Logia a journal of lutheran theology
W C reformation 2003 volume xii, number 4
ei[ ti" lalei', wJ" lovgia Qeou' T C A this issue features the title page of Luther’s Against Henry King of England (). In , Luther wrote his Babylonian Captivity of the Church, logia is a journal of Lutheran theology. As such it publishes which exposed the papacy’s usurpation of the Gospel articles on exegetical, historical, systematic, and liturgical theolo- and Means of Grace. Hoping to acquire papal favor and gy that promote the orthodox theology of the Evangelical the title “Defender of the Faith,” Henry published Lutheran Church. We cling to God’s divinely instituted marks of his Assertion of the Seven Sacraments (), against the the church: the gospel, preached purely in all its articles, and the Reformer and in defense of Rome. (It is generally sacraments, administered according to Christ’s institution. This accepted that Henry did not write his Assertion.) Luther name expresses what this journal wants to be. In Greek, LOGIA wrote Against Henry in response to the king’s Assertion. functions either as an adjective meaning “eloquent,”“learned,” or L cover art is provided by the Rev. Mark A. Loest, “cultured,” or as a plural noun meaning “divine revelations,” Assistant Director for Reference and Museum at “words,”or “messages.”The word is found in Peter :, Acts :, Concordia Historical Institute, St. Louis, Missouri. and Romans :. Its compound forms include oJmologiva (confes- sion), ajpologiva (defense), and ajvnalogiva (right relationship). Each of these concepts and all of them together express the pur- L is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the pose and method of this journal. LOGIA considers itself a free con- American Theological Library Association, ference in print and is committed to providing an independent S. Wacker Drive, Suite , Chicago, IL , theological forum normed by the prophetic and apostolic E-mail: [email protected] v WWW: http://www.atla.com/ Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. At the heart of our journal we want our readers to find a love for the sacred Scriptures as the very Word of God, not merely as rule and norm, FREQUENTLY USED ABBREVIATIONS but especially as Spirit, truth, and life which reveals Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life—Jesus Christ our Lord. AC [CA] Augsburg Confession AE Luther’s Works, American Edition Therefore, we confess the church, without apology and without Ap Apology of the Augsburg Confession rancor, only with a sincere and fervent love for the precious Bride Ep Epitome of the Formula of Concord of Christ, the holy Christian church, “the mother that begets and FC Formula of Concord bears every Christian through the Word of God,” as Martin LC Large Catechism Luther says in the Large Catechism (LC , ). We are animated LW Lutheran Worship SA Smalcald Articles by the conviction that the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg SBH Service Book and Hymnal Confession represents the true expression of the church which we SC Small Catechism confess as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. SD Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord SL St. Louis Edition of Luther’s Works Tappert The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical LOGIA (ISSN #–) is published quarterly by the Luther Academy, Lutheran Church. Trans. and ed. Theodore G. Tappert Lavant Drive, Crestwood, MO . Non-profit postage paid (permit #) at Triglotta Concordia Triglotta Northville, SD and additional mailing offices. TLH The Lutheran Hymnal POSTMASTER: Send address changes to L, , rd Ave., Northville, SD . Tr Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope Editorial Department: Pearl St., Mankato, MN . Unsolicited material is WA Luthers Werke, Weimarer Ausgabe [Weimar Edition] welcomed but cannot be returned unless accompanied by sufficient return postage. Kolb-Wengert Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, eds., The Book of Concord: All submissions must be accompanied by a 300 word or less abstract of the article. The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Book Review Department: N. Clinton St., Fort Wayne, IN . All books (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000). received will be listed. Correspondence Department: Pearl St., Mankato, MN . Letters selected for publication are subject to editorial modification, must be typed or computer printed, and must contain the writer’s name and complete address. Logia Forum: S. Hanna St., Fort Wayne, IN -. HOW TO CONTACT US Subscription & Advertising Department: , rd Ave., Northville, SD . Advertising rates and specifications are available upon request. Policy statement: for orders, subscriptions, questions, comments L reserves the right to refuse ads from organizations or individuals whose theological position or churchly demeanor runs counter to the mission of L Phone L -- to provide an independent theological forum normed by the Scriptures and the E-mail L [email protected] Lutheran Confessions. S Website L www.logia.org SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: U.S.A.: one year (four issues), ; two years Fax L -- (eight issues), . Canada and Mexico: one year, ; two years, . Overseas: L one year air, ; one year surface, . All funds in U.S. currency only. Mail rd Ave., Northville, SD Copyright © . The Luther Academy. All rights reserved. No part of this publi- To order L Tapes or Books, give us your complete name, cation may be reproduced without written permission. address, phone number, order, total, and check or credit card number and expiration date (Visa or MasterCard). logiai a journal of lutheran theologyx
reformation 2003 volume xIi, number 4
...... The Henrician Reformation and the Anglo-Lutheran Dialogues of – Korey D. Maas ...... “But We’ve Always Done It That Way!”: Wittenberg and Canterbury on Tradition Armand Boehme ...... You Taught the Book of Life My Name: Johann Gerhard, George Herbert, and the Inscription of Holy Baptism Erik Ankerberg ...... The Ordination of Women Pastors David P. Scaer ...... Closed Communion, Sin, and Salvation Piotyr J. Malysz ......
...... R E: Gifts That Differ: Lay Ministries Established and Unestablished. By David N. Power. Review by Armand J. Boehme The Justification Reader. By Thomas C. Oden. Review by Klaus Detlev Schulz The Forgotten God. Edited by A. Andrew Das and Frank Matera. Review by Peter Scaer Revelation and the End of All Things. By Craig R. Koester. Review by Charles A. Gieschen Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther’s Reform. By Oliver K. Olson. Review by Dean M. Bell The Theology of the Cross for the Twenty-First Century: Signposts for a Multicultural Witness. Edited by A. L. Garc’a and A. R. V. Raj. Review by Holger Sonntag The Resurrection of the Son of God. By N. T. Wright. Review by Jack D. Kilcrease The Defense Never Rests: A Lawyer’s Quest for the Gospel. Craig A. Parton. Review by Harold L. Senkbeil
...... The Lutheran Church in Great Britain • It Was Not So • The Black Rubric Autodidaktoi • Cambridge Declaration • Consubstantiation and Impanation Flawed Vessels • He Keeps Coming A Call for Manuscripts ...... Inklings by Jim Wilson ...... Logia on CD Volumes I through XI plus XII:1 This includes our last issue, After Ten Years . . .
PDF format for PC or Mac • Easy access to any issue or article • LOGIA Colored for better screen viewing • A Journal of Lutheran Theology (easy-to-find headings, etc.) Volumes ‒ plus Volume :—After Ten Years . .. Compiled indexes of all issues • (Articles by title and author, logia logia Reviews by title and author, and L Forum by title) Listing of all issue titles • W R T C Most ads have been deleted. • A few remain that were available and may be • Insert CD and open file “Start CD.pdf” of interest to the reader. • PDF viewer required • See CD inside cover for more instructions
© 2003 The Luther Academy—All rights reserved WITH LINKS!
All documents have links and bookmarks. All index entries and Contents • page items are linked for instant viewing of any article, review, Forum piece, or Inklings cartoon. Each endnote reference is linked to its note for instant viewing. • All issues are indexed so that word searches can be done across documents with many • search options available.
Price (for a limited time only)— $25 for current and new subscribers $35 for non-subscribers, $50 for libraries. Shipping and handling included. Prices will increase January ,
L OGIA A JOURNAL OF LUTHERAN THEOLOGY rd Avenue [email protected] E-mail Northville, SD www.logia.org On-line Phone (605) 887-3145 (605) 887-3129 Fax C
j
To the editors: h Several aspects of Arnold Koelpin’s result of the adoption of the first from the original form of our govern- argument on religious establishment in Amendment, “the whole power over the ment, but from relatively recent Supreme the U.S. might be nuanced a bit (“An subject of religion is left exclusively to Court decisions. American Application of Luther’s Two the state governments, to be acted upon On a second matter related to the part Realms,” Epiphany ). according to their own sense of justice, of Professor Koelpin’s argument with First, critical to understanding both and the state constitutions.” which I more readily agree, in construing the history and constitutionality of reli- Indeed, states chose to provide tax the distinction between ecclesiastical and gious establishment in the U.S. is the support to churches through the s, civil power, notably affirmed in the need to separate the issue of national required sundry professions of faith from Augsburg Confession (Tappert, :), it religious establishment from the issue government officials up through , might also be useful to consider specific of state-level religious establishments. and forty-nine of fifty state constitutions examples of church/state relations com- As originally written, the first still include at least a nod of thanks to mended by Luther and others in our con- Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was God for the liberties recognized therein. fessions, not intended to impose a principle of The Supreme Court began to apply the For example, Article of the religious disestablishment through the first Amendment’s religion clauses (via the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, country. Rather, it debarred only the Fourteenth Amendment) to the states only provides the following counsel to establishment of a national religion while in the s. So, contrary to Professor Emperor Charles: leaving alone the religious establishments Koelpin’s claims, it is not quite true that that existed among many of the states. “The Christian church made its way into It is your special responsibility This is easy to see from the text of the the nation’s history detached from [gov- before God to maintain and propa- first Amendment itself. It provides that ernment] authorship.”Detached from gate sound doctrine and to defend “Congress shall make no law respecting national authorship, yes; detached from those who teach it. God demands an establishment of religion . . . .” state government authorship, yes and no, this when he honors kings with his Prohibiting the U.S. Congress from estab- depending on state. own name and calls them gods (Ps. lishing a religion does not, for example, It is similarly misleading to claim that :). “I say, ‘You are gods.’” They prohibit the Virginia or Massachusetts “The ‘religion clauses’ had been set into should take care to maintain and legislature from establishing a religion. the Constitution primarily to get away propagate divine things on earth, Indeed, in the case of Barron v. from the powers of national or regional that is, the Gospel of Christ, and as Baltimore, U.S. , the U.S. Supreme churches as guaranteed by constitutions vicars of God they should defend Court expressly held that the Bill of in Europe.”Again, the answer is yes as to the life and safety of the innocent. Rights does not apply to the states. (To a national church, but the answer is no as (AC , ; Tappert, ). be sure, this holding was changed by the to regional (i. e., state) churches. Court beginning in the s as it held Hence, it is also something of a mis- The Treatise on the Power and Primacy that the th Amendment “Incorporated” nomer to claim that “According to our of the Pope suggests that “the first care of parts of the Bill of Rights as against the government form, we [Americans] are kings should be to advance the glory of states.) committed to the principle and privilege God” and suggests that “Especially does it Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of religious liberty.” It might be more behoove the chief members of the church, was thus able to write in his Commen- correct to say that the American commit- the kings and the princes, to have regard taries on the Constitution in that as a ment to “religious liberty” stems not for the interests of the church and to see
to it that errors are removed and con- whether he is a believer or, at heart, LOGIA CORRESPONDENCE AND sciences are healed” (Tr, ; Tappert ). a scoundrel or knave (Sc Pref; COLLOQUIUM FRATRUM In the preface to the Small Catechism, Tappert, ). Luther instructs “all faithful, godly pas- We encourage our readers to respond tors and preachers” to “notify” people As Professor Koelpin pointed out, the to the material they find in L — who “refuse to receive your instructions” separation of church and state contem- whether it be in the articles, book reviews, or letters of other readers. that “the prince is disposed to banish plated in the Lutheran doctrine of the While we cannot print everything that such rude people from his land.” Luther two realms is quite distinct from that is sent, we hope that our Colloquium distinguishes this magisterial action from contemplated by Jefferson and the mod- Fratrum section will allow for longer coerced belief (i. e., magisterial interfer- ern Supreme Court. American Lutherans response/counter-response exchanges, ence in the Gospel), writing: tend too easily to glide from the one to whereas our Correspondence section is a place for shorter “Letters to the Editors.” the other. As Professor Koelpin argues, Although we cannot and should not our commitment to the modern If you wish to respond to something compel anyone to believe, we should American understanding of church and in an issue of L , please do so soon nevertheless insist that the people state separation can only be contingent. after you receive an issue. Since L learn to know how to distinguish and must be circumscribed by our deeper is a quarterly periodical, we are often meeting deadlines for the subsequent btween right and wrong according commitment to the Scriptures. issue about the time you receive your to the standards of those among current issue. Getting your responses whom they live and make their liv- James R. Rogers, PhD, JD in early will help keep them timely. ing. For anyone who desires to Associate Professor and Director of the Send your Correspondence contribu- reside in a city is bound to know American Politics Program tions to L Correspondence, Pearl Street, Mankato, MN , or and observe the laws under whose Texas AM University your Colloquium Fratrum contribu- protection he lives, no matter College Stations, Texas tions to L Editorial Department, Pearl Street, Mankato, MN .
The Henrician Reformation and the Anglo-Lutheran Dialogues of 1535–1540
K D. M
j
and debates took until he “harde answer from the Kynges Majestie,” adding that he place between the theologians of Germany and England. did “excidyngly thyrst to know how the Kynges Hieghnes takethe B Only shortly thereafter began the continuing debate regard- my labours.”4 His anxious uncertainty is evident in the letter’s con- ing the causes and effects of these dialogues. Conventional schol- clusion: “If I have not shortly your answer, yow kyll me.”5 arship has curiously maintained that, though Henry was The former exile Robert Barnes, also in Germany on the King’s never motivated by a sincere interest in Lutheran theology, these behalf, met with more success. His visit was reciprocated with negotiations were the means by which the doctrine of the German delegations to London from Hamburg and Lübeck. Led by the Reformation became part of England’s theological formularies. In theologian John Aepinus, confident delegates first ventured that this view, Henry “never for an instant meant to aid their heresies, “the said doctor will speak to no one but he will convert him to and still less to give these a real footing in his own realm and his opinion.”6 Others were doubtful. Cromwell remained unsure church;”1 but with the first formal discussions of “there began of his king’s attitude toward the Lutherans; and the longer nego- a whole series of events which were to influence English life and tiations lasted, the less convinced the Germans became of Henry’s character permanently—but none of which events were intended sincerity.7 As a result of these uncertainties, some in England by Henry precisely as they happened.”2 While largely avoiding the began to consider secrecy the best policy. Records of a controversial questions of motivation, this brief examination of Schmalkaldic meeting in mention that English ambassadors, the Anglo-Lutheran dialogues will consider both their “though unknown to the king,” had requested an embassy to significance for the course of the Henrician Reformation and the England.8 In the light of this brief preview, it is apparent that reasons for their eventual failure. mutual distrust, uncertainty regarding Henry’s desires, and the In the early s, when the publications of Luther and Henry consequent need for secrecy had entered the picture even before earned them the respective designations of heretic and Defender of formal conversation between England and Germany commenced. the Faith, the likelihood of an Anglo-Lutheran alliance would have Despite these potential stumbling blocks, the year looked seemed remote. But less than a decade later circumstances had promising for the opening of formal Anglo-Lutheran negotia- changed, giving both realms cause to seek political and theological tions. Not only had Henry, in the previous year, rejected papal allies. The princes of Lutheran Germany had presented an official authority; he soon elevated Cromwell, a man sympathetic to statement of their theology in . With this Augsburg Confession evangelical theology, to the post of Vicegerent. Philip subsequently rejected by both pope and emperor, and with the pos- Melanchthon, the author of official Lutheran theology, had mean- sibility of a military offensive, these princes in the next year formed while dedicated the latest edition of his Loci Communes to Henry, the defensive League of Schmalkalden. Meanwhile, Henry’s rela- a gesture well received by the king himself. tionship with pope and emperor had also become strained. Being It was in this context that Robert Barnes again appeared in refused a papal annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, Germany in September . In an interview with the Saxon aunt of Emperor Charles , Henry began in to look elsewhere Elector, Barnes announced that an embassy would soon arrive. for favorable pronouncements. As both England and Germany Their mission would be to discuss certain points of theology, to began to make gestures to a wide range of possible allies, open ani- consider a German delegation to England, to discuss the proposed mosity between the two nations subsided.3 general council, to reaffirm the king’s rejection of the papacy, and, With an eye toward opening formal relations with Germany, finally, to assure the German princes that Henry was “not disin- Henry dispatched representatives in . Their stated mission, clined to join the Christian league of the princes.”9 As a condition which was to acquire resident ambassador status, proved unsuc- of conciliar alliance, the English delegates announced that doctri- cessful. Part of the problem, it seems, was a lack of precise instruc- nal articles “must be agreed upon beforehand.”10 The Germans tions. Unsure of his authority and assignment, the ambassador too would insist on doctrinal agreement. As the league had been Stephen Vaughan wrote to Thomas Cromwell, refusing to proceed founded for the defense of the confession presented five years ear- lier, and as this confession was “widely available” in England,11 they assumed that it would also form the basis for any alliance K D.M is a D.Phil. candidate at St. Cross College, Oxford with England. This assumption is evident in the articles drafted University, England. on December. While most concern political and financial mat- ters, only two mention doctrine; they do so by simply referring to to keep secret the involvement of the English evangelicals, “for the Confession of Augsburg.12 your grace knows that in these matters the king is not to be joked An Anglo-Lutheran alliance continued to look probable in with.”18 The English—conservative and evangelical alike—had no early . In this year Cromwell commissioned English transla- intentions of joking with the king. They stepped cautiously even tions of the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. In Wittenberg, as they jointly prepared the Bishops’ Book. Though it includ- conversations with the English delegation of Barnes, Edward Fox, ed concessions to the conservative party that even the Ten Articles and Nicholas Heath proceeded slowly but positively. Though the had not, the preface made clear that it remained subject to cor- Lutherans continued their refusal to support the royal annulment, rection by Henry himself. some theological agreement was reached with the formulation of Despite the setbacks of and the cautious proceedings of the Wittenberg Articles. , when a German embassy finally arrived in England in This statement of agreement was soon qualified, though, by the there was again cause for optimism. Either confident of the king’s English admission that their king might not accept it.13 These theological leanings or convinced of the persuasive power of the doubts were confirmed when, even before Henry had received the Germans, leading English evangelicals made some bold claims. Wittenberg Articles, his response to those of Christmas Cromwell assured German delegate Franz Burchardt that “the arrived. The princes were informed that the king “cannot accept at king’s majesty is agreed with almost all the articles of the Christian any creature’s hand the observing of his and the realm’s Faith.”14 religion of the League; only in one or two articles does the king’s Despite this clear statement some remained optimistic, assuming majesty still have reservations.”19 Relaying this information to Henry would be won over if only he received a German embassy.15 John Frederick, Burchardt assured him that, according to Hopes of this happening soon faded. The league, meeting at Cromwell, the king would soon “thoroughly agree” with the doc- Frankfurt, failed to approve an embassy to England; any further trine of the league.20 consideration was soon brought to a halt with the news of Anne Again, however, such optimism proved premature. The German Boleyn’s execution. delegates were no doubt surprised to find that the ensuing negoti- ations would include conservative bishops on the English side.21 These bishops, refusing to commit their opinions to writing, soon proved a hindrance to resolving the dispute regarding ecclesiastical abuses. Archbishop Thomas Cranmer explained, “They know that Though the Lutherans continued their the King has taken upon himself to answer the said orators in that refusal to support the royal annulment, behalf, and has already devised a book thereof. They are therefore 22 some theological agreement was afraid to write contrary to the King.” Recognizing that “nothing will be done unless the King’s commandment be directed to them,” reached with the formulation Cranmer requested that Henry order the discussions recorded.23 of the Wittenberg Articles. This order was never given, and the resultant Thirteen Articles made no mention of the abuses that had become the stumbling nb block to doctrinal agreement. Sensing that no further progress would be made, the German delegates requested leave to depart. Nevertheless, the leading It was in the wake of this collapse of negotiations that the first evangelicals again gave them reason to remain hopeful. Cranmer independent English formulary came into existence. On June insisted that, were they to stay, they could expect from Henry “a the Ten Articles were approved without a German presence. good, correct answer.”24 Cromwell was more specific, indicating The formulary, though in most articles not antithetical to the the- that Henry was ready to accept their theology of the abuses, that ology of the Lutheran reformers, was interpreted as a setback for “indeed, he had already accepted that doctrine to some extent.”25 the evangelical cause in England. Melanchthon famously Whether the two were misinformed or merely desperate, their described the articles as “confusingly composed.”16 English evan- information was soon proved false. A book on the disputed arti- gelicals were no more pleased. Disavowing responsibility for their cles was indeed being devised by the king; it was not, however, final form, Heath informed Melanchthon that the articles only being written by the king alone. The conservative bishop of received approval “by intervention of royal authority.”17 Durham, Cuthbert Tunstall, was Henry’s advisor throughout the With the king’s rejection of existing Lutheran and Anglo- drafting process. The resulting work shows clearly that the king Lutheran articles, and with his active promotion of the Ten had not accepted the German opinion on abuses.26 Articles, the English evangelicals resorted once more to secrecy. Following the breakdown of these negotiations, another small Convinced that a formal embassy might win Henry’s favor, German delegation arrived in England in . They remained Cromwell, without the king’s knowledge, sent an agent to the only a month. There was by this time little to be gained by further Germans in ; he again requested that they send delegates to discussion. A treaty signed at Frankfurt had temporarily ended England. Fox was also in Germany at this time; also stressing a hostility between pope, emperor, and the Schmalkaldic League, need for secrecy, he requested that his name not be mentioned in with one of the conditions being that no further members be any communication with the king. The Germans responded admitted to the league. The day after its proposal, league leaders accordingly. Writing to Elector John Frederick, Landgrave Philip indicated that further discussions would be superfluous since “our of Hesse again suggested an embassy. He too emphasized the need opinions must be well known in England both from our confes- sion and the disputes which the king’s ambassadors had with ours ical agreement. No subsequent theological agreement was reached three years ago, and the English bishops with ours lately.”27 between Henry and the Lutheran princes of Germany. At this point, events began to follow the pattern of . The disputed question among historians of the Tudor church is Refusing to grant authoritative status to the articles formulated why, given the extended negotiations of the s, no formal the- during Anglo-Lutheran discussion, the king again promoted an ological agreement was reached between the English king and the independent English formulary: the Six Articles. Again both German princes. As no fewer than five separate statements were German and English evangelicals viewed these as detrimental to produced during the same number of years, it is reasonable to ask theological agreement. Again observers noted that the articles why none was adopted as a basis for doctrinal agreement. Some would not have been accepted “if the king’s majesty himself had have concluded that the very nature of these articles prevented not come personally into the parliament house.”28 Again the this, that their compromising and often ambiguous nature was English evangelicals resorted to secrecy. Again their communica- unable to satisfy either party. Gordon Rupp describes both Anglo- tion gave reason to believe that Henry was sympathetic to the Lutheran and English articles in this manner when he writes that evangelical cause. And again this information was soon contra- “the Ten Articles were more garbled even than the Wittenberg dicted by the king himself. Articles.”35 For this reason, he later comments, “The Ten Articles Receiving word from the evangelicals, the Strasbourg theolo- probably pleased few, and may thereby have increased rather than gian Martin Bucer told Philip of Hesse that Henry “was persuad- diminished tension.”36 ed to accept the aforementioned articles by petty periphrasis and crafty sophistry.”29 At the same time, however, Mont was in Germany on Henry’s behalf; his letters state bluntly that “his majesty and the entire spiritual estate . . . do not at all agree with your doctrine concerning the celibacy of priests, concerning vows The disputed question among historians and private masses, etc.”30 In the same manner, Burchardt wrote of the Tudor church is why no formal to Melanchthon, relating what he had heard from Cromwell:“The king seems already displeased at the promulgation of the theological agreement was reached decree.”31 Yet early in , when Burchardt was granted an audi- between the English king and the ence with Henry himself, he had to inform the German princes German princes. that “the king spoke to them himself, saying that he had been sufficiently advised by his learned men that ours have gone too far nb with regard to priestly marriage, communion in both kinds and the private mass. . . . In sum, he holds his view to be justified.”32 In the light of the frequently conflicting information received It is certainly true that the Ten Articles pleased few. Melanch- by the Lutherans, some may have suspected that Henry’s thon’s estimate of the articles has already been noted, as has that Vicegerent had been deliberately giving a false impression of the of the English evangelicals. But conservatives in England were no king’s intentions. Such suspicions were never given voice by the more satisfied with their content. The Pilgrimage of Grace, a con- Germans; the accusation was, however, raised in England. On servative uprising which followed the promulgation of the arti- June Cromwell was arrested and charged with working “clene cles, testifies to their unpopular status. These pilgrims not only contrary to this His Graces most godly entent.”33 In Henry’s mind, rejected the Ten Articles; they also condemned the “Confessa this accusation was soon confirmed when his minister’s private Germanie.”37 correspondence was uncovered.34 The most influential English The denunciation of German and English formularies togeth- supporter of Anglo-Lutheran relations was put to death on er is no mere coincidence. The Ten Articles did indeed draw lib- July, two days before the man who introduced the first embassy erally from the theology of the Augsburg Confession. In fact, five years earlier, his protégé Robert Barnes. With them was laid to reliance on this confession is evident in the drafting of every rest any remaining confidence in a theological agreement between series of articles before .38 Despite the Augsburg Confession’s England and Germany. being called by one author “as conciliatory a statement as possi- Before giving an analysis of cause and effect, we may simply ble,”39 the same writer notes that “Henry did not intend to accept summarize the above events. Between and a series of the- without question a Lutheran confession of the faith.”40 This being ological negotiations took place in both England and Germany. the case, modification of the confession in dialogue would be The primary participants were the theologians of the necessary if agreement was to be reached. The articles of con- Schmalkaldic princes and those of Henry . Three sets of tained no revision. The jointly prepared articles of and , Anglo-Lutheran articles resulted from these negotiations: the neither touching on the controversial abuses, were deemed inad- Christmas Articles of , the Wittenberg Articles of , and the equate. The Six Articles of , far from being a revision of the Thirteen Articles of . None was granted authoritative status by Augsburg Confession, can only be judged a rejection of its theol- the English king. During this same period two sets of English arti- ogy on the abuses. cles were drafted independently: the Ten Articles of and the But to say that the articles of – were in themselves inad- Six Articles of . Each was approved and made authoritative by equate does not answer the question of why a mutually satisfying the king. Each was also interpreted by the German Lutherans and agreement was not reached during this period. The articles pro- the English evangelicals as detrimental to any substantial theolog- duced were not created in a vacuum; historical context and his- torical circumstances had an influence on their production and of the league as “allways stedfast and constantly sett.”Neither con- reception. Context and circumstance must also be examined in an clusion need be read as a merely subjective judgment. Rather, the effort to understand why different statements were not produced, constancy of the Germans may be read as the result of their very thereby making a theological settlement possible. The convention- objective political and theological foundations. Unlike the English al explanation—that Henry never meant to reach an agreement arrangement, which was “fluid and amorphous, open to a variety with the Lutherans—has been previously noted. This analysis of interpretations and manipulations,”48 the nature and policy of derives largely from the opinion of the sixteenth-century Germans the Schmalkaldic League was clearly defined by a constitutional themselves, a representative statement of which is found in a letter document. Likewise, the theology of the league was defined by a of John Frederick: “It is obvious that the king has never been seri- confessional document. These two statements were by no means ous about Protestantism and has only done what he has done in unrelated. As McEntegart notes, “Acceptance and promotion of order to drive the Pope and his overlordship out of England, to set the principles of German Protestantism—and in practice this himself in that same place.”41 meant acceptance and promotion of the Confession of Augsburg—was the fundamental requirement for membership of the League.”49 As the league was founded for the defense of this confession, and as the acceptance of this confession was written into the league’s constitution, subscription to these two state- “It is obvious that the king has never ments effectively mandated German constancy. been serious about Protestantism and Though some choose different vocabulary to describe the has only done what he has done in order nature of the Germans, their constancy throughout the Anglo- Lutheran negotiations is generally accepted. Matters are less clear to drive the Pope and his overlordship in attempts to describe the nature of Henry and of the Henrician out of England, to set himself in that Reformation. As already noted, conventional analysis assumes the same place.” king was consistently set against any substantial agreement with Lutheran doctrine. Conversely, the revisionist thesis portrays nb Henry as consistently attempting to reach agreement on doctrine. His consistency is perhaps overestimated in both analyses.50 The king did of course have his consistencies; the most This interpretation, however, has recently been challenged by significant of these was his insistence on being recognized as the Rory McEntegart. McEntegart not only dismantles the argument supreme head of the church in England. Historians do not without that Henry’s motivation was purely political; he argues instead that reason refer to the Henrician Reformation. Between the Act of “the very theological aspect to Anglo-Schmalkaldic relations was Supremacy and his death, Henry continually made clear that in his one of the principal reasons for the interest which Henry showed in realm it was his church and his Reformation. He could not simply the League,”42 that “it was the very Protestantism of the League accept a German theology; doing so, at least in Henry’s estimation, which played the major part in arousing and sustaining English “would implicitly question his position as supreme head of the interest.”43 According to this interpretation, the circumstances pre- English Church.”51 Henry not only demanded recognition of his venting theological agreement did not immediately involve Henry headship in England; he also insisted upon respect for his person at all. Rather, the causes for failure were “diplomatic ineptitude” and status on the continent. Thus as early as he indicated that among the Germans and faction politics among the English.44 he would only consider an alliance with the Schmalkaldic League Without completely dismissing the conventional or the revi- “if the Serene King is given a place of dignity.”52 Henry’s belief that sionist interpretation, a third, slightly modified thesis deserves his dignity remained insufficiently acknowledged was a cause of consideration. This is that the failure to produce any agreement constant friction. He would complain that the Germans “regarded was due largely and simply to the incompatible natures of the him but little.”53 Likewise, he often considered their handling of individuals and institutions involved. The impetus for this inter- negotiations “a great contempt to his person.”54 pretation derives from candid comments by those who knew both This “heartfelt attachment to his own authority” was not parties well. Describing Henry to the German theologians, the unique to Henry; nor would it by itself prevent theological agree- English delegates explained, “Our king is inconstant.”45 In con- ment.55 But the king’s great certainty about his place in the trast, Cromwell described the Germans, telling Henry that “the church, when combined with his uncertainty regarding the direc- leage evangelike is allways stedfast and constantly sett to byde in tion of the church, did prove problematic. Attempts to formulate their opinion yea and rather to dye then relente.”46 There is no lack an English faith proved difficult for those in dialogue because they of evidence in support of these conclusions. labored in the service of a king who was “not declaring (or even The constant nature of German politics and theology is noted knowing) what the shape of that faith should be.”56 It is within the even by those unsympathetic to the Schmalkaldic League and its context of this uncertainty that the inconstant natures of Henry diplomatic policy. One commentator concludes that the German and his Reformation are most evident. Gordon Rupp was princes were “unwilling to compromise,”“immovable,”“unconcil- undoubtedly right to observe that “the Henricians were more, not iatory” and “stubbornly uncooperative,” “rigidly Lutheran” and less subservient to the King’s direction than ever Wolsey had “uncompromising.”47 Though “consistent” may be a more sympa- been.”57 But subservience, whether evangelical or conservative, thetic synonym, either conclusion affirms Cromwell’s description was complicated when the king’s direction was unknown. That it
was unknown in the s is evident in the actions—or inaction— notice—and at times without apparent reason. In the same man- of those involved throughout Anglo-Lutheran negotiations. ner, a man of Henry’s position was incapable of understanding a Not wishing to cross the king, but not knowing how to please foreign policy that was not subject to amendment and him, some simply refused to act. Such was Vaughan’s choice when modification by those who had given it shape in the first place. he wrote to Cromwell in . The same is true of those bishops who It is also in the light of their conflicting natures and consequent in refused to commit their opinions to writing because they misunderstanding that the immediate significance of these Anglo- were “afraid to write contrary to the King.” Others took action, but Lutheran dialogues is best understood. Despite their failure, many not without hesitation or qualification. The English delegates of have nevertheless argued that these negotiations did leave an were quick to note that the Wittenberg Articles might not be imprint on England’s official theology.61 There is little evidence or accepted by Henry. Even the jointly prepared Bishops’ Book would logic to support such a conclusion. Though the theology of the not go to press without clearly stating that it was subject to approval Augsburg Confession is found in the Anglo-Lutheran articles and by the king. Finally, there were those who often thought it best to act in the Ten Articles, and while it will reappear in Edwardian and without the king’s knowledge. These include the evangelical mes- Elizabethan formularies, McEntegart is correct to note that “There sengers of , , and . They also include Fox, Cranmer, and, is nothing unique to those Anglo-Schmalkaldic discussions which most importantly, Cromwell, who “Throughout the decade . . . had was transmitted to any English formulary of the faith.”62 What is been pursuing, independently of the king, a clandestine religious more, those Henrician formularies produced after the Ten Articles agenda.”58 That the king’s councilors, theologians, and delegates betray a growing rejection of German theology. While this is obvi- very rarely acted without hesitancy or secrecy is quite telling. It indi- ous in the theology of the Six Articles, it is also evident in that of cates that, while they were well aware that “the king is not to be the Bishops’ Book, which reintroduced conservative elements pre- joked with,” they were equally unaware of the king’s plans.59 That viously excluded. The later recreation of the Bishops’ Book in the even those closest to him did not know his mind suggests that form of the King’s Book in general displays an even more sharply Henry did not know his own mind,“that most formidable of terrae defined conservatism. This retreat from Lutheranism is probably incognitae.”60 It suggests that, unlike the German princes, he had no best interpreted as Henry’s reaction to his unhappy experiences constant, clearly discernible agenda for the reform of the church. with the German princes and their delegates. Consequently, the It is within this context of conflicting political and theological great significance of the Anglo-Lutheran dialogues is not to be natures that the failure of the Anglo-Lutheran negotiations is per- found in later English formularies. It lies rather in the fact that haps best understood. The German princes, bound by a confession their disagreeable proceedings effectively brought an end to any and constitution, had little understanding of a foreign policy that, substantial Lutheran influence on the course of the Henrician remaining unstated and unknown, was liable to change without Reformation. LOGIA
NOTES . P. Hughes, The Reformation in England, vols. (London: Hollis and Bretschneider (Halle: C. A. Schwetschke, ), : . Carter, ), : . . WA Br : [Beilage]. Another evangelical friend of Cromwell’s, . Ibid., : . the Cambridge lecturer Alesius, “abandoned his post rather than seem by . This is despite the fact that Luther consistently refused to speak in silence to consent to the articles.” R. Rex, Henry and the English favor of the king’s annulment. For this reason, among others, personal feel- Reformation (London: Macmillan, ), . ings between Henry and Luther changed little over the years. . Quoted in McEntegart, . . State Papers Published under the Authority of His Majesty’s . Quoted in McEntegart, . Commission: King Henry [hereafter StP], vols. (London, –), . Prüser, . : ; see also StP : –. . In the light of Cromwell’s claims, it is equally surprising that these . Ibid., :. conservative representatives were appointed by the king himself. See Prüser, . Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry . Likewise, one of the English evangelicals, Barnes, was appointed to the [hereafter LP], ed. J. S. Brewer and J. Gairdner, vols. (London: German side. McEntegart, , suggests this was done “so as to strengthen Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts, –), : . the German side.” Given that Barnes’ opinions were well known, and that .See LP : , . he was by this time out of favor with the king, it is much more likely that . Quoted in R. McEntegart,“England and the League of Schmalkalden his place among the Germans was meant to soften the evangelical voice of –: Faction, Foreign Policy and the English Reformation” the English representatives. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, London School of Economics, ), . . LP /: . . LP : . .LP /: . . Ibid., : ; see also : . iii. . Prüser, . . McEntegart, . . McEntegart, . . See LP : .i. . Compare the two positions in G. Burnet, History of the Reformation . WA Br : . This qualification was made despite the fact that of the Church of England, vol. , A Collection of Records, Letters, and Original those articles endorsed by both parties excluded discussion of the eccle- Papers, ed. N. Pocock (Oxford: Clarendon, ), – and –. siastical abuses on which subsequent negotiations would flounder: cleri- .LP /: . cal celibacy, monastic vows, the mass, and reception of communion in . Thomas Cranmer, Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas both kinds. Cranmer, ed. J. E. Cox (Cambridge: University Press, ), . . LP : . iii. . Quoted in McEntegart, . . See F. Prüser, England und die Schmalkaldner (Leipzig: M. Heinsius, . Prüser, . ), . . LP /: . . Philipp Melanchthon, Corpus Reformatorum, vols. –, Philippi . Quoted in McEntegart, . Melanthonis Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia [hereafter CR], ed. C. G. . StP :.
