LOGIA is a publication of Luther Academy
Follow us on Facebook and X (Twitter)
When: November 6-7, 2013
Where: Martin Luther College, New Ulm, Minnesota
Featured Speakers:
Rev. Matthew Harrison, President, Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Rev. John Moldstad, President, Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Prof. Steven Paulson, Professor of Systematic Theology, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Mark Schroeder, President, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
For more information on the Lutheran Free Conference, go to www.lutheranfreeconference.org
—Ryan J. Ogrodowicz
Late last June the Supreme Court handed down the ruling that legally recognized same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits. Thought the ruling fell short of declaring same-sex marriage constitutional-so states still have the right to define marriage-it is hardly a victory for proponents of traditional marriage. Instead, it has created jubilation amongst SS (same-sex) advocates and rightly so: the high court's decision is now serving as the impetus for judges to challenge state laws on this issue.
While the ruling does not exactly compare to the wide-sweeping 1973 Roe vs. Wade, which declared abortion a constitutional right virtually unrestricted by state law, it has created plenty of momentum indicating under present circumstances it's a matter of time before the constitution is invoked to establish same-sex marriage as a fundamental right.
Some churches are beginning to brace themselves for what seems inevitable. The Associated Press recently reported churches are changing their bylaws to explicitly state their position against SS marriage and performing SS wedding ceremonies.
The reason is precautionary. A written position could benefit a church if taken to court for denying service to practicing homosexuals. Not everyone is convinced this is necessary, including Justin Lee, the executor director of the Gay Christian Network, who says "they seem to be under the impression that there is this huge moment with the goal of forcing them to perform ceremonies that violate their freedom of religion . . . if anyone tried to force a church to perform a ceremony against their will, I would be the first person to stand up in that church's defense."
Justin will have the opportunity to back up his words, for little indicates the SS lobby will stop outside church walls. Already Christian consciences are being violated. Recently, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against Elaine Hugenin, a photographer who had denied services to a lesbian couple. The couple then initially filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission with the accusation Elaine Hugenin was practicing discrimination based on sexual orientation. All five of the justices supported the ruling that she had no choice but to provide services for homosexual couples; denying them was a violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA).
In his concurring opinion, Justice Bosson wrote: "At its heart . . . this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others." The compromise expected is that people are to act in a manner socially tolerant even if it means violating their religious beliefs. For Mrs. Hugenin, it will take the Supreme Court to overturn the state's verdict, which seems unlikely.
RedState.com editor Erick Erickson posted an intriguing, insightful, and likely prophetic blog the day following the DOMA ruling. "You will be made to care about gay marriage. You may think it does not affect you or will not affect you or you can support it and leave well enough alone, but you cannot. The secular left and aggressive gay rights activists will not allow you to."
The blog ends with this: "There is one bright spot for Christians in America, though it will not appear so. Christianity has become soft. Persecution of the faithful will strengthen it as it has done for centuries. It will happen. We best prepare. You will be made to care."
Erickson's warning is hard to ignore.
So what does all this mean for the Christian?
Lost on Justice Bosson and others is that separating belief from conduct is an unbiblical concept. Christians are neither called to behave in a way contrary to their confession nor can they compromise even one letter of Jesus' teaching. Good trees bear good fruit, the city on the hill cannot be hidden, and burning lamps are not to be hidden under baskets. Being a baptized believer means confessing the same faith of Peter and the apostles, who before the Sanhedrin confessed: "We cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:20). A similar incident occurs in Acts 5:29 where they respond: "We must obey God rather than men." When it comes to faith and salvation, there can be no compromise, for a little leaven leavens the whole lump (Gal. 5:9). Discipleship never excludes persecution and death, a teaching that deserves contemplation by everyone bearing the name of Christ, who says "You will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 10:22).
God never promised our earthly lives would be a bed of roses. We will contend against the enemies of God, and the fight will require endurance until the end. But during the fight God promises many things. Salvation belongs to the baptized faithful. And as we endure, we have as our advocate Jesus Christ, the author and perfector of our faith. He will not permit the righteous to fall, and during persecution we can rejoice knowing the outcome-eternal life and glory secured for us by Jesus, our Lord and our God who knows all about ridicule and persecution, mockery and death.
Let us pray God gives us the endurance to persevere in this world of trouble, always looking forward to what lies ahead while clinging to his words, "Take heart, I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).
The Rev. Ryan Ogrodowicz serves as pastor of Victory in Christ Lutheran Church in Newark, Texas.
As an extension of LOGIA, BLOGIA understands itself to be a free conference in the blogosphere. As such, the views expressed on Blogia are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LOGIA's editorial board or the Luther Academy.
Words take on different meanings with the passage of time. While this is well-known, it is sometimes surprising to discover one particular word whose meaning has changed without catching our attention. When this transition remains unnoticed, confusion and misunderstanding quickly follow. For such words, understanding what they formerly meant as opposed to what they mean now is crucial for understanding.
The word "witness" falls into this category. Below is an introduction to Rev. Alan Ludwig's careful study of the word and its meaning in Acts. As students of scripture, Lutherans do well to pay careful attention to the definition and use of words. Ludwig's study gives such attention to the word "witness."
The entire essay can be found in the forthcoming festschrift in honor of Daniel Preus: Propter Christum: Christ at the Center. Visit LOGIA's website to reserve your copy. It is being offered at a discounted introductory price of $29.99, and is scheduled to be released in November. Act now to take advantage of the savings!
— Alan Ludwig
Today it is commonplace, and not only in churches of the Baptist-Evangelical persuasion, to hear sermons that exhort the hearers to "go out and witness." Appeal for this is regularly made to Acts 1:8, which reads in part: "And you will be my witnesses, both in Judea and in Jerusalem and in Samaria, and to the end of the earth." How the preacher has made the move from the original disciples to the people in the pew, from those who received these words from the mouth of Jesus to those who hear them from the preacher's lips, seldom receives an explanation. That all Christians are witnesses is assumed as a self-evident truth that needs no apology.
And yet this easy application of Acts 1:8 to all Christians is a relative latecomer on the ecclesiastical scene. Is it warranted? To answer this question it is necessary to take a careful look at a text that we often take for granted. This study then will include a brief survey of the witness word group in the New Testament-the verb μαρτυρέω and its cognates-and after that examine more closely the peculiar Lukan use of these terms, with special regard to Acts 1:8.
The Witness words are μαρτυρέω, "to bear witness, testify"; μαρτυρία and μαρτύριον, "witness," "testimony"; and μάρτυς, "one who bears witness or testifies." Some of these words also have compound forms.1 For full information the reader is referred to the standard lexicons and theological wordbooks.
In addition to its usual meaning in Greek, this witness word group is heavily flavored by Old Testament usage. There μάρτυς and its related words usually translate d[eand its Hebrew cognates, which have a firm setting in the legal sphere.2 The witness is generally one who has gained information firsthand through seeing or hearing, and he testifies to what he knows. God, man, and inanimate things may serve as witnesses. The Torah and its individual parts are also called "testimonies" because they provide written attestation to God's salvation and to the divine will.
Virtually all of the Old Testament uses carry over into the New Testament, though not in equal measure. Especially prominent is the Torah's requirement that every word be established at the mouth of two or three witnesses (Deut 19:15). This is not only a feature of Jewish life regulated by the Torah (Matt 26:59-61; John 8:17-18; Heb 10:28) but also extends to life in the church (Matt 18:16), even to the churches of the Gentile mission (2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19; cf. 1 Cor 14:27, 29).
There are two essential characteristics of a witness (μάρτυς): he has gained information, usually by firsthand observation, and he conveys this information to others, often in a formal or legal setting. At the one end of the spectrum, the μάρτυς may be virtually a spectator who observes (Heb 12:1).3 At the other end, the act of testifying and the content of the testimony take precedence over how the testifier came by the information (Rev 12:11, 17). . . .
When Jesus tells his disciples that the Paraclete will bear witness concerning him, he goes on to say, "and you also bear witness, because you are with me from the beginning [ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς]" (John 15:26-27; cf. Luke 1:2). The disciples' testimony is the witness of those who have seen and heard firsthand, and it is through this testimony that the Spirit himself will bear witness of Christ (Acts 5:32), just as he has already witnessed to the Messiah through Moses and the Prophets. John states beautifully the role of these eyewitnesses in the opening words of his first epistle:
That which was from the beginning [ἀπ᾿ἀρχῆς],4 which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it [μαρτυροῦμεν] and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us-that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3 ESV)
The "we" here is surely John and his fellow apostles.5 The truth of their testimony is confirmed by their having been present with him "from the beginning" (John 15:27; Acts 1:21-22) and having heard, seen, and touched the Word of Life. . . .
