Christ in Luther's Interpretation of the Old Testament

PROPTER CHRISTUM: Christ at the Center

A shift seems to be occurring within biblical interpretation. Some scholars have issued calls to reevaluate the historical-critical method of interpreting the Scriptures. Scholars have become fascinated with "pre-critical" interpretations of Scripture.

John A. Maxfield calls our attention to this shift, but he primarily encourages us to not lose sight of our Lutheran heritage. In this article, Maxfield presents a discussion of Luther's interpretation of the Scripture — particularly the Old Testament — and his thoroughly christological hermeneutic.

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 available for pre-order and is scheduled to be released in November.

CHRIST AT THE CENTER IN LUTHER’S INTERPRETATION OF OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY AND NARRATIVES

—by John A. Maxfield

The last words of Bornkamm’s book convey both the problem for the modern reader of Luther’s Old Testament interpretation and its opportunity:

[Luther’s] work has Christianized the Old Testament thoroughly, as we have seen. We cannot use it with a clear conscience much longer if we cannot give clear and new reasons to justify such an interpretation. If we take this task just as seriously as we take the inviolable truthfulness of historical research, then we can let go of the “swaddling clothes” of Luther’s interpretation of the Old Testament and once again salvage the treasure in the manger.¹

The late Professor Bornkamm might be surprised by the “clear and new reasons” used today instead to knock historical-critical analysis of the Old Testament off its hegemonic pedestal. In the burgeoning subdiscipline of the history of biblical exegesis in the fields of both biblical studies and church history (as well as historical study more widely cast), it appears that the keenest fascination has been with what might be named the “swaddling clothes” of the so-called “pre-critical” interpretation of the Bible. For example, in a widely-cited article that has functioned as a manifesto for the discipline of the history of pre-modern biblical interpretation, David Steinmetz takes aim at the sufficiency of exegesis that focuses narrowly on the intended historical-literal sense of the human author and asserts boldly:

The medieval theory of levels of meaning in the biblical text, with all its undoubted defects, flourished because it is true, while the modern theory of a single meaning, with all its demonstrable virtues, is false. Until the historical-critical method becomes critical of its own theoretical foundations and develops a hermeneutical theory adequate to the nature of the text it is interpreting, it will remain restricted—as it deserves to be—to the guild and the academy, where the question of truth can endlessly be deferred.²

A whole genre of studies of biblical interpretation in the early church, the Middle Ages, and the Reformation continues to be the fruit of such appeals to dethrone the sole focus of biblical studies on “the inviolable truthfulness of historical research” as conceived in post-Enlightenment historical criticism. I am reminded here, ninety years later, of Karl Barth’s scathing critique of liberal Protestantism in his preface to the second edition of his Epistle to the Romans, where he did not challenge historical criticism as a tool of the interpreter but asserted boldly that historical analysis is merely the prolegomena to the true task of theological interpretation of Paul’s text, which is in fact the word of God, the sole means (that is, the Bible as a whole) by which God, who is unknowable, reveals himself to man.³

But how fares the biblical interpretation of Luther in this revival of interest in pre-critical exegesis? The current romance of many confessional Lutherans with the early church fathers, often quite ignorant or dismissive of the critical and selective appropriation of patristic traditions in the Lutheran Reformation and its Confessions (and this is especially true in regard to patristic exegesis), suggests that Luther’s approach to the Old Testament in particular is in danger of being lost to a resurgence of allegorizing and typological interpretations, also among Lutherans. The days are apparently long over when John Calvin’s method of typological interpretation of messianic psalms, applying them first and foremost to David and only secondarily to Christ, is rejected by orthodox Lutherans as “Judaizing.”⁴ Indeed, Calvin’s methods of typological exegesis are frequently celebrated broadly as the vanguard of responsible Christian and yet historically sound exegesis of the Old Testament while Luther’s understanding is rejected on the ideological grounds of it being “supercessionist” (as is also much of the New Testament), and thus responsible for his highly offensive views of the Jews in many of his later writings.⁵

In contrast to what seem to be the prevailing views today, I view Luther’s distinctive approach to interpreting the Old Testament as Christian Scripture as both historically sound and most fruitful for the church’s theology and preaching. In the remainder of this essay in honor of Daniel Preus, who continues to devote his talents and energies to the theology and life of the Lutheran church throughout the world in its modern context, I would like to describe some of the rather traditional as well as the new ways that Luther kept Christ and the gospel at the center of his interpretation of the Old Testament, focusing especially on his lectures on Genesis. . . .⁶

