz, “En själavårdande predikan: 2. Att leda lärjungarna till tro,” 638, this writer’s translation.

The Hour of the SELK

—by Jürgen Diestelmann, Translated by Peter A. Bauernfeind. Editors note--This article first appeared as “Die Stunde der SELK” in Lutherische Beiträge Nr. 4/2009.

“The denial of Luther in modern Protestantism”—that was the title lying before me, which appeared in a book in 1936. The author said to those of his era that a great danger was approaching Luther’s church, the danger of a new clericalism and priestly dominion. He came to this verdict because he saw the universal priesthood of believers as being in opposition to the apostolic office of word and sacrament. One could ask the author if he denied that such a premise was not the same as Luther’s, because these are two complementary concepts that supplement one another, and both are of fundamental importance for the life of the church. “The denial of Luther in modern Protestantism”—one could also write a book using this title today, albeit under very different conditions. In fact, many Protestants today see the universal priesthood of believers as being in opposition to the apostolic office of word and sacrament. But the denial of Luther in modern Protestantism continues in our time.

It was the will of Jesus Christ that the apostles bear witness to the Christian message, the gospel, “to the ends of the earth.” This is the commission and the mission of the church. Therein lies our promise. Therefore, we confess the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” Therefore, Luther called the church to return to the gospel. Yes, the Reformation signals “a return to the original form.” The commission and the mission of the church is classically described in AC 7: The “one, holy, Christian (catholic) Church…is the assembly of all believers, by which the gospel is properly preached and the Holy Sacraments administered according to the gospel.” This is how the church should be in modern times!

The reality, however, seen over a long distance, is something entirely different. One hears complaints from the Roman Catholic Church and also from the national churches of the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD) that more and more people continue to give up on the church—and they are by no means the only ones who turn away from the faith. Now faithful people often see the gospel as no longer a credible witness in the church. The well-known public example is that of the former Federal Minister Apel, who left the EKD for that very reason.

In fact, the church appears to be largely swept into the maelstrom of modernity’s addiction to “political correctness.” This maelstrom reminds me occasionally of something, which I as an adolescent often had to reflect upon. I was fifteen years old after the catastrophe of Stalingrad and had heard on the radio the infamous Sports Palace speech in which Joseph Göbbels hysterically asked the audience, “Do you want total war?” After the war had ended, I saw the destruction of Braunschweig, which had been bombed to smithereens. It then became clear to me what this question had actually involved: total war means total destruction. I ask myself how it was possible that rational people could be dragged into such an irrational maelstrom to the point that they enthusiastically agreed to the total war. Not only is the rousing rhetoric of Joseph Göbbels still ringing in my ears, but also is the knowledge that his rhetoric had swept the people into the blindness of the Zeitgeist, which at that time was shaped by National Socialism.

Similarly, the question presents itself to me when I see that Christians who know the Bible, and know exactly what it says, nevertheless allow themselves to be swept into the maelstrom of the Zeitgeist, which is always the exact opposite of what is in the Bible. What was impossible for two thousand years in the church is now possible. Faith in the triune God, the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the holiness and reliability of his word, and the foundational declaration of faith are frequently placed into question, since they do not appear acceptable in the prevailing Zeitgeist. Often this goes along with an argument that appears biblical. Thus the demand that we preserve creation is all the rage—but God has crowned his work of creation so that he created and blessed mankind as male and female, and he called marriage a holy estate. This, however, is often overlooked, even as the demand for the preservation of creation is being affirmed. In any event, we are experiencing in our time understandings of marriage and sexuality that spread rapidly, which will make it questionable whether the Christian understanding of marriage will be subscribed to at all in a few decades. And this is only an example from today’s current opinions, in which the message of the Bible is placed into question. A new paganism arises.

The church lives in such a world today. How does she respond to this? Little congregations become combined with larger congregations. Structural debates occupy committees, associations, and high ecclesiastical bodies. Bureaucracies expand, and pastoral offices and congregations are sacked. Certainly the ecclesiastical apparatus becomes impersonal and alienated from the people.

And what appears? The church noticeably loses her unique profile. The union of the Lutheran Church of Thüringia with the Union Church of Saxony, and of the—for the time being—failed experiment of the establishment of a Lower Saxon Church, which is expected to join together without respect for the confessional profile of three regional Lutheran Churches and the Reformed Church of northwest Germany, signals the characteristic way.

The merger had “laid the tracks on which the train can now travel,” says Thüringian Bishop Vähler after the union of the Church of Thüringia with the Church of Saxony at the beginning of 2009. This statement agrees with the statement of Berlin’s Bishop Dibelius, who once said in consideration of the DEK (the predecessor of the EKD) that she was “the sleeper car in which we Lutherans travel into the Union.” The Lutherans appear actually to have fallen asleep in the EKD. There are no longer any churches in the EKD with a clear Lutheran profile, and the same is true in the Vereinigte Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche Deutschlands (VELKD), which barely has any Lutheran impulses. One need only read the VELKD promotional flyer officially advertising the Lord’s Supper. It is quite evident that modern Calvinist slogans are used at the highest levels as Lutheran slogans. All this occurs simultaneously with the demand to promote the unity of the church not only by creating an inner-confessional sphere, but also by fostering opposition to Rome. One calls for the “common Lord’s Supper.” One calls for “unity,” and destroys it at the same time where it still exists. How can unity with the Roman Catholic Church be achieved when one still wants to remain “Evangelical” in the sense of “not Catholic”? How can one demand a union with the Roman Catholic Church, if at the same time two thousand years of a common understanding of the office of the ministry and the sacraments are destroyed by the introduction of certain alterations?

This is the ecclesiastical environment in which the Selbständige Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche (SELK) lives. She is a confessional Lutheran Church who owes her status to the fact that her fathers were in a bitter struggle for existence, fighting for the preservation of their confessional position. From there she should be immune from being drawn into the maelstrom of the modern ecclesiastical Zeitgeist. Otherwise even she herself would give up. She bound herself to preserve the legacy of her fathers.

This is the great opportunity of the SELK in our time. She is bound to the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, and that is why with complete justification she confesses in the sense of the Nicene Creed “one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church.” She builds her life and her proclamation upon that foundation, and she is in the position to give a clear witness regarding the confusions of the ecclesiastical and intellectual pluralism of our times. She can give direction and support to all Protestants who suffer under those disowning the reformers, especially in the church that bears the legacy of Martin Luther. She clings to the Bible as the word of God, which leads to eternal salvation. She can give the young (and not only them) a solid path of guidance with Luther’s Small Catechism, to lead a life in relationship with the triune God.