Recent years have seen a re-alignment of church bodies, Lutheran and otherwise, as fallout from decisions made regarding sexuality. Some new church bodies, Rev. David Scaer argues, are putting themselves in an untenable position. Their views on scripture and the ordination of women will lead to the same problems which they are currently fleeing. Scaer addresses this question in his contribution to Propter Christum: Christ at the Center, Luther Academy's forthcoming book. Below you will find some of Scaer's thoughts on the issue.
In order to reserve your copy of the rest of this essay, visit LOGIA's website and take advantage of the pre-order price of $24.99 (a savings of 30%) for Propter Christum: Christ at the Center. This offer will expire at the end of August, so order now!
The book, in honor of the retired director of Luther Academy, Daniel Preus, provides a confessional Lutheran perspective on today's world. Essays address women's ordination, church relations, global challenges to Lutheranism, and other contemporary issues. As such, the book is a great resource for understanding and interacting with the world we live in.
— David P. Scaer
Culture inevitably influences what people believe, even to the extent that a church may come to believe that its faith is indistinguishable from its culture. Some have recognized this cultural invasion and have left such churches to form new ones. At its August 2009 convention, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), swept along by prevailing cultural winds, accepted the ordination of practicing homosexuals as well as the blessing of same-sex alliances and marriages in states where these practices are allowed by law. This cultural accommodation has resulted in some leaving the ELCA to form the North American Lutheran Church (NALC) and the less ecclesiastically structured Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC). Similar exoduses have taken place from mainline Episcopal, Reformed, and Presbyterian denominations.
These newly formed churches have a common interest in maintaining traditionally held beliefs. Other issues are reasons for separation, but the blessing of same-sex marriages and the ordination of practicing homosexuals are the most prominent. While these new churches are not debating the legitimacy of women's ordination, this is the real issue-and if it is not addressed, these churches will be little different from the ones they left. For Lutherans in America, the step towards ordaining practicing homosexuals came when the churches forming the ELCA adopted the ordination of women in the 1970s. Women's ordination long has been accepted in the mainline denominations and likely will continue in the new churches. Here is the dilemma for the newly formed churches: They want to establish themselves on a more solidly biblical basis in tune with ancient church practice, but ordaining women as ministers does not belong to the catholic tradition. Commitment to biblical inerrancy does not assure a positive outcome, since Evangelicals who hold to this commitment are divided on women's ordination and the baptism of infants. A prominent argument for Roman Catholics is that the ordination of women deviates from tradition. Paul uses the catholic argument in 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 when he says that in all the churches women are forbidden to preach. For those not up to sifting through the biblical objections to the practice, the catholic argument may be the most convincing. A church is not allowed to go off on its own or make its own rules for the ministry. With a keen ELCA interest in keeping relations with Rome intact (for example, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification), its dissidents now in the NALC have good reason to reevaluate retaining women clergy. Supporters of women's ordination in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) who favor closer alliances with Rome should also reconsider their position. . . .
A church's challenge is preaching the gospel in terms that can be understood by the people of that time, but it dare not allow it to be swallowed up by its culture. Bible translations are cultural adjustments that allow speaking in terms people can understand. Sermons take the task further in addressing the word of God to issues Christians face in their time, but the church dare not be overcome by the culture. The Old Testament contains the accounts of how Israel was often shaped by its surrounding polytheistic culture and engaged in pagan worship; succumbing to the worship of the neighborhood gods could be a subtitle for the Old Testament. Christians in Corinth did not entirely divest themselves of Greek philosophy, so some denied the resurrection of the dead. No church is immune from being overtaken by its surrounding the culture-not even professedly confessional churches. Recent events are nothing new. As mentioned, ELCA decisions on homosexuality mirrored first culture and then state laws recognizing same-sex marriages, but this was already happening in discussions about ordaining women. At the time this practice was adopted by Lutheran churches, the eventually failed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was making its way through state legislatures. . . .
—Aaron T. Fenker
If someone wants to understand the Lord’s Supper, 1 Corinthians 11 is a very important section in this endeavor. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul recounts Christ’s instituting of the Lord’s Supper. Yet Paul has a stern warning for those partaking of this blessed gift, given for our forgiveness: “He, who eats and drinks judgment upon himself, eats and drinks not discerning the body” (11:29). In the active διακρίνω means, “(1) separate, arrange; (2) make a distinction, differentiate; (3) evaluate, judge [by careful attention]; (4) judge, decide [legally].”1 Moreover, the TDNT speaks in a similar manner about the meaning of the word in the active.2 Most notably, the TDNT cites 1 Corinthians 11:29 under διακρίνω: “‘To distinguish’. . . 11:29: μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα, ‘because he does not distinguish the body of the Lord (from ordinary bread).’”3 A look at the context of 1 Corinthians helps us to understand what διακρίνω means in 11:29, and what that in turn means for our understanding of the Lord’s Supper.
The word, Διακρίνω, occurs five times in 1 Corinthians, and each of these occurrences is in the active voice.4 If one considers the definitions from BDAG and TDNT above, it is clear that διακρίνω involves functions of the reason. How the word is used in 1 Corinthians bears this out. “So is there no one wise among you who can discern between his brother?” (1 Corinthians 6:5) Here the context is one of judging a dispute for which one needs reason, a very similar use to that of 1 Corinthians 4:7.5 Moreover, 1 Corinthians 14:29,6 which revolves around judging what prophets say, also speaks similarly.
Finally, let us consider διακρίνω as it occurs around the Lord’s Supper in chapter 11. In context, τό σῶμα from 11:29 refers to the Lord’s body given in the Supper. This body of Christ must be discerned lest unworthy eating occur. Such discernment of Christ’s body is on Paul’s mind even in 11:31. It is our reason that distinguishes between the bread and body, the wine and blood—that both are present.
I will certainly be accused of being a rationalist for such a view, but the involvement of reason does not mean that it is reason alone. Clearly our reason has been darkened by sin, but it has also definitely been illumined by faith—faith that trusts the words of Jesus and receives them as he gives them to us. Our faith is not irrational. God, in Christ, has redeemed even our reason that now serves faith. Usus ministeralis7 is not denied. Reason gives voice to what faith believes. Reason confesses the ὅτι of the Lord’s Supper, but does not and ought not attempt to describe the πῶς. Reason serves faith, and so cannot be removed, after all, “That which He did not take up, He did not heal.”8
The Rev. Aaron T. Fenker is currently serving as Associate Pastor at Immanuel Lutheran Church in Bossier City, Louisana.
—Ryan J. Ogrodowicz
The English noun "cosmos" is a cognate of the Greek kosmeo, which means to "put in order so as to appear neat or well organized" (BDAG, 560). God "cosmosed" the universe from nothing in six days by his divine word. Animals, humanity, vegetation, and lights-all of creation reveals God's concern about order and structure.
With Genesis, other Mosaic books contain detailed instructions on a variety of topics including temple furnishings, offerings, feast days, childbirth, loving the neighbor, sexual ethics, mold, and leprosy. We don't need to get lost in the minutia to see amidst the precision and details surrounding the cultic lives of ancient Israel that God was no stranger to order and distinction among people, places and things, especially regarding worship. Order and distinction of divinely mandated categories abound in the Old Testament, particularly in the Mosaic books where one frequently encounters words like clean, unclean, holy, and profane.
One such holy object of grave importance was the meeting place of nomadic Israel, the tent of meeting. It was consecrated by God and so considered sacred ground (Exod 29:43-46). Grain, sin, and guilt offerings were holy foods consumed only by priests in the sacred tabernacle (Lev 6:26). They were holy by God's decree and reserved for men consecrated as his priests. Also, the ark of the testimony, the altar of incense and burnt offerings, along with other temple furnishings, were consecrated by God, and like certain foods they were instructed to be handled only by the sacred (holy) priests (cf. Exod 30:26-27).
Far from harmless descriptions, God took the holy and profaned serious enough to enact the death penalty when these lines were crossed (Num 18:32). The terms "clean" and "unclean" applied to people and things, such as the postpartum woman and leper, both of whom were unclean until declared clean by the priest. The peace offering was holy food for those outside the priesthood, but a penalty still ensued if it was eaten wrongly. Not only was the unclean person barred from eating the holy peace offering, but doing so warranted exclusion from the congregation (Lev 6:20), a punishment applying also to those touching anything unclean either an object, person or beast (Lev 6:21). The unfortunate case of Aaron's sons clearly demonstrates God's holy demand that man approach him correctly (Lev 10:1-3ff).
