Here is a website devoted to assisting congregations thinking about leaving the ELCA. From the About page:
This website is dedicated to providing useful information to congregations and leaders pondering the possibility of leaving the ELCA.
For more info, see The Road to Christian Freedom
From On Christian Doctrine, Book I, Chapter 3:
There are some things, then, which are to be enjoyed, others which are to be used, others still which enjoy and use. Those things which are objects of enjoyment make us happy. Those things which are objects of use assist, and (so to speak) support us in our efforts after happiness, so that we can attain the things that make us happy and rest in them. We ourselves, again, who enjoy and use these things, being placed among both kinds of objects, if we set ourselves to enjoy those which we ought to use, are hindered in our course, and sometimes even led away from it; so that, getting entangled in the love of lower gratifications, we lag behind in, or even altogether turn back from, the pursuit of the real and proper objects of enjoyment.
Via WordAlone:
A discussion draft of a preliminary proposal for a Central District in Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ is now available at:
http://www.wordalone.org/pdf/LCMC_draft_proposal_4.1.pdfThe WordAlone Network Board will be discussing the proposal at its quarterly meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 16-17. Comments and feedback on the draft proposal are invited.
Here is the handout from Bob and Cathy Mattson for the 18th Sunday in Pentecost:
Another congregation of the ELCA has voted to end its association with the organization, and stay “true to the word of God.” As reported by a local news channel in Roanoke, Virginia:
At St. John Lutheran Church, Pastor Mark Graham is relieved because his congregation followed him on Sunday, where 70% of members voted to leave the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which is their current national association.
“Some of the things that the ELCA has adopted do not follow in with my beliefs regarding God and life and family,” said Judy Limroth who voted for the change.
Read the rest of the article here
From On Being a Theologian of the Cross (pp. 17-19):
The theology of the cross is the true and ultimate source of human optimism because it always presupposes the resurrection. We should always bear in mind in pondering texts like the Heidelberg Disputation that resurrection is always taken together with the cross. The fundamental question of the Disputation is how to arrive at that righteousness that will enable us to stand before God. It is about resurrection, finally, even when the word is not explicitly spoken. Indeed, it is not possible to have a theology of the cross without resurrection. The powerful attacks launched against even the best of human works that put the sinner to death would simply not be possible if the resurrection were not presupposed. Some theologians of the cross seem afraid to bring in talk of resurrection because they apparently fear it will mitigate the unrelieved “tragedy” of the cross and its attack. But the opposite is the case. Without the resurrection theologians will always be tempted to tone down the attack in order to leave room for at least some optimism, some hope for the survival of the old self. They end by telling sweet lies, calling the bad good and the good bad. Without the resurrection theologians cannot speak the truth about the human condition, and without hearing and confessing such truth we have no hope, no resurrectiion. For a resurrection to happen, there must first be a death. The truth must be heard and confessed; then there is hope. A new life can begin, and with it a new sense of self worth can blossom. That it the ultimate aim of the Heidelberg Disputation. For in the end we arrive, as we shall see, at the love of God, which creates anew out of nothing.
Here is a hymn for today from Joseph Hoskins, who died on this day in 1788.
To live is Christ, and to die is gain. (Philippians 1:21)
Let thoughtless thousands choose the road
That leads the soul away from God;
This happiness, dear Lord, be mine,
To live and die entirely Thine.
On Christ, by faith, I fain would live,
From Him my life, my all, receive,
To Him devote my fleeting hours,
Serve Him alone with all my powers.
Christ is my everlasting All;
To Him I look, on Him I call;
He will my every want supply
In time and through eternity.
Soon will the Lord, my Life, appear;
Soon shall I end my trials here,
Leave sin and sorrow, death and pain.
To live is Christ, to die is gain.
Soon will the saints in glory meet,
Soon walk through every golden street,
And sing on every blissful plain:
To live is Christ, to die is gain.
From the Bondage of the Will, Section LXIV
BUT, why it is, that some are touched by the law and some are not touched, why some receive the offered grace and some despise it, that is another question which is not here treated on by Ezekiel; because, he is speaking of THE PREACHED AND OFFERED MERCY OF GOD, not of that SECRET AND TO BE FEARED WILL OF GOD, who, according to His own counsel, ordains whom, and such as He will, to be receivers and partakers of the preached and offered mercy: which WILL, is not to be curiously inquired into, but to be adored with reverence as the most profound SECRET of the divine Majesty, which He reserves unto Himself and keeps hidden from us, and that, much more religiously than the mention of ten thousand Corycian caverns.
But since the Diatribe thus pertly argues — “Would the righteous Lord deplore that death of His people, which He Himself works in them? This would seem quite absurd” —
I answer, as I said before, — we are to argue in one way, concerning the WILL OF GOD preached, revealed, and offered unto us, and worshipped by us; and in another, concerning GOD HIMSELF not preached, not revealed, not offered unto us, and worshipped by us. In whatever, therefore, God hides Himself and will be unknown by us, that is nothing unto us ‘and here, that sentiment’ stands good — ‘What is above us, does not concern us.’
And that no one might think that this distinction is my own, I follow Paul, who, writing to the Thessalonians concerning Antichrist, saith, (2 Thess. ii. 4.) “that he should exalt himself above all that is God, as preached and worshipped:” evidently intimating, that any one might be exalted above God as He is preached and worshipped, that is, above the word and worship of God, by which He is known unto us and has intercourse with us. But, above God not worshipped and preached, that is, as He is in our own nature and majesty, nothing can be exalted, but all things are under His powerful hand.
God, therefore, is to be left to remain in His own Nature and Majesty; for in this respect, we have nothing to do with Him, nor does He wish us to have, in this respect, anything to do with Him: but we have to do with Him, as far as He is clothed in, and delivered to us by, His Word; for in that He presents Himself unto us, and that is His beauty and His glory, in which the Psalmist celebrates Him as being clothed. Wherefore, we say, that the righteous God does not ‘deplore that death of His people which He Himself works in them;’ but He deplores that death which He finds in His people, and which He desires to remove from them. For GOD PREACHED desires this: — that, our sin and death being taken away, we might be saved; “He sent His word and healed them.” (Psalm cvii. 20.) But GOD HIDDEN IN MAJESTY neither deplores, nor takes away death, but works life and death and all things: nor has He, in this Character, defined Himself in His Word, but has reserved unto Himself, a free power over all things.
But the Diatribe is deceived by its own ignorance, in not making a distinction between GOD PREACHED and GOD HIDDEN: that is, between the word of God and God Himself. God does many things which He does not make known unto us in His word: He also wills many things which He does not in His word make known unto us that He wills. Thus, He does not ‘will the death of a sinner,’ that is, in His word; but Hewills it by that will inscrutable. But in the present case, we are to consider His word only, and to leave that will inscrutable; seeing that, it is by His word, and not by that will inscrutable, that we are to be guided; for who can direct himself according to a will inscrutable and incomprehensible? It is enough to know only, that there is in God a certain will inscrutable: but what, why, and how far that will wills, it is not lawful to inquire, to wish to know, to be concerned about, or to reach unto — it is only to be feared and adored!
Therefore it is rightly said, ‘if God does not desire our death, it is to be laid to the charge of our own will, if we perish:’ this, I say, is right, if you speak of GOD PREACHED. For He desires that all men should be saved, seeing that, He comes unto all by the word of salvation, and it is the fault of the will which does not receive Him: as He saith. (Matt. xxiii. 37.) “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not!” But WHY that Majesty does not take away or change this fault of the will IN ALL, seeing that, it is not in the power of man to do it; or why He lays that to the charge of the will, which the man cannot avoid, it becomes us not to inquire, and though you should inquire much, yet you will never find out: as Paul saith, (Rom. ix, 20,) “Who art thou that repliest against God!” — Suffice it to have spoken thus upon this passage of Ezekiel. Now let us proceed to the remaining particulars.
It was reported back in June that Community Church of Joy in Glendale, AZ was leaving the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to join the association of Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ. Today (09/27/09) the exodus was finalized by a unanimous vote. Here is the report from ELCA News Service:
CHICAGO (ELCA) — Community Church of Joy, Glendale, Ariz., ended its affiliation Sept. 27 with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States.
The congregation was the 10th largest in the ELCA with 6,800 baptized members. According to the 2009 ELCA Yearbook, Community Church of Joy’s current operating expenses are more than $2.7 million. It gave more than $207,915 to the ELCA and other organizations in benevolence. By a unanimous vote of 129-0, Community Church of Joy terminated the relationship at a congregational meeting following worship.
“I was praying that (the vote) would be a clear direction from the congregation,” said the Rev. Walter P. Kallestad, senior pastor of the congregation. Seeking to be consistent with the congregation’s decision, Kallestad announced to the congregation his intention to resign from the ELCA’s clergy roster.
Two votes were taken as part of a process to end the affiliation. An initial vote took place June 28, when 185 members voted 174-11 in favor of ending the relationship. Also in June, voting members chose to join Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ — an association of 197 congregations in the United States “rooted in the Lutheran Confessions.”
Community Church of Joy’s vision, values and mission are no longer aligned with the ELCA, according to Kallestad. “There is such a different direction that the ELCA has chosen, a path they’re traveling on, and we really believe that it just was not consistent to where God has called us. And so we’re parting,” he told the ELCA News Service.
On its Web site, Community Church of Joy cited three documents to help make clear the reasons for the congregation’s actions. One document is about Israel and another is about Holy Scripture. A third document references the actions of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly on the topic of human sexuality.
The assembly approved a series of proposals to change ministry policies, including a change to allow Lutherans in lifelong, publicly accountable, monogamous same-gender relationships to serve as ELCA associates in ministry, clergy, deaconesses and diaconal ministers. The assembly also approved “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” — the denomination’s 10th social statement, which addresses a spectrum of topics relevant to human sexuality from a Lutheran perspective.
The Rev. Stephen S. Talmage, bishop of the ELCA Grand Canyon Synod, Phoenix, spoke to members of Community Church of Joy in early September. He said about 40 people were present, and about 20 of them were members of Community Church of Joy. Kallestad was not present.
“In the meeting I affirmed the ministry of Community Church of Joy,” Talmage told the ELCA News Service. “I lifted up that Pastor Kallestad and the congregation have had a historical reputation of trying novel and creative things. They also, without a doubt, clearly have a heart for reaching the unchurched. They’ve pushed the envelope for the ELCA, having us look at how we do worship, how we evangelize and how we reach out.”
Talmage said he also listed the ways in which Lutherans engage in mission and ministry across the country and overseas. “That will be lost, and that’s sad,” he said. “My hope is that, although they’re leaving, we can still discover ways we can cooperate in ministry and celebrate our common commitment to growing disciples.”
Talmage was not present for the Sept. 27 vote at Community Church of Joy. The Rev. John Q. Cockram, Shepherd of the Desert, Sun City, Ariz., represented the synod.
- – -
Information about Community Church of Joy is at http://www.joyonline.org on the Web.
WA to look for new ways to work
with Lutheran CORE and LCMC
by Steven King, WordAlone education director
The WordAlone Network Board, in a conference call on Thurs., Sept. 17, expressed the Network’s commitment to work with its reform partners in Lutheran CORE and to work with Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC) following the convocation in Fishers, Indiana.
The WordAlone board approved two motions in its call. In the first, the board expressed its desire to continue to work as an integral and supportive part of Lutheran CORE, as it makes the transition from a “Coalition for Reform” to a “Coalition for Renewal” — by building on the positive relationship and mutual cooperation the two groups have shared over the past several years. The motion read as follows:
“Recognizing Lutheran CORE’s proposed implementing resolution four (see Paull Spring’s Sept. 4th letter – www.lutherancore.org/papers/spring_pre_convoc_ltr.shtml) to the Convocation in Fishers, Ind., resolved that the WordAlone Network establish a task force jointly with Lutheran CORE to discuss the future of both organizations and how they can work together; and ask for a report from the task force to the Lutheran CORE Steering Committee and WordAlone Network Board of Directors by March 31, 2010.”
In the second motion, the Board offered its input and support to Lutheran CORE in the form of a “working proposal” for how WordAlone could assist in strengthening the connections among Lutheran CORE and LCMC, and the congregations and members associated with each. A brief abstract summary of the proposal read as follows:
“The Board of the WordAlone Network offers for discussion a proposal to use its existing resources, staffing and partnerships to help create a new district within the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ, called the “LCMC Central District.” This district would be designed to serve as a “landing area” for congregations leaving the ELCA, allowing those who are newly joining LCMC to remain connected with the partners in the larger movement toward the reform of Lutheranism in North America. This Central District would work respectfully in cooperation with other districts and congregations of LCMC, while at the same time maintaining relationships with individuals and chapters of the WordAlone Network, as well as with Lutheran CORE and other reform groups within the ELCA.”
Approved for review as a “discussion draft” to solicit feedback from members of WordAlone, Lutheran CORE and LCMC, a six-page WordAlone proposal will be made available online following the Fishers Convocation. Watch for more information to come!
(via WordAlone)
INDIANAPOLIS — More than 1,200 Lutherans from throughout the United States and Canada took actions Saturday, Sept. 26, that they hope will lead to a reconfiguration of Lutheranism in North America. The Lutherans were in Indianapolis for a Convocation formally organizing the Lutheran Coalition for Renewal (Lutheran CORE).
The event became even more significant when the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted in August to change its teaching to affirm same-sex relationships and to allow pastors to be in those relationships in spite of the Bible’s teaching on marriage and homosexual behavior.
“I believe it is abundantly clear that God is reforming the churches of the Reformation,” said Ryan Schwarz of Washington, D.C., a member of the Lutheran CORE Steering Committee. “The question for us is how we will respond to the clear invitation to re-vision Lutheranism.
“I believe it is abundantly clear that God is reforming the churches of the Reformation,” said Ryan Schwarz of Washington, D.C., a member of the Lutheran CORE Steering Committee. “The question for us is how we will respond to the clear invitation to re-vision Lutheranism.
The Convocation took action to adopt a constitution and to change Lutheran CORE from a Coalition for Reform to a Coalition for Renewal. This action is more than a name change. It is a change in focus from renewing the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to a renewing organization and an alternate church fellowship for Lutherans.
“Lutheran CORE will be a free-standing synod for all faithful Lutherans,” explained the Rev. Paull Spring of State College, Pa., chair of Lutheran CORE. “We are going to do things that synods typically do: strengthening personal faith and congregational life, providing resources for congregational ministry, developing new congregations, supporting global missionaries, providing some forms for theological eduction for pastors, developing mechanisms for theological reflection and conversation related to Scripture and the Confessions.”
“God is calling us to do something. The ELCA has fallen into heresy. It is a time for confession and a time to resist. It is, please God, also a time for new life and transformation and for mission,” said Spring, the retired bishop of the Northwestern Pennsylvania Synod.
The Convocation also authorized the Lutheran CORE Steering Committee “to initiate conversations among the congregations and reform movements in Lutheran CORE and with Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ and other compatible churchly organizations, leading toward a possible reconfiguration of North American Lutheranism.” A report and recommendations will be brought to Lutheran CORE’s Convocation in September 2010.
“This could be one of the biggest events in Lutheran history in contemporary time,” said the Rev. Jaynan Clark of Spokane, Wash., president of the WordAlone Network, one of the renewal networks that comprise Lutheran CORE.
The Rev. Kenneth Sauer of Columbus, Ohio, opened the Convocation Friday by discussing the current situation facing members of the ELCA. “We now have two churches within one organizational structure. One church emphasized Bible and Theology, the other culture and experience. There are deep divisions over the fundamental meaning of the Gospel, the authority of Scripture ,and the purpose and work of the Holy Spirit. The division reaches into congregations, synods, and seminaries and agencies. Only the churchwide organization seems to be of one mind.”
“Elijah needed to know that there were 7,000 in Israel that did not bow the knee to Baal, and we need to know that there are millions of faithful Lutheran Christians in this land who with us want desperately to know how to be faithful in the midst of a church we love which is falling apart,” said Sauer, the retired bishop of the Southern Ohio Synod and former chair of the ELCA Conference of Bishops.
The convocation heard from leaders of the African immigrant and Hispanic churches in the ELCA. Both communities have been deeply hurt by the ELCA’s actions.
“As far as we are concerned our choice is very clear: We have to either give up our evangelical and prophetic ministry in our society and silently die as a denomination or rise to the task of realigning ourselves with churches, leaders and communities of similar conviction and work shoulder-to-shoulder with them,” Baro said.
“My friends, in the middle of these uncertainties, we are glad to see that God is using these times of darkness to manifest the light. God is using this time as a time when we, as men and women of God, are called to define ourselves by taking a stand on the basis of our beliefs, on the basis of our convictions , on the basis of our conscience bound to the Word of God,” said the Rev. Eddie Perez of Miami, Fla.
“My advice to the ELCA members is this: the time for hesitation is now over. God is demanding a response from us. Through the prophet Elijah, God keeps saying to the members of the ELCA congregations: “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him,’” Perez said.
“We are not dividing the church. The church is already divided. We’re just mopping up what the church did,” said the Rev. Paul Ulring of Columbus, Ohio, a member of the Lutheran CORE Steering Committee. “There is a future for us, a future that we only glimpse right now. Things will happen that will make it possible for us to do this, things that aren’t clear right now, but Jesus is in clear view,” said Ulring.
Ulring outlined steps that individuals and congregations can take as they move into the future. “We’ve spent all our ELCA years and before, struggling and working against what has now happened. It’s over; it’s done. We don’t have to spend ourselves there anymore,” Ulring said. “Let’s take that energy, that passion and transfer it to a future that we don’t have clearly, but a future that surely is better than what we’ve been messing with. And let’s be gracious and kind, known for our positive spirit and hope. Let’s be known for what we believe, not what we’re against anymore. Let’s be faithful to the Gospel, the Word of God, and the Lord Jesus.”
“Let us stand together, as we see the future of Lutheranism change for the good. It’s worth it. Jesus calls us to do it. he is not defeated or set aside by any decision or action. We have the opportunity to make an eternal difference,” Ulring said. “God has given us this new freedom and opportunity. Let us rise in hope and forgiveness, to put aside the past and find the future we have been called to for Jesus’ sake and for the sake of those he loves and wants.”
“Those who stand against us are not our enemies. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ. We owe it to them and to those faithful ones who remain within the ELCA to be true to our convictions but gracious in our dealings with them,” Spring said.
