As for me and my house, this is not the essence of Lutheranism

Dale M. Coulter has a short and interesting article at the First Thoughts blog entitled: “The Problem of Constructive Protestantism”.

A good one from Niebuhr: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

In a follow-up post he titles “The Essence of Protestantism?”, Lutheran blogger Gene Veith notes that “For Niebuhr, the essence of Protestantism is the unmediated relationship between the individual and God’s Word.  The issue then becomes how Protestantism can create or even support institutions.”

He goes on to quote a good chunk of Coulter’s piece. The bold is mine:

“For Niebuhr, Protestantism was always a revitalizing movement grounded in the kingdom of God as “the apprehension of God’s primacy, immediacy, and nearness.” It presupposed the divine initiative in the life of every person without the need for mediation. Justification was the Word’s direct address to the soul in which, as Luther put it, “the Word infused its qualities.” Hence the freedom of a Christian was grounded upon the free initiative of God. On this basis, Protestants could question all institutional forms of mediation as falling short of the living Word of God who called such institutions to account, whether they were ecclesiastical or political. They could stand on scripture alone as the Word’s final address to fallen human beings.

Having announced the freedom of the Christian in the immediacy of the kingdom of God, Protestantism emancipated persons from all forms of institutional authority. It went further, however, and placed prophetic criticism in their hands by declaring them all priests who received directly from the living Word. While Niebuhr differentiated this prophetic mode of Protestantism from medieval mysticism, it was in fact the mystics’ conception of an unmediated union with God taken as a doctrinal presupposition. This is the importance of the connection between the early Luther and the Rhineland mystics like Johann Tauler, or between Luther, Calvin, and Bernard of Clairvaux. It could also be viewed in the Radical Reformers insistence on the new birth as a powerful baptism in the Spirit.

The Protestant principle, as Niebuhr conceived it, “was not self-organizing but threatened anarchy in every sphere of life.” Having proclaimed the sole authority of the Word of God to rule the Church and the world, the immediate question was, “how so?”—a question Protestants have been debating ever since. This was another way of declaring the problem of a constructive principle within Protestantism. Niebuhr saw facing this problem as returning to the early Christian attempt to formulate a way to live in a world both under the sovereign rule of God and corrupted and in rebellion against God.

This is very interesting stuff. I recently came across a quotation from Bruce McCormack, a Presbyterian theologian who focuses on modern theology (particularly Karl Bath), that would seem to fit with the Niebuhr quote like hand in glove:

“The Reformers’ forensic understanding of justification … the idea of an immediate divine imputation [of righteousness] renders superfluous the entire Catholic system of the priestly mediation of grace by the Church.” — (Bruce McCormack, What’s at Stake in the Current Debates over Justification, from Husbands and Treier’s “Justification”, pg 82.)

So I wonder: is this the essence of the Reformed faith? Does the idea of the sovereignty of God go hand in hand with this focus on the individual vis a vis the institution of the Church (think of marriage as an institution, or as some Orthodox say: “not an organization with mystery but a mystery with organization”)?

If so, I can see how some might think the same thing about even serious Lutheranism. After all, didn’t Coulter quote Luther saying much the same thing as McCormack? I would argue that confessional Lutheranism is worlds away from this. It is not focused on the personal relationship with God even as it is keen to point out a) the difficult and sacrificial role of the prophetic individual (think Girard a bit here) in the institution of the church, and b) that theology is for proclamation, and hence the preaching of this word to individual sinners must be taken into account.

Lutherans must insist that the Christian faith cannot be based on the individual and his relationship with God. If it were, then in effect there could be no other person who could in real confidence tell you, in your time of despair, that Christ really does forgive and save even you. In other words, they are not only saying to you that “good works are not necessary for salvation” (listen to this podcast by Jordan Cooper on Mark Jone’s book about antinomianism) but that the appropriation of Christian faith does not ultimately depend on you, the naked individual before God.  

Rather, it is given. Therefore, we even have pastors – irreplaceable in the church’s structure – who as God’s officially appointed representatives can bring true comfort to even the most authority-minded person:

“Almighty God in His mercy has given His Son to die for you and for His sake forgives you all your sins.  As a called and ordained servant of the Word,  I therefore forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

“To even the most authority-minded persons” – yes, that would be Martin Luther, as I argued in my series “The Coming Vindication of Martin Luther”. Luther realized that this kind of thing needed to happen in institutional of Christ’s church, where the means of grace were to be delivered in all of their richness: the regular preaching of the Word and the administration of baptism and the Supper (see here if you are Reformed) – really and truly for forgiveness, life and salvation.

Coulter writes of these “Protestants”:

“Christians must give their answers in each historical moment by faith alone, an act that occurs amidst the tension between life in the invisible communion of the saints and the fact that no visible institution embodies that communion fully. It is to live, most of all, before the Word whose free initiative brings freedom.”

I cannot speak for those in the Reformed camp. As for my house, audacious as it sounds, the church of confessional Lutheranism has always claimed to be a true visible church. I like to put it this way: we don’t need to insist that every other communion out there is not this, but that we only know this one to be fully so. 

FIN

Image credit: www.philipvickersfithian.com

 

 

How to see a ghost or how to play with fire?

click here for more on this book

A comment to Rod Dreher regarding his post “How to see a ghost”:

Rod,

…[You said:]

“I should make it perfectly clear that I don’t subscribe to the pagan, animistic metaphysic Ross describes, but that it’s interesting to me to observe how much this overall outlook tracks with Orthodox Christianity and its belief in panentheism, which teaches that God is immanent in all creation. I have had trouble articulating to my Western Christian friends why Orthodoxy is so different from their way of experiencing life in Christ, but believe it or not, this focus on intuition is so consonant with what I’ve experienced.”

First of all, I appreciate what you say here.  There is a lot to it I think, and it is worthy of very serious reflection by more Western (evidently post-Dante!) Christians.

That said, I am a bit concerned with other aspects of your post here.  It seems that you could just as easily have titled “How to play with fire”.  Now I do not deny that there might really be ghosts (I always think about how the disciples thought Jesus was one walking on the water)- and again, I understand the wider point about our capacity for receptivity of the spiritual you are making – but I am also concerned about promoting an interest in these things that is more or less uncritical.

Do you remember how C.S. Lewis talked about the two opposite errors regarding demons: 1) don’t take them seriously ; and 2) unhealthy interest in them.

Now – is there a connection between ghosts and demons?  At the very least, I think this is likely true in many cases.  The Scriptures do say that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light – why not friendly and familiar spirits?  I do think that he is happy whenever he can pull us away from a focus on Christ as the center and meaning and hope in all things.

I’ve been listening to a series of interviews by the author of a book called “I am not afraid”.  The author is a traditional Lutheran pastor who has studied the crazy growth of the Lutheran church – traditionally liturgical! – in Madagascar (5 million serious Lutherans there).  He speaks of how the people there often feel that they are in bondage to the spirits of their ancestors, and must work to appease them and get their help.  When the Gospel comes about Christ’s deliverance from sin, death and the devil, many come to see their “ancestors” as imposter demons who simply kept them in spiritual (as well as economical) bondage.

Worth considering.  Here is a link to those interviews: http://issuesetc.org/guest/robert-bennett/

Blessings to you Rod.

+Nathan

UPDATE: I don’t think most Orthodox theologians would characterize E.O. belief as panentheism

 

Put not your trust in men? Overcoming the Cretan’s paradox in Christ

Epimenides was a Cretan who made one immortal statement: “All Cretans are liars.” — Wikipedia

“[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man” (Psalm 118:8) indeed.  And remember “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.” (Psalm 146:3).  And did the Psalmist also not admit “I said in my alarm, ‘All mankind are liars.'” (116:11)?

Yes, it’s not just the Cretans who have a problem!  “Let God be true and every man a liar!” (Romans 3)

Yes.  But. 

