C.F.W. Walther Sermon for Trinity 15 (Matthew 6:24–34)

Translator’s Preface

This Sunday’s Gospel in the three-year series is the account of the rich young man from Mark 10:17–22. Jesus preaches a sharp law sermon against greed to this rich young man. Here you will find a similar sermon, this time from the pen of C. F. W. Walther.

One wonders what was going on in the congregation when Walther preached this sermon. It is an attack on the sin of greed and the love of mammon, so much that precious little gospel is found in the sermon. This is striking as the sermon comes from the lecturer on The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, who insisted there that the gospel ought to predominate in preaching. Walther’s sermon, much like Jesus’ sermon in Mark 10, reminds us that repentance must clear the way for Jesus, casting greed from its throne in the heart of man to clear that same throne for its rightful possessor, Jesus. Until that repentance occurs, as Walther notes in this sermon, preaching God’s word to a heart possessed by greed is futile.

Also striking in the sermon are the similarities of attitudes toward money today to those in Walther’s day. Walther excels in this sermon at unmasking greed as it hides behind any number of disguises. We may very well disagree with some of Walther’s critiques, particularly of charging interest, but still appreciate his approach that cuts sharply to reveal greed where it lies hidden in the heart of man. Indeed, we may note new disguises for greed. There may be some, untouched by the current economic slowdown, who still use the slow economic environment as an excuse to be lazy in giving. Walther’s sermon gives us a method to assess such claims—to unmask the greed that lies behind them.

Today, as in Walther’s day, there is great need to preach against greed. This sermon is offered as one example of a Lutheran sermon against greed.

Aaron Moldenhauer

Pentecost 20, 2012

Trinity 15

God grant to all of you full grace and peace through the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

In Him, our faithful Savior, dearly beloved!

When we read the history of the Jewish people as it is recorded in the diving writings of the Old Testament, we cannot but be amazed at how inclined to idolatry they were. As soon as one idol is disposed of by a prophet, another one is immediately set up in its place. As soon as the poor people have been saved from the burdensome slavery of Egypt through the greatest, unheard-of deeds and miracles of the true God—passed through the Red Sea with dry feet, drank from the rock, fed miraculously with manna from heaven—as soon as God has revealed himself on Mount Sinai in awe-inspiring majesty, with thunder, lightning, and trumpet-blast and called to them: “Hear, O Israel! I am the Lord, your God, who has called you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods beside me. You shall not make for yourself an image or any likeness, neither of what is above in heaven, nor of what is below on earth, nor of what is in the water under the earth. Do not worship and do not serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, who visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.” As soon as this has happened, the idolatrous people have arranged a service worshipping idols like the Egyptians. They have Aaron cast a golden calf and, drunk with happiness, proclaim: “These are your gods, Israel, who led you out of Egypt.” They celebrate a great festival, offer burnt offerings and thank offerings, and thus, eating, drinking, and playing, ascribe divine honor to the dead image.

When the world of today reads this, it blesses itself in its heart and says: Praise God, that we are now more enlightened than the ignorant Jewish people. A foolish worship can no longer occur among the educated peoples of the old and new world. Idols have fallen and will not rise again. The world has stepped forward. The light of the all-present truth has eliminated the darkness of heathendom. Now we worship God in spirit and in truth. Oh, how good it would be if this were true! How good, if at least the world living under the light of the gospel had renounced all idolatry and given itself truly to the worship of the only true God! To be sure, the world of today has progressed so that it will not easily fall down before the golden image of an animal and say: “Behold, these are our gods!” However, we would be greatly mistaken if we thought that now, instead of the old, gross idolatry, the worship of the true God in spirit and in truth had arisen and had become universal in the so-called Christian world.

Rather, I assert that at no time has more idolatry prevailed than in our day, and certainly also in our new, so-called Christian fatherland. There is one particular idol that is worshipped by young and old, by great and lowly, by rich and by poor. No special temples are erected to this idol. Its temple is the whole world, its priests all children of this world, and its altars their hearts. This god reigns all-powerful in every place. Its praise sounds forth day and night from the tongues of millions and its altar fire, blazing up to the throne of this great god, is never extinguished.

Dearly beloved, do you not know this god? Have you never bent the knees of your heart before it? Have you never kindled the incense of your love to it? I fear that none of us remain completely clean of this idolatry, indeed, that perhaps many of us have devoted ourselves completely to its service. Should I tell you the name of this idol? It is money, it is wealth, it is good days, it is vanity. In a word, it is “mammon.” Indeed, dearly beloved, this is the god before whom all now bow. This is the god who now has countless worshippers, the god who reigns over all and whom all serve with all their heart, with all their soul, with all their power and with all their mind. The true God must everywhere step aside and make way for this god. “Money rules the world,” as the proverb says, and so must agree everyone who even glances at the life and character of the world.

Christ warns us against this idolatry in today’s gospel. Let us now hear this warning.

Matthew 6:24–34

No one can serve two lords. Either he will hate one and love the other, or he will cling to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say to you: Do not worry about your life, what you will eat and drink; nor about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds in the sky: they do not sow, they do not harvest, they do not gather into barns. And your heavenly Father still feeds them. Are you not much more than they? Who among you may add a cubit to his life, though he worry about it? And why do you worry about clothing? Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow. They do not work, they do not spin. I tell you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed as one of them. If then God clothes the grass of the field that is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, should he not do that much more for you, O you of little faith? Therefore you should not worry and say “what will we eat?” or “what will we drink”? or “what will we wear”? The heathen seek all these things. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all of this. Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will come to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. It is sufficient that each day has its own trouble.

“You cannot serve God and mammon.” These words are the theme which Christ speaks on extensively in the entire gospel just read. “Mammon” is an Aramaic word and means the same as wealth, money, and chiefly temporal goods. Christ depicts this “mammon” as a god whom man cannot serve alongside the true God, but only in his place. Christ shows in the following what this worship consists of, but also how corrupting and damnable it is. Let me therefore now speak to you:

About the corrupting and damnable worship of money;

in this I will show you:

1. that mammon truly is the god of and world which it serves, and
2. that this worship brings ruin her and damnation there.

I.          What is a man’s god? A man’s god is that which he holds to be the greatest and highest thing in the world, in heaven and on earth; what he loves as the highest good above all; the loss of which he fears more than anything, and what he trusts above all; in which he seeks his highest joy; from which he expects preservation in his entire life, protection in every danger, deliverance from every need, in short, from what he expects his true salvation. Whoever holds something in this way, whoever believes that about a being or about a thing and is wholeheartedly devoted to this being or this thing, that thing is this man’s god, in whom he actually believes and whom he serves.

If this is true (and it cannot be denied), then it is also undeniable that the world’s real god is not the true God, not that invisible being who made heaven and earth. Rather, the real god of the world is nothing other than “mammon,” in whom it believes and whom it serves. Yes, mammon is the all-powerful god for which the hearts of men in every land beat, and to whom the most sincere adoration is offered in every kingdom. This god mammon has its faithful servants in every class without exception. The richest, who do not want to serve anyone, are nevertheless the most zealous servants of mammon. Emperors, kings, and princes, who want to be subject to no one, are nevertheless obedient subjects of this high monarch. Most of those who are called to be messengers of the heavenly king nevertheless stand secretly in the pay of mammon. The world views the poor man who is without mammon as abandoned and cast off by God. On the other hand, wealth catches the attention of the world and makes its possessor an honorable man in the eyes of the world. In city and country, in every house, in the palace and in the hut, in every shop, in every factory, in every market, and in every street and alley this god has its altars and its priests sacrificing to it.

Ask yourself, what do most men seek and love above all? It is not mammon? Does not an increase of temporal goods delight the hearts of most men more than anything else? Do not most find in gold and silver, in a growing, profitable business, in beautiful houses and expansive estates their greatest enjoyment and comfort in this world? Why does one get up so early in the morning and burn the midnight oil? What is the source of that restless feeling and drive through city and country? What is the gain of all this speaking and speculating and chasing and running? At what does everyone snatch so eagerly, as if it could avail to win a heaven? It is vexatious mammon. One sacrifices everything else to it, even what is most dear to him. Only to acquire mammon one sacrifices health, works and worries himself sick. Only to win mammon one denies himself a thousand friends, denies himself rest and ease, sacrifices friendship, oftentimes honor and his good name, virtue and a good conscience, yes, even life, and goes down to an early grave as a martyr for mammon.

Further, what does one fear more than the loss of this god’s favor? Do not nearly all men consider themselves completely unhappy when they have lost it? Do not many fall into deathly sorrow over this? Are not most sighs breathed out over the loss of mammon, or over the mere danger of losing it? Do not most feel as though a piece of their heart would be torn out if they should give even a small gift to a poor man or give even a small offering for charitable or churchly use? Indeed, have not countless ones in complete despair taken their life because they saw themselves completely robbed of the comfort and help of mammon?