The above categories existed for the relationship between God and his people. Tangible holiness was in the midst of the congregation; a holy God dwelled amongst his people set apart to be his own. Since the fall, there is a problem for sinners regarding holiness, namely God is holy and man is not. Man is defiled by sin and in need of divine holiness and purity only God provides. The distinctions between clean and unclean, holy and profane, come from the God's overarching injunction in Scripture for holiness: "You shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy" (Lev 19:2). Holiness needs separation from the unclean, as seen in the reason God gives for keeping his consecrated people apart from her neighbors: "You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine" (Lev 20:26). In addition, despite debate on why exactly some animals are deemed clean over and above others, Scripture is explicit on the reason for God's division between the clean and unclean in the animal world:
For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore by holy, for I am holy" (Lev 11:44-45).
While the Mosaic cultic rites and practices are discontinued in the New Testament and fulfilled by Jesus (Matt 5:17-20), the relationship between God and man expressed in these rites continues to the present. For ancient Israel, their problem was the same for us today: how do sinners become holy before a holy God? God's Word established ways in which they could worship in faith for the forgiveness of sins, just as Christians are called to worship by faith in Christ. In the Israelite system safeguards were in place to prevent inadvertent contact with God's holiness, such as the postpartum woman's ban from the holy place until she was clean, along with people afflicted with skin diseases (Lev 12-14). Lest we forget, a holy God was on the scene in the midst of sinful people. The distinctions and separation created by the divine word would've been a constant reminder for the people that God is a consuming fire of holiness demanding a proper interaction from sinners in need of his holiness and cleansing from sin.
The sacrificial system and many other things in the Mosaic books have found their terminus in the person of Christ. But the essence of God's holiness hasn't changed and neither has the sinner. God is as holy today as He was for ancient Israel, and humanity is just as sinful today as in the years BC. We must not forget the God we worship is a holy God, a "consuming fire" (Heb 12:29). Christian worship involves gathering in the holy name of Jesus Christ; our holy God is in our midst as we serve him in faith receiving the holiness he imparts by his word. While not having holy relics, we have something far greater in that we have the holy word of God, the "most holy" of relics. Luther: "the Word of God is the true holy relic above all holy objects. Indeed, it is the only one we Christians know and have."1 When the word of God is on the scene, Christ and his holiness are present. In short, we still encounter a holy God when we worship, and we are still sinners gathered to receive the forgiveness and sanctification he promises to impart by his grace through faith in Jesus.
This needs to be kept in mind when discussing the worship life of the Church. The vacuous terms "contemporary" and "liturgical" are often flippantly tossed around in worship debates, complete with subjective understandings of each. If the organ is liturgical, then the electric guitar is contemporary. Vestments are traditional, so Abercrombie is modern. Candles are historic, and spotlights are hip. None of this receives explicit commands from Scripture. As for what instruments are worthy in the Divine Service, I remember a pastor quoting from Psalm 150 as his reason for including a variety of instruments in worship. The organ was not one of them.
A question that I believe does not get asked enough is whether or not the worship service conveys to sinners that in their midst is a holy God? Does reverence and awe flow not from ecstatic light shows and theatrics, but the truth of God graciously bestowing his forgiveness and holiness to faithful sinners? Does a worship service mark the distinction between the sacred and the profane, the clean and the unclean-in other words, the distinction between a sinful world and the holy Christ? A sanctuary needs to be just what the word itself implies: a holy place because the holy name of God is invoked at the beginning of service, not a room adorned with worldly trappings muddling distinctions between the sacred and profane. Architecture and worship styles can certainly help teach and appeal to the senses in a way that aids the hearer in believing when the holy name of God is invoked, there is the holy Christ, and you, O sinner, are forgiven and sanctified on account of his all-atoning sacrifice.
The Christian is not of the world. The holiness of God is not the kingdom of darkness, but something different, something distinct, just like his holy church. In the framework of biblical holiness, steeples, crosses, and stained glass mark distinction and difference very well, as do candles and vestments. So did a tent of meeting, altar, blood, robes, and gold-plated ark. They imply nonconformity to an ever-changing creation, and in the same way our holy God doesn't change before sinners (Mal 3:6). Just as the tent of meeting and worship life of ancient Israel was strictly demarcated from the surrounding cultures by divine decree, the church is also different from the world in that it is the place where the holy one meets his people to sanctify them by grace through faith. We keep the Sabbath holy by going to where holiness has promised to be found-in and through the person of Jesus Christ. This is as different from the world as light is from darkness. Erase these marks and distinctions by conforming to the world through architecture and the worship life, and one does little to express to sinners that the gathering place is where a holy God meets and consecrates his people. He is holy, and you are not. And that's why we come, to hear and receive what every sinner needs: holiness.
The Rev. Ryan Ogrodowicz serves as pastor of Victory in Christ Lutheran Church in Newark, Texas.
As an extension of LOGIA, BLOGIA understands itself to be a free conference in the blogosphere. As such, the views expressed on Blogia are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LOGIA's editorial board or the Luther Academy.
Editor's Note: This information has been compiled from official information and reports coming out of the WELS convention. The reporter was not on site to observe the convention.
The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) held its biennial convention on the week of July 29–August 1. The convention was held at Martin Luther College, the synod's pre-seminary and teacher training college in New Ulm, Minnesota. The convention establishes programs, fiscal policies and goals, and broadly directs the synod's ministry and outreach plans.
According to pre-convention memoranda and news, this convention has several major issues before it in addition to its regular business and duties, but by far the issue that has generated the most interest and discussion is on the matter of which English Bible translation—if any—should be adopted for use by the synod particularly in its publications and educational resources.
The NIV 1984, the official Bible translation currently used in WELS publications, is being phased out and replaced with a new version, the "NIV 2011." A WELS' "Translation Evaluation Committee" (TEV) was created to research the NIV 2011. The same committee has also researched many other versions, including the English Standard Version (ESV) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).
In the report it prepared for the convention, the TEV outlined two options that it sees for deciding which Bible translation to use in WELS publications going forward. Option 1: WELS adopts NIV 2011 for use in materials produced by Northwestern Publishing House. Option 2: WELS does not adopt a single Bible version for use in its publications at this time. NPH uses whichever version of these three (ESV, HCSB, NIV 2011) seems best for the passage cited and the publication in which the biblical text will appear ("eclectic approach").
The 2011 convention also resolved that, as a possible alternative, the synod should consider producing a new translation by Lutherans. A "Translation Feasibility Committee" (TFC) was created to research the legal, technical, and economic feasibility of WELS creating a confessional Lutheran translation of the Bible and/or producing a study Bible with notes to accompany the translation that WELS chooses to use in its publications.
The report that the TFC submitted for the 2013 convention concludes, "Perhaps the question should not be, 'Can we do it?' but, 'Must we do it?' If the people of our synod believe that there is no existing translation of the Bible that can serve our preaching, teaching, and publishing needs, then we'd trust that the Lord would help us find the resources and overcome the obstacles to carry out what is sure to be a very challenging project. But if an existing translation or translations can serve our needs, it would save the time and expense, not to mention the potential disruption to our ministerial education system, to use an existing translation."
Confessional Lutheran theology sets Lutherans apart from other theologies. What impact, if any, does this have on the parish pastor? How does Lutheran theology shape the daily work of the pastor? Particularly, what does justification have to do with parish practice? This question, Rev. Scott Murray suggests, could use some more attention. See below for an introduction to his thoughts on the matter.
Read MoreWhat is the relationship between preaching and absolution? Rev. Klemet Preus tackles this question in an essay included in Luther Academy's forthcoming festschrift honoring his brother, Daniel: Propter Christum: Christ at the Center. Below you will find a bit of the essay to stimulate your own reflections on the question.
Read MoreRev. Daniel Preus has been and continues to be a champion of confessional Lutheran theology around the world. To honor his contributions to the church, Luther Academy is preparing a Festschrift in Daniel's honor entitled Propter Christum: Christ at the Center.
Read MoreJesus puts the question to his disciples, a question that will not go away: "Who do men say that I am?" Whether on the History Channel, in popular magazines, scholarly seminars, or chance conversations, it is an enduring inquiry, this question about Jesus. The disciples chime in with their speculative answers: "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, or Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
Read More— Ryan J. Ogrodowicz
An article written by Carey Neuwhof, “11 Traits of Churches That Will Impact the Future,” contains eleven characteristics of churches he believes “will have a significant impact a decade from now.” Society is rapidly changing, he notes, and so the church needs to accommodate and act according to the change. He limits that change in his premise, “Don’t get me wrong, we don’t need to change the message. Just the method. One is sacred. The other is not.” The logic here is easy and common. Method lacks divine quality, so we’re free to experiment as long as the message remains intact. Experimentation is for adapting to culture-to capture its fleeting attention for the sake of getting people in the doors. Method is the bait leading to the more important message. The latter is sacred; the former is not, at least according to the author.