---

1. Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther and the Old Testament, trans. Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch, ed. Victor I. Gruhn (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969 [German orig. 1948]), 266. More recently, Siegfried Raeder also evaluates Luther’s Old Testament interpretation, describing for example Luther’s second psalms lectures (the Operationes in Psalmos, 1519–1521) as “‘evangelio-centric’ rather than christological,” that is, “more in regard to the Gospel of Christ than in regard to the person of Christ.” Luther thus stands in contrast to the psalms exegesis of the humanist Lefèvre d’Étaples, whose “strictly christological interpretation of the Psalter prevented Lefèvre from investigating the historical forms of faith, love and hope in the Old Testament.” Siegfried Raeder, “The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work of Martin Luther,” in Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 2, From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, ed. Magne Sæbø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 377, 370. ↩
2. David Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” Theology Today 37 (1980): 38. Likewise, Robert Louis Wilken takes up the mantle of Roman Catholic theologian Henri de Lubac and defends the use of allegory (among other meanings) in patristic and medieval spiritual interpretation: “If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the notion of a single sense does not carry us very far in the interpretation of great works of literature, or of the Bible.” “In Defense of Allegory,” Modern Theology 14, no. 2 (April 1998): 197. A significant portion of De Lubac’s magisterial study is now available in an English translation: Henri de Lubac, S. J., Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, vol. 1, trans. Mark Sebanc (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998); vol. 2, trans. E. M. Macierowski (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000); vol. 3, trans. E. M. Macierowski (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2009). ↩
3. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. from the sixth edition by Edwyn C. Hoskyns (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 2–15. Note Barth’s response to historical criticism: “I have been accused of being an ‘enemy of historical criticism.’…I have nothing whatever to say against historical criticism.…My complaint is that recent commentators confine themselves to an interpretation of the text which seems to me to be no commentary at all, but merely the first step towards a commentary.…Jülicher and Lietzmann know far better than I do how insecure all this historical reconstruction is, and upon what doubtful assumptions it often rests. Even such an elementary attempt at interpretation is not an exact science. Exact scientific knowledge…is limited to the deciphering of the manuscripts and the making of a concordance. Historians do not wish, and rightly do not wish, to be confined within such narrow limits,” 6. ↩
4. On the charge by the Lutheran orthodox dogmatician Aegidius Hunnius in his book Calvinus Iudiazans . . . (1593), see esp. G. Sujin Pak, The Judaizing Calvin: Sixteenth-Century Debates over the Messianic Psalms (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). ↩
5. See, for example, Eric W. Gritsch, Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapid, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), esp. 33–46. Space does not allow an exploration of the significant problem of Luther’s Old Testament exegesis in relation to his so-called “anti-Jewish writings”; however, I would like to suggest that this problem (and it is a problem!) is most fruitfully analyzed not by rejecting Luther’s prophetic-christological and historical but gospel-centric interpretations of the Old Testament, as is often done, but by recognizing that Luther’s error in these later writings had to do with a failure to apply his own principle or overarching doctrine of the two kingdoms (or two realms of God’s governance in the world), and not with his critique of Judaism in relation to its legalism and in response to Jewish unbelief. The latter is, after all, also the critique of the New Testament. ↩
6. Some of what follows has appeared and is treated more extensively in terms of Luther’s vocation as Professor Reformer in John A. Maxfield, Luther’s Lectures on Genesis and the Formation of Evangelical Identity, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 80 (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2008). Previously published material used with permission of the publisher. ↩

Theses on Infant/Toddler Communion

—by John T. Pless

1. The question of admission to the Lord’s Supper is addressed from the instituting words of the Lord, which also disclose the purpose and beneficial use of the sacrament.

Jesus’ words tell us what the sacrament is, his body and blood given Christians to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of their sins. As Luther puts it: “We know, however, that it is the Lord’s Supper, and is called thus, not the Christians’ supper. For the Lord not only instituted it, but also prepares and administers it himself, and is himself cook, waiter, food and drink.”1 The sacrament is to be received in “remembrance” of the One who instituted it, that is, in faith trusting in his gracious words, “given and shed for you.” The sacrament itself is the preaching of the Gospel. It is misused when it turned into an enactment of inclusiveness or thought of as the impartation of a mystical energy through the act of eating and drinking. Arguments for the communion of infants and toddlers tend to drive a wedge between “take eat, take drink” and trust in “these words, given and shed for you.” It is not simply eating and drinking that constitute the salutary use of the sacrament but eating and drinking accompanied by trust in Christ’s words, that is, the explicit promise of his Supper.

2. The apostolic teaching that a man examine himself (I Corinthians 11:28) cannot reasonably be interpreted as to exclude the noetic dimension of which infants/toddlers are not capable.

Paul speaks of self-examination in verse 28 in conjunction with “discerning” (diakrino) the body in verse 29. Both BAGD and Kittel demonstrate that this term means to separate, arrange, make a distinction, differentiate, evaluate, judge.2 This text cannot be dismissed by limiting its application to the original context of the Corinthian congregation as Wolfhart Pannenberg does when he asserts, “The self-examination that I Corinthians 11:28 demands does not relate primarily to the individual moral state but to the breaches of fellowship that ought not exist between members of the body of Christ.”3 While the apostle is certainly addressing and correcting these breaches of fellowship enacted in the way the rich assert their priority over the poor, he does so on the basis that this is no ordinary meal but a communion in the body and blood of the Lord. Communicants are not to eat and drink without the discernment of this reality.4

3. Baptism is an absolute prerequisite for admission to the Lord’s Supper, but it does not follow that all the baptized are categorically to be admitted to the altar.