In a post the other day, I spoke about how it is unavoidable that we must trust men (this is also a theme I have talked about frequently, particularly here, here, here and here)

Specifically, I said this:

*unavoidably*, we really do trust the men *who urge us not to trust in men* (for example, Exodus 15:31 says, “And when the Israelites saw the great power the Lord displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant”), but to stay with the divinely revealed faith once delivered to all the saints – which means perpetually fleeing back to the Scriptures to test all things, particularly those things that seem wrong or unfamiliar (Isaiah 8:20, Acts 17:11)!

In other words, talking about “trusting God and not men” is, once again, “useful shorthand”.  Again, in truth, more nuance is possible – and necessary – for many Christians.

Years ago, I had this thought as well (original post):

…because “ecclesiology is Christology” (Kurt Marquart) those in the Church have faith in God through the Church (if not directly, then indirectly).  For cradle Lutherans, faithful saints gave them the life-creating Promise from their childhood.  And yet, in “Cretan’s paradox” fashion, as we grow, we ultimately become more and more aware that “all men are liars” (those passing on the Promise to us may have even emphasized this point to us: that they, as lying sinners, must depend on Christ!), but that God’s grace still breaks through in the midst of all of this.  Christ is in our midst!  In fact, He comes precisely because of this work of Satan: namely, the problem of original sin that infects us all!  So indeed, here we have a great paradox: as we grow in our faith, we become more certain regarding the Promise itself – the Promise Himself – than the love and integrity of any man – and of anything else in the whole creation.

And yet, we as Christians also may trust in men more than any other man. (even as there is much distrust among Christians – so much so that we may insist it is necessarily true that unity assumed is unity denied). This is what I will explore in-depth in the rest of this post.

According to Lutheran historian Martin Noland*, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe – whose “organic inner unity” and “organic powers” (Herder) idea of “development” would compete with the one of Darwin’s which confined itself to ‘mechanics’ as a mode of explanation – contended that that “scientific theories create the reality which they describe” and that “truth” is “already decided when the scientific community determines which experiences are normative” (pp. 170-180, italics mine). Noland notes that when it comes to the ultimate issue of authority, the influential argument of Ernst Troeltsch must actually be reduced to ad hominem argumentation, where the competent scholars that he lists are the ones to trust (p. 85).

My argument would be that we all are ultimately reduced to trust, as we must at all times choose between competing wise men / scholars who appear to know their topic well and, from our less educated perspective, seem to be highly competent. In other words, we may want to say about all this that it is not really about persons, but this is actually unavoidable. And this necessity goes for the educated among us as well as the uneducated. The idea of the historicist that we need to focus on the “cultural whole” is indeed worthy of serious reflection (for example: are points of Christian doctrine better taught in story form, and not just particular “Bible stories” but the whole narrative of creation, redemption and consummation? ), but we still must ask which account – which worldview and corresponding method of world-inquiry – and which person in whom we hear and see these things – we must trust.

Kant, who may today be considered a conservative Enlightenment figure, is well known for defining the Enlightenment in the following way:

[Enlightenment is] “ the emergence of man from his self-imposed infancy. Infancy is the inability to use one’s reason without the guidance of another. It is self-imposed, when it depends on a deficiency, not of reason, but of the resolve and courage to use it without external guidance. Thus the watchword of enlightenment is: Sapere aude! Have the courage to use one’s own reason!’” (Immanuel Kant, 1784).

As I said about this quote a few years ago:

“If I question my spiritual inheritance in Christ – and even turn away – it is not because I used my own understanding apart from other influences.  It is because I choose to turn away from one Person and to trust another.  If I don’t realize that this is happening I only reveal that I shun adulthood, embrace childishness, and dwell in darkness.

It is important to learn to “think for one’s self”.  At the same time, if “[man’s infancy] is the inability to use one’s reason without the guidance of another”, we never become adults who can become like little children.” (see full context here ; also see part II here)

“…you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.”

Let me try to explain more fully what I insisted on there. It seems to me that what some persons – mostly on the Enlightenment’s left – have always noticed is that in spite of “ad hominem” concerns, answers to life’s questions often must come down to arguments from personal authorities – even if they will never simply come out and say this (hence the importance of the “science” of “higher criticism” – this is really a facade). For them, one must trust in the right men – who, incidently it seems, may be said to know the “mind of God” (as we see first expressed by men like Humboldt and Hegel, implicitly and explicitly respectively – it seems to me that the “Muses” have seized men like these with their Christ-denying “insights”!).

Now one might counter by saying that of course people are a part of the equation here – and specific authoritative persons in particular – but that these people generally don’t point to themselves (and their own education and character) as the reason to trust what they say. This is true not only because we know it is considered bad form (do note how the Apostle Paul argues though), but also because when they attempt to assert or persuade by giving reasons they indeed point to things outside themselves, and not just any things but specific evidence they are willing to recognize as relevant in this or that way that is embedded in and explained by authoritative narratives (even though in this process they must certainly use their own senses, well-informed opinions, inferences, and guesswork, things the 19^th historicist Humboldt emphasized).

And yet, some may feel that these stories – even if there is nothing which speaks against them – may not be able to be verified by a preponderance of evidence that points to a specific account being true beyond a shadow of a doubt – or even a reasonable one. But is each man supposed to make this determination himself – perhaps by forming his own “science of history” and trying to overturn all the important rocks himself – or must there always necessarily be some level of a personal element – i.e. trust – involved? So what again is the key element, even as all of the factors are undoubtedly important?  Logically, the “argument from authority” cannot be avoided.   Therefore, we insist that the key element is the One True God – the divine Persons of the Trinity and their authority – even as in general the Godhead chooses to work in harmony with human beings and their authority, based not only on their competence but their actual character.  This is a character that can be dependable in spite of its imperfections and can be discerned by men – albeit imperfectly. Not only this, but this character will always clearly deny that man is the measure of all things and will rather affirm that the world and all that is in it ought to be governed on the basis of trust – and in fact necessarily is (whether to merely survive or thrive – that is, be like the plant in Psalm 2 that grows by the river – as they say)!   This can’t be denied! One might even say that this trust derives from the Trinity itself, as the Godhead holds all things together by the power of its word, whereby man might live and move and have his being in God in the world.

Martin Luther would not have liked me saying this, but when I am tempted to doubt my faith, it is not only his words – words he always tried to speak in line with God’s Word – but his very person that gives me comfort – in spite of the fact that I have only “known him” through his writings. And I believe that is by God’s design.

My main concern about trying to fit Christianity with modern thought-forms is that we can see how actual historical events passed on by persons whom we trust will always take a back seat – and it seems to me, become altogether irrelevant.   And this is why we needy sheep need – no matter how great our education in languages, philosophy and the sciences – to depend on the Holy Spirit Jesus speaks of, who has given us Scriptures for our security (Luke 2) and comfort (see Rom. 15) and also interprets them with, in, and for us. The Spirit’s character is flawless, even as ours is perpetually flawed, confused, and at odds with one another. Luther rightly wanted to trust in both God and the Roman Catholic Church who was to speak for him. And he believed that God would provide for His people through a church that would be willingly corrected – until he simply could no longer believe this. Simply put, Luther’s skepticism was earned, and did not come willingly.** Of course, the same cannot be said for all the “Protestants” who have come after him (see Noland’s comments about the necessity of skepticism and criticism as regards post-apostolic traditions on p. 251, also see his comments on pp. 314-316). For some of them, skepticism has been raised in prominence to a methodological principle. But, as Luther reminded Erasmus, the Holy Spirit it no skeptic, but rather is an Authoritative Person who can bring us the reliable knowledge we need.

Indeed. Again, to say that we are to trust in no man but God does not mean that we are not required to trust in God through His faithful servants. It is not only that we have no choice to do this – especially in these last days – but rather that one aspect of Christians is that they are those who can trust one another better than most, for they ultimately know that their Lord has their back and guides history in His Providence. Now it is indeed the case that God may convert any man through the word alone in spite of the spiritual knowledge and character of the one who preaches. This however, does not mean that having a sanctified clergy and church is unimportant or not to be the regular means of the means of grace.   It is one thing to come to faith and another to keep it when doubt comes, as it certainly will – men of the greatest knowledge, sensitivity, and integrity have always been needed in the church.

