Tyranny—Then and Now

by Brent Kuhlman

A few years ago at a district convention we were given the typical harangue about how the membership of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) continues to hemorrhage. Then came the typical canard. The speaker snapped his fingers over a period of time and informed us how many people had died and gone to hell during his little object lesson. This happens in sermons, Bible studies, and various other speaking engagements throughout North American Lutheranism. And it’s been going on for quite some time.

Richard John Neuhaus in his Death On A Friday Afternoon: Meditations on the Last Words of Jesus From the Cross recalls a Lutheran mission festival he experienced as a young boy in Canada:

For such a special occasion, a guest preacher was required, and this year he came all the way from “the States,” which meant two hundred miles away in upstate New York. This preacher had a most dramatic flair in making the case for the urgency of world missions. Well into a sermon that lasted an hour or more (which was not unusual for something so auspicious as the annual mission festival), the preacher suddenly stopped. For a full minute there was complete silence as he looked intently at his wristwatch. Then he tossed his head, threw out his arm and, pointing directly at me in the third row, announced, “In the last one minute, thirty-seven thousand lost souls have gone to eternal damnation without a saving knowledge of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!” It was, I believe, the first theological crisis of my life. This seven-year-old boy was electrified. I immediately put my mind to work figuring out how many minutes we had been sitting there while thirty-seven thousand people per minute were going to hell.

Recently I was “blessed” to hear a special Lenten “Ablaze” sermon in which the preacher contended that every sixty seconds, eighty-three people die who do not know Jesus. Again, do the math. If the preacher’s statistical memorandum lasts for fifteen minutes, one thousand two hundred and forty-five people die and go to eternal damnation!

All right. So what’s the point? Really? Are we supposed to drop everything and knock on doors 24-7/365? Do I dare go home to be with my wife and children? Am I allowed to attend my daughters’ softball games? What about golfing a round with my son? Am I even allowed to go to bed at night? Do the math! Horror of horrors! In all the time I spend being a pastor, husband, father, substitute bus driver, substitute school teacher, eating, sleeping, attending required synodical conferences, or whatever else—thousands if not millions upon millions have died and gone to hell! And all because I didn’t.…Woe is me! Woe is me! Woe is me! What will the Lord Jesus think of me? Will I end up in hell too because I wasted so much time? Because I didn’t take the preacher’s words to heart and immediately forsake all my God-given vocations to join the fulltime modern Protestant version of the observant mission monastery?

Just silly remarks? Not hardly! One mission exec whom I know warned that those who refuse to be mission-minded will hear the damnatory words of Jesus addressed to the goats in Matthew 25 on the last day (Richard Boring, “Marks and Assets of a Maintenance Congregation,” Issues in Christian Education 41, no. 3 [Winter 2007–2008]: 8–13). The effect of this kind of preaching is very serious, deadly serious. As I have served in the office of the holy ministry, I have had to deal pastorally with the consequences of this despotic preaching, teaching, and writing. Many consciences are hurt and troubled because they take the mission preacher seriously. They are crushed because of their supposed monastic mission “failures/sins.” They cannot, despite how hard they try, fulfill the relentless mission requirements. Consciences are bound. People are living in man-made institutional prisons! I know. I hear confessions. In addition, how many times have you been popishly forced to confess specific imaginary “sins” against the Great Commission at the beginning of “creative/contemporary” services in the “general” confession that the institution or creative pastor invented? (Talk about out-poping the pope! The pope only requires the sinner to confess sins that he actually commits!) This worry about such “sinning” also comes up in regular conversation with the people I have served. It is as if their salvation depends on being a mission monk! Their consciences sorely oppressed because they take the time to be a parent, go to work, eat, sleep, and whatever else God has given them to do. This is one of the worst ways of religiously tyrannizing consciences and creating theological crises of the highest order for people.

That’s one very serious predicament. Neuhaus speaks of another that resulted from that mission festival a long time ago. I struggle with it too:

In my agitated state, I wanted to jump up and shout that we had better get going right now to tell all those hell-bent people about Jesus. The real crisis came later, however. I was excited all day and had spent a restless night contending with dreams about all those people in hell. The next morning I discovered that the visiting preacher and my Dad, who was the pastor of the host church, were taking three days off to go fishing. Thirty-seven thousand people going to hell every minute and they were going fishing!

Isn’t that precisely how it goes? After the mission messages or mission minutes are over it’s off for a couple rounds of golf, Gemütlichkeit complete with some serious adult beverages, and a long night of solving all the church’s problems. Then it is another week of meetings and more speaking engagements of preaching to the choir!

But what about the preacher’s words? How many people are dying and going to hell while the mission experts gallivant all around the world at endless meetings? Shouldn’t we adjourn and start pounding the pavement? Or is all this just church talk? Something for which the mission execs get paid and we are supposed to listen dutifully? Maybe these men don’t really mean what they say! Has this just become some religious “racket” or Ponzi scheme? If so, no wonder it has become so ho-hum for people in the pews. It is no wonder that many others hardly take such talk seriously at all any more. “But I only meant it for good,” the preacher may contend. Indeed. No doubt. But isn’t that how much harm occurs in a family?

As for my household, my congregation, and me, we will continue to go about our God-given vocations. Part of that “mission” includes making sure that our children are baptized, instructed, and commune faithfully. It also means the baptismal mission of daily dying to sin (death to the old Adam) and daily trusting in Jesus and his forgiveness (resurrection of the new man) so that we can love the people God has put in our lives throughout the various stations of life in which we live. This can and certainly does include inviting and bringing unbelievers to the divine service to hear about and experience the God who justifies the ungodly all because of Jesus who died and rose again. It certainly does include the exhortation for people to receive holy baptism and be gathered in the church to the glory of God’s name. This kind of living is not a prison. It is the free life of living in the Father’s house as his died-for-and-forgiven sons and daughters who confidently trust that the Spirit creates faith when and where he pleases in those who hear the gospel.

Brent Kuhlman

Book Review: The Historical Jesus of the Gospels

Review of The Historical Jesus of the Gospels by Craig S. Keener. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. 831 pages. Review by Peter Scaer.

What can we know about the historical Jesus? Plenty, according to Craig Keener. Of course, you would already know that from the book’s refreshing title. For Keener, the historical Jesus—the real Jesus—is found not beyond or behind the pages of the canonical Gospels, but within the Gospels themselves. Believe what you want, Keener would say, but the best way to get know the genuine Jesus is through the pages of the Gospels, which are the best sources available and bear the marks of true history.

Keener’s basically conservative approach to the Gospels is sure to have its detractors but no one, I would wager, can doubt that he has done his homework. The book weighs in at book-bag breaking 831 pages, but its main argument takes only 393, leaving over half of the work to footnotes, bibliographies, and appendices. So if from time to time readers find Keener’s arguments less than compelling, they can check out the original sources and come to their own conclusions.

Keener begins by presenting “Disparate Views about Jesus” (1-69) in which the author traces the development of modern Jesus scholarship, reviewing the work of von Harnack, Weiss, Schweitzer, Bultmann, and others. Young students in particular will find this section helpful as they can learn here that even the most “academic” scholarship is biased and influenced by cultural tendencies of its time. Indeed, as Keener demonstrates, scholars have often concentrated their historical study on Jesus not for the sake of knowing the true Jesus but have “used respect for Jesus to promulgate their own ideology” (6). Thus the Enlightenment gave us a Jesus without miracles, the Romantic era offered up a Jesus of noble sentiments, von Harnack’s Jesus promoted a life of civility, and Bultmann presented a demythologized and “relevant” Jesus. What is striking about all these paradigms is how quaint and, in fact, irrelevant they appear today.

After addressing the older quests for the historical Jesus Keener turns his attention to his contemporaries, including Burton Mack, Dominic Crossan, and Bart Ehrman. To give an example, consider Crossan’s view of Jesus as a “Peasant Cynic.” Keener meticulously combs through the sources and shows that calling Jesus a Cynic is simply another example of putting a round peg in a square hole. Cynics were rude and asocial, essentially negative in their critique—hardly the stuff of a Kingdom Builder like Jesus. Moreover it is not right, Keener notes, to think of Jesus simply as a lowly carpenter’s son. To be sure, Joseph’s occupation was not especially prestigious but neither was it despised. Even more, Keener notes, “Carpenters were artisans, not peasants, and many assign them to the upper ten percent of nonaristocratic Galilean society”(21). What Crossan has done is create a Jesus in his image, a true sandal-wearing cynic, at home in any protest, carrying any billboard. (I suppose it would churlish to add that Crossan, the would-be-peasant and scourge of wealthy empires, has become every bit as wealthy as the capitalists and empire-builders he mocks.) Now, whether one wants to believe Keener or not, the footnotes are available and plentiful, and the reader can draw his own conclusion. What is nice, I think, is that Keener not only takes to task the heavy-hitters of liberalism but also may disabuse some of us of our own romantic notions of “Jesus the lowly carpenter.” Just because Jesus was born in a manger did not mean he lived in one.

Those enamored with the conspiracy theories of Dan Brown will be sure to appreciate Keener’s section on “Other Gospels?” As the question mark would indicate, Keener finds the Apocryphal and Gnostic gospels more akin to modern romance novels than to genuine historical documents. Written in the second and third centuries, Keener argues, the works as the Gospels of Thomas and Peter have little to tell us about who Jesus really was because they came too late to the party.

What about the canonical Gospels themselves? In what way do they present the history of Jesus? Here Keener spends some time demonstrating that Jesus and his disciples were born into a society that promoted both memorization and note-taking and, as Keener notes, “We should recognize a point that some skeptical scholars often neglect: during most of this period, Jesus’ closest disciples remained the Jesus movement’s leading teachers” (138). The manner in which Jesus taught and the way in which his disciples transmitted that teaching is consistent with high standards of historical reliability.

Having set the stage, Keener then walks the reader through the Gospel, and asks “What We Learn about Jesus from the Best Sources” (163-348). Keener’s argument is basically this: what we know about Jesus is congruent with what we know about ancient society; furthermore, the Gospel writers often include items that they never would have written if they were not true. One of Keener’s favorite tactics is to argue from embarrassment. The Gospels simply do not fit the paradigm of religious propaganda. As he writes, “No one would invent Nazareth as a background for Jesus”(182). Again, “No one would make up fishing villages as sites of a great person’s ministry” (182). And again, “No one would invent rural Galiliee, fishermen, or tax collectors” (183). This line of argument is carried through to the very end of the book where Keener underlines the resurrection’s plausibility by noting, “The witness of women at the tomb is very likely historical, precisely because it was so offensive to the larger culture – not the sort of testimony one would invent” (331).

Some would say that Keener’s work is unnecessary because, after all, we believe that the Gospels are God’s word. True enough. Yet the Gospels are also historical documents, written in time, and are just as open to scrutiny as, for example, the Koran or Book of Mormon. Keener is in no position to “prove” anything in the Gospels is true but he is very good at showing how negative claims are often little more than unfounded and biased criticism.

The meat of the book is found in Keener’s observations about various aspects of Jesus’ ministry. He speaks about Jesus as a Galilean Jew, a Teacher, a Prophet, and a Messiah. He addresses Jesus’ teachings on Discipleship and Ethics and explores the reasons for Jesus’ death. Any of these sections could be read separately and profitably.

I have yet to see other reviews on this book but I imagine that while some will find the book nearly exhaustive, others will find it simply exhausting. Keener’s work is not ground-breaking nor is it essentially original. What it is, though, is a sober-minded antidote to much of sensational biblical scholarship. Keener is a man who has done his homework. Before he became a biblical scholar he studied the classics and ancient history. As such he was well prepared for the task that became this book.

Towards the end of the work Keener speaks about his own personal journey from atheism to Christianity. As the author tells his story, he was at first put off from Christianity because of its supposedly shaky intellectual foundation. In some ways this book may be seen of a self-defense for his intellectual journey. For what it’s worth, Keener also includes this bit of spiritual autobiography: “When I later encountered the risen Christ in an unsolicited and unexpected personal experience, hence came to the conviction that he (not to mention the God with whom he was associated) was in fact alive, I understood the reality of Jesus rises or falls not on how successfully his professed followers have followed his teaching, but on Jesus himself” (385). Of course none of us have any access or way of knowing the nature of Keener’s personal experience. Be that as it may, Keener offers something more substantial: a well-grounded and reasoned assessment of the Gospels, through which Jesus continues to speak to all of us.

Peter J. Scaer
Fort Wayne, Indiana

We Preach Christ and Him Crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23)

by Kurt E. Reinhardt, pastor of Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church in Kurtzville, Ontario

Editor's Note—This article first appeared in Lutheran Theological Review (Vol. 21). Apologies go out to Editor Tom Winger of LTR for our failure to realize this prior to our publishing of the article here.

In St. Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, with these profound words, he lays out the heart and center of all Christian proclamation. A Christian sermon should have something to do with Christ. It is a truth that should perhaps go without saying, but sadly all too often the word that comes from many “Christian” pulpits lacks this one needful thing (Luke 10:42). A question that rightly belongs in the sermon writer’s repertoire for constructive critique of his own work should be precisely this: “What have I said about Jesus?” The answer will help him to identify to what extent his work is truly Christian. Again it should go without saying that a sermon that has nothing to do with Christ cannot be truly Christian. Yet as one of C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe characters, Professor Kirk, rightly wonders: “Logic! Why don’t they teach logic at these schools?” In our reason-phobic world the logical must often be stated.

A Christian sermon should have Christ at the center of it.  Simply tacking the name of Jesus onto the end does not fit the bill. Otherwise we would have to admit that Christian sermons are being delivered all over the world in school yards, alleyways, offices, on television, at the movies and wherever else our Lord’s name is used in its predominant form as an “expletive to express shock or surprise.” A Christian sermon is not delineated by a few nice words about Jesus’ love or forgiveness at the end of ten, twenty or even thirty minutes. As St. Paul rightly lays it out for us, the sermon should preach Christ. He should be the heart and center of the whole proclamation. He should be its whole point and raison d’être. Without Christ the words should tumble into a pile of letters at the bottom of your page and the words of your mouth should degenerate into nonsense. Again, such truths should perhaps go without saying, but a quick examination of a completed sermon can reveal surprising results to the most faithful of preachers. How much air time does our Lord get in comparison to that cute story or funny joke that will get a laugh or smile out of the hearers? How much time do we spend talking about ourselves compared to the time we spend talking about Christ? How long do we spend inviting the listeners to examine themselves compared to the time that we fix their eyes on Jesus?

A Christian sermon should have Christ at its center, but not just any Christ as St. Paul further tells us. The Christ at the center and heart of the Christian sermon should be a crucified Christ. The nail marks in his hands and feet and the spear wound in his side should distinguish the greater prophet we proclaim from the lesser one who came before him. A sermon can have a high Christ content yet still fail to be Christian if the only Christ who is proclaimed has more in common with Sinai than Calvary. A crucified Christ has a lot to say about sin, since the wounds he bears make a powerful declaration about its depravity, gravity and toxicity. These wounds leave us without a doubt that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).  They also declare our own inability to free ourselves from our sinful condition and the bonds that so entangle us. Yet these wounds also speak the most powerful and dramatic word about the love of God and the forgiveness his Son has accomplished for us. A crucified Christ is a Christ who has earned salvation for his people by paying for their sins. He has delivered them from the dominion of death by his own journey into it with their burdens around his neck. Although this Christ is the one who placed the tablets into Moses’ hands, Christ’s hands are the ones that suffer their consequences for Israel and all mankind (John 1:17).

Yet again, another self-evident truth about this wounded Jesus, who stands in the center of the Christian proclamation and so should have pride of place in every sermon that aspires to be Christian, is that he has such hands that can be wounded. A crucified Christ is an incarnate Christ. The word that the Christian Church proclaims is an enfleshed word. As St. John lays out for us in his gospel, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).” The incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ involves the permanent binding of the Word of the Father with the flesh and blood he took on in the womb of the blessed virgin Mary. The only begotten Son of God was for us and our salvation made man, and remains man to this day. There is no Word of God that can be encountered apart from the flesh and blood of Jesus of Nazareth. We have no Gnostic Christ who encounters us in some spiritual way floating down to us from the heavens on the whims of fancy. We have no Christ who is present with us everywhere who is not present bodily. Mary Magdalene grabs hold of a real body when she lays her hands on to her beloved Lord (John 20:17). The Emmaus disciples are not accompanied by a spiritual Christ on their evening journey. Hands made of real flesh and blood break the bread at the table to reveal the identity of their companion of comfort (Luke 24:30). A real man eats fish and bread before the disciples in the upper room (Luke 24:41-43). Thomas puts his fingers into real tangible wounds in living hands and feet and side of a human body that his doubt might be fleshed away (John 20:27). This incarnate Christ is the one who promises to be with his people even unto the end of the age as they gather in his name (Matthew 18:20; 28:20).

This incarnate Christ and no other is the Christ of the Christian proclamation. To proclaim a Christ who has not been made flesh and who does not continue to come in the flesh is the not the task of the Christian preacher but, as St. John declares, the work of the antichrist (1 John 4:1-3). The Christian preacher does not proclaim a Christ who is far away but a Christ who comes to his people and dwells with them. The incarnate nature of our Lord determines the means that he uses to abide with and in them. The sacramental life of the church is not simply a product of her whim[1] or for that matter the Lord’s whim, but rather naturally and necessarily flows from the Son’s incarnation. The necessity of the sacramental life of the Christian does not exist because God simply wanted it that way. This sacramental life is not something that exists purely because of our weakness and our need for tangible things to assure us of the Lord’s active presence in our lives. Although both of these things may be said to be true, the sacramental life of the people of God necessarily flows out of the personal union of the divine and human natures in our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no true Christ who is not a sacramental Christ. An incarnate Christ is a sacramental Christ. When our Lord became incarnate, the sacramental nature of our life with Him was determined and fixed. As our Lord was made flesh, that flesh, true to its nature, encounters us in fleshly things. As the Son took on our matter to redeem all matter, he determined that there would be no other means to deal with us than through that matter. This is not to deny the almighty will of God or limit his power as though something from outside himself was imposed on him, but rather to simply recognize that his decision to become incarnate for our salvation included the sacramental life that flows from that incarnation.

The Christ that the Christian preacher is called to proclaim is not a God who is far off but a God who is near in the flesh and blood of Jesus. To preach Christ rightly, then, involves preaching an incarnate Christ who encounters his people sacramentally.  The preached word in and of itself has a sacramental character when Christ is proclaimed rightly. The called and ordained servant of Christ who stands in the pulpit proclaiming the word of God does so in Christ’s name but also in Christ’s stead. The Lord says of those he sends out to proclaim the Gospel, “He who hears you hears me (Luke 10:16).” The voice of the preacher becomes the means by which the Lord speaks his word into the hearts and minds of his people (John 13:20). This word is powerful and effective and creates saving faith in the hearer where and when the Holy Spirit pleases. As St. Paul indicates in his epistle to the Romans, “And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (10:14)” The pastor becomes a meeting point between the Lord and his people, as through the church the Lord identifies the pastor as the one who speaks for him. To hear from him in his office is to hear from the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:20).  Interestingly enough, the great writer of letters to the churches emphasizes that faith comes through hearing rather than from reading. Our Lord does not write any letters that we know of in his own hand to the church, but rather appoints apostles and sends them out to preach the good news (Matthew 28:19-20). The good news is meant to be proclaimed from a living mouth to living ears. The Lord, through the pastor, comes not simply to inform the hearer of certain truths but to declare a truth in person to them and about themselves in Christ. The pastor is called to make a “for you” declaration to the Lord’s people, which is from the Lord himself. Thus, the pastor can even boldly take up the voice of Christ in the first person, as he speaks in the stead of the Lord for the benefit of God’s people, as Luther often does when preaching.