The premise gives the illusion no relationship exists between message and method other than the latter should lead to the former. Method leads to the message rather than being derived and governed by the message, a subtle but noticeable difference.
Traits #1 and #3 pertain to a pastor’s ability to make decisions over and above the preferences of a congregation, all compassionately done for the sake of the unchurched: “When you learn to say no to the preferences of some current members, you learn to say yes to a community that is ready to be reached.” And such decisions need to be done in haste. “Can your church or organizations make quick decisions? If not, amend your constitution so you can. If the congregation needs to vote on everything, just realize this is going to be your Achilles’ heel when it comes to making the changes you need to make.” Allow me to translate: a pastor’s preferences override the preferences of the congregation because when it comes to outsiders, he knows best and should make decisions over and above a pesky voter’s meeting.
There is no disputing that voter’s meetings slow things down, and that a top-down approach is more expedient. But congregational votes exist for a reason. They keep sinful pastors in check from doing something potentially harmful for the church, and they give everyone an opportunity to see what’s going on, pray about the matter, consult Scripture, discuss, pray again, and vote. It’s a process, but one that forces Christians to exercise patience, prayer, discipline, and the consultation of Holy Scripture before casting an important vote. Under Carey’s model expediency certainly wins, but at the cost of a congregation’s Christian duty to make sure things are done in decently and in order (1 Cor 14:40).
Trait #2 appeals to outsiders with the call to be “outsider focus.” “Churches that become passionate about people outside their walls will be far more effective than churches that are passionate about keeping the few people they have inside their walls.” Translation: be more passionate about outsiders than those you already have.
As a pastor, I am passionate about keeping God’s sheep, and unapologetically so. Jesus tells Peter three times in John 21 to feed his sheep. Who are the sheep but the ones the Holy Spirit has called, gathered, enlightened, and sanctified by the gospel? The pastor is charged to feed the sheep, and what they are fed makes all the difference. A congregation should never be taken for granted and neglected for the sake of outsiders. They need constant care, feeding and protection because the devil is always seeking to devour the sheep of Christ. Christians of all stripes face trials and temptations, sin, and the devil, and so every week they need God’s forgiveness and healing by his grace in Christ. Rather than calling pastors to focus on one group or the other, Christ’s words are simple: “feed my sheep” (John 21:17). And when the pastor feeds by teaching the words of Jesus, Jesus is present (Matt 28:20).
A top-down power structure allows for change and experimentation in the worship service. Being able to quickly tailor the experience to meet a changing culture is the goal pastors can reach when they are free to play with the service unhindered by congregational preferences. In trait #9 Carey extols the “high value of experimentation” while dismissing anything reeking of tradition. Experiential trial and error will help the church to discover what works and what isn’t “producing results.” As to the nature of those results, we’re left to speculate. This relates to the final trait “a tailored experience, not a tailored message.” Here the reader is brought full circle to the original division of method and message only now “method” is replaced with “experience.” It’s no surprise that Carey, given his penchant for change and adaption, emphasizes the experience of the church goer; appealing to an evolving culture is the thrust of the article. Granted, first impressions are important, for people do cast judgments based on experiences. Cold shoulders and unfriendly faces don’t bode well for visitors, Christian or not. Furthermore, a worship service done in a sloppy, haphazard manner can be a stumbling block, and certainly not indicative of the pastor charged to do his best to be a “one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). There are no biblical commands for vestments and candles, stained glass and organs, and so churches can opt to remove such “obstacles” to appeal to those more inclined towards bands and spotlights, jeans and suits. As long as the message remains the same, the church is at liberty to tailor the experience, or so the argument goes.
Against this premise, an intimate relationship between method and message does exist, to the degree that one can affect the other. When churches begin emphasizing experience and change in order to appeal to culture, doing whatever it takes to tickle the senses and offer something palatable to the masses, such methodologies can affect the message. I’m not convinced the attempt to be relevant can be as easily segregated from the sacred message as Carey and others suggest. If a church spends all her waking hours appealing to people’s perceptions and emotions, discussing change and relevancy, who is to say this approach won’t bleed over into how the message is handled? Relevant experience runs the risk of leading to a relevant message; and by relevant I mean making the hearer comfortable and smug, confident and proud, without fear of sin and need of a savior. This flies in the face of the sacred message convicting of sinners, cutting to the heart, and showing our desperate need for a gracious savior given by God’s grace in Jesus Christ. When pastors do things like zip line in church, host erotic dancers, and talk about sex after the blaring music of Ozzie Osborne, are we really supposed to believe such experiments have no effect on how people perceive the message? (See alittleleaven.com for examples). The quest for experimentation has no boundaries as churches conjure up more relevant ideas to capture culture’s attention while promising to deliver the sacred message. We’re told the secular is supposed to point to the sacred. I’m not buying it.
Churches so intent on appealing to culture overlook a key tenet in secular business models: packaging matters. In trait #11, Carey makes the point that despite how we experience receiving a gift, the gift is the same. The experience of online shopping as opposed to going to the mall doesn’t affect the gift itself. It’s true: diamonds are diamonds whether they come in a refined case or brown paper sack. But that’s not how jewelry companies think and rightly so. The reality is the wrapper prompts us to judge what’s behind. Look at books. Dust jackets don’t just protect, but they exhibit flashy advertisements enticing the would-be reader to pick up the book and investigate. Jewelers don’t place diamonds in zip lock bags and paper sacks, but in felt cases of silky, cushioned insides highlighting carefully placed gems. Steve Jobs labored over the packaging of the Macintosh because in his eyes the box pointed to and underscored the content. To him it was worth redoing a box some fifty times before finally settling on a polished result ((Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs, 134)). I doubt Zondervan, Tiffany & Co., and Apple would fall for anyone arguing that the way a gift is packaged and experienced for the first time doesn’t affect the product.
On the contrary, it matters a great deal and not because of the content, but also on account of the person engaging the content. This is a matter of subjective versus objective. How a subject perceives the object is important. If someone on the street approaches me with a brown bag full of shiny crystal-like stones and says they’re real diamonds, I’m going to be reticent to believe. Take me into a high-end jewelry store, and I’ll have no trouble believing the carefully displayed, tested, and marked stones are exactly what they’re claimed to be. There is a mindset in the church that the holy, sacred message, the oracles of the almighty living God, should be seen as a precious diamond despite being wrapped in contemporary trappings such as high-powered rock bands, spotlights, videos, theatrics, and erotic love. This type of packaging and experience does little to convey to the hearer that a holy God is present, to whom we offer “acceptable worship with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:28–29).
Change may be in the wind, but a certain constant aspect of human nature cannot be overlooked: people are sinners. People are corrupted by sin from conception, in rebellion to God, wicked and unrighteous the moment their life begins. All this talk about change and accommodation shrouds the paramount problem of man that is his sinful nature. Those who are lost live in darkness. Those who live in unbelief live with the “wrath of God” upon them (John 3:36). Those dead in trespasses will not be born again by gimmicks, charades, and staying on top of trends, but by the Holy Word of God-the efficacious, powerful Word that gets no press in Carey’s article and other articles of the same vein. “11 Traits of Churches That Will Impact the Future” painfully fails to highlight and unpack the intimate relationship between message and method, thus creating the perception that methods can be derived from a source other than the sacred message. Not one of Carey’s traits mentions the nature of preaching and its impact. And perhaps that’s the greatest travesty in this. The Greek verb from which the English “to preach” is derived occurs some sixty times in the New Testament! One would think that a church serious on impacting the world would at least give a passing mention of the nature and importance of preaching. Sadly, of all the traits suggested, rightly handling and preaching the “word of truth” is not one of them.
God’s word has always been put into the mouths of his servants to strike the heart of the hearer. His word, capable of bringing creation into being, also creates what doesn’t come from within the flesh, the miracle of faith (Rom 10:17). If a church wants to make an impact, then she should emphasize and labor to preach the word, the sacred message through which the Holy Spirit enlivens hearts to believe and trust in the mercy and forgiveness of God. And this impact will be anything but pretty. The world never takes kindly to the word of God and Christian conviction. Just look at the martyrs. Or Jesus when he says “I chose you out of the world; therefore the world hates you” (John 15:19). When the world hates the church, she’s doing something right. The article left me without the sense that the word of God undergirds these traits even though their goal should be to highlight and convey the word of God to a sinful world. Perhaps this is telling in and of itself. I wonder if there’s the assumption that every church has the message down pat, and so there’s no need to discuss it. Or maybe we’d rather avoid discussions on scripture and doctrine. Then again, it may be we lack faith in the efficacy of the word, hence the nauseating emphasis on methods and practice coming out of many religious circles.