Some might think that I am trying to “naturalize” what is “supernatural”. Do not get me wrong: I think that it can be very helpful for us in the Lutheran church to indeed talk about faith as a “supernatural” thing. That however, is because many Christians understand this term to mean something that comes from above, not because it is something understood to be at odds with things as they must ordinarily (i.e. “natural” in this sense) transpire in our lives. In other words, in talking about faith in the way we do – that is being a gift from God that we cannot achieve by our own powers – we do not thereby abandon what we know about the trust that exists in normal, everyday life.   Christian faith is not opposed to this, but goes hand in hand with this! It is not merely analogous to the ordinary trust we experience among human beings, but rather cannot be separated from this. Therefore, for example, when we talk about the faith the Holy Spirit creates through the content of the Scriptures, we speak about how that happens through the very normal reception of those words, which we simply assume – trust! – that we are able to understand (what some have called, in a move that seems overly rationalistic to me, the “historical-grammatical” method – see here for more about how God uses our regular reading to create and nurture faith – “Scripture interpreting scripture” only makes sense in this context). Likewise, when we talk about being receptive to the message of the Gospel that we received, this generally happens through the normal human event of one person trusting another, where there is no good reason for skepticism, as it simply has not been earned.

Back to the quote from above from one of the brightest Enlightenment lights. Kant was brilliant. Kant was foolish.   These statements are both true, and they apply to the Enlightenment – a highly intellectual species of Christian heresy – more than any one person.   Noland points out that Troeltsch, like most all Western intellectuals, adopted a form of the fact/value split (formally put forth by David Hume in the late 18^th c.), where naturalism (rationalism and empiricism come along here) views the world through the lens of “regularity” and “quantity” and historicism (romanticism comes along here) views the world on the basis of “quality” and “subjective experience” (p. 46) Noland himself says that the historicist Dilthey’s “method of historical knowledge is proper and objective, but only if there actually are organic powers that unite cultures and epochs through an inner genetic principle and direct a culture’s growth” (italics his, p. 220, 221). Of course for some Christians they would probably say that it is faith in Christ – as it was for Harnack – that makes this knowledge proper. It is probably a null issue, seeing as how such an “inner genetic principle” could never be proven by scientific means, but I still wonder about the concession Noland makes here – and I wonder this because of the way it seems to concede the role of modern critical history (is the only good historian the one who is the constant critic and skeptic, or is there something to be said about studying the past out of love simply without necessarily needing to have a critical attitude?) and its roll over human trust – whether that be in oral tradition, family histories and local histories.*** Do we as Christians not think – more than anyone else – that some people – people we know to be great examples of learning, holiness, and discernment – have yet to earn our distrust – even as we know them to be sinners? (where perhaps their self-awareness of this fact only helps us to trust them as we trust God?)

Indeed we do. Life is about trust, history is about trust, and in Christ, the Cretan’s paradox is overcome.

More on what this means in coming posts where I will talk about how we should go about proclaiming the world-saving – and world-shaping – deeds of Jesus Christ for the salvation of all.

FIN

* Over last Christmas break, I tacked the PhD. Dissertation of the respected confessional Lutheran apologist and historian Dr. Martin Noland, Harnack’s historicism: the genesis, development, and institutionalization of historicism and its expression in the thought of Adolf Von Harnack (1996). Noland had suggested persons read a number of works, including this dissertation, so as to help them have more historical context for understanding one of Concordia seminary professor Jeffrey Kloha’s recent papers. The dissertation is available through ProQuest dissertations and so can be readily obtained from most academic library databases. Right away I was hooked and intrigued with Dr. Noland’s ambitious work, because he seemed to “fill in” many of the gaps that have existed in my own knowledge of intriguing topics such as these(see my own rather ambitious series “What Athens needs from Jerusalem”).

** For Luther, it would seem that the book of James (and some others) “earned his distrust”.  That said, I think that we really do need to take into consideration the context in which Luther was operating, where his theological opponents were really misusing those books.  Later Lutherans were able to see these as also being Christ-centered and Spirit-inspired.  In any case, Lutherans like Martin Chemnitz were right to highlight the reality of “Antilegomena” in the church – and to insist that these books should not be able to help determine doctrine without the help of other books (at the very least out of sensitivity towards believers who while holding orthodox beliefs were nevertheless unable to fully embrace such books as being Scriptural). 

*** At one point Noland also writes that “Harnack demonstrated his awareness of the difference between historical evidence and religious experience” (around pp. 250-260). I am not comfortable talking about this as being something that persons can be aware of because that seems to imply to me that these things, while they are clearly able to be distinguished, do not belong together and in fact go hand in hand.   It seems to me that for Adolf Von Harnak and his house, they will uphold their community’s experience of the historical man Jesus Christ, who they certainly feel exemplifies the pinnacle of morality and goodness and is the greatest and most compelling religious figure whoever lived! As for me and my house, we will continue to assert that the Word of God – and those who put forth its account of history – which goes hand in hand with its particular teachings – demands our unwavering trust. All men listen to teachers who shape and form them, and the doctrine is always in the drama, or history, whether we are speaking of the true narrative or one of the myriad false narratives.

Versus Harnack – whose whole theological framework seems to me to resemble some kind of an elite Hindu approach [with a focus on philosophy and the oneness the gods share rather than popular piety focused on polytheism and rituals] – I do not deny that the “personality” of Jesus Christ will often have a role in a person’s personal conversion, but I cannot simply see Jesus as a great religious figure – the greatest and apex of religious figures – of whom the actual history is not clear and not able to be trusted in (again, Harnack does not really provide a defense of Christian faith as the truth, but rather a defense of the influence of the man Jesus and its ongoing significance for good. I believe that the Scriptures are indeed a reliable history, even as they might not be majority history that most everyone readily accepted without difficulty (and that may have much corroborating physical evidence), but rather a “minority report”, or what is today being called a “microhistory”. More on that in the near future

Images:

Wikipedia: Epimenides ; holding hands: http://www.speareducation.com/spear-review/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/holding-hands.jpg ; nursing:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/55628191@N04/6511657459/

 

Lutheran convert from Orthodoxy Christopher Jones on scripture and tradition

“I am always encouraging you to pay attention not only to what is said here in church, but also, when you are at home, to continue constantly in the practice of reading the divine Scriptures. . . For it is not possible, not possible for anyone to be saved who does not constantly have the benefit of spiritual reading.” (from here ; see also here)

I have been a bit disappointed that my recent post responding to Father Freeman’s piece did not provoke any discussion here or there.*  I really would like to hear what some informed and intelligent Christian people think about what I wrote, but perhaps there are a good number of folks who do not think much of it.

Moving on, here is something else that might be of interest to some in the confessional Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox worlds:  comments made by Christopher Jones on the fine Lutheran blog Pastoral Meanderings, in response to Pastor Peter’s post about “The Sources of Sola Scriptura”.  Christopher Jones is a convert from Eastern Orthodoxy to confessional Lutheranism:

“The Lutheran insistence on the supreme authority of Scripture does not mean that the other witnesses to the Church’s Tradition are of no authority whatsoever, nor does it mean that it is necessary, desirable, or even possible to read and understand the Holy Scriptures apart from those other witnesses to the Tradition, or outside the context of the ongoing liturgical life of the Church. The Lutheran understanding of the authority of Scripture is that, within the context of the ongoing life of the Church, and among all of the various witnesses to the Church’s Tradition, the Holy Scriptures are of supreme authority.….