Of course, the SELK also knows from her own history that this could mean a struggle. She asserts a claim so that she herself is not “conformed to this world” (Rom 12:2). This could mean new threats from today’s Zeitgeist, which knows no tolerance if it sees current ideas of equality and self-determination of people attacked by the claims of the Bible. There are increasing examples that this could signal intense spiritual attacks when the public media discover that Christians “still” cling to their old, obsolete “ideas.” An entirely different kind of “total war” can very quickly begin.

Many Christians wait to be given a clear witness of faith, and they may again recognize where the church truly is the church. The SELK’s opportunity lies in this confusion of our modern times. The hour of the SELK has come!

Jürgen Diestelmann is pastor emeritus of St. Ulrici-Brüdern, Braunschweig, Germany. Peter A. Bauernfeind is pastor of Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church, Palisades Park, NJ.

LOGIA After Twenty Years: some thoughts by Martin Noland

—by Martin R. Noland

The editors of LOGIA: A Journal of Lutheran Theology had a productive annual meeting in West Saint Paul, Minnesota in June. Meeting at the church of Senior Editor, Dr. Michael Albrecht, we all became a little bit nostalgic as we made plans for our forthcoming issue “LOGIA After Twenty Years” (Holy Trinity 2012). If you are not a subscriber, it isn’t too late to receive that issue by subscribing at our website ($20 for one year of the online PDF version; $30 for one year of the print version to USA address; to order, see website at: www.logia.org.)

When I got home, I started rummaging through my library and files for anything pertaining to the first years of LOGIA. By chance, I found the “Theological Observer” article authored by David P. Scaer titled “LOGIA: A Journal of Lutheran Theology” in Concordia Theological Quarterly 57 #1-2 (January-April 1993): 113-116. If you have a copy of that issue, it is worth pulling out and reading Scaer’s evaluations of LOGIA.

Overall, Scaer was impressed by the first issue of LOGIA. The editors knew that they could win him over with that Dürer woodcut of God the Father wearing a papal tiara! In the first paragraph, Scaer gave the highest praise: “Among those periodicals claiming to present the confessional Lutheran position, however, none is as impressive as LOGIA!”

Scaer noted the churches of the contributing editors: Lutheran (State) Church of Hanover, Lutheran Church of Australia, Lutheran Church-Canada, Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany (SELK), and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. He overlooked the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, but not intentionally. Since then LOGIA has added contributing editors who are members of Lutheran churches in Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Sweden, Madagascar, and South Africa.

Scaer observed that the working editors belong to the “younger generation of pastors.” As I looked around the table this June in Minneapolis, that is still true, but we are working now with a second generation of younger pastor-editors, with a few “grey-heads” left like me and Dr. Albrecht.

Scaer understood the significance of LOGIA when he observed, “Perhaps the message here is that Lutheran theology of the confessional sort is not the possession of one church body and a younger generation wants to be involved” and “In any event LOGIA tells us that theology is still alive among the non-professionals.” I might add that the LOGIA editors want the younger generation of pastors and other “non-professionals” to be involved.

One paragraph in Scaer’s review had a dark tone. He wrote: “Unstated in LOGIA is the premise that additional channels are needed to do justice to confessional, and presumably, biblical theology. We shall see how courageous the editors are” (my emphasis). Scaer had survived spurious charges of false doctrine filed by a CTS staff member, but his defender, Robert Preus, did not survive that affair. Scaer wrote his review of LOGIA while he and the faculty at Fort Wayne were still under an interim presidency following the firing of Robert Preus. So he knew what this meant from personal experience.

In order to see “how courageous the editors” were, I took a sampling based on my own contributions to LOGIA for the years 1995 (my first piece) to 2007, a mix of articles and Logia Forum pieces. In those fourteen articles and pieces I was critical of events and trends in Lutheranism such as: “church growth,” Evangelical-style worship, secular methods of marketing and manipulation, “creative worship,” “entertainment evangelism,” the secularization of Lutheran colleges, the CCM ruling to expel congregations that oppose woman’s suffrage for theological reasons (an LCMS issue), CCM power in general (an LCMS issue), “Lutherans Alive” (an LCMS political group), modernism in the ELCA, the ecumenical movement, the Porvoo Statement and Declaration (1996), the Formula of Agreement (1997), Called to Common Mission (1999), the Joint Declaration on Doctrine of Justification (1999), and the Lutheran World Federation.

If that wasn’t enough to offend some folks, in those fourteen articles and pieces I actually named persons whose writings or theology I disagreed with: Jaroslav Pelikan, David Luecke, Waldo Werning, Alan Klaas, George Lindbeck, First Things, Richard John Neuhaus, James Neuchterlein, Francis Schaeffer, Walter Bouman, Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Carl Braaten, Robert Jenson, and Gerhard Forde. I was hardly the only theological critic writing in LOGIA nor was I the most frequent or most trenchant. Whether you judge our criticisms to be “courageous” or “foolhardy,” you can’t say that LOGIA has been manned by a bunch of milquetoasts.

Toward the end of his review, Scaer noted, “The editors are off to a good start, but whether they can maintain an adequate level of scholarship, enthusiasm, editorial work, and financial support is another matter.” Our readers will have to be the judge of the first three qualities, while financial support is always welcome.

In the support department, pastors can, at the very least, encourage their brother pastors at circuit meetings to subscribe and those so encouraged can put LOGIA on their “book allowance.” At $5 an issue (online PDF version), that is less than a lunch at McDonald's these days.

Our hearty thanks and best wishes to Dr. Scaer, and to many others, for their support and encouragement through these past twenty years!

 

 

 

There’ll always be an England?

—by John Stephenson

There’ll always be an England—won’t there? Dame Vera Lynn, the “Forces’ sweetheart,” is famous for assuring her fellow countrymen, in the darkest days of World War II, of their nation’s survival of the deadly threat posed by Nazi Germany. The memorable refrain of Dame Vera’s song was uttered most emphatically as an assertion, not as a question. View "There'll always be an England" on You Tube

As a bald topographical assertion, the title of Dame Vera’s trademark song will likely remain an incontestable statement till the Last Day dawns. But as she toiled under George VI and Churchill to rally the British nation in the aftermath of the evacuation of Dunkirk, Dame Vera—who is still alive at the grand old age of 94—was patently dealing in the genre of civilization, not geography, when she sang “There’ll always be an England” with such superb defiance into the Führer’s face.

Remarkably, although he saw himself as a buttress supporting the Church from outside rather than a pillar propping her up from within, in his famous “Finest Hour” radio address delivered shortly after he took over as Prime Minister, the agnostic Winston Churchill declared that “Upon this [just starting] battle [of Britain] depends the survival of Christian civilization.”