The convocation was moved frrom Christ the Savior Lutheran Church to Holy Spirit Parish at Geist in the Indianapolis suburb of Fishers because of the large attendance.. . Even with the larger space, organizers were forced to close registration Sept. 14 due to space limitations.
A DVD of the Convocation presentations is available from Lutheran CORE. The text of many of the speeches will be available online at www.lutherancore.org.
From Lutheran CORE, a guide to help those discerning what to do amidst the crisis of the ELCA:
IMPORTANT DOCUMENT: “What do we do now?”
Resources to help individuals and congregations make decisions about the best way forward given the Biblical and theological crisis in the ELCA. This resource was given to those who attended the Lutheran CORE Convocation in Indianapolis. . . download (.pdf)
PREFACE TO THE PROPHETS 1545 (1532)
To human reason the prophets seem of small account, and little of value is found in them. This is especially so when Master Know-it-all comes along.
He knows the Scriptures by heart and has them at his finger-tips, and out of the riches of his spirit, he regards the writings of the prophets as mere worthless, dead talk. That is why the lives and works of the prophets are no longer noticed, and only their words and histories are heard. This is no wonder, when God’s Word, too, is despised, even though the signs and events, and the kingdom of Christ, as well, are daily before men’s eyes; and how much more would it be despised, if the stories and the deeds were no longer extant. Just so the children of Israel despised God and His Word when they had before their eyes the manna, the fiery pillar and the bright cloud, and the priesthood and the princedom.
Therefore we Christians ought not be such shameful, sated, ungrateful wiseacres, but should read and use the] prophets with earnestness and profit. For, first of all, they proclaim and bear witness to the kingdom of Christ, in which we now live, and in which all believers in Christ have heretofore lived and will live until the end of the world.
It is strong encouragement and encouraging strength to have for our Christian life such mighty and ancient witnesses by whom our Christian faith is greatly encouraged in the belief that it is the right station in the eyes of God, in contrast with all other wrong, false, human holiness and with the sects, which are a source of great offense and temptation to a weak heart, because of the great show that they make and of the multitude of their adherents, and, on the other hand, because of the Cross and of the small number of those who hold to the Christian faith. So, in our days, the hordes of the Turk, the pope, and others are great and powerful causes of offence.
For this, then, the prophets are useful to us; as St. Peter claims, in 1 Peter, that it was not unto themselves that the prophets made known the things that were revealed to them, but to us, “to us,” he says, “they made them known.” For they have thus “ministered to us,” with their prophesying, in order that he who would be in Christ’s kingdom might know that he must first suffer many things before he comes to glory, and that he must govern himself accordingly. By this we become sure of two things’ first, that the great glory of Christ’s kingdom is surely ours, and will come hereafter; and second, that it is preceded by crosses, shame, misery, contempt, and all kinds of suffering for Christ’s sake. Thus we shall not become disheartened through impatience or unbelief, or doubt the future glory, which will be so great that the angels desire to see it.
In the second place, they show us many great examples and experiences illustrating the First Commandment, and it is portrayed in masterly fashion, in both words and illustrations, so as to drive us powerfully to fear of God and faith, and to keep us in them. For after they have prophesied of Christ’s kingdom, all the rest is nothing but illustration of how God has so strictly and severely confirmed the First Commandment, and to read or hear the prophets is surely nothing else than to read and hear God’s threats and comforts. God threatens the godless, who are careless and proud, and if threatening does not help, He enforces it with penalties pestilence, famine, war, until they are destroyed; thus He makes good the threat of the First Commandment. But He comforts those who fear God and are in all sorts of need, and enforces His comfort with aid and counsel, by all kinds of wonders and signs, against all the might of the devil and the world’ thus He also makes good the comfort of the First Commandment.
With such sermons and illustrations the prophets minister richly to us, teaching us that we need not be offended when we see how carelessly and proudly the godless despise God’s Word, and pay no heed to His threatenings, as though God were a mere nothing; for in the prophets we see that things have never turned out well for any man who has despised God’s threatening, even though they were the mightiest emperors and kings and the holiest and most learned people on whom the sun ever shone.
On the other hand, we see that no one has been deserted who has dared to rely upon God’s comforts and promises, even though they were the most miserable and the poorest sinners and beggars that were ever on the earth, nay, even though it were a slain Abel and a swallowed Jonah. By this the prophets prove to us that God keeps to His First Commandment, and wills to be a gracious Father to the poor and believing, and that for Him no one is to be too small or too despised; on the other hand He wills to be an angry Judge to the godless and the proud, and no one is to be too great, too mighty, too wise, too holy for Him, whether it be emperor, pope, Turk, and the devil beside.
For this reason it is, in our days, profitable and necessary to read the prophets, so that, by these illustrations and sermons we may be strengthened and encouraged against the unspeakable, innumerable, and (if God will) the final causes of offense given by the damned world. How completely the Turk holds our Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom for a mere nothing, compared with himself and his Mohammed! How greatly the poor Gospel and God’s Word are despised, both among us and under the papacy, compared with the glorious show and riches of human commandments and holiness! How carelessly the fanatics, the Epicureans, and others like them walk in their own opinions, contrary to Holy Scripture! What an utterly audacious, wild life everyone now lives, following his own self-will, contrary to the clear truth, now as plain as day!
It seems as though neither God nor Christ were anything; stiff less does it seem that God’s First Commandment was so strict!
But they say, “Wait a bit, wait a bit! Suppose the prophets are lying, and deceiving us with their histories and sermons!” More kings than they, and mightier, yes, and worse knaves than they, have gone to destruction; and these will not escape. Needier and more wretched people, too, have been gloriously helped; and we shall not be deserted. They are not the first to be defiant and boastful, and we are not the first who have suffered and been tormented. See, it is thus that we make the prophets useful to ourselves; read in this way, the reading of them is fruitful.
To be sure, there is in them more of threatening and rebuke than of encouragement and promise, and it is good to observe the reason. The godless are always more in number than the righteous; therefore one must always be more insistent on the law than on the promises. Even without the promises, the godless feel secure, and they are most agile in applying the divine encouragements and promises to themselves and the threats and rebukes to others, and they do not let themselves be turned, by any means, from this perverted notion and false hope. For their motto is Pax et securitas , “There is no need!” They stick to that, and go with it to destruction, as St. Paul says, “Destruction cometh upon them suddenly.”
Again, since the prophets cry out most of all against idolatry, it is necessary to know the form which this idolatry had; for in our time, under the papacy, many people flatter themselves pleasantly and think that they are no such idolaters as the children of Israel. For this reason, then, they do not think highly of the prophets, especially of this part of them, because the rebukes upon idolatry do not concern them at all. They are far too pure and holy to commit idolatry, and it would be laughable for them to be afraid or terrified because of threats and denunciations against idolatry. That is just what the people of Israel also did. They simply would not believe that they were idolatrous, and therefore the threatenings of the prophets had to be lies, and they themselves had to be condemned as heretics. The children of Israel were not such mad saints as to worship plain wood and stone, especially the kings, princes, priests, and prophets, though they were the most idolatrous of all; but their idolatry consisted in letting go of the worship which God had instituted and ordered at Jerusalem, and where else God would have it, and improving on it, establishing it and setting it up elsewhere, according to their own ideas and opinions, without God’s command, and inventing new forms and persons and times for it, though Moses had strictly forbidden this, especially in Deuteronomy 12, and pointed them to the place that God had chosen for His tabernacle and dwelling-place. This false worship was their idolatry, and they thought it a fine and precious thing, and relied upon it as though they had done well in performing it, though it was sheer disobedience and apostasy from God and His commands.
Thus we read in 1 Kings 12:28, not simply that Jeroboam set up the two calves, but had it preached to the people besides, “Ye shall no more go up to Jerusalem; lo, here, Israel, is thy God, who led thee out of Egypt.”
He does not say, “Lo, here, Israel, is a calf,” but “Here is thy God who led thee out of Egypt.” He confesses freely that the God of Israel is the true God and that he led them out of Egypt; but men are not to run to Jerusalem after Him, but rather to find Him here at Dan and Beersheba, where the golden calves are. The meaning is: — One can sacrifice to God and worship Him as well before the golden calves as before a holy symbol of God, for so men sacrificed to Him and worshiped Him before the golden ark. Lo, that is deserting the worship of God at Jerusalem, and thereby denying God, who has commanded that worship, as though He had not commanded it.
So they built on their own works and devotion and not purely and alone on God. With this devotion they afterwards filled the land with idolatry; on all the hills, in all the valleys, under all the trees they sacrificed and burned incense, and all this had to be called serving the God of Israel; he who said otherwise was a heretic and false prophet. That is the real committing of idolatry, — undertaking to worship God, without God’s bidding, out of one’s own devotion; for He will not have us teach Him how He is to be served. He wills to teach us and to prescribe His worship; His Word is to be there and it shall give us light and leading. Without His Word it is all idolatry and lies, however devout it seems, and however beautiful it seeks to be. Of this we have often written.
From this it follows that among us Christians all those men are idolatrous, and the prophets’ denunciations apply to them, who have invented or still keep new ways to worship God without God’s order and commandment, out of their own devotion, and, as they say, with good intentions. For by this they surely put their reliance on works that they themselves have chosen and not simply and solely on Jesus Christ. In the prophets these people are called adulteresses, who are not content with their own’ husband, Jesus Christ, but run after other men, as though Christ alone could not help, without us and our works, or as though He alone had not redeemed us, but we must also do something toward it. And yet we know very well that we did nothing toward having Him die on the Cross, taking our sins upon Him and bearing them on the Cross, not only before the whole world could think of any such thing, but before we were born. Just as little, and even less, did the children of Israel do toward bringing the plagues upon Egypt and Pharaoh and setting themselves free through the death of the first-born of Egypt. God did this alone, and they did nothing at all toward it. “Nay,” say they, “the children of Israel served idols with their worship, and not the true God, but we serve in our churches the true God and the one Lord Jesus Christ, for we know no idols.” I answer: That is what the children of Israel also said. All of them declared that their worship was given to the true God, and even less than our clergy would they permit anyone to call it the serving of idols. On this account they killed and persecuted all the true prophets; for they, too, would know nothing of idols, as the histories tell us.
For thus we read in Judges 17:1, that the mother of Micah, when he had taken from her the eleven hundred pieces of silver, and returned them, said to him, “Blessed be my son from the Lord. I vowed this silver to the Lord, that my son shall take the silver and have a graven image made of it, etc.”
Here one learns clearly and certainly that the mother is thinking of the true God, to whom she has vowed the silver, to have a graven image made of it.
She does not say, “I have vowed the silver to an idol,” but “to the Lord,” which name is known among all Jews as the name of the one true God. The Turk also does the same thing; he names the true God in His worship and means Him who created heaven and earth. Likewise do the Jews, Tartars, and now all unbelievers. Nevertheless, it is all sheer idolatry.
Again how strange was the fall of that wonderful man Gideon! To the children of Israel, who desired that he and his children should rule over them, he said, “I will not be your lord, nor will my children, but the Lord (that is, the true God) shall be your lord.” And yet he took the jewels that they gave him and made of them, not an image or an altar, but a priest’sgarment, and out of devotion, he wanted to have a worshiping of God in his own city. But the Scripture says that all Israel committed harlotry with it, and this house went to destruction because of it. Now this great and holy man was not thinking of any idol, but of the one true God, as his spirited words bear witness, when he says, “The Lord shall rule over you, not I.” By these words he plainly gives honor to God alone and confesses only the true God and will have Him held as God and Lord. So, too, we heard above that Jeroboam does not call his golden calves idols, but the God of Israel, who has led them out of Egypt; and this was the only true God, for no idol had led them out of Egypt. Nor was it his intention to worship idols, but because he feared (as the text says) that the people would fall away from him to the King of Judah, if they were to go to Jerusalem, according to custom, to worship God, he invented a worship of his own, by which he held them to him, and yet intended by it to worship the true God, who dwelt at Jerusalem; but it was not to be necessary to worship God in Jerusalem only.
Why many words? God Himself confesses that the children of Israel intended to worship, not an idol, but Him alone; for He says, in Hosea 2, “At that day, saith the Lord, thou shalt call me ‘My husband’ and call me no more ‘My master’. For I will take the name of the Baalim out of her mouth, so that one shall no more remember this name of Baalim.” Here one must confess it true that the children of Israel intended to worship no idol, but the one true God. God says plainly, here in Hosea, “Thou shalt call me no more “My Baal’.” Now the worship of Baal was the greatest, commonest, and most glorious worship in the people of Israel, and yet it was utter idolatry, despite the fact that by it they intended to worship the true God.
Therefore it helps our clergy not at all to allege that in their churches and chapters they serve no idol, but only God, the true Lord. For here you learn that it is not enough to say or think, ‘I am doing it to God’s glory; I mean it for the true God; I will serve the only God.” All idolaters say and intend that. Intentions and thoughts do not count, or those who martyred the apostles and the Christians would also have been God’s servants, for they, too, thought that they were doing God service, as Christ says in John 16:2; and Paul in Romans 10:2, testifies for the Jews that they are zealous for God, and says in Acts 26:7, that by serving God night and day they hope to come to the promised salvation.
On the contrary, let everyone have a care to be sure that his service of God is instituted by God’s Word, and not invented out of his own devotion or good intention. One who is accustomed to serve God in ways that have no testimony of God for them ought to know that he is serving, not the true God, but an idol that he has imagined for himself, that is to say, he is serving his own notions and false ideas, and thereby is serving the devil himself, and the words of all the prophets are against him. For this God, who would let us establish worship for Him according to our own choice and devotion, without His command and Word, — this God is nowhere; but there is only one God, who, through His Word, has abundantly established and commanded all the stations and the services in which it is His will to be served.
We should abide by this and not turn aside from it either to right or left; do neither more nor less; make it neither worse nor better. Otherwise there will be no end of idolatry and it will be impossible to distinguish between true worship and idolatry, since all have the true God in mind, and all use His true Name.
To this one and only God be thanks and praise, through Jesus Christ, His Son, our Lord blessed forever. Amen.
[Luther's Works, 35, 265-273]
Julia Duin writes on the Washington Times Belief Blog about the recent Lutheran CORE meeting, and an admonition (via youtube video) from Bishop Martyn Minns of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America:
I was just about to go to bed at 1 a.m. today when I saw that the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) – one of several groups representing the 100,000 or so Episcopalians who have left their denomination for more conservative climes – has posted a video for the benefit of a this weekend’s Lutheran CORE meeting near Indianapolis. I last wrote about that here.
Lutheran CORE has drawn 1,200+ folks to a meeting to discuss what future – if any – conservatives have in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America now that that the denomination has OK’d gay clergy as of last month. The CORE folks have given every indication they’re heading out the door to form a new group or join with other dissident Lutheran groups.
And CANA is encouraging them to move out, according to a short video posted on YouTube. CANA’s lead bishop, Martyn Minns, until recently the rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Va., shows up in somewhat informal garb with a number of icons and religious paintings behind him. Am not sure the reason for the rodeo music accompaniment but sure enough, the bishop tells Lutherans that “We know the pain; we’ve been there” in reference to how his parish and 14 other churches left the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia from 2005-2007 – and the ensuing lawsuit that occurred when they tried to take their property with them. (They won the suit on the local level but it is on appeal).
“We know the joy and freedom that came when we move away from a church that has frankly lost its way,” the bishop said. “You’re not alone…”
The Witness of History for Scripture
(Homologoumena and Antilegomena)
FRANCIS PIEPER
(From Christian Dogmatics, Vol. I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950], pp. 330-38.)
Besides Scripture’s own testimony as to its divine authority, we have, through the gracious providence of God, ample historical testimony to that effect. For the Scriptures of the Old Testament we have the testimony of the Jewish Church and of Christ and His Apostles. Christian theologians of all ages are right in saying: If the Jews had been mistaken as to their canon or had falsified it, Christ would not have so unconditionally and without limitation pointed to the Scripture in the hands of the Jews and asserted their inviolability, as He does, e.g., in the words: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them” (Luke 16; 29); “All things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me” (Luke 24:44); “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of Me” (John 5:39); “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). — There is, however, no historical witness for the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Neither the Jewish Church nor Christ recognized them as canonical.1
For the Scriptures of the New Testament we have the historical witness of the Early Church (ecclesia primitiva). Its witness is unanimous as to the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John, and the First Epistle of Peter (homologoumena). But as to the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse, doubts, more or less strongly expressed, were entertained (antilegomena). Eusebius in his Church History lists the homologoumena and the antilegomena.2 The historical fact that the Early Church differentiated between the homologoumena and the antilegomena cannot be changed by a resolution of the later Church. Luther, too, abides by this judgment of the primitive Church; he says, appealing to Eusebius (Church History III, 25), that in ancient times the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Apocalypse “had a different reputation.” He finds much excellent instruction in the antilegomena, grants that the offensive passages may be explained acceptably by “glosses,” and will keep no one from appraising them as he sees fit. But he will not class them with the “right certain chief books of the New Testament.” As for himself, he will let the doubt entertained by the Early Church remain.3 Chemnitz denounced the action of the Roman Catholic Church in declaring the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the antilegomena of the New Testament a part of the canon of Scripture by a mere decree and in anathematizing all those who refused to accept the canon fixed in the Vulgate, as anti-Christian.4
Also the fathers of the Missouri Synod recognized the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena. They did, however, leave it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena, for they were divided in their opinion regarding, e.g., the Apocalypse. In the second volume of Lehre und Wehre (1856, p. 204 ff.) the question regarding the homologoumena and the antilegomena is thoroughly ventilated in the article entitled: “Is He Who does Not Receive or Regard as Canonical All Books Contained in the Collection of the New Testament to be Declared a Heretic or Dangerous False Teacher?” Walther writes:
What induces us to discuss this question is the fact that Pastor Roebbelen in connection with the glosses on the Revelation of St. John published in the Lutheraner also stated that with Luther he does not regard the Apocalypse as canonical. This has, we are informed, given great offense in some quarters. Now, we do not agree with our dear brother Roebbelen on this point; we are convinced that this precious book, so rich in comfort for the Christians and the Church, belongs to the canon. Still, we believe that it is not fair — probably it is due to ignorance of the facts of the case — to stamp an otherwise unimpeachable theologian as a dangerous false teacher, who renders the very Word of God suspect, one who sincerely receives as canonical all homologoumena (universally accepted books), but who has his doubts as to the canonicity of one or the other of the antilegomena (disputed books). This would be thoroughly un-Lutheran. For our dear fathers in the faith, with hardly an exception till after the time of the Formula of Concord, regarded and declared all or at least some of the antilegomena as not belonging to the canon; and they did that not from hastiness or levity toward the Word of God, but, on the contrary, because they were very conscientious with regard to the Word of God. Luther’s opinions on the antilegomena are not a “blot” on our Church, but they rather bear witness how careful our Church once was in determining the standard and norm of our faith and life. The summary decrees of the Papists and the Reformed that all the antilegomena must be received as canonical by all Christians on pain of losing their salvation are so little a testimony for the high regard of these denominations for the Word of God that they rather demonstrate how easy it is for those to add something to the canon who hold that the Scriptures are to be interpreted either, in a blind collier’s faith, according to the whim of the Church (that is, of the Pope) or according to the principles of reason. It will therefore not be improper to submit here the testimony of our fathers, particularly of the 16th and the first half of the 17th century; not that we personally hold these opinions, but in order to show that doubts as to the canonicity of the disputed books were held also by men whose orthodoxy no Lutheran would dare to deny, and thus to clear a man like Luther of the suspicion that he had brazenly, in his subjective pleasure, passed judgment on books which had been received into the New Testament Canon.