The world is going to change, but sin remains the same. The world will always rejoice over Christian blood. The devil will roam to devour, and cosmic evil will threaten. Despite how culture changes, there is real danger facing the church that man cannot overcome. We desperately need to know what our true weapons are and be equipped for battle, because when it comes, the wisdom and musings of man are destined to fail. The word of God stands forever. It can never be absent in the church’s discussion on impacting the world.
The Rev. Ryan Ogrodowicz serves as pastor of Victory in Christ Lutheran Church in Newark, Texas.
As an extension of LOGIA, BLOGIA understands itself to be a free conference in the blogosphere. As such, the views expressed on Blogia are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LOGIA’s editorial board or the Luther Academy.
Holy Trinity 2013, Volume XXII, Number 3Table of Contents
(A feature article from the journal: Life in the Spirit of Christ: Models of Sanctification as Sacramental Pneumatology by Leopoldo A. Sanchez)
This essay argues that the Lutheran tradition offers a sacramental approach to the theology of the Holy Spirit that shapes its view of the sanctified life. The term sacramental is used in the broad sense to speak of the Spirit’s work in salvation history through means in creation — fundamentally, through the Son’s own human life and history. Because such a pneumatology is grounded in the identity of the incarnate Christ as the privileged locus of the Holy Spirit, as the bearer and giver of the Spirit of God, we may refer to this sacramental view of the Spirit as an incarnational pneumatology. The term sacramental is also used in the narrow sense in this essay to refer to God’s work through his instituted means of grace, namely, baptism and the Lord’s Supper.1 The Holy Spirit works through ordinary means or signs in creation (that is, water, bread, and wine) not only to deliver God’s word of forgiveness, life, and salvation to us now but also to shape our lives after Christ’s own life in the Spirit. If the forgiveness that God delivers through his means of grace points us to the benefit of the sacrament, the life in the Spirit of Christ that flows from receiving such gifts of salvation refers us to the daily use of the sacrament.
Our argument proceeds in three stages. First, we show that a Nicene approach to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, while interested in drawing the Third Person’s ontological distinction from us, ultimately points to his sanctifying works on our behalf as the basis for acknowledging and confessing his divine equality with the Father and the Son. In a creedal hermeneutic, an important shift is made from the immateriality to the materiality of the Spirit, from ontology to soteriology, which sets the stage for conceiving the Spirit’s work through means in creation to bring about God’s saving purposes.
Second, we argue that a material or incarnational view of the Holy Spirit finds its basis in the affirmation of the Spirit’s inseparable connection to Christ’s own flesh, the incarnate Word’s life and mission. Pneumatology does not only look for the Spirit who comes after Christ, but sees the Spirit already in Christ. In a prominent patristic reading of the Jordan event, Christ’s receiving of the Spirit for us in baptism paves the way in the Father’s plan of salvation for Christ’s giving of the Spirit to us in our baptism.2 There is a chain of salvation, a pneumatological link, between Christology and ecclesiology. We see that a sacramental pneumatology is finally grounded in a pneumatological Christology. In Lutheran theology, Luther’s affirmation of the Holy Spirit’s work through the external word is not merely a polemic move against enthusiasts but is an approach to pneumatology that assumes the Spirit’s inseparable connection to Christ and his words of life.
...read or download the rest of this article here (free, PDF)
...purchase the full journal here
Recent high profile events—the Gosnell trial and the septicemia of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland—have again raised the question if abortion is ever acceptable, such as in attempts to save the life of the mother.
Read MoreEditor's Note: As an extra for the Eastertide 2013 issue of LOGIA, we are posting this book review from the Eastertide 1997 edition of LOGIA. If you'd like to purchase a copy of all the back issues of LOGIA, please click here. Die Erlanger Theologie (no. 67 in Einzelarbeiten aus der Kirchengeschichte Bayerns). By Karlmann Beyschlag. Erlangen: Martin-Luther-Verlag with the Verein für bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1993. 295 pages.
Since the nineteenth century, the theological faculty at the University of Erlangen has been the citadel of confessional Lutheranism. In the 1940s and 1950s, students from America and other foreign countries streamed to Erlangen, attracted by the world theological leadership of its university.
But after the deaths of Elert and Althaus, a reaction set in the theological faculty as well as in the Lutheran churches of Germany. The teachings of Karl Barth, the Barmen Declaration, and the “Confessing Church” began to suppress confessional Lutheranism. Principles of the Union Church, including intercommunion and open communion (Leuenberg Concord), were accepted by the Lutheran churches. A much less talented group of theologians replaced the great ones at Erlangen. Several of these sought notoriety by denouncing Elert and Althaus. In 1971, they succeeded in having the traditional subscription of the Lutheran Book of Concord abolished at Erlangen. Since then, Erlangen has been the launching pad for attacks upon the Lutheran Church and its symbolic books. The special target of their assaults has been the Lutheran distinction of law and gospel and the doctrine of the two realms.
The significance of this new book is that Karlmann Beyschlag, a pupil of Elert and Althaus, has written both a brilliant historical work and a strong defense against many falsehoods that have been leveled against these stalwart Lutherans.
The author begins by delineating the background of Erlangen theology, stemming from the Awakening Movement of the nineteenth century. Important impulses came from Christian Krafft, Carl von Raumer, and the earlier thinker Johann Georg Hamann. He then gives sketches of the most important theologians at Erlangen.
First is Adolf von Harleß (1806–79), who was both an important scholar and a powerful church leader. As theologian he was the founder of Erlangen theology and one of its most important writers; as churchman and friend of Löhe he was able to separate the Lutheran and Reformed parts of the Protestant state church and to create a confessional Lutheran church in Bavaria (33–57). Next, Beyschlag discusses the greatest Erlangen theologian of the nineteenth century, Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann (1810–77), giving a brilliant presentation of his complicated thought. Hofmann made a deep impression upon several Americans, including the Dubuque theologian Johann Michael Reu.
Within the scope of this theology came the “Erlangen School,” a movement that built upon the theologian’s personal experience of salvation and emphasized the Lutheran Confessions. Beginning with Harleß and explicated through Höfling, Hofmann, Thomasius, Delitzsch, Theodosius Harnack, von Zezschwitz, Schmid, and Frank, the movement spread from Erlangen to the universities of Leipzig, Rostock, Greifswald, and Dorpat. The “Erlangen School” as a specific theological movement ended with the death of Frank in 1894, but another important theological program was to appear at Erlangen in the twentieth century, building upon the earlier movement.
In a separate chapter, Beyschlag characterizes a group of church historians at the university who did not really belong to the “Erlangen School” movement, especially Theodor Zahn, Albert Hauck, and Reinhold Seeberg. He then discusses three other important historians: Gustav Plitt, Theodore Kolde, and Karl Schornbaum.
In chapter 7 he presents “the second blossoming of Erlangen theology” (143–203). This movement began with the criticism of the old “Erlangen School” by a pupil of Frank, Ludwig Ihmels. Without rejecting the importance of the religious certainty of the theologian, Ihmels warned that not human experience but divine revelation must be the true basis of a sound theology (143–145). Beyschlag names three great men in the rebirth of Erlangen theology: Otto Procksch, Werner Elert, and Paul Althaus.
The Old Testament scholar Procksch, who was a very strong teacher as well as writer, renewed Hofmann’s conception of Heilsgeschichte. Unfortunately, Procksch’s important theology of the Old Testament was not published until after his death (1950), so that it was already superseded by the fine work of his pupil Walter Eichrodt (148). Procksch is remembered equally for his firm confessional Lutheranism and for his determined stand against the Nazi movement.
Beyschlag ranks Elert and Hofmann as the two most important Erlangen scholars in the past two centuries. He describes Elert as “the totally unclerical man who, in his outward appearance, looked more like a general in civilian clothing than a theologian” (151). Elert, “like all intellectual giants,” was “an uncommonly complicated character, who was just as easily offended as he was polemically feared” (151–152). He cites the remark of Trillhaas: “Elert had not a single friend with whom he had not at least once had a sturdy fight” (151).