As to the [tendency of Catholics and Orthodox to minimize the authority of Scripture that is witnessed to by the Fathers], I yield to no man in my insistence that the Holy Tradition of the Apostolic Church is the reliable means by which we receive saving truth. But that very Tradition itself witnesses to the centrality of Holy Scriptures among the various witnesses to the Tradition. The testimony of the Fathers to the supreme authority of Scripture (so often cited by Lutherans) is authentic and cannot be gainsaid. The Fathers’ testimony to the authority of Tradition cannot be pitted against their testimony to the authority of Scripture. Instead their testimony to the authority of Tradition must be understood as defining the context within which Scripture is supreme — but within which Scripture must be read.

When I was Orthodox, Dr Golitzin (now Bishop Alexander of Toledo) taught us that the Holy Scriptures are “the pre-eminent and normative witness to the Apostolic Tradition.” I have no qualms about affirming that statement as a Lutheran. And I fear that some of my Catholic and Orthodox friends tend to minimize the word “normative” in that quotation.”

I would argue with Christopher about one of his points a bit – we had a brief discussion here (in the comments) about the word “possible” in the first paragraph above. I would be welcome to that conversation continuing if Mr. Jones has the time.

That said, I want to point out where Christopher and myself are in firm agreement.  Yes, sometimes confessional Lutherans might seem to talk as if faithful tradition does not matter (the useful shorthand of “Scripture alone” for example).  But who are the clergy – the “office of the ministry” – if not the captains of the faithful “traditioners”?  Faithful persons have always been necessary – to record the Scriptures, to faithfully pass them down, and to explain as we are able – as we have been given to do – the mysteries of the faith.  

But one might object: Is it not most certainly true that God has warned us against trust in man?  And is it also not most certainly true that He never exhorts us to trust in another fallen human being?

Yes – it is indeed.  And yet, as I recently noted in the comments section of another blog:

*unavoidably*, we really do trust the men *who urge us not to trust in men* (for example, Exodus 15:31 says, “And when the Israelites saw the great power the Lord displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant”), but to stay with the divinely revealed faith once delivered to all the saints – which means perpetually fleeing back to the Scriptures to test all things, particularly those things that seem wrong or unfamiliar (Isaiah 8:20, Acts 17:11)!

So, in Luther and others like him, we really do hear the Shepherd’s voice.  I urge you to give him your ear.

In other Lutheran/Eastern Orthodox news… people can check out the fine podcast by Lutheran pastor Jordan Cooper (convert from Calvinism), where he intelligently discusses and critiques former Lutheran pastor John Genig’s First Things article about his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy.

FIN

*UPDATE: On Father Freeman’s blog he wrote to me: “I posted a reply to your article but it seems to have not appeared.”

“The Lutheran insistence on the supreme authority of Scripture does not mean that the other witnesses to the Church’s Tradition are of no authority whatsoever, nor does it mean that it is necessary, desirable, or even possible to read and understand the Holy Scriptures apart from those other witnesses to the Tradition, or outside the context of the ongoing liturgical life of the Church. The Lutheran understanding of the authority of Scripture is that, within the context of the ongoing life of the Church, and among all of the various witnesses to the Church’s Tradition, the Holy Scriptures are of supreme authority…..As to the second point, I yield to no man in my insistence that the Holy Tradition of the Apostolic Church is the reliable means by which we receive saving truth. But that very Tradition itself witnesses to the centrality of Holy Scriptures among the various witnesses to the Tradition. The testimony of the Fathers to the supreme authority of Scripture (so often cited by Lutherans) is authentic and cannot be gainsaid. The Fathers’ testimony to the authority of Tradition cannot be pitted against their testimony to the authority of Scripture. Instead their testimony to the authority of Tradition must be understood as defining the context within which Scripture is supreme — but within which Scripture must be read.When I was Orthodox, Dr Golitzin (now Bishop Alexander of Toledo) taught us that the Holy Scriptures are “the pre-eminent and normative witness to the Apostolic Tradition.” I have no qualms about affirming that statement as a Lutheran. And I fear that some of my Catholic and Orthodox friends tend to minimize the word “normative” in that quotation.” – See more at: http://pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-sources-of-sola-scriptura.html#sthash.ZBw6YR3E.dpuf

“The Lutheran insistence on the supreme authority of Scripture does not mean that the other witnesses to the Church’s Tradition are of no authority whatsoever, nor does it mean that it is necessary, desirable, or even possible to read and understand the Holy Scriptures apart from those other witnesses to the Tradition, or outside the context of the ongoing liturgical life of the Church. The Lutheran understanding of the authority of Scripture is that, within the context of the ongoing life of the Church, and among all of the various witnesses to the Church’s Tradition, the Holy Scriptures are of supreme authority…..As to the second point, I yield to no man in my insistence that the Holy Tradition of the Apostolic Church is the reliable means by which we receive saving truth. But that very Tradition itself witnesses to the centrality of Holy Scriptures among the various witnesses to the Tradition. The testimony of the Fathers to the supreme authority of Scripture (so often cited by Lutherans) is authentic and cannot be gainsaid. The Fathers’ testimony to the authority of Tradition cannot be pitted against their testimony to the authority of Scripture. Instead their testimony to the authority of Tradition must be understood as defining the context within which Scripture is supreme — but within which Scripture must be read.When I was Orthodox, Dr Golitzin (now Bishop Alexander of Toledo) taught us that the Holy Scriptures are “the pre-eminent and normative witness to the Apostolic Tradition.” I have no qualms about affirming that statement as a Lutheran. And I fear that some of my Catholic and Orthodox friends tend to minimize the word “normative” in that quotation.” – See more at: http://pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-sources-of-sola-scriptura.html#sthash.ZBw6YR3E.dpuf

“The Lutheran insistence on the supreme authority of Scripture does not mean that the other witnesses to the Church’s Tradition are of no authority whatsoever, nor does it mean that it is necessary, desirable, or even possible to read and understand the Holy Scriptures apart from those other witnesses to the Tradition, or outside the context of the ongoing liturgical life of the Church. The Lutheran understanding of the authority of Scripture is that, within the context of the ongoing life of the Church, and among all of the various witnesses to the Church’s Tradition, the Holy Scriptures are of supreme authority…..As to the second point, I yield to no man in my insistence that the Holy Tradition of the Apostolic Church is the reliable means by which we receive saving truth. But that very Tradition itself witnesses to the centrality of Holy Scriptures among the various witnesses to the Tradition. The testimony of the Fathers to the supreme authority of Scripture (so often cited by Lutherans) is authentic and cannot be gainsaid. The Fathers’ testimony to the authority of Tradition cannot be pitted against their testimony to the authority of Scripture. Instead their testimony to the authority of Tradition must be understood as defining the context within which Scripture is supreme — but within which Scripture must be read.When I was Orthodox, Dr Golitzin (now Bishop Alexander of Toledo) taught us that the Holy Scriptures are “the pre-eminent and normative witness to the Apostolic Tradition.” I have no qualms about affirming that statement as a Lutheran. And I fear that some of my Catholic and Orthodox friends tend to minimize the word “normative” in that quotation.” – See more at: http://pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-sources-of-sola-scriptura.html#sthash.ZBw6YR3E.dpuf

 

Is the trouble with reading Scripture really that almost everybody thinks they can do it?: another response to Father Stephen Freeman

It seems to me that one of the great battles of the church in the years to come will be over whether the literal sense of Scripture is to be respected. After all, is it not often downplayed, minimized, and even subtlely undermined – even if this is done unintentionally?  See, for example, this post regarding Stanley Hauerwas’ intentionally provocative idea that we need to keep the Scriptures from the rabble.

Once again, the Eastern Orthodox blogger Father Stephen Freeman has put up a post that is full of food for thought regarding the Scriptures: “Making Known the Mystery”.  And once again, I am responding here (see the first response here): the title of this post comes from the opening statement of Freeman’s most recent one.  I think much that he has written there is excellent and worthy of deep reflection, even as I must balk when he insists, for example, that “all literalisms seek to rid Scripture of its mystery”, and “[such readings do] not transform or transfigure anyone or anything”.