Walther concludes his article with the words:
If this question be treated in a Christian manner, if the poor laymen are not confused by a dishonest presentation of the real issue, by a partisan exploitation of a matter which the common people find it hard to grasp — which may easily be done here — the discussion of the question can only serve to arouse the Christians to a serious investigation and thus to deepen and strengthen their knowledge and their faith. If any periodical takes cognizance of this our discussion, we herewith state beforehand that we shall not deem any foolish babbling, parading in the guise of a defense, of God’s Word, worthy of an answer; but any pertinent ventilation of this important subject will receive our attention, even though it pronounce ever so sharp a verdict on our old teachers, Luther, Brenz, Chemnitz, Veit Dietrich, Conrad Dietrich, etc.
In this article, Walther quotes extensively from Chemnitz, who in his Examen Concilii Tridentini exposes, in clear and powerful language, the Antichristian and insane character of the above-mentioned papal decree with its appended anathema. Because this presentation is considered a “classic” even today, we here submit it in its salient points.5
The third question is whether the Church of our day can make those Scriptures, regarding which there was doubt in the Early Church because of the contradiction of some, canonical, catholic, and equal to those of the first order. The Papists not only claim that they can do this, but they actually usurp this authority; they abolish entirely the necessary distinction which the primitive and early Church made between the canonical books and the apocryphal, or ecclesiastical, books. But the Church very manifestly does not have this authority; else it could for the same reason reject canonical books or canonize spurious books. For this entire matter hinges on the assured testimonies of that Church which existed in the days of the Apostles, which testimonies the Church that immediately followed preserved in trustworthy reports. … What an insolent audacity it is to decree: Though the primitive and the following early Church had its doubts regarding those books because of the contradiction of many churchmen, … hoc tamen non obstante we decree that these books must be received with the same certainty as of equal authority with those which have been always adjudged genuine. … But why, then, do they not impart this authority to the fables of Aesop or the true stories of Lucian? Not that I would compare those controverted books to the fables of Aesop (for with Cyprian and Jerome I assign them the honorable place which they have always held in the ancient Church), but by an epagwgh eis adunaton [by adducing the impossible] I want to show that the Church has not the power to make of spurious writings genuine ones; of genuine, spurious; of doubtful and uncertain, certain, canonical, and legitimate.
…
Our question pertains to those books which are found together in the Vulgate edition of the Bible and which are read in the churches by the faithful. … Of the writings of the Old Testament the Book of Wisdom, Sirach, etc., are listed with the Apocrypha, as not being in the canon. Of the books of the New Testament these are mentioned by Eusebius in the Third Book, chapter 25, as not having had in the first and ancient Church sufficiently sure, firm, and consentient testimonies of their trustworthiness and authority: “The writings which are not regarded as indubitable, but against which there is contradiction, though they are known to many, are these: The Epistle of James, of Jude, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and the Third Epistle of John; the Apocalypse of John some reject, while others pronounce it one of the certain and incontestable Scriptures.” And in chapter 3 he says: “It is known that in the Roman congregation some rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, asserting that its Pauline authorship has been disputed.”
…
The reasons why there was doubt about these writings should be noted: 1) There were not found among the ancients sufficiently certain, firm, and consentient testimonies that these books were approved by the Apostles and commended to the churches. 2) It did not appear certain from the testimony of the primitive and ancient Church whether these books had been written by those under whose names they were issued, but it has been judged that they have been issued by others under the name of the Apostles. 3) Because some of the most ancient writers attributed some of these books to the Apostles, while others disputed this claim, this matter has been left in doubt, since it was not indubitably certain. … Over against these very manifest testimonies of antiquity the Council of Trent decreed: “If anyone receive not as sacred and canonical the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition … let him be anathema.” But whence do they bring proof and confirmation for this their decree against the testimony of antiquity? Do they now produce some unassailable and clear documents, taken from the testimony of the primitive, Apostolic, ancient Church, which show that these controverted books bear the same certainty and the like authority with the others about which there never was any doubt? By no means; nor can they do this. But they arrogate to themselves the power that the Pope with his prelates can impart, as Pighius states, to these and perhaps also to other books canonical authority, which they do not merit of themselves or because of their authors, and which they did not have at the time of the Apostles and the primitive Church. Why do they not openly state their case? They say, in effect: “Though it cannot be proved that those books were either written or approved by the Prophets or by the Apostles, and were received certainly and constantly by the primitive and ancient Church, yes, though the contrary is proved by the most evident testimonies of antiquity, which are clearer than the midday sun, hoc tamen non obstante we determine and decree that this is certainly to be believed; though no documents pertaining to this case have been produced by us, we assert that (if it please the gods) the plenitude of this Antichristian power lies buried in the shrine of the Pope’s heart.”
They pronounce the anathema on all who do not receive the apocryphal books as of the same certainty and authority as the canonical. Cursed, then, will be Eusebius, Jerome, Origen, Melito, and the entire primitive Apostolic Church, from whose testimony is taken what we adduced above about these books.
This entire dispute, then, resolves itself into the question whether it is certain and indubitable that these books are the divinely inspired Scriptures. The entire antiquity responds that this is not certain, but has been doubtful because of the contradiction of so many. The Tridentine arrogance, however, threatens with an anathema anyone who does not receive them as of equal certainty and authority with the rest of the books about which there has never been any doubt. Is it astonishing, then, that some popish parasites have contended that the Pope could institute new articles of faith, since here he does not shrink from fabricating a new canonical Scripture? There is no longer any doubt who it is that, sitting in the temple of God, exalts himself above everything that is called God, 2 Thess. 2.
Does this mean that these books are simply to be rejected and condemned? We are by no means seeking this. Then of what use is this dispute? I answer: To make sure the rule of faith or sound doctrine in the Church. For the ancients held that the authority of the Church dogmas rests solely on the canonical books. It was held that only by the authority of the canonical books could those things be established about which any dispute arose. The rest of the books which Cyprian calls ecclesiastical, Jerome apocryphal, were to be read in the Church for the edification of the people, but not to prove the dogmas of the Church. … No dogma which does not have a certain and clear foundation in the canonical books dare be constructed from these books. Nothing that is in controversy may be proved from these books if there are no other proofs and confirmations in the canonical books. But what is said in these books must be explained and understood according to the analogy of what is clearly set down in the canonical books. There can be no doubt that this is the meaning of the ancient Church. But the Council of Trent will hear nothing of this necessary and most true distinction of the ancient Church, subverts and abolishes it, for the reason that (as my Andradius says) they do not want to be confined to these narrow limits; they do not want to be so destitute of all other helps that they must derive their faith solely from the canonical Scriptures. For the Tridentine Synod says that it makes canonical books out of the apocryphal books in order to show what testimonies and helps it intends to use in confirming doctrines and restoring morals.
Walther adds (Baier-Walther, I, 153): “The same position is taken by A. Osiander (d. 1617), Aeg. Hunnius, Hafenreffer, C. Dietrich, F. Balduin, Th. Thummius, and others.”
It has been stated that this distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena has been dropped by the later Lutheran dogmaticians. Philippi (Glaubenslehre I, 108) mentions particularly Gerhard, whom he pronounces the “most renowned dogmatician” of the Lutheran Church after Chemnitz. True, in one form or another the later dogmaticians state that the Church today (hodie) observes no distinction between the various books of the New Testament.6 As for Gerhard, he makes the statement that he believes the Apocalypse to be canonical. However, he adds this remark: “In the meantime, however, because there was at times doubt in the primitive Church on the part of some about the author of this book, we for this reason refer it to the canonical books of the second rank; not indeed detracting from its canonical authority, still not simply and in all respects classifying it with the rest of the canonical books about which there never was any doubt; and by the fairest right we demand that the interpretation of such a book in no manner conflict with the canonical books of the first rank.”7 This, however, as a matter of fact, amounts to the distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena. As we cannot speak in the doctrine of God of a Godhead of the second rank (as old and modern subordinationists indeed do), so we cannot, without a certain self-contradiction, speak of deutero-canonical writings in the doctrine of Holy Scripture, which are God’s inviolable Word.
Some have argued that since there are antilegomena, we cannot determine exactly the extent of the canon and hence cannot know exactly what is the principium cognoscendi and norma of the Christian doctrine, but such have got their accounts mixed. We know that the Church of the New Testament possesses a fixed and firm canon, with no uncertainty attaching to it. For when Christ asks us (John 8:31-32; 17:20; and Eph.2:20) to continue in His and His Apostles’ doctrine, He presupposes the continued existence and possession of this doctrinal basis.
In this connection the question has been asked whether the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena has any “sweeping dogmatical significance.” We for our part answer No, assuming that the meaning is that he who regards and treats the antilegomena as canonical thereby obtains more and other doctrines. On the one hand we observe the distinction made by the ancient Church between the writings of the New Testament; on the other hand we are convinced that the antilegomena, even when taken by themselves, neither contain false doctrine nor yet a doctrine which goes beyond the doctrine contained in the books that have the unanimous testimony of the ecclesia primitiva. We are convinced that Rome and certain sectarians misuse the Epistle of James when they make it the protector of their doctrine of work-righteousness. We must simply keep in mind that James is speaking of faith not insofar as it justifies before God, but insofar as we are, according to God’s will and ordinance, to evidence our faith to men, which can be done only by works. James is addressing not so much the new man as the old man in the Christian. And the Apocalypse does not contain an inkling of that chiliasm with which old and modern chiliasts have disturbed and plagued the Church. …
All this talk about the number of the Christian doctrines increasing with the number of the Biblical books is nonsense. It has been correctly pointed out that the single Gospel according to Matthew contains the entire Christian doctrine and that missionaries among the heathen for years got along, or rather had to get along, with a translation of this one Gospel and from it taught all the articles of the Christian faith. Anyone can convince himself that the Gospel according to Matthew contains the revelation of all doctrines that our Lutheran Church confesses in the Book of Concord. At the same time we thank the Lord for the fuller exposition of the saving doctrine which He gave us in the remaining books of the New Testament. What was written of the Old Testament: “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning” (Rom. 15:4), applies also to the New Testament, and we praise God’s grace and providence in having the saving doctrine recorded for us by so many divinely appointed witnesses. Having this manifold testimony, the Christians dwell “as in a paradise,” and their assurance is mightily strengthened. Paul writes to the Philippians (3:1): “To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.”
ENDNOTES
1. Baier-Walther, I, 149. Gerhard, Loci (locus “De Scriptura Sacra,” § 75 sqq.), furnishes much material on the refusal of the early Christian Church to receive the Apocrypha into the canon. Cf. Keil, Einleitung, § 216; H. L. Strack, R. E., 2d ed., VII, 442 ff.
2. Church History III, 25. On the Epistles of James and Jude particularly, II, 23. He reports, VI, 25, on the canon of Origen and the latter’s opinion of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Cp. for further detail Baier-Walther, I, 150, note b. Baier says: “It can certainly not be denied that in the ancient Church there was so much doubt as to their writers that they were denied the authority proper to inspired books.” Cp. the comprehensive article “Kanon des Neuen Testaments,” by Theodor Zahn, in R. E., 3d ed., IX, 768-796.
3. See Luther’s prefaces to the epistles mentioned, St. L. XIV: 126-139. On the Second and Third Epistles of St. John, Luther says: “They are not doctrinal epistles, but examples of love and faith and breathe a truly Apostolic spirit,” loc. cit., p. 126 f.
4. Tridentinum, Sess. IV: “But if anyone receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books [the Old Testament plus the Apocrypha, the New Testament, including the antilegomena] entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition … let him be anathema.”
5. Examen, 1667, p. 48 sqq. Walther gave a German translation of it, op. cit., pp. 205-210. It is given in the original in Baier-Walther, I, 150 sqq.
6. Thus Baier, I, 150, 153.
7. Disputatt. Theologic., Ienae, 1655, p. 1015; quoted in Baier-Walther, I, 153.
For Athena Thursday, here is an article by Dr. Peter M. Kurowski on “Wisdom Literature for the Family” (via LCMS Family Resources):
Integral to any healthy family are clear boundaries. Where there are too many boundaries, people suffocate, become emotionally stunted, and go through life seething with a lot of repressed anger. Where there are too few laws, people are prone to confusing license with liberty, sowing the wind, and inheriting the whirlwind.
One of the places to go to develop healthy boundaries, friendly fences for living, is the wisdom literature of the Bible. In particular, this article regarding help for the family, concerns itself primarily with two books of wisdom literature, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. These two books are loaded with insight on how to raise children, set goals, strike balances, and avoid so many of the heartaches and headaches that hit families hard.
These two books are loaded with maxims. Maxims are concisely expressed principles or rules of conduct or statements of general truth. In the Eastern World, truth, set forth in an economy of words, was a great value as a teaching tool. A congressman friend of mine compiles maxims as guideposts for living, teaching, and explaining. In Luther’s day, his brilliant friend, Philip Melanchthon, collected proverbs. So did the learned Erasmus. Our first President, George Washington, also found this to be a useful practice for life.Pertaining to family matters, the maxims and proverbs which come from Ecclesiastes and Proverbs present timeless wisdom for the family. Granted, these two books offer expositions as well as maxims as they cover dozens of subjects in a most down-to-earth, elegant, witty manner. Speaking about the book of Proverbs, Philip Yancy put it this way, “The book offers the warm advice you get by growing up in a good family: practical guidance for successfully making your way in the world. It covers small questions as well as large: talking too much, visiting neighbors too often, being unbearably cheerful too early in the morning.”
While Proverbs seems particularly well fitted for young people, Ecclesiastes takes one to a deeper level. Both books underline the importance of getting the gift of wisdom at all costs. While Proverbs will teach young people about the wisdom of avoiding gangs, avoiding sex outside of marriage, and avoiding the life of the fool, Ecclesiastes is to a large part an autobiographical sketch of a extraordinarily brilliant man who played the life of a fool. Combine Albert Einstein’s brain with a converted Hugh Hefner’s soul and you have the author of Ecclesiastes reminiscing before our eyes. While Proverbs gives one great breadth, Ecclesiastes gives one great depth.
One of the profound theses in Ecclesiastes that is seen in Proverbs when you read it as a whole, is the need for balance in life. By nature, we are given to extremes. Remembering also C.S. Lewis’ insight that temptations come to us in pairs, we see by nature we lean toward extremism—even in our moderation—and are pulled by radical forces, powers, and principalities.
Much of Solomon’s life, after his good start, was one of a perilous pendulum movement rather than a therapeutic paradoxical path. It took him a good while to discover that that which is truly orthodox is paradox. Here we come to the truth that the core message of the Bible is paradox. What do we mean? We mean that God declares the “ungodly” “godly” for the sake of His Son (Romans 4:5). Jesus Himself is the absolute paradox being both God and man at the same time. At the same time, Christians are sinners as well as saints, God’s joyful mourners, the last who are the first, the weak who are the strong, who are members of God’s Kingdom yet pray “Thy Kingdom come!”
To catch this Messianic movement is crucial for healthy families. Come back to our opening thesis in this article: A family with too many laws is as lethal as a family with too few laws. Listen to Solomon as he reflects upon this matter in Ecclesiastes:
“Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise—
why destroy yourself?
Do not be ovewicked,
and do not be a fool—
why die before your time?
It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other.
The man who fears God will avoid all extremes!” (7:16-18)
Don’t be too rigid. Don’t be too lax. Don’t be a workaholic. Don’t be a lazy procrastinator. Don’t have sex outside of marriage, but be sure to enjoy it within marriage. Beautiful balance of boundaries!
Solomon in Ecclesiastes 3 poetically expresses the need for parents to learn, teach, and model the balanced life. Here he sets forth boundaries which breathe like healthy lungs pumped by a heart pulsating with appreciation that every good gift comes from God. Solomon’s paradoxical lyrical lines would become the words for a million selling record by a baby boomer rock group called “the Birds”:There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
One of the keys to a healthy family is flexibility and the ability to recognize the ebb and flow of life. Relationships regain their balance when they become flexible and imaginative instead of rigid and Johnny-one-note. After all, less anxious people who can shift gears tolerate tension better and manage the ambiguities of life that frequently come our way. Comedian Mary Lou Henner once quipped that the key to life is how well you handle “plan B.” In Ecclesiastes 3, Solomon reminds us of how important it is to wisely adapt. The ability to accept legitimate change, to give and take, gain and lose, willingness to acquiesce, know when to submit and when to permit, is the fruit of wisdom, prayer and the fear of the Lord. Solomon makes this clear early in Proverbs (3:5) and throughout Ecclesiastes (5:19). This vision, born of the gospel, God’s love in Christ, recognizes that every gift comes form God, temporal as well as spiritual. This theology is embedded in his overarching statements enjoining us to trust God.
Another critical key in a healthy family is good communication. Good communication implies saying the right thing in the right way at the right time. No wonder Solomon writes, “Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few” (Ecclesiastes 5:2).
From Proverbs, we gather the same message: be careful with your tongue. A review of Solomon’s advice on communication is most salutary for home harmony: restraint 10:19; honest words 12:22; gentle, diplomatic words 15:1; wise timing 15:23; words which edify and heal 16:24; words which avoid interrupting people 18:13; words not in service of gossip 20:19; words not wasted on mockers (9:2); words backed up by action 14:23; and more.