Secularization, using as its tools such characteristically twentieth-century phenomena as Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and—especially during the half century of unprecedented prosperity that followed the Second World War—good old utilitarian hedonism, has done its work so thoroughly across the ocean that we must wonder how, in a book published in 1920, Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) could seriously state, “The Faith is Europe, and Europe is the Faith.” For by the turn of the third millennium the European Union would define its cultural origins in terms of ancient pagan Greece and Rome, on the one hand, and of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment on the other, resolutely omitting all mention of Christianity in this context, despite persistent prodding from the papacy to do this very thing.

Considered in the wider context of long-term cultural trends, the three nights of rioting, looting, and arson that broke out in London on 6 August 2011 and began to spread to other major English cities, where they continued into a fourth night of disturbances, justify our placing a sombre question mark behind Dame Vera’s song. Will there in fact always be an England, if by this proper noun we understand the Christian civilization that was planted in Roman times already, that overcame the shock of Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasion, and that endured in large measure into the middle of the last century? Humanly speaking, the answer to this rhetorical question can only be a trembling No.

Over the years I have dimly remembered reading somewhere in Hermann Sasse the claim that no Christian nation has survived after turning its back on Christ. Try as I might, I have been unable to locate such a crisp statement anywhere in Sasse’s writings. The closest I have come has been to a lengthy essay of 1932, penned in the shadow of the imminent Nazi takeover. As he dealt with “The People” (das Volk) in “Vom Sinn des Staates” (= On the Meaning of the State), Sasse argued that “peoples” arise on the face of the earth in response to a call from God:

The Christian faith maintains that what makes a people a people is the call of God who, in the ups and downs [Schicksale] of history, calls men, families, races [Geschlechter], and tribes into the community of a specific people [Volkstum] (In Statu Confessionis II: 346f.).

Sasse concluded this section of his 1932 essay by speaking of the “death sentence” in store for all nations who turn a deaf ear to the divine call that once forged their existence—“where this call is no longer heard by anyone in a people, where no one any longer has a clue about the connection between God and people, there people and their distinctive characteristics [Volk und Volkstum] perish” (ISC II: 348). Sasse’s bold testimony against the Third Reich (he was one of the only German Lutherans to join Pius XI in calling a spade a spade with respect to Nazism) might fitly be (a) Christologically sharpened and (b) applied to the current state of Europe in general and Britain in particular (bearing in mind that Canada and the US do not lag so far behind old Europe!).

Is it not significant that “England” emerged as a single conceptual entity only simultaneously with Bede’s account of its definitive Christianization in his Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation? Until well into the twentieth century one could distinguish between, but not separate, the English nation and Church from each other. This statement holds good for English history throughout the confessional upheavals that produced Anglicanism, “English Dissent” (=Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists), and Methodism. By the nineteenth century Roman Catholicism was able once again to take a modest place in English public life. In this wide context English (and British) public culture was confessionally pluriform indeed, but distinctly Christian nonetheless.

To cut a long story short, the 1960s and their after-effects have changed all of that, overturning the heritage of almost two millennia. Anyone who wishes to understand the “anti-cultural revolution” that has marked the ensuing decades is advised to peruse with care the essays of the retired English physician who writes under the nom de plume of Theodore Dalrymple. His Our Culture: What’s Left of It is a particularly eye-opening piece of work.

As they issued a judgment effectively barring a devoutly Christian middle-aged black couple from fostering children (they would teach the sixth commandment, after all, and we couldn’t have that, could we?), on 28 February of this year two High Court judges issued a lengthy ruling that contained the following stunning sentence: “But the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form.” http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html

The learned gentlemen might have done well to cast a glance at the Coronation Service, at whose last observance, in 1953, Queen Elizabeth II responded in the affirmative to Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher’s question, “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?” See http://oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html

Moreover, they might have considered how the 1944 Education Act, which still remains on the statute book, lays down that each State-funded school must begin each day with a “broadly Christian” act of public worship. This provision having fallen into abeyance in recent years, it can no longer count on much public support, especially among the younger generation. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8743072/Most-schools-shunning-law-on-Christian-assemblies.html

And they might have done well to reflect that England and Scotland each still have “churches established by law,” a fact indicating that “the laws and usages of the realm do include Christianity,” in many and various ways!

It would be hard, indeed almost impossible, to exaggerate the collapse of Christian religious practice among all confessions in England in particular and in the UK in general over recent decades. The old parish system, which predated the Reformation, is everywhere in a state of collapse and, with very few exceptions, doctrinal substance has been diluted beyond recognition. Pagan generations have therefore grown up on formerly Christian territory, a facile utilitarianism their only spiritual armour, unbridled hedonism their only pursuit. The UK now “boasts” an abortion rate of 200,000 slaughtered infants per annum (189, 574 in 2010, to be precise). Following the ways of the ancient Canaanites and of the Israelites who joined their bandwagon can only result in Britain’s sharing their ineluctable fate. Which preachers in the British Isles are currently pointing out these sorry facts to their benighted compatriots?

The recent disturbances in London and other major cities took place against the dual background of the realm’s slipping into a spiritual dark age of secularization and of its succumbing to tidal waves of Islamization. In earlier ages Islamist aggressors ran into stout resistance from such rulers as Charles Martel, Charles V, and Jan Sobieski. This time around, though, they can only prevail against the effete ruling elite in the manner of knives slicing through hot butter.

North Americans do not have the luxury of beholding the cultural collapse of Europe in general and England in particular from the safe distance of a secure haven. Weakened by runaway debt and sinking under the costs of a decade of war, the US economy is tottering close to the abyss into which the Eurozone has plunged. Moreover, Christian religious practice has taken a nosedive on this continent also, not only in Canada, which has followed European patterns for some time already, but also in the US. Here in Canada the ruling elites increasingly enforce a “soft” totalitarianism of secularist utilitarianism—the final volume of novelist Michael O’Brien’s Canadian trilogy seems not so sensational to a soberly realistic analyst of the times. Marriage no longer exists as such, and the lives of the weakest in society have less and less status in public law—babies have none, and the rights of the old and the sick are increasingly precarious. Let’s not forget how “Dr” Morgenthaler, the “father” of abortion provision in this country, received in succession an honorary doctorate from the University of Western Ontario and the Order of Canada from our last Governor General. It seems that Hitler lost one war only to change shape and win another.

Thinking with Sasse, we might picture the US as called into being by the voice of God through the events of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, forming a religiously and confessionally pluriform society, but coming together nevertheless as a preponderantly Christian nation. As it relegated the native peoples to the margins and contended with the tensions between the French and the English, Canada’s call to nationhood was likewise confessionally pluriform, and yet came together into an overwhelmingly Christian nation, where many native Canadians freely embraced the Gospel and where Jews have rightly enjoyed security and felt at home. But can the US and Canada endure in, with, under, and after breaking their bonds of allegiance to Christ the King? I very much doubt it.