The slogan “Communion is the birthright of the baptized,” sometimes used to assert that all the baptized are entitled to eat and drink in the Lord’s Supper, is not only problematic in making admission to the Lord’s Supper a “right” rather than a gift, but it also misses the point that for numerous reasons baptized Christians are excluded from the Lord’s Table. Those under church discipline are barred from the altar as are those do not share in the confession of a particular altar. Infants and toddlers who have not yet been taught the faith and examined on the basis of this teaching are not admitted to the Supper. As Werner Elert notes, “Even though a man must first be baptized before he may partake of the Holy Communion, this does not mean that all the baptized may without distinction partake of the Eucharist together.”5 The baptized are to be taught according to the Lord’s bidding (see Matt. 28:19–20). This teaching leads to the sacrament not vice versa.

4. Arguments for infant/toddler communion bypass the truth that in Baptism, we receive “victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God’s grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit with his gifts” (LC IV:41–42, Kolb/Wengert, 461) as though the promise of Baptism remained unfulfilled without the Lord’s Supper. By waiting until children have been instructed, examined, and absolved before admitting them to the Lord’s Supper, they are not being deprived of Christ.

In the New Testament and the Lutheran Confessions, Baptism is not an event in a series of “rites of initiation” that is left incomplete without participation in the sacrament. Instead Baptism bestows the “entire Christ” and encompasses the whole life of the believer. Not only is it foundational, but it is also enduring in the life of Christian. The teaching that our Lord attaches to Baptism (see Matt. 28:16–20) surely leads the baptized to eat and drink his body and blood as the Lord bestows his gifts in more than one way, but infants and young children are not deprived of Christ before this teaching has been accomplished. Here note Craig Koester: “The Lord’s Supper was instituted for ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ to be received with a discerning faith. Adults and children who recognize their sin and seek forgiveness should be encouraged to partake of the meal. Since infants are not capable of recognizing sin or desiring forgiveness, they should not participate in the Supper. The grace given in Baptism is sufficient for them at this early stage of their lives. It is when they reach the point where they recognize the need for forgiveness for their sins that they should be instructed and encouraged to take, eat, and drink of Christ’s body and blood at the Lord’s table.”6

Maxwell E. Johnson, himself an advocate of infant communion, notes that through a coupling of John 3:5 (unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom) and John 6:53 (Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man) into a single logion in the traditio fidei, both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are made necessary for membership in the Christian community.7 Unlike Cyprian (and Augustine for that matter), the Lutheran Confessions do not operate with what might be called a “unitive” understanding of the sacraments. Baptism is the rebirth into the body of Christ as in it sins are forgiven and the Holy Spirit bestowed. The Lord’s Supper is not an additive to Baptism but serves instead to strengthen the Christian in the forgiveness of sins according to the word and promise of Christ to which faith clings.

5. Faith does not make the sacrament, but it is only by faith that the benefits of the sacrament are received. Faith is precisely trust in these words, “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” (SC). In the Small Catechism, eating and drinking are joined together with trust in the spoken word, “given and shed for you.” The Lord’s Supper is given precisely to strengthen the faith of those who through the accusation of the Law recognize their sin and whose terrorized consciences acknowledge their need and desire the forgiveness of their sins. “For people are admitted only if they have first had an opportunity to be examined (explorati) and heard. The people are also reminded about the dignity and use of the sacrament—how it offers great consolation to anxious consciences—so that they may learn to believe in God and expect all that is good from God” (AC XXIV:6–7, Latin, K/W, 68).8

Eating and drinking the Lord’s body and blood worthily requires instruction. Admitting the uninstructed and therefore unexamined, whether they are adults or infants was out of the question for Luther. Already in 1522, Luther provides descriptive template for the structure of the Catechism: "Thus the commandments teach man to recognize his sickness, enabling him to perceive what he must do or refrain from doing, consent to or refuse, and so he will recognize himself a sinful and wicked person. The Creed will teach and show him where to find the medicine—grace—which will help him to become devout and keep the commandments. The Creed points him to God and his mercy, given and made plain to him in Christ. Finally, the Lord's Prayer teaches all this, namely, through the fulfillment of God's commandments everything will be given him. In these three are the essentials of the entire Bible.”9 Instruction in and confession of these essentials of the Christian faith are a prerequisite for admission to the Lord’s Supper. Four years after writing the Catechisms in 1533 in his “An Open Letter to Those in Frankfurt on the Main” Luther writes, “It is quite true that wherever the preacher administers only bread and wine for the sacrament, he is not very concerned about to whom he gives it, what they know or believe, or what they receive. . . . However, because we are concerned about nurturing Christians who will still be here after we are gone, and because it is Christ’s body and blood that are given out in the sacrament, we will not and cannot give such a sacrament to anyone unless he is first examined regarding what he has learned from the Catechism and whether he intends to forsake the sins which he has again committed. For we do not want to make Christ’s church into a pig pen [Matthew 7:6], letting each one come unexamined to the sacrament as a pig to its trough. Such a church we leave to the Enthusiasts!”10

Often left out of the discussion of infant/toddler communion is the aspect of the terrorized conscience, which Luther includes as a dimension of the examination of communicants. Examination includes exploration of why it is that the body and blood are needed. Lutheran practice should be both catechetical (the communicant should have knowledge of the basic texts and how to use them) and diagnostic (the communicant should have an awareness of his/her sin). The communicant should know what the sacrament is and how the body and blood of the Lord are to be used against the conscience which is afflicted by sin.

6. The Lutheran Confessions assert that none are to be admitted to the sacrament who have not been instructed, examined, and absolved. See LC V:1–3, K/W, 467; AC XXV:1–3, K/W, 73.

Arthur Carl Piepkorn summarizes the position of the Lutheran Confessions: “Communicants are to know from memory at least the Decalog, the Creed, the Our Father, and the words of institution of Holy Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar.”11 Evidence for Piepkorn’s assertion may be seen in the Large Catechism where Luther writes, “All this is established from the words Christ used to institute it [the Lord’s Supper]. So everyone who wishes to be a Christian and to go to the sacrament should know them. For we do not intend to admit to the sacrament and administer it to those who do not know what they seek or why they come” (LC V:1–2, K/W, 467). Near the end of this section of the Large Catechism, Luther does speak of children (not infants!) being instructed in the Catechism so that they may come to the Supper: “Therefore let all heads of a household remember that it is there duty, by God’s injunction and command, to teach their children or have them taught the things that they ought to know. Because they have been baptized and received into the people of Christ, they should also enjoy this fellowship of the sacrament so that they may serve us and be useful” (LC V:87, K/W, 87). Article XXV of the Augsburg Confession coheres with the Large Catechism: “For it is not our custom to administer the body of Christ except to those who have been previously examined and absolved” (AC XXV:1, K/W, 73).

7. Lutheran theology does not begin with a generic category of sacraments but works instead from the Lord’s mandates for Baptism and the Supper. Each has its own distinctive features. They are not interchangeable. It does not follow that arguments for the baptism of infants are to be applied for the communion of infants/toddlers.

Neither the New Testament nor the Lutheran Confessions operate with a generic definition of “sacrament” but instead begin with the Lord’s instituting words for Holy Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution. What might qualify under the heading of “sacrament” is rather elastic, but it is clear that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not interchangeable. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other. Baptism is administered once for incorporation into the one body of Christ, while the Lord provides his Supper to be administered time after time to strengthen believers in the forgiveness of sins.

8. The Lord’s Supper is the new testament of the Lord, not the new Passover. Hence it does it does not follow that because infants/toddlers were included in the Passover meal that they are to be communed.

Paul G. Bretscher sees the inclusion of infants in the Passover seder as a grounds for their admission to the Lord’s Supper. In a paper first presented at the Institute of Liturgical Studies at Valparaiso University in 1963 and subsequently published in Una Sancta, Bretscher writes, “Little children, even infants, were never excluded from the history itself which worship is designed to relive and recover! In the case of Ancient Israel it is ridiculous even to imagine such a possibility. When that first Passover was celebrated in Egypt, and God commanded all Israel to keep it, did they leave the babies out of the house? Or, when they ate of the roasted lamb and unleavened bread, did they deny this food to their children? When they left the land and crossed the Red Sea and made their way through the wilderness, were the children left behind? It is interesting to note that Pharaoh at one point during the plagues offered to let the men go but not the children (Exodus 10:7–11, 24). The children must be participants in the saving history.”12 Bretscher’s desire for inclusivity presses the argument without regard to the obvious, namely, that an infant would choke on such food. On a deeper level, Bretscher operates with a faulty theology of worship as “reliving” a past event.

Following in the wake of Odo Casel, Louis Bouyer asserts in a discussion of Luke 22:19, “Far from needing or not needing to create a new rite for future use, Our Lord was only performing again a very ancient rite which, even without him, his disciples would have certainly gone on performing so long as they lived together. What our Lord intended by these words was to give new meaning to this old rite.”13 However, this approach fails to acknowledge the newness of the New Testament in what Christ bestows—his body and blood for disciples to eat and to drink. Norman Nagel would often point out that when we line up the Passover as described in Exodus with the narratives of the Lord’s Supper’s institution in the synoptics and I Corinthians, the first and crucial question is not how are they similar, but how are they different? This is also Luther’s approach in the Large Catechism. To paraphrase Sasse, the Lord’s Supper renders the old Passover obsolete.14 Likewise Mark Throntveit writes, “Jesus ‘fulfills’ the Old Testament Passover, but not by instituting the Lord’s Supper in ritual continuity with the Old Testament seder. By dying on the cross, Jesus ‘fulfills’ the Old Testament Passover in the sense of bringing it to an end, thereby becoming the last paschal lamb, ‘the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.’ ”15

The nature of the Passover does not establish a basis for communing infants and toddlers any more than it provides a basis for a yearly celebration of the Lord’s Supper or making the appropriate setting of the sacrament the family dining room rather than the church. Here also see Luther in the Large Catechism where he argues that the Sacrament of the Altar is not like the old Passover bound to a special time but frequently where there is “opportunity and need” and not like “the pope (who) perverted it and turned it back into a Jewish feast” (LC V:47–48, K/W, 471–472).

9. Evidence for the communion of infants/toddlers in the early and medieval church is there in some places, but it is not clear that the practice was universal or when it was first practiced. Lutheran liturgical practice is not based on historical precedent but on the Lord’s mandates. Not all practices of the early church are to be emulated. Infant/toddler communion is one of those practices.

That infants were communed in some places in ancient Christianity is not disputed, but to assert that it was a universal practice or that it is normative for historical reasons exceeds the evidence. Marc Kolden writes, “Infant communion was not widely practiced in the early church. Indeed, this practice only became more common later and then for questionable historical reasons. The first mention of it is by Cyprian in about AD 250, but it does not appear to have been well established. Origen, for example, notes that infants were not communed in his church.”16 Likewise, Justin and Cyril of Jerusalem cast doubt on the communing of infants.17

The Lutheran Confessions honor the church fathers. When their testimony is in agreement with Holy Scripture, they are gratefully cited as confessing the apostolic faith. However the Confessions also realize that the teachings of the patristic writers are fallible. They can and do disagree with one another. They certainly do not represent an unbroken continuity with the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, which alone are the rule and norm for church teaching and practice. The fact that one or another or even the majority of patristic writers support the communion of infants does not establish the practice for Evangelical Lutherans. Unlike the Lutheran Confessions, which are received because they are in agreement with sacred Scriptures, the church fathers are received in so far as they concur with the biblical Word.

10. Arguments for infant/toddler reveal a problematic hermeneutic of the Lutheran Confessions, which undercut a quia understanding of confessional subscription.

Given the numerous references in the Book of Concord to the nature and benefit of the Lord’s Supper as well as the need for catechetical and diagnostic examination prior to admission to the Lord’s Supper, one cannot endorse the communion of infants/toddlers while maintaining an unqualified subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. To claim otherwise yields a completely ahistorical reading of the Confessions. Such a reading avoids both the meaning of the confessional texts and the actual practices of those who wrote them.

11. Luther may not be cited in support of infant/toddler communion. He knew of the practice among the Hussites and while he would not condemn them as heretics (those who deny the fundamental Christological and Trinitarian dogma), he did not accept their practice as correct.

On occasion, Luther’s comments recorded in a “table talk” in 1532 are cited in support of infant communion. Apart from the fact that these comments were made in rather “off the cuff” fashion and that it that they were recorded by auditors at the table, Luther’s words as we have them do not speak of the communing of infants but of children. In response to the question, whether the Lord’s Supper should be given to children, the Reformer replies that “there is no urgency about the sacrament of the altar” and then refers to I Corinthians 11: “When in I Corinthians [11:28] Paul said that a man should examine himself, he spoke only of adults because he was speaking about those who were quarreling among themselves. However, he doesn’t here forbid that the sacrament of the altar be given even to children.”18 Luther notes that contextually, the I Corinthians 11 pericope is not addressing children but adults. However, given the range of Luther’s other statements regarding the need for examination undergirded by teaching, it is quite a jump to conclude from this statement that he endorses the communion of infants. Children are capable of instruction and examination in a way that infants are not.

Luther was aware that the Bohemian Brethren (Hussites) admitted infants to the Holy Communion.19 While Luther did not condemn them as heretics for this practice, he clearly did not approve of the practice as in the same letter he speaks of communicants being examined and responding concerning their faith.

12. Infant/toddler communion is a novel practice in the Lutheran Church. In American Lutheranism, it gained traction only in the 1970’s as it was fueled by particular aspects of the liturgical and ecumenical movements.

Frank Senn has chronicled the move toward infant communion in the predecessor bodies of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America noting the influence of these movements.20 In regard to the liturgical movement, the work of Eugene Brand, an architect of the Lutheran Book of Worship and chief drafter of its baptismal rite indicates the connection as can be seen in his essay, “Baptism and the Communion of Infants: A Lutheran View.”21 Ecumenically, the World Council of Churches consultation at Bad Segeberg in Germany concluded, “If children are incorporated into the body of Christ through baptism, then they belong to the whole body of Christ. As there is no partial belonging to the body of Christ, children must also have a part in the eucharist.”22 The dual trajectories of ritual participation derived from early church practices (liturgical movement) and inclusiveness in the one body of Christ (ecumenical movement) converged in providing a platform for a change in Lutheran practice.

13. The fact that children who have been instructed, examined, and absolved may be admitted to the sacrament at a younger age than has been the general custom in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is not to be confused with the admitting of infants/toddlers to the Altar. Churchly and pastoral concerns for unity in practice are important considerations. But the communion of infants/toddlers is not an adiaphoron to be left up to individual parents, pastors, or congregations.

The Lutheran Service Book Agenda makes provision for the admission of children to the Lord’s Supper prior to Confirmation with this stipulation: “Candidates for admission to the Lord’s Supper have learned the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. They have received careful instruction in the Gospel and sacraments. Confessing their sin and trusting in their Savior, they desire to receive the Lord’s Supper for the forgiveness of sins and strengthening of their faith in Christ and their love toward others,” and “Baptized Christians are admitted to the sacrament when they have been examined and absolved by their pastor in accordance with the practice outlined in the Augsburg Confession (Article XXV)” (LSBA, 25). Younger children who have learned these texts, know what the sacrament is and why they need it and have been examined by the pastor may be communed prior to the rite of confirmation. Concern for unity of practice especially as families move from one place to another would dictate that a common form of instruction and examination be used by pastors within our fellowship. The material in the Pastoral Care Companion under “Guidelines for Pastoral Examination of Catechumens—Before the Rite of First Communion” (PPC, 664–70) provides such an instrument. In congregations where children are admitted to the Lord’s Supper prior to Confirmation, it is the responsibility of the pastor to see to it that such instruction is given and candidates are examined accordingly.

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.

1. LW 37:129–30. ↩
2. See Walter Bauer, William Arndt, Fredrick Danker, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 231 and Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume III, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 946–49. ↩
3. Wolfhart Pannbenberg, Systematic Theology-Volume 3, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 327. ↩
4. For more here, see Gregory Lockwood, Concordia Commentary: I Corinthians (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2000), 405–8. Also see Jeffrey Gibbs, “An Exegetical Case for Close(d) Communion: I Corinthians 10:14–22, 11:17–34” Concordia Journal (April 1995), 148–63. ↩
5. Werner Elert, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, translated by Norman E. Nagel (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966), 80. ↩
6. Craig Koester, “Infant Communion in Light of the New Testament” Lutheran Quarterly (Autumn 1996), 238. ↩
7. Maxwell Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: The Evolution and Interpretation (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 68–69. ↩
8. The Augsburg Confession continues the same trajectory set by Luther in 1523 in his “An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg” where he outlines how those who would commune are to be examined: “But I think it enough for the applicants for communion to be examined or explored once a year. Indeed a man may be so understanding that he needs to be questioned only once in his lifetime or not at all. For, by this practice, we want to guard lest the worthy and unworthy alike rush to the Lord’s Supper, as we have hitherto seen done in the Roman church. There they seek only to communicate; but the faith, the comfort, the use and benefit of the Supper are not even mentioned or considered. Nay, they have taken pains to hide the Words of Institution, which are the bread of life itself, and have furiously tried to make the communicants perform a work, supposedly good in itself, instead of letting their faith be nourished and strengthened by the goodness of Christ. Those, therefore, who are not able to answer in the manner described above should be completely excluded and banished from the communion of the Supper, since they are without the wedding garment [Matt. 22:11–12]” LW 53:33. Just a bit later in the same work, Luther continues, “They should request in person to receive the Lord’s Supper so that he may be able to know both their names and manner of life. And let him not admit the applicants unless they can give a reason for their faith and can answer questions about what the Lord’s Supper is, what its benefits are, and what they expect to derive from it. In other words, they should be able to repeat the Words of Institution from memory and to explain that they are coming because they are troubled by the consciousness of their sin, the fear of death, or some other evil, such as temptation of the flesh, the world, or the devil, and now hunger and thirst to receive the word and sign of grace and salvation from the Lord himself through the ministry of the bishop, so that they may be consoled and comforted; this was Christ’s purpose, when he in priceless love gave and instituted this Supper, and said, ‘Take and eat,’ etc.” (34). ↩
9. Martin Luther, “Personal Prayer Book” LW 43:14. ↩
10. Martin Luther, “An Open Letter to Those in Frankfurt on the Main” Concordia Journal (October 1990), 343. ↩
11. Arthur Carl Piepkorn, What the Symbolic Books of the Lutheran Church Have to Say about Worship and the Sacraments (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1952), 37. ↩
12. Paul G. Bretscher, “First Things First: The Question of Infant Communion” Una Sancta (Advent 1963), 37. ↩
13. Bouyer, The Christian Mystery from Pagan Myth to Christian Mystery, translated by Illtyrd Trethowan, (Edinburgh; T & T Clark 1990), 122–23. ↩
14. Here see, Hermann Sasse, “The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament” in We Confess the Sacraments, translated by Norman E. Nagel (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1985), 49–97. Sasse observes that “all the details of the traditional Passover ritual, which Jesus doubtless observed, was irrelevant for the Lord’s Supper itself” (64). And again since Jesus himself is the Passover Lamb who gives his body and blood to be eaten and drunk, Sasse argues that “there is no analogy to this fellowship, just as there are no parallels to this celebration. The Lord’s Supper received this character as something unique, something remarkable from the Words of Institution” (66). Also see Otto Procksch, “Passa und Abenmahl” in Vom Sakrament des Altars, (Leipzig: Dörffling and Franke, 1941), 11–25. ↩
15. Mark Throntveit, “The Lord’s Super as New Testament, Not New Passover” Lutheran Quarterly (Autumn 1997), 284. ↩
16. Marc Kolden, “Infant Communion in Light of Theological and Pastoral Perspectives” Lutheran Quarterly (Autumn 1996), 249–50. ↩
17. Mark Tranvik, “Should Infants be Communed? A Lutheran Perspective” Word & World (Winter 1995), 86. ↩
18. LW 54:58. ↩
19. Here see, Thomas A. Fudge, “Hussite Infant Communion” Lutheran Quarterly (Autumn 1996), 176–94. ↩
20. See Frank Senn, “Issues in ‘Infant Communion’ ” in A Stewardship of the Mysteries (New York: Paulist Press, 1999), 155–70. ↩
21. Here see Eugene Brand, “Baptism and the Communion of Infants: A Lutheran View” in Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation, edited by Maxwell Johnson (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1995), 350–64. ↩
22. Senn, 164. ↩

Infant Communion Makes Strange Bedfellows

— James A. Lee II

I have witnessed arguments in favor of infant communion coming from camps that simultaneously practice open communion. While I formerly thought that a causal connection between these practices was illusionary, I'm not so convinced anymore.

It seems to me that a robust ecclesiology prevents the connection of infant communion and open communion. Take for example the Eastern Orthodox churches. These churches practice infant communion but reject open communion. How so? The reason for this is also identified in the fact that many Eastern Orthodox parishes require rebaptism of converts to the East: sacraments can only be administered by and within the Church.1 Therefore, why would the churches of the East-the church-engage in fellowship with those outside of the church? Infants are communed because they are baptized: it is all part of initiation into the church.

But we also see the practice of infant communion by the Episcopal church and voices within the ELCA. In church bodies that welcome all baptized Christians to the altar-even the non-baptized-infant communion is not an issue. Why? Again, the answer is connected to ecclesiology. The church has no confessional borders, the church is open, the church is not defined by propositional truths. Why then would the celebration of the sacrament not be administered to infants?2

The similarity of these two sides is in the immediacy between the administration of baptism and the reception of the Lord's Supper. All that is required of an individual for the reception of the sacrament of the altar is his or her individual participation in the church. The difference is that the Eastern churches do not operate with such a broad and open understanding of the church. The churches of the East are the church; those outside of this communion do not participate in the fullness of the church catholic and orthodox. Our Episcopal and ELCA examples operate with less rigid and defined boundaries. While the churches of the East do not practice open communion, in both instances initiation into the church entails and demands reception of the Supper.

How does a confessional Lutheran who favors infant communion fit into this landscape? It appears that there are three possible options: (1) Infants receive communion because they are baptized. That is to say, confession of faith doesn't matter. Faith is seen primarily in categories of relationship and participation rather than articles of faith and propositional truth. (2) Infants receive communion because they share in the faith of the communities to which they belong, familial and ecclesial; they are communed on account of this faith and in anticipation of their future confession. (3) Infants receive communion because they already have a perfect knowledge of the faith and all of its articles.

While there are issues with all three options, particularly problematic to (1) and (3) is the practice of open communion. Why would a Lutheran parish that practices infant communion not commune all baptized infants, regardless of church confession? While a position against open communion may still be tenable, I fail to see a means of avoiding open infant communion. How could one admit a Lutheran infant to the altar and not a Baptist or Pentecostal infant? It cannot be on account of an infant's confession of faith, for no such confession has been articulated. It appears the tenable options are to conclude (a) that there is something lacking, missing, or irregular in baptism practiced by other denominations, or (b) that while baptism brings an infant into the church, the particular community to which the infant belongs imparts something additional to the infant that is not given in the waters of baptism. Otherwise, how could one not admit to the altar any infant that has received Christian baptism?

James A. Lee II is a Ph.D. student at Saint Louis University and Assistant Pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in Worden, Illinois and Zion Lutheran Church in Carpenter, Illinois.

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.

1. See John Klentos, “Rebaptizing Converts into the Orthodox Church: Old Perspectives on a New Problem,” Studia Liturgica 29 (1999): 216–34. ↩
2. This seems to follow the logic found in Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, which then, in 1988, receives official support by the House of Bishops. See World Council of Churches, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982), 12.9; Ruth A. Meyers, "Rites of Initiation," in The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey, eds. Charles Hefling and Cynthia Shattuck, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 484–99. ↩

Toddler Communion

— Mark Mattes Increasingly, Lutheran congregations are administering the Lord's Supper to children at ever earlier ages. The ELCA's "A Statement on Communion Practices" (II.A.2) had precluded infant communion. But the later "The Use of the Means of Grace," adopted by the Fifth Biennial Churchwide Assembly in 1997, opened a Pandora's box. It said that "mutual conversation" between the pastor, the child in question, and parents or sponsors should be involved to determine whether or not the child should be admitted to the Lord's Table. In Application 37c, it noted that "Ordinarily this beginning will occur only when children can eat and drink, and can start to respond to the gift of Christ in the Supper." The phraseology of "start to respond" is vague. What is meant by response?

St. Paul made it clear that a person must "examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Corinthians 11:28). Self-examination entails that one can test to see if one's belief squares with what Paul taught about the Lord's Supper. Given the wondrous gift that is offered in the Lord's Supper, every Christian before going to the sacrament does well to ask himself: (1) have I confessed and repented of my sins?, (2) do I believe God's absolution?, (3) do I believe that I am receiving Christ's precious body and blood, under the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of my sins, (4) do I share in the same confession and unity as had all the saints before me and alongside me?, and finally, (5) will I seek to amend my sinful life?

Those questions would be a tall order for a toddler. But increasingly congregations are admitting toddlers to the Lord's Table. In one congregation a five-year-old went to the table twice because the supply pastor had only blessed him but had not given him the elements.

Several questions need to be asked: If we don't use St. Paul's standard for admission to the Sacrament of the Altar, then where do we get our standard? If as a parent it is my intuition that my four-year-old should receive the Lord's Supper, then how can I defend my intuition except by claiming that it is based on the guidance of the "spirit." But if one should trust such an intuition and not rely instead on God's firm word, then is not my standard nothing other than that of the Schwämerei? Would guidance of the Holy Spirit contradict those words of Paul that he inspired in the Scripture? There need be no debate about this. God's Spirit will never falsify what he has already written in the word.

Even worse, many congregations with an "open communion" policy unquestioningly and encouragingly admit the unbaptized to Lord's Table. How does that square with St. Paul's position as well as apostolic practice? Many congregations replicate the situation in the Book of Judges, where everyone did what was right in their own eyes. In light of toddler communion, it is ironic that many in our culture tend to make their toddlers older than what they actually are but their young adults younger than what they actually are.

While it is true that no one can fully comprehend the mystery of Christ's real presence in the Supper, that is no reason to dumb down those admitted. If anything, it is a basis to be far more cautious about admission to the Lord's Table.

Mark Mattes is Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Grand View University in Des Moines, Iowa.

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.

Join us for another Lutheran Free Conference!

LUTHERAN FREE CONFERENCE

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

No Compromise for the Baptized Faithful

—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.

Who Are Those Witnesses Again?

PROPTER CHRISTUM: Who is a witness?

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!

WHO ARE THOSE WITNESSES AGAIN? Acts 1:8 in Context

— 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.

Witness in the New Testament

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.

The Old Testament Background of Witness

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.

Witness in General in the New Testament

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). . . .

The Apostolic Witness to Christ

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. . . .

---

1. διαμαρτύρομαι, "to give solemn testimony, exhort, warn"; ἐπιμαρτυρέω, "to bear witness, attest"; καταμαρτυρέω, "to testify against"; προμαρτύρομαι, "to bear witness beforehand, predict"; συμμαρτυρέω, "to bear witness with," "support by testimony"; συνεπιμαρτυρέω, "to testify at the same time"; ψευδομαρτυρέω and its noun cognates, "to give false witness," "false witness, false testimony." ↩
2. ʿēd, "witness"; ʿēdâ, "testimony, witness"; ʿēdôt, "testimonies"; ʿēdût, "testimony"; tě‘ûdâ, "attestation"; and the denominative verb ʿwd, "to bear witness, testify." For a more comprehensive treatment, see C. van Leeuwen, "ēd witness," in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 2:838-46. Editor's note: For the actual Hebrew terms, please see the book.] ↩
3. More is involved in the use of μάρτυς in this passage than the righteous men and women of faith who have finished the course "witnessing" us as we run the race. See Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 354–55. ↩
4. This ἀπ᾿ἀρχῆς has been taken in various senses, including from the beginning of creation, from the time of the incarnation, or from the time of Jesus' revelation as Son of God at his baptism. If the last of these is right, then there is a link both with John 15:27 and Acts 1:21–22. For the various views and the arguments in favor of this, see Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, Anchor Bible 30 (New York: Doubleday, 1982), 155–58. ↩
5. So, for example, Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistles of St. John (London: Macmillan, 1886), 4, 6, 9; and other traditional commentators. Modern scholars who attribute the authorship of the epistle to a "Johannine school" of course understand it differently (Brown, Epistles of John, 158–61). ↩

Cultural and Theological Readjustments and the Survival of Lutheranism

PROPTER CHRISTUM: The Survival of Lutheranism

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.

Cultural and Theological Readjustments and the Survival of Lutheranism

— 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. . . .

How Do You Know? Διακρινω!

—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.

1. Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, and William Arndt, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 231. ↩
2. Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. III: Θ–Κ, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 946–949. Space requirements for this article limit the discussion of διακρίνω only to the active voice. ↩
3. Ibid., 946. ↩
4. Cf., 1 Corinthians 4:7; 6:5; 11:29, 31; 14:29. ↩
5. “For who distinguishes you? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received [it], why do you boast as not receiving?” ↩
6. "But two or three prophets shall speak, and the rest shall judge." ↩
7. Ministerial use, i.e., the ministerial use of reason. ↩
8. “τὸ ἀπρόσληπτον ἀθεράπευτον” Gregory of Nanzianzus in Martin Chemnitz, Two Natures in Christ, trans. J.A.O. Preus (St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1971), 60. ↩

The Fire in your Midst

—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.

1. LC I: 91. ↩

Convention Notes from the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

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."

The Missing Trait: A Response to “11 Traits of Churches That Will Impact the Future"

— 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.

The Holy Spirit

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