A matter that can contribute significantly to a person’s sense of well being and a family’s health is to find joy in one’s vocation. Solomon put it this way, “A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God” (Ecclesiastes 2:24). Note Solomon’s theology of grace—every gift is from God. Note also how finding satisfaction in one’s work is not only a gift to seek and pray for, but a key piece of the good life. To increase the probability of such a life, Solomon does not enjoin lethargy. Even though a satisfying vocation is a gift, it is a gift we are to work toward. So it does not surprise us when Solomon tells us that a wise person becomes highly skilled at some line of work (Ecclesiastes 10:10). Throughout these two treatises Solomon carefully eschews legalism (3:11) as well as lawlessness (12:13). Although his language is not as Christocentric as St. Paul’s in the New Testament, it is language that is sola gratia. In this sense, these two works foreshadow the wisdom of the ages, Jesus Christ (Proverbs 8:22 ff.)A healthy family will evince a deep desire to grow. Implied in this is the fact that none of us have arrived. The continuous multitude of exhortations to embrace wisdom, esteem wisdom, and to get wisdom run throughout these books. Proverbs says it so well, “Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding” (4:8). Even after one gets a measure of wisdom, it takes a huge effort to retain it. Wrote Solomon, “Hold on to instruction, do not let it go; guard it well, for it is your life.” Solomon learned this the hard way as he took the prodigal path for a number of years. He learned the need to daily drown the old Adam through the gift of repentance and to have a humble mind. He had thought himself at one time to have arrived only to find major deficits in his thinking and life.
Healthy thinking in a family anchors itself to an eternal perspective. God has graciously planted an eternal homing device within our soul, but in our attempt to be God we easily seek to muzzle its signal. Solomon wrote, “God has made everything beautiful in its time. He also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Having an eternal perspective creates the humility we need to let God be God and to walk humbly in our relationships here on earth. By standing in awe of God we escape from the bondage of self. The message of these two Old Testament books is that human beings need to belong to some greater than life cause or life is a chasing after the wind. The New Testament answer in fulfillment of Old Testament promises is that Jesus Christ through the Church answers the deepest needs of life and eternal life. Solomon tells us in these two books that worldly advancement was meaningless, fame was ultimately not satisfying. In the end, power, money, illicit sex, and every other hedonistic pleasure possible just left him. It was only when he came back to a courageous life of trust in the God of all grace could he see that life was not as Macbeth said, “a tale told by an idiot, full of fury, and sound signifying nothing.”
Several years ago, I recall hearing Dr. Martin Marty speak on a radio program in St. Louis. He was on a secular radio station. This respected church historian was asked the question whether the Bible had much to say about the family. His answer dumbfounded me. He gave a bland “no.”
Trying to put the best construction on things, that the Bible per se does not treat this topic systematically, one might assent to Marty’s negative response. However, in examining the content of the Bible, you see God’s love and rescue story is above all an exposition of agape love, the most salutary glue for a strong family! The message of unconditional love and the forgiveness it brings keeps families from becoming stuck in deadly pathologies. When this news dwells richly, a firm foundation for family is laid. Besides the insight for families in books like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, other sections of Scripture such as the Sermon on the Mount, Ephesians 4-6, Galatians 3-5, and I Peter 2-3 revolutionized the ancient world as this body of literature taught that men and women were on equal footing before God through the Gospel miracle of baptism!
One of the best practices a family can develop is to simply read a few passages around the dinner table from Proverbs andEcclesiastes. Read them slowly. Have the children read them when they are old enough. Some days no commentary is necessary. Other days you may get enthusiastic response. The patient planting of these gems is the key thing.
Over the years, I have heard quite a few testimonies from brilliant men and women how the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes have given them deep insight into themselves, others, life, and God. Here is wisdom for the family! I believe we could make a profound contribution to the health of our families by reading aloud these books and planting the seeds of wisdom for families to grow strong. Such an effort will equip families with wisdom from above to make wise choices, avoid hornet’s nests, and “train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it” (Proverbs 22:6)For Further Reading
The books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (Don’t be afraid to use several different translations over a period of time.)
Three Philosophies of Life by Peter Kreeft, Ignatius Press San Francisco 1989. Kreeft has been called the C.S. Lewis of the Roman Catholic Church. Kreeft writes very well! A joy to read! This is one of his better works not suffering from legalistic and syncretistic tendencies evinced in other works where anthropocentric notes overtake gospel realities. Kreeft, though a well read Christian thinker fails to grasp Luther’s use of reason in the realm of theology.
The Student Bible with notes by Philip Yancy and Tim Stafford NIV Zondervan Bible Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1989 The notes on the Wisdom literature books of the Bible are excellent. You will have to forbear missed opportunities for apt Gospel commentary. Nevertheless, very thoughtful commentary. Proverbs often are dealing with probabilities as well as absolutes. Be sure to be aware of this distinction as you read this literature.Proverbs: The People’s Bible, Roland Cap Ehlke, Northwestern Publishing House, 1992. ISBN 0-8100-0468-2. Excellent Law-Gospel treatment of this book.
Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs, The People’s Bible, Roland Cap Ehlke, Northwestern Publishing House, 1988. ISBN 0-9100-0279-5. A clear Law-Gospel, Christ-centered exposition of two wisdom literature books loaded with value truths to enrich marriage and family.
Here is a hymn for today from southern hymn writer William Walker, who died on this day in 1875 (b. May 6 1809), and a bluegrass version of the hymn performed by Blue Highway:
1. What wondrous love is this, O my soul!
That caused the Lord of bliss
To bear the dreadful curse, for my soul.2. When I was sinking down,
Beneath God’s righteous frown,
Christ laid aside his crown, for my soul.3. To God, and to the Lamb, I will sing,
Unto the great I AM,
While millions join the theme, I will sing.4. And when from death I’m free, I’ll sing on,
I’ll sing, and joyful be,
And through eternity
And through eternity I’ll sing on.
An announcement from the Concordia Historical Institute blog:
The 200th anniversaries of the births of three individuals who played a very significant role in the beginnings of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod fall between 2008 and 2011. Wilhelm Loehe’s bicentennial was observed last year. Those of F. C. D. Wyneken (2010) and C. F. W. Walther (2011) are coming. All three were leading figures in the founding and shaping of the synod in the 19th century.The program of Concordia Historical Institute’s 30th Biennial Conference on Archives and History includes lectures on the significance of these men for Lutheran history on Friday morning, October 2:
“Wilhelm Loehe and American Lutheranism” by Dr. John Hellwege (8:30–9:30)
“C. F. W. Walther’s Relevance for Today” by Prof. Thomas Egger (10:30–11:30)
“F. C. W. Wyneken’s Importance for the LCMS” by Dr. Gerhard Bode Jr. (11:30–12:30)
These lectures are free and open to the general public. They will be held in the Presidents Lounge (Pritzlaff Hall) on the Concordia Seminary campus.For additional information, contact us at chi@lutheranhistory.org or call 314-505-7900.
Paull Spring, chair of the Lutheran CORE Steering Committee, reported in a Sept. 4th letter that the response to the Convocation in Fishers, Ind., was so overwhelming that the gathering would likely have to be moved to a larger church in the Indianapolis area. The convocation has since been moved to Holy Spirit Parish at Geist, Fisher, Ind., because more than 1,200 people are expected to attend.
Spring wrote that Lutheran CORE intends to be:
* A confessional and confessing movement, rooted in Scripture, creeds, and confessions, open to all Lutherans in North America
* A churchly community, grounded in Word and sacrament and congregational mission
* A free-standing synod, carrying out synodical ministries, apart from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
* An umbrella group for other Lutheran reform movements
* A coalition of synods, congregations, individuals, and reform movements both within and outside the ELCA
In addition to consideration of a constitution, Spring wrote that four implementing resolutions will be proposed to the gathering. The fourth resolution is:
“That the Steering Committee be authorized to initiate conversations among the congregations and reform movements in Lutheran CORE and with Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ and other compatible churchly organizations, leading toward a possible re-configuration of North American Lutheranism, whether through existing or newly created structures; and that the Steering Committee present a report and recommendations to the 2010 convocation of Lutheran CORE.”
The full letter is available at: http://www.lutherancore.org/papers/spring_pre_convoc_ltr.shtml
(via WordAlone)
by Jaynan L. Clark
Lullabies are meant to soothe, to comfort and to help you go to sleep. Lullabies are by their very nature helpful and healthy tunes that are not only good for infants and small children but for all those in need of rest and security.
I have been with elderly couples as one faces severe health problems and possible death when the spouse, their lover for a lifetime, sang them a lullaby. I’ve witnessed–through tear-filled eyes–grandchildren caught up in the circle of life, singing to an aging nana or papa.
A lullaby is a love song. The canary’s song is a song of vigilance. Which do confessional Lutherans need in the 21st century?
In these post-churchwide-assembly days of 2009, I’m witnessing the chaos and confusion that the human sexuality votes have caused as ears have opened to hear the truth of what has been happening for a very long time within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The rapid response of the ELCA leadership is predictable–a lullaby.
I’m hearing the ELCA leadership sing a lullaby of sorts attempting to lull to sleep the congregations, laity, pastors, churchwide staff and anyone else waking up to the radical changes that have now–after years of unrelenting, top-down pushing–finally been approved.
Because of the Churchwide Assembly decisions this August, ministers in same-sex relationships can be ordained or serve as lay ministers. Same-sex relationships can be blessed in the ELCA.
Across not only the ELCA, but also in all other Christian churches globally the sleepers are awakening and they feel called to confess their faith, take a stand and act upon it.
But the response from the ELCA leadership is a “Shhhhh . . . go back to sleep, all is well.” The language of the false lullaby also is the language of society and its political agendas. Don’t listen to it, turn it off, reject it.
For too long people in the pews across the map have been hoodwinked into believing that there really wasn’t a problem in the ELCA. They were told there were just a few people out there in a little radical fringe group that was trying to rile everyone up, bring division and even schism into Jesus’ church.
One judgmental episode of name calling and stereotyping after another called us, those involved in efforts to reform, “Pharisees, judgmental, self-righteous naysayers who are afraid of change and people with different sexual orientations.”
At this just past assembly, speakers on the floor even accused us of being guilty of the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit! These judgments and attacks were all done, of course, under the code words of love, inclusion, gospel, justice and unity. This kind of politically correct, toxic, legalistic judgment needs to draw more than just a yawn.
Apparently we in the WordAlone Network and other reform groups really haven’t been such a little fringe, rump group speaking for ourselves. As I’m hearing a global response of outrage, I am a bit overwhelmed with finding myself and all those who have been confessing the Christian Lutheran faith– in opposition to what was happening step-by-step, ELCA-assembly-by-ELCA-assembly–now in an overwhelming majority. Praise the Lord!
On the other hand, the rallying cry for years in every speech made by Mark Hanson, as not only the presiding bishop of the ELCA but also as president of the Lutheran World Federation, was a challenge that the world was watching–what would be “our” witness?
Well, the churchwide assembly voted, made its witness and unfortunately for the ELCA, the world was watching and listening. The witness made by the churchwide assembly action is not being received as the good news of Jesus Christ but rejected as a false gospel that is heresy and must be opposed. A great awakening is taking place not only across the ELCA and other Lutheran bodies but also other Christian churches.
Wake up!
Don’t listen as the headquarters in Chicago tell you to calm down and ignore all the disruption and chaos and confusion.
Don’t listen to the song and verse now coming out through ELCA communications all to convince you that none of this is going to affect you or your church. Shhhh–go back to sleep. Just close your eyes, pick up your wallet and be a cheerful giver and a faithful steward of what God has given you, say institutional church leaders.
We in the opposition warn you to be suspect of the ELCA suggestions that you just continue to support the ELCA as you always have because nothing is different for you, that your church is just including all those whom the ELCA with its supposedly “unjust policies” has excluded for all this time.
Huh? Since when is full inclusion in the church equated with ordination? Does that mean every lay member is not fully included? It isn’t about unity or love or inclusion either, it is about obedience. It is about the clear Word of God and obedience to the Lord of the true Church, not to elected leaders of a human institution.
I am not making these comments to be sarcastic or incendiary but rather to sound the alarm so we do not drift off again into the state of wishful bliss embracing in unearned trust the institutional leaders and hirelings who have covered their wolf pelts with sheep’s wool.
Jesus has taught you to not listen to their voices but to his alone, your Good Shepherd.
Again I say, “Wake up! Arise from your slumber!”
If you check the story of the canary, you will find there is reason to believe that it refers to canaries in the coal mines. Those precious little birds served one purpose–protection of the miners by dying and thus warning the miners of the presence of deadly, poisonous gases. The canary’s song was a comfort, but not a lullaby meant to lull the miners to sleep. It was a call to vigilance. And when the little, vulnerable canary dropped from its perch silent, the absence of its song meant action, take immediate precaution and evacuate.
On Aug. 19, the canary dropped to the bottom of its cage in silence in Minneapolis. With votes that stand in opposition to the Word of God, the ELCA mined a deadly, poisonous gas. Proceed to the door of the dark cave, empty the tomb.
Seek the light and the fresh air of the one, Holy Spirit according to the Word and not the elemental spirits of the day.
Let us not only sing like the vigilant canary but also continue to do so even as we fall from our perches for the sake of the true Gospel, in service to the voice of the Good Shepherd and for the life and safety of the sheep.
(via WordAlone)
The ELLC has updated their website to help connect people with liturgical services:
Are you traveling this fall or want to visit other liturgical congregations in an area? The ELLC (Evangelical-Lutheran Liturgical Congregations) website has had a face-lift over the past few weeks, and now includes maps to help you locate congregations near a certain area.
Whether traveling on vacation or business or moving to a new home, this directory will help you find Evangelical-Lutheran congregations which have not adopted worship customs from the surrounding culture, such as “contemporary worship,” “praise bands,” or “entertainment worship.”
This listing was originally the idea of The Rev. Gary V. Gehlbach, who was traveling to Florida with his family in 2000. His “fussy family” wondered, “What church will we attend?” As they were thinking about this, they realized that many other people had the same concern. From there, the idea developed to gather this information into one place. In order for easy access, the web site was set up.
Many of you have viewed the site in the past, but you will hopefully be pleased with the improvements in the searching and listing capability. The reliability of the data has also improved, as all the listed churches have been verified over the past few months.
We would appreciate your checking your own church or any churches you know the location of. The locations were found using Google Maps, and we all know that frequently when you look for a location, the point it picks on the map may be off by a block or two (or even farther; one Pastor reported that his church was actually about 3 miles from the identified location!). We have made it very easy for you to update the information — simply follow directions on the website; you can pan and zoom the map to the precise location, viewing the satellite image or the map image, and simply click on the map to locate the listed church.
Many pastors have voiced their appreciation for this site over the years, as have many travelers. In an age where one can’t trust most acronyms on church signs to mean that what will be found inside is in accord with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, we are glad to make available this aid for connecting those who wish faithfully to hear and practice with those who wish faithfully to preach and practice.
Be sure to visit lutheranLiturgy.org and check out your church or other churches in your area soon!
A selection from Book I, Chapter 2 of On Christian Doctrine:
All instruction is either about things or about signs; but things are learned by means of signs. I now use the word “thing” in a strict sense, to signify that which is never employed as a sign of anything else: for example, wood, stone, cattle, and other things of that kind. Not, however, the wood which we read Moses cast into the bitter waters to make them sweet, nor the stone which Jacob used as a pillow, nor the ram which Abraham offered up instead of his son; for these, though they are things, are also signs of other things. There are signs of another kind, those which are never employed except as signs: for example, words. No one uses words except as signs of something else; and hence may be understood what I call signs: those things, to wit, which are used to indicate something else. Accordingly, every sign is also a thing; for what is not a thing is nothing at all. Every thing, however, is not also a sign. And so, in regard to this distinction between things and signs, I shall, when I speak of things, speak in such a way that even if some of them may be used as signs also, that will not interfere with the division of the subject according to which I am to discuss things first and signs afterward. But we must carefully remember that what we have now to consider about things is what they are in themselves, not what other things they are signs of.
A selection from On Being a Theologian of the Cross (pp. 3-4):
The word of the cross kills and makes alive. It crucifies the old being in anticipation of the resurrection of the new. “The cross alone is our theology,” Luther could say. And those oft-quoted words are to be taken literally. But we cannot fail to notice what an odd claim it is. how can the cross be a theology? The cross is an event. Theology is reflection on and explanation of the event. Theology is about the event, is it not? However, that is what makes writing some definitive theology of the cross impossible. At best all such theology can do is to clear the way for the proclamation of the cross, to drive us actually to preach the word of the cross as that folly that destroys the wisdom of the wise.
The cross, that is, is not quiescent or dead. The cross is itself in the first instance the attack of God on the old sinner and the sinner’s theology. The cross is the doing of God to us. But that same cross itself, and only the cross, at the same time opens a new and unheard-of possibility over against the sinner’s old self and its theology. The means that a theology of the cross is inevitably quite polemical. It constantly seeks to uncover and expose the ways in which sinners hide their perfidy behind pious facades. The delicate thing about it is that it attacks the best we have to offer, not the worst. This explais why the theology of the cross is generally spoken of in contrast to a theology of glory. The two theologies are always locked in mortal combat. Wherever there is mention of a theology of the cross without indication of this combat, it is not truly the theology of the cross that is being expressed. The preacher-theologian must know this and learn how to use the word of the cross in that combat.
by James Arne Nestingen
In its August assembly in Minneapolis, going by the definition set down in Augustana VII, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America effectively declared that it is no longer a church. Among those unchurched by this decision, a poignant question remains: What in the world do we do now? Consideration of this question requires among other things, some careful examination of definitions. Going back to the sources, some alternatives should emerge.
The seventh article of the Augsburg Confession, which has united Lutherans since the l6th century, defines the church as the people of God gathered together to hear the word and receive the sacraments. The term Word of God carries over from John 1 and other biblical references where the Word incarnates God’s power—originally in Christ, now in the biblical word preached and administered in baptism and the Lord’s Supper. As such, God’s Word moves to do what it says, accomplishing God’s purposes. It does not float around ethereally in elusive meanings waiting to be unlocked by theologians. Neither does it depend on harried pastors or gatherings of the pious seeking to apply it. Rather, God’s word takes over earthen vessels—human declarations, conversations and correspondence—using such means to seek out sinners. Gathering the lost and the damned in its hearing, it effects forgiveness, reckons righteous, kills and makes alive. Finally, it frees. In this way, God’s Word literally creates the church.