. See LP : . . McEntegart, . . E.G. Rupp, Studies in the Making of the Protestant Tradition . Ibid., ; see also i, , . (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), . See also G.W.Bernard, . Ibid., , . “The Making of Religious Policy, –: Henry and the Search for . WA Br : . Notably, even Tunstall, otherwise quick to disagree the Middle Way,” Historical Journal (): . with the evangelical party, refers to “the inconstancy of princes” when dis- .Rupp,. cussing his king. LP /: . . LP : . That northern conservatives rejected the Ten Articles . Thomas Cromwell, Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, vol. , is denied by Rex, n. , who attempts to refute the argument of A. Letters from , ed. R. B. Merriman (Oxford: Clarendon, ), . Kreider, English Chantries: The Road to Dissolution (Cambridge, MA and . McEntegart, i, , , . London: Harvard University Press, ), . This refutation is, I believe, . Ibid., . flawed on several counts. Ignoring a footnote, Rex fails to deal with all of . Ibid., . the evidence presented by Kreider. The cited sources he does acknowledge . While taking issue with various points of both conventional and are either too hastily dismissed or too inventively reinterpreted. As revisionist theses, G. W. Bernard is the most recent author to argue for justification for doing both, Rex appeals only to LP : .ii, a document Henry’s fundamental consistency in matters of reform. But see also D. which is badly mutilated and, even in its preserved portions, not altogeth- MacCulloch, “Henry and the Reform of the Church,” in The Reign of er clear regarding its purpose and meaning. For the disputed documents, Henry : Politics, Policy, and Piety, ed. D. MacCulloch (London: see LP : ; : ; : .ii; /: ; /: . Macmillan, ), –, especially –. . See the analyses in Rupp, –,–; N. S. Tjernagel, Henry . McEntegart, . and the Lutherans: A Study in Anglo-Lutheran Relations from to . CR : . (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), –, –; H. E. . Quoted in McEntegart, . Jacobs, A Study in Comparative Symbolics: The Lutheran Movement in . Quoted in McEntegart, . Henry, regarding himself more highly England During the Reigns of Henry and Edward (Philadelphia: than did the Germans, did make some unreasonable requests. For example, General Council, ), –, –, –. he asked that the Lutherans not critique the Six Articles. See CR : . . McEntegart, .While thus describing the Augsburg Confession, . The phrase is that of Alec Ryrie, “The Strange Death of Lutheran he consistently associates its Apology with the doctrine of abuses alone. See, England,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History (): . for example, McEntegart, , , . This is an unfortunate misunder- . McEntegart, . standing; the latter merely explains and expands each of the articles found . Rupp, . in the former. In fact, that which receives the greatest attention in the . McEntegart, . Apology is not the abuses, but the fundamental article on justification, . This was true even of Cromwell. See Bernard, –. which grew from only three paragraphs in the Augsburg Confession to over . P.Marshall,“Mumpsimus and Sumpsimus: The Intellectual Origins one hundred in the Apology. of a Henrician Bon Mot,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History (): . . McEntegart, . . See, for example, Rupp, ; Tjernagel, , –; Jacobs, –. . Quoted in McEntegart, . . McEntegart, , n. .
“But We’ve Always Done It That Way!” Wittenberg and Canterbury on Tradition
A B
j
tents of the Book of Common Prayer. Thus Anglicans were received by the church, required to follow “a rigid episcopalian order and a virtually many are mere human traditions, though as such they may unchanged liturgy.”8 Consequently Anglicans necessarily must O be neither good nor bad. Yet when such human traditions have great “respect for the liturgical texts of the Christian tradi- become legalistic requirements or run counter to Scripture and the tion.”Yet this respect has influenced Anglicans so that “lex orandi gospel, they must be opposed. The recent accord achieved by the tends to prevail in an unbalanced way over lex credendi ....Lex Episcopalians and the ELCA has left the impression that the tradi- orandi has the priority, lex credendi is essential but logically and tions of Canterbury and Wittenberg in some way converge. This ontologically derivative.”9 This focus on episcopalian liturgical essay will question this apparent concord based on the investiga- order also came to influence the Anglican approach to Scripture. tion of the Episcopalian and Lutheran understanding of tradition. This influence can be seen in the work of George Bull, Bishop of St David’s, who died in , having written the definitive state- CANTERBURY ON TRADITION ment on justification for the Church of England. He led a group When the Anglicans first separated themselves from Rome, that formally accepted “the primacy of Scripture,” but tended “to Coverdale, Tyndale, and many others “thought it unsafe to argue regard the patristic interpretation of it as normative.” Others, theologically on any other ground than the Bible (sola scriptura).”1 reacting to what they viewed as improper biblicism,“began afresh Others, like Robert Barnes, Peter Martyr, and John Jewel used the the use of an appeal to tradition.”10 Consequently, while ancient writings of the church to refute Rome’s claims. This new “Anglicanism thus asserts the Reformation principle of ‘sola scrip- and unfamiliar appeal to antiquity, however, needed “cautious han- tura,’ it nevertheless sets scripture in the wider context of tradi- dling. It must not confuse the appeal to Scripture . . . ‘Unwritten tion.” The Anglicans believe that verities,’ a phrase much in use, will not do.”2 Thomas Cranmer’s treatise, “A Confutation of Unwritten Verities,” makes certain to Christ promised his church the gift of the Spirit to lead it “protect the sufficiency of Scripture by castigating the papists’ flight into all truth. We believe that Spirit has continued to lead to things delivered, as they say, from the Apostles by word of mouth the church into all truth through the ages, perhaps evoking without writing.”3 Cranmer would not accept the patristic writings a clearer response at some times than others, but never and decrees of the early church councils “without Scripture as arti- deserting her . . . . This constant renewal of the church’s cles of faith”; neither did he “trust unwritten tradition.”4 understanding of the original revelation is what constitutes Nevertheless, following the Elizabethan Settlement (), tradition. Tradition is the accumulation of past exegesis Anglicans debated whether only Holy Scripture should be used as . . . . In the present century much Anglican thinking has the basis for argumentation, or whether one could argue “from been done on the doctrine of the Real Presence, in liturgical the experience of the Church.”5 Some, like the chaplain to Queen theology and, under the impact of the ecumenical move- Elizabeth , Bishop Lancelot Andrewes (d. ), drew so much on ment, on the doctrine of the church.11 the tradition of the Fathers for his catechesis, moral theology, and liturgical work, that he began to form “a new kind of Anglicanism The relationship between the authority of Scripture and tradi- considerably different from what many of the Anglican reformers tion in Anglicanism is displayed in the following: “Today had envisaged.”6 For others, especially the Puritans, this growing Anglicanism cannot justify its adherence to the doctrines of the Anglican appeal to tradition appeared “to foster a Rome-ward Trinity and incarnation, unless it is prepared to accord an author- movement away from Scripture and the Reformation.”7 ity to the Church as ‘witness and keeper of Holy Writ’ (Article ). Nevertheless, as Anglicanism continued to evolve, the appeal to It is on the authority of the Church of the early centuries, not of tradition and reason grew, and the appeal to Scripture began to the Bible alone, that Anglicanism upholds them.”12 recede. Finally, in ,Anglicans were sworn to the form and con- For Anglicans, then, the term “tradition” is dynamic and devel- oping. It is an aspect of the activity of the Holy Spirit in the church. Though Anglicans claim that “tradition” adds nothing to the origi- A B is pastor of St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, Waseca, nal revelation of God to the church, the development of thinking in Minnesota. reality extends the content of the tradition.13 The understanding of tradition in Anglicanism is very similar to that which is found in Our Lutheran forefathers recognized that traditions could Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.14 “Liturgy and spiri- ensnare consciences. Yet they urged moderation and charity tuality should be fed from the study of the Fathers . . . . In modern where traditions did not violate Scripture or offered salvation to Anglican theology, as in modern Roman Catholicism or those who followed them. Vilmos Vajta wrote of the proper place Orthodoxy, the appeal to the Fathers remains a living force.”15 of tradition in the Lutheran Reformation:
WITTENBERG ON TRADITION Human traditions in shaping liturgy were not regarded per se During the Reformation, Lutherans also wrestled with the rela- as apostasy. But the Reformation held that there was a norm tionship of Scripture and tradition, a struggle in which they are for such traditions namely Holy Scriptures. Therefore tradi- still engaged to this day. In their writings, the early Lutherans tions had to reflect the essentials of biblical faith and practice emphasized the fact that there is only one authority in the church: or else be rejected as idolatrous. Liturgical development God’s Word. “Holy Scripture remains the only judge, rule, and must operate between these two poles: that which is divine- norm according to which as the only touchstone all doctrines ly instituted and that which is idolatrous. But this freedom must not conflict with the basic article of justification by faith in Jesus Christ. This conviction called for opposition to all human traditions which had the implication —whether Lutherans did not despise godly expressed or tacitly assumed—of rites meriting the favor of God . . . . Within the given limits of the instituted and the traditions that were in accord forbidden anything can be tolerated except that which com- with Scripture and the gospel. petes and conflicts with the Gospel.22 nb This remains the teaching of Lutheranism today, as can be seen in the following statement issued by participants in the Lutheran- should and must be understood and judged as good or evil, right Roman Catholic dialogues: or wrong.”16 And again the Lutheran forefathers said, “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and Questions about Scripture and tradition tend therefore to New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is be answered differently. A basic question for Luther was the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings whether Scripture mediates a clear Word from God to the are to be judged and evaluated.”17 despairing sinner. Luther, in a series of dramatic images, likened Scripture to a light shining in the darkness, a pure Scripture, moreover, has predicted that the righteousness of fountain from which the water of life flows, or the center faith would be obscured in this way by human traditions and from which all truth radiates. The fundamental assumption, the doctrine of works. Just as Paul often complains (cf. Gal , the “first principle,” is the conviction that the Word of God ; , ; Col. , , sq.; Tim , sq., etc.) that there were even is a promise from God and that this Word, hence Scripture, at that time those who, instead of the righteousness of faith, is clear . . . . By virtue of its own external clarity, Scripture is taught that men were reconciled to God and justified by understood as a “clear and bright light” that finds, enlight- their own works and own acts of worship, and not by faith ens, judges, and saves those who hear and believe its Word for Christ’s sake.18 . . . . Luther and the Lutheran Confessions see the question of tradition in the light of this understanding and use of This is why Melanchthon called certain forms of worship “godless.”19 Scripture. Sola scriptura does not mean that tradition is rejected per se, but rather that Scripture establishes itself as “If bishops have the right to burden churches with infinite tra- the final arbiter in matters of faith and life, particularly in ditions, and to ensnare consciences, why does Scripture so cases of dispute. Tradition stands under, not over, the scrip- often prohibit to make, and to listen to, traditions? Why does it tural Word and its proclamation . . . . Everything in the call them ‘doctrines of devils’? Tim : .Did the Holy Ghost in church’s practice, preaching, and teaching is to be subordi- vain forewarn of these things?”20 Appealing to the example of nate to the Word of Scripture. the apostles, who ran afoul of human tradition, the Lutherans Lutherans hold that Scripture alone is the ultimate norm noted that when “[T]he apostles violated traditions, . . . Christ by which traditions must be judged. Catholics hold that the excused them.”At the same time, these same Lutherans did not decisive norm by which doctrines or traditions are judged despise godly traditions that were in accord with Scripture and is Scripture together with living apostolic tradition, which the gospel: “We gladly keep the old traditions set up in the is perpetuated in the church through the influence of the church because they are useful and promote tranquility, and we Holy Spirit.23 interpret them in an evangelical way, excluding the opinion which holds that they justify . . . . We can truthfully claim that For early Lutherans, lex credendi had precedence over lex oran- in our churches the public liturgy is more decent than in theirs, di. They clearly saw that the “law of believing founds the law of and if you look at it correctly we are more faithful to the canons worshiping.”24 Central to faith and belief is the doctrine of than our opponents are.”21 justification, the article by which the church stands or falls. “ ’ ”
Therefore the Lutheran Confessions emphasize the fact that “wor- beginning of the church. If not the exact parts, the shape of the ship is thoroughly grounded in the doctrine of justification and tradition was always there—the narrative of Institution enclosed justification becomes the touchstone for liturgical change and within the context of a prayer, an invocation of the Holy Spirit adaptation.”25 The Lutheran Confessions note that the term litur- (epiclesis), a prayer of thanksgiving, prayers of remembrance gy is not seen as a work or action of the people; rather, liturgy has directed to the Father, and all of this patterned after the tradition to do with God’s working through the office of the holy ministry of Jewish table prayers. In this tradition only the “narrative of to grant his grace to sinners. Thus the Confessions’ emphasis is on Institution” is recorded in Holy Scripture. All the rest of the justification in the divine liturgy, not on the sanctified work of the eucharistic prayer is a human tradition composed of human people in response to God’s justifying grace.26 words not found in the accounts of the Lord’s Supper in Holy Thus Anglicans and Lutherans view tradition differently. For Scripture. Dix wrote that his use of unwritten traditions was not a Anglicans tradition (lex orandi) has near (if not equal) authority problem. He admitted that “the words of Jesus’‘Thanksgiving’ are with Holy Scripture (lex credendi). Furthermore, tradition is not recorded for us in Scripture. Why should they be? They were something that continues to unfold as the Spirit gives insight. For as familiar to every jew [sic] as the Lord’s Prayer is to us.”31 Thus Lutherans good traditions are respected. but all tradition is sub- the lack of Scriptural evidence for the eucharistic prayer is inter- ordinate to Holy Scripture. In fact, if tradition is contrary to preted by means of the later extra-biblical tradition found in the Scripture it must be rejected, and all the more so if the tradition liturgies and writings of the church fathers to mean that Jesus cer- conflicts with the doctrine of justification. tainly spoke such prayers when he instituted the eucharist. Here lex orandi takes precedence over lex credendi. TRADITION AS SEEN IN THE REJECTION OR THE ACCEPTANCE OF EUCHARISTIC PRAYERS Anglicans on Eucharistic Prayers One of the most influential books on the subject of eucharistic For Anglicans tradition (lex orandi) prayers in Anglicanism and in ecumenical liturgical circles has has near (if not equal) authority with been The Shape of the Liturgy by the Anglican scholar Gregory Holy Scripture (lex credendi). Dix.27 Dix, like many others, studied the liturgical traditions of the church and the writings of the church fathers on the liturgy and nb then interpreted the biblical evidence on that basis. In other words, Dix, operating in the midst of his Anglican tradition, worked his way back from the worship tradition to the biblical This emphasis on lex orandi in Dix and the modern liturgical text, because in Anglicanism tradition interprets Scripture.28 Dix movement moves them to center the shape of the tradition of stated his thesis this way: eucharistic prayers in the actions of human beings:“The . . . apos- tolic and primitive church regarded the eucharist as primarily an (a) The outline of the rite—the Shape of the Liturgy—is every- action, something ‘done’, not something ‘said’; and . . . this action where most remarkably the same, after years of independent was corporate, the united joint action of the whole church, and not existence in the widely scattered churches. of the celebrant only.”32 Thus liturgy is the work of the people, not (b) The content of the Eucharistic prayer is by then also to Gottesdienst.33 some extent the same in arrangement and even in certain Anglicans (and many others) today believe that every celebra- phrases . . . . Now that research is beginning, tentatively but tion of the Lord’s Supper from the earliest days of the church was with increasing success, to push back our knowledge of the in the shape of this supposed universal historical Christian liturgy into the period before the later fourth century . . . . eucharistic tradition, even though that tradition is not found in The outline—the Shape—of the Liturgy is still everywhere Scripture. And any celebration of the Lord’s Supper without the the same in all our sources, right back into the earliest peri- shape of the tradition of a eucharistic prayer is said to be some- od of which we can as yet speak with certainty, the earlier thing less than a full and proper celebration of the sacrament.34 half of the second century. There is even good reason to One may therefore conclude that the line of reasoning used with- think that this outline—the Shape—of the Liturgy is of gen- in the Anglican communion, according to Dix, is this: “We’ve uinely apostolic tradition.29 always done it this way! This is the tradition. This is the shape!”