Of course he also says “This is not to deny that the Scriptures have a value on the literal level”, but I for one, struggle to understand what kind of value he thinks they have. After all, he immediately goes on to say “the hiddenness of the gospel is precisely that – hidden beneath the literal level”. Some questions that arise in my mind, for example, are these:

• “Cannot the Holy Spirit use words to reveal what is hidden on one level while there is mystery that remains”?

and

• “Must we insist that the Ethiopian eunuch, for example, would necessarily have been completely lost even if he had had the New Testament?”

I do not deny that there is much power behind Freeman’s critique of the role of the Western individual – perhaps especially the American individual – who he says being “unaided, unbridled, and unsubmitted, is the ultimate authority” (see his powerful follow-up post, “Again – The Sin of Democracy”, here)

And yet, as I have pointed out before, Freeman’s critique may “hit” some Protestants – even in their formal theologies – but confessional Lutherans, for one, really do not universally desire to be called “Protestants”. Again, as I noted at the end of my response to the Hauerwas comment, Lutherans such as Martin Chemnitz spoke of eight kinds of tradition that should be accepted. In truth, “Sola Scriptura”, just like “Scripture interprets Scripture”, is simply useful shorthand for matters that ultimately are more nuanced and really cannot be fully captured with those soundbytes.

Martin Luther certainly would have agreed that much of what was in the Scriptures – the “deeper meaning” Freeman quotes Andrew Louth talking about* – was hidden only to those with eyes to see. When he insisted that he saw “Christ on every page” of the Bible, he was obviously not insisting that any rank pagan could just pick up the book and see the same!

It seems to me that even persons claiming the Lutheran mantle have been taking steps that chip away at the importance of the literal meaning of the Scriptures and its corresponding clarity, or “perspicuity”. For example, the 19^th century Lutheran theologian Johann Von Hofmann (see here for more on him) essentially believed that persons without faith could not begin to understand God or faith. Really, how could such a person ever “do theology” rightly at all?  How could they be a Christian theologian?  Now, on the one hand of course there must be some truth here, but on the other hand we must be careful to go too far. For example, Matthew Becker says of Hofmann’s views that “all understanding and interpretation of the Christian faith is possible only on the ground of Christ’s living relationship with the individual, which forms the object of such faith”.**

We can’t go there.

It is true that historically Lutherans have believed that what would make such theology insufficient would not be a lack of knowledge about God (this knowledge, actually, may indeed be quite accurate), but not knowing God – knowledge of Him. On the other hand, Lutherans did not say that unbelieving persons could not begin to have an accurate knowledge of what God was like or His work in history. On the contrary, the idea is that many persons did in fact have this knowledge, even as they raged against the testimony of the Holy Spirit, that is the public testimony found in the Scriptures.    

The Lutheran reformer Philip Melanchton, writing in 1555, speaks of

“the frightful delusion of those who are scorners and hardened persecutors of the gospel, who continue in the Cain-like poisoned bitterness and rancor of their hate and rage against the truth. Neither sermons nor admonitions, supplications nor entreaties help; and although they are overwhelmed in their hearts and consciences by the public attestation of the Holy Spirit in Holy Scriptures and miracles, they do not cease justifying their godless doctrine and life” (Loci Communes, 1555, 1982 ed., p. 236)

Here is what the Lutherans confessed in the 1530 Augsburg Confession, which speaks to these matters in chapter XX:

“23] Men are also admonished that here the term “faith” does not signify merely the knowledge of the history, such as is in the ungodly and in the devil, but signifies a faith which believes, not merely the history, but also the effect of the history—namely, this article: the forgiveness of sins, to wit, that we have grace, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins through Christ.

24] Now he that knows that he has a Father gracious to him through Christ, truly knows God; he knows also that God cares for him, and calls upon God; in a word, he is not 25] without God, as the heathen. For devils and the ungodly are not able to believe this article: the forgiveness of sins. Hence, they hate God as an enemy, call not upon Him, 26] and expect no good from Him. Augustine also admonishes his readers concerning the word “faith,” and teaches that the term “faith” is accepted in the Scriptures not for knowledge such as is in the ungodly but for confidence which consoles and encourages the terrified mind.”

In other words, the Nicene Creed, for example, may be believed to be true, doctrinally, historically, etc – but the key question here is whether or not you believe it is *for you*.  Not in the sense that your believing makes it real – you have no influence over that! – but *in the sense* that we are talking about Christ’s forgiveness, life and salvation *for you*!

But here we come back to Father Freeman, and another question for him: is it only rationalistic literalists who think about such matters in this fashion? Or is my post really touching on something important for Christian life?

FIN

Tolle lege image: http://www.augustinianslimerick.com

*In the comments section of this post, Father Freeman says this: “I tended to shy away from the word “allegory” for many years, preferring the word “iconic.” That might still be a better choice because of baggage associated with allegory. My taking up the word came as a result of reading Fr. Andrew Louth’s treatment.”

**Hofmann as Ich-theologe? The Object of Theology in Johann von Hofmann’s Werke, Matthew Becker, Concordia Journal, July 2003, p. 265.

Update: this post was slightly altered for the purpose of clarification.

 

The contagion of Rationalism: new under the sun, circa 1650

René Descartes

Luc Ferry, philosopher of the University of Paris, summarizes Descartes’s importance:

“[Descartes] offers three new ideas, which make their appearance for the first time in the history of thought. These three ideas were destined for a remarkable posterity and they are of fundamental importance to modern philosophy.

First: each time Descartes stages a new drama of doubt, it is not merely an intellectual game; it aims to arrive at a new definition of truth… Thus a state of subjective consciousness – certainty – becomes nothing less than the new criterion of truth…

Second: even more decisively, in political and historical terms, was the idea of the tabular rasa – the absolute rejection of all preconceptions and all inherited beliefs deriving from tradition…

…[Descartes] declared that all past beliefs, all ideas inherited from family or state, or indoctrinated from infancy onwards by ‘authorities’ (masters, priests) must be cast into doubt, and examined in complete freedom by the individual subject. He alone is capable of deciding between true and false…

Third, an idea whose unprecedented revolutionary power in the age of Descartes is hard for us now to imagine: whereby we must reject all ‘arguments from authority.’ The expression ‘arguments from authority’ means all beliefs with a claim to absolute truth imposed externally by institutions endowed with powers that we have no right to dispute: family, schoolmasters, priest and so on…

The idea that one must accept an opinion because it is maintained by external authority, of whatever kind, became so repugnant to the Modern Spirit as to define Modernity”

(end quote ; italics from Martin Noland)

FIN

Luc Ferry, A Brief History of Thought: a Philosophical Guide to Living, trans. Theo Cuffe (New York: Harper Perennial, 2011), 129-32 ; quoted in Noland, Martin, “Why am I a Lutheran?”, in Propter Christum: Christ at the Center, pp. 240-241.

 

 

There is nothing better than boasting Christians

If God also fills his heart with joy (see Acts 14:17), what ultimately distinguishes us from Richard? (found via a Creative Commons Search in Flickr images for “joyful boasting”)

Properly understood.

Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches,  but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 9:23, 24)

And what does that look like more than anything else?:

“It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God – that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: Let him who boasts boast in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:30-31).

In case this isn’t clear yet:

But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (Galatians 6:14).

Going along with this, to the Corinthians Paul said:

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)

As well as…

I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 15:3-4)

And here I point to Ephesians 3:14-21, which is one of my favorite Bible passages:

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, ¹⁶ that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love,  may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us,to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

If that does not fill one’s heart with true and lasting joy – leading to joyful boasting that cannot stop – what will?

Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel. (Eph. 6:19)

Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. (Col. 4:5)

“Whenever I open my mouth”.  “The most of every opportunity”.  As that other great Apostle says,

If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ.(I Peter 4:11)

Yes – pray for more boasting and boastful Christians.