The ELCA has redefined the Word of God. Instead of understanding it in terms of what God does with words, the theologians of the church—with the bishops in tow—have uncritically shifted out of the original Lutheran argument into a scheme in which God’s word depends on its meaning. To no one’s surprise, in this setup the power transfers from the word itself to the interpreters of the word—those who decide what it really means. The biblical text is ambiguous by definition, they say, and consequently only the informed—generally, those who are superior, either intellectually or politically—can finally determine what it says. Old Erasmus, his most sophisticated opponent, tried this on Luther and got the drubbing of his life. But in the ELCA, having long lost its theological moorings, the leadership has gotten away with it. That is how theologians and church leaders could dismiss as unclear biblical passages that produced a two thousand year old, all but universal consensus concerning homosexual practice. This consensus continues to hold with force among Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and most Protestant Churches, and because it is biblical, isn’t subject to change. But it no longer holds in the ELCA. In a naked power play by the privileged—the few allowed some actual voice in the proceedings—this mighty consensus fell to a bogus, prefabricated ambiguity crafted to disallow it.
With the action taken in the Minneapolis assembly, the ELCA has made such power mongering official procedure and policy. The Word of God does not create, shape or control it; no, the ELCA controls the interpretation of the Word. Confronted by the Word, it puts the matter to the vote, using all available means to manipulate the outcome. The ploy begins with the best of suburban manners, recognizing various perspectives informing interpretation. But then the knife swings—since all perspectives are equal, no interpretation can claim the authority of the text. On this basis, the Sixth Commandment loses all bearing—the elites of the ELCA’s membership can dismiss what they no longer respect, God’s determination of sexual limits.
In making this move, asserting authority over Scripture by subjecting it to a vote, the ELCA has forfeited obedience for a scheme of management. Traditionally, the church has been spoken of as a steward of the Word. Here’s the difference: stewards tend what belongs to another; managers take control, displacing the original speaker for the ends they have in mind. Like the medieval papacy that Luther and the reformers set off against, the ELCA in its assembly declared itself master of the Word rather than servant. Instead of proclaiming God’s Word, it formally proclaims itself as arbiter of the word. An organization which no longer hears its Lord’s voice cannot be considered a church, according to the Augsburg Confession’s definition. It may still claim religious credentials, but it has decisively broken its continuity in the faith. It gathers together not to proclaim God’s Word but to vote on it.
Given this reversal in the ELCA’s use of Scripture, it has to be acknowledged that there are many ecumenical churches which work with theories of meaning. The basic assumptions in this way of thinking were set down by St. Augustine, one of the very most important theologians in the history of the church, way back in the fourth century. Since then, if not before, this has been one of the keys to the power of the papacy. Because words mean things, a variety of interpretations are possible. Therefore, the office of the papacy acts as a check, controlling the range of interpretation. The bishops share in this authority.
The Calvinism undergirding much of American Protestantism works with the same theory. The interpreter shows faith the way from the Word to what it signifies or means, thereby bringing the Word and faith together in understanding. Because the process of interpretation always remains vulnerable to the power of original sin, however, it must necessarily be checked. So the congregation, the elders, pastors and theologians are linked together in a system of mutual watchfulness. The lay people, elders, pastors and theologians all look both ways, watching over each of the other layers of authority. Interpretation requires constant scrutiny, lest the interpreters be led astray. In American church life the systems of checks vary from one Protestant church to another, but the necessity gets minded.
While willy-nilly, uncritically taking over schemes of meaning in approaching God’s Word, the ELCA dropped the checks Roman Catholics and Protestants have carefully maintained. It did this in a couple of decisive missteps taken by the Commission for the New Lutheran Church (CNLC), which back in the 1980s put together what became the ELCA.
The first misstep has left its footprint on the underside of the quota system put in place to select voting members at the assemblies. Positive aspects of quotas can still be argued. After 20 years, the ELCA remains 97 percent white. Some significant departures after the August assembly may make the church even whiter. Still the quotas may have brought some people forward who had been otherwise excluded. That would be a matter of thanks. Yet there’s another side to it.
Quotas include but in order to do so, they also eliminate. In fact, they do so arbitrarily, fastening on characteristics like race and gender but not necessarily putting an equal priority on characteristics, like wisdom, fidelity and zeal. In fact, while the evidence has been difficult to come by, extended experience with the system strongly suggests that those most likely to be included are the manageable, those eager to please, no matter what their race or gender, while those most likely to be eliminated are the gifted and challenging, those most likely to make waves. Here the quota systems can claim objectivity—black, white or other, male or female, the strongest are the most likely to get dropped.
This has had a devastating impact on the development of future leadership in the ELCA. The most gifted young men and women, if they survive a candidacy process often enough manifestly hostile, routinely get sidelined. In the meantime, those readily cultivated by the leadership quickly move into chairs left open by the quota system. In fact, elimination may have been the real purpose in drafting quotas. A generation of Evangelical Catholics, many of them highly capable and aggressive, got washed out by the quotas early in the history of the ELCA. The leaders saved themselves some trouble, but at great cost to the church.
Quotas in place, the founders of the ELCA took another, equally troublesome misstep. At least as officially interpreted, the CNLC totally disconnected the assemblies of the church from the congregations that support and by their donations, pay for them. Both clergy and lay people—the voting members, as they are called—get elected to serve in the assemblies. But having been granted such authority, the voting members have no responsibility to represent the people who selected them and consequently, no accountability whatsoever. In a set up that defies all of the usual political logic, the voters can literally do as they please, answering to no one but themselves.
Of course, national officials along with the bishops do whatever they can to stage manage the assemblies, thereby moving the voting members in their own direction. In fact, this appears to have been one of main purposes in changing delegates into voting members. Disconnected from their congregations, voting members are at least theoretically more subject to manipulation. The leadership’s possible gain, however, comes at the congregations’ loss. The local parishes pay the bills for the whole church but for all of that, they have literally nothing to say about the so-called “churchwide.” This arrangement defies some of the oldest and simplest rules in American public life—“whoever pays the piper, calls the tune,” for example, or “no taxation without representation.”
The results of these missteps surface right away in the assemblies. In a predominantly rural church, the meetings are scheduled in August—the busiest time of year in farming communities. They last over a week, requiring both the leisure and the finances to spend that much time away. These two factors by themselves eliminate substantial portions of the membership from ever serving in an assembly. Among those who have the means, the quotas take over. Some voting members manage to get selected for every assembly, others are there taking their turn. Few have had the time or experience to be at home in the proceedings and appear dependent on their bishops. But for all of this, church officials take no chances, carefully instructing voters in the differences between delegates and voting members.
The discussions of controversial issues on the floor follow suit. Though the proceedings have allegedly been opened to deal with an ambiguity in Scripture, they quickly become anything but biblical assessment. Rules of evidence, the normal standards for disciplined consideration go right out the window, replaced by anecdotes about gay friends, psychological caricatures of the Apostle Paul, stereotypes of happy homosexual couples, imaginative descriptions of the real motives of the opponents, personal assertions and the like. With this, the hallways and the back of the assembly fill up with gay advocates bussed in to influence the voters using, commonly enough, intimidation up to and including physical threats. With all of this, the bishops—said to be responsible for the unity of the church—stand by in silence. In their own assemblies, they hide behind punctilious observation of Roberts Rules of Order; at the national, while the gay advocates freely use the microphones, those who are opposed remain conspicuously silent.
Ecumenically, it could hardly be a stranger procedure. Having made the interpretation of Scripture a problem of meaning, the ELCA does not, like the Roman Catholics, bring in the bishops for clarification—with rare exception, the current bishops don’t have the scholarly training commonly available among Roman Catholics. Neither does the ELCA bring together theologians, pastors, elders and representatives of the congregations. With eight seminary faculties to choose from, the national leadership fielded two theologians for the Minneapolis assembly, both of them advocates of practicing homosexual pastors. All of the theologians, who opposed the leadership’s agenda, including some of the strongest and best known in the church, were eliminated. One managed to sneak in below the radar, having been selected as a voting member.
The only precedent for such a procedure goes back to the reformation. Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt, a colleague of Luther’s on the Wittenberg faculty who had three earned doctorates, in Luther’s words “swallowed the Holy Spirit, feathers and all.” He roamed through the streets approaching people with no training whatsoever, asking them to interpret the Scripture to him. Technically, this has been called “enthusiasm,” literally “God within-ism,” the idea that the Holy Spirit in the heart supersedes Scripture and sets aside all the normal standards. Having floated away into such a never-never land beyond the ordinary, in reality the August churchwide assembly has stranded the ELCA ecumenically. By declaring the ELCA no longer a church, by enfranchising the like-minded to perpetuate their power, the leadership has taken the people it was called to serve into isolation. In fact, other Lutherans—particularly the Africans who now represent the largest share of Lutherans in the world—are already registering their objections. Like African Episcopalians, they serve in a context where Moslems are ready to pounce on any evidence of Christian tolerance of immorality. The ELCA betrayed its own brothers and sisters. The survival of the Lutheran World Federation, already problematic, has to be considered an open question.
The ELCA’s standing in the ecumenical movement, in which it has historically provided decisive leadership, has also come under review. Benedict XVI, the orthodox patriarchs and commonly the Protestant leaders as well, know both Scripture and the church’s tradition intimately—well enough to recognize the difference between the historically certain and the ambiguity of convenience. They can hardly welcome a church that has defied standards they consider inviolate.
That leaves The Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ as the ELCA’s remaining ecumenical partners. The Episcopalians, who in Called to Common Mission treated the ELCA like a source of infection before turning around and endorsing a homosexual bishop, are in the process of losing their standing in their own communion. According to second hand reports, the UCC’s national offices have been taken over by gay advocates. In fact, for all of the ELCA’s vaunted inclusiveness, in the end everybody looks more and more alike.
Having sifted through the definitions, where does this leave those of us who have loved and served the churches that formed the ELCA? One of the great words implied in Augustana VII gets passed over quickly, a “wherever.” Unlike both the Roman Catholic and common Protestant definitions, the Augsburg Confession’s definition of the church involves no specific institutional designs or commitments. It stays ecumenically open in the fullest sense, regarding the governmental arrangements of church bodies as provisional necessities but no more than that. “Wherever” the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity, “wherever” sinners gather to hear and receive Word and sacrament, God’s word has become incarnate in down-to-earth community. As much as it may have meant to its members through the years, the ELCA has no ultimate claim on their loyalties.
So, to begin with, since the ELCA has used an unbridled, unchecked assembly to unchurch those who continue to hold to the Word alone, there’s no point wasting either time or money on it. This includes the national church structures along with the synods, whose bishops—even if they didn’t openly advocate dropping the Scriptural priority—remained silent. Like the traditores in the early church who handed over Scripture in the face of persecution, the silent bishops gave up their standing. The only way they can be dealt with is in repentance. A few synods can still claim loyalty, even if they have to be treated cautiously. Already, congregations all over the ELCA have been cutting out all benevolence. This represents a first and minimal step.
Starting here, those voting members in Minneapolis who represented themselves so effectively should be invited to pick up the check—excluded, left voiceless, and now unchurched, there is absolutely no reason for the rest of us to pay their bills. The same goes for the faculties of the church. Their development officers talk Lutheran, especially when the budgets start to squeeze, but with all save a few exceptions, the rest of those on campus—particularly the theologians—find it a strange and in their own eyes, primitive language. With this, they clear the way for the sexual consumerism of the culture. Since they no longer value what we believe and have been carried beyond the Ten Commandments, they also should go Dutch.
Taking the implied “wherever” of Augustana VII, there are still many trustworthy congregations and faithful pastors across the ELCA. Generally, their trademark is the absolution. Where the forgiveness of sins gets declared Sunday after Sunday, Christ is usually preached in the pulpit, as well. So, too, the sacraments are freely bestowed. Such congregations are to be treasured. If you belong to one of them, Christ is blessing you. Faithful congregations, trustworthy pastors deserve all the support they can get.
This appears to be one of the best alternatives available right now. Using the language of the ELCA, two levels or expressions of the church have betrayed it—the national and the synodical. Undoubtedly, if the people in the congregations of the ELCA had been fully represented in the Minneapolis vote, the gay proposals would have failed decisively even while gay and lesbian members within the congregations themselves would have been treated with respect and love. There’s good reason, given such percentages, to hold with the parishes.
Staying in the congregations, however, requires some critical assessment of both the pastor and the parish leadership. Some parishioners wanting out of the ELCA have already learned from their pastors that the respect for conscience called for by the sexuality commission extends only to advocates, not to those being unchurched. Others learned after the fact that their pastor, having kept silence on the issue, went away to Minneapolis to vote for anal and oral sex among the clergy. In such instances, the best alternative may be to look elsewhere.
Still, congregations are multi-dimensional, with many layers of witness. Sometimes, even though the pastor complains about forgiveness as a downer, the choir faithfully preaches Christ Jesus and the liturgy serves him. Often enough, as in the church colleges, faithful lay people in the congregations sustain its witness day to day. One way or another, the good Lord finds a way to sound the Word in the hearing of his people. “Where ever” that happens, the triune God is at work. In such circumstances, people may still find a place in their congregations.
If it is possible to stay, the terms have to be changed. For many faithful ELCA people, the tithe and benevolence have been a joyful way of life. This makes withholding funds from the church particularly painful. There are, however, a number of Lutheran agencies that need support. Lutheran World Relief, for example, has been one of the most effective international agencies for helping victims of catastrophes as well as developing economies. Given the ELCA’s betrayal, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod—which jointly funds LWR—may very well pull out of the arrangement. LWR, like other faithful Lutheran agencies, can use all the support they get.
In those congregations that choose to stay in the ELCA, it would be wise to consider affiliating with other parishes that have refused to accept being unchurched. WordAlone Network people have learned that their parishes become particularly vulnerable to the bishop’s opposition when it comes time to call another pastor. Remaining on the ELCA roster while affiliating with other like-minded congregations offers the possibility of both participation—in for instance, the missions efforts of the ELCA, where some faithful leadership remains—and protection. Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ and Lutheran Core are both at work on such affiliations.
A faithful Australian friend suggests still another alternative. That is affiliating with one of the synods in the ELCA where the Lutheran confessional heritage still can claim standing. Though the bishops with rare exception remained silent in Minneapolis, even while whispering their apprehensions to sympathetic ears, there are some indications that two or three of them recognize the debacle they brought on themselves. In repentance, they might restore a possibility for those of us who still confess the biblical word in both law and gospel. Though the connections between such synods and the national offices would have to be carefully tended, finding a reliable affiliation in the structures might be a source of stability for the time being. For very many people, however, the unchurching declared in Minneapolis signals the loss of all three of the ELCA’s alleged levels, congregation included. They have already declared or are carefully considering intentions to leave the church altogether. This involves some deep pain, and has to be respected accordingly. The big question for such people is destination—where do you go?
Here Augustana VII’s implicit “wherever” should be helpful. To begin with, there are other Lutheran congregations nearby. The different labels can’t claim nearly as much loyalty as the gospel—it just takes some testing. The president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod made an outstanding statement to the Minneapolis assembly. Any number of faithful Missouri congregations faithfully preach the word and administer the sacraments, even if some of them seem far more interested in who they exclude than whom they include. Given the conflicts within the church, it will be a while before Missouri’s future becomes clear. Just the same, Apostolic Lutherans and Wisconsin Synod people can get carried past inward looking ways into real and powerful witness to Christ Jesus.
Finally, since it isn’t institutional, the strongly suggested “wherever” of the seventh Article of the Augsburg Confession can under some circumstances lead beyond Lutheran parishes into other denominations. Some of the most devout Lutherans, including learned theologians who were formerly part of the ELCA, are now Roman Catholics. It may be premature and even unthinkable for some of us, but on the other hand, where Christ is proclaimed in Word and Sacrament and sinners gather to hear and receive it, the triune God can break beyond misunderstandings to do his work. By the same token, while confessional Lutherans have always had apprehensions, there may be other Protestant churches that have seen the limit of meaning in the sacraments and have to come to concentrate much more on what Christ is actually doing. The test remains the same: are Christ’s gifts really being handed over to sinners?
At any rate, it’s up to you now. In a way that would have been inconceivable even earlier this summer, you are on your own. Having been unchurched by the ELCA assembly; excluded, unrepresented and voiceless, you have been cut loose from that which connected you with believers across the world and across the ages. So you have been numbered among the rejects. But for all of that, you’ve got company. If you don’t find your neighbors in the faith where you usually did, they are out looking for you. Jesus loves sinners—you qualify. He never lost one of us.
(via WordAlone)
On this day (September 21) in the year 1452, Italian reformer and martyr Girolamo Savonarola was born in Ferrara, Italy (d. May 23 1498). Here is a sermon on Savonarola written by Charles Spurgeon, originally published in the April 1869 edition of the Sword & Trowel.
The Florentine MonkIn the month of May this year it is proposed to hold a conference of Italian Christians in the fine old city of Florence. Gavazzi, whose evangelistic work among his countrymen has inspired new hopes in English breasts, as to the future of Protestantism in that land of olives and cypresses, has, with the assistance of those who are equally enthusiastic for the cause of God and truth, formed an Evangelical Alliance in Italy, for the purpose of unitedly combatting “the two great enemies of the divine religion of Christ—Popery and Rationalism.” They thus hope to “present a compact phalanx against the expected assaults of the coming Œcumenical Council.”1 Florence has not inaptly been chosen as the scene of this Protestant demonstration. Exactly four centuries ago, it witnessed the martyrdom of a Florentine monk, who, ere the Reformation dawned, and while, indeed, Martin Luther was a youth of six years of age, had aroused the enmity of one of the vilest miscreants of all the debased wretches that wore the triple crown, and had struck a blow at the pretensions of the Papacy, which was only the precursor of that mightier onslaught which staggered the see of Rome, and ushered in the Reformation. It is worth while to run over the incidents of that short but eventful life, since its lessons are as useful to-day as ever.