The above paragraph describes Dix’s understanding of the Lutherans on Eucharistic Prayers proper shape of the tradition of eucharistic prayers. Most liturgi- Some Lutherans today have accepted the shape and the tradi- cal scholars today, because of its supposed authenticity and its tion of eucharistic prayers in their hymnals. This has clearly been supposed apostolic pedigree, have adopted this shape of the tradi- borrowed from Dix and the Anglicans.35 Eucharistic prayers tion. Thus the tradition of eucharistic prayers has basically appeared in the Service Book and Hymnal, the LCMS’ Worship assumed the same shape in hymnbooks that are Episcopalian, Supplement of , and in the Lutheran Book of Worship.Some Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, or Roman Catholic.30 Lutherans have also entered a formal fellowship agreement with According to Dix and the Anglicans, the shape of the eucharis- the Episcopalians, in part, because they have agreed on the shape tic prayer tradition is said to have been nearly constant since the of the tradition of eucharistic prayers.36 For them the shape of the tradition is normative: “This four-fold shape is essential to the Testamenti, which are not to be obscured by the addition of sacrament. Leave out any part and you will have no grounds to humanly-devised traditions, nor confused by making them call what has been done the Lord’s Supper. Action on this level is into a God-directed prayer.43 not subject to liturgical reform.”37 But is this acceptance of the shape and tradition of eucharistic prayers, and the emphasis on Luther’s aversion to anything that obscured the words of Christ human action (liturgy as work of the people), in keeping with his- and gifts of the sacrament of the altar was maintained even after toric Lutheran teaching and practice? his death, even by those given to compromise for the sake of ecu- menical peace. During the Interims, Lutherans were faced with the return of eucharistic prayers, a demand imposed by Emperor Charles V. Tradition was invoked as a reason to return the eucharistic prayers Chemnitz rejected the historicity and to Lutheran liturgies.44 Some Lutherans, including Melanchthon, authenticity of the eucharistic prayer accepted the return of many formerly rejected Romanist practices for the sake of peace. But Melanchthon stood with Flacius in tradition because of the lack of rejecting the return of the tradition of eucharistic prayers into scriptural and historical evidence. Lutheran liturgies. This Melanchthon did because of Christ’s nb “command that the recognized doctrine of the truth of the gospel must not be denied.”45 Melanchthon “expressly refused as con- trary to the article on justification, prayers to the saints, private masses and masses for the dead, and canon missae.” 46 Luther rejected the tradition of eucharistic prayers because they Amid these controversies, Melanchthon noted that in Lutheran reversed the proper direction of the sacrament of the altar as God’s liturgies without eucharistic prayers “all essential parts of the mass gift to the faithful, attacked the doctrine of justification and the sola were retained: consecration, distribution, reception, prayer for for- scriptura principle, and emphasized human works, sacrifice, and giveness, and thanksgiving.”As a result of the work of Melanchthon action rather than the saving work of Christ.38 Luther said: and Flacius, eucharistic prayers were not returned to Lutheran litur- gies. Melanchthon was convinced that by preventing the return of these two things—mass and prayer, sacrament and work, the tradition of eucharistic prayers to Lutheran liturgies, he had testament and sacrifice—must not be confused; for the one saved the Reformation (the doctrine of justification, sola scriptura, mass, sacrament, testament comes from God to us through and the like).“The controversies about the canon were of the high- the ministration of the priest and demands our faith mass, est importance to me, and I thank God, if I succeed in preventing the other prayer, work, sacrifice proceeds from our faith to that these impieties are forced on the pastors.”47 God through the priest and demands his God’s hearing. The In the Examination of the Council of Trent, Chemnitz dealt former descends, the latter ascends.39 scripturally and from the writings of the church fathers with the claim of Rome that the eucharistic prayer and its shape were a And again Luther wrote that we “must therefore sharply distin- constant tradition since the time of the apostolic church. While guish the testament and sacrament itself from the prayers which not rejecting proper godly tradition, Chemnitz rejected the his- we offer at the same time.”40 Luther continues: toricity and authenticity of the eucharistic prayer tradition because of the lack of scriptural and historical evidence, the In the first place . . . we must be particularly careful to put impropriety of the invocation of human tradition as though it aside whatever has been added to its original simple institu- were as authoritative as Scripture, and the fact that such prayers tion . . . such things as . . . chants, prayers . . . . We must turn attack the doctrine of justification. He wrote: our eyes and hearts simply to the institution of Christ and this alone, and set nothing before us but the very word of But first of all it is impossible by any reason or appearance of Christ by which he instituted this sacrament . . . . For in that a reason to teach on the basis of Scripture that the canonical word, and in that word alone, reside the power, the nature, prayer which is customary for papalists was either used by and the whole substance of the Mass. All the rest is the work Christ or handed down by the apostles. Moreover the papal- of man added to the work of Christ.41 ist writers themselves . . . teach openly that the apostles con- secrated the wafer for the offering without the canon, by And again Luther said, “Yield, O Canon, to the Gospel, and give means of the words of institution, with only the Lord’s Prayer. place to the Holy Spirit, since you are a human word.”42 This posi- Now the words of institution of the Supper are the words of tion of Luther’s is summarized by Robin Leaver, who wrote: Christ. And according to Gregory, it is apostolic tradition to recite the Lord’s Prayer at the celebration of the Supper. Luther was totally consistent in applying the doctrine of Therefore with the exception of the words of institution and justification as the controlling principle to liturgical as well the Lord’s Prayer, all the rest of the canon of the Mass is a as to all other theological and practical questions: in the human invention and a human composition . . . . Therefore Lord’s Supper is the offer of forgiveness and grace, and this . . . to compel the churches to recite the . . . canon as some- proclamation of the gospel is enshrined in the Verba thing necessary, as though the consecration and Communion “ ’ ”
of the Eucharist could not be done without this canon, is dated for the Christian church.51 Thus the dictum of the confes- done outside of and contrary to the opinion of antiquity.48 sors should be followed: “Neither is it safe without the authority of Scripture to institute forms of worship in the church.”52 And again Chemnitz wrote that the “canon”of the mass with its Unhappily, the matter of the tradition of a eucharistic prayer is eucharistic prayer is a “real abomination” because by it “the Lord’s not a settled issue in Lutheranism or in broader Christianity. Supper is transformed into a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of Philip Pfatteicher wrote of a “number of issues” that “remain for the living and the dead.”49 Lutherans and for the whole church.” One of these issues is the Luther, Melanchthon, Flacius, Chemnitz, and others in effect “validity or admissibility of a eucharistic prayer.”53 said that we have not always done it this way. It has been done other ways before. Their views are deeply rooted in Scripture, not CONCLUSION human tradition, and not even in the supposed unwritten “apos- The Lutherans who have joined the Episcopalians in accepting tolic” tradition, which many claim for the tradition and shape of the tradition of eucharistic prayers have done so, at least in part, eucharistic prayers. The views of these Lutherans are even sup- because they have accepted a marriage of Scripture and tradition ported by more recent studies into the tradition of the liturgy. that is historically more Anglican than Lutheran.54 Along with These studies note that the supposed uniformity of the shape, the Anglicans it is asserted that “We’ve always done it this way!” including the enclosing of the words of institution in a prayer, is Unfortunately, the acceptance of that tradition raises a number not consistently borne out by the ancient sources. There is much of theological issues that assail the doctrine of justification, as variety, to the point that these scholars concede that the Lutheran well as leaving open the question of the relationship of Scripture practice of separating the words of institution from the prayers and tradition. has historical precedent.50 Lutherans who reject eucharistic prayers stand with their fore- Most important for historic Lutheranism is the supremacy of fathers (and even the earliest Anglicans) in exalting the authority Scripture. The tradition of eucharistic prayers lacks Scriptural of Scripture over tradition. Lutherans do not reject all tradition, warrant. This is evidenced by the lack of the text of a eucharistic but they do norm tradition with the authority of Holy Scripture. prayer in Corinthians . Here Paul says that he “received from This they do believing that the reliance on Scripture as the only the Lord that which I also delivered to you.” ( Cor :). Paul rule and norm of doctrine and practice safeguards the doctrine of delivered no eucharistic prayer to the Greek Corinthian justification and preserves biblical practices in the areas of liturgy Christians, who doubtless would not have been familiar with and worship. They say, “We will do it differently than the accept- Jewish prayers, despite Dix’s assertions to the contrary. Clearly ed tradition because this is what Scripture teaches.” This adher- Paul delivered no eucharistic prayer to the Corinthian Christians ence to sola scriptura enables God’s church to confess faithfully the (nor to us), for Christ did not deliver one to him. So the tradition doctrine of justification for the salvation of lost sinners in the God of a eucharistic prayer is simply not found in Scripture as man- given tradition of the divine liturgy. LOGIA
NOTES . Stanley L. Greenslade, “The Authority of the Tradition of the Early the word is the source of theological and ecclesiastical coherence for Church in Early Anglican Thought,” in Gunther Gassmann and Vilmos Lutherans, and liturgy and order is for Anglicans.”Robert Goeser, Norman Vajta, eds., OECUMENICA: An Annual Symposium of Ecumenical Research Nagel, William Weiblen, “Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue,” in Joseph A. /—Tradition in Lutheranism and Anglicanism (Minneapolis: Burgess, ed., Lutherans in Ecumenical Dialogue: A Reappraisal Augsburg Publishing House/Neuchatel: Editions Delachaux et (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, ), . Niestle/Paris: Les Editions du Cerf/Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus . Ibid., , . Gerd Mohn, ), . . Reginald H. Fuller, “Anglican Self-Understanding and Anglican . Ibid., . Tradition,” in Gassmann and Vajta, –. See also Henry Chadwick, . Ibid., . “Tradition, Fathers and Councils,”in Sykes and Booty, . . Ibid. See also Philip E. Hughes, Theology of the English Reformers . Reginald H. Fuller, “Scripture,”in Sykes and Booty, . (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ), –, . Paul Avis, “What is ‘Anglicanism’?” in Sykes and Booty, –. , –, . . For the Eastern Orthodox view see Eugene L. Brand,“The Lutheran . Greenslade, . On the “Elizabethan Settlement” see Hans J. Book of Worship at ‘Mid-life,’” Lutheran Forum , no. (Advent, ): . Hillerbrand, The World of the Reformation (New York: Charles Scribner’s For Rome see Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: William H. Sons, ), –. Sadlier,Inc., ), –.It is important to note that for Rome, the “Liturgy . Ibid., . is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition (Ibid., ). See . Ibid., . also Harold C. Skillrud, J. Francis Stafford, Daniel F. Martenson, eds., . Gareth Vaughan Bennett, “Patristic Tradition in Anglican Thought, Scripture and Tradition: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue –,”in Gassmann and Vajta, , . (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, ), , –. This is also the view of . W. Taylor Stevenson, “Lex Orandi-Lex Credendi,” in Stephen Sykes tradition found in most ecumenical dialogues; see Nils Ehrenstrom and and John Booty, eds., The Study of Anglicanism (London/Philadelphia: Gunther Gassmann, eds., Confessions in Dialog: A Survey of Bilateral SPCK/Fortress Press, ), , . “Anglicans have tended to stress the Conversations among World Confessional Families – (Geneva: World importance of liturgy as expressing the faith of the Church. Lutherans, Council of Churches, ), , . whilst not denying this, have tended to lay more emphasis on doctrinal . Chadwick,“Tradition, Fathers and Councils,” . See also Frank C. confession.”The Porvoo Statement and Declaration in Confessional Lutheran Senn, Christian Liturgy: Catholic and Evangelical (Minneapolis: Fortress Perspective (St. Louis: The Office of the President and the Commission on Press, ), –; and Massey H. Shepherd Jr., The Worship of the Theology and Church Relations, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Church (Greenwich, Connecticut: Seabury Press, ), – for an ), . See also .“Perhaps what most distinguishes them . . . is the way overview of the liturgical history of Anglicanism during the Reformation
period, and of the Episcopalian liturgical history in the USA. Gregory Dix and the Four-Action Shape of the Liturgy,”Lutheran Quarterly . FC Ep, Rule and Norm, , Tappert. ,no. (Summer ): –; and Oliver K. Olson, “Liturgy as ‘Action,’” . FC SD, Rule and Norm, , Tappert. See also Ap –, , , ; dialog ,no. (Spring ): –. AC ; ; , –;Ap ; , –; SA , –; . . Quill, –. .Ap , , Triglotta; Ap , , Tappert. . “It is not only poor taste but a sign of ignorance, if the Canon .Tr,–, , , , , , Triglotta. (The Eucharistic Prayer, the Remembrance, the Narrative, and the . AC , . See also AC , –. Invocation of the Holy Ghost) is omitted.” B. von Schenk, The Presence: .Ap , , –. An Approach to Holy Communion (New York and Chicago: Ernst . Vilmos Vajta, “Liturgy,” in Julius Bodensieck, ed., The Encyclopedia Kaufmann, Inc., ), . of the Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, ), : . Oliver K. Olson, “The Liturgy and Concomitant Aspects of the . Also John F. Johnson, “Authority and Tradition: A Lutheran Lord’s Supper,”in J. Bart Day, Jon D.Vieker, et al., eds., Lord Jesus Christ, Will Perspective,” Concordia Journal ,no. (September ), –. You Not Stay: Essays in Honor of Ronald Feuerhahn on the Occasion of His . Skillrud, Stafford, and Martensen, –, –. Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Chelsea, MI: Sheridan Books, Inc., ), –. . Arthur A. Just, “Liturgical Renewal in the Parish,” in Fred L. . “In viewing our several Eucharistic traditions in perspective, we Precht, ed., Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (St. Louis: Concordia agreed that unity in Eucharistic practice is to be found more in the ‘shape’ Publishing House, ), . “. . . dogma is the standard for the liturgy,” of Eucharistic liturgies than in fixed texts.” Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue: David P.Scaer,“Missouri’s Identity Crisis: Rootless in America,” Logia , A Progress Report (Cincinnati, Ohio: Forward Movement Publications, no. (Epiphany ): . “The rule of faith constitutes the rule of nd), . See also Eugene L. Brand, “An Ecumenical Enterprise,” in Ralph prayer.” Herman Sasse, “A Lutheran Contribution to the Present L. Van Loon, ed., Encountering God: The Legacy of Lutheran Book of Discussions on the Lord’s Supper,” Concordia Theological Monthly ,no. Worship for the Twenty-First Century (Minneapolis: Kirk House (January ): .“. . . in all circumstances dogma should be the norm Publishers, ), . for the liturgy . . . in the church that makes or would like to make the . Eugene Brand, “Ceremonial Forms and Contemporary Life,” right understanding of the Gospel also the criterion for the liturgy.” Response ,no. (St. Michael, ): . “In the restoration of a form of Hermann Sasse, “The Lutheran Understanding of the Consecration,” in Eucharistic Prayer in the Common Liturgy, we return to the earlier pre- Hermann Sasse, We Confess the Sacraments, We Confess Series , trans. Roman conception, according to which the church sets apart the elements Norman Nagel, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), . in a blessing or thanksgiving which includes four actions in imitation of . Roger J. Humann, “The Lutheran Liturgy: An Adiaphoron?” our Lord’s actions at the Last Supper. These actions are: taking, blessing (or Lutheran Theological Review , nos. and (Fall/Winter ): .“The arti- giving thanks), breaking, and distributing.” Luther D. Reed, The Lutheran cle on justification by faith alone gives the rationale for all statements about Liturgy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. ed., ), . See also Herbert F. worship and church law.” Wilhelm Maurer, Historical Commentary on the Lindemann, The New Mood in Lutheran Worship (Minneapolis: Augsburg Augsburg Confession, trans. H. George Anderson (Philadelphia: Fortress Publishing House, ), –; Mandus Egge, “Let There Be Surprise,” Press, ), . “Thus, the Confessions ground the liturgy in the doctrine Journal of Church Music , no. (): ; Robert Jenson, Visible Words of justification by grace through faith for Christ’s sake (AC , , ,,, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ), –, –, –. , , ;Ap., , –, , , ; –, , –; , ; ; . Bryan Spinks, Luther’s Liturgical Surgery and His Reform of the ; ).” John T. Pless, “The Relationship of Adiaphora and Liturgy in Canon of the Mass, Grove Liturgical Studies (Bramcote, Notts.: Grove the Lutheran Confessions,”in Gerald S. Krispin and Jon D.Vieker, eds., And Books, ); Carl Wisloff, The Gift of Communion: Luther’s Controversy Every Tongue Confess: Essays in Honor of Norman Nagel on the Occasion of with Rome on Eucharistic Sacrifice, trans. J. M. Shaw (Minneapolis: His Sixty-fifth Birthday (Chelsea, MI: BookCrafters, ), . See also AC Augsburg Publishing House, ); Vilmos Vajta, Luther on Worship, trans. , ; Ap , . U. S. Leupold (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ). . Ap , –. See also D. Richard Stuckwisch, “A Hymnal We . AE : . See also SA , –; , –. Need: A Pastor’s Perspective,” Issues in Christian Education , no. (Spring . AE : . ): ; Arthur A. Just, Jr., “The Pastor and the Liturgy,” in John R. . AE : . Also AE : ; Oliver K. Olson, Matthias Flacius and the Fehrmann and Daniel Preus, eds., The Office of the Holy Ministry Survival of Luther’s Reform (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, ), , (Crestwood, MO, and Minneapolis: Luther Academy/Association of –. Confessional Lutherans, ), –. . WA , .Also AE : .“Ich glaub, der teuffel hab den Canon selb . Dom Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (London: Dacre gemacht” WA , . Press/Adam Charles Black, ).“Dix’s work had a pivotal influence on . Robin A. Leaver, “Theological Consistency, Liturgical Integrity, all subsequent liturgical revision in the Anglican Communion.”William R. and Musical Hermeneutics in Luther’s Liturgical Reforms,” Lutheran Crockett, “Holy Communion,” in Sykes and Booty, ; see also –. Quarterly , no. (Summer ): . An advocate for the return of “His [Dix’s] insights have affected the liturgical revisions undertaken by eucharistic prayers to Lutheran liturgies summed up the orthodox almost every denomination over the course of the past fifty years.” Lutheran position very well, even though he disagrees with it: “The case Timothy C. J. Quill, The Impact of the Liturgical Movement on American can thus be made that all of this recovery of the ancient liturgy, and most Lutheranism (Lanham, MD, and London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., ), particularly the full Eucharistic Prayer, while historically interesting, is ; see also –. alien to Lutheran theology with its strict emphasis on the objective . “Dix initiates his study of the Christian Eucharist service by a com- efficacy of the Word and its studied avoidance of any work or action on parative study of the available liturgies. Working phenomenalistically, he our part that would seem to cooperate with the communication of divine identified a four-action shape as the common, unifying characteristic. grace. For a prayer is clearly our act, something we as humans do in With this theory in hand he works his way back to the source ofHoly addressing God. In the context of the Eucharist, a prayer is then clearly an Scripture.” Quill, . offering, and if that offering-action is not to collapse into works-right- . Dix, , . eousness it must be distinguished from the unmerited gift of grace . “Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, and Presbyter- through Christ given in the sacrament. The unembellished declaration of ian liturgies . . . follow a common ‘shape.’’ There are “remarkable similari- the Words of Institution, then, as pure proclamation unattached to any ties” in these liturgies which are “a result of the consensus on the shape of work of prayer on our part, is the means by which a separation is made the liturgy across a broad confessional spectrum.” Frank C. Senn, ; see between God’s act (the sacrament) and our response (thanks and praise). also –. For generations this has been a convincing argument among Lutherans . Dix, . This is a direct result of Dix’s low view of Scripture. . . . and it is supported by the actual liturgical practice of Luther himself, Quill, –. who excised the whole canon of the Mass except for the simple procla- . Dix, . For a critique of Dix see Bryan D. Spinks, “Mis-Shapen: mation of the Words of Institution in his German Mass, a liturgical “ ’ ” practice continued in the mainstream of Lutheran liturgy.” Mark E. heard, not human traditions,”Ap , . “‘He who hears you hears me’ Chapman, “The Eucharistic Prayer in Lutheran Liturgy,” The Bride of (Luke :), is not referring to traditions but is rather directed against tra- Christ ,no. (Pentecost ): . Lutherans thus rejected the tradition ditions . . . (Acts :). Scripture commands that we must obey God rather of eucharistic prayers because they emphasized human work and action, than men. To the extent that they teach wicked things, they should not be and attacked the doctrine of justification and sola scriptura. heard. But these are wicked things: that human traditions are the worship . Olson, Matthias Flacius, ; –. of God; that they are necessary acts of worship; that they merit forgiveness . Ibid., . of sins and eternal life.”Ap , , . Also Ap , –, . . Matthew C. Harrison, “Martin Chemnitz and FC ,” in Paul T. . Philip H. Pfatteicher, Commentary on the Lutheran Book of Worship: McCain and John R. Stephenson, eds., Mysteria Dei: Essays in Honor of Kurt Lutheran Liturgy in Its Ecumenical Context (Minneapolis: Augsburg Marquart (Ft. Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, ), . Fortress, ), . Pfatteicher wrote that the second largest “liturgical See also ; CR . ff. issue” before Lutherans in was this: “Is it legitimate in the Lutheran . Olson, Matthias Flacius, . context to incorporate the words of institution within the body of a . Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, trans. Fred eucharistic prayer of thanksgiving? Lutherans simply do not agree on the Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), : , ; see also answer to these questions, and the answers one gives raise a great number –, –, –, , , –. “. . . faith and worship rest on of other issues that go to the heart of the Christian faith.” Philip H. the Word of God, not on human authority,”: ; see also –,–. Pfatteicher, “Still To Be Tried,” Lutheran Forum ,no. (November ): See also Oliver K. Olson, “Robert Bellarmin and Martin Chemnitz on the . See also Quill, . Antiquity of the Roman Canon,” Logia ,no. (Epiphany ): –. This same question has arisen in other religious traditions. Donald . Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacraments, trans. Luther Macleod, a member of the Free Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Poellot (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), ; also –. expresses concern over the inclusion of a Hippolytus-styled eucharistic Chemnitz charges Rome with holding “to the traditions of men” with their prayer in a Presbyterian hymnal because, in addition to other things, it eucharistic prayers and canon, rather than holding to the “command of disturbs the proper flow of worship. With such a prayer the worshippers God.” This holding to human traditions in worship makes God’s com- are making an “offering of sacrifice.” Donald Macleod, “Calvin into mands “of no effect.” Chemnitz, Examination, : . Hippolytus?” in Bryan D. Spinks and Iain R. Torrance, eds., To Glorify . Bryan D. Spinks, “Berakah, Anaphoral Theory and Luther,” God: Essays on Modern Reformed Liturgy (Grand Rapids: William B. Lutheran Quarterly ,no. (Autumn ): –, –; David N. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ), . Power,“The Eucharistic Prayer: Another Look,”in Frank C. Senn, ed., New . Pfatteicher notes that LBW “draws heavily on the Episcopal and Eucharistic Prayers (New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, ), –, . Roman Catholic rites.” Pfatteicher, “Still to Be Tried,” . See also Olson, . For this insight I thank Rev. Michael Mathews of Waldorf, “The Liturgy and Concomitant Aspects of the Lord’s Supper,” –; Minnesota, who also graciously provided editorial assistance. Oliver K. Olson, “The Bitter Price of Ecumenism,” Logia , no. (Holy .Ap , .“Therefore, he [Christ] wants his voice, his Word to be Trinity ): –.
You Taught the Book of Life My Name Johann Gerhard, George Herbert, and the Inscription of Holy Baptism
E A
j
R to navigate the Herbert’s pious handling of the sacrament of Holy Baptism Roman Catholic, Calvinist, and Puritan elements that reinforces the perception that his confession of faith and hope of A struggled to co-exist within Tudor and Jacobean England, salvation are closely bound to his interest in the sacramental life of they might identify these three constituencies as the primary the- the church. The texts of Herbert’s poems represent his efforts as a ological forces of the early modern period. It is true, on first con- priest and poet to chronicle his journey as he crosses back and sideration, a simple country parish in Bemerton, England seems far removed from the influence of the Lutheran Reformation. Nevertheless, a reader who examines the poetic texts of the HOLY BAPTISME (I) Anglican priest and poet George Herbert (–), who served this parish, should be struck by how these texts resonate with the As he that sees a dark and shady grove, sacramental character of Lutheran theology. In his collection of Stays not, but looks beyond it on the sky; poems The Temple (), Herbert crafted a confession of how the So when I view my sins, mine eyes remove Christian’s sacramental life provides a distinctive and objective More backward still, and to that water fly, assurance of salvation. Which is above the heav’ns, whose spring and rent In A Priest to the Temple (), Herbert reminds the clergy of Is in my dear Redeemer’s pieced side. the special attention and care with which the priest must admin- Oh blessed streams! either ye to prevent ister baptism: And stop our sins from growing thick and wide, Or else give tears to drown them, as they grow. At Baptism, being himself in white, he requires the presence In you Redemption measures all my time, of all and baptiseth not willingly but on Sundays or great And spreads the plaister equal to the crime: days. He admits no vain or idle names, but such as are usual You taught the Book of Life my name, that so and accustomed. He says that prayer with great devotion Whatever future sins should me miscall, where God is thanked for calling us to the knowledge of his Your first acquaintance might discredit all. grace, Baptism being a blessing that the world hath not the like. He willingly and cheerfully crosseth the child, and thin- HOLY BAPTISME (II) keth the ceremony not only innocent but reverend. He instructeth the godfathers and godmothers that it is no com- Since, Lord, to thee plimental or light thing to sustain that place, but a great hon- A narrow way and little gate our and no less burden, as being done both in the presence Is all the passage, on my infancy of God and his saints, and by way of undertaking for a Thou didst lay hold, and antedate Christian soul. He adviseth all to call to mind their baptism My faith in me. often; for if wise men have thought it the best way of pre- serving a state to reduce it to its principles by which it grew O let me still great, certainly it is the safest course for Christians also to Write thee great God, and me a childe: meditate on their Baptism often (being the first step into Let me be soft and supple to thy will, their great and glorious calling) and upon what terms and Small to my self, to others milde, with what vows they were baptized.1 Behither ill.