It remains to be seen how the British Government and society will deal with the aftermath of the London riots, which are but the tip of an immense iceberg of social decay that has formed in tandem with the radical dechristianization of England and the other nations of the British Isles. But the ruling elites of all the major parties could not possibly put the 1960s into reverse gear—God the Holy Trinity, the Decalogue, and Christian dogma are definitively out: just ask the judges of the High Court.

At all events, though, there will only be an England in Dame Vera’s sense of the word if the land returns to the obedience and gentle rule of Christ the King. May it please God, using the clergymen of whichever confession He pleases, to grant a mighty revival of English Christendom at this time through a prolonged and resounding proclamation of His Word that must begin with the boldest imaginable call to repentance. Oremus pro Anglia—Let us pray for England.

Witness, Mercy, Life Together Bible Study by Albert Collver: A Review by Robert Zagore

A new Bible study and DVD presentation, Witness, Mercy, Life Together [Witness Mercy Life Together Bible Study by Albert B. Collver, Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2011. 64 pages. $5.99.]

WMLT Bible Study

has been published as a rally-cry-educational-let’s-work-together piece by Dr. Albert Collver and the LCMS President Matthew Harrison. Many pastors who receive it in the mail will have a conditioned response, ‘we’ve seen this before.’ Every publishing house, every administration, and (it seems) most pastors seek to build the church into a savvy social organization using marketing surveys, demographic insights, and the effective use of technology. Slogans and catch phrases inform believers about the church’s core competencies, strategic goals, and mission. Books and “Bible Studies” show how theirs is really the Lord’s plan updated and informed by the insights of the modern mind. How strange and welcome therefore is the new Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod theme and emphasis, which is built on something altogether different. “Witness, Mercy, Life Together” is the new Synodical emphasis put forward by LCMS President Matthew Harrison and his administrative staff.  The emphasis is not a focus-group-tested slogan set forth to move forward with strategic objectives. “Witness,” “Mercy,” and “Life Together” are words the Lord has spoken describing the work of His church. The church is purest and most beautiful when she is defined and described by the Lord. Through his eyes she stands as “a radiant church without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Ephesians 5:27). It is indescribably refreshing to the weary to hear those words applied to us. That is the point of the new study by Dr. Albert Collver: to hear what the Lord has said about his church and embrace it as a gift. From the start one can tell this theme and Bible study are much different than the usual “grow more, give more, get more” fare.

The difference becomes obvious in Lesson One, “Witness.” In the church-speak world the word witness has become shorthand for an intentional conversation by which believers help an unbeliever make a decision for Christ and therefore grow the kingdom. “Lesson One” should really be called “Round One” because Collver gently wrestles the word back to its biblical intent: “The Lord saves souls, but He locates His saving Gospel in the Church, and He uses people within the Church as his instruments to proclaim the Gospel” (p.14). The leader’s guide, the accompanying Steven Starke hymn, and the impressive concordance of biblical usage thoroughly equip students and leaders to complete the journey that brings the word “witness” back from law to gospel.

“Round Two,” builds on this gift and extends it. Throughout history, well-intended but misguided people have declared that pure doctrine and the desire to save the lost are antagonistic goals. Systematicians have sometimes made doctrine devoid of proclamation. Mysticism, pietism, and the theological descendants of Dwight Moody decry doctrinal and confessional subscription as anti-missional. The LCMS is certainly no stranger to this battle. Collver however beautifully and convincingly demonstrates that these two stand together in the Lord’s church: “A witness that does not confess what Jesus taught is not a Christian witness. Likewise, a confession that does not witness is not a New Testament confession. . .Telling about Jesus and doctrine go together” (p.18). The leaders’ guide to this section is especially strong. As Collver presents a precisely written and beautiful summary of how true doctrine is manifest in Christ coming to us according to his promise—which is the only hope of the world. With very little modification the leader's guide could become a great Christmas sermon.

Lesson three wrestles the word “mercy” (his translation of the Greek word diakonia) back into its biblical sense: “Being rooted in the forgiveness of sins that Jesus won for us on the cross, mercy means feeding the poor, taking care of the sick, and caring for the orphans and widows. Diakonia, then is caring for our neighbor in concrete and effective ways because of what Jesus has done for us” (p.22). Collver does not speak of himself, but his experience as a parish pastor and as an executive in LCMS World Relief and Human Care fills this far-too-brief study with an authenticity and understanding that is known by one who has “done the hard work” (Proverbs 14:23).

Lesson four, “Life Together” leads through a study of the biblical word koinonia. Once again the word is rescued and revived from its more unworthy uses. In common usage koinonia and its common translation "fellowship" have lost their biblical, sacramental foundation and have come to refer to donuts. Collver’s study and leader’s guide demonstrates with great skill that our fellowship and unity are not founded on liking each other (think of St. Paul and Barnabas) but on a doctrinal and sacramental unity that transcends men, personalities, and time. If the LCMS (or any denomination) would escape their bondage to bickering and infighting it will only be as people who have a bond that is deeper than human affronts and leadership cults. “Life Together” rightly teaches divine fellowship that flows from the gospel as the hope and substance of churchly interaction. Reconciliation with Christ through His cross enables reconciliation with others. Individual gifts find their fruit and proper use through their incorporation in the Body of Christ.

Lesson five, “Witness, Mercy, Life Together” speaks of the history of conflict in the days of the apostles. The obvious conclusion is that the unity of the church has always been under assault from without and from within. The only proper response and the only faithful response of the church is to return to the mission that can be summarized by the Bible’s words witness, mercy, and life together.  It is indeed commendable that the author would take this approach to a topic so important at this stage of the LCMS’s life. The approach is biblical, evangelical, and draws us to the gospel and the need for the faithful administration of the word and sacraments.

The accompanying DVD shows LCMS President Harrison presenting these same doctrines in a way that is winsome, pastoral, and humorous. He demonstrates a tremendous grasp of the practical application of Lutheran theology. While the production quality is not wonderful, it is hard to imagine a faithful non-partisan who could fail to be edified and delighted by Harrison’s presentations.

The study is designed to be used in any adult or teen level Bible class and can be used with great profit. Pastors may find that its most enduring value will be as a “new member’s” class or a follow-up to Catechism and confirmation classes. Many congregations offer special classes for those who wish to join by transfer or reaffirmation of faith; it is hard to imagine a better study for such use.

The Bible studies, leader's guide, and DVD are not fundraising, team building, or leadership training devices that use pop psychology and marketing techniques to win hearts. They are biblical, sacramental, genuine, doctrinally solid studies on the nature of the church. It is easily the most useful item to come out of the Synodical Office Building since the sainted A. L. Barry’s What About series; and in many ways, it is more important. One can pray that the biblical emphases in these studies will come to mark President Harrison’s term of office. If so, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is entering a period of great importance in this dark and fallen world. “The world is longing for what we have,” Harrison cries out in the presentation. If the LCMS and her leaders can maintain a strong biblical witness, shown forth in mercy and lived out in our life together, she will truly be, “a radiant church.”

Robert Zagore is Senior Pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church and School, Traverse City, MI.

Luther’s Anthropology in the Genesis Lectures

—by Tim Beck

When asked, “What is man? my daughter replied, “We're sinners.” Despite the attractive succinctness of this definition, Martin Luther provides a more detailed anthropology. His lectures on Genesis, summarized in this paper, describe man when created, as fallen, as initially restored (the life of faith), and as gloriously restored beyond Adam's pre-fall state. This anthropology is intimately connected to man‟s Redeemer, God-made-man. After righteous Adam fell, he and his reprobate seed seek what God has hidden and hide from what he reveals. However, when faith is created through the word, believers rely on Jesus Christ's promises. Despite suffering sin's afflictions from within and without, the Second Adam's seed is united with the Second Adam. Then believers anticipate seeing the glory of the Father, enduring present trials as signs of divine favor. Luther's anthropology begins when the Creator declared all things good. Adam and Eve were made in God‟s image. They also possessed exceptional gifts. Regarding those gifts, Adam's physical abilities, sensations, intellect, and memory were singular, tranquil, and fearless. He could see like the eagle and handle bears or lions like puppies (AE 1: 62-65). His reason, will, and emotions were faultless and precise. Adam and Eve were in all ways vastly more superior to the creation than they were after the fall.

These gifts allowed Adam and Eve to fulfill their vocations joyfully. As masks of God, they exercised dominion as joint stewards over the creation (AE 1: 67). From their perfect knowledge of all created things from animals to herbs, Adam and Eve commanded the living creatures at will. In the order of marriage Adam loved his wife and Eve received his love gladly, subordinating herself to him. There was no disharmony or division between them. Sexual relations were pure and therefore as public and honorable as sharing a meal (AE 1: 104). Adam was appointed as pastor in the order of worship, faithfully teaching Eve. She gladly received Adam's instruction as from God, including the command not to eat from the forbidden tree. They walked together with the pre-incarnate Christ in the cool of the evening. This order of family and worship sufficed until the fall. There was no need for civil government and its sword since there was no sin (AE 1: 115).

Download the Full Article (PDF)

 

1856 Ordination Rite Translation

Translator’s Note:

The text below is a translation of the German Church-Agenda for the Evangelical Lutheran Church Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and other states.

The original can be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56525112/Ordination-1856-MA-German

 

Kirchen-Agende für Evangelisch-Lutherische Gemeinden. (St. Louis: Druckerei der Deutschen Ev. Luth. Synod, 1856).

The ordination rite is taken from pages 171 – 176 of the aforementioned book. The numbers appearing in brackets [ ] correspond to the original page numbering of the Kirchen-Agende.

The aforementioned Kirchen-Agende was translated into English in 1881; however, the translation omitted several parts including the ordination rite translated in this document.

Church Liturgy for Evangelical Lutheran Congregations. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1881).

 Albert B. Collver, III
1998 Epiphany 5

 

 

Ordination

 

The ordainer steps with his assistant to the altar. On the steps of the altar stands the one to be ordained. At the conclusion of the song, the ordainer and his assistant turn around facing toward the one to be ordained and the first one says:

 

Our Lord Jesus Christ said after his resurrection to his disciples (John 20): “Peace be with you! Just as the Father sent me, also I am sending you. And when he said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive now the Holy Spirit! Whomever’s sin you remit, it will be remitted to him and whosoever you retain, to that one it will be retained.”

And later before his Ascension he said to them (Matt 28): “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go there and teach all peoples and baptize them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to hold all, which I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the world.”

And after he ascended above all heavens, so that he fulfilled all things, he appointed some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as shepherds and teachers, that the saints would be prepared, for the work of the Office, so the body of Christ will be built up. (Eph. 4:11ff.)

Therefore the office, which preaches reconciliation, is setup by the Lord himself. The office is of the Spirit, who judges the living and the dead. The office of the New Testament is not held by one who is fit of himself, but he who is fit is [fit] because of God. They are ambassadors in the stead of Christ, God admonishes through them, and they bear God’s office full of exuberant clarity. (2. Cor. 3:5)

Therefore you ought also to adorn it in all respects, as St. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus. For a bishop should be blameless, a man of one wife, who has believing, obedient children with all respectability, who administers his own house well (but if someone does not know how to administer his own house, how will he provide for the congregation of God?). [172] [A bishop ought be] not stubborn, not angry, sober, moderate, not a wine swiller, not a braggart, not dishonest working with his hands, virtuous, pure, chaste, just, holy, hospitable, kind, not a brawler, not avarice, gentle, not a novice, so that he does not puff himself up and fall into the judgment of the Blasphemer, apt to teach, because he holds on to the Word, which is certain and able to teach, so that he be able to exhort through the salutary teaching and to reprove the gainsayer. He must also have a good reputation from those who are outside, so that he does not fall into disgrace and the Blasphemer’s trap. He should persist with the reading, with exhortation, with teaching and not disregard the gift, which was given to him through the prophecy with the laying on of the elder’s hands. He should wait, [and] contemplate, so that he will increase in all things manifest. He should have concern for himself and the teaching and remain steadfast in his task. For in whatever he does, he will bless himself and his hearers. – Most of all in the same way the holy Apostle in his exhortation to the elders called to Ephesus (Acts of the Apostles 20.) recently united, thus he said, “Thus, now take care of yourself and of the flock, which the Holy Spirit has appointed you under as bishop, to tend the congregation of God, which he purchased through his blood.”

All this makes plain for you, what a high and holy office this is, into which you were called, and that what the Apostle said is certainly true, “Whoever desires the office of bishop desires a wonderful work.”

 

Here the one to be ordained kneels down.

 

Therefore, I ask you now, beloved brother in the Lord Jesus Christ, before the eyes of God, our Lord Jesus Christ and his holy angels, also in the hearing of this congregation, whether you, after careful consideration are ready to take upon you this holy office, and according to the ability that God gives [unto you], to execute and administer [it] according to every pleasure of the Lord and Arch-Shepherd of this congregation?

 

Answer:

 

Yes, I am willing after earnest consideration for the holy office, which God has called me to be placed upon me; I solemnly vow and pledge before God and his congregation [173] according to the ability that God gives to execute and administer it according to every pleasure of the Lord, the Arch-Shepherd and Bishop of Souls.

 

The ordaining pastor continues:

 

But do you also confess that you are obliged to carry out in accordance with his office, in the three chief Creeds of the church, the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian, as in the unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, both catechisms of Luther and the Formula of Concord are found a pure and correct explanation and exposition of God’s Word and Will? And are you willing to execute on account of this your office according to these confessional writings of our holy church and to do this to your death?

 

Answer:

 

Yes, I confess the three chief Creeds, the unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, both catechisms of Luther and the Formula of Concord as the pure, correct explanation and exposition of the divine Word and Will; I confess the same as my own confession and intend to perform my office until my death truly and diligently in the same way. May God strengthen me through his Holy Spirit! Amen.

 

The ordaining minister speaks again:

 

Upon this your promise before God and us, we ask God, the Father of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ, the one Lord of the harvest, that he, who called you to his Office, make you able through his Holy Spirit. May he grant, that you give no one offense, lest in this way the office is slandered, but demonstrate yourself in all things as a servant of God, in great patience, in afflictions, in needs, in anxieties, in beatings, in imprisonments, in tumults, in work, in watching, in fasting, in chastity, in knowledge, in long-suffering, in friendliness, in the Holy Spirit, in pure love, in the Word of Truth, in the power of God, through the weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left hand, through honor and dishonor, through malicious rumors and good rumors, as a seducer and yet truthful, regarded as unknown and yet known, as dying and behold, you live, as beaten, and not yet killed, as [174] a mourner, but at all times cheerful, as poor, but making many rich, as having nothing, but yet having all things. (2 Cor. 6.) The Lord gave you, therefore, to endure and to do the work of an evangelistic preacher, that you may be able to appear on that great day before the judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, to give a common answer, to the strict and just judge of the living and the dead, to receive praise and honor out of his hand and to shine as the heavenly splendor and as the stars forever and ever!

 

Next the assisting ministers lay hands on [him] and each speak a biblical wish.

 

Then the ordainer speaks again.

 

We consign you now through the imposition of our hands to the holy office of the Word and Sacraments of God, the Trinity, ordain and consecrate you to the service of the holy church in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit!

 

The other fellow ordaining ministers answer:

 

Amen. Amen.

 

Then all the ministers pray together:

 

Our Father … forever and ever! Amen.

The ordainer again:

 

Let us pray! Merciful God, heavenly Father, you have spoken to us through the mouth of your dear Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ. “The harvest is great, but the workers are few – pray to the Lord of the harvest, that he send workers into the harvest.” By this your divine command we pray from the heart, that you would give abundantly this your servant together with us and everyone, whom you called to your office, your Holy Spirit, that we may spread your Gospel, continue truly and strongly against the Devil, World, and Flesh, in order that your Name be hallowed, your kingdom increase, your will be done. Put a stop also to all your enemies, who oppress your Name, destroy your kingdom, oppose your will, place a limit and end, and wherever your servants bear witness and work, distinguish your witness and the work of your hands to the glory of your most holy Name and to the Holy Spirit. Amen.

 

[175]

 

The ordainer says to the ordained:

 

Thus lead and tend the flock of Christ, that you have been entrusted with, and watch [it] well, not under compulsion but willingly, not for the sake of vile gain, but from the bottom of your heart, not as one who rules over people, but become an example for the flock; that you may receive the unfading crown as an inheritance when the Arch-Shepherd appears. The Lord bless you from above and make you a blessing for many, that you may produce much fruit and your fruit remain for eternal life!

 

The ordained answers:

 

Amen.

 

Afterwards one sings: “Lord God, We Praise You …” or “Now Thank We All …”, whereupon the Holy Meal begins with the Words of Institution. The ministers accompany the newly ordained to the Table of the Lord.

 

__________

 

If an already ordained minister enters a new parish, allow the installation of him to proceed in the same manner, only that the conferring [of the office] not happen in general, but after answering the questions one of the following prayers beneath the laying on of hands is spoken, and after that: “Go Now To That Place …”

 

__________

Two Prayers

For use after the answering of the installation questions.

1.

Merciful God, heavenly Father, you who have fatherly comforted and promised us through your holy apostle Paul, that it is your good pleasure, O heavenly Lord and Father, to save all who believe through the foolish preaching of the crucified Christ. We pray from the bottom of our hearts, that you would bestow with Divine grace and grant and impart to this your servant, whom you have called to your Holy Preaching Office, your Holy Spirit. In the same way grant and impart strength to him against all trials of the Devil and make him wise and able to lead, your costly bought sheep with your salutary and true Word according to your divine will to the praise and glory of your Holy Name, through Jesus Christ! Amen.

 

[176]

2.

 

O Lord Jesus Christ, you the eternal Son of God who sits on high at the right hand of your heavenly Father, give gifts to the men on earth and send them shepherds and teachers, that Holy men be prepared for the work of the office and the building of your spiritual Body: we say from the heart to you praise, honor, thanks, that you have given your congregation once more a shepherd, and we pray that you would bestow your Divine grace to him and to us, that we may do what is due to you, to maintain faith and good conscience until death and obtain eternal life with all the elect. Amen.

 

The assisting minister receives a kind of ordination, as pastor, each case with respect to the congregation, whom he should serve chiefly, and where possible in their midst.

 

On the day of ordination or installation, the new pastor does not preach, but his entrance speech follows on the immediate following Sunday.

 

__________

 

The Lord bless you and keep you!

The Lord illuminate his face upon you and be gracious to you!

The Lord lift up his continence upon you and give you peace. Amen.

Assisi III—Kyrie eleison! An Open Letter to Pope Benedict XVI

Assisi III—Kyrie eleison!

An Open Letter to Pope Benedict XVI from a frater sejunctus parvulus

(1 Th 5:22)

(Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9)

Your Holiness,

A brief announcement you made on New Year’s Day has filled me with such foreboding that I am prompted to dispatch a letter in your direction. Given your seniority to me in age and office, and my respect for your distinguished theological oeuvre, I approach you in a humble and irenic spirit and affirm my willingness to retract any inaccurate statements I might unwittingly make.

Since it is unlikely that a missive from an obscure teaching theologian on a distant continent, sent by “snail mail,” would land atop the bulky pile of correspondence that doubtless daily lands on your desk, I am having recourse to the device of an “Open Letter” released in the form of a blog post. Because the topic to be addressed is a matter of common knowledge affecting the spiritual health of all of Christendom, it seems appropriate to raise it in a public forum.

Mindful of the danger of breaking the eighth commandment and of rushing to judgment without having ascertained all the facts involved, I nevertheless fail to see how, given the fateful, undeletable precedents set by your predecessor, the late Pope John Paul II, at the interfaith gatherings over which he presided at Assisi in 1986 and 2002 (to which we may refer as Assisi I and Assisi II respectively), it will be possible, even for someone of your intellectual ability, to avoid committing (or appearing to commit), at the upcoming interconfessional—and interfaith—get-together in Assisi, acts of dreadful infidelity to Christ our Lord to whom, as St. Paul bears witness, the Una Sancta has been betrothed in Holy Baptism (2 Cor 11:2). Of course, if you have in mind for the agenda of the planned assembly an exposition of some edifying words that featured yesterday (11 January) in a volume of meditations selected from your writings, Assisi III will be a springboard for the “new evangelization,” rendering this communication redundant. It is unlikely, though, that representatives of non-Christian religions would travel from the ends of the earth to listen to you explaining how:

Respect for human dignity and regard for the human rights of every individual—these are the fruits of belief in the Incarnation of God. That is why belief in Jesus Christ is the basis of all progress. Anyone who renounces belief in Jesus Christ for the sake of a supposedly higher value renounces the basis of human dignity. It is from this Christian humanism, from the humanism of the Incarnation, that the uniqueness of Christian culture has evolved. All its specific characteristics are fundamentally rooted in belief in the Incarnation and disintegrate when this belief is lost.[1]

It has been widely reported that, in your days as Cardinal Prefect, you were troubled[2] by the blatant syncretism enacted under your predecessor’s eye and with his blessing at Assisi I, when, among many other acts in breach of the First Commandment, an idol of the Buddha was placed atop a tabernacle (!) to receive veneration from followers of the Eastern religion named after him. I have gleaned from your Truth and Tolerance (a volume that speaks so powerfully to contemporary, secularist Canada in its forgetfulness of lower and upper case truth) that, while you affirm the appropriateness of interfaith dialogue, you differ from your predecessor in drawing the line at the practice of interreligious prayer.[3] Have I been wrong to believe that you dissent from the approval and encouragement of interfaith, syncretistic prayer that John Paul II voiced in his first encyclical and went on to put into practice at Assisi I and Assisi II?[4]

I marvel at the skill displayed by Your Holiness in the first volume of your Jesus of Nazareth, where you summarized and responded to the three reasons set forth by Rabbi Jacob Neusner to explain why he would not have followed our Lord had he been present at the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount.[5] You set all members of the guild of Christian theologians a powerful and moving example as you made the good confession, while treating the rabbi himself with exquisite courtesy. In this book you have winsomely shown how, as St. Matthew sets forth our Lord as the “Torah in person,” the first Gospel attests the divinity of Christ no less vigorously than does St. John in the fourth; and all Christians are in your debt for your in-depth exposition of the passage to which you refer as the messianischer Jubelruf (“messianic joyful shout”),[6] which is sometimes known in Anglo-Saxon scholarship as the “Johannine thunderbolt in the synoptic skies.”

Remarkably, as you deal with the Johannine witness, you defend the authenticity (i.e., the ascription to the earthly Jesus) of those logia (the “I am” statements) in which our Lord manifestly employs the sacred tetragrammaton in the first person[7] and whose trustworthiness is dismissed by many exegetes. The bearing of these binding passages on the issue of religious syncretism is obvious.

As you simultaneously showered courtesy upon Rabbi Neusner while declining to give away the store (a feat that few theologians could carry off with such aplomb), so you are likely the only man on earth who could possibly gather representatives from all world religions together at Assisi and not commit blatant acts of syncretism that would nullify the good confession you have made in Jesus of Nazareth and (to name only one of your many other writings) in the section of your Principles of Catholic Theology where you politely but definitively demolish Karl Rahner’s notion of the “anonymous Christian.”[8]

Having conceded this point, I beg Your Holiness to consider two factors.

First, in your scholarly refutations of Rabbi Neusner and Fr. Rahner, you operate on a lofty professorial level accessible to relatively few, and you exercise a nimble subtlety whose nuances are lost on the man in the street. Given that your every utterance is apt to be twisted into its opposite within moments of its issuance by a hostile press and an academic (and to some extent ecclesiastical) establishment that have long been baying for your blood, please bear in mind how the media will interpret your anticipated mingling with the representatives of other religions at Assisi this coming autumn: “Pope pushes the unity and equality of all religions!” Neither the press nor the average person will read and heed the fine print of any address(es) you may give in Assisi. The heart of Jesus once pierced and now pulsing with love for us will not rejoice over the caption I have just pictured.

Secondly, your decision to begin the first volume of your Jesus of Nazareth by showing how our Lord is the Prophet greater than Moses whose coming was predicted in Deuteronomy 18:15[9] would surely have as its corollary that, however much you urge the followers of other religions to join with Christians in promoting outward, civil peace among and within the nations of the world,[10] you would scrupulously avoid any words or gestures that may imply that our blessed Lord is but one among many “prophets” or “founders of religions” or that other religions are valid and viable paths to salvation. After all, Moses pronounced stern judgement against those of the people to whom the Prophet above all prophets was sent “who will not give heed to my words, which he shall speak in my name” (Deut 18:19; a judgment that surely falls also on those among the nations who despise the gospel proclaimed by the church). A learned fellow countryman of yours has, without personal rancour and with great (even ecumenical) charity and on the basis of much evidence, made a strong case to the effect that your much loved predecessor had (to say the least) a diminished appreciation of the effects of original sin on human nature, with the result that he even pictured non-Christian religions as proceeding from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and deemed them to be effective vehicles of salvation.[11]

Given your expert demolition of Rahner’s idea of the “anonymous Christian,” and taking those pages of your Principles in tandem with the first part of the declaration Dominus Iesous of 2000 and the confession you have made in the first volume of your Jesus of Nazareth, I have the impression that moves to equalize the truth claims of the various religions and to acknowledge the non-Christian religions as valid paths to salvation would contradict the motif of the “hermeneutic of continuity” that you have stressed as an essential key for rightly understanding the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, some words you wrote in 1966 encourage me to think that any repetition of Assisi I and II would stand in sharp contradiction to your most deeply held convictions:

What pushed the great missionaries out into the world at the beginning of the modern age and filled them with holy disquiet was the awareness that salvation exists only in Christ and that the immeasurable millions of men who suddenly cropped up on the horizon from unknown worlds are delivered without rescue to eternal destruction apart from the message that weighs upon believers as a sacred imperative. …In the meantime an idea has increasingly prevailed, which was previously seen only as a rare exception, that God will and can save also outside the Church, even if not ultimately without her. An optimistic understanding of the world religions has lately been set forth in this regard, the consideration of which surely once again makes clear that not all favourite thoughts of modern theology have the stamp of biblical approval. For if anything may be called alien, indeed opposed to Holy Scripture, it is the contemporary optimism with respect to the religions of the peoples, the optimism that conceives these religions as factors for salvation and that cannot be squared with the way they are appraised in the Bible.[12]

It is reported that, at Assisi II in 2002, crucifixes were removed from (or, if immovable, veiled in) the rooms made available for non-Christian prayer. Just as we could not picture St. Paul consenting to this gesture (Gal 3:1), so we could not imagine St. Peter, in his bold post-Pentecostal preaching, proclaiming salvation as a given for the unevangelized, transmitted to them already by either the pagan cults of the Graeco-Roman world or even by Judaism inasmuch as it failed to heed the Prophet announced in Deuteronomy 18:15, who entered this world at Bethlehem.

Mindful of the danger of prejudging the event you are contemplating for October of this year, and with respect and gratitude for what you have given through your research, teaching, and writing not only to the Roman Catholic Church but to Christendom as a whole, and with the prayer that the Lord would continue to bring forth good fruits from your ministry as Bishop of Rome, yet supremely conscious of the need for all of us to emulate St. Polycarp in remaining faithful despite all pressure to our Lord and the one gospel issued from heaven for our salvation, I beg and implore Your Holiness not to “flee” from the good confession “for fear of the wolves” who, as you have indicated, threaten the integrity of every confession and segment of Holy Christendom.[13]

Gott befohlen.

John Stephenson

St Catharines, Ontario

Wednesday in the Octave of the Epiphany of our Lord, 12 January 2011

[1] Joseph Ratzinger, Co-Workers of the Truth: Meditations for Every Day of the Year, Irene Grassl ed., (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992), 18f.

[2] In a work published in 2003 (and issued the following year in English translation), you spoke circumspectly of “undeniable dangers.” Joseph Ratzinger: Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, trans. Henry Taylor (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004),107.

[3] See Truth and Tolerance, 99-106. Putting the best construction on the actions of John Paul II, you distinguish between “multireligious prayer,” which “cannot be the normal form of religious life ...[since it] almost inevitably leads to false interpretations, to indifference as to the content of what is believed or not believed, and thus to the dissolution of real faith” (107; hardly a ringing endorsement on your part) and “interreligious prayer.” As you argue cogently against the latter in all circumstances, you insist that “no impression should be given [to non-Christians] that ‘religions’ are interchangeable, that the basics of Christian belief are not of ultimate significance and thus replaceable. To avoid misleading people in such ways demands that the Christian’s faith in the uniqueness of God and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ the Savior of all mankind be not obscured for the non-Christian” (109). Amen.

[4] http://www.kreuz.net/article.2645.html

[5] Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, trans. Adrian J. Walker (Doubleday, 2007), 103-122.

[6] Jesus of Nazareth, 339-344.

[7] Jesus of Nazareth, 345-355.

[8] Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, tr. Mary Frances McCarthy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), 162-171.

[9] Jesus of Nazareth, 1-8.

[10] While declining to practice fellowship with deniers of the real presence, Luther foreshadowed the political developments of later centuries as he attested how “In civil matters we are glad to be one with them, i.e., to maintain outward, temporal peace” (AE 37:27; WA 23. 84: 32f.; That These Words of Christ, “This Is My Body,” Etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics, 1527). Yet despite the continuing doctrinal disagreements between the several confessions and the many sins of the members of Christ’s mystical body here on earth, no constituent part of Holy Christendom currently poses a threat to outward, civil peace between or within the nations of the world. Although lethal Hindu militancy has brought about martyrdoms of Christians in India in recent years, all sober observers are aware that Psalm 44:22, as referred to by St. Paul in Romans 8:36, is now being fulfilled through the increasing slaughter of Christians of all confessions under the aegis (and it appears with the widespread approval) of but one of the religions of the world.

[11] Heinz-Lothar Barth seems to demonstrate conclusively that the Assisi aberrations represented no “one-time going off the rails” on your predecessor’s part. Papst Johannes Paul II. Santo subito? Ein kritischer Rückblick auf sein Pontifikat (Dettelbach: Sanctus Verlag, 2007), 113.  Especially troubling is the catechesis for 9 September 1998: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09091998_en.html . Barth argues that the late Pope based his positive assessment of the salvific potential of other religions on a view akin to Rahner’s thesis “that man in his existence …is always already within this [saving] relationship [with God] whether he is explicitly aware of it or not,” a proposition that you refute in your Principles (Principles, 165). Barth quotes from a homily delivered by the then Cardinal Woytyla before Paul VI, which proclaims how “the Church of the living God unites all men who share in this wonderful transcendence of the human spirit in one or the other way” (Papst Johannes Paul II, 115). The context of this statement makes clear that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and also unbelievers partake in this vaguely conceived “transcendence.” If Barth’s analysis should stand, then Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa’s disturbing homily of Good Friday 2002 faithfully represents the mind of the Roman magisterium. See John R. Stephenson, “Reflections on the Malum Syncretisticum,” Logia XIII, 2 (Eastertide 2002): 17. I draw to your attention and invite your comment on how the Toronto Jesuit Tibor Horvath has interpreted chapter 16 of Lumen Gentium, Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in terms compatible with the drift of Assisi I and II: “Therefore, non-Christian religions too belong to the Church and can become the vehicle of Christ’s grace.” Jesus Christ as Ultimate Reality and Meaning: A Contribution to the Hermeneutics of Counciliar Theology (Toronto: Association of Concern for Ultimate Reality and Meaning, 1994), 49.

[12] Joseph Ratzinger, Die letzte Sitzungsperiode des Konzils (Cologne, 1966), 59f.; quoted in Barth, 132f. Cf Hermann Sasse, “Salvation outside the Church? In piam memoriamAugustin Cardinal Bea,” Reformed Theological Review 28 (Jan/Apr 1969): 1-16; available also in German translation as “Heil außerhalb der Kirche? In piam memoriam Augustin Kardinal Bea,” in In Statu Confessionis, Friedrich Wilhelm Hopf ed. (Berlin & Schleswig-Holstein: Verlag Die Spur GMBH & Co., 1976) II: 315-327.

[13] Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion, Stephan Otto Horn & Vinzenz Pfnür eds., tr. Henry Taylor (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), 267-269. A remark you make in the essay in question (“On the Ecumenical Situation”) is highly pertinent to Rahner’s “anonymous Christian” notion that appears to lie at the foundation of Assisi I and II, and one with which confessional Lutherans (in Your Holiness’ homeland those of my co-religionists of the konkordienlutherisch kind) are apt to agree: “We cannot put philosophical profundity in the place of the word that has been uttered and the rationality proper to it. God has spoken—if we think we know better, then we get lost in the darkness of our own opinions; we lose unity instead of moving toward it” (263f.).

Attention please, new blog posts coming very soon!

Just a note to say "Stay tuned!" and "Get ready!" because there will be some really great BLOGIA posts very soon that you will not want to miss, including a open letter in Web Forum to Pope Benedict XVI from a frater sejunctus parvulus, John Stephenson. Also coming up in Web Extras will be articles that we could not fit in the most recent journal, Lutheranism in Europe (vol. 20-1, Epiphany 2011) which is now available both in hard copy and electronic versions. Visit logia.org for more details.