Savonarola was born in 1452, of respectable parents, at Ferrara. From his grandfather, a physician to a noble duke, he gained his first acquaintance with learned pursuits; from his mother he obtained those lessons of goodness and piety which influenced his heart and moulded his character. Designed for the medical profesion, he soon evinced a passionate longing for other pursuits. Thoughtful, earnest, high-souled, his heart guided his head, and both became devoted to the inner world of spiritual life, into which he withdrew, bidding adieu to the scenes of greedy lust and worldly pleasures by which he was surrounded. He was not the first, we suppose, who sought to relieve his young burning heart by rhyming. We have very little left of his youthful effusions, but they indicate the great struggles of his soul, and foretell the thoughts of a riper and more matured and experienced observation. Thus early, he seemed to have gained a profound sense of the deep-seated corruptions of the apostate church. The profligate sensuous age moved him to write in terms of just severity; and it is noticeable how emphatically he lays the axe at the root of the upas-tree—2
“The earth so staggers under every vice,
That never will it lift its head again;
Rome is that head, so bowed with wickedness,
That ended now for ever is her reign.”Deeply did he lament the corruptions of the church. Bitterly did he bewail its abandonment of the high mission to which he believed it had been called. And yet, when he saw the outside world, he viewed it with intense disgust. For him it had no attractions. He despised its allurements; he detested its vanities; and so, with a moral determination, and a stern self-denial, worthy of a nobler consummation, he retired into a Dominican cloister. At first a lay-brother, mending the garments and keeping the garden of the convent, he became, after a year of probation, a monk. He was an enthusiastic student. As he himself confesses, he strove after truth with all his powers. Truth was the empress of his soul. He loved her for her own sake. “She illumines,” he says, “the soul with divine light, and leads it to communion with God, who is himself truth.” Fortunately, he obtained, like his successor of the convent of Erfurt, a copy of the Holy Scriptures. How earnestly did he apply himself to a thorough investigation of its teachings! Here, in his solitary cell, shut out from the gaieties and fascinations of Italian life, isolated from others by his very earnestness and heart-yearnings, like a panting hart braying for the water-brooks, he thirsted for the translucent purity of God’s all-satisfying truth. It is true, he read the Scriptures in the light—always a “dim, religious” one—of the church, but he could not shut his eyes to the awful revelations it gave of the abomination of desolations. His soul luxuriated in the peace-infusing teachings of the Word; but his heart was stirred up within him as he compared the church as it was with its ideal state. “Where,” he asks, “are the precious stones—where the pure diamonds, the bright lamps, the sapphires, the white robes, and white roses of the church?” It was thus that fourteen years of retirement were spent; the fires of suffering purifying his nature, and leading him to that higher renunciation and nobler consecration so needed for the work of the future.
Called from the seclusion of his cell, at the age of thirty-seven, to active labour in the city of Florence, Savonarola journeyed thither on foot—a dark, mysterious providence overhanging him; a disturbed world of conflicting thoughts within him; and an atmosphere of disquietude and gloom around. To what had his God called him? What meant those ceaseless agitations which electrified his soul, and burdened him as with a message from the Lord, crushing him to the earth? Subsequent events developed the foreshadowings.
Just at this time, Florence was at the dizzying height of its renown. It possessed nearly a thousand fortified positions. Its beauty of situation, its rich lands, its luxuriance, its wealth, its treasures of art, its libraries, its seats of learning, magnificent palaces, unrivalled advantages and commercial prosperity, with its gaities and worldly attractions, made it one of the wonders of Europe. If England be, as the keen satire of Napoleon has represented, a nation of shopkeepers, Florence was well-nigh a city of bankers and merchants. Being the great banking-place of the Continent, its wealth was enormous. As Corinth, under the fostering care of Augustus, and in the zenith of its commercial glory, grew licentious, and proud, and reckless, so Florence, under the luxurious sway of Lorenzo di Medici the Magnificent, became heathenish and viciously immoral. Savonarola’s voice was soon heard in the church of St. Mark, censuring the tendencies of the age, and laying, bare, with merciless severity, the corruptions of the church. It must have been a strange sight to see the spare, haggard form of his pale-faced, keen-eyed, Roman-nosed monk, exciting, the crowds of listeners, and overpowering them with his vigorous eloquence. There was nothing in his voice to allure attention. It was thin and weak. Nor was there anything in his manner, for he was unpractised in speaking; but his words carried weight, and each had a flaming fire-dart which pierced its way, and carried conviction. His denunciations of the paganism of Florence, and the gross abominations of the church, stirred the city to its depths. The friar’s popularity grew and spread like living fire. Men listened and shuddered. Priests heard, trembled, and hated. The people grew enthusiastic. Salvation by faith, not by works—forgiveness of sin, not by absolution, but by Christ; these were unheard of truths from such a pulpit, and were as welcome as they were strange. With sternness of manner he denounced the prevailing sins of the time, and with affectionate entreaty besought men, like another John the Baptist, to “repent, for the kingdom of heaven was at hand.” Indeed, his prophetic utterances of a visitation from God were listened to with much dismay. His extraordinary faithfulness in rebuking those current sins of the wealthy to which they thought they had a prescriptive right; his personal form of address, without which no minister or reformer can hope to be successful in soul-winning; his clear evangelic utterances as to the natural state of the soul, its need of redemption, and the suitability of the free gospel of God’s grace to meet that need, told upon the people. They wept. They were silenced. Men who took down his discourses, were known to drop the pens from their hands. Country people walked miles to hear the great preacher; came, indeed, the night before the Sunday, and besieged the church doors at early morn, that they might be sure of a seat. Rich burghers gave them victuals, and even acted as doorkeepers. The convent church was too small; nor could the cathedral accommodate more than the three thousand persons who flocked to hear the friar.As prior of St. Mark, Savonarola was expected to pay homage to Lorenzo di Medici. He refused. In vain did Lorenzo seek to win the stern friar’s confidence; he would loiter in the garden to attract his attention; money was given most royally to the poor; the sermons were heard; but all Lorenzo got in return was unsparing denunciation. Five men were sent to induce the friar to moderate his stinging criticisms, and to cease his prophetic utterances. “Go,” was the stern answer, “and tell Lorenzo that he must repent of his sins, for God is about to punish him and his. He threatens me with banishment. Well, I am a foreigner, and he a citizen, and the first in the city; but know that I shall stay, and that he will soon be forced to quit.” Strange to say, this declaration came true. Lorenzo the Magnificent lay on his death-bed. Anxious to be absolved from his sins, he sent for the monk, whom he had feared. Savonarola imposed three conditions. He was first to believe in God’s ability and willingness to forgive; this the sick man confessed. Then he was to restore that which he had unrighteously gained. This duty he promised to perform by his heir. Thirdly, said Savonarola, “Give back to Florence her ancient liberty;” but Lorenzo turned his head away, and Savonarola departed.
After Lorenzo’s death he addressed himself to the work of reformation. Beginning where reformation, as well as charity, should begin, at home, he renovated his convent, induced the monks to reform, to live higher lives, to study, and to preach. Next, he sought the reformation of the Florentine State. Henceforth he must become a politician. It is useless to criticise and condemn: he may have been fanatical, unwise, foolish. He, at least, did not think so. He had his dreams of an ideal government, and he lived to see them come true, though they hastened his fate. He preached on the downfall of the State; declared that soon the Lord’s vengeance would come upon the Florentines; announced the termination of the great house of Medici; and predicted that “Over the Alps one is coming sword in hand against Italy to chastise her tyrants. His coming will be in the storm and in the whirlwind, like that of Cyrus.” At the time, no one believed the warning voice of the strange prophet. The city was at peace; people were married and given in marriage, and the end came not. But lo! the King of France came over the Alps, with an immense army, took Naples, and marched into Florence. Then believed they the message of the friar. The Medici were expelled. Savonarola appeared before the King of France, secured peace, obtained milder terms; and the Florentines were allowed to choose their own mode of government. On the friar, however, was devolved this task. He chose the democratic form; but Jesus Christ was to be King of the city. A general amnesty was proclaimed, and the streets of Florence were thus saved from the deluge of blood which seemed inevitable. A contemporary writer states that “Apart from the Father’s preaching, streams of blood would have been seen to flow in the city; but his words and his authority, which stood at that time very high, appeased the storm, and hindered the carrying out of revengeful thoughts.”
It was marvellous how his power was felt. He was looked upon as a deliverer and a prophet. His words were treasured up, and were held as coming from God himself. His holy ascendancy was such that men everywhere saw it, felt it, were cowed under it, and not a few wished to be delivered from it. He waged relentless war against the sins of the rich, and denounced the vices of the poor. He changed for a time the character of society in the city. Dr. Seibert, in his biography, “Savonarola der Reformator von Florenz,” describes the wondrous effect of the friar’s teaching:—”Mortal enemies fell into each other’s arms and became reconciled; the rich spontaneously restored ill-gotten gains: one citizen in particular made restitution of 3,000 ducats, the possession of which disquieted his conscience. Women renounced of their own accord their pride of dress, and went about in modest garments of drab. Ballads and love songs were heard no longer in the country, and religious singing took their place. In the city the theatres and taverns soon became empty and desolate, and in a short time cards and dice were no longer to be seen, vain pomp disappeared, all moral earnestness, and a wonderful degree of love and devotion to eternal things laid hold of the people.” As one of his opponents said, “The people seemed to become fools from love to Christ.” At the season of carnival men delivered up their dice, cards, and card-boards, scandalous images, and immoral novels, and women their rouge, scented waters, veils, false hair, mirrors—indeed, never before, and we fear never since, were women more self-sacrificing—all these luxuries were collected in the marketplace and burnt, youths singing in procession, round what has been called this “auto-da-fé of sin and worldly pleasures.”
Besides improving the social condition of the poor, he endeavoured to reform the church. He never spared the priests—they were “the devil’s midwives.” Referring to the primitive church, he once said, “In those days they had a golden priest and wooden vessels, but now we have golden vessels and a wooden priest.” But especially was he emphatic in his testimony to the preciousness of the Scriptures. “The ruin of the church,” he said, “is to be traced to this, that Christians no longer read the Scriptures; it is owing to this that thick darkness broods over the Christian people, and that impiety gets so much the upper hand.” He very imperfectly understood the Scriptures, but he was alone in demanding that they should be read, and their lessons taught to the people.
A man like Savonarola, it is needless to remark, must soon have aroused the enmity of the Papacy. It was no difficulty for him to find foes; they compassed him about like bees. They were principally of the order of the Franciscans, who always hated the order of which Savonarola was a member—the Dominican. News reached Rome of the terrible power and popularity of the friar. The Pope’s first thought was to conciliate so dangerous a foe. He, therefore, offered him a cardinal’s hat. But it was declined. “I wish,” he said, “for no other red hat than that of a martyr, dyed with my own blood.” It was equally in the power of the Pope to grant him that favour—for which, indeed, he felt most inclined. He was then respectfully and in a most fatherly way invited to show himself at Rome. “Beloved son! Health to thee, and apostolic benediction.” But, as everyone knows, the Pope’s blessing was always a curse, and in this case the blessing concealed—or only partly concealed—a power that would by penance, prison, or poison, reduce the friar to everlasting silence. Savonarola was not to be caught. He knew the man with whom he was dealing. The Pope was the incarnation of all the devilry that ever escaped from hell. An abandoned wretch, guilty of scandalous crimes—who could trust him? And so, wisely, the friar refused to go. He did not refuse, however, to fulminate against the Pope. He, too—like most of us—could issue his little bull from his diminutive Vatican. At last the Pope prohibited his preaching, and ordered that the congregation of St. Mark should be dissolved. Such elements were, however, not readily dissolved. Savonarola for a time maintained silence, but was stung into action by the Pope’s Breve. “I cannot forbear preaching,” he declared; “the word of God is as a fire in my heart; unless I speak it, it burns my marrow and bones.” “It is now time,” he said, “to open the den; we will turn the key; such a stench and so much filth will be vomited forth by Rome as will overspread all Christendom, and everybody will be tainted with it.” At last the Pope applied to the Signori to deliver up this heretic; but it was in vain. Franciscan monks were sent to preach him down; but his preaching went up. Then it was, with his customary politeness, that the Pope sent a gracious message, hurling his curse at his head, cutting him off as a rotten member of the church’s body, and giving him over to the powers of hell. Savonarola had his defenders in Florence, and those were among the wealthy as well as among the poor; but a host of circumstances were combining to ruin him. His friends were injudicious. His new state constitution was, as might be expected, a failure. His alliance with the King of France, who had done nothing for the church, damaged his popularity. Plague and famine irritated the people; and, as no miracle was wrought on their behalf, Savonarola was disliked. One of his friends foolishly put a controversy with the Franciscans upon the issue of a trial by the ordeal of fire. The fire was prepared in the marketplace of Florence; the citizens expected to behold a notable spectacle; but the Signori and a shower of rain interfered and dispersed the crowd. The mob then turned upon Savonarola; the monastery was assailed; the once popular monk was made a prisoner; and the Pope was communicated with. Overcome with joy, “His Holiness” granted permission for the monk to be tortured. A recantation was demanded of him, but he refused. He was then stretched seven times during the week upon the rack. In the height of his sufferings he cried, “Lord, take my spirit,” and, worn out by the tortures, he agreed to confess. When, however, he had rested a while, he withdrew his recantation, and boldly avowed all that he had previously taught. Between the day of his trial and the day of his execution he wrote an exposition of the fifty-first Psalm, which Luther highly prized, and published in Germany.
He was burnt, with two friends, on the 22nd of May, 1498. The bishop deprived him of his priestly garments, saying, “Thus I exclude thee from the militant and triumphant church.” “From the church militant thou mayst,” exclaimed Savonarola, “but from the church triumphant thou canst not.” He died blessing the people who had deserted him, and clinging to the Christ whose love had never departed from him.
The question has often been asked, How far was Savonarola the herald of Protestantism? The best answer to that question is, we think, furnished in his admirable work—far ahead of the times in which it was written—”The Triumph of the Cross.” We are glad that those enterprising publishers, Messrs. Hodder and Stoughton have brought it out in a cheap and handsome form.3 For the sake of the memory of the martyr, it should be read; for the sake of the truths it so luminously sets forth, it deserves a wide circulation. Mr. Travers Hill, beside writing an interesting sketch of the Italian Reformer’s life, has ably translated the work. At a time when the church held every one in bondage, when the Scriptures were hid from view, and the masses were ignorant of the way of salvation—when darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the people—when the church to which every one bowed in lowly submission was so corrupt as to allow a pope stained with every crime to preside over it—and when Luther’s shrill testimony had not as yet been given—it is pleasant to find words of such evangelic power written in the cloister of a monastery. And though Savonarola was wedded to many of the errors of the church, yet his testimony in favour of justification by faith and not by works, the forgiveness of sins by Christ and not by man, was clear and decisive. His object was undoubtedly to purify the church of Rome, not to destroy it; but it is evident that throughout his life he was, if loyal to his church, far more loyal to Christ.Notes
1. The First Vatican Council (1869-70) was about to get underway when Spurgeon wrote this article. Among the decrees of Vatican I was the notorious declaration of Papal Infallibility.
2. “Upas-tree.” A fabled poisonous tree whose vapours were supposed to be fatal to all life that came under its influence.
3. The Triumph of the Cross by JEROME SAVONAROLA. Translated from the Latin, with Notes and a Biographical Sketch. By O’Dell Travers Hill, F.R.G.S. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
(via the Spurgeon Archive)
Luther wrote to the Archbishop protesting the sale of indulgences to finance the building of a new cathedral. The Archbishop, of course, was one of the people who had authorized the sale of indulgences for that purpose. Note the objections Luther states towards indulgences and their use by church officials.
JESUS
The grace of God be with you in all its fulness and power! Spare me, Most Reverend Father in Christ and Most Illustrious Prince, that I, the dregs of humanity, have so much boldness that I have dared to think of a letter to the height of your Sublimity. The Lord Jesus is my witness that, conscious of my smallness and baseness, I have long deferred what I am now shameless enough to do, — moved thereto most of all by the duty of fidelity which I acknowledge that I owe to your most Reverend Fatherhood in Christ. Meanwhile, therefore, may your Highness deign to cast an eye upon one speck of dust, and for the sake of your pontifical clemency to heed my prayer. Papal indulgences for the building of St. Peter’s are circulating under your most distinguished name, and as regards them, I do not bring accusation against the outcries of the preachers, which I have not heard, so much as I grieve over the wholly false impressions which the people have conceived from them; to wit, — the unhappy souls believe that if they have purchased letters of indulgence they are sure of their salvation; again, that so soon as they cast their contributions into the money-box, souls fly out of purgatory; furthermore, that these graces [i.e., the graces conferred in the indulgences] are so great that there is no sin too great to be absolved, even, as they say — though the thing is impossible — if one had violated the Mother of God; again, that a man is free, through these indulgences, from all penalty and guilt.
O God, most good! Thus souls committed to your care, good Father, are taught to their death, and the strict account, which you must render for all such, grows and increases. For this reason I have no longer been able to keep quiet about this matter, for it is by no gift of a bishop that man becomes sure of salvation, since he gains this certainty not even by the “inpoured grace” of God, but the Apostle bids us always “work out our own salvation in fear and trembling,” and Peter says, “the righteous scarcely shall be saved.” Finally, so narrow is the way that leads to life, that the Lord, through the prophets Amos and Zechariah, calls those who shall be saved “brands plucked from the burning,” and everywhere declares the difficulty of salvation. Why, then, do the preachers of pardons, by these false fables and promises, make the people careless and fearless? Whereas indulgences confer on us no good gift, either for salvation or for sanctity, but only take away the external penalty, which it was formerly the custom to impose according to the canons.
Finally, works of piety and love are infinitely better than indulgences, and yet these are not preached with such ceremony or such zeal; nay, for the sake of preaching the indulgences they are kept quiet, though it is the first and the sole duty of all bishops that the people should learn the Gospel and the love of Christ, for Christ never taught that indulgences should be preached. How great then is the horror, how great the peril of a bishop, if he permits the Gospel to be kept quiet, and nothing but the noise of indulgences to be spread among his people! Will not Christ say to them, “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel”? In addition to this, Most Reverend Father in the Lord, it is said in the Instruction to the Commissaries which is issued under your name, Most Reverend Father (doubtless without your knowledge and consent), that one of the chief graces of indulgence is that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to God, and all the penalties of purgatory are destroyed. Again, it is said that contrition is not necessary in those who purchase souls [out of purgatory] or buy confessionalia.
But what can I do, good Primate and Most Illustrious Prince, except pray your Most Reverend Fatherhood by the Lord Jesus Christ that you would deign to look [on this matter] with the eye of fatherly care, and do away entirely with that treatise and impose upon the preachers of pardons another form of preaching; lest, perchance, one may some time arise, who will publish writings in which he will confute both them and that treatise, to the shame of your Most Illustrious Sublimity. I shrink very much from thinking that this will be done, and yet I fear that it will come to pass, unless there is some speedy remedy.