FIN

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/3987330279/

For one of my favorite Todd Wilken articles, connected with this topic, see here (“The Gospel in the Background”)

 

 

Given and shed for you, for the remission of sins… and faith like a child

Currently, I am discussing the Lord’s Supper with a recent Lutheran (LC-MS) convert who has started to have issues with our doctrine concerning the same. Evidently, even the great Lutheran theologian Herman Sasse’s great 20^th century book, “This is My Body”, has been unable to allay this man’s doubts.

Struggles like this about the Supper are not the only kind however. I have often wondered if many Protestants hold Lutheran beliefs regarding the Lord’s Supper in spite of their denominational label. Years ago, my evangelical friend who eventually became Eastern Orthodox told me that it wasn’t our doctrine of the Lord’s Supper that gave him trouble, but baptism. My father, who is a pastor, has told me about conversations he has had with several Baptists that indicate that they actually hold more Lutheran beliefs on the Supper.

I’ve always found this issue to be a real head-scratcher. As regards the matter of our Lord’s words on the night he was betrayed, why not take His very solemn words about this Supper in simple, child-like trust?  As can be seen in spades below, the early church fathers, in line with the Scriptures, seem to wholeheartedly agree – thanks be to God, orthodox antiquity is with us!  Again, why, during the Reformation, so much of Christendom should have abandoned the historical, biblical, sacramental beliefs of the Church is difficult for me to fathom (though see my post here about the Real reason there are no “Lutheran Baptists”)

It seems strange to me that any would desire to explain away the comforting words below. Might this have something to do with the way that some persons are determined to overstate the problems faced in the Reformation? For example, note words like these:

“The Reformers’ forensic understanding of justification … the idea of an immediate divine imputation [of righteousness] renders superfluous the entire Catholic system of the priestly mediation of grace by the Church.” — (Bruce McCormack, What’s at Stake in the Current Debates over Justification, from Husbands and Treier’s “Justification”, pg 82.)

Do not the called and ordained servants of the Lord administer God’s grace in its various fashions – not only in Word but in the Sacraments – with their important particularities – as well?  Does it not do all of us well to realize that the extreme political currents of the Reformation – the concern to face the very real political power of the Roman church (see here for example) – may have perhaps resulted in a bit of an overreaction in some quarters?  As Luther said, we are like a drunk man who falls off the horse on one side only to get back on and to fall off the horse on the other side….

Ambrose, in On Those Who Are Initiated, ch. 9, distinguishes the manna of the Old Testament from the Lord’s Supper: “Consider, he says, whether the bread of angels is better, or the flesh of Christ, which certainly is a body of life.”He concludes with these words: “The light is better than the shadow; the truth better than the figure; the body of Christ than the bread from heaven.” (see also Jerome on Titus, chapter 1; also Cyril, On John, bk. 4, ch. 28; Augustine, Book of Questions, qu. 95; Ambrose, On 1 Cor. 10). Chrysostom (I Cor. 11) and Cyril of Alexandria (On John, bk. 4, ch. 13) believe it is certain that that very thing which flowed from the side of Lord is present in the chalice of the Lord. They refused to ask how.  Also, “Theodoret, in his Dialogues 1 and 2, calls the bread symbol and sign, but in the same way as there are two natures in Christ, so there is also in the Supper the bread and the body of Christ. He here understands it by no means to be a sign of the absent body… but of the true, present body of Christ.” (see also Cyril, On John, bk. 3, ch. 36, bk. 4, ch. 14 and 17, bk. 10, ch. 13, bk. 11, ch. 26-27 ; Augustine, in his Confessions, bk. 7, ch. 10 ; Tertullian, in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh ; Chrysostom, Homily 24 on 1 Cor., Homily 83 on Matthew ; and Hilary, On the Trinity, bk. 8)

… And Justin, Apology 2; Cyprian, Sermon on the Supper; Ambrose, On Those Being Initiated; Augustine, in the Sentences of Prosper; Chrysostom, To Caesarius the Monk, and Gelasius, Against Eutyches, as well as Theodoret, in his Dialogues, introduce the example of the union of the two natures in Christ and adapt it to the sacramental union of the bread and the body of Christ, as is seen in their writings.

These quotes from and about the early church fathers – above and below – are culled from the Apology to the Book of Concord* (unpublished as of today, translated by Dr. Holger Sonntag), and need to be reckoned with. Here are some more (there may be some repeats):

-Ignatius, in his Letter to the Smyrneans, says (and these words are quoted by Theodoret as well) that they are heretics who deny that the Supper is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which has suffered for us.

-Ignatius, quoted by Theodoret, in his Third Dialogue: “The Supper is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father awakened out of grace.”

-Justin Martyr: “We know that the food, by which our blood and flesh is fed by the change of the same (unto eternal life and immortality), is the flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus who became man.”

-Justin Martyr: “We do not receive it as common bread and common drink, but we have learned that it is the flesh and blood of the Son of God who was made man”

-Justin Martyr: “Just as Jesus Christ had flesh and blood for the sake of the sake of the salvation of our souls, so we have also learned and know that by the prayer of his Word and thanksgiving the food and drink, which we consume, is the flesh and blood of the Son of God who was made man, by which our flesh and blood are nourished, that is, changed unto immortality and eternal life.”

-Irenaeus, bk. 5: “How can they deny that our flesh should not be capable of eternal life since it is fed by the blood and flesh of the Lord Christ?”

-Irenaeus, bk. 5: “Therefore, when the word of God is added to the cup and the broken bread, it becomes the Supper of the blood and body of Christ.”

-Irenaeus, bk. 4, ch. 34, “When the bread, which is from the earth, receives the divine call, it is no longer common bread but the Supper, which consists of two things, etc.”

-Tertullian, in the Book on the Resurrection of the Flesh, “Our flesh eats and drinks the body and the blood of Christ so that also the soul would be satisfied by God.”

-Cyprian, in the Sermon on the Fallen: “He who lies threatens those who still stand; and he who is wounded threatens those who are still healthy. And a church robber gets angry at the priests that he does not at once receive the body of the Lord with his unclean hands or that he cannot drink the blood of Christ with his impure mouth.”

-Cyprian, in his Sermon on the Lord’s Supper: “A fleshly man may not be received as a guest at the Lord’s table. For everything flesh and blood utter is excluded from this assembly. Everything that human wit produces is without understanding and without use. The wise of this world are such that they consider everything that does not agree with their wisdom to be foolish and not in accordance with the truth. But those men who are drowned in error cannot comprehend the truth.”

-Council of Nicea: “On this divine table we should not humbly look only at the bread and the cup, but lift up our heart and consider in faith that on this holy table lies the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and is sacrificed by the church servants, but not in the same way as the other sacrifices. And now, when we truly receive his precious body and his blood, we must believe that they are witnesses of our resurrection. For this is why we do not take much of it, but only a little, not to fill the belly, but for sanctification.”

-Ambrose, On Those Who Are Initiated: “In this disputation – that and how the bread is Christ’s body – we should not look at the course of nature because that very body was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin against the course of nature.”

-Augustine, To the Neophytes, “Receive in the bread that which hung on the cross; drink in the cup that which flowed out of Christ’s side.”

-Augustine, in Prosper’s Sentences, “The Supper consists of the visible forms of bread and wine and of the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

-Augustine, in Letter 118, “The Holy Spirit was well pleased to have this lofty sacrament honored by having the Christians take the body of the Lord into their mouth before using other, common food.”

-Augustine, in his Sermon 215 according to the Church Year, “Consider, dear brothers, whether it is just that a shameful, unchaste song or similar diabolic venom should proceed from the Christians’ mouth with which they eat Christ’s body.”

-Augustine, in Against the Adversary of the Law, bk. 2, ch. 9, “With believing hearts and with the mouth we receive the Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ, who gives us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink.