Although the preaching office may be recognized as having a sacramental character that naturally flows out of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, it has not traditionally been identified as one of the church’s sacraments.[2] The Lutheran Confessions identify three of our Lord’s gifts as belonging to this category: holy baptism, absolution, and the sacrament of the altar.[3] If the proclaimed word of God creates saving faith in the hearts and lives of God’s people, and if our Lord is present in the pastor to proclaim such a word, why does he give such gifts to the church and command their observance (Matthew 28:18; John 20:21-23; Luke 22:17-20)? The sacraments are not optional; they have a divine mandate and are also a divine imperative. The church is not given the option to baptize; she is told to baptize. The church is not given the option of forgiving sins; she is told to forgive sins. The church is not given the option of celebrating the Lord’s Supper; she is told to celebrate it. Thus we see in the book of Acts that these very things are taking place as sinners are baptized and forgiven and as the disciples meet every Lord ’s Day to break bread together (Acts 2:40-47). On occasion, in wrestling with the question of the necessity of these gifts for salvation, it is possible to slip into considering them as in some way being optional. Our Lord Jesus, however, does not say, “If you want to, you may do these things”. Rather, he states them in the imperative which, granted, establishes the church’s mandate but also speaks of necessity.[4] The Lord has commanded these things to be done and, for the church to be church, she needs to be doing them (Luke 12:35-48). The right administration of the sacraments is rightly identified by the Lutheran Confessions as one of the marks of the church for this very reason.[5]  

Although the three sacraments along with the proclaimed word of God serve the Lord’s purpose of creating faith in Jesus Christ, their individual mandate and command argues for a unique purpose in the lives of Christians. Our Lord never lists them as options to be chosen from depending on the circumstance or preference of the hearer, and the church historically has not offered them buffet-style either. They form a cohesive whole and are meant to work together for the new life of faith. The question of whether or not one may subsist on one portion alone sadly can degenerate into the laying aside of one or the other because faith does not “need” them to survive. The Lord, however, did not just give us one or the other but gave all and commanded their observance. Faith may indeed survive on one or the other, but our Lord’s commandment would imply that faith would be much healthier with a well-rounded diet of all that he has laid out for it. Simply because we can does not mean that we should. The proclaimed word and sacraments are not independent options but interdependent parts of the life of the Christian. Understanding this interconnectedness can help the preacher to proclaim rightly the incarnate crucified Christ who lives out life with his people sacramentally. In baptism we know that we have a new birth into Christ Jesus where the Holy Spirit is given and our sins are washed away (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27). In absolution we know that we have a return to our baptism where our Lord Jesus cleanses our feet from the dirt of our journey through this world (Matthew 9:8; John 13:10; John 20:23). In the sacrament of the altar we know that we have a place at our Lord’s table where He joins himself to us with the feast of his life-giving body and blood (1 Corinthians 10:16). In all of these three we have an encounter with our incarnate Lord where he creates, renews, and nourishes our unity with him. The proclaimed word as it presents the incarnate Christ to his people should direct, encourage, and create a hunger in them for an encounter with their Lord in these places where he has promised to be found.

The proclaimed word of God undoubtedly creates a bond between the Lord and his people as he declares his love and forgiveness to them. Faith is created through this word as the Holy Spirit works through it to convert the hearts of the hearers. Yet the sacraments play a unique role in the life of the Christian in uniting them to their Lord through his flesh. In baptism the Lord unites himself with the sinner to take on his sins while imparting his holiness in return. In private confession the Lord meets intimately with the sinner to touch him to remove the leprosy of his sin. In the sacrament of the altar our Lord most clearly comes bodily to his people in his flesh and blood to give them forgiveness, life, and salvation through their union with him. These sacraments are all given through the word of God and derive all their power from it, yet remain distinct in that they involve an incarnate impartation of the Lord himself to his people. In marital terms we see the wooing of the bride in the proclaimed word which leads to marriage and a life of love together in a unity of one flesh that unfolds in the sacraments. The bride and bridegroom share a life of mutual conversation but also a sharing of themselves in physical union in love. Mutual conversation involves an impartation of themselves to one another as they share their life together, yet it is distinct and different from the physical impartation. Both are essential parts of the unity that the bride and bridegroom share. Both are important and should not be pitted against one another. Neither is dispensable. Yet they are distinct and involve a different facet of the relationship. The relationship of the preached word to the sacramental word can be viewed in a similar way as two distinct but indispensable facets of the life of our Lord with his church. The incarnate Lord speaks to his bride and shares his flesh with her. This truth has been lived out in the life of the church where, from the beginning, the divine service has comprised both word and sacrament. The neglect of either is an aberration from the practice of the church catholic and so also from the Lutheran confession.[6]

The framework of our Lord’s life in the synoptic gospels follows this pattern. The preaching of John flows into our Lord’s baptism followed by the continued proclamation of his life which culminates in the intimacy of the supper table on the day of his passion. The Gospels follow the framework of the divine service as we see it being lived out in the book of Acts in accord with our Lord’s command and institution on the night that he was betrayed. Once again, our Lord’s life does not exhibit any conflict between these two elements of his incarnate life with his people, but rather shows them abiding in harmony with one another, the one leading to the other and back again. The interplay between the proclaimed word of Christ and the physical contact between him and those he has come to save is reflected in his earthly life. The Lord not only proclaims but he reaches out, repeatedly, to touch, to release, and to heal. The Lord not only touches but also proclaims. The word is an enfleshed word that not only rings through the air but also reaches out through it to touch. This enfleshed word establishes not only the communion of the heart, but the communion of the body as well in order to save both from sin, death, and hell. The Lord’s proclamation creates a longing in the hearts of the hearers to reach out and touch him. The striking image of the woman with the twelve-year issue of blood demonstrates the heart of faith that longs for contact with the divine flesh, knowing all that is contained within in it. She reaches out to touch the hem of his garment, believing that what contains his body bears life and healing for her (Matthew 9:20-22). The Lord’s proclamation leads to outstretched hands. He stretches out his hands on the cross to save us. He stretches out his hands to touch us with his healing in the sacraments. He stretches our hands out to touch him in turn, to chase away our fear and doubt.  The outflow of his sacrificial life is shown in the resurrection narratives where the spoken word is paired with both touching and eating. The Lord’s word of promise to his church is not only a spoken word but also an embracing word that binds his life with hers in Spirit and truth.  The proclaimed word presents Jesus and leads the hearer to Jesus.

Preaching’s role of leading the hearer to sacramental union can be seen throughout the book of Acts, as the apostles fulfill their mandate of preaching the word of God to all nations. The church’s inaugural sermon that Peter gives on Pentecost leaves his hearers with one burning question: “Brothers, what shall we do?” to which he replies, “”Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Luke further provides the connection between the preaching of the word and baptism with the assessment, “so those who received his word were baptized.” Philip’s proclamation to the Ethiopian eunuch leaves him questioning, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” The Lord’s interaction with Saul also leads to baptism at the hands of Annanias (Acts 9:18). The gentile Cornelius and his whole household are brought to baptism after Peter’s preaching as the descent of the Holy Spirit indicates that they also are to have this intimate communion with Christ (Acts 10:48). Lydia has her heart opened by the Lord to what Paul said and she and her household were baptized (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer and his whole family receive baptism as a result of Paul’s proclamation of the word (Acts 16:30-33). The apostolic preaching and teaching is not an end in itself but leads the hearers to Christ. Their purpose is to preach Christ crucified. Through the preaching of the incarnate, wounded Savior of the world the hearers are led to the place where he is to be incarnately found in his sacraments. The proclamation makes the Savior known to them and then draws them into intimate communion with him. This communion is lived out in the sacramental life that involves a continuation and development of the intimacy between saved and Savior. The proclaimed Word continues to play this role in the life of the baptized Christian as he struggles through this world with his own sin and the sins of others. This word proclaims Christ crucified to him and leads him to the basin and towel, to the supper table, and to the intimate care of his Savior, where he learns to live out his life in communion with his Lord.

The sacramental life of the church, it must be remembered, provides the historical background for the reading of the New Testament. The church who receives these documents is the church who is following her Lord’s mandate to baptize, to forgive, and to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The church who is reading the Old Testament is the church who knows that the Hebrew scriptures proclaim Christ crucified and so also foreshadow the sacramental life that flows forth from Him (Luke 24:25-27). The scriptures are being read by a sacramental people as they are written to be read and understood by a sacramental people. The church and her sacramental life predate the writing of the New Testament. The New Testament does not establish the sacraments, but rather the Word of Christ, who institutes and commands their observance by the apostles. The evidence of this sacramental life is woven into the very fabric of the New Testament writings. The burning question with regard to gentile Baptism resolved through Peter’s interaction with Cornelius demonstrates the essential nature of Baptism to the life of the church in accord with our Lord’s command at His ascension. The living out of the baptismal life in communion at the Lord’s table is laid out in the apostles’ practice observed at the beginning of the book of Acts, but also by St. Paul’s correction of the sacramental infraction of the Corinthians, where the underlying assumption is that they meet regularly to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in accord with our Lord’s command to do it often (1 Corinthians 11:20-34). Paul emphasizes how this sacrament forms an essential part of what He has handed on to them from the Lord. The Gospels themselves must also be read keeping in mind the truth that the sacramental life of the church is fully established when they are written. They are not written to establish this life, even though they record its establishment and unfold its meaning for the church. To assert this is not to say that the New Testament material is fabricated to bolster the practice of the church, but rather simply to bear in mind that the writers of the Gospels would have had a sacramental mindset as they organized and recorded the events of our Lord’s life.

A further important christological truth that should be kept in mind is that, due to the personal union of the divine and human natures in Christ, the Lord Jesus fully knows the plan of the Father for the salvation of the world. He knows about the cross and how the fruits of that cross will flow out to his church through the gift of the sacraments that he himself will establish. Understanding this truth dispels any difficulty with the Lord speaking in a sacramental way prior to the establishment of a given sacrament. To assert that passages like our Lord’s great discourse about the benefits of the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of the Son of Man in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel cannot have any sacramental import or inference because He speaks these words before the institution of the Lord’s Supper, negates the truth that the one who speaks is true God, who knows all things and in a way akin to the prophecies of the Old Testament may speak of the gifts before they have been given. For the Lord to speak of these gifts prior to them being given would be consistent with his parabolic teaching where truth is revealed even as it remains hidden. The gift of the Holy Spirit was the Lord’s way of revealing these things to the church as the disciples were led into all truth after our Lord’s ascension. Repeatedly we hear throughout the Gospels that the disciples only understood certain things after our Lord’s resurrection (John 2:22; 12:16). The beloved apostle who lay on our Lord’s breast when the gift of his heart was given in the sacrament of the altar certainly must have at least given some thought to the Lord’s Supper when he recorded the sixth chapter of his Gospel for the church. If the hearer can rightly understand that the sacraments naturally flow out from the incarnation of Christ and from the beginning are meant to and in fact do form an integral part of the church’s life with her Lord, then there need be no hesitation to see a wealth of sacramental inferences within the scriptural texts even if they are not explicitly mentioned. The historical grammatical method of interpreting these scriptures would in fact demand such an approach, as the writers and hearers of these writings would in fact have had a sacramental outlook. The early church knows no non-sacramental church, which according to the Lutheran Confession is an oxymoron.

Faithfully proclaiming Christ crucified then involves the preacher fixing the eyes of the hearers on Jesus and directing them to the places where he is waiting for them with outstretched arms. The word comes through the ears into the mind, but its goal is man’s twisted heart that needs to be turned around and brought running back to his Lord. The encounter of the hearer with the living Lord who became man that he might dwell amongst His people should be the preacher’s goal. Although intellectual in nature in the truest sense, as it brings true wisdom to the hearer, it should not simply be an intellectual exercise but a word that draws the hearer to Jesus. The effectiveness of that word lies solely in the purview of the Holy Spirit but, if it is not a faithful word that seeks to lead the hearer to Christ, it cannot be a vehicle for the Spirit. The word needs to be the right word. The goal needs to be the right goal. Otherwise, as stated at the outset, the proclamation is not Christian and so the Holy Trinity will not be involved with it.  We do not preach an aimless word, but a directed word that leads people to the risen Christ for the salvation of their souls. The proclaimed word should leave the hearer longing for and looking for the font, the basin, and the table. As Luther rightly points out, we force no one to receive the sacraments, but we should preach about them in such a way that people demand them of us.[7] In convicting the sinner through the law and wooing him with the gospel, the hearer should be left with the question, “Brothers what shall we do?” to which the faithful preacher should point to the crucified Christ in His gifts. The preached word should create a hunger and make the mouth water. It should make the heart yearn, the mind quest, and the soul long for an encounter with Jesus so that the hearer might be touched and be healed, and so that the believer might touch and believe.

Sacramental preaching is not just a matter of the interpretation of the sermon text, but an understanding of the whole ethos of our Lord’s sacramental life with his people and the impossibility of a life with him outside of it. If this is rightly understood, then every sermon will have sacramental focus in one form or another as it presents the Christ crucified who dwells among his people in his flesh. As previously stated, the texts of scripture provide ample opportunity for directing them to the sacraments, as they are not an added appendage to the word of God but are an integral part of it.[8] They are a part of God’s plan of salvation from the start and so are prefigured along with Christ from the beginning and are reflected upon with him from the moment of the incarnation.  A sacramental interpretation simply takes the end result of the life God has given us and reflects back to see it prefigured from the beginning in the word of God. St. Peter does this when he makes the connection between baptism and the flood in his first epistle (3:21). As God unfolds the history that leads to the incarnation of the Son and the salvation of the world through the cross which flows forth from Calvary in the sacramental word, the history itself reveals its end goal. The genealogy of Christ contains many who provide insight into who their mighty descendant will be and what he will accomplish. The same is true of that salvation history with regard to the sacramental life that will flow forth from Christ’s pierced side. The flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the crossing of the Jordan, the Passover lamb, the manna in the wilderness, the whole sacrificial life of the people of Israel, and countless other events and mandated observances have all been recognized as prefiguring the sacramental life of the church even as they form part of God’s plan to bring it all about. The life of Christ himself, as well as his teaching, follows a similar pattern in particular with regard to his cross and so also with regard to the sacraments. Our Lord repeatedly speaks of the cross before it occurs, unfolding its import to His disciples prior to its victory (Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). As he speaks of the cross in this way, the gifts of the cross may also be seen to appear in similar allusions and events. This homiletical approach to the text does not argue that such texts are to be used to establish the doctrine with regard to a given sacrament, but in accord with the clear truths we know about them, may serve as signposts for the Christian as well as the preacher to these great gifts.

If the sacramental life is embraced as the outflow of the incarnation through our Lord’s crucifixion and resurrection, and the notion of its prophetic prefiguring in the events leading up to its gift is not rejected out of hand, then the scriptural texts open up before the preacher filled with a veritable gold mine of sacramental references. This treasure trove is brought into deeper relief when the preacher approaches the text looking for its sacramental connections. Some texts speak of the sacraments directly and there can be no question of expounding the truth about them as well as directing the hearer’s attention and faith toward them. Other texts, however, contain allusions or elements that certainly raise the opportunity to direct the hearer to God’s grace in the gospel that flows to them from font, basin, and table. With regard to baptism, its earthly element of water as it occurs in a text certainly provides the opportunity to speak of it as does any references to new birth, new life, sonship, fatherhood, cleansing, drowning, citizenship, kingdom, exorcism, new clothes, and so on. The gift of holy absolution may be evoked and so referenced with regard to many themes as well that speak of release and forgiveness, such as slavery and freedom, deliverance, cleansing, washing, as well as any references to touching and healing. The sacrament of the altar, with its earthly elements of bread and wine, is brought to mind by the meal references throughout the New Testament. These meal references bring to mind our Lord’s gift of love in Holy Communion, as do references to the bridal relationship, to blood, to flesh, to sacrifice, to wine, to bread, and so on. If the preacher identifies the directing of the hearer to the sacramental life that flows out from the pierced side of the crucified Christ as part of his task in Christian proclamation, then indeed he will find sacramental connection points within the scriptural texts as is evident in the work of the early church fathers.

The scriptural text, however, is not the only source for sacramental direction in the Christian sermon. The liturgical and social occasion may also provide opportunity to direct the hearers to Jesus in his sacramental gifts. When a baptism occurs, obviously it is a good time to talk about baptism and remind all the hearers of what great gifts the Lord has given them in their new baptismal life with him. The prepared altar of the divine service is also a reference point within the sermon. A preacher’s hand pointing to the altar, where the crucified Christ will soon be enthroned before his people as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, speaks volumes without directly addressing the sacrament in speech. The preparatory seasons of Advent and Lent both provide a liturgical context to encourage the hearers to prepare their hearts for their coming Lord through confession and absolution. The feast of our Lord’s nativity is the perfect setting to talk about the gift of our new birth. The journey of the shepherds to Bethlehem begs the preacher to invite the hearers to the altar to see this thing that has come to pass which the Lord has made known. The great Passover of Easter from Maundy Thursday to the glorious first day of the week is one big invitation to the feast of victory for our God. A wedding opens up the opportunity to speak of the new life the Lord shares with his bride the church at his banquet table. A bride and groom making their vows between the font and the altar provides an entry into addressing how the Lord would have the couple live out their new life in forgiveness as children of God nourished from the life of Christ given at his table. A funeral provides one of the greatest opportunities to proclaim the objective working of God’s hand in a person’s life through the incarnate Word in baptism, absolution, and the Lord’s Supper – not only for the soul but for the body as well. Thanksgiving allows the preacher to speak about the great thanksgiving of the Lord’s table where just as we show appreciation to Mom by loading our plate at dinner we also give thanks to the Lord by eating of the bounty of his table.