These faithful offices of my insignificance I beg that your Most Illustrious Grace may deign to accept in the spirit of a Prince and a Bishop, i.e., with the greatest clemency, as I offer them out of a faithful heart, altogether devoted to you, Most Reverend Father, since I too am a part of your flock.
May the Lord Jesus have your Most Reverend Fatherhood eternally in His keeping. Amen.
From Wittenberg on the Vigil of All Saints, MDXVII.
If it please the Most Reverend Father he may see these my Disputations, and learn how doubtful a thing is the opinion of indulgences which those men spread as though it were most certain.
To the Most Reverend Father, BROTHER MARTIN LUTHER.
Here is the handout from Bob and Cathy Mattson for the Seventh Sunday in Pentecost:
It’s time to unveil the last of our weekly columns, “Franz Friday,” featuring selections from the writings of Franz August Otto Pieper. We begin this week with one of his sermons, “Trembling at God’s Word,” given as an opening address for the new school term in 1930.
We read in the last chapter of the prophet Isaiah: “But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My Word.” These words, which the prophet speaks in God’s name and by His command, describe true Godliness in contrast to the outward temple service of the apostate Jewish people. True Godliness in consists in humble recognition of sin and in Holy fear before God’s majestic Word. This is how it should be with each Christian, but especially with each theologian. Luther was right when he said that all true theology can be described as trembling before God’s Word. At the time of the reformation of the Church, God, by Luther’s work once again established the trembling before God’s Word instead of before the authority of the pope, as was prophesied in Revelation 14:7. The counter reformation of the papal church consisted in fortifying the pseudo-authority of the pope. The Council of Trent is proof of this. The Reformed counter-reformation consisted and consists in this – that in its deviation from the Lutheran church it presents a building built according to the laws of human reason. The modern Lutheran counter-reformation consisted and consists in this – by the denial of the inspiration of Holy Scripture, on principle, drives out trembling at God’s Word and makes God’s Word and object of criticism.
Students at Concordia, at our St. Louis Concordia you will be instructed in the theology which consists in a humble spirit and in trembling at God’s Word. At the beginning of this new year of studies, I will briefly answer the question:
What is included in trembling at God’s Word?
First, is the knowledge that the Holy Scripture is God’s own and infallible Word. And this is not a “theological deduction” but a direct doctrine of Holy Scripture. When the Savior says “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He accepts the guarantee that the Scripture is God’s Word in each of its words because the context of Jesus’ statement concerns the use of one word of Scripture, the word, “gods” in Psalm 82. Furthermore, the Savior says in His high priestly prayer, John, 17, about His apostles, “I have given them Your word,” and right away after that He adds that all believers until the last day will believe in Him “Through their word.” Furthermore: As is known, Holy Scripture is not made up of thoughts floating in the air but of words, of written words. And of these written words, Christ’s apostle, St. Paul, Testifies: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). In short, it is not just a human or theological conclusion but a direct declaration of Scripture: The Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament is God’s own Word and therefore infallible. All who regard it otherwise, all who with modern Lutheran theology do not want to “identify” the Holy Scripture with God’s Word, do not tremble at God’s Word, but want to become critics of God’s Word. May God keep us and our brothers and sisters in the faith and confession from the blasphemous error which overthrows the foundation of faith.
Trembling at God’s Word includes, secondly, the knowledge of what God’s Word teaches. Without this knowledge the zeal for God’s Word would be zeal with folly. Therefore, St. Paul exhorts His faithful son Timothy not just to take heed to himself but also to the doctrine: “For in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.” And, in fact, the necessary knowledge refers to the entire doctrine of Scripture, the doctrine in all its articles. Christ’s commission to teach until the end of the world is quite unmistakable: “Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.” Therefore, the apostle Paul also says when he gives himself as an example to the pastors of Ephesus: “For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.”
Students of Concordia! To acquire the entire Christian doctrine in all articles, demands diligence, great diligence, on the part of the students of theology. Lack of diligence in this area would not be trembling at God’s Word but would reveal the opposite, disdain. Trembling at God’s Word also includes what the apostle Paul reminds his dear Timothy: “Take heed to yourself,” that is, to your Christian walk and life in sincere fear of God. Otherwise the Holy Spirit, who dwells in you, is grieved and God’s Word is blasphemed among the unbelievers.
Third, trembling at God’s Word includes that we in God’s Church recognize that nothing is authoritative for doctrine except God’s Word. In our time the fever of church union rages, the spirit which fosters the idea that the various directions in the church are equally valid, the spirit which wants union without unity in the doctrine of God’s Word. That is not trembling at God’s Word. God’s Word demands that it alone rules in the Church of God. That is why God gave His Word to His Church. The Church should only speak what comes from the mouth of God. God’s Word should be the only source and norm of Church doctrine. The Savior exhorts, “If you abide in My Word, you are my disciples indeed and you shall know the truth” (John 8:31) Therefore the apostle Peter also exhorts: “If you speak” – namely in the Church of God – “Say what God says”
(I Peter 4:11). And when spirits, which did not want to remain with the doctrine of the apostle, stirred in the congregation at Ephesus, the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy that he should order these spirits to teach nothing different. Holding to another teaching and holding to another opinion have no right to exist in the Christian Church. Whoever allows the word of man to be placed next to the Word of God, whoever wants to extend the hand of fellowship, as brothers in the faith, with those who deviate from God’s Word, has reason to examine himself to see if he earnestly regards God’s Word as God’s Word.
We so-called Missourians and confessional brothers have, until now, by God’s grace, kept the right path in regard to church union. Of course we have earnestly entered into “free-conferences” – that is doctrinal discussions to establish doctrinal unity where it does not yet exist. But we only have fellowship as brothers in the faith with those who confess the pure doctrine of Christ as the apostle John demands in his second epistle and which is demanded in the whole Scripture of Old and New Testament.
We are praised for this one part, the smaller one, but greatly blamed by the other, larger part. We must count on the possibility that we will become more isolated than ever before. How will it go for us? We know exactly. We read from the prophet Jeremiah” “they will fight against you,’ says the Lord, ‘To deliver you.’”(1:19). We are victorious when we, by God’s grace, continue to tremble at God’s Word. Those trying to isolate us gain the victory, can penetrate in the front, flanks and center, if we, by our own fault stop trembling at God’s Word. May God in grace grant that we continue to tremble at His Word! Amen.
If you’ve been following the lectionary texts of Holy Scripture, you’ve heard quite a lot lately about wisdom and the power of words. Much of what comes from within, from the heart, and defiles a person manifests itself in words as much as in deeds: malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, folly, etc. (Mark 7:20-23). And the epistle of James associates words with the power of ship’s rudder, a spark capable of setting a forest ablaze; a “restless evil, full of deadly poison” (James 3:1-12).
For today’s feature, “Athena Thursday,” here is a list of texts from Proverbs to bridle even the wildest horses mouth:
Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips
and spreads slander is a fool.
Sin is not ended by multiplying words,
but the prudent hold their tongues.
The tongue of the righteous is choice silver,
but the heart of the wicked is of little value.
The lips of the righteous nourish many,
but fools die for lack of sense. (10:18-21)
With their mouths the godless destroy their neighbors,
but through knowledge the righteous escape.
When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices;
when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.
Through the blessing of the upright a city is exalted,
but by the mouth of the wicked it is destroyed.
Those who have no sense deride their neighbors,
but those who have understanding hold their tongues.
Gossips betray a confidence,
but the trustworthy keep a secret. (11:9-13)
The words of the reckless pierce like swords,
but the tongue of the wise brings healing.
Truthful lips endure forever,
but a lying tongue lasts only a moment. (12:18-19)
The tongue of the wise adorns knowledge,
but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.
The soothing tongue is a tree of life,
but a perverse tongue crushes the spirit. (15:2,4)
To human beings belong the plans of the heart,
but from the LORD comes the proper answer of the tongue. (16:1)
A wicked person listens to deceitful lips;
a liar pays attention to a destructive tongue.
One whose heart is corrupt does not prosper;
one whose tongue is perverse falls into trouble.
Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent,
and discerning if they hold their tongues. (17:4,20,28)
The words of the mouth are deep waters,
but the fountain of wisdom is a rushing stream.
The lips of fools bring them strife,
and their mouths invite a beating.
The mouths of fools are their undoing,
and their lips are a snare to their very lives.
The words of a gossip are like choice morsels;
they go down to the inmost parts.
From the fruit of their mouths people’s stomachs are filled;
with the harvest of their lips they are satisfied.
The tongue has the power of life and death,
and those who love it will eat its fruit. (18:4,6-8,20-21)
A fortune made by a lying tongue
is a fleeting vapor and a deadly snare.
Those who guard their mouths and their tongues
keep themselves from calamity. (21:6,23)
Through patience a ruler can be persuaded,
and a gentle tongue can break a bone.
Like a north wind that brings unexpected rain
is a sly tongue—which provokes a horrified look. (25:15,23)
Like a coating of silver dross on earthenware
are fervent lips with an evil heart.
Enemies disguise themselves with their lips,
but in their hearts they harbor deceit.
Though their speech is charming, do not believe them,
for seven abominations fill their hearts. (26:23-25)
Whoever rebukes a person will in the end gain favor
rather than one who has a flattering tongue. (28:23)
Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar. (30:5-6)
Logia has made available (for free) a book examining the place of the Lord’s Supper in Chemnitz:
The Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz by Bjarne Wollan Teigen. This book is yours free, provided that you do not reproduce or sell it. Instructions: right click and save to your computer) Download Now (PDF 2.89MB).
For our next weekly feature, “Wednesdays with Augustine,” we’ll be publishing select texts from the writings of Augustine of Hippo. Addressing the gravity of the task of engaging Holy Scripture, here is the Preface to Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine
Showing that to teach rules for the interpretation of Scripture is not a superfluous task
1. There are certain rules for the interpretation of Scripture which I think might with great advantage be taught to earnest students of the word, that they may profit not only from reading the works of others who have laid open the secrets of the sacred writings, but also from themselves opening such secrets to others. These rules I propose to teach to those who are able and willing to learn, if God our Lord do not withhold from me, while I write, the thoughts He is wont to vouchsafe to me in my meditations on this subject. But before I enter upon this undertaking, I think it well to meet the objections of those who are likely to take exception to the work, or who would do so, did I not conciliate them beforehand. And if, after all, men should still be found to make objections, yet at least they will not prevail with others (over whom they might have influence, did they not find them forearmed against their assaults), to turn them back from a useful study to the dull sloth of ignorance.
2. There are some, then, likely to object to this work of mine, because they have failed to understand the rules here laid down. Others, again, will think that I have spent my labour to no purpose, because, though they understand the rules, yet in their attempts to apply them and to interpret Scripture by them, they have failed to clear up the point they wish cleared up; and these, because they have received no assistance from this work themselves, will give it as their opinion that it can be of no use to anybody. There is a third class of objectors who either really do understand Scripture well, or think they do, and who, because they know (or imagine) that they have attained a certain power of interpreting the sacred books without reading any directions of the kind that I propose to lay down here, will cry out that such rules are not necessary for any one, but that everything rightly done towards clearing up the obscurities of Scripture could be better done by the unassisted grace of God.
3. To reply briefly to all these. To those who do not understand what is here set down, my answer is, that I am not to be blamed for their want of understanding. It is just as if they were anxious to see the new or the old moon, or some very obscure star, and I should point it out with my finger: if they had not sight enough to see even my finger, they would surely have no right to fly into a passion with me on that account. As for those who, even though they know and understand my directions, fail to penetrate the meaning of obscure passages in Scripture, they may stand for those who, in the case I have imagined, are just able to see my finger, but cannot see the stars at which it is pointed. And so both these classes had better give up blaming me, and pray instead that God would grant them the sight of their eyes. For though I can move my finger to point out an object, it is out of my power to open men’s eyes that they may see either the fact that I am pointing, or the object at which I point.
4. But now as to those who talk vauntingly of Divine Grace, and boast that they understand and can explain Scripture without the aid of such directions as those I now propose to lay down, and who think, therefore, that what I have undertaken to write is entirely superfluous. I would such persons could calm themselves so far as to remember that, however justly they may rejoice in God’s great gift, yet it was from human teachers they themselves learnt to read. Now, they would hardly think it right that they should for that reason be held in contempt by the Egyptian monk Antony, a just and holy man, who, not being able to read himself, is said to have committed the Scriptures to memory through hearing them read by others, and by dint of wise meditation to have arrived at a thorough understanding of them; or by that barbarian slave Christianus, of whom I have lately heard from very respectable and trustworthy witnesses, who, without any teaching from man, attained a full knowledge of the art of reading simply through prayer that it might be revealed to him; after three days’ supplication obtaining his request that he might read through a book presented to him on the spot by the astonished bystanders.
5. But if any one thinks that these stories are false, I do not strongly insist on them. For, as I am dealing with Christians who profess to understand the Scriptures without any directions from man (and if the fact be so, they boast of a real advantage, and one of no ordinary kind), they must surely grant that every one of us learnt his own language by hearing it constantly from childhood, and that any other language we have learnt,—Greek, or Hebrew, or any of the rest,—we have learnt either in the same way, by hearing it spoken, or from a human teacher. Now, then, suppose we advise all our brethren not to teach their children any of these things, because on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the apostles immediately began to speak the language of every race; and warn every one who has not had a like experience that he need not consider himself a Christian, or may at least doubt whether he has yet received the Holy Spirit? No, no; rather let us put away false pride and learn whatever can be learnt from man; and let him who teaches another communicate what he has himself received without arrogance and without jealousy. And do not let us tempt Him in whom we have believed, lest, being ensnared by such wiles of the enemy and by our own perversity, we may even refuse to go to the churches to hear the gospel itself, or to read a book, or to listen to another reading or preaching, in the hope that we shall be carried up to the third heaven, “whether in the body or out of the body,” as the apostle says, and there hear unspeakable words, such as it is not lawful for man to utter, or see the Lord Jesus Christ and hear the gospel from His own lips rather than from those of men.
6. Let us beware of such dangerous temptations of pride, and let us rather consider the fact that the Apostle Paul himself, although stricken down and admonished by the voice of God from heaven, was yet sent to a man to receive the sacraments and be admitted into the Church; and that Cornelius the centurion, although an angel announced to him that his prayers were heard and his alms had in remembrance, was yet handed over to Peter for instruction, and not only received the sacraments from the apostle’s hands, but was also instructed by him as to the proper objects of faith, hope, and love. And without doubt it was possible to have done everything through the instrumentality of angels, but the condition of our race would have been much more degraded if God had not chosen to make use of men as the ministers of His word to their fellow-men. For how could that be true which is written, “The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are,” if God gave forth no oracles from His human temple, but communicated everything that He wished to be taught to men by voices from heaven, or through the ministration of angels? Moreover, love itself, which binds men together in the bond of unity, would have no means of pouring soul into soul, and, as it were, mingling them one with another, if men never learnt anything from their fellow-men.
7. And we know that the eunuch who was reading Isaiah the prophet, and did not understand what he read, was not sent by the apostle to an angel, nor was it an angel who explained to him what he did not understand, nor was he inwardly illuminated by the grace of God without the interposition of man; on the contrary, at the suggestion of God, Philip, who did understand the prophet, came to him, and sat with him, and in human words, and with a human tongue, opened to him the Scriptures. Did not God talk with Moses, and yet he, with great wisdom and entire absence of jealous pride, accepted the plan of his father-in-law, a man of an alien race, for ruling and administering the affairs of the great nation entrusted to him? For Moses knew that a wise plan, in whatever mind it might originate, was to be ascribed not to the man who devised it, but to Him who is the Truth, the unchangeable God.
8. In the last place, every one who boasts that he, through divine illumination, understands the obscurities of Scripture, though not instructed in any rules of interpretation, at the same time believes, and rightly believes, that this power is not his own, in the sense of originating with himself, but is the gift of God. For so he seeks God’s glory, not his own. But reading and understanding, as he does, without the aid of any human interpreter, why does he himself undertake to interpret for others? Why does he not rather send them direct to God, that they too may learn by the inward teaching of the Spirit without the help of man? The truth is, he fears to incur the reproach: “Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou oughtest to have put my money to the exchangers.” Seeing, then, that these men teach others, either through speech or writing, what they understand, surely they cannot blame me if I likewise teach not only what they understand, but also the rules of interpretation they follow. For no one ought to consider anything as his own, except perhaps what is false. All truth is of Him who says, “I am the truth.” For what have we that we did not receive? And if we have received it, why do we glory, as if we had not received it?
9. He who reads to an audience pronounces aloud the words he sees before him: he who teaches reading, does it that others may be able to read for themselves. Each, however, communicates to others what he has learnt himself. Just so, the man who explains to an audience the passages of Scripture he understands is like one who reads aloud the words before him. On the other hand, the man who lays down rules for interpretation is like one who teaches reading, that is, shows others how to read for themselves. So that, just as he who knows how to read is not dependent on some one else, when he finds a book, to tell him what is written in it, so the man who is in possession of the rules which I here attempt to lay down, if he meet with an obscure passage in the books which he reads, will not need an interpreter to lay open the secret to him, but, holding fast by certain rules, and following up certain indications, will arrive at the hidden sense without any error, or at least without falling into any gross absurdity. And so although it will sufficiently appear in the course of the work itself that no one can justly object to this undertaking of mine, which has no other object than to be of service, yet as it seemed convenient to reply at the outset to any who might make preliminary objections, such is the start I have thought good to make on the road I am about to traverse in this book.
The second of our weekly feature columns, “Tuesdays with Forde,” begins today with this brief selection from On Being a Theologian of the Cross, by Gerhard O. Forde. One of the most important parts of Forde’s work on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation is his insistence on framing the issue of the theology of glory vs. the theology of the cross in the terms action as opposed to abstraction, i.e. they are not theologies primarily in the sense of being theological theories, but rather constitute two drastically different ways of being a theologian.
From the Introductory Matters (pp. 12-13):
“Claimed, that is to say killed and made alive by the cross alone as the story, theologians of the cross attack the way of glory, the way of law, human works, and free will, because the way of glory simply operates as a defense mechanism against the cross. Theologians of glory operate with fundamentally different presuppositions about how one comes to know God. They think one can see through the created world and the acts of God to the invisible realm of glory beyond it, and they must think this because for the system to work there must be a “glory road,” a way of law, which the fallen creature can traverse by willing and working and thus gain the necessary merit eventually to arrive at glory.