-Augustine, Against the Donatists, bk. 3, ch. 14: “When the question is about the completeness and holiness of the sacrament, there is no difference when it comes to the faith of the person receiving the sacrament. However, there is a big difference when it comes to salvation or the beneficial use. Yet when one asks about the substance of the sacrament, there is no difference. For it may well happen that a person receives the complete sacrament while he has an erroneous faith.”

-Hilary, On the Trinity, bk. 8: “By the sacrament of his communicated flesh and blood we have received the nature of his flesh.”

-Hilary, On the Trinity, bk. 5,“By the sacrament of the communicated flesh he has brought the nature of the flesh to eternity and immortality, and we truly take the flesh of his body under the mystery.”

-Cyril, On John, bk. 10, ch. 13: “One therefore ought to consider that we do not partake of the flesh of the Lord only by means of the spiritual unity, or faith, but also by natural communication.”

-Cyril, On John, bk. 11, ch. 26,“One ought to consider that the Lord Christ dwells in us not only by the spiritual communion and love, but that he is also in us by natural communication.” At the same place, “He also brings it about that Christ dwells in us bodily by the communication of his flesh.”

-Chrysostom and Theophylact, “Drink from the cup that which flowed from the Lord’s side.”

-Chrysostom, on 1 Cor. 11, “That which is present in the cup is that which flowed from Christ’s side and that which we receive.”

-Chrysostom, Homily 83 on Matth. 26,“He makes himself and us into one cake, and this not only by faith, but he makes us into his body by deed.” At the same place, “He feeds us by his own body and unites and connects us to himself.”

-Chrysostom, Homily 83 on Matthew: “Let us believe God everywhere and not contradict him, even though what he says appears absurd to our senses and thoughts. For his Word is high above our reason and senses. And this we should do in all cases, but especially in the mysteries, looking not only to that which is before our eyes, but we should grasp and hold onto his Word. For by his Word we cannot be deceived, but our reason and senses can very easily be deceived. Therefore, since he said: “This is my body,” we should not at all doubt but believe and look at it with the illuminated eyes of reason.”

-Chrysostom, in his Homily 29 on 2. Cor.: “Through this gate and door Christ has entered and still enters when we receive the Supper. You who enjoy the holy mystery know what there is said. For our mouth gets no common honor when it receives the body of the Lord. Let them who speak shameful and blasphemous words take note of this and be terrified by polluting such a mouth.”

-Chrysostom, in his Third Homily to the Ephesians, “How will the man appear before Christ’s judgment seat who dares to touch his body with impure lips and hands?”

-Chrysostom, in his Homily 27 on 1 Cor. against Drunkenness: “This you do when you have gone to the table of the Lord, on that very day when the Lord Christ Jesus deigned you worthy to touch his flesh with your tongue. So that this might not happen again, cleanse your right hand, your tongue and lips as those which have become an entrance by which Christ enters to us.”

–Epiphanius, in his Well-Anchored Man: “Christ stood up in the Holy Supper, took the bread and wine, gave thanks and said: “This is that which I say it is.” And we do not see anything here that is similar or equal either to the humanity or the invisible divinity or the members of a human body. However, because he said so, there is no one who does not believe these words. And he who does not believe that he is truthful in that which he says: “This is my body, etc.,” will lose God’s grace and salvation.”

-Leo, in Sermon 6 on Fasting: “Thus you should communicate at the Lord’s table that you do not at all doubt the true presence of Christ’s body and blood. For that which is believed by faith is taken with the mouth. This is why those, who argue against that which is said there, say Amen in vain.”

-Gregory, in his Homily on Easter, 22, “You have learned what the blood of the Lamb is not only by hearing but also by drinking. This blood is applied to both doorposts. For it is taken not only with the mouth of the body but also with the mouth of the heart.”

-Theodoret, bk. 5, ch. 18 recounts Ambrose’s word to emperor Theodosius: “What temerity that you want to take the cup of the precious blood of Christ with your mouth when you by your angry order have shed blood unjustly!”

-Beda from Augustine on 1 John, “The body and the blood of Christ is received by the mouth of the believers unto salvation.”

-Oecumenius, on 1 Cor. 11, “The unworthy put the most holy body of Christ with their impure hands into their accursed mouth.”

FIN

*earlier, I had incorrectly written “Apology to the Formula of Concord”

Image of Christ breaking bread: https://www.flickr.com/photos/quinnanya/2553170223

Bread and wine: https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8546/8607134077_1f36d48346_z.jpg

 

 

 

Where there’s a will there’s a way: the backstory behind the Joint Declaration on Justification (and much, much more)

One of the many ways unity in the church is envisioned. See here for a Lutheran perspective.

About one week ago, there was an interesting discussion promoted by the journal First Things at Biola University (watch it here) where theologians Peter Leithart, Fred Sanders, and Carl Trueman discussed “The Future of Protestantism”.  Among the many interesting topics discussed were efforts towards unity among Protestants as well as how Protestants should relate to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.  After the event Trueman, shared a reflection on the discussion and brought up the practical concerns he had.

In any case, this talk about efforts towards unity and practical matters (Trueman mentioned some of these in the discussion as well) put me in mind of the things that my pastor, Paul Strawn, had recently said at a conference of Confessional Lutherans in a very well-received paper.  It’s title is “The Elephant in the Confessional Lutheran Room: When Considerations Other Than Theology Hamper Theological Concord”, and you can read the whole thing here. 

He begins his paper with a fascinating but little known [back]story about the much trumpeted Joint Declaration on Justification.  According to the Wikipedia article (which I know provides a good summary [note from Nathan as librarian: citing from Wikipedia is usually not advisable]):

“The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) is a document created, and agreed to, by the Catholic Church’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999, as a result of extensive ecumenical dialogue. It states that the churches now share “a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ.”^[1] To the parties involved, this essentially resolves the conflict over the nature of justification which was at the root of the Protestant Reformation.”

Here is the insightful beginning to Strawn’s paper:

Church history is full of instances of theological agreements being reached as a result of non-theological factors being brought to bear upon a given situation. One recent example was brought to light in a scarcely noticed article appearing in English translation first in 1994[1], by Wolfgang Bienert, professor of patristic studies at Marburg University and participant in the ecumenical dialog between representatives of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) of the Roman Catholic church. There Bienert sketched the enigmatic methodologies, the ecclesiastical politics, deployed to achieve some sort of ecumenical agreement in the afterglow of Pope John Paul II’s visit to the Federal Republic of Germany in 1980.[2] At that time, a commission was established, comprised of representatives of the Roman Catholic conference of German bishops, the Vatican Secretariat for the Unity of Christendom, and the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany and, in the giddiness of the moment, given this curious mandate:

“…to express in a binding fashion, that the condemnations of the sixteenth century do not confront the contemporary partner, since its doctrine is not determined by the same error that the condemnation was meant to renounce.”[3]

According to Bienert, the idea that the reciprocal condemnations of the sixteenth century[4] no longer were applicable to the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches respectively, was simply assumed to be true by those issuing the mandate. All that was needed was some sort official declaration of that predetermined reality.[5] To its credit, the Ecumenical Study Group assigned this task, a group founded in 1946 by then Cardinal Lorenz Jäger (1892-1975) and Lutheran Bishop D. Wilhelm Stählin (1883-1975), returned a report entitled: “The Condemnations of the Reformation Confessional Documents and in the Doctrinal Decisions of the Council of Trent: Do They Still [emphasis mine] Confront the Contemporary Partner?”[6] There they noted that simply declaring that the condemnations of the sixteenth century void was problematic, not the least because at a minimum, the condemnations could not all be weighted equally:

“About some of the condemnations of the sixteenth century, we must say today, that they are based on a misunderstanding of the opposite position. Others no longer address the contemporary partner. Concerning still others, new insights have led to a wide degree of understanding. About some statements of condemnations, however, even today no adequate consensus can be discovered.”