To preach sacramentally, the preacher needs to understand the essential nature of the sacraments to the life of the Christian. They must be seen as an integral part of the word of God, rather than a distinct entity from it. The sacraments are simply the Word made flesh. They are the word of God given in a tangible form, distinguishable in the manner of their giving and their purpose for the life of the Christian, but not separate from the proclaimed word. The sacraments are not only all about Jesus; in a very profound way they are Jesus. We are baptized into Christ. Baptism’s whole purpose is to unite us with Him. He is in Baptism. In holy absolution Christ hears us as we hear Him. The pastor’s forgiveness is God’s forgiveness. Sins are confessed as to Christ himself and the absolution is given by Christ himself. The Lord’s Supper is none other than the true body and blood of Christ given under the bread and wine for us Christians to eat and drink. This sacrament is the gospel in the purest form, where the church proclaims the Lord’s death to her children and to the world until the Lord comes. The sacrament of the altar sets the cross and its victory before the eyes of the faithful, even as it delivers the fruit of that cross to them. As the Christian preacher seeks to proclaim Christ crucified, his hand should naturally rise to point to the font, to the altar rail, and to the altar itself, where that crucified Christ comes to His people. Sacramental preaching is simply preaching Christ crucified in the fullness of His incarnation and the incarnate life he shares with his bride the church. Here the preacher faithfully gives answer to the believers’ plea, “Please sir, we would see Jesus” by presenting their Lord to them and directing them to the places he has promised to be in his gifts for them. In Christian proclamation the preacher takes his brothers and sisters and invites them to come and see Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, about whom Moses and the prophets wrote. He points them to the one who loves them in word and in deed, in spirit and in truth.

The temptation for the preacher, particularly in modern society, is to feel that a faithful hand that repeatedly sets Jesus before the eyes of the people in word and sacrament is tiresome and boring. How many times does he need to repeat himself to the people of God? How many times do they need to be reminded of their baptism? How often do they need to be encouraged to go to confession? How often do they need the menu for the supper set before them with the required nutritional analysis? How much do they need to hear about Jesus? The question really answers itself, does it not? Can poor, miserable sinners ever hear too much about Jesus? Can poor miserable sinners ever have too much Jesus? Can there ever be a day or a week that can go by that I do not need Jesus? As Luther points out in his questions and answers for those who intend to go to the sacrament, if you do not feel a need for it you should pinch yourself to see if you still have your wicked flesh, take a look to see if you are still in the world, and know you have the devil around you. The sinner can never have too much of Jesus, as the saint well knows. Faith as it grows stronger only grows in its thirsting for its Lord; it is never so strong that it can survive without its object. An objectless faith is an illogical construct. Faith requires an object to be faith. Furthermore, a faith that claims it can forego the Lord’s gifts is no faith at all, as pride is diametrically opposed to faith. Faith thirsts for Jesus with an unquenchable thirst that even in heaven will not disappear, but will rather be continuously satisfied. We will thirst no more, not because we will not desire the water, but because the water will be continuously flowing into us. As a foretaste of that perpetual spring the church therefore as a whole, and the servant of Christ in particular, proclaims Christ crucified week after week, knowing that the bride never tires of hearing of her beloved, of gazing on him, and of being made one with him.

We preach Christ crucified. Sacramental preaching simply strives to do this great task in faithfulness to the truth of our Lord’s incarnation and its resulting life for the church. The task is no easy one, given the depths of the mystery that we encounter at the heart and center of the Christian faith. The new life we have of birth, washing, and nourishment is a simple reflection of our life in the world, as our Creator made us, and so is recreating us. The sacramental life is simple, and yet its depths descend far beyond all human understanding within the heart of the Trinity. A lifetime is spent not only being nourished by them, but also reflecting on them. The preacher who seeks to faithfully fulfill his calling has a wealth of wisdom to relay to his hearers that can only be understood and imparted with the Spirit’s aid and counsel. How humbling it is to see God’s great grace that imparts such treasures to the care and keeping of sinful men. May the Lord make us faithful, dear brothers, to our Lord in leading his people to him, even as he works to draw us to himself as he is lifted up before our eyes for our salvation in his word and gifts.

Notes

1. “For the sacrament has not been invented nor introduced by any man. Without anyone’s counsel and deliberation it has been introduced by Christ” (LC V.4).

2. “But if ordination is understood as carrying out the ministry of the word, we are willing to call ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of the word has God’s command and has glorious promises, ‘the gospel… is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes’… If ordination is understood in this way, neither will we refuse to call the laying on of hands a Sacrament. For the Church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry and is present in this ministry” (Ap XIII.11).

3. “Therefore, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and absolution (which is the sacrament of repentance) are truly sacraments. For these rites have God’s command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. When we are baptized, when we eat the Lord’s body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us for Christ’s sake” (Ap XIII.4).

4. “For Christ has not instituted it to be treated as a show. Instead he has commanded his Christians to eat it, drink it, and remember him by it” (LC V.42).

5. “The church is the congregation of saints (Psalm 149:1) in which the gospel is purely taught and the sacraments are correctly administered” (AC VII.1).

6. “Furthermore Baptism is most solemnly and strictly commanded so that we must be baptized or cannot be saved” (LC IV.6). “Rather we give this counsel: If you are poor and miserable, then go to Confession and make use of its healing medicine. He who feels his misery and need will no doubt develop such a longing for it that he will run toward it with joy.  But those who pay no attention to it and do not come of their own accord, we let them go their way. Let them be sure of this, however, that we do not regard them as Christians” (LC V - An Exhortation to Confession). “At the outset, we must again make this preliminary statement: we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously keep and defend it. Masses are celebrated among us every Lord’s Day and on other festivals” (Ap XXIV.1). “Nevertheless it must be known that people who deprive themselves of and withdraw from the Sacrament for such a long time are not to be considered Christians” (LC V.42).

 7. “Last, since the tyranny of the pope has been abolished, people are no longer willing to go to the Sacrament, and thus they despise it. Here again encouragement is necessary, yet with this understanding: We are to force no one to believe or receive the Sacrament. Nor should we set up any law, time, or place for it. Instead, preach in such a way that by their own will, without our law, they will urge themselves and, and as it were, compel us pastors to administer the Sacrament” (Preface to SC 22). “Only set forth clearly the benefit and harm, the need and the use, the danger and the blessing, connected with this Sacrament. Then the people will come on their own without you forcing them. But if they do not come, let them go their way and tell them that such people belong to the devil who do not regard nor feel their great need and God’s gracious help” (Preface to SC 24). “In conclusion, since we now have the true understanding and doctrine of the Sacrament, there is also need for some admonition and encouragement. Then people may not let such a great treasure – daily administered and distributed among Christians – pass by unnoticed. So those who want to be Christians may prepare to receive this praiseworthy Sacrament often. For we see that people seem weary and lazy about receiving the Sacrament…They act as if they are so strong Christians that they have no need of it… Some pretend that it is a matter of liberty and not necessary. They pretend that it is enough to believe without it” (LC V.39-41). “So here there also is need for us to continue to preach so that people may not become weary and disgusted. For we know and feel how the devil always opposes this and every Christian exercise. He drives and deters people from them as much as possible” (LC V.44).

 8. “When we are baptized, when we eat the Lord’s body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God forgives us for Christ’s sake. At the same time, by Word and by rite, God moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, ‘Faith comes from hearing’ (Romans 10:17)” (Ap XIII.5).

Keep Up Your Latin: Confessionum Lutheranarum Studiosi

Announcing a Latin e-mail discussion group on the Lutheran confessions: Confessionum Lutheranarum Studiosi
A new Latin e-mail discussion group on the Lutheran confessions has recently been founded, and you are invited to join in the colloquium. Dr. Jon Bruss, Dr. Benjamin Mayes, and Seminarist Josh Hayes started this group to have a place where the confessions of our church could be discussed by those who are able to read them and discuss them in the Latin language, the language in which many of them were written and which still has so many theological treasures that have never been translated. The two rules of the group are that the conversation is exclusively in Latin, and one does not correct anyone else’s Latin unless the writer wants to be corrected. Lurkers are welcome. The group also provides two additional web pages: one that gives aids for Latin conversation and composition, and another that lists Latin editions of the Book of Concord. Check out the group and join here:

http://groups.google.com/group/confessionum-lutheranarum-studiosi

The NALC and Lutheran CORE: The New ALC or the New ELCA?

by Rev. David Ramirez

ELCA “traditionalists” upset about the 2009 Churchwide Assembly’s actions concerning homosexual behavior have laid out their plans for the future and are meeting August 24-27 in Columbus, Ohio, for a theological conference on “Seeking New Directions for Lutheranism” and to form a new church body, the North American Lutheran Church (NALC). To describe the emerging situation simply:

1. There are already “reform groups” and organizations formed by traditionalists inside and outside of the ELCA such as the Word Alone Network (WAN) now Word Alone Ministries (WAM), Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), The Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Texas, Augsburg Lutheran Churches, and many more.

2. There are still a large number of traditionalists who are going to stay in the ELCA at the present time.

3. Many of the traditionalists are starting a new national denomination (the NALC), which will have a little bit more structure than is offered by the already constituted LCMC.  

Lutheran CORE is the umbrella organization for all these “traditionalists,” the glue that holds together this emerging confederation. The proposed NALC will be the new home of many of the traditionalists of the ELCA launched by Lutheran CORE. Perhaps one could think of the NALC as the flagship of this new moderate Lutheran confederation, structurally and theologically tied most closely to Lutheran CORE. In the document “A Vision and Plan for The North American Lutheran Church and Lutheran CORE,” the purpose of forming the NALC is described by The Lutheran CORE Vision and Planning Working Group:

The NALC is being established in response to those members and friends of Lutheran CORE who have expressed a preference for completely withdrawing from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. They are looking for a Lutheran church body that stands in the tradition of the Church, is denominationally structured for leadership, oversight and accountability, enhances representative governance by congregations and affirms and supports ministry and mission at the congregational level. The NALC will be structurally lean and will look to Lutheran CORE, a community of confessing Lutherans in North America, for many resources.

Lutheran CORE, elsewhere spoken of as “a community a confessing Lutherans,” is described in the same document: “Lutheran CORE will include in its membership Lutheran church bodies, synods, congregations, reform movements and individual members. All of its members, as a basic requirement for membership, will endorse the Common Confession.”

What is this emerging confederation reminiscent of? Perhaps The American Lutheran Church of 1960? The acronym is a veritable “shout out” to the bygone (T)ALC so many of the traditionalists miss. Maybe. But a much better comparison would actually be the American Lutheran Conference of 1930.

Why the Comparison Works

A moderate confederation—with one leading church body amongst equals and unity based upon a recent statement of faith—all certainly sounds similar to the American Lutheran Conference. That conference’s biggest player was of course the “old” American Lutheran Church, also of 1930. The church bodies in that conference were united on the basis of the Minneapolis Theses of 1925. The Common Confession, written by traditionalists in 2005, serves a similar purpose for the church bodies/organizations affiliated with Lutheran CORE. Theologically, the American Lutheran Conference was considered “in between” the two other Lutheran groups at that time, the Synodical Conference and the ULCA. Lutheran CORE also postures itself as centrist or moderate, to the right of the ELCA and its ever leftward drift, but to the left of Missouri and other former Synodical Conference synods.

Where the Comparison Breaks Down

This comparison has its weaknesses. Lutheran CORE does not yet have a clear big-dog-on-the-block church body. This is not necessarily good or bad. As of right now, LCMC is the largest group in the mix and will remain so for the near future. The church body launched by Lutheran CORE (the NALC) may well catch and surpass the size of LCMC. There are many congregations waiting to see what comes of the meeting in Columbus. Yet it remains to be seen how large the NALC will grow and how quickly.

The Minneapolis Theses of the American Lutheran Conference were not entirely satisfactory to Missouri and the Synodical Conference Lutherans. Complaints about clarity existed. Yet compared to the Common Confession, the Minneapolis Theses were far more detailed and clear. Outside of the definite stance against homosexual behavior, the Common Confession tends to be vague on questions with which American Lutheranism has historically struggled. In particular, the statements on Scripture and its confessional subscription raise more questions than they answer. It would be beneficial for Lutheran CORE to clarify what they actually mean by this Common Confession concerning issues beyond parochial ELCA concerns. This leads to where the comparison truly breaks down.

The American Lutheran Conference, while positioned between the Synodical Conference on the right and the Eastern Lutherans on the left, was still at that time in the “Old Lutheran” camp. This confederation was much more oriented to Missouri and the Synodical Conference, especially when it came to its commitment to inerrancy. This cannot be said for Lutheran CORE. They are indeed more “conservative” than the ELCA, but to consider them “centrist Lutherans” or “in the middle” certainly is a stretch. Any group that ordains women can only be considered “liberal” or “left wing” by any fair historical standard of Lutheranism. The only reason that Lutheran CORE has any claim to the middle is due to the extremes of the ELCA.

The New ELCA

“Will the NALC and Lutheran CORE be any different than the ELCA of 13 months or even 22 years ago?” is a question I hear often. History never repeats itself in precisely the same manner, and thus this new venture will not merely be an “ELCA reboot.” However, minus the stance against homosexual behavior, it is hard to see any huge differences on paper between Lutheran CORE/NALC and the ELCA. Certainly the leaders and members will be wary of the pitfalls of the ELCA, but what are the concrete guards in place against walking down the same path that the ELCA has taken? What precisely are the lessons that have been learned by the failed ELCA experiment? Less centralization of power, no special interest quotas, more focus on missions—is that it? Surely the problems are theological and run deeper, as so many Lutheran CORE leaders alluded to at the Fishers meeting last summer. But where is that reality reflected in the NALC’s constitution? Where is a detailed diagnosis, and potential cure, officially spelled out by Lutheran CORE that actually affects what they confess? The Confession of Faith in the NALC’s proposed constitution is virtually identical to the ELCA’s Confession of Faith. The only deviations are an additional quote from the Epitome of the Formula of Concord in the section on Scripture, “according to which all doctrines should and must be judged,” and a statement that they honor and confess the Common Confession. As noted before, I can see few clear, substantial points in the Common Confession besides its clear stance against homosexual behavior.

As things stand, it seems hard for traditionalists to answer the “revisionists” in the ELCA who say, “See, it is just all about sex!” How is reheating the ELCA’s Confession of Faith and adding the Common Confession truly “seeking new directions for Lutheranism”? Which is it? Was the ELCA fundamentally flawed from the very beginning or was an originally sturdy ship taken over by pirates? Lutheran CORE needs to put its finger on “the deeper theological problems” and make some fundamental distinctions between itself and the ELCA precisely, clearly, and quickly.

Quibbles and a Critique of “A Vision and Plan for The North American Lutheran Church and Lutheran CORE”

The Constitution of the NALC has not yet been passed; however, one may read “A Vision and Plan for The North American Lutheran Church and Lutheran CORE” to understand Lutheran CORE’s direction.

1. Why is the designation “confessing Lutherans” found all over the document? Modern Lutherans would do well to get over the desire to be connected, no matter how tenuously, with the Reformed/Barthian “Confessing Church” in Germany. Let’s focus on the content of the confession being made instead of getting excited over the mere act of confessing.

2. The “four key attributes” that Lutheran CORE will be centered on are, “Christ-Centered, Mission-Driven, Traditionally-Grounded, Congregationally-Focused.” Hyphenated terms, while perhaps well-intentioned, come across as poorly defined catchphrases.

3. While the NALC wisely will not be joining the National Council of Churches or the World Council of Churches, it “will apply for membership in the Lutheran World Federation.” Why bother, considering that the LWF is about as consequential to Lutheranism as the Jesus Seminar is to exegetical studies? Isn’t that the party they are trying to leave?

4. I also do not understand the readiness of Lutherans to engage in programs and work with movements clearly at odds with the faith confessed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Consider:

Our shared ministry will make use of Christ-centered approaches that the wider body of Christ finds useful and effective, tailored to the Lutheran context. For example, Lutheran ministries such as Word and Witness and Crossways International might be complemented by Alpha, Intervarsity, Mothers of Preschoolers and many other proven vehicles that God is using across denominational lines to transform the lives of countless people.

5. To another serious matter, the NALC, following the lead of Lutheran CORE, leaves affiliation with the ELCA as one faithful choice among many. Of course pastors and congregations must take seriously the state of their congregation as they seek the best way to flee from flagrant and stubborn error. Yet the question by this stage in the game surely ought to be when, not if. No doubt, as lines are further drawn and positions harden, Lutheran CORE will inevitably firm up against continuing relations with the ELCA. Yet the description of the relationship between Lutheran CORE, the NALC, and those who remain in the ELCA seems as if Lutheran CORE is trying to be “all things to all people”:

Lutheran CORE affirms the faithful call of confessing Lutherans, some of whom will remain in the ELCA and ELCIC and some of whom are now called to different affiliations. We envision a reconfiguration that maintains the highest degree of ongoing unity and cooperation possible among those who leave and those who stay.

This is an extremely rosy position, which will undoubtedly be proven untenable by time. Ironically, if the ELCA follows the precedent set by the way it has dealt with congregations joining LCMC, the ELCA itself will force the issue by not allowing congregations to have dual membership in the ELCA and NALC. It is baffling how little import is placed upon broader affiliation.

Many supporters within Lutheran CORE have indicated that they will remain members of ELCA (or ELCIC) congregations or on their clergy rosters, at least for a season. Some of these mention that they intend to remain within the ELCA on a limited basis - mostly at the congregational level, often re-designating their benevolence outside the mission support system of the ELCA. While these individuals and congregations may remain within the ELCA only in a formal sense, they may look to the Lutheran CORE community as their church beyond the congregation.

Others intend to remain more broadly engaged within the ELCA as faithful witnesses. Lutheran CORE recognizes and affirms those congregations and individuals who feel called to remain within the ELCA and who wish to continue to work for the reform of the ELCA and to witness to Biblical and confessional teachings and practices, as well as to support others remaining in the ELCA. Some of these congregations and individuals may choose dual membership in the ELCA and the NALC. Others may be members of Lutheran CORE on an individual, congregational or partnership basis.

How is all of this not saying, “Stay married to him, but spend your time with me?”

Fault Lines

If Lutheran CORE is going to work as an umbrella organization, it will have to be ready to deal with potential sources for huge friction. I see two fault lines, ripe for trouble, which must be recognized and dealt with by the leadership of Lutheran CORE. One is the potential rivalry between LCMC and the NALC, the two big wolves in the pack. The other is the relationship between the traditionalists who leave the ELCA and those who are remaining within. I cannot see how the two will not be connected.

Word Alone Ministries has already moved to a firmer position against remaining in the ELCA. LCMC will almost certainly take a much harder line against the ELCA—and those who remain in it—than the emerging NALC. First, LCMC is made up of people who already left the ELCA back in 2001. Secondly, LCMC has picked up the majority of the congregations that have left the ELCA since last summer. This means that the LCMC has by and large gotten the congregations that were the most prepared, the best informed, and the most willing to leave. These “first wave” congregations left as soon as possible and needed a place to land. LCMC, as an already constituted and functioning body, aside from any other reasons, was obviously an attractive choice. The NALC on the other hand will not get many of those “first wave” congregations. Rather, as compared to the LCMC, the NALC will pick up more churches that were not as well informed, prepared to leave, or unanimous. In my estimation, over the next several years it will most likely be the NALC that will gain many of the congregations making a slower exodus from the ELCA. Regardless of whether one considers these “second wave” and later congregations timid or careful, this uneven distribution will shape the relationship between the LCMC and the NALC. Additionally, “evangelical catholics” and former LCA congregations who leave the ELCA are more likely to join the NALC, giving it a more varied composition than the LCMC. But perhaps most importantly, as mentioned above, the NALC will allow congregations within the ELCA to join. To a much greater extent than the LCMC, the NALC will have to guard against merely being the ELCA pre-2009.