The cross too is transparent. The theologian of glory sees through the cross so as to fit it into the scheme of works. The cross “makes up” for failures along the glory road. The upshot of it all is a fundamental misreading of reality. The theologian of glory ends by calling evil good and good evil. Works are good and suffering is evil. The God who presides over this enterprise must therefore be excused from all blame for what was termed “evil.” The theology of glory ends in a simplistic understanding of God. God, according to philosophers like Plato, is not the cause of the all things but only what we might call “good.” It is hard to see how such a god could even be involved in the cross.
Theologians of the cross, however, “say what a thing is.” That is, a characteristic mark of theologians of the cross is that they learn to call a spade a spade. Since the cross story alone is their story, they are not driven by the attempt to see through it, but are drawn into the story. They know that faith means to live in the Christ of the story. Likewise they do not believe that we come to proper knowledge of God by attempting to see through the created world to the “invisible things of God.” So theologians of the cross look on all things “through suffering and the cross.” They, in other words, are led by the cross to look at the trials, the sufferings, the pangs of conscience, the troubles–and joys–of daily life as God’s doing and do not try to see through them as mere accidental problems to be solved by metaphysical adjustment. They are not driven to simplistic theodicies because with St. Paul they believe that God justifies himself precisely in the cross and resurrection of Jesus. They know that, dying to the old, the believer lives in Christ and looks forward to being raised with him.”
by Donavon Riley
Although the Scriptures are clear about what preaching should be, and more importantly who preaching should be about, most of today’s preaching misses the mark.
This has dire consequences for the church. Weak preaching leads to achurch that is Scripturally illterate and spiritually weak. If the churchtoday, whether Lutheran, Reformed or Roman Catholic, is considered “illiterate” that is because of poor preaching. If the pastor fails to teach the truths of God’s Word, distinguishing between God’s words of law and Gospel, on a weekly basis, if the pastor instead settles for entertainment, the church is left happy, but under-fed. Of course, some pastors will try to over-simplify this problem. They will, for example, categorize “good” preaching as expository and “poor”preaching as topical. The fact is that both styles can and often do produce a mal-nourished church. Who we preach is always more important than what style of preaching we adopt.
In Second Timothy, Paul described a day when preachers would deliver a message suited for “itching ears.”
Today, as always, that message suited for itching ears is manifest where preaching about God subsumes preaching the “for you” of Christ’s promises. Instead of proclaiming that God has acted, is acting and is seeking “you” in His oral, written, incarnate and Sacramental Word the common Sunday sermon asks a question, “Who is God?” Then, besides the “illiterate” already mentioned, the larger impact of such a question is an unhealthy church, a church which cannot distinguish Moses from Christ, law from Gospel, death from life, sin from grace, etc. Those who don’t know God’s Word don’t know the One whom God sent into the world, to reconcile the world to God.
They are not faithful to the Word of God as given and revealed in the Scriptures; in evangelism, liturgy, stewardship and a host of other areas. The result? Pastors perform a spiritual autopsy on God in the pulpit, fashioning a church that can run things just fine without the living God and His Word.
Preaching is the critical thing. The single characteristic of a healthy church is a strong pulpit. And that strength can and does come solely through the Word of God and faith. For it is not expository preaching that is the thing but, the Holy Spirit calling, gathering, and enlightening the whole church with His gifts and keeping it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. That fact alone should motivate pastors to urgently and zelously focus on Biblical preaching. It doesn’t matter what circumstance a strong pulpit finds itself in, His church – His little “Word House” – will flourish, and as the Scriptures assert, not even the gates of hell will stand against it! Conversely, it doesn’t matter what is done to support a weak pulpit, the church will suffer and become sick because it does not have that healing balm, the Word of God made flesh, our righteousness, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Here is the handout, from Bob and Cathy Mattson, for the Sixteenth Sunday in Pentecost:
Here is a reading for today from the Preface to the Exhortation to Martyrdom, written by the church father Cyprian, who died on this day in 258. (read the whole text via IntraText)
You have desired, beloved Fortunatus that, l since the burden of persecutions and afflictions is lying heavy upon us, and in the ending and completion of the world the hateful time of Antichrist is already beginning to draw near, I would collect from the sacred Scriptures some exhortations for preparing and strengthening the minds of the brethren, whereby I might animate the soldiers of Christ for the heavenly and spiritual contest. I have been constrained to obey your so needful wish, so that as much as my limited powers, instructed by the aid of divine inspiration, are sufficient, some arms, as it were, and i defences might be brought forth from the Lord’s precepts for the brethren who are about to fight. For it is little to arouse God’s people by the trumpet call of our voice, unless we confirm the faith of believers, and their valour dedicated and devoted to God, by the divine readings. But what more fitly or more fully agrees with my own care and solicitude, than to prepare the people divinely entrusted to me, and an army established in the heavenly camp, by assiduous exhortations against the darts and weapons of the devil? For he cannot be a soldier fitted for the war who has not first been exercised in the field; nor will he who seeks to gain the crown of contest be rewarded on the racecourse, unless he first considers the use and skilfulness of his powers. It is an ancient adversary and an old enemy with whom we wage our battle: six thousand years are now nearly completed since the devil first attacked man. All kinds of temptation, and arts, and snares for his overthrow, he has learned by the very practice of long years. If he finds Christ’s soldier unprepared, if unskilled, if not careful and watching with his whole heart; he circumvents him if ignorant, he deceives him incautious, he cheats him inexperienced. But if a man, keeping the Lord’s precepts, and bravely adhering to Christ, stands against him, he must needs be conquered, because Christ, whom that man confesses, is unconquered. And that I might not extend my discourse, beloved brother, to too great a length, and fatigue my hearer or reader by the abundance of a too diffuse style, I have made a compendium; so that the titles being placed first, which every one ought both to know and to have in mind, I might subjoin sections of the Lord s word, and establish what I had proposed by the authority of the divine teaching, in such wise as that I might not appear to have sent you my own treatise so much, as to have suggested material for others to discourse on; a proceeding which will be of advantage to individuals with increased benefit. For if I were to give a man a garment finished and ready, it would be my garment that another was making use of, and probably the thing made for another would be found little fitting for his figure of stature and body. But now I have sent you the very wool and the purple from the Lamb, by whom we were redeemed and quickened; which, when you have received, you will make into a coat for yourself according to your own will, and the rather that you will rejoice in it as your own private and special garment. And you will exhibit to others also what we have sent, that they themselves may be able to finish it according to their will; so that that old nakedness being covered, they may all bear the garments of Christ robed in the sanctification of heavenly grace. Moreover also, beloved brethren, I have considered it a useful and wholesome plan in an exhortation so needful as that which may make martyrs, to cut off all delays and tardiness in our words, and to put away the windings of human discourse, and set down only those things which God speaks, wherewith Christ exhorts His servants to martyrdom. Those divine precepts themselves must be supplied, as it were, for arms for the combatants. Let them be the incitements of the warlike trumpet; let them he the clarion-blast for the warriors. Let the ears be roused by them; let the minds be prepared by them; let the powers both of soul and body be strengthened to all endurance of suffering. Let us only who, by the Lord’s permission, have given the first baptism to believers, also prepare each one for the second; urging and teaching that this is a baptism greater in grace, more lofty in power, more precious in honour–a baptism wherein angels baptize–a baptism in which God and His Christ exult–a baptism after which no one sins any more–a baptism which completes the increase of our faith–a baptism which, as we withdraw from the world, immediately associates us with God. In the baptism of water is received the remission of sins, in the baptism of blood the crown of virtues. This thing is to be embraced and desired, and to be asked for in all the entreaties of our petitions, that we who are God’s servants should be also His friends.
For the first installment of our weekly feature “Mondays with Martin,” here is a brief description of office of Christian ministry in three points (via Luther’s “Concerning the Ministry”).
“The first office, that of the ministry of the Word, therefore, is common to all Christians. This is clear, from what I have already said, and from 1 Pet. 2[:9], “You are a royal priesthood that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” I ask, who are these who are called out of darkness into marvelous light? Is it only the shorn and anointed masks? Is it not all Christians? And Peter not only gives them the right, but the command, to declare the wonderful deeds of God, which certainly is nothing else than to preach the Word of God. But some imagine a twofold priesthood, one spiritual and common to all, the other external and limited, and say that Peter here speaks of the spiritual one. But what is the function of this limited and external office? Is it not to declare the wonderful deeds of God? But this Peter enjoins on the spiritual and universal priesthood. In truth these blasphemers have another, external, ministry in which they declare, not the wonderful deeds of God, but their own and the pope’s impious deeds. So, as there is no other proclamation in the ministry of the Word than that which is common to all, that of the wonderful deed of God, so there is no other priesthood than that which is spiritual and universal, as Peter here defines it.
The second function, to baptize, they themselves have by usage allowed in cases of necessity even to ordinary women, so that it is hardly regarded any more as a sacramental function. Whether they wish or not we deduce from their own logic that all Christians, and they alone, even women, are priests, without tonsure and episcopal “character.” For in baptizing we proffer the life-giving Word of God, which renews souls and redeems from death and sins. To baptize is incomparably greater than to consecrate bread and wine, for it is the greatest office in the church—the proclamation of the Word of God. So when women baptize, they exercise the function of priesthood legitimately, and do it not as a private act, but as a part of the public ministry of the church which belongs only to the priesthood.
The stupidity and senselessness of the papists here sufficiently reveals itself. For they permit the ministry of baptism to all, and yet consider the priesthood as their own property and baptism as impossible without their priests. They themselves have established it as the first sacrament and have permitted no one but priests to administer sacraments. But one sacrament cannot be of greater rank than another, since all are founded on the same Word of God. But their own blindness has deceived them, so that they do not see the majesty of the Word of God reigning in baptism. For if they had a right sense of values they would discern that no dignity, be it of priest, or bishop, or even of the pope, can compare with that which they attribute to the ministry of the Word. Small indeed appears the name of priest, or bishop, or pope as over against the name of minister of the Word of God, a Word that lives and remains forever, powerful and able to do all things.
The third function is to consecrate or to administer the sacred bread and wine. Here those in the order of the shorn vaunt themselves and set themselves up as rulers of a power given neither to angels nor the virgin mother. Unmoved by their senselessness we hold that this function, too, like the priesthood, belongs to all, and this we assert, not on our own authority, but that of Christ who at the Last Supper said, “Do this in remembrance of me” [Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24]. This is the word by means of which the shorn papists claim they can make priests and give them the authority to consecrate. But Christ spoke this word to all those then present and to those who in the future would be at the table, to eat this bread and drink this cup. So it follows that what is given here is given to all. Those who oppose this have no foundation on which to stand, except the fathers, the councils, tradition, and that strongest article of their faith, namely, “We are many and thus we hold: therefore it is true.”
A further witness is the word of Paul in 1 Cor. 11[:23], “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you,” etc. Here Paul addresses all the Corinthians, making each of them, as he himself was, consecrators. But in this case so great a beam is in the eyes of the papists [Matt. 7:3] that they do not see the majesty of the Word of God, but only stand in awe before the transubstantiation of the bread. Yet I ask you, what is this splendid power of consecration, compared to the power of baptizing and of proclaiming the Word? A woman can baptize and administer the Word of life, by which sin is taken away, eternal death abolished, the prince of the world east out, heaven bestowed; in short by which the divine majesty pours itself forth through all the soul. Meanwhile this miracle-working priest changes the nature of the bread, but by no other or greater word or power, and it has no other effect than that it increases his awe and admiration before his own dignity and power. Is not this to make an elephant out of a fly? What wonder workers! In despising the power of the Word they make marvelous their own power.”
The following article from Franz Pieper on Christian fellowship was originally published in Lehre und Wehre (Volume 36, Number 1, January 1890), the German-language theology periodical of the Missouri Synod.
”Polemics are absolutely needed. Not only because a doctrine is more fully comprehended in the light of its antithesis, but mainly because the errorists so craftily mask their error behind a show of truth that the simple Christians, if not forewarned, are despite their love of the truth only too easily deceived” (F. Pieper)
On October 10th St. Paul Lutheran Church (ACLC) in Escondido, CA will hold its 6th annual “Conference on Christianity and Culture.” The theme of the gathering will be “Why I Am a Lutheran – The Word, the Spirit, and the Sacraments”
Conference Speaker: Rev. Daniel Preus, Director of the Luther Academy. Rev. Preus will give the main morning and afternoon presentations entitled: “Why I Am a Lutheran – The Word, the Spirit, and the Sacraments”
Synopsis: Are we Lutherans because our parents were or are we Lutherans by conviction? No world religion offers the comfort and assurance given in Christianity. And within the Christian denominations no confession reveals and proclaims the pure Gospel as faithfully and powerfully as the Lutheran confession. Therefore, although many of us are grateful to our parents for raising us in the Lutheran Church, we remain Lutheran out of conviction that what the Lutheran Church teaches is the truth. And those who have become Lutheran later in life remain Lutheran and are committed to continuing in the teachings of this church because here the heavenly Father reveals His grace in Christ His Son most clearly and in complete agreement with the Scriptures. Pastor Preus will speak about the way in which God’s grace in Christ is conveyed through the teaching of the Lutheran Church on the Sacraments and the work of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God.
Conference Reactors
Morning Reactor: Rev. Brandon Jones, Pastor of St. Pauls Lutheran Church, Long Beach, CA.
Afternoon Reactor: Rev. Dr. John Bombaro, Pastor of Grace Lutheran Church, San Diego, CA.
Conference Schedule
8:30: Coffee
9:00: The Office of Matins
9:30: Morning Presentation – Pastor Preus
10:45: Reactor – Pastor Jones
11:15: Q & A
11:45: Lunch
12:45: Afternoon Presentation – Rev. Preus
2:00: Reactor – Pastor Bombaro
2:30: Q & A
2:50: Panel Discussion with Pastors Preus, Jones and Bombaro
3:20: The Office of Vespers
Cost: The conference is free of charge and open to all. There will be a basket out at lunch for free-will donations if you wish to help offset the cost of the conference. If possible, please register by September 25 so that we know how many to plan lunch for.
For more information, or to pre-register, contact Rev. Robert Lawson at 760-743-4440, or send an e-mail to rlawson@nethere.com
Speaker Biography
Rev. Daniel Preus graduated from Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois in 1975. For twenty years he served as a pastor in four congregations of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. From 1995 to 2001 he held the position of Director of Concordia Historical Institute, the Department of Archives and History of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. From 2001 to 2004 he served as First Vice President of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. From 2005 until the present he has been occupied full-time as Director of the Luther Academy. He has written numerous theological articles and in 2004 authored a book entitled, Why I am A Lutheran: Jesus at the Center. Rev. Preus holds a Master of Sacred Theology degree in the field of historical theology.
Here is a hymn for today from English insurance agent and hymnist William Chatterton Dix, who died on this day in 1898 at Clifton, England (b. June 14 1837):
1. Like silver lamps in a distant shrine,
The stars are sparkling bright
The bells of the city of God ring out,
For the Son of Mary is1 born to-night.
The gloom is past and the morn at last
Is coming with orient light.
2. Never fell melodies half so sweet2
As those which are filling the skies,
And never a palace shone half so fair
As the manger-bed where our Saviour lies;
No night in the year is half so dear
As this which has ended our sighs.
3. Now a new Power has come on the earth,
A match for the armies of Hell:
A Child is born who shall conquer the foe,
And all the spirits of wickedness quell:
For Mary’s Son is the Mighty One
Whom the prophets of God foretell.
4. The stars of heaven still shine as at first
They gleamed on this wonderful night;
The bells of the city of God peal out
And the angels’ song still rings in the height,
And love still turns where the Godhead burns
Hid in flesh from fleshly sight.
5. Faith sees no longer the stable floor,
The pavement of sapphire is there
The clear light of heaven streams out to the world
And the angels of God are crowding the air,
And heaven and earth through the spotless birth
Are at peace on this night so fair.
Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.
Here is a hymn for today from pioneer Danish theologian NFS Grundtvig, who was born on this day in 1783. To learn more visit the Center for Grundtvig Studies at Aarhus University.
Peace, to soothe our bitter woes,
God in Christ on us bestows;
Jesus bought our peace with God
with his holy, precious blood;
peace in him for sinners found
is the gospel’s joyful sound.
Peace within the church still dwells
in our welcomes and farewells;
and through God’s baptismal pow’r
peace surrounds our dying hour.
Peace be with you, full and free,
now and through eternity.
CLCC Evangelism, Outreach & Assimilation Seminar What: A seminar that brings the teaching of vocation and the work of the Holy Spirit and back into the practice of outreach Who Should Attend: Everybody in your church interested in confessional church growth through the process of evangelism, outreach, and retention of new members through good assimilation practices. Learn how these three important topics fit together in unison to meet the mission of the church (Matt. 28:19, 20) and spiritual growth (John 8:31). Agenda: Opening followed by: Copies of the seminar flier, bulletin insert/registration can be obtained by email from Gene White at CLCC.Treas@douglasfast.net
Confessional Lutherans for Christ’s Commission is putting on an evangelism seminar. Here are the details:
When: October 17, 2009
Where: Redeemer Lutheran Church, 36-01 Bell Blvd, Bayside, NY 11361
Time: Reg. 9:00am, start at 10:00 and end at 3:30 pm
Lunch will be provided Noon to 1:00 pm
Session 1 - Reasons for a Church
Session 2 - Intro to Evangelism and Outreach
Session 3 - Assimilation
Session 4 - Action Plan
Speaker: Gene White, CLCC lay Instr.
More Info: Contact the church at 718-229-5770, Pr. Brian Hammer at 718-770-8291, or Matt Jamison at 212-770-8291
Coming up in Early October, the Concordia Historical Institute will be sponsoring a conference on Archives and History entitled “Telling the Church’s Story.” From the CHI blog:
The 30th biennial Conference on Archives and History, sponsored by the Institute, will take place on October 1–3, 2009, on the campus of Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis. Special features of this year’s conference include a series of lectures on Wilhelm Loehe, F. C. D. Wyneken and C. F. W. Walther. The 200th anniversaries of the birth of these leading figures in 19th-century Lutheranism occur between 2008 and 2011. Other highlights of the conference program include a tour of the new CHI Museum at the LCMS International Center and a workshop on congregational records and history on Saturday morning, October 3. Click here for more details and registration information.
Here is the handout, from Bob and Cathy Mattson, for the 15th Sunday in Pentecost:
True theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ. --Martin Luther, Heidelberg Disputation, Article 20
Franz Friday 