And in whom, finally, does the world trust? Does it not believe that it is at peace if only it possesses great mammon? Does it not regard it as the key to its happiness? Does it not ever increasingly strive for it, in order that it may finally be without worry for the future? Is it not the highest wish of most, to hunt down so much capital that they can finally lay their hands in their lap, live only from their money, that is, from the interest, so that they retain their money in a wonderful way, indeed, that the money even increases, while they continue to do nothing but live on it?

Yes? Is not mammon the god of the world, for the world loves, fears, and trusts it above all? Does the world not serve mammon zealously day and night with body and soul? Does it not sacrifice everything for mammon? Undoubtedly this is true.

Still, dearly beloved, the worship of mammon, or stinginess and greed, does not always appear in this easily recognizable form. It is not always so crass. Thousands serve mammon as their god and no one suspects it. Stinginess and the worship of mammon appear as a knave in many disguises and under many false names throughout the world and nowhere want to be known by their true name. Here it puts on the dress of thrift and hatred of waste. Here it calls itself diligence, faithfulness in earthly things and faithfulness in fulfilling one’s earthly calling. Here it answers, if one asks its name, that it is nothing other than care for one’s own, or the innocent pursuit of a good livelihood. Yes, the secret worshipper of mammon declares, mammon does not adhere to his heart at all, his heart is disgusted by stinginess. Even though nearly all men serve mammon wholeheartedly, nearly everyone is ashamed to admit that this is his god. Indeed, most seek to be so persuaded that in no way could they boast of their faithfulness in its service.

Let the servants of mammon conceal themselves, even behind virtues as though it were generosity; Christ removes their mask in our Gospel and brings them into the light. Namely, Christ says that whoever does not commit himself in true love and childlike faith to the rule and care of the Heavenly Father, but worries anxiously about tomorrow, about his body and his life; who, worrying anxiously, says and asks: “What will we eat? What will we drink? What will we wear?” yes, “who does not seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,” this man is no Christian. According to his faith and his heart’s condition he is still a heathen. In short, his god is still mammon.

Is that not a hard, terrifying judgment? How many it now shows to be greedy, covetous, money-loving, worldly-minded servants of mammon, who do not realize it. See, only he is not a servant of mammon whose heart does not cling to money and worldly goods; who, if God blesses him with these, sees them only as an opportunity to do good for others; who regards himself only as an instrument for divine goodness, as the caretaker of God’s charity, and who finds his own joy only in the joy of his neighbor. Further, only he is not a servant of mammon who thinks that it is God’s command that you work. Because God wills it and it is pleasing to him you work, but not out of worry about your food and clothing, which you expect not because of your work and toil, but from your Heavenly Father. Finally, only he is not a servant of mammon who regards temporal things as merely a minor matter in this world, the world which admittedly wants to worry; but who “seeks first,” that is, most zealously, most dearly, most enduringly, most seriously, “the kingdom of God and his righteousness,” that is, the grace of God, after the salvation of his soul, in a word, to be saved.

However, all those who say that they do not wish to become rich, but seek only so much that they would be assured of a carefree living; indeed, they all think that they are certainly not servants of mammon. But by this attitude they confess that they only want so much that they need not trust God alone, as the birds in the trees who must daily wait and see where God has scattered their food for them. No, a sum with which they would expect to get by according to their rough calculations is more certain for them than God’s care. Therefore this sum is—their god! Another one says: I am content with what I have and therefore thinks that surely he is free from the accusation of greed. But look! The little that he has is his comfort, therefore—his god! Another one certainly cares for the kingdom of God, he prays, he goes to church and to communion, he considers himself a Christian, he separates himself from the godless world and so forth. But a greater care, which lies daily on his heart, is how he will get by, or how he will improve his business and become richer. What is such a man’s god? As pious and Christian as he may appear, his god is still mammon. To be sure, many others rejoice over God’s word and grace and are saddened to lose the one or the other; but if he gains something similar from temporal goods, if his joy is even greater, or if his sadness is greater when he loses his temporal good, so great that he cannot be comforted—also such a man is (however he may posture) a secret worshipper of the god mammon. Not the heavenly father and his spiritual goods, but temporal good really possesses his heart. Many others do not seek wealth because they know that this seeking would be in vain. He who wants to become rich is angered at this. He does not appear to depend on worldly things, but when his heart laughs at the thought that he might become rich: behold, mammon is also his god. Many a one indeed gives, however, not as much, but as little as he can give with honor. He can, from love of money, let a supplicant go without the alms requested from him. He can turn away hardhearted from the one who is in need and wants to borrow from him. With a smiling face he can pocket the appointed interest from a debtor who can only expound to him with sighs. He can strike a burdensome deal, or cancel the wages of the poor. Such a man is a servant of mammon. Money is his idol, to which he has pledged his soul. The love of the true God, though he may have it on his tongue, does not live in his heart.

Nevertheless, who may seek out greed and the worship of mammon in all its hideouts, to which it often retreats in the heart to elude the eye of men and to avoid being seen for what it is? By nature we are all servants of mammon. Man must have a god. Once he has lost the true God in his heart, the world with its goods has taken his place. Who has been freed again from greed, if not by a special work of grace by the Holy Spirit? Otherwise man is undoubtedly still ruled by it. Alas! Many a heart is purified from this idolatry through true repentance, yet how common it is that mammon first finds again an open temple in that heart. Countless Christians have endured everything—trouble, shame, poverty—but mammon has finally betrayed them, for there is almost no other vice with which a man can appear always as a good Christian as when he serves mammon in his heart and seeks his rest, his joy, his comfort, his hope—in a word, his god—in temporal good.

II.        Now that we have heard how common the worship of mammon is, let us hear the second part, how corrupting and damnable it is.

The holy apostle expresses briefly how corrupting is it with the words: “Greed is a root of all kinds of evil.” See what a vile thing greed or the worship of mammon must be. Could anything more vile be said of it than that it is a root of all evils? No evil is too great, there is no abundance of evil too large; the worship of mammon produces them all! From it grows self-love, indifference to neighbors, hatred, envy, apathy towards Christ, his word and his grace, yes, enmity against God, despising of heavenly bounties, robbery, murder, hardening against the work of the Holy Spirit and the like. Christ in our gospel names only the chief evil from this list when he says: “No one can serve two lords. Either he will hate one and love the other, or he will cling to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” It is here stipulated: where the love of money and property permeate the heart, the love of God is pushed out. Wherever an altar for mammon is erected, there the heart becomes a temple of idols, there the true God must yield at once.

No matter how many outward works of worship the servant of mammon performs, his heart does not take part. And where the heart which clings to mammon is turned away from God, his whole worship of God is a miserable illusion, an abomination to God. No matter how faithful a servant of mammon shows himself to be, he hates God in the depths of his heart. He hoped that he could be saved without God’s grace, so he was not the least bit concerned about God’s grace. If he could abide eternally in the world in earthly joy he would gladly remain forever far from God, gladly forsake his heaven and be content with the world. In vain God’s sharp law or sweet gospel is preached to a servant of mammon. Worry, wealth, and the bliss of this life choke out the heavenly seed. The word of God is written in his heart as letters in sand. The next gust of wind quickly blows it all away again and it is seen no more. One who loves temporal property sometimes is indeed troubled in his heart, for he would like once to possess, beyond earthly goods, heavenly goods. But no sooner do his thoughts turn back to temporal things, and they wash over him like waves of the sea and once more extinguish the glowing spark of faith. Often a servant of mammon comes to the firm resolve to be a true Christian and to follow Christ even to death. But when he finally hears: “Sell all that you have and give to the poor,” namely, when he hears that he must tear his heart free from everything temporal, that he must posses this merely to do good with it, then he goes away sad like that young man. This gate is too tight for him, this way too narrow, this requirement too difficult.

But what is his lot? Already here it is heartache, grief, worry, discontent, unhappiness. Always he thinks: If only you had this or that, then you would be happy. But the more he gets, the greater his desires become, just as thirst grows continually worse as one drinks more salt water. Death is a dreadful messenger for a servant of mammon. Either he is terrified to lose the world and its good, or he is still not certain how he stands with God. He suspects that Christ will not acknowledge him as one of his own. He suspects that he has forgotten and frivolously lost the heavenly in favor of the earthly.

Oh, already for many a man in the hour of death his money and property—much of it obtained unjustly, or still anxiously accumulated, and for its wearying acquisition he had set aside seeking the kingdom of God—oh, for many a dying servant of mammon his property has come crashing down on him like a mountain! Then, with the ship of his life about to founder, he would have gladly thrown all his treasures, his gold and silver, his houses, his estates into the sea, if only he could be saved by this. Oh, many a man has woken up from his dream in the hour of his death and finally departed with a doleful cry, without hope and without comfort.