Although by stealth My flesh get on; yet let her sister My soul bid nothing, but preserve her wealth: E A is an assistant professor of English at Concordia University, Ann Arbor. A version of this article was presented at the The growth of flesh is but a blister; Mideast Conference of Christianity and Literature at the University of Childhood is health. Dayton in October, 2002. forth from his life as a sinner to his other life as a saint. These para- in the power and possibilities that words offer. His confession that doxical experiences of transition from one life to another find a words united him to God and restored his relationship with God voice in Herbert’s vocation as one who confesses that the sacra- described the form and substance of his assurance of salvation. mental foundation of Christian faith includes not only the Herbert found such comfort in the words and promises that “marks” of the visible Christian church, but the “marking” (or Christ delivers in baptism. Herbert’s poems such as “Holy writing) of God’s words and actions upon the Christian’s life and Baptisme” (I) and “Holy Baptisme” (II) demonstrate the transfor- art. The restless search for assurance of salvation that Herbert mation that he believed baptism provides. Within these poems he reveals in his poetic confessions, when contrasted with the rest or confessed that baptism allows the Christian to cross from the life repose of the Christian in the work of Christ, the rest of the of sin and death to the eternal life of mercy only Christ can pro- Christian from slavery to sin and Satan, and the hope of eternal vide. From this perspective, Holy Baptism allows the Christian to rest through baptism, heightens his hope of salvation, almost as if enter the visible church and move from temporal and eternal by making it more convincing and concrete. His movement from death to the bliss of eternal life. Herbert clearly addressed this in restlessness to rest carries with it a significant literary quality. In his “Holy Baptisme” (I). In this poem, Herbert emphasizes his the sacramental action that characterizes his experience within belief that in baptism God imputes his righteousness to the the Christian church, Herbert takes comfort in the resolution of believer. The poet then clings to the promises and consequences binary opposites, particularly the overcoming of his own death by of God’s declaration of his justification when he confessed that Christ’s life-giving words. God “taught the Book of Life my name.” How does this happen? Herbert encourages his reader to recognize that God’s baptismal action marks or writes him into the Book of Life. Herbert under- stood God’s words (when received and then confessed) as moving the individual from restlessness to rest within the temple of the Herbert’s poems reveal his continual church through the waters of Holy Baptism. struggle to confess and take hold of the Herbert’s poems reveal his continual struggle to confess and take hold of the ecclesiastical comfort that the doctrine of ecclesiastical comfort that the doctrine justification and the sacrament of Holy Baptism offer. Richard of justification and the sacrament Strier presents an expansive treatment of Herbert’s concern for his of Holy Baptism offer. own salvation. In the poems that celebrate the “alien righteous- ness” of God (the righteousness that God declares and imputes nb upon the individual from without), Strier attempts to trace the movement of the speaker from a state of anxiety to that of peace:
A reader of Herbert’s poetry can greatly benefit from using Nothing more strongly links Herbert to the initial impuls- Johann Gerhard’s Sacred Meditations as a lens through which he es of the Reformation than his insistence on assurance as witnesses the means by which Christ’s words, in the context of the essential Christian experience and his conception of the visible church and the sacrament of Holy Baptism, work to assurance as dependent wholly upon God’s nature and destroy Herbert’s restlessness. Gerhard’s meditations, which the Word, and not, in any respect upon man’s actions, efforts, Puritan Robert Bruch translated and published in London in or mental states.2 , provide useful insight regarding the resolution of the para- doxical elements of the Christian’s faith that Herbert addresses The strength of such an analysis lies in the identification of in his poems. Herbert’s desire to rely upon God’s words and action for certain- Because Lutherans believe in the intimate connection between ty about his salvation. Strier’s analysis, however, assumes that the baptism and the doctrine of justification, they have historically various manifestations of Reformation thought agree on what spoken of baptism, not merely as a historical point of reference in constitutes assurance of salvation. The restlessness of Herbert’s a Christian’s life, but as a daily reality. In a movement that unites poetry projects a doctrinal understanding of assurance that the Reformation in Germany with the Reformation in England, requires absolute and objective evidence of this imputed right- Martin Luther, Johann Gerhard, and later, Gerhard Herbert, eousness and his own justification. Herbert found such evidence emphasized the words of this sacramental action as it is informed in God’s marking him in his baptism as he entered into the tem- by the words of biblical text. They understood the words of the ple of the visible church. sacrament to convey the life-giving power of Christ, God’s Word George Herbert’s contemporary Johann Gerhard is generally of Life. This doctrine must be taught from this perspective: it must considered to be the most preeminent Lutheran theologian after be written and read, as well as spoken and heard. This interest in Martin Luther and Martin Chemnitz. Gerhard was born in the transforming capabilities of language compelled Herbert to Quedlinburg and studied at both the University of Wittenberg confess the baptismal implications of God’s words and the action and the University of Jena. In he accepted the duke of (marking) they perform as essential to his understanding of the Coburg’s offer for a professorship in the Coburg Gymnasium and Christian faith. superintendency of Heldburg. By , he was teaching at the But where does Herbert find such “words”? His synthesized University of Jena and was regarded throughout Europe as the roles of Christian, priest, and poet certainly informed his interest greatest living theologian in Protestant Germany. While at Jena, he
became even more famous and beloved. His learning, ability to published in London. Winterton’s translation of A Daily Practise of teach, and piety endeared him to all of his students. During his Pietie ran through at least seven editions before , a fact that tenure at Jena, he received no fewer than twenty-two calls to other points “to a very considerable degree of popularity for what is a positions, including the University of Uppsala in Sweden, and thoroughly and unimpeachably Protestant book of devotion.”7 The “people came from far and near seeking his advice just as they had popularity of Gerhard’s work is striking when one considers that his come to Luther a century before.”3 Christology and sacramental theology could have been considered Gerhard authored many books in almost every theological disruptive to the via media that Elizabeth had carefully construct- field: exegesis, dogmatic theology, devotional literature, history, ed for England. In his Sacred Meditations Johann Gerhard provides and polemics. He is perhaps best remembered for his Loci a sacramental lens that allows readers of Herbert’s poetry to glimpse Theologici, a twenty-three volume work that explicates Lutheran the assurance of salvation Herbert finds at the baptismal font and theology and “manifests a deep evangelical piety, a strong system- within the visible church. In his Meditation ,“On the Dignitie of atic and philosophical bent, and a trenchancy and aptness of the Church,”Gerhard finds his comfort in the church as an institu- expression that make him very quotable.”4 That Gerhard’s work tion grounded in its visible marks. He asserts that the church is possesses such an effective blending of substance and style is made visible to believers through the gospel and sacraments; he reflected by its reception and publication record in England. envisions the church as
a garden that is inclosed, and a fountaine that is sealed up: no man sees the beauty of a garden that is enclosed, but he which is in it: so no man acknowledgeth those great benefits In his Sacred Meditations Johann in the Church, but he which is in it himself.8
Gerhard provides a sacramental lens The garden of the church and the fountain of holy baptism that allows readers of Herbert’s poetry then gain significance for those who embrace the Christian faith. to glimpse the assurance of salvation The organic imagery is significant: the church seeks to redeem those made dead in the fall of humanity in the first garden, the Herbert finds at the baptismal font Garden of Eden. The Christian church is the life-giving place and within the visible church. where God animates and resurrects those who are dead. nb Throughout this meditation, Gerhard emphasizes the significance of the church as the entity that marks the Christian with water and demarcates him from the world that surrounds him. In Meditation , “Of the fruits of Baptisme,” Gerhard clearly Gerhard’s Meditationes Sacrae (Sacred Meditations) first identifies the sacrament of Holy Baptism as integral to one’s con- appeared in Germany in Latin in and spread quickly fession and assurance of salvation. Gerhard confesses what he throughout Europe. The earliest edition of the Meditationes understands to be the ability of baptism to restore life. His Sacrae to be published in English was prepared by the Puritan Lutheran understanding of baptism stems from his belief that this and self-described “minister of God’s Word” Robert Bruch and sacrament is fundamentally about death and life (in that order). published in London by Thomas Snodham for Roger Jackson in Gerhard clearly states that the “old man is crucified and dead in . Bruch entitled his translation The soules watch, or a day- Baptisme” in order to let the “new man live.”This “new man” then booke for the devout soule. Bruch rearranged the fifty-two medi- leaves the isolation of sin and death behind and lives in union tations, with appropriate prayers, on the main themes of the with Christ through participation in his church. The action of individual’s spiritual life. These were carefully organized so as to baptism is then a process that begins with death, and he asserts afford the reader a series of exercises for a very strenuous week that one may only find this gift of baptism through the church: of meditation and prayer.5 That Bruch’s translation of Gerhard’s meditations was popular In the spiritual Temple of God, that is, the Church, doe as yet would be quite an understatement. Four editions of this work for spring forth the wholesome waters of Baptisme, into the the years to still survive, and the multiple editions of this depth whereof our sinnes are cast: all things shall be healed work contribute to Gerhard’s reputation as the writer who was and live, to which that brook shall come.9 “the most popular in England for works of pure devotion.”6 The edition of this work would certainly have been available to Herbert’s own temple, the visible church, bestows Christ to the George Herbert during his time as a student at Cambridge and Christian in this sacrament. In that way, the Christian is “buryed consequently functions as a primary component of this study. with Christ by Baptisme into his death.10 From Gerhard’s Lutheran What is perhaps even more significant is the translation of perspective, the Christian’s baptism is the saving experience that Gerhard’s meditations that Ralph Winterton first published in , concretely links him to Christ’s redeeming work on the cross: “The four years after he translated and published Gerhard’s A Daily Water of Baptisme is that poole which doth heale us from every Practise of Pietie. Significantly, Winterton served as a fellow of King’s disease of sins, when the holy Ghost descends into it, and troubles College, Cambridge, during Herbert’s tenure at the same institution. it with the bloud of Christ, which was made a sacrifice for us.”The Between and , six editions of Winterton’s translation were sinful flesh is “crucified and dead in Baptisme”; this sacrament is the “spirituall Deluge” in which all the “flesh of sinne” and the torical realities. Likewise, he looks forward in the final couplet to “army of vices” are drowned. Baptism, from Gerhard’s position, Christ’s ability to “discredit” all future sins. In such a way, baptism is provides the Christian with the rest the writer to the Hebrews the concrete antidote to the corrupted Garden of Eden. When the promises: the Christian has a Sabbath rest that allows him to rest poet finds himself “in” Christ through Baptism, he can confidently in God’s saving recreating work; the Christian rests from sin; proclaim that Christ’s: “Redemption measures all my time.” finally, in baptism, the Christian finds an eternal rest from death in Gerhard’s belief in the efficacy of the spiritual medicine that heaven. Consequently, Gerhard goes to great lengths to confirm baptism bestows is also helpful with “Holy Baptisme” (I) and (II). that regeneration, new life, and the assurance of eternal “peace and Gerhard reminds his readers that “oftentimes Physicke is applyed tranquility” are the primary benefits of this sacrament. to the head, that the other members of the body may be healed: our spirituall head is Christ, hee tooke the physicke of Baptisme, for the health of his mysticall body.”11 Herbert describes baptism as the soothing healing “plaister” that one applies to the “crime” of sin and the “blister” which is the “growth of the flesh.”This follows Gerhard simply understands baptism Gerhard’s understanding of Christ’s work in baptism as that as a complete renaming and refigur- “which doth heale us from every disease of sins” in order that “all ing of the Christian’s identity. things shall be healed and live.” Likewise, “Holy Baptisme” (II) recognizes that only in the context of a relationship where the nb “great God” has been able to “lay hold” and “antedate” the speak- er’s faith can this “childe” now confess the “health” and new life that baptism provides. Johann Gerhard’s understanding of baptism also provides a Gerhard’s recognition of the power of baptism to change the useful lens for examining George Herbert’s twin poems on individual’s identity can provide a helpful lens through which one Baptism, “Holy Baptisme” (I) and (II). In these poems, Herbert can interpret Herbert’s own desire to experience such regenera- engages the sacrament as a vehicle by which God rewrites human tion. Gerhard goes to great lengths to explain that in baptism the identity and redeems humans from their isolation. In this con- Christian’s identity changes. The spiritual regeneration of baptism nection Herbert confesses the concrete hope that the mark of holy makes Christians “Sonnes of God,” who are the “temple of the baptism provides the Christian. In the sonnet “Holy Baptisme” holy Ghost.” The baptized Christian is clothed with Christ and is (I), Herbert continues the pattern that he has been developing able to “walke in newness of life.” This “new man” is able to live throughout many of his texts. Initially, the poet struggles with the under the “word of promise” which assures that vision of “a dark and shadie grove” of personal “sinnes.” The speaker must look past this fallen Eden because the cure for these because you are borne of God, that is by water and the Spirit, “sinnes” lies in a redeemed garden (here one is reminded of therefore thou art also a sonne of God, and because a sonne, Gerhard’s own vision and description of the visible church). therefore also an heire of eternal felicitie.12 Herbert encourages the reader toward a concrete cure found only outside himself, one that comes from Christ. The poet identifies Gerhard simply understands baptism as a complete renaming the source of the baptismal water as the “spring and rent” from his and refiguring of the Christian’s identity. The Christian becomes “deare Redeemers pierced side.” Gerhard’s vision of baptism as a God’s text. This renaming of the Christian, this rewriting of his washing in the “bloud of the Lambe” enables the reader of history and identity, also unites him to Christ, in that he is clothed Herbert to understand why these “blessed streams” of baptism are in his righteousness. He is thus part of the body of Christ, the a physical and concrete link to Christ’s redemption. This sacra- church, and finds relief from the isolation and despair of sin. He mental action now marks and measures the span of the speaker’s finds comfort in the person of Christ and within the community life and resonates with image of the “fountain” in the garden that of those marked, like himself, through baptism. is Gerhard’s vision of the church. Baptism is able to Such a perspective informs how one interprets Herbert’s con- fession of God’s action in baptism. In “Holy Baptisme” (I), the . ..prevent poet finds consolation in the fact that in Baptism, God has And stop our sinnes from growing thick and wide, Or else give tears to drown them, as they grow.” taught the Book of Life my name, that so Whatever future sinnes should me miscall, Herbert appropriately juggles the theological paradox of bap- Your first acquaintance might discredit all. tism. It is the movement of the life of the baptized, what Michael McCanles calls the “sine wave of heights and depths” that continu- Here Herbert clearly confesses what he understands about the ally and daily causes the Christian to vacillate from death to life over capacity of baptism to bestow this new identity. Sin may try to “mis- and over again. In order to address this movement, Herbert uses call” or falsely accuse or condemn the baptized. But God, the this sonnet to manipulate the reader’s understanding of time. The Author of Life, has written the Christian’s new name and new iden- first three quatrains emphasize retrospection. Herbert reflects upon tity in the Book of Life. God’s “first acquaintance” with the individ- a historical vision of Christ’s death and resurrection, as well as the ual takes place in baptism; in the sacrament God makes him a child poet’s own baptism. The poet finds comfort in these concrete his- of God and heir of salvation. God’s action in baptism thus “dis- credits” any attempts or efforts, either in the past or in the future, paradox, Herbert finds comfort in God’s rewriting of his identity that might serve to undermine the Christian’s hope for salvation. and life; in the waters of Holy Baptism, God has “taught the Book Gerhard would describe the result as this: the Christian is and of Life” his name. God’s action of inscribing his name within the confidently remains both a “sonne” and “heir of eternal felicite.” space of the visible church enables Herbert to find rest from his God’s rewriting of the poet’s identity then serves as an answer own works, his sins, and his fear of death. In a manner that res- to his prayer. He has reminded the Lord of his past action, when onates with Gerhard’s Lutheran baptismal theology, Herbert he “didst lay hold” of him in his “infancie” and instilled him with identifies himself as a baptized and redeemed “childe” of God; he faith. Herbert then requests the enabling of his art and faith: is one who lives to “write”and confess the “great”works that God’s words perform within the context of his temple, the visible O let me still church. LOGIA Write thee great God, and me a childe: Let me be soft and supple to thy will, NOTES Small to my self, to others milde, . George Herbert, Herbert: Complete English Poems, ed. John Tobin Behither ill. (London: Penguin Classics, ), –. . Richard Strier, Love Known: Theology and Experience in Goerge Herbert’s Poetry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), . Herbert thus defines his art and life in terms of baptismal . Robert Preus, The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism: A images. He frames the relationship between God and the Study of Theological Prolegomena (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, Christian in the terms of a parental relationship. His “confession” ), . exposes his own inadequacy when he considers its foil: God’s . Ibid. . Helen White, English Devotional Literature (Prose) – greatness. Certainly this echoes the biblical emphasis upon child- (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, ), . like faith (Matthew ), but it also emphasizes infant baptism and . Ibid. the dependency that lies at the heart of Lutheran baptismal theol- . Ibid., . ogy. The speaker recognizes that his art and life are contingent on . Johann Gerhard, Meditationes Sacrae (/) [Lateinisch-deutsch God’s grace. His hope is that God would enable this “childe” of Kristisch herausgegeben, kommentiert und mit einem Nachwort versehen von JohannAnselm Steiger Teilband und ], Johann Anselm Steiger, ed. God to “(w)rite” and live in a way that emphasizes his smallness (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, ), ; ; .(In and mildness as manifestations of his complete reliance upon the citations of Gerhard’s Sacred Meditations, references will be given for three “great God” who gives him life. sources. The first of these will be the English translation, the second For George Herbert, “childhood is health,” and he finds the source will be the original German text, and the third will be the original health of childhood in his baptism. He confesses that, within the Latin text.) . Ibid., –; ; . action of this sacrament, his God has reduced him to the “noth- . Ibid., ; ; . ing” of total dependency, yet at the same time gives him every- . Ibid., ; ; . thing, including the concrete assurance of salvation. Within this . Ibid., –; ; .
books
Q LUTHER ACADEMY BOOKS Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics Congress on the Lutheran Confessions Baptism By David P.Scaer ( pages) • hardcover God and Caesar Revisited (1994) Essays by U.Asendorf, K. Hagen, J. Johnson, K. Marquart, M. Nolan, J. Stephenson,A. Suelflow, • retail .—L price • . R. Muller ( pages) • paperback • retail .—L price • . Eschatology By John R. Stephenson ( pages) • hardcover Church Polity and Politics (1997) Essays by D. Gustafson, • retail .—L price • . D. Jastram, G. Schmeling, W.Weinrich, L. R. Rast Jr., W. Brege, The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry, R. Feuerhahn, M. Noland, Rolf Preus, K. Marquart ( pages) • paper- and Governance By Kurt E. Marquart ( pages) back • retail .—L price • . • hardcover • retail .—L price • . A Justification Odyssey (2001) Essays by D. Gard, B. Christology By David P.Scaer ( pages) • hardcover Eckardt Jr., L. Rast Jr., R. Kolb, J. Bygstad, R. Preus, A. • retail .—L price • . Simojoki, R. Feuerhahn, K. Marquart. ( pages) • paperback • retail .—L price • . The Lord’s Supper By John R. Stephenson ( pages) • hardcover • retail .—L price • . Other Luther Academy Books The Pieper Lectures Preaching to Young Theologians Sermons of Robert A series of lectures in honor of Dr. Francis Pieper, sponsored by Preus The Luther Academy ( pages) • paperback Concordia Historical Institute and the Luther Academy, on topics • retail .—L price • . addressing current issues in the church. All books in this series are paperback and retail . —L price • . Martin Chemnitz: Loci Theologici, De Coena Domini, De Duabus Naturis in Christo, Theologiae Jesuitarum The Office of the Ministry (1996) Lectures by D. Scaer, Four Latin classics published in a facsimile edition by Lutheran Heritage A.R.Suelflow,K.Schurb,R.Kolb,L.R.Rast Jr. ( pages) Foundation ( pages) • hardcover • retail .—L price • . Church Fellowship (1997) Lectures by W.C.Weinrich, C. P. Arand,S. Bruzek, K. Marquart, E. T.Teigen, D.A. Gustafson. ( pages) Church and Ministry Today: Three Confessional Lutheran Essays. The Doctrine of the Call in the Confessions and Pietism and Lutheranism (1998) Lectures by Lutheran Orthodoxy, by R. Preus. “It is Not Given to Women to Teach: G. Krispin, R. Feuerhahn, P.McCain,W. Petersen, L. R. Rast Jr., A Lex in Search of a Ratio,”by W. Weinrich. “‘Church Growth’As J.T.Pless,N.Masaki. ( pages) Mission Paradigm: A Confessional Lutheran Assessment,”by What Does It Mean to Be Lutheran? (1999) K. Marquart ( pages) • paperback . . Lectures by P.T.Ferry, S. Murray, C. Lindberg, M. R. Noland, • retail —L price • J. A. O. Preus ,D.O.Wenthe.( pages) Q LOGIA BOOKS Lutheran Catholicity (2000) Lectures by W.Weinrich, C. MacKenzie, J. Maxfield, L. R. Rast Jr., B. Schuchard, and P. Grime. ( pages) Communion Fellowship: A Resource for N Understanding, Implementing, and Retaining the Practice of The American Book of Concord: A Sesqui- E W Closed Communion in the Lutheran Parish centennial Celebration (2001) Lectures by O.Olson, By Paul T.McCain ( pages) • . L. R. Rast Jr., L. Smith, M. Loest, E. Teigen. ( pages) The Christological Character of the Office of the Ministry & Royal Priesthood By Jobst Schöne ( pages) • . To order Dying to Live: A Study Guide By John T.Pless ( pages) • Outside the U.S. add $5 per book for shipping & handling • . (Dying to Live by H.Senkbeil may be ordered from CPH) • See inside front cover for more ordering information
(605) 887-3145 ¥ www.logia.org ¥ Fax: (605) 887-3129
The Ordination of Women Pastors
D P. S
j
, of Protestant of those who regularly attended church on Sundays. At the end of churches has changed. Ministers were formerly, almost by the s these countries had Socialist governments. Such govern- I definition, male. Ministerial associations to which Lutheran ments apply the laws of sexual equality to all departments of gov- pastors belonged consisted of men. Pentecostal-type churches had ernment, including the churches. At first the people objected and women preachers, but not the sedate mainline churches. Within the ordination of women was delayed, but finally the church had the memory of some of us, the ministry was seen solely as a male to give way to the government’s wishes. For a time some dissent- profession. But, as in the professions of law, medicine, politics, and ing bishops were given the freedom not to ordain women, but this business, women now constitute a significant part of the discretion was soon denied them. Since no pastor opposing the Protestant clergy. At the present time women constitute the ordination of women will be selected as a bishop, the tension no majority of college students. These college statistics will translate longer exists. Women are even chosen as bishops, and candidates into majorities in the professions. refusing to be ordained by women bishops are denied ordination More than a quarter century has elapsed since the constituting altogether. synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Lutherans speak of justification as the doctrine by which the authorized the ordination of women pastors. This essay might be church stands or falls. This means that where justification is not seen only as a reaction born out of due time to what has become properly preached and understood, there is no church. This honor an immovable force in nature. Women clergy are here to stay. The of being the doctrine that is essential to the church’s well-being current president of Luther Seminary in Minneapolis is alleged to has now been given to women pastors. No longer is this practice have said that without the enrollment of women his institution debated in the churches that have accepted the practice. would be in serious financial difficulty. This is probably true of all Opposition to it is the road to political oblivion in these church- ELCA and Episcopal seminaries. es. When the churches constituting the ELCA adopted the prac- In the current situation, the Lutheran Church—Missouri tice, some Missouri Synod theologians expressed their concerns in Synod, which does not ordain women, is an institution that is out essays. It is doubtful whether they had any affect or whether they of step with the times. The climate has changed. If in argu- were even read. At the same time representatives of both church- ments had to be offered as to why we should ordain women, these es officially discussed it, but this seems to have been pro forma. arguments have been reversed so that we have to ask why some Nothing would change the minds and practice of the ELCA, and Lutheran churches, including the Missouri Synod, do not ordain perhaps converts could be won from the Missouri Synod. An women. Where once we stood with the Protestant majority, we ELCA seminary can entertain as a guest lecturer some of the most now are in the minority, even within world Lutheranism. radical members of the Jesus Seminar, but theologians who are This is a new turn of events. Of the two major synods consti- known opponents of the ordination of women are rarely, if ever, tuting the ELCA, the American Lutheran Church (ALC) was the invited to present their views. Of course this is all the more amaz- first to approve ordaining women, but this approval was not over- ing, since half a century ago, a woman pastor was not in anyone’s whelming, something like a five-to-four division of the conven- theological range. tion. It is safe to say that some votes were swayed when the woman A topic like ordaining women pastors has a way of dominating candidate for the ministry was brought to the floor, where they theological discussion until it becomes an immovable force in could see that she was a paraplegic. In the body politic the sym- nature that no one can oppose. Now the movement to ordain pathy vote always has a place. Before the ALC and the LCA agreed homosexuals and to allow members of the same sex to marry has to ordain women, the northern European state Lutheran church- usurped the place of prominence in both the ELCA and the es had also taken the same route, but this was hardly the decision Anglican Communion. There is a preliminary legalization of this practice in the state of Vermont. This is already allowed in the state Lutheran Church of Norway. The church has no way to escape the culture in which its members live. For all their advantages and D P. S is a professor and Chairman of Systematic Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana, where he is also advances, ancient Greece and Rome were decadent societies in editor of the Concordia Theological Quarterly. He is a contributing editor comparison with our times, but the church resisted the morals— to L and a Fellow of the Luther Academy. or the lack of morals—of these societies. Today mainline
Protestantism is more and more a reflection of the world that sur- Theology. At least up until the present, feminist theology has rounds it. Current church issues are more and more what is per- held a dominating place in their programs. It seems to be slight- ceived to be in harmony with the majority culture. ly on the wane now, but it along with homosexual topics are still In the s, when the topic of the ordination of women pas- dominant on the agendas of these societies. tors was being introduced into Lutheran theological discussion, I have decided to discuss the ordination of women pastors by the late Peter Brunner of Heidelberg University prophesied that beginning with this survey of the current climate, as superficial as ordaining women pastors would eventually change our image of it may be, because the older way of laying out passages in the Bible God as Father to Mother. To the best of my memory, he did not and then asking whether they apply to our situation has been develop this idea at length, but it has come true with a vengeance. ignored for a long time by the churches ordaining women. More Since then an entirely new discipline has grown up around the importantly, taking these passages at their face value has been dis- topic of feminism especially in regard to God. God is now credited by what seems to be the majority of biblical scholarship. addressed as “our Mother and Father,” and feminist interpreta- If we are not dealing with a different Bible, as Jefferson proposed tions of the four Gospels are commonplace. In other words, for his times, we are faced with methods of interpretation that are women interpret the Bible differently than men do, and their so programmed as not even to allow a discussion of the issue. views constitute permissible interpretations. Paul’s words about The previous and current presidents of the Missouri Synod there being “no male or female in Christ,” which have been tradi- have seen as part of their mandate as church leaders to have this tionally used to support the ordination of women pastors, are put issue discussed by theologians of both churches. When these dis- aside in biblical interpretation. Matters are even further divided cussions were undertaken with the ALC, the Missouri Synod’s when a European feminist reading of the Bible is distinguished arguments were politely ignored. This attitude did not change in from an Asiatic or African feminist reading of the Bible. In this subsequent negotiations and is unlikely to change in the future. It kind of atmosphere a meaningful discussion on what the Bible is perhaps an exaggeration to say that no one in the ELCA is open permits or disallows is impossible. Christianity and the Old to discussing the issue, but it is safe to say that no official repre- Testament religion before it are seen as oppressive patriarchal reli- sentative of that church is willing even to reconsider the practice. gions in which women were seen as subservient to men, and thus Any subsequent meeting can only be for the purpose of finding passages taken from these Scriptures must be reconstructed for similar-minded clergy in the Missouri Synod or for converting the the contemporary mindset. unconvinced. The Missouri Synod is in a defensive position, sur- rounded on the one hand by a Western culture in which feminism has a firm grip, and on the other by a world Lutheranism that in many places has fallen into the grip of feminism. In medical terms, the ELCA has expired, and Missouri’s condition has been We are faced with methods of interpre- downgraded from fair to serious. tation that are so programmed as not A certain irony exists in the ELCA position. Though it does even to allow a discussion of the issue. not find Paul’s prohibitions against women’s speaking and teaching in the church as disallowing women pastors, it has nb accepted or least tolerated the Episcopal doctrine of apostolic succession, for which there is no biblical evidence. Historical evi- dence requiring that only bishops can ordain comes first only One of the literary and theological hoaxes in the United States several centuries after the apostolic period. Here is a clear case of was the Jefferson Bible. Our third president was a remarkable allowing what certain Bible passages forbid, yet requiring some- man, a marvelous example of Enlightenment thinking, who thing of which the Bible knows nothing. endeavored to excel in many fields of knowledge and succeeded. Some Lutherans have known the practice of having only bish- Thomas Jefferson also saw himself as a theologian, even though he ops ordain pastors and bishops consecrating other bishops. It is a had no knowledge of the biblical languages. He proceeded to pro- sign of historical continuity, but it is not a foolproof sign of his- vide an edition of the Bible that would not offend the sensitivities torical continuity to the apostles themselves. Apostles ordained of a generation that saw natural explanations for what was until ministers, but there is no evidence that they consecrated men to that time considered supernatural events or miracles. Working be bishops who were already ordained as ministers. Apostolic suc- with an English Bible, he simply cut out the miracles from the cession does involve theological continuity, so that an older gen- New Testament. I had this Bible in my possession for some time, eration of ministers assures the faith of the next generation and and when the original owner wanted it back, I had no difficulty in each new generation preserves the faith of the older generation. surrendering it. Apart from its value as an historical artifact from Lutheran ministers consecrated as bishops by Episcopal bishops our nation’s early history, it has no scholarly value at all. do not necessarily have the same faith as those who ordained Feminist theology proceeds in the same way. It puts things them. Such consecrations are hardly more than liturgical- into the biblical texts that were never in the mind of the mechanical gestures that do not accomplish what they pretend. writers—and they know it. They also take things out and adjust Rome with its claim to possess the apostolic chair of St. Peter does things to fit their thinking. Most theological and biblical schol- not acknowledge that Episcopalians have any kind of apostolic ars are members of either one or both of two groups: the succession. Their bishops possess the succession in preserving American Academy of Religion or the Society of Biblical church doctrine, a responsibility that Lutherans have historically
seen as belonging to all ministers and not just bishops. A woman would also take a role in the new religion. Paul offers several bishop, or a minister ordained by a woman, cannot stand in the arguments to stop them: () No other churches know of this cus- apostolic succession, simply because this contradicts Paul’s prohi- tom. This is the catholic argument that assumes that churches bition. Without the preservation of apostolic doctrine, there can with the same beliefs practice the same customs. () He then be no apostolic succession. cites the Law, but without specific reference. Since “Law” is the Both opponents and proponents of the ordination of women ordinary word for Torah, the first five books of Moses, it is like- are agreed in that they are not agreed in the reasons for their ly that he is referring to the first three chapters of Genesis with positions. Arguments for ordaining women were not of the same their accounts of the creation and fall into sin. It is not impossi- kind, which should have been sufficient reason for not going ble that he is referring to the entire Old Testament. () Paul ahead with the practice. A majority agreed that it should be ridicules any idea that the word of God originated with this con- done, but were not agreed on why they should do it. It would be gregation. Quite to the contrary, he is God’s designated as if a jury agreed on the guilt of the accused, but had different spokesman. () A final reason is that Jesus forbids it. Paul claims reasons for their verdict. Jesus was sentenced to death by to have a word from the Lord on this point. There are two pos- crucifixion, even though his accusers disagreed among them- sibilities to explain his claim. Either Paul had a direct revelation selves. Not only does this lack a certain logic, but can be judged from Jesus or, from the words of Jesus that he learned from the to be manifestly unfair. In those churches that ordain women, other apostles, he deduced that the practice of women preaching the reasons for doing it are inconsequential. They would only was wrong. He might have been referring to Jesus’ selection of matter to a woman minister who holds a book and reads from it only men to be apostles. that she should not be doing what she is doing. Some women have expressed these kinds of concerns. There is no knowing how many women are now burdened with the thought of doing something that God does not allow. There is the case of one ELCA woman concluding that her being a minister Just as there is no doubt that Paul was wrong and so became a Roman Catholic. She is perhaps an opposes the practice, there is no exception. With the probability that the majority of ELCA clergy will be women within the next generation, problems of con- doubt that he is serious about science will diminish. Women clergy can and will reinforce each the prohibition. other in the correctness of their claiming the office of minister for themselves. Next to the homosexual issue, which has already been nb designated the chief topic of the next ELCA convention, women clergy is no longer an issue; however, the feminization of theolo- gy will continue unabated. Just as there is no doubt that Paul opposes the practice, there is Opponents to the ordination of women in the Missouri Synod no doubt that he is serious about the prohibition, since he repeats are more agreed in their opposition than they are in the reasons it in several ways: () Women are to be silent in church. () It is not they offer for their opposition. Perhaps this is overstated, but for a permitted for them to speak. () It is shameful for them to speak. consciously Bible-based church like the Missouri Synod, the () He finally threatens his opponents with excommunication: “if temptation always exists to take the biblical passages at face value anyone fails to recognize this command, he himself will not be and to overlook the prohibitions for the underlying reasons which recognized.”Whether or not one agrees with Paul, this is hardly an are the more basic, and hence more important, realities. As in all inconsequential point with him. He comes at the same point in doctrine, we are not dealing merely with words but with the real- several ways. While some say that Paul was only setting forth a ities behind the words. principle for the Corinthians, others more honestly express their Before we discuss the theological implications that are involved dislike for him and dismiss the passage out of hand. in ordaining women, it might be good to review the reasons why Should anyone find Paul overly harsh, let him or her remember Paul tackled the subject at all. Women preachers, as well as charis- that it is quite customary in many churches for members of a matic aberrations, were not a problem in congregations where wedding party to read certain Scriptures during the ceremony. Jewish Christians were in the majority, but in the Gentiles ones. Among the more popular chapters is Corinthians , the one on Jewish Christians and those whom they influenced had problems love. Paul’s discourse on the role that women have in church ser- in sifting through which Old Testament regulations would remain vices comes immediately afterward this chapter in Corinthians in force in the church. Gentile Christians, for instance, those in . Paul seems blissfully unaware of inconsistency in his own posi- Corinth, brought with them pagan ideas, and for them the divine tions that describes love in the loftiest terms and not allowing Law was new. On that account Paul spent a year and a half cate- women to preach. For the record, Paul is not advocating some chizing them. Even after he left, he had to address two pastoral let- Islamic-like position that keeps women in silent servitude. ters to Corinth in order to settle problems among them. “Speaking” here refers to an official public interpretation of the Women had no priestly or teaching functions in Jewish wor- Scriptures, the kind that takes place today from the pulpit. ship either at the temple or synagogue, but priestesses were a Some of this becomes all the more clear in Timothy :–, regular feature of pagan worship. Thus it seemed natural that where “speaking” is interpreted as the kind of teaching in which women who had been active in their former religious lives Jesus and his apostles engaged. Some scholars doubt that Paul
authored this epistle, but whoever the author was, he echoes what forbids. If the history of recent years is a barometer of what to was said in Corinthians . If there it could only be implied that expect, our fundamental understandings of God will be —or Paul was referring to the first three chapters of Genesis, it is made already have been—changed. In church we go back to where we explicit here in Timothy . Adam was created first and then Eve, began in Eden. God as understood directly through the woman, and he was not deceived, but she was. Of course, he was deceived and not the man, can be and is worshiped as “Mother.” The fun- as much as she was, but she was the first to be led astray. To make damental way of knowing God as “Our Father,” as we do in the his position on disallowing women to lead the public worship, Lord’s Prayer, has been so altered than we have in fact another Paul anticipates that his argument may lead to the wrong conclu- god. “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy sion that women are not capable of being saved. On that account Spirit” is understood to be only a cultural approximation of an he makes it clear that women will be saved as they carry out the ancient people and not a description of what God is in himself. task of bearing children that is uniquely theirs and not their hus- There are many valid images that come to the fore in this dis- bands’. Their different stations in life do not militate against their cussion. Jesus’ parable of the king’s wedding feast for his son picks equality in God’s sight in whom there is neither male nor female. up on the Old Testament idea that God is Israel’s bridegroom, In Corinthians Paul also implies that the man was made first, by which is fleshed out in the Book of Revelation. Jesus is the bride- saying that the woman is taken from the man, a clear reference to groom and the church is the bride. Our preachers are, like John Genesis ; however, today man’s existence depends upon women. the Baptist, the friends of the bridegroom, and the congregation is Every man has a mother upon whom he is as dependent as Eve the bride. But in the presence of Christ himself, we are all —male was dependent on Adam (vv. –). and female, preacher and people—Christ’s bride. A female preacher can no longer belong to the wedding party of the groom than a man can be a bridesmaid. Of course, if the advice colum- nists are to be consulted, such roles as best man are no longer reserved for males, and maid of honor, no longer for females. This God as understood directly through is a perversion of society in which the church unfortunately shares the woman, and not the man, can be to its own corruption. Genesis and tell us more than that man is defined as male and is worshiped as “Mother.” and female. Together they are defined as being made in the image nb of God, but in a particular way. The woman is made as much in the image of God as is the man, and so they are equal before God, but the male possesses it directly, and the female through the male. Traditionally this is called subordination, but this word has Paul’s discourses are based on his understanding of the creation unfortunate, and perhaps in some cases evil, connotations of accounts in Genesis, which he assumes to be correct. He knows superiority and inferiority, ideas that are not intended by Genesis how God created Adam from the dust of the ground. Eve is not or Paul. There is something in how we are created that reflects created in the same way, but is taken from Adam’s side. She is no what God is himself. We are not created as individuals, but as autonomous creation, but God draws her existence from Adam, community. Genesis is the story of the first community and how so man and woman constitute not two but one race. Both her the members of this community were to relate to one another, negotiating with the serpent on the acceptability of touching the how they did relate to one another, and how they failed to relate tree and her eating the fruit are a direct contradiction of her cre- to one another in the way God intended. ation and the responsibility God gave specifically to Adam and God can be understood as the divine community in which not to her. Among the various possibilities for defining sin, one divine persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit relate to might be “assuming a responsibility not given to oneself.” In my one another. But they do not relate in the way John Locke out- haste at one church, I took it upon myself to change the altar lined, so that the power of government is derived from the gov- cloths to the color red instead of green. Just as I was in the process erned, with each making an equal contribution. Rather, the of doing something for which I was not authorized, the lady with Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit relate to each other by a mutu- the commission to do this came in. Much to my chagrin, there was al dependence. Without this mutual dependence, Father, Son, and a touch of the Garden of Eden story in what I did, but of course Holy Spirit would be three separate gods, which of course they are the characters were reversed. not. The Father shares his existence with the Son and the Holy Our Sunday morning church services do have a touch of the Spirit, and the Son is dependent on the Father, and the Spirit is original paradise of Genesis in them. God is restoring what was dependent on the Son as the Son is in the Father. Here is perfect once destroyed in Genesis . In the church God is speaking to his community, not in the sense of autonomous individuals, but of people as he spoke to our first parents. Now he must confront us mutual dependence, each in his own order. with the law that was only made necessary by our parents contra- Subordination may be as inappropriate as superordination in vening it. Matters are more complex than this, but you get the describing the mystery of the Trinity, but we might speak of a sub- idea. Here church life and salvation are being restored. The tragic ordering that is not only inherent in God himself but in how God thing about women preachers is that they are following in the acts towards us. The Father sends the Son and offers him up. error of Eve and taking a responsibility God has not given to Nevertheless, in being commissioned by the Father, the Son is not them. Furthermore, they are doing something that he explicitly inferior to the Father in respect to deity. So the Spirit is sent by the
Son as the Father’s only agent, and neither Spirit nor Son are infe- prediction that God would be understood as Mother has come rior to the Father in respect to deity. From God himself we see the true, but this disease of the spirit is much worse than what he ordering of the church and, in an ideal world, of all society. anticipated. Our tasks must be governed by what are the clear Parents and children each have their roles towards each other, but words of God. This is certainly suggested by Paul’s irony of asking God does not consider parents of more value than children. The the Corinthians and perhaps those who already ordain women, same is true of master and servant, employer and employee, “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only teacher and student, governor and governed, prince and people, ones whom it has reached?” pastor and congregation, and so forth. We are no fanatics who anticipate a reconstruction of paradise We began by looking at how society and church differ from on earth. Only God will bring heaven down to us. In our church what we knew only fifty or even forty years ago. We have seen how services we cannot engage in practices that he not only forbids, people have accordingly adjusted their ways of not only how they but that contradict that little piece of paradise he gives us every look at one another, but how they look at God. Peter Brunner’s Sunday morning. LOGIA Inklings
Oh, it may very well be a clear exposition of God’s Word-but you can’t put it in writing, have others sign it, and expect to get away with it!