Elert’s early writings were historical and systematic, and were largely devoted to Luther, Melanchthon, the Lutheran Confessions, and subsequent developments in the history of theology. In some way or other, the distinction of law and gospel took an important place in all these writings. ((A balanced evaluation of Elert appears in the new monograph by the Icelander Sigurjon Arni Eyjolfsson, Rechtfertigung und Schöpfung in der Theologie Werner Elerts, no. 10 in new series of Arbeiten zur Geschichte und Theologie des Luthertums (Hannover: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1994).)) After 1945 he turned increasingly toward his long-projected history of dogma; however, except for the volume on church fellowship and several important essays, this work lay uncompleted at his death, after which Wilhelm Maurer and Elisabeth Bergsträßer edited an additional volume from the materials that he had left. ((Since Werner Elert is of special interest to American readers, we present here his principal writings. The first major work of Werner Elert, written while he was still head of the Old Lutheran seminary in Breslau, appeared in 1921 under the title Der Kampf um das Christentum; this was an investigation and evaluation of recent philosophy and apologetics, mainly of the nineteenth century. In 1924 appeared the first edition of his Die Lehre des Luthertums im Abriß, which was translated and published by Charles M. Jacobs under the title An Outline of Christian Doctrine, 1927; the second German edition, 1926, was greatly revised and enlarged. Elert’s chief work was his two-volume Morphologie des Luthertums, 1931, of which volume 1 was translated by Walter A. Hansen and published by Concordia Publishing House as The Structure of Lutheranism, 1962. The first edition of his dogmatics, Der christliche Glaube, appeared in 1940; parts of this have been published in English by Concordia Publishing House. His Das christliche Ethos followed in 1949 and was translated and published as The Christian Ethos by Carl Schindler, 1957. The last work that he prepared for publication was Abendmahl und Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche, hauptsächlich des Ostens, 1954, translated by Norman E. Nagel and published by Concordia Publishing House under the title Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries. This book interprets communio sanctorum in the Apostles’ Creed as a neuter, i.e., as the participation in the sacraments, and it presents a spirited case for closed communion. An important essay by Elert, Gesetz und Evangelium, 1948, was translated and published by Edward H. Schroeder as Law and Gospel, 1967. Posthumously appeared Der Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie, 1957, edited by Maurer and Bergsträßer.)) Elert had a revolutionary concept: whereas previous historians had traced the “beginnings” of a dogma, proceeding chronologically from an early date and working downward, Elert proposed starting with the outgoings or conclusion of a churchly dogma, tracing it back toward its beginnings. Thereby Harnack’s speculations that the development of dogma was the hellenization of Christianity could be refuted by showing instead that the completed dogma represented the dehellenisation of Christian doctrine (176–177).
Before taking up Althaus, Beyschlag briefly characterizes some other important men on the faculty: the Old Testament scholar and widely-respected Rechor magnificus Friedrich Baumgärtel, the church historian and Luther scholar Hans Preuß, the “high Lutheran” church historian Hermann Sasse, the Reformation scholar Wilhelm Maurer, the multi-faceted historian and Luther scholar Walter von Loewenich, the art historian Fritz Fichtner, and the practical theologian Eduard Steinwand, who was also important for his work in the eastern churches (178–181).
Beyschlag gives a thorough presentation on the theology and personality of Paul Althaus (182–203). Althaus taught systematic theology, New Testament, and the theology of Luther. ((The most important works of Althaus are as follows: Die Prinzipien der deutschen reformierten Dogmatik im Zeitalter der aristotelischen Scholastik, 1914. Die letzten Dinge. Lehrbuch der Eschatologie, 1922. Grundriß der Ethik, 1931; 2nd ed., 1953. Die christliche Wahrheit. Lehrbuch der Dogmatik 1947; 3rd ed. 1952. Die Theologie Martin Luthers, 1962. Translation by Robert C. Schultz, The Theology of Martin Luther, 1966. Die Ethik Martin Luthers, 1965. Translation by Robert C. Schultz, The Ethics of Martin Luther, 1972. Althaus also edited a commentary, Das Neue Testament Deutsch, 12 vols., for which he wrote Der Brief an die Römer, 1936; 7th ed. 1953. An important part of his work is also reflected in the volumes of collected sermons which he delivered as University Preacher at Erlangen.)) His systematic theology was characterized by his emphasis upon the First Article (Althaus held “a theology of Creation,” 190–194), a theology marked by the contrast between the original revelation (Ur-Offenbarung) and the revelation of salvation (Heilsoffenbarung), “in which the creator will of God included almightily the revelation of salvation” (191). In the discipline of ethics, this theological concept was expressed in a “theology of orders” (Theologie der Ordnungen). These orders were a part of God’s creation: marriage, family, community, government, and cultural development (199). Althaus did not spare criticism of the Nazis. Referring to Althaus’s Theologie der Ordnungen, 1935, Beyschlag cites Althaus: “Also in the Third Reich, our critical ethics of orders cannot resign and rest at ease,” and then Beyschlag adds: “There now follows a public catalog of vices which is so close to reality that one at least wonders that the book was not immediately forbidden. For under this ‘critical ethics’ falls not only the ‘autonomous legality’ of the state and the economy, but also the idolatry of folk, race, destruction of law, and also eugenics, euthanasia, ‘the destruction of unworthy life,’ etc.” (201). In his “creation theology,” Althaus came into fundamental conflict with Karl Barth. Since the death of Althaus, the followers of Barth, of the old Bekennende Kirche, and of the Union Church have leashed a merciless attack upon both Althaus and Elert for rejecting the Barmen Declaration. ((An example is the attack by Arthur C. Cochrane, a Presbyterian professor of theology at a Lutheran seminary, The Church’s Confession under Hitler (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), in which he attacks confessional Lutheranism en masse and takes the intolerant position that only Reformed theology is allowable. He feels that everyone must accept the theology of Barth and the Barmen Declaration. More moderate are the criticisms of Robert P. Ericksen, Theologians under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus and Emanuel Hirsch (New Haven: Yale, 1985). Totally irresponsible and intellectually weak are the attacks on Elert and Althaus by the Erlangen professor Berndt Hamm, “Schuld und Verstrickung der Kirche. Voruberlequngen zu einer Darstellung der Erlanger Theologie in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus,” in Kirche und Nationalsozialismus, ed. Wolfgang Stegemann (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1990), 11–55. Both Ericksen and Hamm lack what American historians call “a historical frame of reference”; instead, they judge and condemn past scholars on the basis of notions contemporary with our time. Ericksen, however, does not write with the malicious invective found in Hamm.))
In view of the attacks upon Elert and Althaus and the allegations that they supported Hitler and National Socialism, Beyschlag presents an excursus, “The Erlangen faculty and the Kirchenkampf ” (160–170). He specifically deals with their statement on the “Aryan Paragraph” and the “Ansbach Resolution” and shows that the former actually protected Jews and that the latter was leveled against the German Christians as well as the Barmen Declaration. He points out that during the long period in which he was dean of the theological faculty (1935–1943), Elert managed to stave off attempts of a Nazi takeover, that he protected professors and students alike from the state, and that Erlangen remained almost the only “intact” theological faculty under National Socialism. In Appendix 8, Beyschlag reprints Elert’s “Report regarding the deanship of the theological faculty of Erlangen 1935–43” (266–286). He wonders why this Report, which obviously clears Elert’s reputation, was officially suppressed for many years. He points out that, in spite of severe pressure over many years that as theological dean he must join the Nazi party or at least the German Christian Movement, Elert stubbornly refused throughout; that not a single Nazi was able to become a regular professor of theology at Erlangen; that Elert as dean and at considerable personal risk protected 40 or 50 students (including Jews) who had been denounced before the Gestapo (161–162; see also 279).
Beyschlag’s book is important for American readers for two reasons. (1) This book is an excellent resource for learning about the confessional Lutheran theology of Erlangen that dominated scholarship in Germany the past 150 years, a subject about which many younger theologians in America are not well informed. (2) Confessional Lutheranism, which has seriously declined since the death of Elert (a decline brought on partly by the dominance of Karl Barth, the Barmen Declaration, and the Union churches, with their attacks upon the Lutheran distinction of law and gospel), receives an important defense in Beyschlag. This book needs to be widely read in America. It is to be hoped that it will be made available in an English translation.
Lowell C. Green
State University of New York at Buffalo
Buffalo, New York
NOTES
The practice of licensing laymen to preach and administer the sacraments by The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod at its convention in Wichita in 1989 is widely recognized as theologically problematic. Attempts to address the so-called “Wichita Amendment” to the Augsburg Confession, as the late Richard John Neuhaus called it, have been diverse and have, in some incidences, created additional and ongoing difficulties of both a doctrinal and practical nature. Sometimes the debates surrounding the office and the attempt to correct Wichita overlook the fundamental unity of the office.
The office is inseparable from the means of grace that it is instituted to serve (cf. Matthew 28:16–20; Mark 16:14–16; Luke 24:44–49; John 20:19–23; AC V).