But despair in the hour of death is only a harbinger of what awaits a servant of mammon in eternity. Here he has not sought his joy in God, but in base mammon. God will therefore say to him there: Depart! Be saved now by your dead idols. God’s anger and eternal condemnation will be the interest which those will receive there, who here used their temporal property only for themselves, who delighted only their eyes in it and would not let it abound for the poor and for the spread of the kingdom of God. In vain then the servants of mammon will excuse themselves and say: What evil have we done that we should be condemned? God will answer them: All right, if you have done nothing evil, where is the good that you should have done? Not only the tree which bears bad fruit, but also the tree which bears no good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I had blessed you with temporal things, but where is the interest from the talent loaned to you? The undried tears of the poor accuse you to me. The rust on the gold and silver in your chests, the sighs of the oppressed and swindled, indeed, your life entirely devoted to seeking temporal things testifies against you, that you accumulated treasures for yourself, that you loved yourself, and that you have not served me, but mammon. Therefore depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared from the devil and all his angels.

Oh, let everyone be terrified by this abominable worship of mammon! Time spent serving it is dismal, and horrible is its final pay. Here it robs man of rest and peace in his heart, there of God, his soul, and salvation. Let everyone look in his heart and ask: Whom do you serve? If you serve God not with your whole heart, you do not serve him at all, and certainly then mammon is your god, for “no one can serve two lords.” Consider that a man can drown even in a small brook. He need not fall into the sea to find death. In the same way the service of mammon may not be so obvious in you as it is in another, yet still your heart may cling to it secretly, in order to steal God, soul, and salvation away from you.

Oh, seek God with all his grace. Taste and see how gracious he is. Give him room in your soul, and mammon will quickly be pushed off of its throne in you and you will sing out continually:

Depart, O world, with your idols,

Depart with your silver and gold;

I have God with his treasures,

I am already saved through Christ’s blood.

There, moreover, I will be fully pure

And ever, evermore be saved. Amen.

Translated from Carl Ferd. Wilh. Walther, Amerikanisch-Lutherische Evangelien Postille: Predigten über die evangelischen Pericopen der Sonntage und Hauptfeste des Kirchenjahrs (St. Louis: Druckerei und Stereotypie der Synode von Missouri, Ohio, u. a. St., 1871), 295–301.

Thoughts on NA28

—By Jeffrey Kloha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Review: Who is Jesus?

Who Is Jesus

From the Editors: This review will be showing up in a future edition of LOGIA. Who is Jesus? Disputed Questions and Answers. By Carl E. Braaten. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011. Paper; 147 pages.

Carl Braaten has written a little handbook of the faith for laymen without a formal theological education. Only in the book’s conclusion does he show his hand: he has used the scholastic method of quaestiones disputatae to get at some fundamental points of Christian belief. He says what various people are saying about some controverted issue, such as the historical Jesus or the connection between Jesus and the church, and then gives an answer, always lively and plainspoken. The chapter titles themselves are simple and understandable and match various classical loci: prolegomena and the means of grace; Christology; missiology; ecclesiology; and the two governments.

Braaten’s pithy, lucid words are the reader’s well-aged wine. It is everywhere evident that the writer has been turning these things over in his mind for a very long time. So when they come out, they come out full of flavor and body. Savor this from Braaten’s discussion of the Jesus Seminar: “The Jesus of the ‘Jesus Seminar’ is a dead Palestinian Jew who was unlucky enough to get nabbed and nailed to a cross, due to a colossal misunderstanding—just a bad mix-up at city hall.” From his examination of the quest for the historical Jesus to his discussions of interreligious dialogue and ecclesiastical politicking, Braaten is always keen to find where the crucified God has been removed from the equation. Jesus Seminar doyen Robert Funk claimed that Jesus had not even been crucified, let alone God. His body was likely consumed by scavenging dogs. The Jesus resulting from the Seminar’s research decisions is for Braaten “not worth the bother.”

The book is more than an assortment of linguistic goodies. It also provides substantive, critical coverage for the lay reader—or theological student or under-informed pastor—of the critical quest for Jesus and its ultimate futility. Braaten does not find in the historical quests much of actual use for Christian proclamation, since certainty is needed for faith. He finds the canonical Scriptures much more useful and defends them over against gnostic gospels or other ancient Jesus literature by pointing out that the Holy Spirit has used the canonical Scriptures to create and sustain faith, not any of the other gospels long ago written and recently discovered. “A plain reading of Scripture mediates a living impression of ‘the whole Christ of the whole Bible’ without any need to appeal to dogmatic or historical authorities. An essential dependence of faith upon the results of historical research would force faith to rely on the erudition of learned professors.” Braaten avers he doesn’t want to turn back the clock on historical criticism, but in his rejection of scholarly certainty and his embrace of the Spirit’s certainty from a “plain reading,” the sensus literalis peeks out from the pre-critical age.

The loci covered in the book will therefore shock no one because Braaten aims here only to line up his answer to “Who is Jesus?” with the answers he has received from Christian tradition. His applications of that orthodox tradition to contemporary universalism and historical-critical biblical research are particularly interesting, since he sees in both trends the same deep desire to separate Jesus from God. This began with the nineteenth-century exchange of the religion about Jesus for the religion of Jesus, as in von Harnack’s What Is Christianity?, and continues in the American Academy of Religion and the Society for Biblical Literature, whose meetings Braaten regularly attends, “Lots of highfalutin talk goes on about the glorious God of the universe, but embarrassment prevails when it comes to speaking about Jesus, the humiliated God on the cross.” If Christology can be lowered or even altogether abolished, the theology of glory can annex the Lebensraum it demands in the human heart.

The book’s brevity induces some unfortunate historical-theological judgments of the type any pastor is liable to make offhandedly in Bible class. Contra Braaten, the Pastoral Epistles can scarcely be self-evident validation of the threefold form of ministry; the New Testament contains no particular “church order” as he claims. We are certain of a New Testament gospel ministry but less certain of the forms it took in Antioch, Jerusalem, Corinth, and elsewhere, as titles shift and differ, not to speak of enumerated tasks for the various offices. Lutheranism’s continued rejection of the ancient church order long after the Reformation ended is not an historical mistake or inconsistency, making “a virtue out of a necessity” by forever abandoning a threefold ministry. It was Lutheranism’s recognition and confession of only one ministry of the gospel (AC V), unadulterated by dubious historical researches. In his insistence on a particular church order, Braaten reprises the historical dubiousness and passionate assertion of the Jesus questers he elsewhere derides.

The glib equation of the orthodox Protestant doctrine of verbal inspiration with papal infallibility, which Braaten makes at least once, ignores his own discussion of the epistemology of Christian faith. If every Christian has been given the faith he has by the Spirit working through the Word, verbal inspiration is the confession of faith that has learned to trust the Holy Spirit who calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies—the catechetical framework Braaten himself uses to explain conversion. Confession of verbal inspiration is the upwelling of faith in the converted heart, not a rigid, psychologically, and scientifically precarious adherence to preexistent authority. Verbum domini manet in aeternum at the very least means we can trust God’s word, since it endures when all else fails. The doctrine of verbal inspiration is just the application of the Spirit’s own essential trustworthiness to all the words he speaks.

We do not throw away a perfectly good hammer for a few chips in the handle. Braaten’s highly commendable intent in writing the book is for the lay reader to grasp better these basics things of the faith and for pastors to teach faithfully the church’s understanding of Jesus’ identity, purpose, and meaning. Classic Christology, especially the crucified God-man, is at the book’s center. As in anything, a little ability to test the spirits goes a long way, but with that testing, the reader will be richly rewarded by almost all Braaten has to say. In this little book a master is speaking simply and clearly, so we would do well to sit awhile and listen.

Vicar Adam Koontz

St. John Lutheran Church

Sayville, New York

Can You Vote for a Mormon?

—by Gifford Grobien

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Review: Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism

From the Editors: Here's a freebee book review that didn't make it into the upcoming Reformation edition of LOGIA. If you'd like to purchase a subscription, click here.

Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment. By Eric W. Gritsch. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. Paper. 158 pages.

Eric Gritsch, veteran church historian and Luther scholar, is a vivid and articulate author. That attribute is abundantly present in his most recent book, Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment where he describes his undertaking: “The topic ‘Luther and the Jews’ is like a sea crowded with many vessels of various shapes and sizes, ranging from small boats to ocean liners—with an occasional warship! Some are steered well, others sail without reliable navigation, indeed, at times colliding with each other, and a few land on deserted islands sometimes damaged by warlike critique. Studies of the after-effects of Luther’s anti-Semitism disclose a great variety. In the  late nineteenth and early twentieth century, some studies become entangled with ideology, especially during the reign of German National Socialism (‘Nazism’). They then perish like the Titanic, after boasting to be part of a ‘final solution’” (128). Gritsch launches his  own considerable craft into these choppy seas in an effort to both understand and critique Luther. Along the way, Gritsch reveals his own theological presuppositions which form a hermeneutic for appropriating Luther’s theology in the twenty-first century.

Drawing on the work of the contemporary New Testament exegete Leander Keck, Gritsch maintains that Paul opposes any mission to the Jews (11, fn 38), arguing that Jews without faith in Christ share with Christians the same divine promise of salvation. Romans 9–11 is understood as making reference to a single, divine covenant that unites Jews and Christians as coheirs of an eschatological mystery. Any hint of “supersessionism” is dismissed. Here, Gritsch believes, Luther got it wrong: “He could have followed Paul’s advice to live with the divine ‘mystery’ regarding the relationship between Jews and Christians. But Luther did not. Instead, he offered his concluding argument for this divine verdict in 1538 when he heard about Jewsish attempts to infiltrate Christian communities, indeed to proselytize” (71).  In short, Gritsch sees Luther making a theological move that contradicts his earlier assertions in The Bondage of the Will, for example, not to seek after knowledge of hidden God: “[A]fter fifteen hundred years of Christian anti-Semitism, Luther felt obligated to conclude that the existing hatred of the Jews revealed the hatred of God. This conclusion is a violation of his own rule, so vehemently established and enforced against Erasmus in 1525, that to speculate about the hidden God ‘is no business of ours.’ To do so is against Luther’s better judgment” (77). Thus the subtitle of the book and Gritsch’s thesis. For Gritsch it is not so much a matter of the early Luther (see “That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew,” 1523) devoted to the pastoral evangelization of the Jews in contrast to the old Luther who was given to hateful polemics (see his writings from 1538 onward, especially “On the Jews and Their Lies” 1543) as it is a tragic failure of Luther to consistently apply his own theological method that distinguishes between God revealed and God hidden. It is from this perspective that Gritsch assesses other interpretations of Luther’s attitude toward the Jews, most especially the work of Walther Bienert (1909–1994) and Heiko Oberman (1930–2001).

Gritsch sees Luther’s “anti-Semitism” as a complexity shaped by historical and theological factors. In appealing to Luther’s distinction between God hidden and God revealed, Gritsch seems not only to underestimate but finally reject Luther’s confession of solus Christus as he sees Luther’s christological reading of the Old Testament as untenable. For Gritsch, it would appear, the only proper posture of Christians toward Jews is one of dialogue that excludes missionary witness.

A helpful feature of the book is the overview and summary of the reception of Luther’s writings on the Jews in the later sixteenth century and beyond.

John T. Pless

Fort Wayne, Indiana

A Call for Manuscripts

The editors hereby request article manuscripts, book reviews, and LOGIA Forum material for the following upcoming issues of the print journal. Please click here to see our submission guidelines.

Issue Theme Deadline Eastertide 2013 Assessing Erlangen September 1, 2012 Holy Trinity 2013 The Holy Spirit December 1, 2012 Reformation 2013 Wittenberg & Salt Lake City March 1, 2013 Epiphany 2014 Lutheranism in Australia June 1, 2013 Eastertide 2014 Holy Baptism September 1, 2013 Holy Trinity 2014 Missio Dei December 1, 2013 Reformation 2014 Wittenberg, Wall Street, & Welfare March 1, 2014

Forty Articles that Shaped LOGIA

—by Martin Noland

“These are a few of my favorite things . . .” (Rogers and Hammerstein, from The Sound of Music).   That’s one of a few of my favorite songs from the 1960s.  When it comes to LOGIA, I have great difficulty pruning the list of “favorite articles” down to a few.  It sounds too much like “Gospel reductionism” for my taste.  The editors have indulged me, so here, for what it is worth, is my personal list of forty articles published by LOGIA that made the journal what it is today, just in time for LOGIA's 20th Anniversary CD, available for pre-order here.  Individual issues are located here. They are listed in consecutive order.

Hermann Sasse, “The Church’s Confession,” tr. Matthew Harrison LOGIA 1 #1 (Reformation 1992): 5-8.

Erling Teigen, “The Universal Priesthood in the Lutheran Confessions,” LOGIA 1 #1 (Reformation 1992): 9-16.

John T. Pless, “Toward a Confessional Lutheran Understanding of Liturgy,” LOGIA 2 #2 (Eastertide 1993): 9-13.

Richard C. Resch, “Church Music at the Close of the Twentieth Century:  The Entanglement of Sacred and Secular,” LOGIA 2 #2 (Eastertide 1993): 21-27.

Gerald Krispin, “Paul Gerhardt:  Confessional Subscription and the Lord’s Supper,” LOGIA 4 #3 (Holy Trinity 1995): 25-38.

Ronald Feuerhahn, “Hermann Sasse & North American Lutheranism,” LOGIA 4 #4 (Reformation 1995): 11-24.

Matthew Harrison, “Hermann Sasse and EKiD—1848: The Death of the Lutheran Church,” LOGIA 4 #4 (Reformation 1995): 41-48.

Joel Brondos, “The Holy Things for the Holy Ones,” LOGIA 5 #1 (Epiphany 1996): 15-24.

Leigh Jordahl, “J. A. O. Preus,” LOGIA 5 #2 (Eastertide 1996): 45-49.

Robert D. Preus, “A Sermon on Revelation 7:13-17,” LOGIA 5 #3 (Holy Trinity 1996): 5-6.

David P. Scaer, “In Memoriam:  Robert D. Preus,” LOGIA 5 #3 (Holy Trinity 1996): 7-8.

David P. Scaer, “Commemoration Sermon for Dr. Robert D. Preus,” LOGIA 5 #3 (Holy Trinity 1996): 9-10.

David P. Scaer, “Formula of Concord X: A Revised, Enlarged, and Slightly Amended Edition,” LOGIA 6 #4 (Reformation 1997): 27-34.

David P. Scaer, “Missouri at the End of the Century:  A Time for Reevaluation,” LOGIA 7 #1 (Epiphany 1998): 39-52.

Matthew Harrison, “Lutheran Missions Must Lead to Lutheran Churches,” LOGIA 7 #3 (Holy Trinity 1998): 29-34.

Charles L. Cortright, “Luther and Erasmus:  The Debate on the Freedom of the Will,” LOGIA 7 #4 (Reformation 1998): 7-12.

John G. Nordling, “A Lutheran Goes to Rome,” LOGIA 7 #3 (Epiphany 1999): 39-43.

Tom G. A. Hardt, “The Confessional Principle:  Church Fellowship in the Ancient and in the Lutheran Church,” LOGIA 8 #2 (Eastertide 1999): 21-30.

John T. Pless, “Liturgy and Pietism—Then and Now,” LOGIA 8 #4 (Reformation 1999): 19-28.

Daniel Preus, “The Place of the Luther Academy in Today’s World,” LOGIA 9 #1 (Epiphany 2000): 27-34.

Steven Hein, “Tentatio,”  LOGIA 10 #2 (Eastertide 2001): 33-42.

Paul T. McCain, “Receiving the Gifts of Christ with Thankfulness and Faithfulness: Thoughts on the Bride of Christ’s Royal Priesthood and Holy Ministry,” LOGIA 10 #3 (Holy Trinity): 9-12.

John G. Nordling, “Why Should I Learn Latin When Everything Has Already Been Translated Into English,” LOGIA 11 #2 (Eastertide 2002): 27-34.

Hermann Sasse, “Union and Confession (March 1934),” tr. Gerald Krispin LOGIA 11 #4 (Reformation 2002): 5-8.

Norman Nagel, “Lured from the Water, the Little Fish Perish,” LOGIA 12 #1 (Epiphany 2003): 5-10.

John W. Kleinig, “The Lord’s Supper as a Sacrificial Banquet,” LOGIA 12 #1 (Epiphany 2003): 11-16.

Kurt Marquart, “The Issue of Church Fellowship and Unionism in the Missouri Synod and Its Associated Churches,” LOGIA 12 #1 (Epiphany 2003): 17-26.

Daniel Preus, “Church Discipline in Early Missouri and Lutheran Identity,” LOGIA 12 #1 (Epiphany 2003): 27-34.

Erling T. Teigen, “Ecumenism as Fellowship and Confession in the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America,” LOGIA 12 #2 (Eastertide 2003): 5-16.

Daniel Preus, “How Can We Give a Witness for Jesus Christ in the Public Square while Avoiding the Errors of Unionism and Syncretism,” LOGIA 12 #3 (Holy Trinity 2003): 17-22.

Reinhard Slenczka, “Magnus Consensus: The Unity of the Church in the Truth and Society’s Pluralism,” LOGIA 13 #3 (Holy Trinity 2004): 21-40.

James L. Brauer, “Trusty Steed or Trojan Horse?  The Common Service in the Evangelical Lutheran Hymn-Book,” 14 #3 (Holy Trinity 2005): 21-30.

Harold Senkbeil, “Till the Trumpets Sound:  Hold Fast and Hold Forth,” LOGIA 15 #2 (Eastertide 2006): 17-28.

James A. Nestingen, “Failing Structures, Vibrant Hopes,” LOGIA 15 34 (Reformation 2006): 15-18.

Wilhelm Loehe, “Three Pieces on the Deaconess,” tr. Holger Sonntag LOGIA 16 #2 (Eastertide 2007): 21-26.

Jon Steffen Bruss, “Melanchthon and the Wittenberg Reception of Hellenism, 1518-1526:  Bonae Literae et Renascentes Musae,” LOGIA 17 #4 (Reformation 2008): 7-12.

Klemet Preus, “Doctrine and Practice:  Resisting the Influence of Evangelicalism,” LOGIA 18 #2 (Eastertide 2009): 13-22.

Gottfried Martens, “JDDJ After Ten Years,” LOGIA 18 #3 (Holy Trinity 2009): 11-26.

Gregory Schulz, “On Terminating the Church’s Professors,” LOGIA 19 #4 (Reformation 2010): 13-20.

Jobst Schoene, “Does Luther Have a Future in Germany?” LOGIA 20 #1 (Epiphany 2011): 5-12.

Choosing Hell: A Lutheran View of Free Will

By James Keller

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

DOWNLOAD FULL ARTICLE HERE

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

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

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

The Pastoral Character of Herman Bezzel

Translated and adapted by Matthias G. Hohls

EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION

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

DOWNLOAD FULL ARTICLE HERE

A Lutheran Response to Justification: Five Views

—by Jordan Cooper

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

DOWNLOAD FULL ARTICLE HERE

Footnotes:

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

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

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

—by Rev. Eric R. Andræ

Download full article here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walther, however, goes on to challenge us to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walther claims that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May the discussion commence.

by Rev. Eric R. Andræ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 Ibid., 364.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

37 Giertz, The Hammer of God, 98.

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

39 Or, “born again.”

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

41 Giertz, The Hammer of God, 98.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hour of the SELK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lutheranism in Scandinavia

Epiphany 2012, Volume XXI, Number 1

Table of Contents

(A feature article from the journal: Confessional Fidelity by Bo Giertz)

Ruben Josefson takes the designation "confessional" from those in the current debate concerning women pastors who have incorrectly taken the title for themselves, and gives it back to those who deserve to wear it.

Lutheranism & Scandinavia

So says Ingmar Strom in Woman, Society, Church concerning Ruben Josefson's essay, "The Evangelical-Lutheran Position," in the same book. Thus, those are truly "confessional" who find no opposition in the Bible or the Confessions to opening the office of the ministry to women. One who honestly desires to be faithful to the Confessions naturally listens with interest. More so, his own faith and work as a pastor stand endlessly in debt to the Confessions. If it is true that it can be shown with good reason that our Confessions represent a view of Christianity and biblical interpretation that naturally leads to introducing women pastors at an appropriate time, then this whole controversy can be ended — certainly a relief for all parties involved. What are the reasons, then?

I. LUTHER'S VIEW OF THE BIBLE

Josefson first presents the Lutheran view of the Bible. At all essential points, the view presented is in line with "Neo-Protestantism," for lack of a better term. Luther, it is said, not only claimed Scripture as the authority against Rome, but also gave rise to a new understanding of the Bible: one that signifies a radical break with the view that the Bible is a formal authority. Scripture's authority is contingent upon the content of the message about Christ as the Lord of forgiveness. The Bible and individual parts of the Bible have no authority simply  because they can be traced to the prophets and apostles are authors, but rather they become apostolic and foundational for the church by conveying the message of Christ. "Whatever preaches Christ, that is apostolic."

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

...purchase the full journal here

Book Review: As Christ Submits to the Church

A book review of: As Christ Submits to the Church: a Biblical Understanding of Leadership and Mutual Submission. By Alan G. Padgett. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011. Paper. 151 + xviii pages. Review by John G. Nordling.

Unwary Lutherans might at first suppose that Padgett presents here a Christ who serves sinners humbly through the means of grace, rather the way God himself does at the Divine Service (cf. P. Brunner, Worship in the Name of Jesus [St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1968] 126-196).  One quickly realizes, however, that the “submission” Padgett envisions is of a rather different sort.  To be sure, Padgett does pay brief lip service to the gospel in the narrow sense: “evangelical is contrasted with moralistic or legalistic religion” (16 n. 22).  Mainly what Padgett has in mind, however, is a profoundly moralistic Christ who models a type of mutual submission that all Christians should be about in their day-to-day lives.  Thus, on almost every page is presented an extremely meek, servile, and even pusillanimous Christ who serves admirably as “the standard and moral exemplar” (46) of strong, empowered Christians serving weaker sisters and brothers—which may be a noble objective, admittedly.  This ethic of mutual submission, moreover, is the whole point of Jesus’ washing of Peter’s feet (John 13:13-14; cf. 54-55, 64, 126, 130), an eighth-century mural of which quite handsomely adorns the book’s front cover.  Hence, I think it safe to say that Padgett’s Christ is at some remove from the one assumed by most Lutheran readers of Logia.  But this should not surprise: Padgett is an ordained minister of the United Methodist Church, serving as professor of systematic theology at Luther Seminary (dust cover).

Padgett supposes that the ethic of mutual submission has the potential of freeing the church from oppressive gender roles.   Gender hierarchy derives not from Scripture itself, but rather the patriarchal philosophies of Greece and Rome (2, 88).  Three lengthy chapters wrestle exegetically with the type of passages Padgett thinks have been wrongly used over time to keep women down:

Chapter 3: Mutual Submission or Male Dominion?: Christ and Gender Roles in Ephesians and 1 Corinthians (57-77);

Chapter 4: Mission and Submission: 1 Peter and the Pastoral Epistles (79-101);

Chapter 5: Headship and Head-Coverings: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 from the Bottom Up (103-124).

A first chapter documents Evangelical approaches to gender roles since the Reformation (1-30), and in a second Padgett advances his thesis that mutual submission and the form of “servant leadership” that Christ exemplified are virtually one and the same (31-56).  A final chapter (125-131) attempts to apply the ethic of mutual submission to the contemporary situation: those who are weak (women, the poor, the oppressed, etc.) should not have to submit to those in power (abusive husbands, male senior pastors in large congregations).  So the overall message of the book and its concerns are not particularly surprising, given where Padgett is coming from.

What truly is remarkable and so should be addressed here is how Padgett engages Scripture and uses the traditional passages to advance a quite radical agenda.  In his opinion, mere biblical exegesis is “not enough” to determine meaning (3, 14, 21), provide the mind of an author (19-20), nor can one single verse ever decide an issue (30).  Nevertheless, Padgett devotes the bulk of the book (chapters 3-5) to the relevant texts of Scripture and thereby tries to provide biblical affirmations of equality.

The passage upon which so much depends is Eph 5:21ff.: “Being subject to one another [ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις] in the fear of Christ, [let] the wives [be subject] to their own husbands as to the Lord…” (my own translation, paying attention to the NRSV which Padgett prefers).  Padgett’s translation “submitting yourselves one to another” (41) for ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις already favors mutual submission.  After all, the present participle ὑποτασσόμενοι does indeed occur in the middle voice (“submitting yourselves”) and Padgett makes much of the reflexive pronoun ἀλλήλοις: “the term one another (allēlois) in Ephesians (4:2, 32) and in Paul’s letters in general indicates something that applies to each member of the church and not merely to a few” (41, original emphasis).  So, reasons Padgett, husbands should “submit” to their wives out of “self-sacrificial love and voluntary self-submission” (41) and the wives should “return the same” (42), just as Christ willingly and joyfully submits to the Church.  The reasoning here seems cogent enough, and I predict many well-intended Christians will enthusiastically accept Padgett’s arguments without a second thought.

Observation reveals, however, that Eph 5:21 is not complete in itself but functions as a kind of “general heading” (so A.T. Lincoln, Ephesians [Dallas, TX: Word, 1990] 365) for the specific callings of Christians that follow in the household code of 5:22-6:9 (wives/husbands, children/parents, slaves/masters).  Padgett would do well, therefore, to heed the following arguments (distilled from P.T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians [Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1999]401-405): first, in the NT ὑποτάσσω (“to submit”) regularly describes the submission of someone in an ordered arrangement to another who is above the first—that is, in authority over that person.[1]  In the many passages listed in the preceding footnote, none of the relationships wherein this verb appears is ever reversed—that is, husbands are not subject to their wives (as Padgett himself admits, 60, 66), nor parents to children, nor the government to citizens, nor the disciples to demons, nor God the Father to Christ the Son.  Therefore, ὑποτάσσω does not describe “symmetrical” relationships at all, but rather ordered relationships wherein some persons are “over” and others “under.”

Second, the pronoun ἀλλήλοις (“to one another”) is not always reciprocal as Padgett imagines.  Sometimes it is, so the translation “everyone to everyone” is in order (so John 13:34, 35; 15:12, 17; Rom 1:12; Eph 4:25, etc).  But as is often the case with words that occur frequently in Scripture, context determines meaning and one size does not necessarily fit all.  Thus, elsewhere in the NT symmetrical relationships cannot possibly be in view even though the pronoun “one another” occurs.[2]  In the passage at hand, therefore, “submitting to one another” does not indicate mutual submission because—as has already been demonstrated above—the submission is not reciprocal but one-directional.

Third, the flow of Paul’s argument as expressed in the Greek text does not permit the reciprocal interpretation.  Eph 5:21 (“being subject to one another in the fear of Christ”) introduces programmatically the notion of “submission” in the letter, and this is unpacked in the household code of 5:22-6:9.  The “general heading” (as Lincoln calls 5:21) is closely connected to what follows immediately in 5:22: there is no verb in the latter passage, so accurate readers of Greek will naturally carry forward the idea of “submit” (a second or third person imperative would do nicely) from the ὑποτασσόμενοι in 5:21.[3]  In 5:24 where ὑποτάσσεται does indeed occur (“as the church submits to Christ”) Paul adds, “so also the wives [submit] to their husbands in everything” (οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί).  Again, Paul does not have to add the verb “submit” to clarify what already is quite clear.  This is a stylistic matter, and so Paul—like all other writers of Greek and Latin—never adds a superfluous word to clarify his thinking, even though (to be sure!) many writers of English do so routinely.  But Paul cannot be subject to English style: he thinks and writes in Greek, an accommodation to which any adequate interpretation pays heed.  A stupid argument (that Padgett does not actually make) would be that because ὑποτάσσω is not actually paired with “women” in Eph 5:21, 22, and 24b Paul could not be thinking of wives submitting to their husbands in the overall passage.  But that he does have such submission in mind is clear enough from context (and he makes the point about wives submitting to their husbands explicitly in Col 3:18 and Titus 2:5; cf. also 1 Pet 3:5).

Preceding arguments should scupper any notion of “mutual submission” that Padgett may think Paul is establishing in Eph 5:21ff.  Instead, it is as though Paul were saying: “Submit to one another, and what I mean is, wives submit to your husbands, children to your parents, and slaves to your masters” (O’Brien, Ephesians, 403).  Another worthy interpreter has written: “Let each of you subordinate himself or herself to the one he or she should be subordinate to” (S.B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ [Ann Arbor, MI: Servant, 1980] 76).

An even more radical interpretation comes to light in Padgett’s treatment of 1 Cor 11:2-16 (women’s head-covering, deportment during worship), which he attempts to read “from the bottom up”—that is, starting from the end of Paul’s argument and working toward the beginning (103-124).  Padgett believes Paul is taking on an unfortunate custom at Corinth that women should not pray or prophesy “with uncovered head” (ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ, 11:5).  That this was the errant Corinthian custom (so not Paul’s own teaching) is supported, Padgett believes, by taking 11:13b as a statement (which, however, is punctuated in the UBS, Nestle-Aland, and most English versions as a question).  Thus, “judge for yourselves: it is proper for an uncovered woman to pray to God” (Padgett’s translation of 11:13b).  This exegetical sleight-of-hand allows Padgett to argue that there is no shame in a man with long hair at worship (which argues against traditional interpretations of 11:14 [cf. 11:7a]), and that nature herself has given women long hair instead of head coverings (which argues against traditional interpretations of 11:5, 6, 15a).  So, reasons Padgett, “women ought to have freedom to wear their hair however they want in church” (112).  Furthermore, the “authority” (ἐξουσίαν, 11:10) that a woman has “over her head” (ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, 11:10)—far from being a symbol of any type of head-covering (κάλυμα is a variant for ἐξουσίαν in many versions)—is a type of warrant early Christian women had to spread the gospel publicly and without hindrance: “Should not such a ‘messenger’ have the freedom to wear her hair however she wishes in church?” (113).  Thus, what Paul really means throughout this vexed passage—which has suffered centuries of abuse by mistranslation and “man-centered” interpretation—is that

…gender distinctions were of no importance.  This is where the saying “of the Lord” [ἐν κυρίῳ, 11:11] comes in: Jesus teaches that in the resurrection, sexuality as we know it will be no more.  So sexual distinctions, like head-coverings, should, in the Lord, be of no importance.  Therefore, “because of the angels” women should not have to cover themselves when men do not.  They should have freedom (to cover or not to cover) over their heads (115).

What shall we make of Padgett’s interpretation?  Well, we shall have to say, first, that it is nothing short of magnificent on many levels, and one’s sneaking suspicion is that such reasoning is destined to persuade many.  Padgett has been working on 1 Cor 11:2-16 “for over twenty years” (103) and has generated the impressive scholarship to demonstrate competency.[4]  Nevertheless, and speaking only for myself, I shall have to confess that I am not persuaded by most of Padgett’s arguments here, ingenious though they are.  The possibility that Paul is opposing a Corinthian custom (instead of giving vent to his own authoritative teaching) almost entirely depends on interpreting 11:13b as a statement instead of as a question, as demonstrated above.  However, it seems entirely natural to interpret the passage as Paul’s incredulous question with respect to what was routinely going on at Corinth during worship: “Is it proper for an uncovered woman [γυναῖκα ἀκατακάλυπτον] to pray to God?” (my added emphasis).  And the answer, though not actually stated, would be: “No, such deportment is not proper!” (cf. G.J. Lockwood, 1 Corinthians [St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2000], 376).  So Paul is a bit perturbed by the Corinthian license in this respect: “Surely it cannot be right for a woman to participate in public worship without the appropriate head-covering” (Lockwood, 1 Corinthians, 376).  Paul’s sense of incredulity continues in 11:14-15b which, as all acknowledge (including Padgett, 108), is another question: “Does not nature herself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but if a woman has long hair it is her glory?”  Here the answer to the question must be, “Yes, nature herself does teach that such activity is a disgrace!” (positive answer expected in response to the particle οὐδέ in 11:14a).  Padgett stumbles here by interpreting the οὐδέ negatively: “The clear and sensible answer to this question is no” (109).  But Padgett’s interpretation violates an important principle of Greek grammar whereby questions introduced by the negative particles οὐ/οὐκ, οὐδείς, οὐδέ, etc. invariably expect the answer yes (so H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1920] 598, §2651).  With this prop out of the way Padgett’s argument quickly falls.  The idea that a woman brings “shame” on herself while praying “uncovered” is clearly repeated in 11:5 and 6; likewise, the idea that a man ought not be covered with respect to his head is repeated in 11:7: “since he is the image and glory of God [εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπαρχων]; but the woman is the glory of man [ἡ γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν].”

Just what is Paul driving at here?  The special relationship that obtained between Adam and Eve at the beginning? (this could be suggested by 11:8-9).  The special relationship that also obtains between a Christian husband who exercises godly authority over his wife and family, and a wife who willingly submits to her husband in this matter? (so Lockwood, 1 Corinthians, 372).  I shall refrain from answering the question dogmatically because, as I think, a certain mystery pervades the entire passage: Paul here provides various intimations regarding the glorious relationship that can potentially exist between a man and woman in Christ, so the question is not easily reduced to a single, binding answer (which is the problem with much rather legalistically “conservative” interpretation on the Reformed side, as Padgett rightly notes [10]).  But what I would argue at the very least is that Paul suggests that there are certain undeniable, God-given, and created differences between the two genders that are not supposed to be overlooked, minimized, or denied.  And this precisely is what Padgett’s scholarship routinely does.  By “gender balance” (111, 112, 118, 119) Padgett means that there just are no appreciable differences between man and woman; in the name of “equality” the two sexes ought simply to be blended together, and so what emerges is a kind of benign unisexuality: “the distinguishing marks of short hair on men and head-coverings for women are of no consequence in the Lord or in church” (111).  Well, perhaps not at the resurrection of all flesh, or at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Last Day.  But until then and “here below” where we live now, I submit, sexuality and the type of ordering that God intends to exist between the two genders continues to matter a great deal.  Here I defer to scholars who have written at greater length on these matters than have I:

The created distinction between man and woman should be honored in the church.  Symbolic “gender-bending” actions in which women and men seek to reject their specific sexual identities are a sign not of authentic spirituality but of an adolescent impatience with the world in which God has placed us.  We are not disembodied spirits; consequently, spiritual maturity in Christ will lead us to become mature women and men in Christ.  Our dress and outward appearance should appropriately reflect our gender identity; to blur these distinctions is to bring needless shame upon the community.  In a time of rampant confusion about gender identity in our culture, Paul’s teaching on this matter is timely for us.  A healthy community needs men and women together ([11:]11), not a group of people striving for sexless neutrality (R.B. Hays, First Corinthians [Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1997] 191; in Lockwood, 1 Corinthians, 378-379; original emphasis).

Padgett is familiar with the work of much traditional scholarship but routinely dismisses it as evocative of “man-centered leadership” (so 2, 10, 27, 57, 68, 101, 130), “traditional Christian patriarchy” (4), or the type of “complementarian” positions (2, 11, 32, 39, 43, 130) he supposes have been outmoded by the “Gospel” as he defines it.  Padgett is no slouch exegetically but, unfortunately, uses his powers to undermine traditional positions and (as the ancient rhetoricians used to say) “make the worse appear the better cause.”  So anyone reading this book needs constantly to be on guard and prepared to wage battle exegetically.  Space does not permit me to expose everything, though another book of equal length could well be written to engage Padgett’s faulty interpretations of the other passages and set matters straight.  In this review I have managed to engage Padgett’s substandard interpretations of Eph 5:21ff. and 1 Cor 11:2-16.  It goes without saying that much more of this work could and should be done.  So perhaps pastors who have the time and training could purchase the book and engage it deeply with each other before instructing their laypersons suitably.  Gender confusion runs rampant in our churches and pastors are needed who can confront this growing menace, yet do so without alienating the godly women who comprise more than half of our congregations.  I would like to see our pastors engage such scholarship as Padgett has produced, and get to work in this matter.

John G. Nordling serves in the Department of Exegetical Theology Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN

 1  E.g., the submission of Jesus to his parents (Luke 2:51); of demons to the disciples (Luke 10:17, 20); of citizens to governing authorities (Rom 13:1; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13); of the universe to Christ (1 Cor 15:27; Eph 1:22); of unseen powers to Christ (1 Pet 3:22); of Christ to God the Father (1 Cor 15:28); of church members to their leaders (1 Cor 16:15-16; 1 Pet 5:5); of the church to Christ (Eph 5:24); of slaves to their masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18); of Christians to God (Heb 12:9; James 4:7); and of wives to their husbands (Col 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet 3:5).

 2  O’Brien, Ephesians, 403 (original emphases): “For example, Revelation 6:4, ‘so that men should slay one another’, cannot mean that each killed the other at precisely the same time as he or she was killed.  Likewise, Galatians 6:2, ‘Bear one another’s burdens’, does not signify that ‘everyone should exchange burdens with everyone else’, but that ‘some who are more able should help bear the burdens of others who are less able’ (cf. also 1 Cor 11:33; Luke 2:15; 21:1 [in error for 12:1]; 24:32).”

 3  Later witnesses read either ὑποτάσσεσθε (“submit,” 2 plur. pres. impv. mid.) or ὑποτασσέσθωσαν (“let them submit,” 3 plur. pres. impv. mid.) in 5:22 to give absolutely no doubt what Paul’s intent here was.  Such excessive wordiness, however, violates “the succinct style of the author’s admonitions” (B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition [Deutche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994]541).

 4  “Paul on Women in the Church: The Contradictions of Coiffure in 1 Corinthians 11.2-16.” JSNT 20 (1984) 69-86; “Feminism in First Corinthians: A Dialogue with Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza.” EvQ 58 (1986) 121-132; “The Significance of ἀντί in 1 Corinthians 11:15.” TynBul 45 (1994) 181-187.

Welcome St. Stephen at Christmas

A sermon by Rev. Ronald  F. Marshall, proclaimed to his flock at First Lutheran Church of West Seattle, December 26, 2010.

"And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:56).

Today is the Feast of St. Stephen, the first martyr of the Church – who died because he spoke out for Christ (Acts 7:51-53). But “what a difference a day makes” – as Dinah Washington sang on her Grammy award winning record back in 1959! For this transition from Christmas day to today – the second day in the twelve days of Christmas – is anything but smooth! For we have gone from singing, “Repeat the sounding joy,” to killing (Acts 7:57-58). So what’s up? Why this “most glaring contrast” between these two days of Christmas [Kaj Munk, Four Sermons (1944) p. 20]?

Delaying Peace

Now it is precisely because we heard yesterday those heavenly, angelic words, “Peace on earth!” (Luke 2:8), that we wonder why, all of a sudden, St. Stephen is being stoned to death by an angry mob. Have we missed something? The Christmas decorations are still up – but to no avail, for this wretched brutality still befalls us!

Well, in fact, the sad truth is that we have missed something. And what we’ve failed to consider sufficiently is that our Lord didn’t come to bring peace on earth right away (Luke 12:51)! For on earth, for now, we must instead endure tribulation (John 16:33; Acts 14:22). But that doesn’t mean that we won’t have a peace of mind which the world cannot give (John 14:27). All it means is that we’ll be the “off-scourging” of the world because we follow Christ (1 Corinthians 4:13). So having a peace of mind rooted in knowing to whom we belong, and the blessedness that awaits us when we die (Philippians 4:4-7) – that will not and cannot keep us from running the risk of being tortured, mocked, imprisoned, wandering over deserts and mountains, living in dens and caves, and even being “sawn in two” or stoned to death (Hebrews 11:35-38).

Slogging in the Bog

Now that being said, how in the world can we live with the threats in these tribulations? How can we, as Martin Luther said – who is our most eminent teacher [The Book of Concord (1580), ed. T. Tappert (1959) p. 576] – how can we put up with this “vexation of life,” a life which is so “horribly wretched, difficult, and troubled” (Luther’s Works 8:114)? In his Large Catechism (1529) he even goes on to say that when we do follow Christ, we will never “have peace” – even though God “faithfully provides for our daily existence” (BC pp. 429, 431). And if we eke out some worldly peace anyway, that can only be because we – as Luther’s relentless logic again has it – have abandoned Christ [LW 13:415; 51:112; 52:117-119; Luther’s House Postils, 3 vol. ed. E. Klug (1996) 1:163] – by avoiding the “hard knots” intrinsic to Christianity (LW 21:62; 23:402), like self-denial, eternal damnation and the uniqueness of Christ. So Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) – who thought preachers could do no better than read aloud Luther’s sermons every Sunday in church rather than writing their own [Journals & Papers, 7 vols, trans. Howard V. Hong & Edna H. Hong, 3:3496] – he felt that we were left, because of this tribulation, to “slog along as if in a bog” (JP 3:6503), finding our help from God, as Luther said, “in the midst of opposites” (LW 4:232). Lord have mercy!

Because of this trouble, Luther believed that “there is no life… on earth more wretched than that of a Christian” (LW 28:106) – and the stoning of St. Stephen underscores that most emphatically. And Kierkegaard, for one, took Luther’s insight to heart. For he argued that it would be a bad “slogan” for the Christian life, to think that if you are loving and kind, then “it will go well with you in this world” (JP 3:3527; Hebrews 10:34)! So by including St. Stephen’s stoning at the start of the season of Christmas, the point is made that the birth of Christ means “that the natural man should die,” and that, to die in this way means, “to be born” (JP 1:568).

Abounding in Adversity

To be able to rejoice in this redefined birth of the Savior, we will have to follow the wisdom of God. But if we do, as Kierkegaard warned, we will run the risk of “fanaticism” (JP 3:2379). Even so, Luther is fearless and says that the Biblical message holds that the Christian “knows how to rejoice in sadness and to mourn in happiness” (LW 25:347; Psalm 90:15). For the true Christian is “uplifted in adversity, because he trusts in God” and is “downcast in prosperity, because he fears God” (LW 27:403)! Kierkegaard called this strange flip-flop an “inverted dialectic” (JP 4:4680).

But it is just this inverted dialectic that gives us the calm to face any situation in life and to learn to be “content,” as was the Apostle Paul when he suffered adversity (Philippians 4:10). So the secret to enduring tribulation is in this very inversion or flip-flop – whereby adversity becomes a blessing, or as Luther said, we learn by it to be uplifted in adversity – following Romans 5:3. By so doing, Kierkegaard notes, Luther doesn’t put us to sleep spiritually but instead preaches us “farther out” (JP 3:2462) – out on a limb, if you will – beyond a mere “human cause,” whereby we are busy about only “finite matters” (JP 3:2570). Moving out into a realm where, if one were stoned to death for the truth, it wouldn’t be the end of what matters most, but it’s beginning. For when the world shuts its doors on us, “heaven opens up” (JP 4:4508). That’s why we are to rejoice in our adversity and not collapse under it – being only “struck down, but not destroyed” (2 Corinthians 4:12).

So we do not lose heart. Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed…. For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory,… [for] we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:16-18).

This is what St. Stephen knew! No wonder, then, that when the thief on the cross cried out to Jesus, “Are you not the Christ? [Then] save yourself and us!” (Luke 23:39), it fell on deaf, albeit divine, ears. And that was because “in Christianity everything is aimed at eternity – therefore a lifetime of suffering, therefore no help in this life, no victory in this life” (JP 3:3098). Or as Jesus said: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (Matthew 10:28)! So Kierkegaard writes that if this earthly tribulation and anguish is lost, then we might as well “lock the churches and convert them into dance halls,” because that higher divine cause of spiritual renewal and salvation will have been lost, for it is what prepares us for that eternal weight of glory (JP 3:2461). To guard against this, Kierkegaard says that the human skull is the most fitting object for “prolonged mediation” on the meaning of Christian living, because it symbolizes “that to love God is: to die, to die to the world, the most agonizing of all agonies” (JP 3:2455).