Closed Communion, Sin, and Salvation
P J. M
j
“Woe unto all teachers who not only are silent about the use and against the best of intentions, and against self-devised ideas of power of the holy sacrament, but also are a hindrance to it with their piety and reverence. In no other way, but only entirely as a gift of mad doings and writings. May God deliver us from them.”1 the Savior, can the church’s confession correspond to him. Only as his treasured gift can it bring forgiveness, peace, and eternal ’ one’s own need life. Consequently, where this confession is kept pure, there the for forgiveness has disappeared from contemporary piety. church is beyond all doubt, and there must surely be the mys- T The Lord’s Supper is sentimentalized as a meal of unity teries of God, handled as they are confessed, and thus strength- rather than the Supper, as Christ’s testament, involving God’s ening the church’s confession through the presence of the Lord entire salvific self-disclosure. The Supper is not to give expres- with his people (Mt :). In short, the church’s unity is in its sion to the humanly attainable salvation of the church in the confession, as in word and action the church guards what has face of the forces of secularization. Rather, only in faithful cor- been bestowed on it. Only when armed with this confession respondence to God’s revelation can the Sacrament of the Altar (Eph :–) can the people of God overcome disunity by bring- be a confession which he himself brings about among those ing into the oneness of the holy fellowship those who are in slav- who receive his body and blood. ery to “the empty way of life” ( Pt :). But the human spirit is an impatient spirit. It correctly recog- THE SENTIMENTALIZATION OF THE FAITH nizes the absence of unity as its own fault. It sees it as a hin- The Lord’s Supper is intimately connected with the doctrine of drance to the church’s witness. And then it seeks to remedy the justification. As the Lutheran tradition, in keeping with the wit- situation. In doing so, it brushes aside the church’s confession ness of the church catholic, has unceasingly stressed, it is and doubts its overflowing power of incorporation. The tempta- Christ’s testament in which the benefits of his sacrificial death tion Christians face lies in the subtle change of focus from on the cross of Golgotha are distributed to those gathered humanity’s dire need for God’s salvation, to the feeling that they around the altar “for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt :). Not can, and indeed must, save the church. Sin is no longer my own, only that, but through the bestowal of forgiveness and peace, but is located in the fragmentation of the church. In today’s the Supper is the actualization of “unity and oneness among world, unity is far more urgent and disunity just too embarrass- those who commune together.”2 ing to put up with any longer. And so, through self-appointed Since its very beginning, the church has been no stranger to crusades, the church allows the world to steal into the things of factions, schisms, and divisions ( Cor :–). Although God. The Lord’s Supper is hailed as a meal of unity, and even deplorable, this situation should hardly be surprising. The upheld by a semblance of confession. But it is the world’s con- church is in the world to make its confession before it and for its fession, for the world has taken things into its own hands and sake. It is the nature of confession that, as it bears witness and decided what and how it is going to confess. This confessional incorporates, it also draws boundaries, leaving outside those indifferentism is by no means the bane of Lutheranism alone. who are of a different spirit. The church cannot confess anything “That there is a longing for unity with respect to the sacramen- other than the self-disclosure of God in the flesh for the life of tal centre of Church life,” observes Cardinal Ratzinger in the the world. “For from him and through him and to him are all wake of the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of things,” and to him is eternal glory (Rom :). This confession, Justification,“is in itself a good thing—it is plainly an expression if it is to remain a witness to the salvation that has come into the of the yearning for unity. It should, however, give us grounds for world and even “unto us” (TLH : ), is not to be compromised concern if it appears to reduce our entire consciousness of the or tainted. The world cannot save itself; nor can it, in and of faith to the celebration of communion.” He then goes on to itself, confess anything other than itself. Therefore, if it is to be expose the shallowness behind the much vaunted unity: “What “for the life of the world” (Jn :), the church’s testimony must counts . . . is not the real presence of Christ or the questions of remain as it has been received—against well-reasoned opinions, transubstantiation, eucharistic worship, and priesthood and Eucharist, but simply the ritual representation of unity.”3 P M is a graduate of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort That the church should now believe that, through some quick Wayne, Indiana. fix of showing a unified front, it can save itself in the face of fast-
progressing secularization only parallels the gradual disappear- Quite often it is enough simply to acknowledge some nebulous ance of the doctrine of justification from its members’ lives. presence of Christ in the sacrament to be allowed to partake. In Without the need for justification, the church’s confession can be some extreme cases, the Supper is a celebration of a “reconciled quaint and expendable at best and hollow and irrelevant at worst. diversity.” In others, it is seen a missionary tool that becomes its The saving gifts of God are reduced to sentimentalized and over- own confessionless message. emotional ritual. Even well-executed liturgy is little more than a By contrast, for Luther, to be worthy of partaking of the Lord’s vehicle for quasi-transcendent experiences. God himself has been Supper is, first of all, to “hunger and thirst for this food and tamed. That this is indeed happening, even in churches that have drink.” The sacrament is for repentant sinners, namely, those traditionally placed a great emphasis on confession, can be illus- who realize they “are weak in faith, cold in love, and faint in hope trated by the prevalence of communion statements such as the . . . [and who] are disposed toward hatred and impatience, following: “All baptized Christians who confess Jesus Christ as impurity, greed, and whatever other vice there is.”7 At the same their Savior, examine themselves and repent of their sins, and time Luther hastens to warn that “worthy reception of the sacra- believe that Christ is really present in Holy Communion are invit- ment . . . is not based on our diligence and effort, our work and ed to receive the Lord’s Supper with us.”4 prayers, or our fasting, but on the truth of the divine words.”8 Thus, from the acknowledgement of one’s own sin, one is brought to the recognition of one’s need for a Savior. This need is answered through faith, which confesses Christ’s death and resurrection, as well as his gifts through which this death and resurrection of two millennia ago now become mine for the for- Not to share in this confession and giveness of my sins. In sum, the discernment of the Lord’s body faith is to misuse, or even reject, is not merely a sentimental confession of some presence of God the gift as it has been given in among those who claim to have achieved unity; rather, it is a confession of the whole history of salvation, in which sin and favor of self-devised ideas. justification are a matter of life and death! To discern the body is nb to believe (fides qua) the church’s ongoing and unbroken witness to the saving acts of God (fides quae). In this faith, whole and unadulterated, Christ himself is present through the sacramen- tal realities that this faith embraces.9 “The means of grace, which This situation is bound to continue. As Ratzinger observes, are the means of uniting the church to Christ, its Head, are a “[o]ur problem is no longer the experience of the burden of our given whole, inseparable for the total revelation of Law and sin, but the absence of the experience of sin.”5 Therefore, it will Gospel as set forth in the Scriptures.”10 not do to talk about closed communion unless both the church and individual Christians first regain a sense of their own over- CLOSED COMMUNION powering sinfulness, as well as a sense of salvation as a humanly Consequently, communion is closed because not to share in this unattainable, God-given treasure. But for that to happen, the confession and faith is to misuse, or even reject, the gift as it has church must preach law and gospel, rather than a worldly mes- been given in favor of self-devised ideas and thus to eat and drink sage of oneness. At the dawn of the Reformation, people were judgment on oneself. When a congregation practices open com- concerned about finding a righteous and merciful God. So much munion it denies in actu the real significance of what the assem- so that many abstained from the Eucharist: “only a few people bly has confessed with the mouth (“who for us men and for our come to the sacrament with joy and longing, since they constant- salvation”) by allowing worldly sentiments to encroach upon ly fear that they are not pure and worthy enough.”6 Today the God’s self-disclosure in judgment and in grace. Furthermore, problem is the opposite: almost all think they are worthy. communion is also closed because for a pastor to allow an unwor- thy communicant to partake of the holy things is not only to PARTAKING WORTHILY obscure the revealed truth of God but also to pervert God’s saving The question of worthiness is, of course, a biblical one ( Cor mission, which he has entrusted to his church under the spiritual :–): to eat unworthily is to profane the body and blood of oversight of his/its pastors to be proclaimed with clarity. As this the Lord and thus to place oneself under judgment. Unworthy failure to carry out the responsibilities of the pastoral office, open partaking of the Lord’s Supper is eating without discerning communion is thus tantamount to usurping God’s prerogative, as Christ’s body and blood. To prevent this, the Church has, since the unfaithful pastor adjudicates worthiness in accordance with the days of the apostles, practiced closed communion as a loving his own selective, minimalist, or perhaps simply worldly convic- expression of concern for the salvation of communicants and tions. Open communion is a confession of oneself, rather than non-communicants alike. Today not only is the notion of unwor- Christ, whom the pastor is to represent; it is the placement of one- thiness made incomprehensible through the disappearance of self in the judgment seat of God. When all is said and done, the the concepts of sin and justification, but also the reading of the absence of closed communion makes the Supper into the church’s pertinent biblical passages is so uncatholic and literalistic that, if supper, as the church determines how it is to achieve unity.11 It it were not for its being put forth by mainline Christian denom- makes it into the people’s supper through which they may forgive inations, one could charge the exegetes with fundamentalism. one another; but receive no forgiveness from God. (How could
, , they if their confession no longer corresponds to his revelation for tion, no witness to the world, no incorporation and, at the end the forgiveness of sins?) of the day, no real unity but only pious delusions. Against this one must insist that the Supper is the Lord’s, and it In conclusion, it must be stressed that communion is not a cel- is he who invites the communicants.12 This invitation takes place ebration of unity, or a first step to it, as many churches today through faith, which acknowledges God in the entirety of his self- would have us believe. For this reason, open communion is an disclosure and presence. And in no other way than through faith exchange of God’s truth for “friendly sounding nonsense”15 that is the Eucharist a confession—not only of the bodily presence of only poses for theology and pastoral care. By contrast, closed God, or of the oral reception of his body and blood, be it by the communion emphasizes the true character of the Lord’s Supper, worthy or the unworthy, but it is a confession of God, embracing and that in terms of both what it is in itself and what place it holds his body and blood together with all that he is, has done, does, and in God’s salvific self-revelation. Closed communion thus serves to will do. In this light, to discern the body ( Cor :) means not underscore the doctrine of justification in that it distributes the only the recognition of the real presence, but also the recognition forgiveness of sins won by Christ on the cross through “the most of the God-given unity of all those who together confess him by intimate fellowship and union with our Savior into which sinful feeding on his gifts.13 Only when God is confessed as he wants to man can enter.”16 Theologically, closed communion directs the be confessed is the Lord’s Supper accorded its proper place in the church’s gaze to God’s work for the world’s salvation. Pastoral economy of salvation. And only then is his body truly discerned. practice seeks to uphold that salvation as an uncompromising This means that none of God’s self-communication can ever be reality for the sake of the person who for the time being must be conveniently swept under the rug because of its apparent excluded. What may thus seem to be incomprehensible law is, in offensiveness, or because of the hindrance that it seems to be to fact, an expression of love flowing from a deep conviction of the the easy acceptance of the gospel. heart and a confession of the mouth. Walther’s warning has lost none of its currency: “The more unionism and syncretism is the sin and corruption of our time, the more the loyalty of the ortho- dox church now demands that the Lord’s Supper not be misused as a means of external union without internal unity of faith.”17 Open communion is only a symptom A PASTORAL ENDNOTE of far deeper problems, not least of Open communion is only a symptom of far deeper problems, not which is the sentimentalization of least of which is the sentimentalization of God’s revelation. Some God’s revelation. of these problems will have to be confronted before closed com- nb munion can be meaningfully addressed and understood for what it is: a loving step for the salvation of the excluded person’s soul and for the preservation of the church’s faithful witness. Through preaching and catechetical instruction there must first come To discern the body is to see oneself as a member of Christ’s renewed appreciation for the gravity of sin and the lengths to body in time and even unto eternity ( Cor :ff). Of that body which God has gone to save humanity. Only when justification is he and he alone is the head—as the Savior who, first, condemns understood can one grasp the nature of the Lord’s Supper in light all godlessness (including also that godlessness which presumes of both Corinthians (oral reception also by the unworthy), as to know best what befits God and how he is to be worshipped), well as Corinthians and (the community of saints united in and, second, who has himself paid the price of this godlessness. common confession before the world and bearing witness to the Those who once were aliens and strangers are now by God’s life beyond). In discussing closed communion in the context of grace his own people who with one voice confess him (the royal the church’s faith, the pastor should drive home the urgency, not priesthood, Pt :–). It is because of this faithful confession of achieving visible unity, but of proclaiming the God-given and out of reverence for the God-given holiness of the church gospel of salvation in faithfulness to its giver, Christ, and his testa- (“holy things for the holy people”) that it must always be seen ment. To proclaim the worldly to the world may be uplifting and not as our body, but as the body of Christ. The church must, stimulating, but only when the gifts of God are preserved in such therefore, be preserved from all worldly temptations, particular- a way that they convey him can the riches of life eternal be made ly the worldly concept of unity, which runs roughshod over known to those who are walking in darkness. Nothing but this God’s promises. Since the world, in its impatient pursuit of stop- proclamation can bring about real unity—the unity of confession, gap salvation, understands neither the law nor the gospel, com- which the world must hear, and with it also the unity of the mys- munion must be closed, because “a little leaven leavens the tical body around the altar. For this reason, communicants who whole lump” ( Cor :). This applies equally to those who do are only de facto members of the congregations where they attend not share in one’s confession, as well as those who by willful per- services should be encouraged, for the sake of the church’s wit- sistence in sin undermine their own faith and confession.14 ness, to formalize their membership. This step must be seen as tes- Faith, both as the conviction of the heart and the doctrine of the timony, first, to the seriousness with which they, as members of church, is a gift of God and must be treasured. If it is compro- the church, view God’s salvation in Christ and, second, to the mised and relativized, the identity of the church is compromised necessity of keeping the church’s witness in unadulterated corre- together with it. And when that happens, there can be no salva- spondence to him. LOGIA
NOTES . Martin Luther,“Sermon on the Worthy Reception of the Sacrament” “We do not intend to admit to the sacrament and administer it to those (), AE : . who do not know what they seek or why they come” (And that regard- . Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Admission to the less of how imperfect they may feel themselves to be). Lord’s Supper: Basics of Biblical and Confessional Teaching (St. Louis: The . Fellowship in Its Necessary Context of the Doctrine of the Church,§. Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, ), . This statement, largely the work of Dr. Normal Nagel and Dr. Wilhelm . Joseph Ratzinger,“The Augsburg Concord on Justification: How Far Oesch, was presented to the Convention of the Evangelical Lutheran Does It Take Us?” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church Synodical Conference of North America, in , on behalf of the overseas , no. (): (emphasis added). churches in fellowship with the Synodical Conference. . For a more elaborate statement of this kind, as well as an attempt at . This turns the Eucharist into law. Instead of the gift of forgiveness it its defense, see Jeffrey O. Anderson, “Theses on Fellowship at the Lord’s becomes a means of accomplishing unity: “Christian fellowship in the Supper,” available at the Day Star website at http://www.day- Eucharist . . . is commanded by Christ, and therefore no human rule and star.net/anderson.htm; accessed on Feb. , .C., “If the Sacrament no synodical affiliation dare hinder Christ’s will and command. . . . The has the power to reconcile the sinner and God—a fact which is true, but presence of disagreements or doctrinal differences between synods or invisible—then surely the Sacrament has the power to unite organization- church bodies may be signs of sin. But such brokenness does not exempt ally disparate Christians, although that union is also at first invisible except Christians of different affiliations from eating and drinking the Sacrament in the common eating and drinking in the Eucharist.” with each other.”Anderson, A.–. . Ratzinger, . . Norman Nagel: “The Supper is not ours to do with as we please.” I . Luther, . am using the unpublished, longer version of Nagel’s paper, “Ecumenical . Ibid., . Luther adds: “the sacrament—even God himself—can Closed Communion: In the Way of the Gospel, In the Way of the Law.”An bestow nothing on you against your will. Since God’s gifts are so great, they abridged version was published in Concordia Journal : (January ), demand a great hunger and desire, but they avoid and flee from a forced –. and unwilling heart.” . In comparison to the standard Lutheran interpretation of . Ibid., . Cf. SC , –; LC ,–. Corinthians :, which sees this verse as exclusively eucharistic, I believe . See Luther’s “In ipsa fide Christus adest” in “Lectures on it to be a deliberate play on words on St. Paul’s part, pointing not only to Galatians,” (), AE : . Anderson confuses faith with holiness the Lord’s Supper, but also to the congregation gathered around Christ’s (love) when he writes: “The Sacrament is abused when it is used legalis- body and blood. These two realities, as Ap –, underscores, are tically as a ‘carrot’ which one can eat and drink only after one first is holy, never separate. pure and perfect. The Sacrament is precisely for those who are not holy, . This is not to say that denial of admission to the sacrament and pure or perfect but who need to be made holy by the Sacrament itself.” excommunication are the same thing. I owe to my friend Dan Guagenti the Anderson, B.. Luther explicitly denies that the Supper was instituted for insight that Cor and may also be the loci for closed communion, to be those who consider or have made themselves holy. Rather, it is for those interpreted together with and to complement chapter . who have “a bad conscience oppressed by sins committed, by daily trans- . Ratzinger, . gressions, and by a leaning toward sin,”Luther, . This is not to suggest, . Arthur C. Piepkorn, “The Lutheran Church—A Sacramental however, that one is not required to understand what the sacrament is, Church,” in The Church: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn, ed. not only in itself but also why, how, and for what purpose it is what it is. Michael P. Plekon and William S. Wiecher (Delphi, NY: ALPB Books, In other words, faith in the sacrament, even if it is a confession of oral ), . reception of the body and blood of Christ, is not enough unless it . C. F. W. Walther, “Theses on Communion Fellowship, (),” in embraces the totality of God’s salvific self-communication. Cf. LC , : Essays for the Church (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), : .
R
“It is not many books that make men learned . . . but it is a good book frequently read.” Martin Luther
j
Power writes that the revised Code of Canon Law () “allows Review Essay for the temporary deputation of any lay person” to fulfill certain clerical roles. Those roles include the ability to “preside over litur- gical worship, confer baptism, and distribute holy communion.” Gifts That Differ: Lay Ministries Established and Unestablished. This Canon Law also allowed for having a lay person “officiate at By David N. Power. New York: Pueblo Publishing Company, . marriages. . . . There is no exclusion of women from the services pages. mentioned in these canons” (–). Although his book defends h Having read that the Vatican ordered changes in the way the authority of the priest as the presider, Power notes that almost Catholics were to conduct the mass, I was drawn to this book when everything else can be done by a lay person. I saw it in a sale rack at St. Mary’s Hospital in Rochester, Minnesota. The second chapter traces the labors of those in the Roman To put this book in perspective, several of the recent changes Church who wrote about the expanded role of lay persons in the ordered by the Vatican need to be noted. First, instead of having lay liturgy. Power quotes theologians like Yves de Montcheuil, Yves ministers help the priest prepare the elements for distribution, the Congar, Karl Rahner, Adian Kavanagh, Edward Schillebeeck, and priest will do this himself. Second, the priest should not leave the others. Power noted that Pope Paul himself made use of a very altar area during the sharing of the peace (Maria Elena Baca, broad understanding of diakonia to support these liturgical “Ritual Change,” Star Tribune [Saturday, December , ], B, changes. Power almost exclusively studies Roman Catholic B). Now, one might say, What’s the big deal? This has stirred a big sources, and does not examine the ties this theology has with the reaction among many Catholics who feel that these changes have World Council of Churches studies on ministry. This is a flaw in greatly “reduced the role of the lay minister,” have reestablished Power’s book, for this Roman Catholic theology did not develop “the special reserved authority of the priest,” and have reestab- in a vacuum. lished a barrier between the priest and the people (Baca, B). Power hopes that the changes that have already come will serve Why do these concerns exist simply because Roman Catholic to “dismantle a clerical system which had begun in the Latin lay people no longer help prepare the elements on the altar for dis- Church at the time of the decretals of the fourth and fifth cen- tribution, even though they continue to distribute them? Because turies and was given its finishing strokes in the medieval period of the Roman Catholic Church greatly increased the role of the Roman and Gallican canonical and liturgical intermingling” (). layperson at the altar. What lies behind those sweeping changes is Power invokes “The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome” set out in Power’s book. And since Lutherans have also experi- as “the most basic document of all” () that have influenced this enced a greatly increased role for the lay person at the altar, this push for a greater role for lay people in Roman worship (–). book bears careful scrutiny, for there are many parallels between This is of special interest because “The Apostolic Tradition of the changes seen in Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism. Hippolytus” is also said to be a basic document supporting the In the first chapter of this book Power writes about the Vatican return of eucharistic prayers in Lutheranism and in the rest of II documents that gave rise to the greater role of the lay people at Christendom. The return of eucharistic prayers and the increasing the altar. These documents show that the new “position on lay ser- use of lay persons as leaders in eucharistic worship go hand in hand vices [in the Roman church] is part of an overall restructuring of in Roman Catholic and Lutheran circles. These facts should make a ministry in the church” (). These ministries “are exercised by lay careful and diligent study of Power’s book imperative. people by virtue of their share in the priesthood of Christ through Power also raises concerns over what he sees as the gradual cler- Baptism” (). icalization of the church. He comes close to being anticlerical in To further these changes Pope Paul VI invoked two principles some parts of his book. flowing from Vatican II’s constitution on the liturgy.“The first . . . To reach many of his conclusions, Power’s argumentation fol- calls for full and active participation of all the faithful in the lows these lines: “it would seem that . . .” (); “there is not much church’s worship. The second . . . requires an apt distribution of documentation to which to appeal, but . . .”; or this “allows us to functions and ministries in the assembly” (). This flows from the suspect that . . .” (). With this kind of argumentation Power understanding of the church as community, and in some coun- concludes that the clergy overpowered the lay people and robbed tries from a shortage of clergy to preside at the altar (, ). women of clerical leadership in the church ().
When he investigates what the New Testament says about min- The influences of the Roman Catholic liturgical movement istry, Power finds that ministry for all in the church “comes from are also present in the discussion of these lay ministries. Power the Holy Spirit and is a participation in the diakonia of Jesus links “the proclamation of the eucharistic prayer” to the “charis- Christ” (). There is no mention of the divine institution of the matic” rise of lay ministries in the church (–). He brings office of the holy ministry. Power’s concern is whether or not one forward all that is basic to the introduction of eucharistic can discern the fact that a particular “ministry” truly flows from prayers in Lutheran liturgies to support his view that lay people the Holy Spirit or not. Power sees the Spirit continually raising up should be leading the Divine Service: berakah, covenant, thanks- new ministries in the church. This is a recurring emphasis giving, remembrance, epiklesis, anaphora, and the like. Power’s throughout the entire book. book reveals the ties between the advocacy of eucharistic For Power the twelve apostles exist “as a model for every prayers, liturgy as the work of the people, liturgy as human Christian service, in its radical discipleship and in its apostolic action, as well as lay presidency at the eucharist. These things are call” (). Power advances the idea that everyone is a minister, all interrelated. One cannot accept the one without the other. though he writes about proper distinctions between ministries. These ideas certainly have roots in the Roman Catholic He also favors the ordination of women, and believes that baptism Liturgical Movement, which has greatly influenced many is ordination (, –, , –). Power writes that it “is up Lutherans. The Roman Catholic Liturgical Movement has given to liturgy as an act of God’s people to integrate the mutual Lutherans much of the theology of worship and many of the empowerment and service that goes on in a community of faith worship practices seen throughout Lutheranism today. from day to day, and to express its sacramental meaning” (). For Power, the “one who proclaims the eucharistic prayer, or These ideas place Power in the tradition of the everyone-a-minis- any other sacramental blessing, must be able to proclaim and ter theology of the World Council of Churches, Hendrick Kramer, interpret the scriptures for the community. To have a presider dis- Oscar Feucht, and others. pense the sacramental form, but take no part in the interpretation Power desires that the changes in ministry and function in the of the scriptures on which sacrament is based, is to pervert the Roman Church would help it see that “the conception of the liturgy and to destroy the unity between work and sacrament” ordained minister is what needs to be changed.”Power is an advo- (). And yes, you read it correctly: between “work and sacra- cate of changing the theology and practice of the Roman Church, ment.”Power advances the idea of “liturgy as an act of God’s peo- which he believes “is unwilling as a rule to ordain anyone who is ple.”It is a human work; the liturgy is human action. This is a pop- not male, celibate, seminary trained, and dependant on office for ular idea in Lutheranism today, but it is at odds with the Lutheran stipend and sustenance” (). Confessions, which note that the term leiturgia refers to the office Power writes about how these newly emphasized “common of the holy ministry and God’s work through the ministry, and ministries” of the church can be liturgically recognized in the not to the action of the worshippers (Ap XXIV, –). Roman Church. He compares the liturgical rites of recognition Significantly, Power writes about the worship leader as “one found in Rome with those rites of recognition for broad “ministe- who proclaims the eucharistic prayer.” Those desiring to rein- rial service” found in other communions, including the Lutheran troduce eucharistic prayers in Lutheran liturgies claim that such Church (–). Here again diligent study of the similarities and prayers are not simply prayer directed to God or proclamation differences between Rome and Lutheranism is necessary. directed to the people, but a combination of both: prayer- This book raises the question of the genesis of these same theo- proclamation directed to the people and to God. Others, includ- logical ideas in Lutheranism. Did Lutherans borrow the idea that ing Luther himself, believe that either a prayer is prayed to God liturgy is the work of the people from Rome and the Roman litur- or the word is proclaimed to the people. The two cannot be gical movement as well as from other sources? How influential has combined, for they go in different directions: one to God and the Roman Catholic liturgical movement been in the formation of one to human beings. The one (prayer) is in the realm of our the everyone-a-minister idea, which also entered Lutheranism sanctified response to God, and the other (proclamation) is God from the Faith and Order Movement and the work of Hendrik coming to us with his grace and gospel. Lutheranism has histor- Kraemer? Or did the World Council of Churches Faith and Order ically taught that prayer and proclamation need to be clearly and Movement influence the Roman Catholic expression of this theol- carefully distinguished; there should not be “one who proclaims ogy? How has the priesthood of all believers fared in this theolog- the eucharistic prayer” in a Lutheran divine service. The theolo- ical scheme? What has happened to the traditional understanding gy of prayer-proclamation expressed by Power (and some of the proper distinction between the office of the holy ministry Lutherans) obscures the clear gospel emphasis of the sacrament and the universal priesthood of all believers? of the altar, and clouds the liturgical expression of the doctrine Since the Lutheran Confessions and Scripture teach that there of justification. is an office of the Holy Ministry distinct from the priesthood of all On the basis of God’s word the Lutheran Confessions teach that believers, how can the ideas Power expounds (and which many the divine service has as its emphasis Gottesdienst (the work and Lutherans have accepted) be utilized by Lutherans without doing action of God in word and sacrament), not the work of human damage to their scriptural and confessional theology? Or is this beings. To have the emphasis on human work in the divine service not possible? If liturgy is the work of the people rather than is to attack the doctrine of justification (AC , ; Ap ; Gottesdienst (God at work for his people), how does this work of Ap , , , –, ;SA , –; , –). The verbs in the the people idea impact the office of the holy ministry and the doc- words of institution note that the direction in the sacrament of trine of justification? the altar is from God to human beings.
Since many of the ideas Power and the Roman Catholic litur- teach a consensus on justification that is virtually indistinguish- gical movement propound are now found in Lutheranism, able from the Reformers’ teaching (–). there is great need for Lutherans to study this book and others Oden’s ecumenical agenda is more than evident throughout. He like it to see how ideas that began or were present in the Roman aligns his findings to the conciliatory ideal of the Joint Declaration Catholic Liturgical Movement have now traveled into Lutheran on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) (). The impression one liturgical circles and have made an impact upon Lutheran the- gets is that Oden engages here in a scanty proof-text method to ology and practice. underscore this overriding principle or ideal, and not so much to Now that Rome is reversing some of the sweeping liturgical and do justice to the fathers. If the fathers are to be completely exoner- theological changes that truly altered the Roman Catholic under- ated of the Protestant evangelical judgment for not having got it standing of ministry, there is also the more urgent need for quite right, then perhaps a broader and comprehensive reading of Lutherans to study this book and the recent changes decreed by their writings is necessary. The naïvete that Oden appends to the Rome concerning the conduct of the liturgy. Have some recent Reformers’ reading of the fathers is certainly bothersome and Lutheran practices using lay persons as worship leaders gone too doubtful, in part because they too had appropriated for their the- far and strayed from our biblical and confessional heritage? ology the humanistic ad fontes methodology. And so after careful Thus there is the need to examine liturgical and practical study, the fathers were given their due where it applied, as in their changes that have entered Lutheranism (the push for eucharistic contribution towards the Trinity and Christology, but on other prayers, liturgy as the work of the people, “ministry” versus the occasions not. On this particular topic Oden fails to erase all reser- ministry, concerns about the clericalization of the church, and vations. One continues to wonder how his portrayal of the fathers’ others). Lutherans also need to study books like Power’s to see the understanding of justification as a courtroom-like declaration ( outside influences that have entered Lutheranism and to examine ff.) relates to their concept of effectual grace that embraces the sin- the impact they have had on the doctrine of the universal priest- ners’ abilities, though weak and incomplete ( ff). Does the for- hood and on the office of the holy ministry. This examination mer lead to the latter and stand, in terms of logic, a part of it? Or is needs to be done on the basis of careful study of scripture and of justification just a process that regards faith as incomplete for the Lutheran Confessions. Guided by such authorities, the saving justification unless complemented with good works, as Origen is gospel of Jesus Christ, God’s blessed doctrine of justification, will known to have taught? continue to be the true heart of the divine service in Lutheran I for myself wonder why the church displayed so little toler- Christian churches and hymnals. ance for the Reformers’ position if it already were in possession Armand J. Boehme of what the Reformers seemed to have uncovered. Surely the St. Paul Lutheran Church church’s protective stance toward its own theology shows that Waseca, Minnesota even if the fathers had in part been in possession of the correct theology of justification, it had been lost by the time it reached Luther. In this sense Oden’s proposition would certainly facilitate and deepen the ongoing ecumenical debate on justification. The Justification Reader. By Thomas C. Oden. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, . pages. Klaus Detlev Schulz Concordia Theological Seminary h Thomas Oden boldly pursues the thesis that the Pauline doc- Fort Wayne, Indiana trine of justification by Christ through faith was not actually uncovered as late as the Reformation, by Martin Luther in partic- ular, but that it had already been firmly established in the writings of the fathers. In a long, somewhat overdrawn first chapter, Oden The Forgotten God. Edited by A. Andrew Das and Frank Matera. reflects on this issue in a very personal way. It is his conviction that Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, . pages. a broader ecumenical consensus actually exists among Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox churches if only h First, a word of commendation. The Forgotten God, which they all become cognizant of their common roots in the doctrine assembles a veritable who’s who in exegetical theology, is co-edit- of justification as enunciated by the fathers. He bemoans the ed by A. Andrew Das, a professor and LCMS clergyman who is evangelical habit of solely rehearsing the differences of the six- quickly making a name for himself in scholarly circles. His work teenth Century from Mary and purgatory to papal authority on this volume will surely further his well-deserved reputation as instead of seeking this common consensus (). And so in the a serious and capable scholar and theologian. chapters that follow, Oden delves into writings of the fathers of Now to the book itself. The Forgotten God, a Festschrift honor- both the East and West and uncovers in them quotations on the ing Paul Achtemeier, the editors’ Doktorvater, consists of fifteen various facets of the doctrine of justification, particularly its essays written by such eminent scholars as Joseph Fitzmyer, declarative, sola gratia, and faith-alone aspects. On these, fathers Richard Hayes, Harold Attridge, Luke Timothy Johnson, and such as Origen, John Chrystostom and, Theodoret of Cyrrhus of David Aune. Every student of Biblical theology should be inter- the East harmonize with Clement of Rome, Augustine, Prosper, ested in this volume. The essayists, to a person, take seriously the and Fulgentius on the West. This already is an arguable assertion biblical text, as well as the task of the theologian. Their erudition on its own, but Oden goes beyond and concludes that they all is undeniable, and their work in this book attests to the powerful
influence of Achtemeier in Biblical studies. Further, this work standing of God’s character. While Mays demonstrates that the affords us a wonderful opportunity to survey the thoughts of character of God parallels the revelation of Christ, he nowhere today’s leading exegetes. asserts that the Psalms are essentially christological. Likewise, S. That said, the book’s title carries with it a certain assumption: Dean McBride Jr. argues that the Pentateuch “develops three namely, that somehow the subject of God has been forgotten in foundational affirmations,”namely that there is one God, who has recent scholarship. If by this we mean that too often commen- specially chosen Israel, and speaks through his prophet Moses taries have been too technical and insufficiently theological, this (). These foundations, McBride contends, are taken up and built reviewer would readily agree. Something else, however, is going on upon in the New Testament. True enough. Yet there is little here. Behind the book’s theme lies the assertion of Nils Dahl, thought given to the fact that the Pentateuch’s primary purpose made over a generation ago, that New Testament scholarship had was to anticipate and speak of the Messiah. generally neglected the topic of theology proper. According to And yet a number of the authors seem to argue against the Dahl, New Testament exegetes had so concerned themselves with book’s basic premise, namely, that we have neglected God because subjects such as Christology and anthropology that they neglect- of our emphasis on Christ. Richard Hayes’s essay on God in ed to purposefully discuss the nature of God as he appears in the Romans and Galatians is in itself worth the price of the book. biblical documents. Hayes argues that, for Paul, our knowledge of God is wrapped up Was Dahl correct in his diagnosis? The editors work on that in the person of Christ:“Paul understands the death of Jesus as the assumption. Yet we may ask whether it is possible to speak right- revelation of the identity of God and as the loving act through ly about Christ and neglect God. Is it really possible to speak which God reconciles the fallen creation to himself” (). about God apart from Christ? Further, we may ask whether it is Drawing upon the terminology of Richard Bauckham, he further in any way meaningful to discuss Christology and theology as if writes that “the death of Jesus” is a “revelation of the identity of they were two different topics. The authors of The Forgotten God God” (). Again, David Hay argues forcefully that the letters to are not in agreement on the question. Fitzmyer, for instance, the Colossians and Ephesians are “both christocentric and theo- argues that the Pastoral Letters are decidedly theocentric, as centric” (), and concludes that “God is adequately known only opposed to christocentric. Luke Timothy Johnson, while admit- through the saving work of Christ” (). ting that James occasionally draws upon Jesus’ teaching, he nev- Without wishing to appear churlish, we may note that the book ertheless has written a decidedly “theocentric” letter. Implied in ends with an essay by Elizabeth Achtemeier, the recently-deceased both of the above views is the notion that one can speak rightly wife of the man to whom this book is dedicated. There is much to about God without speaking about Christ. This results, it seems, admire about Elizabeth Achtemeier, but the fact remains that she in depersonalizing God, turning him almost into a thing, an “it,” considered herself a “preacher.”Given this fact, one wishes the edi- or simply a concept. tors had not ended this book with her essay on preaching, thus While any discussion of God is welcome, much depends on giving the impression that her act of preaching is to be com- where this discussion begins. There is a strong tendency in mended. Reformed theology to begin with the study of God, and then pro- In summary, this book has much to offer, though its premise is ceed to a discussion of Christ. In this approach, God is defined suspect. according to his attributes (his omnipotence, omnipresence, Peter Scaer immutability, for example), and Christ is then judged on how he Concordia Theological Seminary does or does not exhibit these characteristics. This amounts basi- Fort Wayne, Indiana cally to an apologetic approach to theology that seeks to demon- strate that Jesus essentially fits the definition of “divine.”Lutherans have traditionally taken the opposite approach. They begin with Jesus, who is the revelation of God, and then, in that revelation, Revelation and the End of All Things. By Craig R. Koester. Grand see God. They aim to discover who Christ is, and then proceed to Rapids: Eerdmans, . the Father. They take to heart the words of Jesus:“He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Thus it makes little sense to say that the h The “Left-Behind” series shows that sensationalistic interpre- topic of God has been neglected due to an overemphasis on tations of the book of Revelation written for a wide audience Christ. In fact, it is not possible to begin to speak about God with- make money. One is hard-pressed to find many books on out Christ. Once one has spoken rightly about Christ, he has Revelation that are both simple to read and sane in their already spoken about God. approach. Here is such a volume. It is an introduction aimed at an Alongside the Reformed tendency to begin with God and move educated student of Bible that covers much of Revelation’s con- to Christ, there is in much higher-critical theology the tendency to tent in clear, non-technical prose, with no footnotes and a mini- view God as a concept. Further, there is a tendency to see the Old mal index. Even though it follows the visionary sequence of Testament as the Jewish Scriptures, to the extent that it is stripped Revelation, it is not a verse-by-verse commentary. It was written of its christological content. by Craig Koester, Professor of New Testament at Luther Seminary The essays on the Old Testament could indeed have been in St. Paul, whose capability as an interpreter can be seen also in improved by taking more seriously its christological nature. James his recent Anchor Bible Commentary on Hebrews. Luther Mays, for instances, characterizes the “theology” of the In his terse and helpful discussion of the history of exegesis that Psalms as a type of “Prolegomena” () that offer a basic under- ranges from Justin Martyr to David Koresh, Koester addresses
especially the challenges to proper interpretation posed by premil- Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther’s Reform. By Oliver K. lennial dispensationalists. He takes a very historical approach to Olson. Wolfenbuttel: Herzog August Bibliothek, . pages. the book, arguing repeatedly for ways to understand Revelation in Hardcover. its first-century context, especially in light of Roman imperialism. His comments on Luther’s use of Revelation are very balanced, in h A chance conversation with Dr. Olson three or four years ago contrast to the generally negative attitude towards the book that revealed that his work on Matthias Flacius had been published in has been fostered among Lutherans through the use of a few select Germany. That was the good news. The bad news was that the quotations. An interesting feature of the introduction is his discus- book was not yet available in English. Happily that bad news has sion concerning the influence of the book of Revelation upon the now been rectified. liturgy and hymnody of mainline Christianity. The obvious question is, Why become excited about a major Koester describes Revelation as a two act drama (– and work dealing with someone who might be described as a relative- –) with several cycles that spiral forward as the scenes of this ly minor reformer? The short answer is, History. The longer apocalypse unfold. The bulk of the book consists of chapters orga- answer is indicated by Dr. Olson’s subtitle: “The Survival of nized around these cycles (one on –, another on –, and so Luther’s Reform.” forth). His pages are filled with perceptive insights, as can seen Almost by definition Lutherans, and especially American from a few representative examples. First, Koester focuses on the Lutherans, are not widely acquainted with their own history. Since central importance of portraits of Christ in these scenes. He notes too many Reformation Day sermons never get beyond nailing that the repetition of an aspect of Christ’s appearance (:–) in thesis to church doors, the only reformation date sure to cause a each of the seven letters (:–:) leads the readers to interpret quiver on Lutheran EKGs is . After that there might be some their situation in light of this risen and living Christ who is stand- recognition of the Augsburg Confession of or Luther’s death ing before John dictating these letters. Second, non-biblical in , but not much else. For too many the graph flat-lines until ancient literature is often briefly referenced in explaining the and the adoption of the Book of Concord. It is for the peri- significance of some of the imagery. Koester states that the prac- od immediately following Luther’s death, especially, that Dr. tice of some ancient Roman cities in blotting out from citizenship Olson’s work is so valuable. rolls the names of those who were executed (cf. Dio Chrysostom) Completely valid is the contention that what had been accom- helps us to understand the promise that the names of the faithful plished during Luther’s lifetime came perilously close to being lost will not be blotted out of the Book of Life (Rev :). Third, he in the years following his death. Had a strong counterweight to repeatedly notes how scenes unmask evil in a manner that both Melanchthon’s influence not been available after , what sur- challenges the complacent Christians by calling them to repen- vived as Lutheranism would have been vastly different—if, tance and comforts those who are oppressed by assuring them indeed, Lutheranism had survived at all. This is the story that Dr. that the time of such evil is short. Fourth, he pointedly highlights Olson tells in such a masterful way. The book’s twelve chapters are Old Testament background to imagery, even noting how some broken down into fifty-seven shorter sections, a procedure that Old Testament prophetic portrayals of eschatological destruction keeps the narrative moving briskly. As it is, Dr. Olson’s style is such are reversed in Revelation—for example, destruction falls on one that the reader is carried along almost as if he were reading a tenth of the city and all but glorify in Rev :, which is a novel. Reading this book is not work, it is pleasure—a pleasure reversal of the nine tenths to be destroyed according to Amos :, that provides great rewards in developing a sense of historical and the mere who did not commit idolatry, according to immediacy that compels prayers of thanksgiving to God for hav- Kings :. ing kept his reform alive. One may take issue with Koester on various details, most of But not only is the overarching influence of one individual — which are relatively minor (for instance, that the angels of the Flacius—laid out in compelling detail, there is also much to be seven churches are identified as angelic beings and not pastors, or learned about him as a man. He was a Croat, for instance, whose that the angel in Revelation depicts a created angel and not arrival at Lutheranism came via unusual circumstances. He was a Christ). The one prominent weakness is Koester’s treatment of the writer of church history, the first-ever Lutheran so engaged. His millennium in Revelation . Koester hesitates to interpret this polemical contributions contra Osiander and Schwenckfeld were difficult chapter in the light of other New Testament texts, with invaluable. His sense of timing was canny, knowing what needed the result that he sees the binding of Satan and the -year reign to be written and when. He was able to anticipate his opponents’ as symbolic depictions of future reality. This weakness should not reactions and aptly reply, making use of pseudonymous writings prevent this book from being added to a church library or com- on occasion. In sum, Flacius brought the thoughts and words of mended to a member who is puzzled by Revelation and wants to Luther to bear on particular post-Luther situations with devastat- learn more without plowing through a detailed commentary. The ing result. scattering of a few classic Albrecht Dürer woodcuts based on the There are also interesting formulistic features in this book. No text of Revelation assists the reader in visualizing the powerful footnotes or endnotes, as such, appear. Rather, the author employs scenes recorded by John and ably explained by Koester. a system that might best be described as side-notes. The volume’s oversize dimensions allow notations to be placed in the outer Charles A. Gieschen margin of the page while maintaining a normal text format. The Concordia Theological Seminary effect is interesting. The eye is automatically drawn to these notes Fort Wayne, Indiana as one reads. Compared to the consummate annoyance inherent
with endnotes, this system is a treat. As regards the normal foot- Age (R. Ehlke), and the cross in current U.S. Hispanic (Garc’a) noting approach, side-notes help one more easily maintain his and African American experiences (J. Nunes, Dallas). Due to place while reading. immigration, global challenges evidently more and more Speaking of notations, the thoroughness in this book is strik- become local ones. As to the subtitle of this collection, all arti- ing. The introduction and twelve chapters are supplemented by cles provide a wealth of information regarding these contexts of an incredible references (I counted them!). This depth and mission work and provide several helpful points of contact for attention to detail is also indicated by a seventy-nine-page bibli- beginning to evangelize people shaped by them through law ography. But such completeness does not become an exercise in and gospel. redundancy. Olson’s description of Flacius’s influence in Italy, How do the writers address the theological challenges posited for instance, proved so compelling that this reviewer was by the four core aspects of the Lutheran theology of the cross, “forced” to read some of the referenced material before contin- namely God hidden () in the Crucified and () presently in the uing on with this text. Add also the numerous illustrations (I means of grace and, therefore, () known only in his biblical self- didn’t count them), and one has a definitive handling of the sub- revelation in law and gospel, wrath and grace, and finally () the ject matter. Christian and the church necessarily hidden under suffering and Two more things. This book covers roughly ten years of the sin; faith being central in all four aspects? Here a number of criti- immediate post-Luther period. It ends at about . Therefore cal remarks are in place. one can only hope that a second volume will soon appear. And, All clearly agree in the centrality of the cross of Christ for mis- as might be expected in a translation, there are a few typograph- sion work. This seems trivial. But in light of liberal attempts to ical problems. Too many errors, primarily word doublets and replace evangelism with mere dialogue, this is a necessary misspellings, made it into the final text. One more editorial read- reaffirmation. Also, the dual character of the cross of Christ is gen- ing would have helped. These problems, however, are minor, erally well stated: first and foremost it is the one place in time and easily solved by a second printing. And it is hoped that a second space where God has won forgiveness, life, and salvation for sin- printing will come. Our ignorance of this period in Lutheran ners of all times and places; yet it is also the prophetic example of history has continued too long. This book needs to be read. Here the Christian life under the cross, which reduces the old Adam’s events of the post-Luther era are made accessible and relevant to self-reliance to naught ( Cor :; AE : ). Luther observes that, present-day happenings in the Church. Unfailingly, given a if the latter is rejected, then the former is gone, too (AE : chance history is only too happy to repeat herself. And per- –). After all, these two dimensions stand in a relation of chance some woefully “subtleness-challenged” individual has cause and effect ( Tim :–). made it to this point with unresolved ambivalence, let me add This quite naturally leads to the fourth aspect, the (physical) but one more thing: buy this book! suffering in the lives of Christians on their pilgrimage through Dean M. Bell this life’s valley of death. As pertinent articles show, the cross Immanuel Lutheran Church comes in many shapes and forms without being sought by McIntosh, Minnesota believers: hunger, unemployment, violent neighborhoods, racial discrimination, economic exploitation, persecution, but also AIDS, cancer, infertility, dementia—and sin. Knit together through faith in Christ, Christians cannot but seek to help each The Theology of the Cross for the Twenty-First Century: Signposts other bear their burdens patiently—first of all (especially by for a Multicultural Witness. Edited by A. L. Garc’a and A. R.V.Raj. those holding the preaching office, Acts :) with the abun- St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, . pages. .. dant comfort of the gospel of hope that again makes the omnipresent divine-human High Priest, who himself has h Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the suffered in the flesh, and his forgiveness accessible to faith, Savior (Is. :). which in turn confidently calls upon him in every trouble ( Pt A. L. Garc’a, a professor of theology at Concordia University :; :; –, –). Furthermore, this is accomplished Wisconsin, Mequon, Wisconsin, and A. R. V. Raj, a professor of by competent advice, creative forms of bodily aid, and deliber- exegetical theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, have gath- ate choices when it comes to voting and consumption (compare ered thirteen quite heterogeneous articles of mostly LCMS the- Luther’s explanations to the Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth ologians seeking to explore the implications of “this distinctive Commandments), thereby serving the Lord himself. Lutheran understanding of grace” (back cover) for “a multicul- Nevertheless, if the true, spiritual cause of Christian suffering tural witness.” The essays are grouped under three heads: (namely, the cross) in this world is not clearly recognized from “Signposts for Witness;” “Global Themes for Witness;” and God’s word (Jn :–; ), then sinful economic structures “North American Themes for Witness.” The second and third become the main problem to solve; the persistent reality of sections span a wide range of themes, from the changes and (original) sin that brings all worldly utopias to naught for the chances of evangelistic witness to the cross after communism’s sake of the gospel (Rom. :–) seems to be no big problem pseudo-Christianity in Russia (P. Muench) over the relation of in Africa (ff.) or, for that matter, among native () and the theology of the cross to Hindu (Raj) and East Asian (W. Y. other Americans (compare –, with AC ,). This is nei- Ji) thought and African life (E. Abate), all the way to North ther masochism nor an excuse for laziness (), but biblical American postmodernism (G. Veith), bioethics (R. Eyer), New realism. Elements of the s U.S. civil rights movement
(–—how much do M. Luther and M. L. King have in com- The Resurrection of the Son of God, By N. T. Wright. Minneapolis: mon when it comes to theological substance?) and the Fortress Press, . pages. s–s Liberation Theology appear in a couple of articles, at times especially visible in the footnotes and bibliographies (see h “If Christ has not been raised,” stated St. Paul, “your faith is , –, –). Especially the latter can be, and in this vol- futile; you are still in your sins” ( Cor :). This claim has nev- ume has been, described as the modern, collective forerunner of ertheless been challenged in the last two hundred years by a liber- postmodernity’s individualistic consumerism, both with al Protestant theology that was as eager to accept the standards of destructive results for the church (, –). secular culture as orthodox Christianity was eager to reject them. Liberation theology leads, finally, to the especially closely relat- In this book Wright effectively continues the attack on the secular ed dimensions () and () of a Lutheran understanding of the and liberal Protestant Biblical scholarship that he began in the first theology of the cross, namely, means of grace and the scripture two volumes of the series Christian Origins and the Question of principle. First, Lutherans agree, God works through means. But God. Wright has designed this series to be an essentially believing what means are they talking about: word and sacraments (AC ), yet rigorously historical reading of the first century of the or “human beings” and “Christian leaders” made “more effective Christian movement. In this volume he continues his masterful through study and practice” ()? Perhaps this is just a termino- exposition of scripture and history in a discussing of the resurrec- logical question that makes these quotes appear as a tion of Christ. Lutheranized version of neo-revivalism (study instead of Spirit), The introduction begins with the historical projectory. Against but also others propose an “incarnational approach” to ministry those, such as Willi Marxsen, who have claimed that the resurrec- by which neo-Evangelicals seek to fill the painful void left by tion is an unknowable event since it involves events that do not deficient doctrines of the person of Christ and the means of grace normally occur in history, Wright claims that the resurrection is (–): the minister has to embody God’s love to make it both historical and knowable (–). The desire to make a private presently felt, which is, in view of his sinfulness, quite an endeav- interpretation of otherwise neutral facts is a product of the or. Liberation Theology, as seen above, demands analogous enlightenment and the division of private and public truths. things of every Christian or human, probably for similar reasons History is itself a series of unrepeatable events and as such cannot (the Reformed and Roman Catholics do not teach the omnipres- be held to the same standards of repeatability by which chemistry ence of Christ’s human nature): Christ, hidden in the gospel, yet and physics are judged. seemingly rather absent from it, cannot do the job; sight and In the next chapter he moves on to discussing and distinguish- experience, not faith, become key: per visibilia ad invisibilia, a ing the range of pagan and Jewish views of the afterlife that exist- theology of glory! Second, proclamation in law and gospel has to ed in the ancient world. Wright demonstrates that the pagan be specific to be biblical, taking the audience into consideration. world was dominated by a theological outlook that either This could also be called enculturation. As said above, the volume attempted to rationalize death (Plato and Pythagoras) or viewed contains a number of good examples of that. Yet what is one to death as dark and miserable (–). Jews themselves shared their make of the suggestion also to “affirm the ‘faith of the people’” in neighbors’ hostility to the fact of death. Nevertheless, instead of the sense of the Catholic sensus fidelium, that is, as a criterion for denying it, Judaism trusted the eschatological visions of Isaiah , truth, in which scripture and tradition become an indistinguish- Ezekiel , and Daniel , and believed that the creator God would able mixture (–)? Also, should Christians engage in mis- act in a new way in the future to restore creation, which included sion work even if they had not the express command of Christ to destroying death (–). This section was particularly interest- do so and a pertinent promise? Is drawing conclusions from ing because Wright succeeds in showing not only that Palestinian “being a Christian” really a sign of “evangelical missiology” () Judaism held strongly to a belief in resurrection, but also that the that could stand in light of the antispeculative impetus of the the- Septuagint translated many passages in such a manner as to turn ology of the cross that renders foolishness also all Christian wis- them into predictions of resurrection, demonstrating that the dom? “Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum”: this is a belief was widespread among diaspora Jews also (–). core proposition of the theology of the cross earlier generations Wright then moves from pre-Christian to Christian discussions of Missourians regularly asserted. of resurrection, starting with the writings of the apostle Paul. Paul, All in all, while there are solidly Lutheran contributions in argues Wright, believes in a bodily resurrection from the dead. On this volume, the reader sometimes gets the impression that the surface this does not appear to be an extremely radical claim. Luther more often than not served as the handy provider of Nevertheless, many have attempted to construe Paul’s language of catch phrases that were fit into systems breathing another spir- “natural” and “spiritual” bodies in Corinthians as referring to it. One had wished that all contributors had read more perti- a resurrection of “spirit” rather than “flesh.” Wright correctly nent Luther than theses and of the Heidelberg Disputation points out that spiritual versus natural bodies is a significant inno- and other early writings—for instance, his magnificently dis- vation of the second-temple Jewish discourse on resurrection, but turbing On the Bondage of the Will. What remains is a confusing it is not an outright change. He states that what gets translated picture of current LCMS pluralism that evidently has affected generally as “natural” really means something more like “soulish” foundational tenets of the theology of the cross. (–). The adjective functions as a statement about what ani- mates the body and not what the body is made of. This makes the Holger Sonntag description of the resurrected body as a “spiritual” and “incor- Brooklyn Center, Minnesota ruptible” all the more interesting. First of all, it means that the
“spiritual body” is animated by the Holy Spirit’s power and there- fact take actual encounters, plus the empty tomb, to bring about fore not subject to corruption like the “soulish” body (). resurrection faith (–). Second, this is completely new in the history of second-temple Ultimately, in the last chapter of the book Wright concludes Jewish thought. All second-temple Jewish texts that we possess that this makes resurrection the most plausible explanation of seem to suggest that the resurrected dead will be alive after their what happened to Jesus and how the Christian movement began resurrection more or less as they were in their earthly life. This than does any other scenario. He points out that this does not then leads to the question, Where did Paul get such an idea? Could prove resurrection. Neither does it bluntly attract a ready-made it be from the encounter with the resurrected Jesus? meaning to it (as Pannenberg has suggested). A Roman soldier Wright argues that this is the case and then attempts to recon- would have interpreted it in a totally different way then a Jew like struct Paul’s process of “conversion.”This section is helpful in that Paul (). Nevertheless, it does provide a historical basis for the he points out that when Paul says that he saw Jesus he does not use beginning of Christianity. words that normally denote visionary experiences in the literature Though I am very enthusiastic about this book, it unfortunate- of the time, particularly the Septuagint (–). This counters ly has some theological difficulties. Many conservative Lutherans the claim made by many scholars that the resurrection appear- might find Wright’s view of scripture a little too low. He certainly ances were visionary and therefore should be dismissed as ahis- believes in its historical reliability, but in the first volume of the torical. Nevertheless, in spite of this helpful observation, the rest series had already rejected any notion of verbal or plenary inspi- of the chapter is a somewhat sloppy attempt to reconstruct how ration. Second, Wright, being British, is an Anglican of a rather Paul came to think that Jesus was God (–). This sort of Reformed bent. In American theological circles he might be argument does not work very well, since it tends to be based a described as a moderate or liberal Evangelical. Therefore, he has a large amount of speculation on Wright’s part, something he is problem distinguishing law and gospel, a difficulty more pro- generally very good at avoiding. Furthermore, he fails to see his nounced in previous works, but nevertheless present in this vol- own logic all the way through. For example, he claims that people ume also. This further relates to what seems to be his post-liberal never would have thought that Jesus was the Messiah unless he tendency to understand doctrine as the regulating narrative of a had claimed to be, or at the very least strongly implied that he was, linguistic community rather than propositions about truth. and then had that Messiahship vindicated by the resurrection. Wright differs from most post-liberals though, insofar as he From this same logic I cannot understand why he does not sug- apparently thinks that for Christianity to be valid the controlling gest this about Christ’s Godhood. Why did early Christians insist narrative must really be based in history, something that Lindbeck that Jesus was God (Rom :) if he had not claimed to be so pub- and Frei have never given me the impression that they are really licly or at least privately, and then had this belief vindicated by the concerned about. Despite its drawbacks, the work is extremely resurrection? This is even more puzzling since Wright first claims helpful as a historical tool for those who are eager to give an that nobody would have thought that Jesus was God because he account for the hope that is within them (I Pt :, paraphrased). was resurrected, and then states that this is how Paul was prompt- ed to think in that direction. Jack D. Kilcrease III This aside, Wright makes the rest of the argument beautifully. Luther Seminary He shows how Paul and the rest of the New Testament writers’ St. Paul, Minnesota faith in the resurrection and their particular understanding of it are carried all the way through to Origen in the second and third centuries (–). The only significant deviations from the res- urrection faith by writings that claim to be Christian during this The Defense Never Rests: A Lawyer’s Quest for the Gospel. Craig A. period are the Gnostic texts of the second and third centuries Parton. St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, . pages. (–). Wright also uses this as an opportunity to debunk any idea that when early Christians talked about resurrection they h In this remarkable book, Craig Parton, trial lawyer and meant anything other than bodily resurrection. Here Bultmann is Christian apologist, does more than speak his mind; he lays bare sharply criticized for his suggestion that there was a point when his heart. We are all the richer for his labors. This book has some- Christians did not believe in bodily resurrection and that stories thing for anyone seriously interested in contending for the gospel of the empty tomb were a late apologetic invention—a claim that, in our time. On one level the book is an open letter to American given the women witnesses at the tomb, lacks all credibility evangelicals, presenting a compelling critique of a movement that (–). has lost its mooring. On another level the book is a call for This leads into the last section, in which Wright discusses the Lutherans to quit gutting their identity by shamelessly copying different Gospel narratives and their importance. He points out methods contrary to their confession. On still another level, the that there are differences, but that they do not strain credulity. The book is a passionate invitation to engage in vigorous defense of presence of the women at the tomb, combined with the strange the gospel’s historical and incarnational roots in the Word made deviation from the second-temple expectation concerning the flesh, Jesus Christ. resurrected body, seems to suggest their authenticity (). He The first four chapters are an insider’s view of American also argues that a mere empty tomb would not have created res- Evangelicalism. In lively and refreshingly honest prose, Parton urrection faith, but only sadness that grave robbers had destroyed traces the fascinating story of his journey from unbelief to faith it, a fairly common occurrence in the ancient world. It would in and his long sojourn in the wilderness of revivalistic
Protestantism before entering what appeared to be a Lutheran If Lutheranism is anything, it is incarnational—fleshly and incarnational and sacramental paradise. Much to his chagrin, sacramental. God became man. Mary gave birth to Him who Parton finds Lutheranism widely compromised by revivalistic made her. There are not “spiritual” facts in the Bible. There theological substance enthusiastically embraced by well-meaning are just facts. But it is also true that human reason can never but misguided advocates of evangelical form: generate personal trust in the facts that lie at the heart of the Gospel (i.e., that the death of Jesus Christ was for the sins of The Lutheran church is at war, and the result is a wild incon- the world, and His resurrection for its justification). We can sistency in her churches. There are Lutheran churches trying prove factually that Jesus died on a cross. But that does not to do a service largely indistinguishable from Evangelical mean that the skeptic will believe and be saved. () megachurches like Willow Creek. Then one can find wonder- fully orthodox Lutheran churches led by faithful pastors (). Mr. Parton, a partner with John Warwick Montgomery in the International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism, and Human As an appendix, Parton includes a “Commentary on the Divine Rights, does a masterful job of arguing the objective facticity of Service” compiled by Professor John Pless. Parton argues that the the gospel on the basis of the biblical evidence “open to analysis by retention of the liturgy is central to the proclamation of the all and subject to the twin tenets of analytical philosophy- gospel. Yet his book is no simple reaction against liturgical inno- verification and falsification” (). This he labels “apologetics for vation. Mr. Parton is a widely read and perceptive lay theologian. the tough-minded.”But thankfully Parton doesn’t stop there. In a His focus is squarely on the heart of the matter: very helpful chapter tantalizingly titled “A Lawyer Among the Artists,” he also provides a more subjective alternative tailored to I experienced what happens when Law and Gospel are not our contemporary culture, which he calls “apologetics for the ten- understood and thus not distinguished. My Christian life, der-minded.”Choosing as examples the work of C. S. Lewis and J. truly begun in grace, was now being “perfected” on the S. Bach, Parton shows how the arts can be used in service of the treadmill of the Law. My pastors did not end their sermons gospel to tug at the hearts of those who would not be inclined to by demanding that I recite the rosary or visit Lourdes that listen to philosophical argumentation and calls for a new week in order to unleash God’s power; instead, I was told to Christian renaissance. yield more, get involved with the church more, and love my wife and kids more. Not until I came to the Lutheran As culture experiences the corroding effects of years of Reformation some twenty years later, did I understand that secularism on the arts, the artistically minded cry out for my Christian life had come to center around my life, my contact with the sacred. Thus Bach societies proliferate and obedience, my yielding, my Bible verse memorization, my unbelievers purchase record amounts of crosses and liturgi- prayer, my zeal, my witnessing, and my sermon application. cal art. Sales of Gregorian chants are at an all-time high, and I had advanced beyond the need to hear the cross preached pagans stroll by the millions through the great repositories of to me anymore. Of course, we all knew Jesus had died for the artistic tradition of Christendom, lost in amazement at our sins, and none of us would ever argue that we were try- the works of Rembandt, Dqrer, Michaelangelo, and Da Vinci. ing to “merit” salvation. But something had changed. God Yet utter reductionism and insipid dullness in the arts still was a Father all right, but a painfully demanding one. has a home in the architecture of the American Christian . . . The “evangel” in Evangelicalism was missing. My church. Make no mistake, the foundations for this condition Evangelical training had me on a treadmill of merit. My are not in the via affirmata of the Lutheran Reformation but “solid Bible training” was killing me (). in the twin sources of the via negativa of American evangel- icalism-pietism and revivalism (). Four of the ten chapters of Parton’s book are a comprehensive survey of Christian apologetics: how the gospel is to be defended This is a book you can hand out with equal confidence to against its detractors. Besides tracing the history of apologetics, confirmed skeptics, disillusioned Evangelicals, or confused Parton provides fascinating and insightful contributions from his Lutherans. Craig Parton’s scholarship is impressive (over fifty-five own legal studies and his practice as an attorney in the litigation sources listed in an annotated bibliography), his argumentation and trial department of a prestigious law firm. In the process, he well documented (seventeen pages of extensive footnotes), and his very carefully delineates the biblical relationship between reason writing captivating. He is indeed an eloquent advocate for the and faith, advocating a distinctly Lutheran apologetic: gospel. And that defense never rests. Harold L. Senkbeil Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, Indiana
L Forum S S C
divorce, or military help against Spain or France, Henry did turn T L C to the Lutherans. But as to the theology of Luther, he remained G B throughout his life, as hostile as when, in at the dawn of the Reformation, he published the virulent attack Assertio Septem The Evangelical Lutheran Church of England (ELCE) consists Sacramentorum which earned him the “Fidel Defensor” of confessional Lutheran congregations in England, Scotland, (Defender of the Faith) from the Pope. In Henry’s domain, and Wales. The following history is provided by the ELCE, found Luther was declared a heretic, and his books, as well as William online at http://www.lutheranchurch.org.uk/history1.htm. Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament, were prohibited. Two Lutheran Queens. But Henry could not stop the new the- ology from entering his country, his church, even his own The Sixteenth Century household. Of his six wives, the second, Anne Boleyn, might well Receipt for Forgiveness. Within four weeks of Luther fastening have been, the fourth, Anne of Cleves, certainly was, a Lutheran. his Ninety-Five Theses to the cathedral door in Wittenburg on In his church, too, were prominent men imbued with the spirit October , scholars in Cambridge and Oxford were reading of Luther. Chief among these was Thomas Cranmer, first and debating them. Martin Luther wanted no revolution, only Archbishop of Canterbury in the reformed Church of England. to protest against the shameless traffic in indulgences. What else While reading theology at Cambridge, Cranmer had been a part could Luther, a conscientious monk, do when one of his own of the group that met at the White Horse Inn to study and flock told him, in making confession, that repentance was out debate the prohibited writings of Luther as they were smuggled of date, and then showed him a receipt for sins forgiven. That into East Coast ports from Antwerp. was, at least, what the man thought he was buying when he paid Robert Barnes, Martyr. The leader of the White Horse Inn good money for his indulgence. Luther saw this as a terrible vio- group was an Austin friar born in at Kings Lynn in Norfolk, lation of the Gospel and as a burning reason for church reform. Robert Barnes, whose lively popular espousal of evangelical the- Gospel According to Harry. In England, King Henry wanted a ology attracted large crowds of Cambridge students to the change in the Church, too, but for far different reasons—not monastery where he was Prior. A sermon on Christmas Eve religious. “Harry only wants that Harry should be Pope. The rich brought the wrath of King and Cardinal on his head. Trials, treasures, the rich incomes of the Church, these are the Gospel penances, imprisonment followed. Finally, still detained three according to Harry” was the acid comment of a contemporary. years later, he escaped to Germany where, for a while, he lived in Besides, the King wanted a divorce, and was determined to have Luther’s home and studied at Wittenberg University. it, Pope or no Pope. When he needed Luther’s approval of his A reversal in Royal policy and Robert Barnes, the condemned heretic, received an invitation to return to England to become the King’s chaplain and ambassador to the Lutheran courts. Henry’s policy changed again, and in July , faced again with the charge A L F may be reprinted freely for study of heresy, Barnes was burned at Smithfield, an English Lutheran and dialogue in congregations and conferences with the understanding Martyr. But he was not the last in these islands to forfeit his life for that appropriate bibliographical references be made. Initialed pieces are the Lutheran faith. Nor was he the first; that place belongs to written by contributing editors whose names are noted on our mast- head. Brief articles may be submitted for consideration by sending them Patrick Hamilton who in died at the stake in Scotland. to Rev. Joel A. Brondos, S. Hanna St., Fort Wayne, IN -. Elizabeth’s settlement. Fire can destroy bodies; it cannot put an When possible, please provide your work on a .-inch end to ideas. In the successive reigns of his three children who Windows/ compatible diskette. Because of the large number of followed Henry to the throne, Mary, Edward and Elizabeth , unsolicited materials received, we regret that we cannot publish them the short argument of fired was tried hundreds of times over, all or notify authors in advance of their publication. Since L is “a free conference in print,” readers should understand that views but in vain. The two opposing principles survived, and when expressed here are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not Elizabeth put her astuteness to the task, the reformed Church of necessarily reflect the positions of the editors. England was settled on a basis that was both—or neither—
Protestant and Roman Catholic. As far as the Queen’s personal through the dense timbered house, destroyed five-sixths of the inclinations were concerned, there is evidence that the daughter City. Austin Friars escaped, but All Hallows and the Steelyard of Anne Boleyn shared her admiration for Martin Luther. Her were destroyed. The Steelyard housemaster, Jacob Jacobsen, had first Archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker, had been a to flee in his burning clothes. Blowing up rows of houses member of the White Horse Inn group in his Cambridge days, stopped the Fire on the fourth day. and was seen as a “Lutheran” by his opponents. Some historians The First Lutheran Church. At the centre of the new London state that the possibility still existed in Elizabeth’s first Parliament had emerged from the ashes, a few hundred yards from Old that the Church of England would adopt the Lutheran position. St. Paul’s, still in charred ruins, arose the first Lutheran Church Lutheran Imprints. The Lutheran faith did not become the in Britain. It was begun in November , dedicated thirteen common religion of the British people, but it did leave imprints months later. It was named Trinity Lutheran Church because it that are still visible. No book has influenced the life and literature was built on the site of Holy Trinity the Less, an Anglican parish of Britain more than the Authorised Version of the English Bible: church destroyed in the Fire, but its own members called it the men responsible, William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale, used Hamburg Lutheran Church in grateful acknowledgement of the Luther’s translation extensively in making their own. Like Robert generous donations towards its cost by the merchants of the city Barnes, Tyndale probably lived a time in Luther’s home; Coverdale of Hamburg. Building operations were in the charge of Caius actually held a Lutheran pastorate. Clear imprints can also be Cibber, a Danish Lutheran who was the chief sculptor for Sir seen in the two formularies which identify the Church of Christopher Wren in rebuilding the City. The first Lutheran England: the Thirty-nine Articles and the Book of Common Church stood in the City for years; in it was requisi- Prayer. Five of the Articles are almost identical, word for word, tioned for the building of Mansion House Underground station. with the language of the Augsburg Confession; another eleven The First Members. People of many nations made up the first reproduce the sense, if not the actual words. The Anglican forms congregation, symbolizing the characteristic inherent in the for Holy Communion, Marriage, Baptism, Confirmation and Lutheran principle: faith, not nationality, ties Christians together. Burial clearly show the debt of the Book of Common Prayer to The first pastor (pastor means shepherd) was German born the earlier Lutheran orders. Swedish subject Gerhard Martens. He was installed in London in . He died there in at the age of forty-six. Sir John The Seventeenth Century Barkham Leyonbergh, the Swedish ambassador who led the dele- During the reign of the Tudors, Lutheranism had been a gation petitioning Charles for permission to erect a Lutheran significant movement, shaping the future of British Christianity, church, was given in English nationality, together with a grant but it had not established itself as a denomination. It was a sov- of a baronetcy. Many had become naturalised Englishmen long ereign of another dynasty, Charles of the house of Stuart, before they had their own church. The original parish records whose Warrant of and Charter of authorised the first from All Hallows the Great refer to people from places like Riga, Lutheran parish in Britain to serve foreign-born residents. Petersbourg, Rotterdam, even New York and Philadelphia. The “Strangers’ Church.” The “Strangers’ Church,” granted by founders were the prosperous traders of the Steelyard, but, only Edward in , was the link between Lutherans living in twenty years later, the makeup had changed. Selected entries from England in Tudor times and those who in founded the first the baptismal register of list as parents: “Mr. Caw a Quack Lutheran congregation. Besides the colonies of Protestants who Doctor in little Towerhill, Mr. Right (Richter) a Taylor in had fled from France and the Low Countries and had been given Fanchurchstreet, Mr. Cobald a Silversmith in Gravellane . . . .” refuge in England already in the reign of Henry , there were Royal Warrant and Charter. It was Charles who made the students, diplomats, craftsmen and, most important, the power- first Lutheran Church possible by his warrant of June ful union of Baltic merchants who, a century before, had domi- and by his Charter of Letters Patent of September .The nated North European trade and whose chief port was the Warrant, in English, is a response to the request of the Swedish Steelyard on the Thames. To these “strangers” with no church of ambassador, Sir John Barkman Leyonbergh, and authorises the their own, the charter of King Edward assigned the cathedral- preparation of a bill to grant “the site and remaining materials like chapel of Austin Friars in London (destroyed in World of the said late parish church of Trinity unto ye said resident War but rebuilt in ) and its revenues, and allowed them to of Sweden and other followers of the Lutheran Confessions and worship according to their own conviction and order a freedom their successors residing in Our said City of London to be by denied his own native subjects who were bound to the doctrine them rebuilt for their use in the public service of God.” and liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer. The Charter, in Latin, published three years later, granted and Austin Friars quickly became the “Dutch Church” of today, confirmed to Jacob and Theodore Jacobsen and four other Reformed in confession, but no doubt, it continued to minister named Steelyard merchants the right to worship, to erect a to Lutherans, especially short-time visitors who could speak no church, and to appoint a minister, enjoining them to “permit all English. Most of the Lutherans, especially the Steelyard mer- the companions of the Augustan profession, of what nation chants, many of whom became naturalised subjects, worshipped whatsoever professing the same faith and religion and the same in pews reserved for them at the Anglican parish church of All sacred rites to use and enjoy the said Temple being so built.” The Hallows the Great, next door to the Steelyard. charter further commanded the Archbishop of Canterbury and The Great Fire. On Sunday, September , the Great Fire secular authorities and their successors, to respect the privileges of London broke out and raging unchecked for four days allowed by the grant.
Remarkable documents, issued at a remarkable time. The lain of the Court Chapel of St. James for fifty-four years period was prejudiced and intolerant. In fierce reaction against (–) and was a key figure in providing ministers for the Cromwell and Puritanism, the Restoration Parliament had growing Lutheran population in the American colonies. passed a whole series of repressive acts to outlaw and crush every Seamen’s Missions. Another kind of mission led to more church but the established Church of England. Yet, at the height Lutheran churches in Britain during the Victorian era: seamen’s of this tyranny, , the King authorised the Warrant. At the missions. Concern for the spiritual life of seafaring men brought very climax of the vicious legislation, the Test Act of , the the British Port of London Society into existence. The move- first independent Lutheran place of worship was completed with ment found immediate support in the Lutheran Churches of the encouragement and approval of the King. northern Europe. In , the Norwegian Seamen’s Mission was Thus, over three hundred years ago, at a time when no free organised in Bergen and within a few years had chapels and church was permitted to practise, and seventy years before chaplains in London, North Shields, Leith and Cardiff. Other Methodism was born, the Lutheran Church was founded in Seamen’s societies followed the example, and by there was England. at least one Lutheran mission in each of the ten most important More Churches. The reign of the Stuarts ended when Charles’ harbours of the United Kingdom. brother, James , an open Roman Catholic, was deposed, and William of Orange and Mary were enthroned in , “The The Twentieth Century to the Present Glorious revolution.” For the continuing story of the Lutheran Church in the The Act of Toleration followed in a year. Though by modern United Kingdom, the twentieth century added its own new standards but a slight concession, the Act did at least tolerate chapters: the influx of thousands of displaced Lutherans from those dissenting churches that were Protestant and Trinitarian the World War camps of Europe, and the emergence of a (believing in the Triune God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit). It British Lutheran church which offered to share her faith with the also regularised the position and future of the Lutheran Church. people of Britain. Special license was no longer needed: Lutherans were placed on Displaced People. One of the attendant horrors of World the same level as any other denomination outside the estab- War was the mass displacement of populations. Apart from lished church. the forced transfer within Communist countries of whole com- The Act paved the way for more Lutheran congregations. munities, of which no accurate information is available, there were just after the War more than eighteen million displaced The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries persons in Western Europe. Eight million of these were Established in Britain during the reign of the Stuarts, the Lutheran. Britain and Belgium, crowded and war-shattered, Lutheran church became in the Georgian era the church of kings were the first to offer asylum. Between and ,over and queens, of good relations with the official church, a favoured , “European volunteer workers” were given homes and church but still foreign to the common people. jobs in Britain. One-third of these were Lutheran, mostly from The accession in of George placed a Lutheran king on the Baltic countries and from Germany. Another , Polish the British throne. Titular head already of the established Lutherans, ex-soldiers of General Anders’ army and several churches of both Scotland and England by the Act of Union of thousand former prisoners of war who were permitted to stay (under Queen Anne), he was also the head of the state in the country, brought the total of new Lutherans to about church of Hanover. Anglican in London, Presbyterian in ,.By , the church increased to nearly , scattered Scotland, Lutheran in Hanover! The incongruity did not bother over three hundred preaching stations and served by forty-four the king—he had no interest in religion. He could not speak pastors ministering in nine different languages. English. A Native British Lutheran Church—The ELCE. In three hun- For years until the death of William in , the dred years of history, the Lutheran church had been the church Lutheran House of Hanover reigned at Westminster, and the of kings and queens, of wealthy merchants, of foreigners, but Lutheran Church became the third religion of the royal court. had never made the attempt to share its faith with the ordinary Centre of the royal connection was the Court Chapel of people in the communities surrounding its churches. St. James where the marriage of Queen Anne and Prince George, Following the pattern of the previous two centuries, the its founder, was solemnised in . The Prince appointed two ELCE began in as a foreign community, worshipping God Lutheran chaplains, at £p.a. and assigned the revenues of tin in Luther’s language. The six young founders, bakers in their mines on crown lands in Cornwall to provide for their salaries. early twenties, were men of initiative: they sent a letter to dis- American Lutheranism Fostered. Their favoured position with tant Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, U.S.A., asking for a pastor, the Hanoverian kings enabled the London Lutheran pastors to each pledging five of his weekly shillings for the support of the play a central role in the beginnings of North American pastor. They were men of vison, too. Realising that a church Lutheranism. The Swedish ambassador and pastor in London which does not use the language of the country not only for- were petitioned by William Penn (the creator of Pennsylvania) to feits part of its primary responsibility but also limits its own supply ministers, Bibles, and other books for Swedish emigrants. future, they made their church services first bilingual as their From London, General Ogelthorpe was urged to take the perse- children grew up, and finally entirely English. When this first cuted Salzburgers into the new colony of Georgia. There were congregation, Immanuel Lutheran Church, dedicated its new many more examples of this. T. M. Ziegenhagen was the chap- place of worship in , it changed its name to Luther Tyndale
Memorial Church, thus symbolising the kind of church they he published a supplication addressed to the King; on the basis of wanted to be: a community of Christians proclaiming the this supplication Barnes hoped to be able to return to England. Gospel teaching of Martin Luther in the language of William Under royal safe-conduct Barnes did indeed go to England in Tyndale. December of , and delivered Luther’s opinion on the marriage Luther-Tyndale, Kentish Town, London, founded in , and case. Obviously Luther’s opinion, which was so contrary to all of the Holy Trinity, Tottenham, London, orgainised in , were the King’s plans, did not endear Barnes to the King. . . . Having deliv- two financially independent congregations that made up the ered Luther’s opinion to the court, Barnes considered it necessary to ELCE until . In that year, the Church began on its Master go once more into exile; in January of he was back on the Plan. It was a plan of outreach to Britons and growth for Continent. . . . Lutheran Churches in the United Kingdom. With so few In May of he finally returned permanently to England, and Lutherans in Britain, with therefore no nucleus to speak of in a in July of he attained the status of royal chaplain. Yet it was new community, every congregation had to help. In , mem- only for a short time that Barnes enjoyed the King’s favor. He bers of Luther-Tyndale and Holy Trinity travelled from all direc- strongly opposed the Six Articles, and for his stand against this poli- tions across London twice a week for two months to converge on cy Barnes was burned at Smithfield, July , . a rented hall in Ruislip to get the first mission underway. A year later, the new mission, now, St. Andrew Lutheran Church of If they want to abide by the law of Moses, and also force us to Ruislip, joined the two old congregations, and again from all live under the authority of this legislator, then what they will over London, volunteers came together to get another church accomplish is that in this case the King will be held responsible started in South London. That set the pattern. Every new mis- not only for keeping the Queen to whom he is married, but also, sion of the ELCE had the support of the other congregations in if she had not [yet] been remarried to someone else, for marry- the ELCE. Since that time, the ELCE has grown to fifteen congre- ing her by all means possible, and for begetting an offspring to gations (and one preaching station), all over the country, with its his brother, since the deceased brother did not leave any children own theological college. As it moves into the Twenty-first by this woman. This is clearly and definitely stated in Century, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of England still has as Deuteronomy [:]. For if we are forced to observe one law of its goal to reach out to all those who do not know Christ in Moses, then by the same reason we also ought to be circumcised, Great Britain, by God’s grace and love. and ought to observe the whole law, as Paul argues in Galatians Westfield House. Westfield House, Cambridge, is the seat of the [:]. Now, however, we are no longer under the law of Moses, ELCE theological training programme. It offers courses leading but are subject in these matters to the laws of the state, just as, to Lutheran ordination. Westfield House works closely with prior to Moses, Abraham and Nahor were. They married the Fitwilliam College. Recently, the ELCE and Westfield House have daughters of their brother; this was a relationship which Moses begun an expansion programme, in association with North afterwards prohibited. And Jacob married two sisters, also in American seminaries. Under the heading Westfield House opposition to Moses’ law, who later prohibited such marriages International Student Team (WHIST), Westfield House has for his people. enlarged its programme, offering greater opportunities to the Therefore that law of Moses, which beforehand was not valid members of the ELCE. and which after Christ again ceased to be valid as positive law, does not bind the King, and does not demand the divorce. But that law of God and that statement of divine law according to which matrimony is established as something which ought to be maintained forever, until death, binds the King. For the sake of I W N S this law, Christ abolished the letter of divorce handed down The following introduction, as found in volume of the American from Moses when he said: “From the beginning it was not so.” Edition of Luther’s Works (pages –), appears with the text of Luther’s letter to Dr. Robert Barnes on the matter of Henry ’s divorce—together with a brief excerpt from Luther’s opinion on the matter. Our present society seems largely sympathetic to Henry regarding divorce, and Lutherans who hold to Luther’s opinion on T B R divorce might likely meet the same fate as Robert Barnes if it could The word “rubric” comes from the Latin adjective “ruber, rubra, be arranged. rubrum,” meaning “red.” In the liturgy, rubrics are the instruc- Barnes, a former Augustinian and a Cambridge University tions printed between the various parts of the liturgy, relating Doctor of Divinity, had been the outstanding member of the evan- instructions on how the service is to be conducted or followed. (In gelically-oriented White Horse Inn group of theologians. He had TLH the rubrics are italicized; in LW the rubrics are actually in been tried for heresy and put under house arrest, but had been able red; the Forum editor does not have a copy of CW or ELH on to escape to the Continent. In the summer of he appeared in hand to note how the rubrics are done there.) Wittenberg, and early in September , Barnes became involved One notable exception to this practice was “The Black Rubric” in the matter of Henry’s divorce. . . . (so called because it was printed in black instead of red). The Having obtained Luther’s opinion on the matter, Barnes traveled Black Rubric was inserted into the Book of Common Prayer. via Magdeburg and Lübeck to Antwerp, where in November of It came, it seems, from Martin Bucer, who had been involved in
the Reformation at Strassbourg, but later was very influential on A John Calvin. Thomas Cranmer is credited with adding this note to the Prayer book. In came and went from various early edi- At the graduation of Master Peter Paladius in , Doctor Caspar tions, but was standard in later editions. Cruciger, dean of the theology faculty, delivered an oration On the This “Black Rubric” was added in the version. Previously, Merit of Studying Theology. A translation of this speech appears in the version, it appeared only after the Communion on pages – of Philip Melanchthon: Orations on Philosophy Service. This text was found at and Education, edited by Sachiko Kusukawa in the Cambridge xxxhttp://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1552. Texts in the History of Philosophy series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). A. The Book of Common Prayer, Although no ordre can be so perfectlye devised, but it may Since God in His great mercy has restored the light of the Gospel be of some, eyther for theyr ignoraunce and infermitie, or els for us, let us give thanks to God, and let us preserve this favour of malice and obstinacie, misconstrued, depraved, and inter- with the greatest zeal in the churches and schools, and let us preted in a wrong part: And yet because brotherly charitie wil- attend to it that those who are to undertake the Church ministry leth, that so much as conveniently may be, offences shoulde be be honestly instructed, and that neither the uneducated nor the taken awaye: therefore we willing to doe the same. Whereas it self-educated (autodidaktoi) be received. For we see that in our is ordeyned in the booke of common prayer, in the adminis- age the fanatical beliefs of the Anabaptists originated only from tracion of the Lord’s Supper, that the Communicants knelyng the uneducated and the self-educated (autodidaktois). How shoulde receyve the holye Communion, whiche thynge beyng much do we owe God therefore, who gave us a leader and well mente, for a sygnificacion of the humble and gratefull teacher excelling in faith and correct judgement, by whose teach- acknowledgyng of the benefites of Chryst, geven unto the ing we were protected against these fanatical beliefs whose woorthye receyver, and to avoyde the prophanacion and founders often disturbed our Church! dysordre, which about the holy Communion myght els ensue: However, since many who are educated in this school preside Leste yet the same kneelyng myght be thought or taken other- over our Church, who gladly admit that they are not self-educat- wyse, we dooe declare that it is not ment thereby, that any ed (autodidaktous) but students, the experienced leaders estab- adoracion is doone, or oughte to bee doone, eyther unto the lished their Church sagaciously, and—assisted by the divine help Sacramentall bread or wyne there bodily receyved, or unto which protects pious teachings —they preserved them in office. anye reall and essencial presence there beeyng of Christ’s natu- Therefore the schools belong to the ministry of the Gospel or if rall fleshe and bloude. For as concernynge the Sacramentall you will, they are an essential part of that most sacred office; for bread and wyne, they remayne styll in theyr verye naturall it is necessary first that those to whom the leadership of the substaunces, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Church is to be entrusted be trained long and diligently. Idolatrye to be abhorred of all faythfull christians. And as con- Then, the degree is the attestation, so that it be evident from cernynge the naturall body and blood of our saviour Christ, which teachers they have received the teaching. Just as at the they are in heaven and not here. For it is agaynst the trueth of time of the Apostles, now, too, this is of great importance. For Christes true natural bodye, to be in more places then in one, when there is great discord about doctrine, or when there are at one tyme. great struggles about religion, it is necessary to see whose authority they follow. John says: “If there come any unto you, B. The Book of Common Prayer, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not” [John :]. Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration The Scriptures often command in the same way elsewhere. of the Lord’s Supper, that the communicants should receive For that reason the kind of teaching must be considered diligent- the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signi- ly, and one must look from which sources it is taken; therefore fication of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the the teachers in the schools carry a heavy load. It is necessary to benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers, and for know from which authors they have received the doctrine, to the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the Holy preserve its purity, and to take heed lest new and improper Communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same beliefs be added. Thus, when Paul of Samosata began to spread kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and his poison in the Church of Antioch, Malchion as the only one infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and among the teachers understood that something new was being depraved; It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is disseminated by that tenet, and the old purity was being cor- intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental rupted, and he was the first to cry out; and he notified the near- Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal by bishops of Alexandria and Jerusalem how much danger there Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the was. Thus the madness of Paul of Samosata was checked and Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural eradicated by Malchion’s faith and diligence. substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Therefore the ministry of the Gospel must be kept and pro- idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the nat- tected with equal care both in the schools and in the Church. ural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and Pious princes must not only establish schools, but they must also not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to choose the kind of teaching, as if it were a nursery-garden that is be at one time in more places than one. approved by a certain and strong authority, and pay attention
that the nursery be not corrupted. This attention is necessary in even denied by leaders, scholars and pastors who claim to be the schools in order that posterity know what kind of teaching it evangelical. Although fallen human nature has always recoiled has received. God demands this diligence from princes and the from recognizing its need for Christ’s imputed righteousness, Church, and for the purpose that He commands, so that all hon- modernity greatly fuels the fires of this discontent with the bibli- our and adorn this ministry for the sake of its calling. You who cal Gospel. We have allowed this discontent to dictate the nature engage in studies, consider in particular that we are not placed in of our ministry and what it is we are preaching. this position only by the private calling of our elders, but by the Many in the church growth movement believe that sociologi- official calling of the entire Church, in order that you study the cal understanding of those in the pew is as important to the suc- teaching of the Gospel in particular, and that many prepare cess of the gospel as is the biblical truth which is proclaimed. As themselves for the ministry. a result, theological convictions are frequently divorced from the work of the ministry. The marketing orientation in many churches takes this even further, erasing the distinction between the biblical Word and the world, robbing Christ’s cross of its offense, and reducing Christian faith to the principles and meth- C D ods which bring success to secular corporations. Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc. sponsors various activities While the theology of the cross may be believed, these and publications to promote confessional conversations among movements are actually emptying it of its meaning. There is Christians. A radio program entitled The White Horse Inn and a no gospel except that of Christ’s substitution in our place periodical Modern Reformation are well-known. whereby God imputed to him our sin and imputed to us his On April , , the Cambridge Declaration was signed by the righteousness. Because he bore our judgment, we now walk in members of the Executive Council, which included J. A. O. Preus his grace as those who are forever pardoned, accepted and and Gene E. Veith Jr. as unofficial representatives of the LCMS. adopted as God’s children. There is no basis for our accep- One wonders whether Dr. Gerald Kieschnick would also caution tance before God except in Christ’s saving work, not in our them in the same manner he initially treated the statement known patriotism, churchly devotion or moral decency. The gospel as “That They May Be One” (TTMBO), which has been circulat- declares what God has done for us in Christ. It is not about ing among LCMS pastors and lay people. what we can do to reach him. This excerpt consists of the introduction and the fourth thesis of the declaration. The overall theme of this work follows sola scrip- Thesis Four: Sola Fide tura, solus Christus, sola gratia, sola fide, and soli deo gratia. We reaffirm that justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ’s righteous- Evangelical churches today are increasingly dominated by the ness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God’s spirit of this age rather than by the Spirit of Christ. As evan- perfect justice. We deny that justification rests on any merit to be gelicals, we call ourselves to repent of this sin and to recover found in us, or upon the grounds of an infusion of Christ’s the historic Christian faith. righteousness in us, or that an institution claiming to be a In the course of history words change. In our day this has church that denies or condemns sola fide can be recognized as happened to the word “evangelical.” In the past it served as a a legitimate church. bond of unity between Christians from a wide diversity of church traditions. Historic evangelicalism was confessional. It embraced the essential truths of Christianity as those were defined by the great ecumenical councils of the church. In addition, evangelicals also shared a common heritage in the “solas” of the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation. C Today the light of the Reformation has been significantly I dimmed. The consequence is that the word “evangelical” has become so inclusive as to have lost its meaning. We face the Protestants often misconstrue the Lutheran confession regarding the peril of losing the unity it has taken centuries to achieve. Real Presence by hanging the term “consubstantiation” on it. Because of this crisis and because of our love of Christ, his C. F. W. Walther made it unequivocally clear that Lutherans reject gospel and his church, we endeavor to assert anew our com- the teaching of consubstantiation. In a Lehre und Wehre article mitment to the central truths of the Reformation and of his- (, , February , pages –), he gave a definitive explanation. toric evangelicalism. These truths we affirm not because of This translation of that work comes from Editorials from Lehre their role in our traditions, but because we believe that they und Wehre (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), trans- are central to the Bible. . .. lated by Herbert J. A. Bouman, pages –.
Sola Fide: The Erosion of the Chief Article If the opponents of the Lutheran Church here in America want Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of to be concise in describing the teaching of Luther, the Augsburg Christ alone. This is the article by which the church stands or Confession, the Formula of Concord, and the entire old falls. Today this article is often ignored, distorted or sometimes Lutheran church on the Lord’s Supper, especially as regards the
manner in which the body and blood of Jesus Christ are present such a way that by being mixed together they are fused into in this sacrament, they commonly resort to the use of the techni- one substance or mass, consisting of different ingredients. For cal terms in our title, consubstantiation and impanation, or also example, pouring the substances of water and wine together incorporation. produces a watered wine (Weinwasser); blending honey and This labeling is still used in the latest edition of the Encyclo- water produces mead; mixing meat and flour produces meat pedia of Religious Knowledge, , edited by J. Newton pies. Hence, in the Lord’s Supper consubstantiation would Brown. Under the entry “Consubstantiation” we read the fol- involve the concept of a spatial combination, mixture, and lowing: “A tenet of the Lutheran church respecting the presence fusion of the body and blood of Christ with the consecrated of Christ in the Lord’s supper. Luther denied that the elements elements as a new dual mass, as Eutyches once asserted the were changed after consecration, and therefore taught that the fusion of both natures in Christ into one nature. Impanation bread and wine indeed remain; but that together with them, signifies the spatial inclusion, concealment, incapsulation of an there is present the substance of the body of Christ, which is item within the bread, as in a capsule containing and enclosing literally (!) received by communicants. As in red-hot iron it the item. Hence, in the Lord’s Supper impanation would may be said, two distinct substances, iron and fire, are united, express the idea that the body of Christ, compressed into a very so is the body of Christ joined with the bread.” Under the entry small body, lies concealed under the consecrated bread and is “Lutheranism” we are told that “It has undergone some alter- enclosed by it as by its container. ations since the time of its founder. Luther believed the impa- These conceptions of the presence of Christ, that is, of His nation or consubstantiation.” body and blood, in the Holy Supper are thoroughly unbiblical, It is indeed a pitiable and devastating testimony to the level of materialistic, unworthy, and self-contradictory, and they are theological education in this country when a book claiming to equally un-Lutheran and in contradiction to the Confessions of represent that education contains such disfigurements (to say no our church. In his essay, “That These Words of Christ, ‘This is more) of the teaching of a church that is spread across the entire My Body,’ etc., Still Stand Firm,” , Luther writes: “But how globe. But it is even more unpardonable and presupposes either this takes place or how he is in the bread, we do not know and the greatest ignorance or evil intent when alleged theologians are not meant to know. God’s Word we should believe without who call themselves Lutherans are just as incorrect in presenting setting bounds or measure to it. The bread we see with our the teaching of the church whose servants, stewards, and watch- eyes, but we hear with our ears that Christ’s body is present” men they want to be. Alas, this is by no means an infrequent (Luther’s Works, American Edition, vol. , p. ). occurrence! The whole so-called “American Lutheran” church, In this confession of ignorance on this point the whole led by such men as Dr. B. Kurtz and Dr. S. S. Schmucker, dissoci- orthodox Lutheran church followed Luther. So that the Word ates itself, to be sure, from consubstantiation or impanation in of the eternal Son of God remain true, this church has at all the Lord’s Supper, yet, in spite of all protests on the part of times insisted that the body and blood of Jesus Christ are there, Lutherans in this country who are faithful to the Symbols, keeps but it has never claimed to be able to explain the how, the on boldly accusing these Lutherans and the whole old Lutheran manner of the presence. For that reason the church has called Church that has remained loyal to Luther’s teaching of holding the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament one this unbiblical conception of the presence of the body and blood that is supernatural, mystical, hidden from reason, incompre- of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar. This is so notorious hensible, unsearchable, completely unaccustomed (inusitata, that we may dispense with documentation from the Lutheran something for which there is no full analogy, no second species Observer or the Evangelical Lutheran. of the same genus). But the church has also explicitly rejected To be sure, the warning has often been issued in recent years and condemned all those crass, crude, carnal, Capernaitic against reviving the old controversy about the Lord’s Supper. (John :–) conceptions of an earthly, physical, spatial pres- However, just those who issue this warning keep on attacking the ence, that is, a presence that yields or takes up space. All ways teaching of the Lutheran Church on this point and not only call of speaking employed by our church have the single purpose of it a remnant of the papacy and a product of dark and supersti- acknowledging and affirming the reality and verity of the pres- tious days, but they also give that teaching a completely false ence of the heavenly gifts of the Sacrament and at the same interpretation and then make their renunciation of it a shibbo- time excluding those unworthy conceptions hatched by reason. leth of genuine American Lutherans. Who, then, is responsible When the church calls the presence substantial or real, or at for stirring up the old conflict? Those who remain faithful to the times also corporeal, it does not mean to define the mode of teaching of our church as deposited in its Symbols and defend it presence but to insist on nothing more than that the presence against attacks and distortions? Or is it not rather those who in is a true one, that is, that the body of Christ is really there. the midst of our church oppose and misinterpret this teaching as The first one to impute the conception of impanation and unbiblical and papistic? Every fairminded person, even among consubstantiation to Luther was Carlstadt, who therefore in a our opponents, must concede that it is the latter. blasphemous way referred to the God of the Lutherans as a For the moment, we will confine ourselves to rejecting the “God made of bread” (St. Louis Edition, , ). Zwingli, doctrine of a consubstantiation or an impanation that is Oecolampadius, and even Bucer of Strasbourg followed imputed to Lutherans who are faithful to the Symbols. Carlstadt in this matter. Bucer, however, revoked his accusation First of all, what do these terms mean? Consubstantiation, as after he had read Luther’s “Confession Concerning Christ’s the word indicates, means a combination of two substances in Supper” and had talked with Luther.
F V except to produce a male heir? Everybody agreed that it would be terrible to go against the law of Moses until some other the- A little before the initial publication of The Wittenburg [sic] Door ologian pointed out that Deuteronomy says that a man is sup- and slightly more reverent than Monty Python, Rev. Charles posed to marry his dead brother’s wife and “raise seed,” and then Merrill Smith composed his satirical summary entitled When the everybody agreed that Deuteronomy is a better guide in such Saints Go Marching Out (Garden City, New York: Doubleday matters than Leviticus, so the betrothal took place, only the and Company, Inc., ). Back even before the days when com- Pope’s dispensation, which was necessary to make it legal, didn’t puters were K, he wrote, “On the face of it, nothing could be get there until after the celebration. of less use to the man of the computer age than a study of the lives Henry didn’t last long after this, and young Henry soon of the saints. . . . Can a chapter a night from the biography of found himself King Henry and the husband of Katherine. St. Theophanes the Chronographer help us cope with crabgrass? He seemed to like her pretty well, although he couldn’t speak Of course not, you say. But you could be wrong.” This excerpt Spanish and she couldn’t speak English. comes from the chapter on King Henry , found on pages As a King, Henry was enthusiastic about religion. He was –. (He devotes pages – to Luther.) one of the most Stalwart Catholic Christians there ever was, going to mass three times a day and whooping off to war if the King Henry of England, who was born June , , got off Pope needed defending, and things like that. He read one of to an early start as a Stalwart Christian. Since he had an older Martin Luther’s books and was so incensed by the heresy he brother, it was not anticipated that he would ever be King, and found in it that he sat down and wrote a book exposing Luther what to do with leftover sons was something of a problem for for the scoundrel he was. When a copy was presented to Pope royalty and the landed gentry back then because the oldest boy Leo, who fancied himself an expert literary critic, the Pope in the family, by law, inherited the whole package—Crown, fami- admired the binding and said he was astonished that a busy ly estate, etc. This was very nice if you happened to be the oldest King could have turned out a book, but he didn’t say that it son, but the family had to scrounge around to find something was good. However, he issued a bull which conferred on Henry for the other kids, and it wasn’t always easy. the right to call himself Defender of the Faith, which tickled One favorite device was to have the younger boys go into the Henry because he loved titles and thought this one especially Church. This wasn’t as bad as it sounds because a prince could high grade as titles go. be pretty sure that Daddy would wangle him a bishopric before Pope Leo hardly had time to read Henry’s book as he died long, and though the clergy was supposed to be celibate, nobody about three months after admiring its binding. Cardinal Wolsey, really expected that all the clergy would be, especially princes Henry’s right-hand man, had long felt himself eminently and other nobility, and the Pope didn’t say anything so long as qualified to be Pope, and Henry thought it would be nice to have they didn’t marry the girl. an old buddy sitting in Peter’s Chair, so he sent an envoy to the Henry was marked for the clergy at a tender age, so he was Vatican to cajole the cardinals into selecting Wolsey. But what educated in theology and stuff like that as well as trained to fill Henry didn’t know, although he should have, was that a mere high clerical office such as bishop. royal envoy was a babe in the woods among experienced Vatican But theology was to play a large role in Henry’s career, as we politicians who had been playing the game for well over a thou- shall see. It began playing a large role rather early because sand years. The envoy wrote to Henry that “there cannot be so Henry’s brother, Arthur, who was supposed to be King as soon as much hatred and so many devils in hell as among these cardi- Henry was gathered to his eternal reward, fouled things up by nals,” which disillusions us a little as to the holiness of the Holy conking out at the age of fifteen, shortly after he had married City, but we have to tell it like it is, or rather was, since we feel Katherine of Aragon. Since this marriage had been good politics confident that conditions at the Vatican have improved vastly in for England as well as having brought a fine price in dowry pay- the meantime. ments from the King of Spain, Henry didn’t want all this to The upshot of the election was that a Dutchman won the slip through his fingers and decided that he would marry his papal sweepstakes, which may or may not have been connected daughter-in-law himself inasmuch as he was a widower and with the fact that he had once been the tutor of Charles , the could use a wife, especially a rich one. But Queen Isabella, Holy Roman Emperor. So Wolsey had to go home still a cardi- Katherine’s mother, said King Henry was a dirty old man and nal, and Henry, probably to solace him, let him start a small war. ordered him to send Katherine home, along with the dowry. The To solace himself Henry had two mistresses, one a blonde and King couldn’t let that happen, so he said how about if she mar- one a brunette, a logical selection if one is going to have two ries my son Henry, which evidently was O.K. with Isabella mistresses. The blonde’s name was Elizabeth Blount, and the because Henry, who was twelve at the time, suddenly found brunette was known as Mistress Carey, not because she was the himself engaged to his sister-in-law. King’s mistress, which would have been too much even in the So far as we know Henry didn’t mind, but the Archbishop of sixteenth century, but because her first name was Mary, and Canterbury kicked up a ruckus because, he said, the law of Mistress Carey sounds better than Mary Carey. Mistress Carey’s Moses plainly states that a man shall not take his brother’s wife maiden name was Boleyn, but she wasn’t the one you have heard as this is an unclean thing to do and God will see to it that such about. That was her younger sister Anne, who comes into the a couple shall be childless, which would be simply awful in the story pretty soon now. We mustn’t be censorious of Henry for case of a King, as why else does a King bother to get married having a couple of mistresses because the mores were different
back then, and biographers assure us that compared to other and felt that he himself was qualified for the job but that maybe kings of the time, Henry was economical in the matter of mis- he needed a little help, so he copped Luther’s doctrine of the tresses and would have had to have had several more of them supreme authority of the Scriptures and referred to the Bible as than he had before endangering his status as a “Stalwart “that most precious jewel, the Word of God.” This was wise of Christian and Defender of the Faith.” him because he could always find something in the Bible which Henry had other worries besides keeping a blonde and a backed up what he wanted to do anyway, and if the Bible is the brunette happy. The Dutchman who beat out Cardinal Wolsey supreme authority, who is going to make an issue of it? died. This was a cause of great rejoicing in Rome as he was There are those who are a trifle critical of Henry as a Stalwart among the most unpopular Popes ever, not an easy thing to Christian, saying that his excessive boozing, wenching, gluttony, achieve as there have been some spectacularly unpopular Popes execution of wives and enemies, and one or two other small in the history of the papacy. His unpopularity stemmed largely imperfections in his character are not entirely consistent with the from his unfortunate tendency to tell the truth, a personal foible best in Christian conduct. But he did make a good death, as his looked on with suspicion at the Vatican. It was said in Rome last act on earth was to clasp the hand of Archbishop Cranmer, that having the grace to die after a short papacy was his most and anyway aren’t we all flawed vessels? popular act as Pope. The Romans erected a statue to celebrate the occasion. Anyway, Cardinal Wolsey told Henry that he would rather continue in the King’s service than be ten Popes, but that it was now obvious that God’s will had been short-circuited when the H K C cardinals had failed to elect him before, and so maybe Henry A sermon by the Rev. Dr. Norman Nagel on the Thursday of had better get cracking and help fulfill God’s will by politicking Advent , , based on Romans :–. for Wolsey this time. One way or another, they persuaded Emperor Charles to write a letter to the Vatican backing Wolsey, Advent I: Our Advent king rides on a borrowed donkey into but the Emperor —who had another candidate in mind— Jerusalem, and the kids in the street shout Hosanna. But not thoughtfully refrained from mailing the letter until he received to worry. He’s got no tanks or gunships going for him, and by the news that his own candidate had it in the bag, so God’s will Friday he’ll be disposed of. So much for the joyful echo of was short-circuited again. Christmas we heard yesterday from Luke: “Peace in heaven Another one of Henry’s worries was the Queen’s failure to and glory in the highest.” produce a male heir. Also, he had begun to notice Anne Boleyn, Still, he keeps coming. His coming heralded by John the a toothsome morsel according to historians although she had a Baptist: “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the strawberry mark on her neck and a malformation of her left world.” The kingdom of God is at hand. He comes. hand. Our best information indicates that Henry proposed to Then there is the coming by way of Mary, Bethlehem, and discard Mistress Carey, Anne’s older sister, as it would have been the house of David. “Where is he who is born king of the un-Christian to have had sisters for mistresses even if three mis- Jews?” The question of the Gentiles from afar. “Hail to the tresses didn’t exceed the quota for Defenders of the Faith, and Lord’s anointed.” substitute Anne. But Anne thought it would be more Christian To keep us from any triumphalistic parading about, and the for Henry to discard his wife and make Anne Queen, which was warm fuzzies of pre-empted Christmas, we are given this a great deal more of a nuisance as wives are not so easily discard- morning a little piece of Romans . That should keep us on ed as mistresses, or weren’t in those days. . . . the ground, there where our lives are actually going on, where Whatever his deficiencies as a husband, Henry had impressive we are ruled by some sort of a government, that is somehow credentials as a Stalwart Christian. He was a Stalwart Roman within our Lord’s kingdom, the kingdom of his power. Catholic Christian to begin with, and a Stalwart Protestant This is signaled by quotation of some second table of the Christian at the end. After he became a Protestant, there were no law. Already in Romans we’ve had all the really vital primary more cowled monks hanging around London, and the monas- things: sin and grace, repentance and forgiveness, justification teries were dissolved, but by and large things went on about the all gift achieved and bestowed, and so to the doxology, the cli- same as before. The Lutherans had expected to prosper under max of chapter : Henry after he sort of joined the Reformation, but Henry hated the Lutherans, so they didn’t. Henry was thoroughly orthodox, For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor and upheld the doctrine of transubstantiation over against the principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation. These two doctrines of powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all cre- the Lord’s Supper or mass have important differences, although ation, will be able to separate us from the love of God it is difficult to recall what they are. Henry held to the traditional which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. liturgy of the Church, and he insisted on the celibacy of the cler- gy because he didn’t want his priests contaminating themselves Christ Jesus, our Lord, the clincher. You may recall how our with sex. Caesar stopped short of saying “Christ Jesus our Lord” when His only real problem was the doctrine of the supreme he quoted some of this text in a multi-god service in the authority of the Pope. He had to have something in place of that, Washington Cathedral. In chapters – the apostle speaks of
Israel. There is only one, and that now under Roman rule. as we hear from the bleating Beatles, and which has its mock- Then comes chapter : how do we keep carrying on in this ery from Monty Python [The Ohio Express]: “Yummy, present world, which is always trying to take us over and shape yummy, yummy, I’ve got love in my tummy.” The one can be us to itself and its purposes? He has given us gifts into our used as a cover for barnyard sex; people are disposable; the callings. Then comes Romans ; what about the government? other recognizes that what you have in your tummy is no Where the government is going on, there Christ is also the blind use to anybody. Love doesn’t happen in your tummy; king, there where civil justice and sword hold sway. love happens where that person is at whom the Lord puts By this time in Romans there’s no chance of working civil there, for you to be there for their good. That’s already moving justice and sword into salvation. That’s all—all the saving into love doing a positive good. Our text more modestly puts achievement and bestowal of Christ Jesus our Lord. Caesar us to doing no harm. can’t handle “Christ Jesus our Lord,” and better he doesn’t play Just try it out. It’s for starters. Walking comes after crawling, hypocrite as if he could, and yet he remains accountable to the while we imagine we’re ready to flit off and fly. The Christian king who is king in his Kingdom of Power. The Second Table life goes on ground level. Where you are at “do no harm,” that things in our text are such that without them any government happens where you bump into somebody. That’s for starters, self-destructs. and that mayn’t be bypassed to get to some higher level Adultery damages people and destroys families. This disin- love–talk. Talk is cheap. There is more for love to do beyond tegrates the social order. This also happens when we can get this basic level, beyond categorization, beyond the Second away with disposing of those we want to be rid of. As also Table of the Law. There are as many kinds of not doing harm when we can get away with just taking anything we want to as there are people in our lives. There are as many kinds of love have. These commandments then work here protectively. That as there are people to love. Begin with the basics ground level. is what governments are for, what the King has them there for, If you have any time left over, there’ll still be more loving to do. and that calls for our support. Where do you get that love from? Not from the govern- Such commandments are then summed up with the sum- ment, not from your tummy nor your gonads, but from that mary of the Second Table. “You should love your neighbors as Advent which St. Bernard so loves to extol, when Jesus comes yourself. Then comes the crushingly unpretentious definition to be king in your heart. Your heart is basic you, and that is of such love. It does the neighbor no harm. where your life is actually going on: in his kingdom of power, Isn’t that a far too modest a way of talking about love? Isn’t in his kingdom of grace, and finally in his kingdom of glory. love what it’s all about? “Love, love, love” sucks up everything We travel with our Advent King, always forwards. Amen.
CONTRIBUTING EDITORS
Ulrich Asendorf John Kleinig Norman E. Nagel Jobst Schöne Pastor, Hannover, Germany Professor, Luther Seminary, North Adelaide Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Bishop Emeritus, Selbständige Evangelische South Australia, Australia Lutherische Kirche, Germany Burnell F. Eckardt Jr. Oliver Olson Pastor, St. Paul Lutheran Church, Kewanee, IL Arnold J. Koelpin Retired Instructor, Marquette University Bruce Schuchard Professor, Martin Luther College Minneapolis, MN Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Charles Evanson New Ulm, MN Professor, Seminary for Evangelical Theology Wilhelm Petersen Harold Senkbeil Klaipeda, Lithuania Peter K. Lange President Emeritus, Bethany Lutheran Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Pastor, St. John’s Lutheran Church Seminary, Mankato, MN Fort Wayne, IN Ronald Feuerhahn Topeka, KS Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Andrew Pfeiffer Fredrik Sidenvall Paul Lehninger Professor, Luther Seminary, Adelaide, Pastor, Frillesås, Church of Sweden Lowell Green Professor, Wisconsin Lutheran College Australia Professor, State University of New York at Milwaukee, WI Carl P.E. Springer Buffalo, NY Roger D. Pittelko Professor, Southern Illinois University, Alan Ludwig Visiting Professor, Concordia Theological Edwardsville, IL Paul Grime Professor, Lutheran Theological Seminary Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN Executive Director, LCMS Commission Novosibirsk, Russia John Stephenson on Worship, St. Louis, MO Daniel Preus Professor, Concordia Seminary, Cameron MacKenzie First Vice-President of the LCMS St. Catharines ON, Canada Kenneth Hagen Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary St. Louis, MO Professor Emeritus, Marquette University Fort Wayne, IN Jon D. Vieker Lake Mills, WI Clarence Priebbenow Assistant Director, LCMS Commission on Gottfried Martens Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church Worship, St. Louis, MO Matthew Harrison Pastor, St. Mary’s Lutheran Church Oakey Queensland, Australia Executive Director, Board for Human Care Berlin, Germany David Jay Webber LCMS, St. Louis, MO Richard Resch Rector, Saint Sophia Lutheran Theological Kurt Marquart Kantor and Professor of Church Music Seminary, Ternopil', Ukraine Steven Hein Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Concordia Theological Seminary Headmaster, Shepherd of the Springs Fort Wayne, IN Fort Wayne, IN Armin Wenz Lutheran High School, Colorado Springs, CO Pastor, Holy Ghost Lutheran Church Paul McCain David P. Scaer Goerlitz, Germany Horace Hummel President, Concordia Publishing House Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Professor Emeritus, Concordia Seminary St. Louis, MO Fort Wayne, IN William Weinrich St. Louis, MO Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Scott Murray Robert Schaibley Fort Wayne, IN Arthur Just Pastor, Memorial Lutheran Church Pastor, Shepherd of the Springs Lutheran Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Houston, TX Church, Colorado Springs, CO George F. Wollenburg Fort Wayne, IN President, Montana District LCMS Billings, MT
STAFF
Michael J. Albrecht, Editorial Gerald Krispin, Editorial Martin Noland, Editorial Associate David Saar, Editorial Associate Associate Associate Director, Concordia Historical Institute, Pastor, St. John’s Evangelical-Lutheran Pastor, St. James Lutheran Church, West Professor, Concordia College, Edmonton St. Louis, MO, Church, Mount Forest, ON Canada St. Paul, MN, [email protected] AB, Canada [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Joel A. Brondos,L Forum John T. Pless, Book Review Editor Erling Teigen, Editorial Pastor, Zion Luth. Church, Fort Alan Ludwig, Copy Editor Professor, Concordia Theological Coordinator Wayne, IN, [email protected] Professor, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN Professor, Bethany Lutheran College, Seminary, Novosibirsk, Russia [email protected] Mankato, MN Charles Cortright, Editorial [email protected] [email protected] Associate Thomas L. Rank, Editorial Associate Assistant Professor, Wisconsin Scott Murray, Editorial Associate Pastor, Scarville and Center Lutheran Robert Zagore, Editorial Lutheran College, Milwaukee, WI Pastor, Memorial Lutheran Church, Churches, Scarville, IA Associate [email protected] Houston, TX [email protected] Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church, [email protected] Traverse City, MI [email protected]
SUPPORT STAFF
Dean Bell, L Tape Reviews Patricia Ludwig, Layout and Design Derek Roberts, Webmaster, James Wilson, Cartoonist Pastor, McIntosh, MN Novosibirsk, Russia Palo Alto, CA [email protected] Pastor, North Bend, OR [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Gretchen Roberts, Proofreader, Mark Loest, Cover Design Denise Melius,L Books Advertising, Palo Alto, CA Concordia Historical Institute Tapes, Subscriptions, Northville, SD [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]