In the view of the New Testament there is but one office which derives its right to existence from the founding will of Christ Himself, namely the *ministerium verbi*, the ’ministry of reconciliation,’ administered by persons bearing varying titles. For practical reasons, it may also, according to the discretion of its incumbents, create special sub-agents for itself. However, titles and sub-divisions are human regulations. The *jus divinum* is confined to the *ministerium verbi*, because it was bestowed on this office, and on this office alone, by the one materially indivisible commission of Christ.[1]
The “ministry of reconciliation” of which the apostle writes in 2 Corinthians 5:18 is singular even as there is one Gospel announcing that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Those placed in this one office are “ambassadors for Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:20) making Christ’s own appeal to be reconciled to God. As Elert points out, the nomenclature of the New Testament may vary as the officeholder is identified as evangelist, teacher, elder, overseer, and so forth, but these are not divinely established grades or ranks but ways of speaking of the singular office instituted by Christ for the sake of the Gospel. “For there is only one office of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments.”[2]
AC XIV tells how men are put into this office in the way of the *rite vocatus* without which no one is to preach or administer the sacraments. Preaching and administering the sacraments go hand in hand. There is not one office for preaching and another for the administration of the sacraments. The linkage of proclamation and administering the sacraments demonstrates what Elert has identified as the coordination of word and sacrament. Problems come when word and sacraments are split off from each other so that preaching becomes a verbal abstraction or the sacraments become wordless rituals.
The coordination of word and sacraments is expressed in the fact that the one office of preaching has responsibility for the administration of both. The office bearer is entrusted with the stewardship of the mysteries of God according to the apostle: “This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy” (1 Corinthians 4:1–2). The preaching of God’s word both calls to the sacrament of the altar and governs its use.
One person must bear the responsibility for the conduct of this concrete worship. If this is to be orderly and really edify the congregation. Its course dare not be determined by opposing or clashing wills. All other wills must cooperate with and merge in the will of one man. The administration of the sacrament of the altar in particular demands one man, who is responsible for the admission to it. Thus every administration of the Holy Communion also includes an act of church government. Therefore the chief form of worship cannot be executed properly without a man, who as shepherd of the congregation, administers the main worship service.[3]
Writing during World War II, Hermann Sasse makes the case for the unity of word and sacrament:
The office of preaching the Gospel is also the office which baptizes and celebrates the Supper. It is also the office of the keys, whether or not this is reckoned among the sacraments, as in the Augustana, or viewed as a special case of proclamation of the Gospel, as happed later in the Lutheran Church. At all costs it is the office of the administration of *the* means of grace, not only of *one* means of grace. And the Lord who left behind these means of grace for his church is also the Lord who instituted the office of the ministry.[4]
More recently Dorothea Wendebourg:
The ministry is one. It is one because its task, the public proclamation of the gospel in twofold manifestation, preaching and the administration of the sacraments is one.[5]
The role of the pastor cannot be viewed in a reductionist way that only applies to the speaking of the words of consecration; the pastor is also responsible for admission/distribution. The practice of having the pastor speak the words of consecration and then have vicars, deacons, or lay persons distribute the sacrament at another time or place cannot be defended on the basis of the Lutheran Confessions.[6] If a layman assists in the distribution in the Divine Service, he should do so by serving the Lord’s blood as the pastor admits to the altar with the administration of the Lord’s body. But it should be recognized that the practice of laymen assisting with the distribution is relatively recent in American Lutheranism and is not known in some areas of the Lutheran world, Madagascar, for example.[7]
The apostolic exhortation for self-examination (1 Corinthians 11:27) does not relieve the pastor of his responsibility as a steward of the mysteries of God (see 1 Corinthians 4:1–2). Also see AC XXIV: “Chrysostom says that the priest stands daily at the altar, inviting some to Communion and keeping others away” (AC XXIV:36, Kolb-Wengert, 71). Nor can the pastor hand this responsibility off to others; it belongs to the nature of his office as overseer. Again Sasse:
The *ministerium ecclesasticum* may also be unburdened of peripheral tasks through the establishment of new offices. That happened already in the ancient church through the creation of the diaconate, or in more recent times by the creation of the office of church counselor, church elder [*Kirchenvorsteher*, *Kirchenältesten*], or whatever else those who lead the congregation may be called. The essence of the *ministerium ecclesiasticum* is in no way impinged upon by these offices. Preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments belong neither to the deacons nor to him whom we today call the presbyter. The former have the work of love and caring for the poor. The latter has the duty of helping in the administration of the parish. According to Lutheran doctrine, they do not have a part in church government [*Kirchenregiment*]. For Luther and with him the confessions of our church (AC XIV and XXVIII) mean by church government the exercise of the functions peculiar to the office of the ministry: ‘an authority and command of God to preach the Gospel, to forgive and retain sins, and to dispense and administer the Sacraments’[AC XXVIII:5].[8]
The suggestion of the “Specific Ministry Pastor (SMP) Task Force” that perhaps the Synod establish an “ordained diaconate” where “perhaps they (the ordained deacons) could preach and baptize but not consecrate the elements” (Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures 2013, 417) splits apart what the Lord has joined together in the one, divinely instituted office. It amounts to attempting to fix one problem (laymen functioning as pastors) by creating another. A more careful solution is needed for which Lutheran theology has the resources.
Prof. John T. Pless teaches Pastoral Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN.
As an extension of LOGIA, BLOGIA understands itself to be a free conference in the blogosphere. As such, the views expressed on Blogia are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LOGIA’s editorial board or the Luther Academy.
—Prof. John T. Pless
Jesus says that his disciples are the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13–14). Salt preserves, but, rubbed into an open wound, it irritates even as it purifies and heals. The light of the world is not concealed under a basket (Matthew 5:15) but enlightens so that “they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). There is no question that Lutherans should not be sequestered in their religious ghetto but in the world, in the public square, as salt and light. It is precisely for this reason we must reject syncretism.
With syncretism, the salt loses its saltiness as under the pressure of pluralism distinctions between the truth and the lie are blurred and obliterated. Salt will sting just as the confession of Christ alone will stand in necessary contradiction to the claims of other religious systems. Where truth is confessed, error must necessarily be denied. Letting the light shine means that works of darkness are exposed for what they are (see Ephesians 5:7–11). We are not to have any fellowship with unbelievers for “what communion has light with the darkness” (II Corinthians 6:14–16). Worship with those who do not confess Christ Jesus is a denial of the light. This is not a self-invented Missouri Synod doctrine but the teaching of Holy Scripture. For many in our pluralistic age this is a “hard saying” in the way of John 6:65–66. Yet it is necessary if Christians are actually to remain in the public square as salt and light. Proclamation of the saving truth of Jesus Christ requires also the antithesis, that is, the rejection of all that is not Christ.
Participating in interfaith worship does not allow for the antithesis. Civility prevents the preacher from announcing the truth of Acts 4:12, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Where this proclamation is not made, the salt loses its saltiness and the light is dimmed.
Much is made of “witness in the public square.” But “witness in the public square” does not equate with “worship in the public square.” We will indeed witness to Christ Jesus in the public square, speaking his truth both prophetically to the powers that be and evangelically to those broken by their sin and victimized by evil. But we will not worship in the public square in such a way as to diminish the clarity of the only saving Gospel. We will be guided by the words of our Lord in Matthew 6:5–6 not to pray so as to be seen by men but pray rather in “our room” which is the church. There in the liturgy we will make thanksgivings, intercessions, and prayers for all people in the way I Timothy 2:1–6. “Worship in the public square” of American pluralism cannot help but be molded into the therapeutic and universalistic nature of civil religion. The context will even shape how the texts of Holy Scripture and Christian prayer are heard and thus undermine the capacity for confession and proclamation of Christ. On the other hand, genuine witness in the public square can take place through discerning dialogue and engaging conversation as well as acts of human care and mercy.
We witness in the public square, but we do not worship there. I asked one of my African students, “What would your people perceive if in your village during a time of drought or famine, the Lutheran pastor appeared alongside of a Roman Catholic priest, the village shaman, and a Muslim cleric in a community prayer vigil, each praying in his own way for favorable weather?” His answer was clear: “We could never do this. It would contradict our witness to Jesus Christ, the only true God.”
Lutherans will show mercy to all who suffer and groan in the travail of this fallen creation regardless of their religion. We will exhibit the compassion of Christ Jesus to those who tremble in the face of indescribable evil in word and deed. We will be the salt and light Christ has made us to be in this dying and desperate world. It is precisely for this reason that we must decline syncretism. Witness in the public square, “Yes!” Worship in the public square, “No.” Both the yes and no enable us to remain salt and light in the world.
Prof. John T. Pless teaches Pastoral Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN.
As an extension of LOGIA, BLOGIA understands itself to be a free conference in the blogosphere. As such, the views expressed on Blogia are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LOGIA’s editorial board or the Luther Academy.
—Ryan J. Ogrodowicz
In seminary my theological thinking resembled a refined box of perfect corners and refined edges. Every question had an answer; every situation had an applicable Bible passage. The ministry would be easy, I mused. By dynamic preaching coupled with a sharp understanding of doctrine, people will come in droves, filling the coffers and showering praise for my fidelity to confessional Lutheranism.