Seeing Jesus

Therefore we will surely need help if we are ever going to turn our anxieties and tribulations into blessings, like St. Stephen did. Somehow we’ll need to know that God is “swift to help,” even if everything is to be rendered futile, is to be blown away like a fantasy, even if nothing, nothing whatever, is to be achieved and the suffering is the one and only actuality, even if the unremitting sacrifice of a long life is to become meaningless like shadowboxing in the air… (Kierkegaard’s Writings 5:334).

We cannot come by such knowledge intellectually. But we are told in no uncertain terms that God has “delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Colossians 1:13), that we might go “through life to life” (KW 15:217)! And these words are good-as-gold, for in them we hear, Kierkegaard would say, the very “voice of God” (KW 21:39), and not some human interpretation (1 Thessalonians 2:13) of an old, disputed text. All of this happens through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus whereby he cancels what’s against us (Colossians 1:14).

This sterling sacrifice, Kierkegaard notes, reveals that “Christianity is the divine combat of divine passion with itself” (JP 1:532). For the very blood shed in the sacrifice of the Son of God, saves us from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9)! In that salvation we are shocked by the internal combat of God “recoiling” within (Hosea 11:8). But in this sacrifice is life. And so when St. Stephen is stoned to death, he sees the heavens open, with Christ standing – not sitting as usual – to welcome him (Acts 7:56) because “dangers threaten” (JP 1:300). In death, then, Christ “strangles” death for us, so that our death – strangely – is in him and not in us (LW 42:105)! Therefore our reward comes after we die (Luke 14:14). So we are to struggle to remain faithful unto death, that we might then receive “the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10), since Jesus refuses to magically turn “mortal life into worldly delight” (KW 15:233). And to remain faithful to this promise, receive the Lord’s Supper today, for it’s “new strength and refreshment” (BC p. 449).

Being Angelic

And then, in thanksgiving for our salvation (Colossians 2:7), may we also “walk as children of light,” holding on to what’s “good and right and true” (Ephesians 5:8-9)! So be angelic under attack, as St. Stephen was (Acts 6:15). Don’t seek suffering (LW 30:110), but don’t flee from it either (LW 35:56). And pray for your enemies, after you rebuke them, as St. Stephen did, and so show that love is “like a nut with a hard shell and a sweet kernel” [Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols (1988), ed. J. N. Lenker, 6:208]. Amen.

Second Sunday in Advent, 1918

An Advent Sermon from Werner Elert translated Adam Koontz

 Luke 21:25-26

            “There shall be signs in the sun, moon, and stars.”—says the Lord. So far it hasn’t happened yet. Certainly at times a new show takes place in the night sky. There a comet ascends and after a time disappears again. A few months ago a new star in the sky was discovered, but after a few days, it became small again. Or an unusually long drought or long wet period prevails. Or once a great storm on the sea—“the sea and the waves will roar”—yes, all this occurs also in our times. But it has often been so before. Comets have often stood in the sky. And all manner of horrors at sea have disturbed men. In all these and the like, our time does not distinguish itself from other times.

Certainly one thing does apply to our day in a special way: “On Earth people will be afraid, and they shall say”… “And men will die off for fear and for awaiting the things that shall come on the Earth.” There is a monstrous restlessness among our people and seemingly also among all other peoples. One lives in the anticipation of great things. One hopes and fears. One waits.

“But when this begins to happen, look up and lift up your heads, for your salvation draws near.” When what begins? The sky’s activities? They have not changed, so long as the thoughts of men stretch into the past. Therefore we come to the other option: when the angst and restlessness of men and the restless anticipating becomes ever greater—then lift up your eyes. Lift your heads, for your salvation draws near.

And so the appeal is addressed also to us today. Lift up your heads, for your salvation draws near. From this and the following words of the Lord comes an essentially different picture of the imminent end-times from that which most Christians among us maintain. Usually the matter is put forth as if horrible things are the most certain mark of the future coming of Christ, as though one must await a dreadful upheaval in all earthly conditions, indeed in all the conditions of the stars, the heavenly bodies among them, and finally, as though the best preparation were to hide oneself warily at one’s own hearth. Though all these things and opinions have a certain truth to them—this speech of the Lord shows that the matter also has another aspect. From this announcement comes much that is in contrast to this widespread opinion:

1. The signs of the future coming of Christ shall be not only terrible but also full of hope.
2. One should fix his eyes not on the ephemeral, but on the everlasting.
3. One should be not worried, but watchful and worthy.

I.

            One should certainly not overlook that in the proclamations of Jesus the description of events in the sky is by no means the only thing. It says, “He told them a parable, ‘Look at the fig tree, and all the trees—as soon as they leaf out, you look for yourselves and know the summer is near. So also, when you see all this going on, know that the kingdom of God is near.’” Had the Lord thought only of downfall and destruction at his future coming, he would have likened the time of preparation not to the spring but to the autumn. That he likened it to the spring, bright budding and the greening of the trees, so we may definitely expect that the end of time will also mean a bright budding and greening in his kingdom.

Is such budding and blooming something to be perceived in the present? Before the war, we received the reports of our missionaries every year. Who among us read them? Who was at all interested in them?—Yes, there was something of blooming in the kingdom of God to notice, when the heathens pressed in to hear the Gospel. How happy we would be today, if that happened again! But if also in this time some consoling news arrives, in general a monstrous reversal has come. It is autumn there instead of spring, and the young congregations of Christians there are far more like not to a greening fig tree, but to a fading one. The leaves for the most part are fallen. So here the Lord’s condition is not fulfilled.

And in Christianity here at home?—Some believed strongly during the rush to arms in the first months of the war that a rush to arms brought with it the chance to behold a greening fig tree in the area of prayer meetings for the war, of prayer, and of a penitent attitude. Granting there may have been something true in that—today we are in any case farther from a conversion of the entire people than ever. Here also no blooming, but a falling of barren leaves—for that reason we will not hold the horrible things of the present for more important than they actually are. Therefore they are not decisive, says the fact that the trees still are not green.

II.

Not the ephemeral, but the everlasting.

            When many Christians busy themselves much more readily with the outward signs of the coming of Jesus than with the inward signs, it is presumably because above all the ephemeral is more important to them than the everlasting. You remember that the last Sundays of the church year preach the everlasting in ever-new phrases. And out of the prayers of those weeks rings out the tone: “Prepare our minds for the end.” But do not think, fellow-Christians, that that is a special cemetery-mood or autumn-mood that is again finished once happy Advent promises hopes and joys again. The season of Advent also in its way directs its vision to the everlasting.

Proof v. 33, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” That is: away with all thoughts of the temporal, but also with all thoughts and musings on the downfall of the world, etc. It all passes away—what does it matter to you? Think still more on that which will be saved, yes, what then will still be, and then always will rule all life. Those are his words.

The Lord’s words—they are not dead and gone like other people’s words. Some among us can only speak smartly; they give first-rate advice in all political and business affairs. But do not think, fellow-Christians, that such has eternal worth…. That Christ’s words have eternal worth, that is because he himself is an eternal being.

And let us apply these predictions of the Lord to some of his words. “Come unto me…” “The Son of Man—that he should give his life as a ransom for many.” “I am the Good Shepherd—I give them eternal life, and they shall nevermore perish.” These words have validity also in the eternal world, and to that let us turn our attention.

III.

Not anxious, but watchful and worthy.

            From this follows—and that is for us the most important thing—how we should conduct ourselves in these hard times (which should however, as the season of Advent, lose all that is comfortless). First: not anxious. If we were to be anxious, fearful, then certainly it would be never be set there: “Lift up your heads.” So not a sunken head, but an uplifted one. Not fearful, but inwardly free and full of trust in a very strong Helper.

But beside that: watchful, v. 34-36. The day comes like a trap. Not as if someone has an interest in bringing us to a fall. The Lord, who brings it, wants rather the opposite. But he wants to preclude all hypocrisy. Were the preparation of the fulfillment such that no man could anymore doubt it, then the temptation would lie near that many would repent at last out of so-called smartness. What do you think, fellow-Christian? Oh, how many good Christians lean upon the possibility to still repent before the gate is closed and to still be able to come home. It doesn’t work that way with the Lord. The end comes unexpectedly like a trap.

So watchful. And further “worthy.” Oh, of worth among us we cannot speak, still less of worthiness. Namely then, not when this is connected to it: “Worthy to stand before the Son of Man.” Therefore there is only one way out. That is the begging outstretch of the hand to him: Lord, take me as I am. Forgive me my sins, and save me. I cannot. That strikes some among us not as worthy but as unworthy. That we still thereafter must humble ourselves is because the human measure of worthiness is generally invested in hypocrisy. Not with the Lord. And above this: it is not about humility before men but about humility before God. …

Amen.

LOGIA After Twenty Years: some thoughts by Martin Noland

—by Martin R. Noland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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