It was the condemnations, over which “no adequate consensus [could] be discovered” which proved to be most problematic. Why? The Study Group realized that such reciprocal doctrinal condemnations could not be lifted, because “that would mean that at the same time the existing confessions would have to be annulled.”[7] In other words, since the condemnation statements of the Book of Concord and the Council of Trent flowed from and were a part of the theologies contained in both confessions respectively, declaring the former null and void negated the latter. That could not be done.

So how then was the enigmatic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) signed by the parties involved in 1999? By declaring that the reciprocal condemnations of each other’s doctrine of justification, did not apply to the doctrine as it was expressed in the JDDJ:

“41.Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they

relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of

the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration [emphasis added] does not fall under the

condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran

Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented

in this Declaration [Emphasis added]”[8]

Where there is a will, there is a way. The reciprocal condemnations of the doctrines of Justification of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran confessions are considered no longer to apply to today’s ecumenical partner, even though priests in the Roman Catholic church at their ordination are still obligated to the doctrine as found in Trent, and Lutheran pastors in their ordination to the doctrine as it is found in the Lutheran Confessions. So in fact, the reciprocal condemnations are still very much in effect.

So why all of the effort? The desired outcome of the Joint Ecumenical Commission years before that the respective churches “express in a binding fashion, that the condemnations of the sixteenth century do not confront the contemporary partner” demanded it. The pope’s visit, the 50^th anniversary in 1996 of the “Jäger-Stählin-Circle”, and the advent of the new millennium undoubtedly also played a role. And how exactly such a command was eventually obeyed provides a salutary warning, a modern example, of how so often within the history of the church, factors beyond theology drive discussions toward theological agreements, church unions and communions.

Here clever ecclesiastical politics are not the only methods to bring to light. Factors beyond theology, beyond the church, have often caused the church to act, to move toward theological union, sometimes in a salutary fashion, and other times not….

(end quote from Strawn’s paper, bold mine)

The paper goes on to talk about the practical issues that kept confessional Lutherans of the 19th century apart, and the practical issues that might hinder the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LC-MS) in its efforts to promote concord and harmony in its own house (it efforts like the Koinonia Project), much less among other Lutheran groups like the WELS and ELS.

Again, the full paper is here, for those who are interested in exploring these matters further.

FIN

[1] Wolfgang A. Bienert. “Do the Condemnations of the Reformation Era Still Confront the Contemporary Ecumenical Partner?” Lutheran Quarterly VIII (1994), pp. 53-70.

[2] Ibid., p. 55.

[3] Ibid., p. 53.

[4] For a general description of the use of such condemnations in 16^th century by Luther and others see: Hans-Werner Gensichen, Damnamus (Berlin-Grunewald: Herbert Renner, 1955), English edition: We Condemn. How Luther and 16^th-Century Lutheranism Condemned False Doctrine, Trans. By Herbert J. A. Bouman (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1967).

[5] Bienert, p. 54f.; cf. p. 66.

[6] Ibid., p. 55. F. Karl Lehmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg, eds. The Condemnations of the Reformation Era. Do They Still Divide? Trans. By Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990).

[7] Ibid.

[8] http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999 _cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html.

 

 

 

 

 

Sanctification, “Celebratory Failurism” and church discipline

Lutheran-friendly Tchividjian in sights?

There was an interesting article up on the Gospel Coalition blog last week called “Failure is Not a Virtue”.  I am guessing that it is written with Tullian Tchividjian, Billy Graham’s grandson, in mind.  Tchividjian has discovered the Hammer of God and some other Lutheran materials (some I don’t think are that good) and this has made him speak very well of Lutheranism and its proper distinction between law and gospel (see him interviewed by some serious Lutherans here).

I think the article, written by Jen Wilken, is well-written and I encourage you to check it – and the comment section – out.  In the quote below, the parts in bold might sound a bit controversial in some Lutherans ears, but I really don’t think that it should:

Celebratory failurism asserts that all our attempts to obey will fail, thereby making us the recipients of greater grace. But God does not exhort us to obey just to teach us that we cannot hope to obey. He exhorts us to obey to teach us that, by grace, we can obey, and therein lies hope. Through the gospel our God, whose Law and whose character do not change, changes us into those who obey in both motive and deed. Believers no longer live under the Law, but the Law lies under us as a sure path for pursuing what is good, right, and pleasing to the Lord. Contrary to the tenets of celebratory failurism, the Law is not the problem. The heart of the Law-follower is.

Obedience is only moralism if we believe it curries favor with God. The believer knows that it is impossible to curry favor with God, because God needs nothing from us. He cannot be put in our debt. Knowing this frees us to obey out of joyful gratitude rather than servile grasping.*

“Celebratory failurism” – “the idea that believers cannot obey the Law and will fail at every attempt” and “our failure is ultimately cause to celebrate because it makes grace all the more beautiful” – is an interesting idea. If the article is aimed at Tullian Tchividjian, I am not familiar enough with his preaching to say whether or not he actually teaches this.  In any case, I think that in general, what she writes is true – especially when you consider that our obedience will be perfected in heaven. We do have hope that we can more fully enter into that life God has given us in Christ!  And in spite of failures, we are given assurance of forgiveness and the power to start to overcome again…. In general, I hope that confessional Lutherans would be fully on board with the content of the piece.

This put me in mind of another interesting passage that I had come across:

….an offense like Moses’ striking the rock (when God had told him to speak to the rock) was judged by God from its effects on the community of faith. Yahweh’s word to Moses immediately was this: “Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them” (Num. 20:12, NIV). Moses’ offense was not only that he sinned against a specific command (thought his was also part of the picture), but that his actions caused Israel to think of God as something less than who He really is. Moses caused Israel to harbor the idea that possibly Yahweh was not “holy enough” to expect total and complete obedience from His servants – or that they could “get by” with something less than total obedience in their lives (Mark Press, “Missio Dei: Transforming Center of Scripture”, Missional Transformation: God’s Spirit at Work: Essays Celebrating the Outreach Ministry of Dr. Eugene Bunkowske, p. 161).

And all of this put me in mind of a recent post by Suzanne Venker, “Yes, Divorce is Very Contagious”. A clip:

“In my 2012 book How to Choose a Husband, I wrote the following: “Research by sociologist James H. Fowler found that if a sibling divorces, we are 22 percent more likely to get divorced ourselves. And when our friends get divorced, it’s even more influential: people who had a divorced friend were 147 percent more likely to get divorced than people whose friends’ marriages were intact. Divorce, it appears, is contagious.”

That was the very headline last week re a study from Brown University conducted in Framingham, MA—also by James H. Fowler, as well as Rose McDermott. The authors found that 75 percent of participants were more likely to get divorced if a friend was divorced,and 33 percent were more likely to end their marriage even if a friend of a friend got divorced. Here’s a link to Pew’s coverage of this study back in October 2013.

Researchers call this phenomenon a “social contagion”: the spread of information, attitudes and behaviors through friends, family and social networks.

This finding—not just as it pertains to divorce but its overall message about cultural attitudes—was the theme of How to Choose a Husband. In that book, I encourage people to ignore cultural trends and live an examined life instead.

Now apply this to church discipline, which biblically, is to be done not to condemn a person but to bring them back to Christ.  It seems to me we see here perhaps some other “indirect wisdom” inherent in church discipline. 

Of course we want to be grace and mercy-centered persons – but utilizing “tough love” rightly is not opposed to this.  What a struggle this will be – both to beg God that we really would love the one we must discipline with His love and to stand against those who nevertheless will call us unloving legalists!  Obviously, not an easy issue and it invites more discussion (see my five part series “We are all antinomians now” where I struggled with this and this piece on I Cor. 5 as well, “Judging Jesus Style“).

FIN

*she goes on to write: “Imagine telling your child, “I know you’ll fail, but here are our house rules. Let me know when you break them so I can extend grace to you.” We recognize that raising a lawless child is not good for the child, for our family, or for society as a whole. We don’t train our children to obey us so they can gain our favor. They already have our favor. We, being evil, train and equip them to obey because it is good and right and safe. And how much more does our heavenly Father love us?”