Once in the parish, however, I realized what I should have known: abstractions and reality don’t always play well together. Making a quia subscription was easy in seminary. Why? I wasn’t facing firsthand budget concerns, slow growth, and a concerned congregation. Against such obstacles, the right confession hangs in the balance as the devil chisels at your faith and integrity with questions that were previously dismissed out of hand. Am I doing something wrong? What more can I do? How far can I push the envelope? Maybe I should change some things.
It’s hard to be faithful when the old Adam never stops taking inventory and looking for the fruits of his labors. Just a glance at the gap between budgeted figures and year-to-date giving thrusts me into we-gotta-grow mode, as if growth is to be done for the sake of filling the treasury instead of serving sinners. At times it seems as if getting people in the doors at all costs is the end-all solution.
Here’s an example.
At the January voter’s meeting, one of the agenda items was to vote on moving to the Lutheran Service Book (LSB) from The Lutheran Hymnal (TLH). Allegiances were well known, as some strongly desired to retain TLH while others earnestly wanted to move to LSB. Personally, I was ready for the move. The vast majority of the LCMS uses LSB; our Altar Book is already LSB; the rites I use come from the LSB Agenda; we’re almost there, so why not complete the process? Arguments were made and the votes were cast. When the dust settled, the result was this: LSB can be used for everything except Matins, which will be done out of TLH. On hearing this, the old Adam once again put me in a choke hold. TLH Matins? How are we going to grow with this? How will people new to Lutheranism ever learn Matins from a 1941 hymnal? We’re in the 21st century and we need to cater to 21st century mindsets. This is not going to fix our budget issue.
Lord, have mercy. It’s as if I thought God was inhibited from saving because of our liturgical preference.
The truth: God has grown the church well before we went to LSB. And He did it not through gimmicks, practices, and modern hymnals, but through his spoken word. It was through his gospel that people were bestowed faith to believe in our crucified savior Jesus Christ, something human reason and strength cannot do. How foolish it is to think God cannot work through an older liturgy. How foolish it is to think God will work better when we provide emotional stimulation via bands, lights, and lapel mics. But such thoughts are powerful, and the temptation is real to jettison the emphasis on God’s objective means of grace for some human invention just to get people in the door. And the reasons for this, as mentioned, are not always good and godly, but sometimes just financial.
Thanks be to God we have a Savior whose Word never changes, and who speaks to us a freely given and underserved absolution. And we hear something we cannot hear too much of: God is faithful to do what He sets out to do. His Word will not return void, which includes bringing people through the doors to receive the gifts He promises to give.
The Rev. Ryan Ogrodowicz serves as pastor of Victory in Christ Lutheran Church in Newark, Texas.
As an extension of LOGIA, BLOGIA understands itself to be a free conference in the blogosphere. As such, the views expressed on Blogia are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LOGIA's editorial board or the Luther Academy.
—by Gifford Grobien
Feminism has pushed the idea that women are equal to men. According to this logic, the education of girls should be the same as for boys. In contemporary America, this means education for both boys and girls is pragmatic and instrumental: considering my skill set, what will get me the most prestigious and highest-paying job? Young women and men go to college seeking a degree that will serve this goal, while offering the best college experience of peer interaction and social indulgence.
There are problems with this perspective for both young men and young women, primarily in that they view a university degree and college experience as determinative for their lives. They miss a more fundamental appreciation of vocation.
In the Lutheran understanding, vocation manifests in three areas of life: the church, the family, and the political realm. Significant in this division is that an occupation falls under family responsibilities. What one does from nine to five is in support of his or her family relations and responsibilities, whether as a man or a woman. The vocation as a husband or wife, and as father or mother—should they be blessed with children—takes precedence over how prestigious or high-paying any job might be.
This is the case both for men and for women. It is important to oppose the feminist masculinization of the modern woman, yet it is also important to remind men that they have responsibilities to their wives and children that go beyond bringing home the bacon. A family man cannot resolve everything with his wallet, no matter how thick. Buying his children an education and sending them to the best summer camps and vacation spots is a weak—if not destructive—substitute for personally catechizing them and being involved in their maturation and development. A husband has a wife to die for, meaning his time with the boys, in the man-cave, or with his favorite pastime, takes a backseat to serving his wife and developing his love for her.
With regard to young women and girls, one could argue— in reaction to feminism—that they should be educated as homemakers and prepared to raise many children. Formal higher education, in this instance, could be viewed not only as superfluous, but as corrupting. When we ask our daughters what they want to be when they grow up or funnel them into the pragmatic occupational factory of the modern university, we are implicitly training them to seek fulfillment in the workplace and to despise motherhood and family.
I take a slightly different view in opposing feminism. Feminism is inspired at its root by the perceived inferior treatment of women. What better way to undermine this than to explicitly teach a kind of superiority of women? What I am thinking of is a juxtaposition of two biblical texts. The first is the exhortation to husbands in Ephesians 5:25–29:
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church… .
The second text is from the Lukan account of the Last Supper, 22:24–27:
A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.
In considering these together, the husband serves his wife in order to present her without blemish. Like Christ serves the church, the husband serves his wife. The wife is set in the place of the greater one by being served by the husband, who is willing even to give his life for her. I recognize that in the Lukan passage Jesus is overturning notions of greatness by demonstrating that true greatness is in service. My point is that feminism, at least within the church, may be addressed by following Jesus’ lead and overturning the language of greatness in favor of acts of love and service.
The wife, then, is set in the place of greatness by her husband’s service. She is superior as the one who is served. Her fundamental vocational role is to receive this service: to submit to her husband who is active and giving to her in all things. In other words, within marriage, the wife receives all things for her benefit. She needs not clamber for status or recognition; she need not be enslaved by servitude for a paycheck. She is not bound by an occupation or limited by occupational identity. Instead, her life overflows in vocational receiving and giving. She is free to rule her household and pursue her interests in loving service to others. Because she is made free by the service of the husband, she also loves others using her many talents and gifts.
Normally, central to this freedom and love of others is motherhood, yet not in every case. God may not bless every wife with children. Thus, while it is important to prepare women for motherhood, their vocation should not be presented to them as finding its fulfillment in motherhood. Women and wives who are not mothers also fulfill their vocations.
Young women should be taught to love motherhood and to see this as typical to their vocations. Yet motherhood is not the only aspect of a woman’s vocation. St. Paul notes to Titus, “Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled” (2:3–5). Motherhood is central to the typical woman’s vocation, but there are manifold qualities of virtue and industry also to be exercised.
Let us tear down the university as an idol, while acknowledging that it need not be utterly discarded. Let us restore the central place of vocation to the family so that men and women see their focus and dedication is to love and serve their families, and employment is only one way of doing this. For women, especially, let us free them from their slavery to the masculinity of feminism. Free them from the assumption that they are bound to a paycheck, that they are bound to an occupation from which they must make their living. Instead, let men be men. Let the men of their lives provide for their bodily needs, so that they may be free to rule their households and to love others.
What do I teach my daughters? To cherish and give thanks for this freedom they have as women. That they do not need to worry about where their food or clothing or shelter will come from. As their man, I will always provide for them, as God gives me strength, until they are married. Then their new men, their husbands, will provide for them. Does this mean they will never work outside the home? Probably not, although they could choose to remain in the home as they desire. Yet it means, as God provides daily bread, they will never HAVE to work outside the home. Such work would be a free choice, a way a woman chooses to love and serve others.
I teach them to hope for and look forward to motherhood, for there is no greater earthly blessing than children. I teach them that they have great responsibility in nurturing and raising these children, and that the Lord gives his word and strength that all children would be cared for and saved. I also teach them that, whether they marry or not, it is possible that God will not grant them children. And even in such a case, they still have the vocation to love. I teach them that there are many whom they may love and serve with their gifts, whether the church as a congregation, individuals in the church with various needs, their neighbors in the political realm, or their extended family. There will always be others to love.
So I encourage them to pursue the education that they desire. They all have various interests, whether music, computer programming, art, cooking, or sports. My wife and I teach them these things, and we help them to learn these things. The university is not an idol; they will not attend the university because it will give them a diploma or a higher paying job or a social experience. It is unlikely that they would attend a university away from home, and they will not attend a university away from home without a man whom I trust to serve them in my stead. They will not live in a dorm.
But they are free to study what they want. They are free not to go to college, and they are free to go to college. They are free to pursue whatever education will help them to love others better. And that is the way we talk about education.
Feminism teaches girls to overcome misogyny with masculinity. Feminism actually succumbs to misogyny because it sets forth masculinity as the only way to live a fulfilled life. Restore femininity by raising girls to be feminine. Raise girls to be free.
The Rev. Dr. Gifford Grobien is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana.