Upcoming Themes

LOGIA is published quarterly (Epiphany, Eastertide, Holy Trinity, and Reformation).                                      

34:1 (Epiphany 2025) — Dead Orthodoxy? - this is our current issue - purchase here.

In a summer quarter class on Pietism, the seminary professor, in order to establish context, began with a presentation on the age of Lutheran Orthodoxy and referred to it as a golden age of Lutheranism. An astute student asked, “You referred to it as a golden age of Lutheranism, not the golden age of Lutheranism. Were there other golden ages of Lutheranism?” The professor’s answer is not germane to this issue of LOGIA. He did, however, say that the gold tarnished; after all, the class was about Pietism. But he categorically rejected the term “dead orthodoxy.”

The age of Lutheran Orthodoxy is often dated as beginning with the publication of the Book of Concord in 1580 and ending with the adulterating influence of Enlightenment principles in the mid-eighteenth century. The term “dead orthodoxy” arose as a critique of what some Lutherans saw as a movement that was overly rational and objective and that ignored the warmth and vibrancy of Christian experience. The articles in this issue of LOGIA demonstrate that this evaluation of Lutheran Orthodoxy is false.

The treasures and fullness of Lutheran Orthodoxy are, first and foremost, perhaps best expressed in preaching. After all, Luther said that the church should be a “mouth house.” A pastoral approach to preaching that drives Christ home (was Christum treibet) into the hearts of parishioners who have been caringly catechized, together with encouraging genuine piety motivated by the word of God taught in its truth and purity and the administration of the sacraments according to Christ’s institution, are the hallmark of Jesper Brochmand’s sermon.

Johann Gerhard is considered one of the premier Lutheran theologians of the Age of Orthodoxy. This period is at times referred to as the Age of Lutheran Scholasticism because of a perception that the doctrinal content of the treatises and books written by scholars of this period was divorced from any meaningful application to the individual Christian. In Benjamin Mayes’ examination of Gerhard’s eschatology, it becomes evident that a profound—and complex—struggle with the concepts of annihilation and renovation ultimately serves the purpose of assuring believers, “then we shall be forever with the Lord.” Especially significant is that Gerhard’s theology is entirely grounded in Christology: every exegetical endeavor must begin by asking, “What does this have to do with Christ and redemption?”

A consideration of the Age of Orthodoxy dare not overlook the role of polemics in dealing with doctrinal issues. Terms must be defined accurately, and positions that depart from the clear teaching of Scripture must be rejected. John Maxfield applies this approach to ongoing dialogues between representatives of various Lutheran bodies and the Roman Catholic Church.

Polarization is a term often used to describe American political life and moral positions today. Lutherans are confronted both by the question of when it is proper to disobey civil authorities as well as how best to obey civil authorities. In his study of the Magdeburg Confession, which had some influence on the Formula of Concord, Michael Lockwood draws attention to the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms and the importance of God-given vocation as a biblical and confessional approach to dealing with these issues.

To answer the student’s question in the opening paragraph, it is probably best to ignore the idea of golden ages. The articles in this issue of LOGIA make it clear that orthodoxy lives on in the Lutheran church. In fact, there is no such thing as dead orthodoxy, since the love of God in Christ is the living heart of orthodoxy, and faithful Lutherans still focus on this central truth.

Paul Lehninger, for the editors

34:2 (Eastertide 2025) — The Atonement - scheduled to be published in April 2025.

How could Lutherans not think, write, preach, debate, commiserate, and think again about the atonement? In his Smalcald Articles, after quoting Romans 4:25, John 1:29, Isaiah 53:6, and Romans 3:23–25, Luther remarks, “Now because this must be believed and may not be obtained or grasped otherwise with any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us, as Saint Paul says in Romans 3:28, 26 . . . Nothing in this article can be conceded or given up. . . On this article stands all that we teach and practice against the pope, the devil, and the world. Therefore we must be quite certain and have no doubt about it” (SA II, i, 1–5; Kolb-Wengert, 301).

This issue of LOGIA offers some excellent contemporary writing from Lutheran theologians about this topic for your own thinking. Jack Kilcrease leads off with “Elert on the Atonement.” He unfolds the development of the doctrine of the atonement in the nineteenth century “Erlangen school,” which he notes was really two “schools of thought.” On the one hand was J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810–77); on the other were Theodosius Harnack (1817–89) and Gottfried Thomasius (1802–1875). Then Kilcrease goes on to describe Werner Elert (1885–1954) as the theologian who synthesized these two schools of thought into something new, especially as found in Elert’s The Christian Ethos. I have heard it said in the past that neither the Missouri Synod’s liberals nor its conservatives understood Elert. Kilcrease may be on to something here, which I will let you judge for yourself.

David P. Scaer offers the second article, simply titled “On Atonement.” I am glad that someone is defending the Book of Concord’s position on atonement, and he does a great job of that. I should mention that he has recently published a book of seventeen previously published articles—on the Law-Gospel debate, Third Use of the Law, Christology, Justification, and other key Lutheran doctrines—titled Without the Shedding of Blood There is No Forgiveness of Sins (Colorado: Ad Crucem, 2024). Many thanks to Professor Scaer for supporting the work of LOGIA since our founding in 1992 and for contributing many excellent pieces to our journal and many books for Luther Academy!

The third article comes from Brandon Koble, whose article is a response to some things Jack Kilcrease has written previously and looks at Martin Chemnitz’s doctrine of the atonement in his The Two Natures book. That book was translated into English a number of years ago by J. A. O. “Jack” Preus II. Koble is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Marquette University, writing his dissertation entitled “The Defender of Schwabian Christology: The Christological Development of Jakob Andreae in the Pursuit of Concord.” 

The fourth article by Kendall A. Davis looks at all the dimensions of the “shame of the cross”—not just the physical suffering, but also the rejection and other aspects of dishonor, shame, etc. This will provide good source material for one or more Lenten sermons. Davis is currently a PhD student in New Testament at the University of Edinburgh, writing his dissertation on messianism and Christology in Luke and Acts, examining the uses of the term "christos" and its cognates in the Lukan corpus.

Our last feature article is a “LOGIA Classic” by our long-time editorial associate, Paul Lehninger. He looks at “atonement motifs” in the Formula of Concord. Lehninger notes that “the Lutheran Confessions do not limit themselves to a single atonement motif. Examples can be found of Anselmian satisfaction, the ‘classical’ Christus Victor motif, and the idea of sacrifice and propitiation, among others.” Starting with the first three articles in the Formula, Lehninger goes on to prove his thesis with flourish and superb logic.

Martin R. Noland, for the editors