Drawing Lines and Coming Home

Of course, at the heart of this potential friction are the nature of fellowship and the necessity of drawing lines. Quite possibly, I may just be an old Lutheran worrying about problems that are rendered passé in the world of trans-, non-, and bi-denominational ministries, not to mention para-church complexities. But I don’t think so. At the meeting at Fishers, Indiana, last summer one could already sense the difference between the Lutheran CORE people behind the microphone and the rank and file in the pews. One very earnest woman spoke twice, once each day, pushing the assembly to have nothing to do with the ELCA, immediately.

It has been said that a conservative is just a liberal who has been mugged. Or to put it a different way, a liberal is merely a conservative who has not been mugged yet. The people of the ELCA have been mugged, and they have been mugged so ruthlessly and obviously by revisionist Christianity that many have begun seeing the necessity of drawing lines. It is always a good sign in pandering modern Christendom when the example of Elijah versus the prophets of Baal is invoked, as it was at least three times by my count at Fishers. I hope and pray that the traditionalists from the ELCA continue in this spirit and zeal. But even more should we hope and encourage the traditionalists of the ELCA to see that the heralds of neo-orthodoxy (orthodox words with liberal substance) are still picking their pockets as they pose as authentic orthodox Lutheranism.

How serious can Lutheran CORE actually be about “seeking new directions for Lutheranism” if many of the “traditionalist” theologians of Lutheran CORE are merely the radicals of yesterday? I cannot help but wonder how serious Lutheran CORE’s theological conference will be considering that one of their presenters is Dr. Paul Hinlicky, a traditionalist who has publicly suggested that gay unions have “goods analogous to marriage,” and in certain situations might be “recognized” by the church. I fail to see how Dr. Carl Braaten and Dr. Robert Jenson will produce a coherent vision for North American Lutheranism, seeing as after having helped lead mid-twentieth-century Lutheranism “out of the ghetto” into a brave new world, it blossomed into the ELCA. It is akin to watching modern neoconservative Republicans champion and “conserve” the liberal traditions that they as Democrats built a generation ago.

Perhaps I am overly pessimistic. Hopefully, the new direction for moderate Lutheranism is repentance and a return to the confessionalism of their fathers, for the cure must certainly go deeper than anything seen or heard thus far from Lutheran CORE. At Fishers, the refrain of, “We must all repent!” rang loudly and clearly. However, besides the concrete repentance of not being nice enough to those who struggle with homosexual desire and the vague repentance for not doing enough to stop the ELCA’s slide into liberal Protestantism, of what precisely have the traditionalists repented? The tired, old, dead end road of neo-orthodoxy is not a very promising path to follow for theologians, pastors, or laymen. Specific repentance for actual errors is what is always needed for Christians in this earthly life.

What does all this mean for Missouri?

The Missouri Synod and the confederation of church bodies and para-church organizations united under Lutheran CORE’s banner are nowhere near church fellowship due to great divergence in doctrine. However, there is hope for fruitful discussion between the LCMS and Lutheran CORE. The issue which would perhaps be an important starting point is the issue of the ordination of women. Director of Lutheran CORE, Rev. Mark Chavez, who gave an excellent presentation at the Fort Wayne Symposium this past winter, thought a discussion of the issue between the two groups would be beneficial. An obvious “deal breaker” for Missouri, women’s ordination would not only be of extreme importance in and of itself, but provide an opportunity for each group to observe how the other treats and what it confesses concerning the Scriptures.

I doubt there will be many surprises at Columbus, but it will be important for the Missouri Synod to carefully watch how this venture of moderate Lutheranism unfolds.

Pastor David Ramirez
Zion Lutheran Church, Lincoln, IL

Finnish Lutheran Bishop defrocked; defenses offered

Bishop Matti Väisänen, recently consecrated as assistant bishop in the Mission Province in Sweden and Finland, has been defrocked by the Tampere Cathedral Chapter. 

The following explanation was offered by Tapani Simijoki (by permission) from his blog SimonPotamos:

Bishop Matti Väisänen of Luther Foundation Finland (LFF), the Finnish partner to Mission Province in Sweden and Finland, was defrocked on Wednesday 08/11 by the Cathedral Chapter of Tampere Diocese led by Bishop Matti Repo. The basis of defrocking was the episcopal ordination of Väisänen in last March. Prior to this, Väisänen had served as a pastor in the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland for 46 years, and is a well-known figure in the confessional movement inside the Finnish national church.

Väisänen was called to serve as a bishop in the Mission Province, the care of Finnish pastors and congregations as his primary task. Luther Foundation and Mission Province are reacting to the rapidly increasing liberalism and secularism inside the Scandinavian established churches, the key issues being the ordination of women and - lately - blessing of the same-sex partnerships. For already ten years, it has been practically impossible for candidates refusing to accept female clergy to receive ordination into the pastoral office, while the members of the church with similar conviction find it increasingly difficult to find places to worship in anymore. Luther Foundation has countered this problem by calling and ordaining its own pastors via Mission Province, assigning them with the task of serving new congregations in Finland. Neither these pastors nor the congregations they serve are recognized by the established church.

Väisänen continues to serve as bishop in the Mission Province of Sweden and Finland.

Read a response in support of the Bishop (an English translation in pdf) by Luther Foundation Finland.

Read also the personal defense by Bishop Väisänen himself (offered here by permission):

TO TAMPERE CATHEDRAL CHAPTER

SUBJECT

Response in a case concerning a disciplinary procedure

RESPONDENT

Matti Väisänen ThD

DISCIPLINARY CHARGE

The disciplinary charge by the disciplinary commissioner of Tampere Cathedral Chapter, Kari Ikonen, concerning my deposing from the pastoral office 9 June 2010

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE

I am opposed to the disciplinary charge. I do not consider myself to have acted contrary to the responsibilities of my pastoral office.

In my ordination oath I have primarily bound myself to remain faithfully and purely in God’s holy word and in our church’s confession founded on it. According to the confession, the church’s highest rule is that all doctrine must be examined and evaluated according to God’s holy word. This biblical principle — sola Scriptura – and commitment to the Lutheran confessions is even today the legally in force in our church and is recorded in the first article of the Church Law, the so called Confessional Article. For that reason, the church’s confession binds not only the pastor but also the church’s order to being primarily obedient to God’s holy word, which is the Bible.

Because shepherds who bind themselves to the apostolic view on the office of the ministry are no longer being ordained in our church, I have received the office of bishop. The justification for this ecclesial emergency right is based on the Holy Bible and the Lutheran confessions. It is not an offence against the ordination oath but in the most profound sense precisely acting in accordance with the duties of that oath.

On the precise basis of the ecclesial emergency right, I refer to the attached article by pastor Anssi Simojoki, ThD. [Editor's note—There is no link to the article referenced by the author here]

Arguments

Concerning the episcopal consecration

I have been ordained as bishop by an association called Missionsprovinsen i Sverige och Finland (hereafter Missionsprovinsen). The association is not outside the Church of Sweden but works within the Church of Sweden. However it — any more than any other association — cannot be an actual member of the Church of Sweden. Missionsprovinsen defines itself as a non-geographical diocese in the tradition of the churches of Sweden and Finland.

Also Luther Foundation Finland, in which I am a member and vice chairman of the Executive Council, works within the church. In Luther Foundation, we are concerned about our church’s current theological-spiritual orientation, which is detaching itself from God’s word. We are especially concerned that shepherds who bind themselves to the apostolic view on the office of the ministry are no longer being ordained.

It is my understanding that bishops have begun to impose this ordination block after bishop Olavi Rimpiläinen retired in 2000.

Concerned about the state of our church we have been forced—being guided and obliged by the Confessional Article of our Church Law and the Lutheran Confessions (Treatise, 60ff.), and with their justification—to take action in order to preserve apostolic worship and teaching in our church and our land.

Because Luther Foundation Finland is an associate member of Missionsprovinsen, this relationship has made it possible to begin the founding of an independent Mission Diocese / Mission Province in our church with its own worshipping communities / congregations, pastors and bishops.

Concerning the use of the external marks of a bishop

I have been elected bishop by the provinskonvent of Missionsprovinsen. The consecration was carried out by the Mission Bishop of Missionsprovinsen, Arne Olsson. He was assisted by the Archbishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Kenya, Walter Obare, and Missionsprovinsen bishops Lars Artman and Göran Beijer.

Arne Olsson was consecrated bishop by Archbishop Walter Obare in 2005. Walter Obare was consecrated bishop by the Archbishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania, Samson Mushemba, in 2002. One of the assistants at the consecration of Walter Obare was bishop Olavi Rimpiläinen.

Because I have been called and properly consecrated into the office of bishop, I have not used the external marks of a bishop in any way without justification, for in terms of church law,^† I am a Lutheran bishop.

Concerning the conducting of an episcopal mass

I have conducted an episcopal mass, including the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, as part of the carrying out of the duties of my office on 16 May 2010 in a place not authorised for that purpose.

Our church’s cathedral chapters, which are negatively disposed to those who have an apostolic view of the office of the ministry, do not permit us to celebrate the mass and the Lord’s Holy Supper in church and would not allow us to celebrate it outside the church either. Knowing this, why would we trouble ourselves any more than the cathedral chapters with our applications . In this matter, too, we have had to resort to the rights given to us by the Lutheran confessions and to seek for our congregations alternative premises, trusting that God’s word and prayer consecrate them as sacred spaces.

Concerning the alleged misleading of members of the church

When I accepted the call to become a bishop of Missionsprovinsen, and in serving the congregations that have been born in Finland as a result of the work of Luther Foundation, I am misleading no one, for we have made, and will continue to make, clear to everyone that I am a bishop of Missionsprovinsen, not a bishop according to the our church’s parochial diocesan order.

Nor have I taken a leading role in another denomination or another religious organisation, since Missionsprovinsen is registered as an ideological association. In terms of its organisation, it does not work within the administrative structures of the churches of Sweden or Finland. Rather, it continues the church’s spiritual heritage as a free diocesan structure, serving here in Finland those members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland who have been left homeless because of their traditional view on the office of the ministry.

Concerning the alleged breach of the ordination vows

Therefore, I absolutely deny having broken the ordination vow I swore in 1964. If Tampere Cathedral Chapter deposes me from the office of the ministry, it will take place precisely because I have remained faithful to my ordination vow.

It is characteristic of our church’s current theological-spiritual state of humiliation that the church has increasingly replaced its own ecclesiastical justice^‡ with civil service law and secular laws, seeking again to become a state church. The governing organs of our church have brought our church to a situation where the church’s constitution (Bible + the Lutheran confessions) and the church’s order have come to a conflict. At the same time, the bishops and cathedral chapters demand obedience to church order against the church’s constitution. That which is human takes precedence over that which is divine. Man’s word and man is elevated in our church above God’s word and God. Thus the church, having broken its judicial foundation, changes increasingly into a travesty of a church with its rites and blessings of civil religion.

I am saddened that this distortion leads to oppression against those who consider the Bible the unchanging word of God. Today it looks like holding to Gods word is a crime in our church. By contrast, those who deny Christ’s divinity and atoning work, and even the existence of a personal God, and those who live immorally, are allowed to work in our church as pastors and bishops, destroying our church without any disciplinary consequences, while those who want to be faithful to God’s word are dismissed from their posts.

Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise. So help me God! (Martin Luther, 1521)

DATE AND SIGNATURE

In Ryttylä, on the Ninth Sunday after Pentecost, AD 2010

Matti Väisänen
Bishop
Missionsprovinsen i Sverige och Finland

 Jyrki Anttinen
Solicitor
The Bishop’s Attorney

† That is, ecclesiastical jurisprudence (Kirchenrecht), not the Church Law of the Republic of Finland. Tr.

‡ See previous note. Tr.

Editor's note—Thanks to contributing editor John Stephenson for the heads up concerning this news.

Book Review: The Church Event

Book Review of The Church Event - Call and Challenge of a Church Protestant. By Vitor Westhelle. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. 181 Pages. Paperback. Review by Mark D. Menacher.

Vitor Westhelle, Professor of Systematic Theology at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, has produced a curious work. The back cover quotes Nancy Elizabeth Bedford, describing Westhelle’s “inimitably poetic and theologically incisive way” of presenting “the paradoxes and the promises of the Church event.” She praises the “beauty of the book’s language” to appeal “to our senses, and the acuity of the analysis.” Contrary to her sentiments, at least in this case, poetic language does not seem to be best suited to attempt either theological incisiveness or acuity of analysis.

An introduction (1-10), ten chapters (11-168), acknowledgements (169-170), and an index (171-181) comprise this volume. In his acknowledgements, perhaps placed deliberately towards the end of the book, Westhelle mentions that Chapter Four, part of Eight, and most of Nine have been published elsewhere. Having read the acknowledgements first helped this reviewer understand why the book actually reads like a collection of essays of varying quality pressed into one volume, with obligatory but less than satisfactory cross-referencing.

The book’s introduction sounds promising with its goal to “address ecclesiological disputes that have assailed the church and are symptoms of its infirmities” (1). The “[c]hurch is an event that takes place,” which like subatomic particles can be located either in time or in space but not in both simultaneously. In seeking spaces of security, however, the church falls into captivity, a preoccupation with either “its inner institutional formation or its integration into the politico-cultural order” of society (2). Because the church is beset by territorialism, it seeks to protect itself, even from the kingdom of God (3). In contrast, for Westhelle, church happens on the margins (5). Thus, to be daring, Westhelle seeks to use metaphors other than Matthew 16 and Pentecost “for the sake of destabilizing an ecclesiological discourse that has been held captive by images of the church” reflecting such territorialism (5). Those goals sound exciting. Unfortunately, the general “instability” of the rest of the book undermines its ability to approach its goals.

Westhelle believes himself to be following Luther’s lead when employing a dichotomous analysis of the church based on two institutions mandated by God, the household (oeconomia) and the street (politia), with the church falling somewhere in-between and characterized by a “marginal existence” (8). Variations on the metaphors of house and street provide the guiding construct for Westhelle’s discussions of the church as it gravitates toward dysfunctional existence in one or the other place. Unfortunately, Westhelle’s exuberant use of other metaphors calls the Lutheran foundations of his analysis of the church into question. For example, by employing the orchid figuratively, Westhelle says that “the living church is to the forms of its self-representation what a parasite is to its host...In theological jargon, the host is the law, but the bud and its blossoming are the gospel” (10). This representation of law and gospel seems not only disproportional but also contrary to scripture and the Lutheran confessions.

This book, however, is not without its value with regard to presentation of thought. Westhelle discusses the impact of the Enlightenment on theological and ecclesial reality (17). He touches on interpretation of scripture in relation to fundamentalism and foundationalism (60-62), scripture’s interpretation of itself (63-64), the sufficiency and overabundance of scripture (65-66), and scripture as that which interprets over against that which is interpreted (67-68). Westhelle likes to stress the Reformers’ notion of scripture having an “open canon” (27-28, 49). He seems to derive considerable strength from his use of etymological analysis to define and refine his thought. His use of varied imagery is extensive. Although seeming to favor Bonhoeffer as well as certain liberation theologians, Westhelle’s continual quotation of a broad spectrum of authors and thinkers across many centuries both within and without the Christian tradition demonstrates a respectable breadth of knowledge. Whereas Westhelle supports Article VII of the Augsburg Confession as a principle for defining the church and its unity, he prefers Luther’s seven notae ecclesiae of the church (On the Councils and the Church) due to their inclusion of the cross and suffering (84-87).

That said, Westhelle’s ever extending development of the dichotomy of house and street, with the church marginalized in-between, could be held together more coherently. Apart from Chapter Four, his use of Lutheran content seems to be diluted by the breadth of his quotation of various thinkers. This relentless quoting presumably supports his own thesis, but unfortunately it lends the impression that his own argument is partially dependent upon the varied thoughts of an eclectic selection of individuals. This, unfortunately, causes Westhelle’s argumentation to meander. Westhelle’s use of certain aspects of liberation theology with its inherent biases seems not only outmoded but is analytically more stifling than liberating. The considerable work embodied in this book seems very well intentioned but, like his favored depiction of the church as a tapestry (137-139, 141, 143), the weaving of Westhelle’s material is not only too loose, but it also has too many loose ends. To cite one example, in reference to John 3:16, Westhelle writes without qualification or clarification, “The Giver gave herself in the gift as the Gift itself; God became spacious in surrendering Godself up to the emptiness of a space” (138). That sounds more like Westhelle misinterpreting scripture than scripture interpreting human reality.

As the book moves towards its end, Westhelle hopes to “offer” the power of the truth as a tour de force. The book’s concluding thoughts are “not a closure but an opening for the truth lying beyond this text or in its interstices to come forth as a flaming power” (155). Whereas this “flaming power” sounds ominous, in reality Westhelle’s text is a damp squib. There is no doubt that the power of the truth can devastate all obstacles in its path, as is demonstrated negatively by sinful humanity’s relentless attempts to suppress the truth. In Westhelle’s case, except for a few autobiographical “liberation theologian moments” (reviewer’s terminology) drawn from his life in South America, the author fails to unleash the truth over against any specific or concrete maladies and fallacies or injustices and injuries in the church, especially the one at his doorstep, namely the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). For example, instead of boldly stating that the so-called Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) was not signed in Augsburg, Germany in October 1999, as the ELCA routinely claims, and likewise instead of pointing out the “grand deception” and ecclesial idolatry involved in the ELCA’s adoption of Called to Common Mission (CCM), the ELCA’s ecumenical accord with the Episcopal Church, Westhelle uncritically describes both these documents and others like them as “landmark bilateral (sometimes plurilateral) agreements...that have been celebrated as accomplishments.” (15). Furthermore, because CCM puts sixteenth- and seventeenth-century, Episcopalian, religious intolerance (historically responsible for all manner of persecution, torture, and death) at the heart of the ELCA’s ordained ministry, one would expect a theologian with liberationist tendencies to be holding the ELCA’s feet to the fire of the truth. Instead, Westhelle’s “text” smolders away silently on such matters.

Although one can write theology creatively, theology is not an exercise in creative writing. If the flowery language and the majority of extraneous quotations were removed, this book would probably be reduced by half. Furthermore, if the bulk of Westhelle’s circuitous redevelopment of the house and street metaphors was curbed within constructive parameters, then little of the book would remain but Chapter Four. Since Chapter Four has already been published as “On the Authority of the Scriptures: More than Enough” (Lutheran Quarterly 19 no. 4 [Winter 2005], 373-392 [see Acknowledgements, 169]), then perhaps obtaining a copy of this essay from the local library via interlibrary loan would be the most efficient and cost-effective way for this book’s potential readership to become acquainted with the Lutheran aspects of Westhelle’s thought.

Mark D. Menacher

Book Review: A Daystar Reader

A book review of A Daystar Reader. Edited by Matthew L. Becker. Daystar.net, 2010. xx, 245 pages. Review by Dr. Holger Sonntag.

1. According to the Preface for this collection of essays by Rev. D. Stein, the president of Daystar.net, “the Daystar Network was designed to be a forum for gospel-oriented members of the LCMS who desired to work together to demonstrate the light of Christ as it illuminates the mission and ministry of the church ‘until the day dawn [sic] and the day star arises in your hearts’ [Second Peter 1:19]” (v).

The present Reader “is a gift from this association to key leaders in the LCMS” (ibid.). It “looks forward.” And its editor, Rev. Matthew Becker, regards it as “kind of contemporary ’95 Theses’ for the LC-MS.” Matthew Becker teaches theology at Valparaiso University in Northern Indiana. Its theology department website is graced by a picture of the cupola of St. Peter’s in the Vatican. Those who know church history will see the connection between Luther’s 95 Theses and St. Peter’s cupola.

First of all, if you look for Daystar.net on the internet – it, after all, calls itself a “cyberspace association” in keeping with the internet craze of the late 1990s when it was founded – don’t look at www.Daystar.net. This address gets you to a telecommunications company in Southwest Florida. Go instead to www.daystarnet.org.

Second, if you scan the three pages listing the contributors (p. vii to ixi [sic]), then a single word stands out: “retired.” The Reader might be conceived as forward-looking, containing pieces written in the last decade. But the bulk of its contributions come from people who due to age are no longer holding any office in the church they seek to reform. (Others – two of the three female contributors – are no longer members of the church they wish to change.)

This, in addition to rhetorically hanging on to the burst internet bubble of the past century, gives the Reader a decidedly backward-looking feel. The past things looming large in the hearts, biographies, and essays of the contributors are the “walk-out” and Seminex in the 1970s. Neo-orthodox Erlangen theologian Werner Elert is still their ticket to theological respectability. One gets the impression that in the early 1970s a key opportunity was missed to bring the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod up to speed with all the exciting things going on in society and other churches.

For those were the heady days when the world’s reforms and revolutions began to make their way into many church bodies in Western countries and when, as a result, social ministry (man’s work) overtook word-and-sacrament ministry (God’s work) in importance. Because this opportunity was missed when the change seen in other church bodies (along with the exegetical methods making it possible) was rejected by the LCMS, the “Daystars” of today need to remind this church body of what could have been – and what still could be, if only their reform proposals were heeded.

It is important to remember that Daystar was started during the presidency of Rev. A. L. Barry, the first synodical president to die in office (March 23, 2001). His time in office was perceived by some as theological stagnation in that he simply did what he was called to do as a Lutheran church leader, that is, preserve the faith given to the saints once for all (Jude 3). Under him, so the perception, the issues on the minds of those coming together in Daystar.net would never be openly discussed and decided in their favor.

Those issues are familiar: fellowship with other Lutherans and Christians; ministry and women’s ordination; and science and theology. And these are, not surprisingly, the main topics also discussed in the collection at hand. To summarize the findings briefly, fellowship with other Lutherans and Christians should be easier – not tied to a legalistic doctrinal maximum (including the sacraments!), but to an evangelical minimum, also by means of seemingly mere social ministries.[1] All the baptized should be recognized as ministers which conveniently paves the way for women pastors. And science should be magisterial where it collides with the bible, including evolution and homosexuality.

2. In that these are all significant innovations in doctrine and practice, one sees immediately the difference between these “95 Theses” and the original ones. And this sheds some important light on the difference between reform and reformation. All these issues raised and decided in a certain way by the “lights” gathered in this volume have their origin in social changes and historical developments. They, thus, are not at all about what Luther’s work as a reformer was all about: the undoing of deformations originating in social changes and historical developments. In fact, not only are they not about Luther’s concerns. They represent the very thinking that made Luther’s work of reformation so necessary.

Because of this, they are also very provincial and tied to a specific time. Because they are not firmly grounded on God’s universal Word, they merely articulate the particular “issues” well-educated men and women in affluent Western societies in general have had with God’s Word since the age of Enlightenment. In each generation since, there have been at least some whose education and affluence did not lead them to become atheists, but who, claiming to continue Luther’s reformation, instead have sought to eliminate from the Church unenlightened “leftovers” of some previous “dark age.”

Christians in ages past, but also Christians in other parts of the world today, do not agree with this call for enlightenment in the Church. They are often silenced and maligned as benighted, uneducated, and fundamentalist by the “enlightened” Christians of the West because of their resistance. Nonetheless, those Christian contemporaries of ours from, say, Africa, Asia, or Eastern Europe are now beginning to turn away from what they see as Western Protestantism’s apostasy from God’s Word. What prevents them from freely doing what they believe to be right according to God’s unchanging Word is often only “the power of the purse” still wielded by the corrupt churches in the West. Moreover, there is a growing number of Christians in the West – e.g., in Scandinavia, but also in the US – who, while originally members of those church bodies that presently enjoy all the convenient “blessings” the Daystar network wishes to bestow on the LCMS as well, are turning their backs on these blessings in disappointment and disgust.

Of course, it is conceded that such “movements” that are often sketchy theologically go this direction today and that direction tomorrow. Still, it is important to point them out to break the arrogance of the late 1960s and early 1970s which believed that the particular developments in the West at that particular time axiomatically show the way the whole world is going to go. However, the direction of these movements at a given time cannot finally be the decisive criterion for the truth in God’s Church.

This is why Luther is so important – not as a quarry for ideas that we can still fit into our own preconceived notions, but as a teacher of the Church faithful to the bible whose “ideas” are connected into a meaningful and correctly assembled whole. For instance, he deliberately did not jump on the bandwagon of the reform movements at the time. Had he done so, either he might have stayed a Roman Catholic like Erasmus, being content with making some proposals for external reforms – or he might have become an “enthusiast” like Zwingli who threw out the baby with the bathwater. Instead, he, at a time of God’s choosing, was granted to see the light of the gospel from the pages of Scripture, which, in time, led him to do away with the deformations that had crept into the various areas of doctrine and practice due to a flawed doctrine of justification.

3. It must be remembered that all of Daystar’s proposals for innovation are not made for the sake of change. They are made with the good intention of reaching more people with the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is very positive. Yet this is also very dangerous and deceptive. For here we see a flawed doctrine of justification show itself in practical and doctrinal terms. It is as if we, the Christians of today, bear the burden of making or keeping the gospel relevant to modern man who seems to have the power to accept at least the gospel’s core message. Yet as can be seen especially during the past 250 years of church history in the West, whenever this burden is taken up by (regenerated) man – and not left to God’s omnipotent, self-authenticating, efficacious Word – then disaster ensues. Since we cannot bear this burden, and since sinners are unable to believe anything of God’s revelation out of their own powers, we make it lighter for ourselves and others: we strip what seems non-essential from the church’s message and thereby self-servingly accommodate what we say to what others expect us to say. Why make believing the gospel harder than necessary – for others, but also for ourselves? Our legalistic intransigence when it comes to doctrine might prevent people from being saved!

Unsurprisingly, what is non-essential is identical with what seemingly causes people (and us?) to reject some evangelistic “core message.” For those associated with Daystar – and this is currently at least one sitting district president of the LCMS – this is concretely the LCMS’s insistence on a male-only clergy, on marriage to be exclusively between a man and a woman, on a scriptural doctrine of creation, but also on baptismal regeneration and the presence of Christ’s true body and blood in the bread and wine of the sacrament of the altar. This is how, in a Pharisaic manner, the appearance of godliness and newness can conveniently be maintained while hearts and minds remain captive to old Adam’s resistance to the underlying and transforming power of God’s Word (cf. Rom. 12:1-2).

The doctrine of justification of the Pharisees was wrong because it attributed the justification before God to man’s obedience to the law. Therefore, they had to limit what God actually demanded in the law because man’s powers and free will are not that free and powerful after all. That is, instead of calling for obedience growing out of a new heart, they reduced the demand to exact external fulfillment of the traditions of the fathers at the expense of God’s Word (cf. Matt. 15:3!). This was not easy, but dedicated individuals like one Saul of Tarsus could pull it off.

Similarly, these new lights also seem to have gotten something central terribly wrong: because man “cannot by his own reason or strength come to Jesus Christ or believe in him” (Luther), “winning” unbelievers for the gospel is not (and cannot be) our work. And we also don’t have to do our part for it to happen, e.g., by stripping God’s Word of what is not central in our own mind because it offends the modern mind. Bringing sinners to saving faith in Christ is entirely God’s work which he accomplishes when and where it pleases him through the Word his Church on earth proclaims in law and gospel. As Luther put it, we are servants of the Word, not its lords. God is its Lord, as He alone has the power that makes it grow and prevail (cf. Acts 19:20) as he sees fit.

Flawed doctrines of conversion and evangelism and flawed hermeneutics point to a flawed doctrine of justification in that they attribute more to man’s free will and reason than God’s Word does (e.g., modern man can believe in Christ as virgin-born Savior, but not in baptismal regeneration, six-day creation, or male-only clergy). At the very least, they point to a doctrine of justification that is not allowed to guide the interpretation of all other articles of the faith in a proper way (cf. Rom. 15:4; SD XI, 12). For as we remain passive in justification, so we remain passive in conversion. As we remain passive in conversion, so we also remain passive when it comes to simply receiving from God’s Word all the articles of the faith revealed there. No human creativity, individuality, activity, or critical thinking is called for in this place. When it comes to God’s Word, we can be, and by faith are, freed just to be receivers of the gift of his doctrine.

The survival and growth of the Church, in other words, does not depend on our ability to adapt the message to modern sensibilities, but on God’s operation through his unchanging Word of the bible. The ends need not justify the means because God justifies the ungodly for Christ’s sake by means of the gospel in Word and sacraments.

4. Zwingli and his associated berated Luther for being loveless because he would not have church fellowship with them “just because” they didn’t believe the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. In their mind, this was a minor matter, given that all Protestants agreed on some basic message of forgiveness and gospel and held God’s Word in high regard, generally speaking. One wonders: if this was such a minor matter, why did they spill so much ink on it instead of simply following Luther’s lead?

The modern heirs of Zwingli, who have made their teachings known in A Daystar Reader, call on the unenlightened heirs of Luther not only to have church fellowship with them and non-Lutheran church bodies, but also actually to make their points of view their own. They issue this call even though they wish to introduce major changes into the scriptural teachings of Christendom, such as denying the inspiration of Scripture, tolerating heterodox views of the sacraments, ordaining women, teaching evolution, and blessing homosexual marriages. As they see it, these are all minor matters when compared to some basic “agreement” of honest Christians concerning the gospel message, defined as narrowly as possible. One again wonders: if these are all minors, why make them into majors by dedicating a whole reader to them? Maybe they only need to be majors until the rest of us finally see the light and realize that they are negligible minors? May God protect us from ever following these will-o’-the-wisps!

5. Since with A Daystar Reader we are supposed to have in our hands the 95 Theses for our times, let us give the author of the original 95 Theses the last word. He certainly understood better than anybody else what he meant and what he didn’t mean (cf. SD VII, 41). Concerning Zwingli and company he wrote (AE 37:26-27):

[It does not] help them to assert that at all other points they have a high and noble regard for God’s words and the entire gospel, except in this matter. My friend, God’s Word is God’s Word; this point does not require much haggling! When one blasphemously gives the lie to God in a single word, or says it is a minor matter if God is blasphemed or called a liar, one blasphemes the entire God and makes light of all blasphemy. There is only one God who does not permit himself to be divided, praised at one place and chided at another, glorified in one word and scorned in another. The Jews believe the Old Testament, but because they do not believe Christ, it does them no good. You see, the circumcision of Abraham [Gen. 17:10 ff.] is now an old dead thing and no longer necessary or useful. But if I were to say that God did not command it in its time, it would do me no good even if I believed the gospel. So St. James asserts, “Whoever offends in one point is guilty in all respects.” He possibly heard the apostles say that all the words of God must be believed or none, although he applies their interpretation to the works of the law.

Holger Sonntag
Hiram, OH

---

[1] In light of the most recent decision by the 2010 LCMS convention in Houston, TX, to continue cooperation “with integrity” in external matters with the ELCA (Res. 3-03), it is interesting to see that the person chairing Committee 6 on social work (“human care”) was Rev. Dr. Benke, president of the Atlantic District of the LCMS and the author who wrote for the Daystar Reader the piece on social ministry as a welcome leaven in the fellowship debate. As Paul says, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9).

Mary & Lutherans

Holy Trinity 2010, Volume XIX, Number 3Table of Contents

(A feature article from the journal: Semper Virgo: A Doctrine by David Scaer)

In its confrontation with early twentieth-century liberalism, Fundamentalism designated Jesus' virgin birth as one of the four necessary beliefs. Some self-styled confessional Lutherans have gone one step further in raising the hypothesis of the semper virgo, that is, Mary's perpetual virginity, near to the level of doctrine. It qualifies as a question of biblical interpretation and not a doctrine. What Luther and the Lutheran fathers said about this question may be of historical interest but is not determinative.

Since Bishop John Spong and the now popular Bart Ehrman, in the tradition of radical biblical criticism, deny Jesus' virgin birth because they consider it to be something added to the gospel message late in the first century, Mary's perpetual virginity has hardly been a matter for serious discussion. The semper virgo means that after giving birth to Jesus, his mother refrained from sexual relations with Joseph. Not only was Jesus conceived ex Maria virgine, but she remained so for the rest of her life. The highly fanciful second-century Protoevangelium of James, which combines and expands the Matthew and Luke birth narratives, is the first known document to offer the idea. It gained momentum with the Roman Empire's recognition of Christianity as a legal religion. Martyrdom as a certain way to heaven was replaced by asceticism, which included celibacy, and Mary was held up as an example to be followed. Virginity became the new martyrdom.

...read or download the rest of this article here (free, PDF)

...purchase the full journal here

RSS Feeds

RSS Feeds (most commonly known as Really Simple Syndication) are a popular way of distributing content without requiring a visit to our website to check out what's new. Featured LOGIA articles and blog posts are available through RSS feeds, which use a technology called XML to deliver headlines and content to an RSS reader – software that is freely available for your desktop or mobile device.

To use RSS, copy the feed address from the links below and paste it into an RSS reader of your choice, such as Google Reader, or your mobile device's reader, or use a web-browser which supports RSS feeds, such as Firefox, Safari, or Internet Explorer. Alternatively, select and customize a homepage for your web-browser that can read RSS feeds, such as My.Yahoo.com or iGoogle.com.

Blogia Feed

LOGIA Journal Feed:

Featured Articles - Updated quarterly when the latest journal is released.

The Promise of the Resurrection and the Work you are Given Today

 An ordination sermon by Rev. Prof. John T. Pless on April 17, 2010 at Dr. Martin Luther Lutheran Church, Chicago Illinois (Ordination of Jacob Gaugert; Sermon verse: I Corinthians 15:58)

We are here this morning in the glow of Easter. That is true chronologically as we celebrated Jesus’ resurrection two weeks ago tomorrow. But more than that we are gathered here because the Father raised His slaughtered Son from the grave and the Son alive with wounds to prove He was not a phantom of fatigued apostolic imagination, breathed out His Spirit on the men He had chosen, sending them to forgive sins. The sending that the Lord put in motion on that first Easter evening has not stopped. Today we are here on the receiving end of the Lord’s sending. The Lord sends another servant, Jacob, to do what the apostles were given to do, to preach Christ Jesus, forgiving the sins of those who repent and retaining the sins of those who insist on keeping their sins for themselves.

When and where the Lord gives out His gifts there is joy. John tells us that when the disciples heard Jesus speak His words of peace and when they saw His hands and side that they were glad. Certainly there is joy and gladness to go around here today. There is joy for you, Jacob, as today marks the end of a long and winding road of education that would prepare you for this holy office: Undergraduate studies at Mequon, seminary in Fort Wayne and Oberursel, and vicarage in Berlin and Norman, Oklahoma. More than just receiving academic degrees, you have learned the Holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise into the salvation that is in Christ Jesus. You have studied the Lutheran Confessions and today you will make them your own confession- a confession which you are not ashamed to make before the judgment seat of God’s Son. You have mastered languages and delved deeply into church history. You gained a capacity to preach, conduct the liturgy, catechize, and counsel. You have been examined and declared ready by the church to undertake the office of Christ’s under-shepherd, to be entrusted with the care of souls purchased and won by the Good Shepherd Himself. Surely today is a day of deep joy for you.

It is also a day of gladness for your parents and family who have supported you with their money and prayers, who have watched you grow as they anticipated this day.

Today is truly a continuation of Easter for the members of Dr. Martin Luther Congregation as you have prayed to the Lord to send you a pastor. You have waited and now your prayer is answered and your waiting is terminated. Your Easter gladness is deepened as this ordination service is reminder that the Lord has not forsaken His flock or overlooked you but given you a man to be your pastor.

But ordination is not so much the celebration of a goal achieved as it is an anticipation of what is to come. So the Apostle Paul says in our text: “Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord, your labor is not in vain” (I Cor. 15:58).  These words, dear Brother Jacob, anchor you and work the Lord is giving you to do in the promise of His resurrection.

These words come at the end of I Corinthians 15, the great “resurrection chapter” of the New Testament. Paul has reminded the Corinthians of the Gospel which he preached and they received: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with Scriptures” (I Cor. 15:3-4). This is the content of apostolic preaching; this is the message proclaimed by Paul as the Word which has the power to save. But if Christ has not been raised, Paul is quick to add, this preaching is vain and our faith is in vain for we are left in our sins, of all men to be most pitied for this life is futile and the future is without hope. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead. He has appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve and more than 500 brethren and finally to Paul himself. Paul goes on for the rest of the chapter to extol the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, the first fruits of those who sleep. By His death, He has defeated death. Death is swallowed up in victory. Yes, sin gives death its sting, its ouch and sin gets its potency from the law. But listen to Paul’s doxology: “But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

It is God who gives us the victory through His Son put to death for sin and raised again to give life to all who trust in His name. That is the message, Jacob, you are ordained to preach. C.F. W. Walther in his evening lectures to theological students, transcribed and published under the familiar title, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel reminded future pastors: “Remember when you become ministers, you become helpers of the Christians’ joy” (407). That is a good reminder for you, Jacob. God is today giving good news, glad tidings of great joy to preach: forgiveness of sins for real sinners, life in the midst of death, and hope when the future is dark. It is all true on account of Jesus, the One who died for the sins of the whole world and whose resurrection declares God’s righteousness for all.

You have been taught this Gospel. You believe it. Today you will confess it once again. Today you are ordained to preach. You will announce it week in and week out from the pulpit. You will declare it in the absolution. You will administer it as the Lord uses you as His mouth and hand to wash away sin in Holy Baptism. You will serve it to open and hungry mouths around this altar as you feed them with Jesus’ body and give them to drink of the cup of the New Testament in His blood. You will speak it at bedside and before open graves. It is a word that will pass from your lip into the ears of catechumens young and old. It is a Word that will carry you outside the walls of this church to the streets, workplaces, and homes of this community. It is a Word you will speak in English, and perhaps in Spanish or German. But whatever the setting and whatever the language it remains ever the good news of Good Friday and Easter, of our Brother and Redeemer put to death for our trespasses and raised again for our justification.

You will sustain the weak and the weary with this Gospel. But this Gospel that you are given to preach will sustain you. For you see, the empty tomb of Jesus is God’s own guarantee that your future is opened to God’s favor and mercy. The words of the Apostle Paul apply to you: “be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.” By God’s grace, you will make such promises to be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord” as you pledge yourself to the Holy Scriptures and the Ecumenical Creeds, and the Lutheran  Confessions in few minutes. You will freely and willingly give yourself to the work of the ministry, promising to preach the Word in season and out of season, to demonstrate to the church a constant and ready ministry centered in the Gospel. Big promises indeed! So large and daunting that they should cause you to tremble a bit! You would be foolish, in fact, to make them were it not for the promise of God that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

The specific challenges that the coming days will bring, we know not. But this much is sure: your labor will not be in vain because Jesus is raised from the dead never to die again. You, Jacob, are beginning a new chapter today. No longer just Jacob, but Pastor Gaugert ordained for a work that will not be void of pain and tears. Yes, the cross and death itself. But you already know the end of the story. When the church in Stuttgart where Pastor Helmut Thielicke was bombed out during the air raids of the Second World War, Thielicke preached to those who were left saying “He who has the victory of the last hour, can endure the next few minutes.” We have the victory of the last hour. Jacob, you have the victory of the last hour for Christ is raised and death has no dominion over him or over you. So in the confidence of His resurrection victory go to the work of the ministry with confidence and joy. You have Christ’s promise…and that is more than enough. Amen.

Worthy is the Lamb who was Slain

A sermon by Rev. Prof. John T. Pless on April 22, 2010 at Concordia Theological Seminary

A strong angel. A sealed-scrolled. A teary-eyed seer. An eschatological zoo of four living creatures-one like a lion, one like an ox, one with the face of a man, and one like an eagle. A lamb with seven horns and seven eyes. Twenty-four elders with harps in their hands. Incense swirling from golden bowls. Interpreters ancient and modern have had a hermeneutical picnic in the Bible’s last book. Little wonder that G. K. Chesterton would remark: “though St. John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators.” Let that be a warning to all who would dare preach on Revelation!

That being said, those who would preach are not to apologize for a text but to preach it. That goes also for the Book of Revelation, bizarre though it is with its cosmic strangeness and its apocalyptic twists and turns. The book finally does live up to its opening line: “The revelation of Jesus Christ.” John is not concealing Christ, but revealing Him. No deus absconditus here; but God revealed.

In the midst of this heavenly liturgy, John weeps. He weeps for God’s mighty angel raises a question that seems to be unanswered and unanswerable: “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break the seal?” No one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was found worthy. And if the book remains closed, we are left with hope. The outcome of the church’s future is futility. The reckless assaults of those who scorn the living God might indeed go on unpunished. Sinners are left to their own destructive devices. Evil triumphs and God’s righteousness falters and fails.  A sealed book would mean that the will of the Lord God Almighty is inaccessible and hidden. So John’s tears are plentiful for no human being has the capacity to break the seal and peer into the words recorded on this scroll.

John hears a voice that brings what all preachers worthy of the name deliver- consolation. An elder says “weep, no more John…dry your tears for there is One who is here who has the authority to pry off its seven seals.” This One is the Lion of Judah, the Root of Jesse. He is the One promised of old. He is the Lord who opens the Scriptures to the sad-hearted disciples on the highway to Emmaus, showing them that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and then enter into His glory. When John looks up, he sees not a raging lion but standing their in the midst of the heavenly congregation, he beholds the Lamb of the God. This indeed is the theologia crucis, the theology of the cross- the Lion comes as a lamb. The all powerful Lion of Juah comes in the weakness and meekness of a lamb destined for death. This is the Lamb who went uncomplaining forth as sacrifice for the sins of the world. It this slaughtered lamb who stands. Not a lifeless, butchered carcass hanging of a meat hook, but a Lamb now standing with seven horns depicting His power and seven eyes with are the seven spirits of God now penetrating all creation. He is the Lamb who forever bears the mark of nail and sphere, rich wounds in beauty glorified as the hymn puts it. He is the Lamb to whom all authority in heaven and on earth has been given.

The Lamb alone can open the scroll which He receives from God’s own hand. When He opens it the twenty-four elders and that quartet of living creatures, strange as they are sing a new song. It is not the ancient dirge that recounts the sad and predictable saga of sin and always ends with death devouring its prey. It is not the archaic song of unbroken bondage. It is not the ponderous chorus of prisoners plodding along a path that has condemnation and death as its destiny. It is the new song. It is the Easter song that bids hearts to awake with gladness and see what this day has done. It is the song of the Paschal Lamb who sets us free for He was slain and by His blood, He has ransomed people for God of every tribe and language and people and nation and He has made us a kingdom, priests to His God and our God who will reign on earth forever.

We are not left to be slaves of sin, the property of the devil, and the victim of death. Redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, His open scroll reveals that His open tomb gives you a hope and a future. Some of you are anxious today because decisions will be made today and tomorrow about your future. Where will you go on vicarage, internship; where, if anywhere, you will you be called to serve as pastor? Your future is not locked up with those decisions. The scroll is open, never to be closed again. Your future is not with the Placement Committee; your future is with the Lamb who alone is worthy.  He has redeemed us that we may be His own and live under Him in His kingdom and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness just as He is risen from the dead and lives and reigns to all eternity. Worthy indeed is the Lamb for He has made you a kingdom of priests to His God and Father to reign with Him forever! Amen.

The peace of God that passes all understanding keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus to life everlasting. Amen.  

Obare Sermon at the Consecrations of Nordic Bishops Väisänen and Gustafsson

Sermon preached by The Most Rev. Dr. Walter Obare, Archbishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Kenya, on the occasion of the consecration in Helsinki of the Right Rev. Matti Väisänen as Bishop for Finland (20 March 2010) and in Gothenburg/Sweden of the Right Rev. Roland Gustafsson as Presiding Bishop of the Mission Province (27 March 2010).

Text: St. Matthew 28:18-20

Grace and peace to you from Him who is, who was and who is to come, from Jesus Christ, who loves us and has freed us from sin by his blood. Amen.

Our text on this great occasion is the Great Commission given us by the King of kings, the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ. I want to divide this sermon text into sub-topics as follows:

• All authority
• Do not disown Jesus and his Gospel
• I am in debt
• And teaching them

 May I emphasize these words in the very beginning: “All authority.”

Authority is not from men. It is not from bishops, not from your Presiding Bishop Arne Olsson of the Mission Province who is leading this consecration; not even from me as the Archbishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Kenya. No, the authority is from God the Father, given to his Son Jesus Christ who fulfilled the work of redemption on the Cross and is now the risen Lord.

The King Jesus Christ gives his order to his disciples: “Go and make disciples of all nations!”

Bishop Elect! You are here and now a servant of God. Do not ask any authority from men, neither from civil nor from ecclesiastical authorities, not even from the global world view as most church leaders want to do so these days. You must be a faithful servant of your King and Saviour, which is Jesus Christ alone. He has given to you the sure Means of Grace: Go and baptize, go and preach the Gospel, go and administer the Lord’s Supper to his people.

Don’t Disown Jesus and his Gospel

You are saved by the Gospel. You have heard the most efficient words from the mouth of the preacher of the Gospel when you were told these words: “Your sins are forgiven!” These words were spoken to you at your Baptism, in the words of Absolution and at the altar in Holy Communion. You are saved by these very words, as Dr. Luther – may he rest in peace! – teaches us in his Small Catechism: “Where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.”

The same is said by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:16: “I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first for the Jews, then for the Gentiles.” These are the words that will bring salvation to Finland, Sweden, Europe, Africa and even to the ends of the world.

 I Am in Debt

 Two verses previous to the text I referred to, in Rom. 1:14, Paul writes that he is obligated to preach the Gospel to all, to Greeks and non-Greeks, to the wise and to the foolish, that is, to all people, even to the inhabitants of the capital city of Rome. The famous English theologian and preacher John Stott translates the word “obligated” as “to be in debt." So Paul is in debt to the Romans and to all people.

What Paul meant then, and what I mean today is this: First the Gospel to all nations was preached to the Jews, then to the Roman world; later it was preached to the Scandinavian countries, including Fennoscandia, that is Suomi/Finland too.

And then those who were saved by God’s grace, by the Gospel of Christ’s fulfilled redemptive work, were "in debt." They were obligated to preach the Gospel to other countries, for instance to Africa and hence to us in Kenya. They had received some-thing intended “for all nations” – as the Great Commission clearly states – and it was now their duty to take this treasure and preach the most precious message, the Gospel, to those who had not yet heard it.

In Kenya we had missionaries from all Scandinavian nations and so through them myself and many of my countrymen have received the Gospel and salvation. In behalf of our church body, I am here in turn to pay our debt and so preach the Gospel, God’s power of salvation, to you. Especially your younger generation needs to be helped. They need those who will lead them into the Word of God, not into speculations of our post-modern philosophies and worldviews. Those young men who have a call from God and yet are denied the right to preach the Gospel in their own church bodies, for them I am here today with other bishops to help them to have the possibility to serve their King according to their calling. Let them be faithful servants of Christ and his Church through your work as their bishop and shepherd.

And Teaching Them

The baptized children of God need to be taught to help them obey everything the King Jesus Christ has commanded us. We are living in a time of neo-paganism. Even in the churches of Christ, all the old pagan lifestyles have been re-introduced, such as homosexual behaviour – which is really Baal worship – that is back in the church with full force. Let’s take note of its official approval in the Episcopal Church of America, in the Church of Sweden, in the largest Lutheran church body in Canada, in the Anglican Church etc. And the ELCA is even dropping one of the Lutheran “solas,” “Scripture alone,” from their doctrinal position.

What does it mean that a married pastor divorces his wife whom he has children, in order to get “married” to a person of the same sex? Or that people in a same gender relationship are ordained to the holy ministry or consecrated to serve as bishops?

But to you, my Brother and fellow Bishop, and to all listening to me here and now, clergy and laity, men and women, young and old. Remember that you are called into the priesthood of all believers, to teach and preach faithfully the Word of God: the Law of God, which kills all sinners, and the pure Gospel, which raises up those dead in their sins and gives new life to sinners in Christ the King.

The Great Blessing

The Great Commission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is not only a commandment, yes, it is that. But it ends with a great blessing. Jesus himself promised it, and he cannot lie. He said: “And surely I am with you until the end of the age.”

I know that you will have to endure many challenges in your work as a bishop. You will work among people in our paganised world. You may lack resources to run the small church you are called to serve as bishop, but remember the words of Isaiah from the Lord to the kingdom of Judah: “Emmanuel: God with us.”

He is the one promising the blessing of his presence with you to the very end of the age.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. Amen.

New? Old? Recycled? Historical Prolegomena to the New Perspectives on Paul

by Armand J. Boehme

Since the seminal essays by Krister Stendahl, the “New Perspectives on Paul” (NPP) has been contrasted with the old perspective on Paul. Some theological works, however, seem to indicate that the NPP theology is not as new as it claims to be. This brief study looks into some theological prehistory to the NPP to see what might be there.

First, a summary of various points found in the NPP’s theological spectrum is helpful. The NPP desires to free Paul from what is seen as his Lutheran imprisonment. Luther, Calvin, and other Reformation-era theologians are viewed as having erred in their understanding of justification in Paul’s theology. The NPP theologians understand Second Temple Judaism as a religion of grace rather than as one of legalism and salvation through the law. Paul did not wrestle with angst over sin as did Luther. Justification is not central to Paul’s theology. Justification is not a theology of grace in opposition to a theology of Jewish works. Rather justification is a way of emphasizing the inclusion of the Gentiles in the church. Justification is not forensic in character. Rather it is analytic, for it includes the enabling of a new, transformed, regenerated, effective, sanctified Christian life. With Christ dwelling in the individual, the Christian truly becomes righteous. There is no pious fiction of a declaration or imputation of Christ’s righteousness, for justification is a process of being made righteous over a period of time. Thus justification is more of a future hope. Positive statements about imputed righteousness (if they are made) are always tied to the inner renewal or transformation of the Christian. The great majority of the NPP theology denies any imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Entrance into God’s covenant community is by grace, but retaining one’s status depends on one’s covenant faithfulness, one’s obedient sanctified life. Faith is almost always understood to be the human faithfulness of those living in the covenant community of the church. There is a corresponding emphasis on God’s covenant faithfulness as well. The faith of Christ is emphasized more than faith in Christ. Justification has to do with liberation from sin. Paul’s theology is not as much concerned with individual conversion and salvation as it is with inclusion in the covenant community of the people of God.

Download the full article (in pdf, 911 KB)

New? Old? Recycled? Historical Prolegomena to the New Perspectives on Paul [by Armand J. Boehme]

Since the seminal essays by Krister Stendahl, the “New Perspectives on Paul” (NPP) has been contrasted with the old perspective on Paul. Some theological works, however, seem to indicate that the NPP theology is not as new as it claims to be. This brief study looks into some theological prehistory to the NPP to see what might be there.

First, a summary of various points found in the NPP’s theological spectrum is helpful. The NPP desires to free Paul from what is seen as his Lutheran imprisonment. Luther, Calvin, and other Reformation-era theologians are viewed as having erred in their understanding of justification in Paul’s theology. The NPP theologians understand Second Temple Judaism as a religion of grace rather than as one of legalism and salvation through the law. Paul did not wrestle with angst over sin as did Luther. Justification is not central to Paul’s theology. Justification is not a theology of grace in opposition to a theology of Jewish works. Rather justification is a way of emphasizing the inclusion of the Gentiles in the church. Justification is not forensic in character. Rather it is analytic, for it includes the enabling of a new, transformed, regenerated, effective, sanctified Christian life. With Christ dwelling in the individual, the Christian truly becomes righteous. There is no pious fiction of a declaration or imputation of Christ’s righteousness, for justification is a process of being made righteous over a period of time. Thus justification is more of a future hope. Positive statements about imputed righteousness (if they are made) are always tied to the inner renewal or transformation of the Christian. The great majority of the NPP theology denies any imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Entrance into God’s covenant community is by grace, but retaining one’s status depends on one’s covenant faithfulness, one’s obedient sanctified life. Faith is almost always understood to be the human faithfulness of those living in the covenant community of the church. There is a corresponding emphasis on God’s covenant faithfulness as well. The faith of Christ is emphasized more than faith in Christ. Justification has to do with liberation from sin. Paul’s theology is not as much concerned with individual conversion and salvation as it is with inclusion in the covenant community of the people of God.

Download the full article (in pdf, 911 KB) by Armand J. Boehme

The New Perspective on Paul

Eastertide 2010, Volume XIX, Number 2Table of Contents

(A feature article from the journal: So You Think Luther Was a Monk? Stop It! by Kenneth Hagen)

How many times have you read in English the stereotypical line, “Martin Luther became an Augustinian monk in 1505 and was ordained a priest two years later”? However, in the same issue of Calliope Mary Morton Cowan correctly wrote, “Actually he became a friar.” 2 Here is a sample of the cliché “Luther was a monk” from the Internet and even from a published book:

 Although he would forever change Christianity, Martin Luther was a German monk who rose in his own rank to become a theologian, a reformer, and most importantly, a prominent figure who began asking deeper questions about the Bible and society.

Martin Luther (10 November 1483–18 February 1546) was a German monk, priest, professor, theologian, and church reformer.

“How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World.”

Even such a respected and established scholar as Scott Hendrix has Luther as “monk” plastered all over his book: “He was a sixteenth-century monk, priest, and professor in Wittenberg.” Confusion? Yes. Consider this: “Luther addressed his Latin treatise to his brother monks of the Augustinian order in Wittenberg” (AE 36: 130). “Brother monks”? Talk about an oxymoron.

....read or download the rest of this article here (free, PDF)

...purchase the full journal here

The dictatorship of relativism strikes back—and goes nuclear

Some ecumenical thoughts at Holy Week 2010 from John Stephenson

The secular press has had it in for Joseph Ratzinger for going on three decades. Before his election as Pope in the spring of 2005, he was routinely derided in his homeland as the Panzerkardinal (“tank cardinal”) and caricatured in North America as the “Enforcer” or even the “Rottweiler.” The roots of this negative reputation stretch back at least as far as the book-length interview he granted to the Italian journalist Vittorio Messori that catapulted him to global fame when published as The Ratzinger Report in 1985. Prior to that juncture, as a heavyweight German academic who had leapfrogged over a major episcopal see (Munich-Freising) to become a leading official in the Roman curia (as cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) under the still new John Paul II, Ratzinger’s was hardly a household name.

But shrewd observers must wonder about the startling disproportion between the enormous hue and cry artificially whipped up by the media and the softly spoken real life figure who seems always to have avoided hyperbole like the plague. Even though the curial department over which he presided for almost a quarter century is the direct heir to the 16^th-century Inquisition, the disciplinary measures dealt out by Ratzinger against barely a score of wildly Modernist (actually mostly apostate) theologians over more than two decades add up to a string of fairly mild censures, gentle slaps on the wrist in most cases. Hans Küng lost the right to teach theology as an accredited representative of the magisterium (as his missio canonica was stripped from him), but (despite his clear disavowal of the divinity of Christ!) retained his status as an incardinated (=rostered) Roman Catholic priest, and he has, well, greatly profited in fame and fortune from his much trumpeted role as Rome’s chief dissident. Had he rather than Ratzinger landed in the chair of cardinal prefect back in the early 1980s, the media would have shown no sympathy for the advocates of traditional Christianity that a totalitarian liberal such as Küng would have hounded to the remotest margins of Church life; ironically, there is no more illiberal force on earth than a liberal with his hands on the levers of power.

 Moreover, when someone takes the trouble to examine Ratzinger’s huge opus over close to six decades as a professional theologian, they make the discovery that he occupies a centrist position in the constellation of modern Roman Catholic theology; he is at most mildly “conservative”, the “ultra-conservative” label routinely affixed to him by most sections of the press being sheerly laughable.

As I set forth the Roman Catholic reality in our St. Catharines Religious Bodies (Comparative Symbolics) course, I point out the current uneasy coexistence of three groupings in that vast church body.

Modernism on the rampage (or the elephant actually destroying the living room)

In the one corner are the media-supported Modernists, those who do not acknowledge the definitive quality of God’s unsurpassable self-revelation in Christ, and who thus regard faith and practice not as givens to be handed down intact but as man-made constructs to be refashioned at whim according to the capricious desire of succeeding generations. Roundly condemned and solemnly proscribed by Pius X (1903-1914) and still held back to a great extent by Pius XII (1939-1958), the Modernists crawled out of the woodwork during the reign of John XXIII (1958-1963), and Modernism swiftly rose to a dominant position in Roman Catholic theology in, with, under, and around the (sixteen) officially promulgated documents of Vatican II (1962-1965).

As a young theologian, Ratzinger attended Vatican II as a peritus (=expert) of somewhat “progressive” tendencies. By Council’s close he was uneasy over the tone and content of its last document, Gaudium et spes, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church and the Modern World. Shocked to the core by the virulently anti-Christian positions embraced even by theology students (led by such figures as the radical Tübingen exegete Ernst Käsemann) in the student uprisings of 1968 (Achtundsechziger [“68ers”] is an actual word in modern German), Ratzinger firmed up his centrist credentials and switched his support from the left-leaning magazine Concilium (the house organ of Küng & Co.) to the middle of the road Communio (the substitute publication of von Balthasar and friends).

Clearly, the Modernists who surged forth to theological dominance in the wake of Vatican II have never forgiven Ratzinger for his “betrayal” of their cause; in their books (literally, in the case of Küng’s interminable memoirs) he is and remains a cross between Brutus and Judas Iscariot. At least some of his media woes are attributable to the Modernists’ insatiable thirst for revenge for, say, his pointed critique of Gaudium et spes written ten years after the close of the Council. But these pages of sober commentary are surely sweet music to orthodox Lutheran ears. Yes, Vatican II was infected by the dementedly schwärmerisch optimism of the Kennedy era (Principles of Catholic Theology, 372; 383). Yes, Gaudium et spes considers the “world” a positive entity, with which it seeks dialogue and cooperation with a view to building jointly with it a better global state of affairs (Principles, 379f.). Had he lived much longer, Hermann Sasse, who was careful to register both the strengths and the weaknesses of Vatican II, would surely have added his Yea and Amen to Ratzinger’s analysis of Gaudium et spes.

As they still pretend that everything in the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic garden is fine and dandy, the Modernists undoubtedly continue greatly to resent Ratzinger’s telling Vittorio Messori in the early 1980s how “we must speak …of a crisis of faith and of the Church” (Ratzinger Report, 44; “the gravity of the crisis,” 62;  “in this confused period, when truly every type of heretical aberration seems to be pressing upon the doors of the authentic faith,” 105). Later in the same decade I headed the first chapter of CLD’s Eschatology volume “General Apostasy: the Sign of our Time.” Guess what? Ratzinger, the GAFCON Anglicans, and I are spot on. Might there be something slightly fishy in the direction ELCA, ELCiC, TEC (the US Episcopalians), and the Anglican Church of Canada have been heading lately? The Modernists and their media allies would much prefer that no one notice these developments.

The traditionalist rump

In the opposite corner to the Modernists who can do no wrong in the eyes of the mainstream media stands the numerically much smaller traditionalist minority that can do no right. When did you last read a fair account of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991) in the “quality” press? When did you ever read there an objective appraisal of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that Lefebvre founded to withstand the Modernist juggernaut that came out of the Council? But the sainted Professor Marquart would have rejoiced at the clear profession of Ac 4:11-12 (“no other Name”) with which the SSPX politely responded to Benedict XVI’s address at the Jewish synagogue in Rome on Sunday 17 January 2010 (http://www.dici.org/en/?p=4263). After Archbishop Lefebvre (without papal permission) ordained four bishops in 1988 to continue his work, he and they incurred automatic excommunication, with the result that the SSPX has (paradoxically, given its deepest intent) been out of communion with Rome since that date.

With his vast breadth of learning and his generosity of spirit towards the Orthodox and the heirs of the Reformation (especially the Lutherans: “The Lutherans are to Ratzinger what the Orthodox are to John Paul: the separated brethren he knows best, and for whom he has the greatest natural affinity.” John Allen, Cardinal Ratzinger, 231), Ratzinger is far removed from the wavelength of the SSPX and of the former members of that body who have returned to full communion with Rome under the auspices of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP). Of course, these groups are well aware that it is humanly impossible for them to face a more favourable occupant of the papal chair in the foreseeable future, with the result that the SSPX has lately toned down its anti-papal polemics and willingly begun to participate in a theological dialogue with the CDF.

In the centre receiving shots from both (all) sides

Ratzinger belongs to the centrist mass of Roman Catholics who accept Vatican II, but decline to see the Council (as do Küng & Co.) as a brutal rupture with the foregoing tradition. To understand his papal programme (inasmuch as we may talk of such a thing), we must realise that he is endeavouring to steer his massive ecclesial ship back into a centrist channel after a good forty years of disastrous leftward lurch—just consider the pitiful liturgical shambles that emerged from Paul VI’s Novus Ordo of 1969, causing Hermann Sasse to remark in his last years how Rome had suddenly “canonised St. Zwingli.” A few years ago, in his new capacity as Pope Benedict XVI, Ratzinger coined the phrase “hermeneutic of continuity” to describe an approach to Vatican II that seeks to interpret its documents in harmony with what went before. A major task awaits orthodox Lutheran theology in the shape of updating Chemnitz’s Examen Concilii Tridentini by performing the same service for the documents of Vatican II. Applying the hermeneutic of continuity to these texts, a Chemnitz of our time would discern areas of interconfessional agreement and rapprochement, on the one hand, and of ongoing dissent and debate, on the other.

As, in company with his predecessor on the papal throne, Ratzinger has occupied Rome’s middle ground, significant differences of interpretation and emphasis have certainly existed between the close colleagues. With his undying commitment to Gaudium et spes, Woytyla was some degrees to the “left” of Ratzinger, who is very much a man of Lumen Gentium, the Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. As he approved my copious quotations from Ratzinger in the CLD volume on Eschatology, the sainted Robert Preus commented to me that Raztinger (whom he respected) was “more Catholic in the best sense” than the Pope under whom he served.

By the way, the world still hates, loathes, & detests Christ and His Church!

In addition to the unremitting hostility directed at him from the Modernist wing of his own Communion, even prior to his election as Pope, Ratzinger was a favourite target of the unbelieving world’s impassioned hatred for Christ Jesus our Lord and the members of His mystical body. Some years ago, the British Daily Telegraph (which at one time had the reputation of being a “quality” newspaper) reported that the then cardinal had committed a terrible “gaffe” by publicly expressing hope for the conversion of the Jews. Fancy that, a Christian wishing salvation for a sizeable group of his neighbours, a faux pas indeed! A Google search has confirmed my memory that British journalists were likewise incensed by the then cardinal’s comparison of Buddhism with spiritual autoeroticism. How scandalous that a Christian spokesman should speak candidly of religions that offer a spurious salvation!

The Canadian mainstream media were frenziedly sharpening their knives against Joseph Ratzinger in the weeks when he was a strong candidate to succeed John Paul II. His papacy was barely a few hours old when the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) evening news ran a segment on an aged Italian woman (a “good Catholic”, of course) who stood crestfallen amid a jubilant crowd as Benedict XVI appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s, walking dejectedly away as she realized that women’s ordination, contraception, sexual licence, abortion on demand, and all that good stuff would still be denied the papal seal of approval. That bloody hatchet job had been carefully prepared way ahead of a cardinal’s booming “Habemus papam—reverendissimum dominum Josephum Cardinalem Ratzinger” from the balcony!

Reason was thrown to the winds and sheer hysteria set in on Benedict XVI’s second visit to his German homeland, when he delivered a thoughtful lecture to the University of Regensburg in his capacity as emeritus professor of its faculty of theology. How sheerly outrageous that Ratzinger dared quote a harassed Byzantine emperor to the effect that Islam first conquers and then sustains itself by the sword! As the media, with the BBC in the forefront, stoked Islamic wrath and liberal outrage, they failed to state that the orchestrated acts of violence that rapidly broke out from one end of the Islamic world to the other only corroborated the simple, incontestable fact that Islam is, well, not quite a religion of peace as President Bush once fantasised.

Remarkably, when the press manufactured further storms of outrage on his lifting of the excommunications still hanging over the four remaining SSPX bishops in January 2009, one of the strongest defences made of Benedict XVI in his homeland came from the word processor of Germany’s leading orthodox Lutheran theologian. Gottfried Martens once told me that he shares Joseph Ratzinger’s appraisal of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, namely that he also takes the view that the laboriously achieved document does not in fact represent an authentic, deeply based agreement on the topic in question. And yet, with much greater clarity and conviction that most German Roman Catholic spokesmen could muster, Dr. Martens pointed out in his parish newsletter that the Pope had simply smoothed the way for talks between the SSPX and the CDF by graciously lifting the excommunication of the four renegade bishops; he had not granted them a recognized public ministry in the Roman Catholic Church—they remain unrostered, to use our terminology; and least of all did he knowingly “rehabilitate” a Holocaust denier. But instead of surfing in search of better information to http://www.logia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79&catid=39:web-forum&Itemid=18, the mainstream media take every opportunity to add the charge of “rehabilitating a Holocaust denier” to their already lengthy list of Ratzinger’s many sins. The day after his election to the papacy, the headline of a British tabloid read, “From Hitler Youth to Papa Ratzi!” For as is well known, conscripted teenagers forced into the collapsing armies of the Third Reich shared all the guilt of the worst war criminals, especially if these young men happened to be German nationals.

The negative reaction aroused already by the Ratzinger Report laid bare the sheer fury shared by Roman Catholic Modernists and the unbelieving world in general against anyone who dares to intimate that the historic Christian religion is, to put it bluntly, true. Neither apostates within Holy Christendom nor naked unbelievers outside her borders will ever forgive Ratzinger for the grave breach of secularist, pluralist etiquette involved in the first volume of his Jesus of Nazareth. It goes without saying (and around the Holy Week of each year the several forms of mainstream media say it loudly, often, and emphatically) that Jesus was an ordinary man, a wacko apocalyptist, or a failed political revolutionary. Stones must fly and clubs be brandished against a learned man fully familiar with all the “Jesus of history” literature from Reimarus to the present, who winsomely draws on believing scholarship of all confessions to offer a calm and cogent argument that the real, actual Jesus is the one who meets us in the Gospel record. Where the North American liberal intelligentsia can offer no refutation, they spit contempt. And a Western Europe sunk in a new heathenism and undergoing Islamic takeover can only howl at this attempt to arrest its suicidal downward slide.

Preaching the homily at the opening Eucharist of the 2005 papal conclave, an address that he likely regarded as his swan song before heading back to private life in a Bavarian retirement, Ratzinger dared to call a spade a spade by drawing attention to la dittatura del relativismo, a now familiar phrase that surely needs no translation. So, as even more lamentable reports surface of the horror of sexual abuse of minors by Roman Catholic priests and religious brothers, it goes without saying that the secular press has tried, convicted, and executed Ratzinger for a string of alleged cover-ups as archbishop, cardinal, and Pope. The declining John Paul II may indeed have been somewhat remiss in addressing this evil, but the press, spoon-fed by Roman Catholic Modernists, cannot be expected to highlight insignificant details such as the fact that Benedict XVI has vigorously addressed this issue from the first days of his papacy (remember the disciplining of Fr. Maciel, once the protecting hand of the former Pope was withdrawn?). The Manchester Guardian (another allegedly “quality” newspaper from the UK) announced the other day that, for twenty-four years, Ratzinger failed to act on clerical sexual abuse of children; its journalists forgot to mention that the issue was only directly handed to his congregation in 2001! (Check out http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/keeping-record-straight-benedict-and-crisis ) When guilt is foreordained and execution already carried out, mere supporting evidence is of no account. Barely a week ago the New York Times headlined the “news” that, as cardinal prefect in 1996, Ratzinger quashed the canonical trial of a priest of the Milwaukee archdiocese accused (and believably guilty) of unspeakable crimes. There is no likelihood of the NYT apologising for its barefaced lie, uttered after it declined to interview the canon lawyer who presided over the judicial proceedings in Milwaukee. http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601 According to him, the canonical process was still in full swing when the accused priest died; we can’t expect the secular press to get the point that the case then moved to the final court of appeal.

Christendom as a whole is under attack

In a letter to the Sunday Telegraph published in that newspaper’s 28 March 2010 edition (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/7528487/The-religious-rights-of-Christians-are-treated-with-disrespect.html), five Evangelical bishops of the Church of England have politely drawn attention to the increasing volume of persecution of Christians in England and, in a governessy sort of way, insisted that the antichristian forces in British society cease and desist forthwith. The bishops’ reproach fell somewhat short of white-hot prophetic vigour: “We are deeply concerned at the apparent discrimination shown against Christians and we call on the Government to remedy this serious development.”

As the bishops’ letter begins with a protest over the case of a middle-aged English nurse dismissed for insisting on displaying, when on duty, a crucifix that she has worn since her confirmation decades ago, it demonstrates how British society in particular (along with European society in general) has lurched dramatically back to a stage prior to the work of the much maligned Constantine the Great. While the bishops’ concern is genuine and the issue they address real, one wonders whether they are taking the right approach. Can we picture Peter and Paul, around the year 68, stamping their feet and stressing the paramount need for Nero to respect the human rights of the nascent Christian community in Rome? Can we get our hands on evidence that the bishops and other ecclesial spokesmen of the day adopted the tone of these Anglican Evangelical prelates toward Decius and Diocletian? More to the point, can we imagine Diocletian, Decius, and Nero meekly agreeing to “remedy the serious developments” that had occurred on their respective imperial watches? Rather than issuing impotent appeals to the successive beasts that arise from the earth, bishops are to prepare and equip the Christian faithful to undergo the fires of tribulation that the Lord permits to come their way. For, make no doubt about it, the days of Diocletian and Decius and perhaps of Nero also are fast returning to the Western world.

Not in the same ballpark as Leo X & Co.

Orthodox Lutherans would have to be churlish in the extreme if they could not spare an ounce of affection for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as perhaps the first Pope in history to have a good idea what the Lutheran Reformation was and is all about, and, moreover, to have at least a shred of sympathy for its core concerns. In his writings Ratzinger routinely quotes Luther from the Weimar Edition and the Confessions from Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht’s edition of the Bekenntnisschriften; not all Lutheran professors of theology do the same. His aversion to the philosophical trajectory of Karl Rahner took concrete form in Ratzinger’s preference for the Bible and the Church Fathers, especially Augustine, over Thomas Aquinas (see Milestones, 44, 52f., 128f.). Isn’t this how we too want to do theology?

The following quotations randomly chosen from a couple of his works show that Ratzinger “gets it” in a way that the Renaissance (and Tridentine?) Popes did not. For starters, some words from the Ratzinger Report on sacramental confession, where the cardinal spoke of “the seriousness of the encounter between two persons aware of being in the presence of the shattering mystery of Christ’s forgiveness that arrives through the words and gestures of a sinful man” (Ratzinger Report, 57). And then:  

...at the inmost core of the new commission [Mt 18:15-18; Jn 20:23], which robs the forces of destruction of their power, is the grace of forgiveness. It constitutes the Church. The Church is founded upon forgiveness. ...The Church is by nature the home of forgiveness, and it is thus that chaos is banished from within her. She is held together by forgiveness …she is not a communion of the perfect but a communion of sinners who need and seek forgiveness (Called to Communion, 64).

And:

…we are all in need of forgiveness, which is the heart of all true reform. …The Church is not a communion of those “who have no need of the physician” (Mk 2:17) but a communion of converted sinners who live by the grace of forgiveness and transmit it themselves. …I believe that the core of the spiritual crisis of our time has its basis in the obscuration of the grace of forgiveness (Called to Communion, 148f.).

Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue got off to a skewered start at the very outset when Luther proposed a discussion on soteriology only to have Sylvester Prierias (in terms of curial office the 1981-2005 Ratzinger of that day) use ecclesiastical strong-arm tactics with a distorted account of Scripture and tradition by way of response. If a formal dialogue were ever to take place between the orthodox Lutheran Churches of the world and the Holy See, some critical questions would certainly need to be posed, and spirited discussion would certainly ensue. Perhaps another perspective might be offered on the 11^th-century Cluniac Reform from the account given by Benedict XVI in his catechesis of 11 November 2009: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20091111_en.html. And maybe we might explore a little further Ratzinger’s rationale for priestly celibacy, in the course of which he made the barbed remark that the married clergy of the East are not real pastors, just liturgical ministers (Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium, 199). Ouch! Should a panel of our theologians ever sit down with a group of their Roman Catholic counterparts, concern might be raised that Benedict XVI has been somewhat profligate in his granting of indulgences, a form of bounty that all Lutherans will forever denounce as counterfeit spiritual currency. As Easter of 2010 approaches, though, if for no other reason than that we remember Martin Niemöller’s post-war regret at not having spoken up for the Jews in due season, we might fitly major in sympathy, understanding, and prayer for the courteous and learned aged prelate who is right now a walking target for innumerable hellish darts launched by theological Modernists and by the unbelieving world that have between them zero tolerance for any crisp, clear, and confident confession of Christ Jesus our Incarnate God.

The Church’s Right to Perform Marriages in Light of the Norwegian Marriage Act of 2008

Editor's note—I opened an address to the 2003 meeting of the North European Luther Academy, held in Hango, Finland (subsequently published as “The Church and the End” in Logia XVI: 35-39), with the remark that,“Canada and Scandinavia have more in common than northerly latitudes and cold weather.” The cultural developments I had in mind include an avalanche of anti-family and anti-life legislation made possible by the gradual marginalization and suppression of Holy Christendom in the public life of these nations. An ecumenical working party in Norway (consisting with one exception of figures outside the established Church of Norway) has lately explored the implications for the Churches of that country’s decision, in legislation enacted in 2008, to follow Canada in the promulgation of same sex marriage. One of the authors of the report printed below, which was sent to me already translated, tells me that conservatives in the Church of Norway have expressed strong dissent from their conclusion that clergy should surrender their longstanding right to perform weddings on behalf of the State. The question here addressed is acutely relevant to contemporary Canada, and is becoming increasingly topical in the United States also as we head into the second decade of the twenty-first century. My hunch is that the report’s analysis and conclusions are equally valid on this side of the Atlantic. —John Stephenson

 Introduction

The changes in the institution of marriage that result from the new Norwegian Marriage Act of 2008 break with the Christian understanding of marriage and family life. Christians have therefore asked what implications this legislation will have for registered religious denominations to which the Norwegian government grants by delegation the right to solemnize marriages [den vigelsrett som ved delegasjon er gitt kirkesamfunnene], thus providing an alternative to a purely secular ceremony. 

About twenty private persons from different denominations met in Oslo in May 2009 to discuss this situation. Representatives of various Christian communities met in Bergen in August to discuss strategy. During a meeting in Oslo in October, a committee was appointed to report on the consequences of a renouncement of the ecclesial right to perform marriages.

 The committee, consisting of Pastor Jan Bygstad, Vicar-General Roald N. Flemestad, Professor Bernt T. Oftestad, Pastor Reidar Paulsen, and Professor Helge J. Thue, herewith presents its report, stating the reasons for its recommendations.

 The report begins with an ideological criticism of the new marriage law. Then it sketches the Christian understanding of marriage. As a consequence of the real opposition between the governmental marriage ideology and the traditional view of marriage, we then clarify juridical alternatives for a church wedding ceremony independent of the state. Finally, we encourage Christian denominations and congregations to surrender the right to perform marriages recognized by the state. 

Gender-neutral marriage is incompatible with the Christian faith

With the new marriage law that took effect on 1 January 2009, persons of the same gender have the opportunity to enter into marriage. This has caused changes in the Law on Biotechnology and the Child Law to the effect that women living in lesbian relationships now have the right to conceive children by artificial insemination. Furthermore, the father’s rights in relation to children conceived by artificial insemination have been revoked, as these are given a “co-mother” instead of their biological father. Thus the institution of marriage is altered to be a state recognition of “love” (cf. Odelsting Proposition. no. 33, 2007-2008) between two people, regardless of their gender, sexual attraction, or biological capability of procreating their own children.

Rejecting marriage as a social arrangement based on biological realities tied to the family as the fundamental social cell, the new marriage law breaks with the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights of 1996. The convention, which was adopted as internal Norwegian law in 1999  (The Human Rights Act of 21 May 1999 no. 30), is based on the assumption that marriage involves both man and woman, and that the family as the basic unit in society is entitled to the protection of the state. Other human rights conventions as well as innumerable special conventions on marriage involve only heterosexual relations.

The biblical belief in Creation understands marriage in a similar way. God established the fellowship of one man and one woman before the Fall as a means of procreation. In this way the polarity of the sexes is one of the most fundamental characteristics of human life. The physical embrace of man and woman serves God’s purpose. Corporeality is God’s good gift to man; there is therefore no ontological dualism between the spiritual and the material.

The idea of a same-gender marriage separates sexual intercourse from the natural order. Unrelated to procreation, the sexual act is understood as a kind of “pure love” without any other basis than the erotic. The individual thus seeks intimacy outside the framework of the family. If in such a relationship the desire to have a child should arise, it cannot be realized in a natural way. Detached from the polarity of gender, the child must be constructed by means of medical technology.

When human biological identity is denied, artificial insemination appears as “Mankind coming of Age”—man’s dominion over nature—a kind of victory for spirit over matter. The corporeal is understood as a barrier that humans as spiritual beings try to overcome, wishing to achieve their full potential. The ideology in the new family legislation therefore decisively breaks with the fundamental idea of the Bible that God has created humans as man and woman, so that they together “become one flesh” (Gn 2:24, Mt 19:6).

A biblical perspective on marriage

That humans are created as man and woman is an important aspect of the creation of humans in the image of God (Gn 1:27). This gender difference is fundamental both for the creation of humans and for their self-understanding, and is therefore not accidental, but an expression of God’s creative will.

Marriage is founded by God (Gn 2:24), and is understood in accordance with the Holy Scripture as a public covenant of fidelity agreed to by one man and one woman. In this union God realizes His will, creating new life through the conception of children. Children are God’s most precious gift. The family, understood as the fellowship of mother and father and children, shall take care of the child’s right and need to know its biological parents and receive care from them as far as this is possible. Similarly, the family constitutes, as a God-given institution, the foundation of the rights and responsibilities of the parents. If the state intervenes in the authority of the family, it goes beyond its right.

Christian marriage is established  “in the Lord” (1 Cor 7:39). The life together of the two spouses has its model in the mutual love of Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32). Thus the spouses are living out their calling in their daily life and under God’s promise (Col 3:23). Husband and wife shall honour and love each other and help each other “as being heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Pet 3:7). The Christian family is therefore called “the little church.” 

The right to perform marriages as a problem 

The marriage institution has both a private and a public side. In our modern society, people marry in accordance with regulations in public legislation. Moreover, in Norway we have the arrangement that a person conducting a wedding ceremony within a registered religious body can be given the right to perform marriages on behalf of the State.

The laws passed in 2008 radically changed the institution of marriage and the position of the family in society. They made it possible for persons of the same sex to marry and also enabled women in lesbian relationships to have children through artificial insemination while abolishing the father’s rights and duties in relation to children thus conceived.

Consequently, Norwegian legislation is no longer in agreement with the order of nature. Furthermore, the effects of the law not only break with the Christian faith and perception of reality, but also with our history and tradition.

It has thus become an unacceptable arrangement for churches to perform marriages on behalf of the state. Christian Churches cannot administer legislation that fundamentally breaks with Christian faith and teaching. This necessitates a reevaluation of the marriage practice of the churches, and raises the question whether religious communities may still collaborate with and assist the state in establishing marriage. In this situation the challenge for the Churches will be to find an ecclesiastical marriage practice that is theologically and juridically valid. 

Entering into marriage

Churches and congregations that give up the right to solemnize marriages must still ensure that spouses achieve a legal and economic structure for their married lives. In a number of countries the religious ceremony functions as an addition to civil marriage.

In the light of such a division, two models seem to be of particular interest.

One solution would be for the bride and groom first to be married by a judge. After this civil marriage, a full Church wedding would follow. This solution implies that the Church ceremony would “validate” the civil marriage as a legitimate Christian union. The newlyweds would thus get two marriage certificates, but the Church certificate would only have a religious and ecclesiastical validity.

A second possibility would be for the bride and groom to go through a full Church wedding without any registration with the civil authorities. The marriage would thus be founded on the Church community’s understanding of the meaning and obligations of the marriage vows. On this basis the Church community would issue a marriage certificate. Before the wedding, the bride and groom must have entered into a legally binding agreement on the main economic aspects of their marriage.

In the choice between the two models we would recommend the first-mentioned solution, since a heterosexual marriage recognized by the State is recognized abroad to a much greater extent than is cohabitation. 

Concluding recommendations

We encourage the Christian Churches and congregations that share our understanding of the new marriage and family legislation to give up the right to perform marriages on behalf of the State. There is a limit to how far Christian Churches and congregations can collaborate with a state that in a fundamental way breaks with both generally accepted and Christian norms for marriage.

Instead of a churchly right to conduct weddings by delegation from the State, we have in the foregoing sketched two alternative models for Christian marriage. The recommended solution is that the bride and groom first register a civil marriage with a judge followed by a fully valid Church wedding.

Another possibility is to have a Church wedding without civil registration, which means that the marriage would take place in a church, the legal and economic aspects of the life together first having been secured through relevant legislation and civil law agreements.

Both models presuppose that Christian religious communities prepare their own registers of weddings and marriage certificates. In the longer term one should attempt to make the authorities recognize the legal effect of a Church wedding without authorization in the present Norwegian family legislation.

Bergen and Oslo, 21 December 2009. Jan Bygstad (sign), Roald N. Flemestad (sign), Bernt Oftestad (sign), Reidar Paulsen (sign), Helge J. Thue (sign) 

Who’s afraid of a Minaret?

An article by Gert Kelter, translated by Wilhelm Torgerson, submitted and edited by John Stephenson, Registrar & Professor of Historical Theology at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St Catharines, Ontario.

Editor's note—This article appeared in the first 2010 issue of SELK Informationen, the monthly news service of the Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany. The author, Gert Kelter, is the pastor of Holy Ghost Church in Görlitz, which is geographically the easternmost parish of the SELK. Pr. Kelter also serves as Provost (Propst) of the Eastern Region (Sprengel Ost) of the SELK and as his church body’s spokesman on Ecumenical Relations. Provost Kelter’s article has been translated by Wilhelm Torgerson (“Torgy”), himself a retired pastor and provost of the SELK who was until recently director of the Wittenberg Project.

As the Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano reported in its 11 December 2009 edition, Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone has criticized Switzerland’s decision not to allow the building of any more minarets on its territory. According to the Vatican newspaper, the second most important man in the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church maintains that the decision taken in the Swiss referendum arose from fear [Angst]. In Bertone’s view, “Plebiscite decisions should emerge from a certain perspective and be directed towards a positive goal.” Incidentally, the cardinal made his comments while being filmed in the Vatican by the Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera. In the referendum of 29 November 2009 about 58% of Swiss voters had approved a prohibition on the further construction of minarets in their country. Already before the referendum, Archbishop Antonio Maria Veglio, president of the papal council on immigrants, had rejected the idea of a ban on minaret building. With Islamic states in mind, the archbishop went on to say that this principle stands even where there is no reciprocity with respect to rights and freedoms. [On 25 February 2010, Libya’s Colonel Gadaffhi branded Switzerland an “infidel state” and called for a jihad against it!—Tr.]. 

It pertains to the nature of Islam to divide the world into an “area of Islam” and an “area of war.” The Islamic community (umma) is called, indeed obliged, to wage so-called Holy War in order to achieve the gradual incorporation of the “area of war” into the “area of Islam.” Islam neither knows nor wants any distinction between politics and religion, between state and faith.

Of course, “holy war” can be waged peacefully and by all sorts of different means, but when necessary also by force. The full existence and orderly development of the Islamic umma in the form prescribed by the Koran can only occur when sharia, Islamic law, determines a society and achieves absolute validity within it. All effort directed towards expanding the area of Islam into the “area of war” consequently has the goal of establishing this sharia-determined order of society. Not only in Cairo, but equally in Cologne or Bern.

And for that you need majorities. Numerical and—eventually—political majorities. These can come about, as I mentioned before, completely without the use of force by way of the democratic process or of simple demographic developments.

“Minaret” simply means light tower. Its only function is to provide the muezzin with a platform from which he issues a call to prayer five times a day. The often forgotten catch in all this, though, is that we are not dealing here with a mere call to prayer, but with a proclamation of Islam’s claim to absoluteness. Conversely, ringing a church bell is actually “merely” a call to prayer. To make a direct comparison you would have to imagine a Christian verger (sexton) loudly chanting the Athanasian Creed from the church tower seven times a day (according to the schedule of the seven offices of prayer): “Whoever will be saved shall, above all else, hold the catholic faith. Which faith, except everyone keeps whole and undefiled, without doubt he will perish eternally”!

I’d like to see the German or European Court that would in this case plead the cause of freedom of religion if Muslims or atheists should feel harassed and insulted.

Even silent minarets speak volumes. The poster put up by the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), which advocated the ban on minarets, depicted them in the form of rockets perforating the Swiss flag. A rather demagogic image, to be sure. Yet it aptly illustrates the statement made a few years ago by the Turkish Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogan, that minarets are “the bayonets of Islam.” Just think about that one for a moment!

By the way, why do minarets or even mosques in Western Europe have to look as if they came out of A Thousand and One Nights?  Manifestly, Islam has no intention of adapting itself or its architecture to our culture; it does not want to integrate; rather it wants to export its culture and order of society.

The old cigarette factory in the City of Dresden looks like a mosque with minarets, but it is a factory with chimneystacks and everyone considers it rather charming. And it certainly is true that the style of architecture is ultimately unimportant. What counts is who does the building and with what intent.

In 2002 the Church Leadership [Kirchenleitung—Governing Council] of the SELK published a document entitled Guide for Evangelical Lutheran Christians for Life Together with Muslims in Germany. It contains this crisp and clear statement: “(36) As a matter of principle Islam knows no distinction between the religious and the secular, or between service to God [Gottesdienst] and politics. The Koran and the sharia strongly aim to order the world under Islamic law. On account of this attitude the danger exists of mosques becoming places where appeals are issued to change the free and democratic order of our society. Yet not every mosque or mosque association aspires to such goals. (37) But the Christian faith cannot see even in the peaceful, moderate mosque ‘the beloved sister in faith.’ Rather, it sees itself summoned to witness before the mosque. And as every mosque is said to be ultimately a mission centre for Islam, so every Christian worshipping assembly should be a ‘city on the hill that cannot be hidden’ (Mt 5,14). The debate must be understood in spiritual terms and be determined not by power and honour, but by the cross of Christ and His sacrificial love.”

A Muslim who wants to be faithful to the Koran cannot therefore but cherish the wish and intention to establish an Islamic community in the place where he lives. The minaret does not automatically achieve this goal, but it does symbolize it. And the rulers in most Islamic states are well aware of the reverse impact: The building of churches is strictly prohibited on their territory. And one of the reasons for this policy is the symbolism such churches would project to the world around.

We have to decide what we want when we are confronted by the question of whether minarets are to be allowed. Viewed in isolation we are merely dealing with a building which—depending on one’s taste—we might consider beautiful or ugly, in harmony or disharmony with our city architecture. But from the viewpoint of Islamic theology minarets are the border posts of the Muslim umma placed in the non-Islamic “area of war.”

Fear? This is never a good advisor when decisions must be made on a rational basis. But in the case at hand it is not unfounded.

And we cannot counter this fear other than by the re-Christianizing of Europe. Islam has a good conscience—and from its own viewpoint justly so—when it advances into formerly Christian regions. What it finds there are for the most part not exactly deeply convinced supporters of the “religions of the book” as the Koran appraises them. Rather, it confronts the irreligious and—according to both Islamic and pristinely Christian tenets—immoral masses.

Thus it is quite understandable when the Islamic community is not terribly impressed by protests coming from those who are “unbelievers” not only according to Islamic principles.

But it is regrettable when we hear nothing from the churches but politically correct protests pandering to majority views and references to a certain “fear” that Rome too deems unfounded. Or should the cardinal’s words be understood differently?

Or perhaps the Cardinal Secretary of State was simply full of “fear” to do other than vent cheap indignation against the voters of Switzerland before the cameras of Al-Jazeera.

Book Review: A Little Book on Joy

Book Review: A Little Book on Joy: The Secret of Living a Goods News Life in a Bad News World. By Matthew C. Harrison. Fort Wayne: Lutheran Legacy Press, 2009. 212 pages. Paperback. $9.99; quantity discount. Review by Robert C. Baker.

Reverend Matt Harrison’s newest book, A Little Book on Joy: The Secret of Living a Good News Life in a Bad News World, could not have come at a better time. Ongoing political strife, regardless of one’s party or affiliation, an economy still severely weak in the knees, declining membership and shrinking bank accounts among mainline denominations, massive personal and governmental debt,  distrust of politicians and the political process, and the crushing power of nature—think Port-au-Prince—might give us cause for having no joy at all. But in steps Harrison, brushy mustachoed and bespectacled, Rough-Rider ready to storm the hill of gloom and despair. Bully! Or rather in the words of St. Paul, “Rejoice. . . again I say, rejoice!” It’s that refrain from Philippians 4:4 that reverberates throughout A Little Book of Joy.

Here, I must admit the appearance of this joy-filled book caught me a bit off guard. First, I was surprised at its release so soon after Harrison’s previous erudite tome, At Home in the House of My Fathers (Lutheran Legacy, 2009). I confess that I still have not finished reading many of the delightful and edifying essays from our Lutheran forefathers in that work, many of which were translated by Harrison from the German. Second, the title of A Little Book on Joy is itself a surprise since Lutherans, especially those claiming to be orthodox in both doctrine and pilsner, are often a dour bunch. Surely it is self-evident that Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee was written by a Presbyterian, not a Lutheran, although in defense we do have Bach cantatas and lutefisk and plenty of coffee. Yet A Little Book on Joy proves that when it comes to joy, other traditions have not cornered the market.

After a generous and rich “Prelude to this Ode of Joy” by the Rev. John Nunes, Harrison divides his newest work into twenty manageable chapters, each covering an aspect of joy and each taking an average reader 6-8 minutes to read. Peppered throughout are humorous illustrations by the Rev. Kurt D. Onken (Onken boldly captures the author on p. 152). The chapters are chock-full with Scripture, historical references, personal stories, and occasional explanations of Greek terms. Clearly, Harrison has done his homework. While the style of writing is conversational and engaging, A Little Book of Joy is no puff piece one might find in the spirituality shelves in the local Christian bookstore. Rather, Harrison writes as a husband, father, and pastor, covering a breadth of topics related to joy without sacrificing theological depth. Here systematic and applied theology are successfully wedded for the edification of the reader. Harrison is transparent, one might even say vulnerable, as he candidly tells stories from his own past. To reinforce the spiritual insights, each Scripture-drenched chapter ends with thought-provoking study questions penned by Professor John Pless. Yet, the book has even more surprises. Although subtitled, The Secret of Living a Good News Life in a Bad News World, closer inspection reveals a “secret” in each chapter. Take worship, for example. With his customary humility (although he is a big man, he is not proud), in chapter eleven Harrison expresses “surprise and wonder of not being rejected by Christ” (p. 80). Which theologian alive today would utter such a confession, much less publish it? Obviously, this theologian does. Here Harrison connects us to the historic liturgy of the Church, in which the Old Adam is crucified in repentance and the new man emerges full of Spirit-given faith and vigor. It is such man who can rejoice, as Harrison does, in the surprise and wonder of it all: “It’s the delight of being invited into his presence—not to perform or recount my deeds, but to be forgiven and accepted. . . Greatest wonder of wonders, the Lord rejoices precisely over sinners” (p. 80).

Such a confession, both of sins and sins forgiven, can only be forged in the crucible of experience, in being crucified with Christ. For those called by the Lord to serve the Church, that also occurs within the Church. Readers will find that A Little Book on Joy is no flight of fancy to a mystically and perfectly emerging, organic, and missional Church (apart from the Gospel preached and administered) this side of heaven. Rather, the paradox of holy Church in an unholy world is laid bare. Expounding upon Ephesians 5:25-27, 1 Timothy 3:15, and 1 Corinthians 12:1ff, Harrison writes, “[The Church] only appears in this world hidden under the guise of poor sinners, flawed leaders, tensions, divisions, and even false teaching. This is at once both disturbing and comforting” (p. 166). Disturbing to be sure, but as I often say, “The Gospel liberates us from the bondage of denial.” We can look pain, suffering, and death in the face with confidence, fortified with the sure knowledge of sins forgiven because of Christ, and radiating with the power of His resurrection. Fixing our eyes upon Jesus, we can endure our crosses because of the awesome joy God sets before us: eternal life with Christ in a new heaven and a new earth (Hebrews 12:2).

A Little Book of Joy closes with two unique features not commonly associated with devotional books. First, there is an afterword by reconciler Bernie Seter. Concerning the book Seter writes, “Matt kept his promise and didn’t try to give us a ‘joy-o-meter’. . . or ‘Ten Sure-Fire Ways to Put Joy into Your life.’ What he gave us was. . . Jesus.” Seter’s assessment is accurate. A second and final feature is a section consisting of daily Scripture texts and prayers that individuals or groups could use from Ash Wednesday through Pentecost, or any 90-day period upon which to reflect upon joy. If I have only one critical comment about the book, it is this: it is little. Although at 212 pages, the trim size does not permit a more exhaustive treatment. Harrison should consider expanding the work so that it contains 52 chapters, one for each week of the year. Additionally, I could see how some of the chapters could be arranged according to topics, from which a sermon series could be developed. However, for now A Little Book of Joy packs a big punch against the devil’s schemes to rob us of the great, spiritual gift of joy, and this little book does so by giving us Christ.

Robert C. Baker is Senior Editor of Adult Bible Studies at Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri