Logia

a journal of lutheran theology

A S  P  F Epiphany 2002 volume xi, number 1 ei[ ti" lalei', C A wJ" lovgia Qeou' This issue’s cover illustration is Albrecht Dürer’s Adoration of the Magi, dated . The master of the German Renaissance logia is a journal of Lutheran theology. As such it publishes artists, Dürer (–) followed the Reformation closely articles on exegetical, historical, systematic, and liturgical theolo- and expressed his appreciation for Luther. The print is part gy that promote the orthodox theology of the Evangelical of the Concordia Historical Institute (St. Louis) collection. Lutheran Church. We cling to God’s divinely instituted marks of Dürer took care to follow Scripture in illustrating the Bible the church: the gospel, preached purely in all its articles, and the story. Naturally he includes the star, but he also shows a sacraments, administered according to Christ’s institution. This house (not a stable) and Christ as a child (not as a newborn name expresses what this journal wants to be. In Greek, LOGIA infant). He portrays the child Jesus reaching into one of the functions either as an adjective meaning “eloquent,”“learned,” or gifts—ingeniously asserting the human nature of Christ. “cultured,” or as a plural noun meaning “divine revelations,” “words,”or “messages.”The word is found in  Peter :, Acts :, The cover art is provided by the Reverend Mark Loest, and Romans :. Its compound forms include oJmologiva (confes- Assistant Director for Reference and Museum at Concordia sion), ajpologiva (defense), and ajvnalogiva (right relationship). Historical Institute. Each of these concepts and all of them together express the pur- pose and method of this journal. LOGIA considers itself a free con- L is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the ference in print and is committed to providing an independent American Theological Library Association, theological forum normed by the prophetic and apostolic  S. Wacker Drive, Suite , Chicago, IL , Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. At the heart of our E-mail: [email protected] v WWW: http://www.atla.com/ 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, but especially as Spirit, truth, and life which reveals Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life—Jesus Christ our Lord. FREQUENTLY USED ABBREVIATIONS Therefore, we confess the church, without apology and without AC [CA] Augsburg Confession rancor, only with a sincere and fervent love for the precious Bride AE Luther’s Works, American Edition of Christ, the holy Christian church, “the mother that begets and Ap Apology of the Augsburg Confession bears every Christian through the Word of God,” as Martin Ep Epitome of the Formula of Concord Luther says in the Large Catechism (LC , ). We are animated FC Formula of Concord by the conviction that the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg LC Large Catechism Confession represents the true expression of the church which we LW Lutheran Worship confess as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. SA Smalcald Articles SBH Service Book and Hymnal SC Small Catechism SD Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord LOGIA (ISSN #–) is published quarterly by the Luther Academy,  Lavant Drive, Crestwood, MO . Non-profit postage paid (permit #) at SL St. Louis Edition of Luther’s Works ffi Northville, SD and additional mailing o ces. Tappert The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical POSTMASTER: Send address changes to L, , rd Ave., Northville, SD . Lutheran Church. Trans. and ed. Theodore G. Tappert Editorial Department:  Pearl St., Mankato, MN . Unsolicited material is Triglotta Concordia Triglotta welcomed but cannot be returned unless accompanied by sufficient return postage. All submissions must be accompanied by a 300 word or less abstract of the article. TLH The Lutheran Hymnal Book Review Department: - Truemper Way, Fort Wayne, IN . All Tr Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope books received will be listed. WA Luthers Werke, Weimarer Ausgabe [Weimar Edition] 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 -. Subscription & Advertising Department: , rd Ave., Northville, SD . Advertising rates and specifications are available upon request. Policy statement: HOW TO CONTACT US L reserves the right to refuse ads from organizations or individuals whose for orders, subscriptions, questions, comments theological position or churchly demeanor runs counter to the mission of L to provide an independent theological forum normed by the Scriptures and the Phone ▲ -- Lutheran Confessions. E-mail ▲ [email protected] SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: U.S.A.: one year (four issues), ; two years  ▲    S Website www.logia.org (eight issues), . Canada and Mexico: one year, ; two years, . Overseas: ▲    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

epiphany 2002 volume xi, number 1  

Luther and the Our Father Peter Berg ......  Sharing His Meal, Proclaiming His Death: Five Fundamental Theses on Fellowship Brian Hamer ......  Called To Common Mission: A Lutheran Proposal? Mark D. Menacher ......  Private Confession and Absolution with an Introduction by the Translator Wilhelm Loehe, Kevin G. Walker, trans......  With Angels and Archangels: Some Thoughts on Real-Time Worship Dean M. Bell ...... 

  ...... 

 ......  R E: The Sum of Our Discontent: Why Numbers Make Us Irrational. By David Boyle. Review by Kevin D. Vogts Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization. By Alvin J. Schmidt. Review by Mark F. Bartling The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Review by Charles A. Gieschen

  ......  Unity in Doctrine • Inerrancy: Finding a Place in the Symphony of Salvation • Music as an Adiaphoron Testament, not Covenant • Too Little Lutheranism • Close is Closed The Liturgy: A Place for Relationships • One Divine Service • The Vatican and JDDJ

  

A Call for Manuscripts ......  Inklings by Jim Wilson ......  Luther and the Our Father

Peter Berg

j

 O F     and sublime “Saying back to him what he has said to us, we repeat what is prayer of all, coming from our Savior’s own holy lips. It most true and sure.”³ What the Savior speaks to us is the gospel. T has been an aid to countless sufferers, a gatherer of the The gospel speaks us into being, and then we speak back, not in church, the faithful and ancient companion of the eucharist our own words, but in words taught us by the Spirit. Once you and the daily office, and a comfort to the dying sheep of the know the grammar of the faith, then you know the grammar of Good Shepherd. Along with the Twenty-third Psalm it has prayer. Faith makes the tax collector’s prayer; unbelief makes undoubtedly been on the lips of more believers who have the Pharisee’s boast (Lk :–). The Spirit testifies to the chil- walked through the valley of the shadow of death than any dren of God, and they reply, “Abba, Father” (Ro :). Christ, other words of God. It comes to us from the one who tenderly suffering with his church, called out, “Saul, Saul, why are you invites us to pray and who taught us by his own example of persecuting me?” Frightened Ananias could be assured that he prayer in the garden, where he prayed that the cup of suffering would suffer no more harm from this former Pharisee, for as would pass, but who sought the Father’s will and drank that cup Jesus told him, “Behold, he is praying” (Acts ). This back-and- to its dregs, draining it of divine wrath. That saving act makes forth rhythm insures that our prayers are acceptable to the Lord Christian prayer possible, and gives the faithful confidence to and that we are comforted. In the context of the catechisms the pray. Here believers “count their true beads,” as Dr. Luther said position of the Lord’s Prayer is not coincidental. It is in third in his  commentary on the Our Father. place. The Lord’s Prayer is the Ten Commandments and the We would do well to join with the disciples and ask Jesus, Creed prayed. It is the prayed dogma of the holy church. If it is “Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples” such, then it can never be wrong. Again, the Savior speaks first (Lk :).¹ We need instruction in this art. There is much pray- and we respond. What Luther said about the German Mass ing in the world, but little of it is good. Much is said about applies to every aspect of the believer’s life and the life of the “prayer warriors” and “prayer chains.”Church newsletters carry church, including prayer: “First, the German service needs a catchy slogans about prayer. Most are banal if not downright plain and simple, fair and square catechism . . . I cannot put false. We too often pray from the poverty of our own hearts. better or more plainly than has been done from the beginning Seeking happiness instead of God we “become the victims of of Christendom and retained until now, i.e., in these three our own emptiness.”² Even the Lord’s perfect prayer has often parts, the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Our Father. been prayed in vain. With good reason Dr. Luther reckoned that These three plainly and briefly contain exactly everything that a the Lord’s Prayer was the world’s greatest martyr. Christian needs to know.”⁴ And so, though we are evil, let us lift In his explanation of the Our Father, Luther demonstrates up holy hands, not as prize fighters, but empty-handed, know- the independence of God’s attributes and his mercy from man. ing only Christ and him crucified. God does not need man’s assent to be who he is. Yet the Christian is taught to believe that he is a part of God’s kingdom LUTHER, MAN OF PRAYER and that God delights in the prayers of the faithful, and has G. K. Chesterton, a convert to Roman Catholicism, said that of attached a great promise to them in spite of their imperfection. all the supposed superiorities of Protestantism the only one that More than that, he has given instruction that directs and forms made him homesick was the rhythm of Cranmer’s prose. Some the believer’s life of prayer. Dr. Luther, a man of prayer, will give people have a particular gift, most do not. This is most certain- us this instruction. Like the householder of Jesus’ saying, he will ly true of prayer. Many pray, but most do not pray well.“We just bring “out of his treasure things old and new” (Mt :). The wanna . . . we just wanna . . . we just wanna lift you up, O first truth about prayer is this: while prayer is a thing that Lord!” What does this mean? The angels must weep. Pray the believers do, it first of all goes in the way of the gospel, the way Our Father and the prayers of the gifted in the public service, of a gift. Since prayer is a gift, we start with the Giver of all gifts. and save personal creations for the prayer closet, assured that the Holy Spirit will correct the grammar “with groanings which cannot be uttered” (Ro :).⁵ If there ever was a man of prayer, apart from our Lord, P B is pastor of St. Peter Lutheran Church, Plymouth, Michigan. Luther was the man. Who can forget the young monk at Worms    with bowels bound and with as many devils around him as tiles only this that thou art holy and friendly, and not that I am evil. on the roof tops, praying all night before his fateful stand before Amen.” (So much for self esteem!) “Almighty God, let no man the Emperor? He first opened his mouth in prayer, and then among us seek his own good and forget his neighbor’s advan- opened it in confession. Luther certainly reflected the personal tage. May we put aside all hate, envy and discord, and live with prayer piety of his age. Though he missed the mark when he one another as the true children of God; saying in this fellow- prayed to St. Anne, his quick recourse to prayer reveals this ship not merely ‘my Father’ but ‘our Father.’ Amen.”“ I am cer- piety. The rule of the Augustinian order added a discipline to tain that thou, God, art true and canst not lie. Enable me to be his piety. Though the Reformer could criticize the prayer life of steadfast in faith, nothing doubting, not because of the merits much of monasticism as the slave labor of the monks, he took of my prayer but because of the certainty of thy truth. Amen.”⁷ from this system a discipline that he kept the rest of his life. The Add to this the morning and evening prayers, Luther’s sacristy gospel freed him from works, and once freed from works a man prayer, his versification of the Lord’s Prayer, and many more, begins to pray aright, especially one who is practiced in the dis- and one is moved to awe at his great gift. cipline of prayer. The Reformer’s own practice was to pray the Luther’s prayers alone would be enough to school us in Our Father eight times a day. His own Small Catechism also prayer, but he also adds his splendid catechisms for the building served him in good stead, not only as a manual of instruction, up of the faithful. but also as a prayer book which he prayed by himself and with little Hans and Lena. ANFECHTUNG AND PRAYER Few, however, pray aright. Most prayer is nothing but pure God will not have speculativi theologi in his church. No one enthusiasm. Old Hans Luther, perturbed that his social security remains in the ivory tower for long. Heiko Oberman has had slipped through the folded hands of a frightened law stu- observed that Rome taught the young Luther that if he pos- dent, could tell his novice son that perhaps it was the devil, and sessed personal merit and grace he would know peace. The not St. Anne, who was there that day of the storm. The old miner mystics of his day taught that if one knew Christ he would was a better theologian on that day than his son the monk. know peace. Luther learned that if one knew Christ he would “Pastor,”the forlorn and not so young woman said, “when I was know peace, unrest, and war. The devil, the world, the flesh, the praying last night I saw a shooting star. Do you think this means law, and the conscience all conspire to confront and attack the something?” “Yes, it means you saw a shooting star.” What we Christian. Thus he is driven to prayer. On account of this prayer can know about God apart from the word and sacraments can is not an abstract. It is intimately and necessarily bound up in only make us puzzle and fear. Furthermore, since the enthusiast the believer’s life in this wretched world, and that means that finds God in himself, he believes that his exercise of prayer is the there is hope. effective element. The much misunderstood “power of prayer” lies exclusively in the merciful and almighty one who bids his God is one’s sole refuge, prayer one’s sole protection. Thus people to pray and promises to hear, and not in the exercise of Satan, as dangerous as he is, does not have a free hand; he prayer; otherwise the heathen would be heard for their many is set to work schooling Christians in faith. He will have no prayers, when Jesus says they are not (Mt :). Also, prayer is not trouble finding them, for God is not the only one who like a petition drive in which the one with the most signatures reads Luther’s catechism every day—the Devil knows it by gets the ear of city hall (though this is a common motivation heart too.⁹ behind many prayer requests). Christ does not teach us to pray that we might badger him into doing things for us, but that we God Himself is complicit in all this. In his hiddeness he leaves might have confidence that our justification is certain, for he uncomfortable room for faith and prayer. He sometimes seems to does not ask the unholy to pray.⁶ be deaf to the Christian’s pleas. His holy law reveals the utter wretchedness of his people. He allows his Christians to suffer the same tragedies as unbelievers, thus making both wonder what advantage there is in having faith. He allows the world to see his church as an ugly bride, the object of ridicule. For Luther this was Prayer is not like a petition drive in the paradox created by the tension of law and gospel: the tentatio which the one with the most of being condemned and rejected by God, while at the same time signatures gets the ear of city hall. being comforted by his mercy in Christ (consolatio). Most dis- cussions of law and gospel tend to treat the matter in a linear way: nb the sinner is terrified and then comforted. In real life, however, tentatio and consolatio often overlay one another. In other words, being forgiven and feeling forgiven do not always coincide. This Disdain all forms of enthusiasm and be freed from the tyran- creates tension and this tension gives occasion for prayer. ny of works. Then learn to pray from the masters. Luther is one of these. While he is often accused of verbosity, his prayers are In Luther’s theology, prayer and Anfechtung are intimately models of economy and straightforwardness. Consider the fol- related. One of the effects of the Anfechtung in the life of lowing: “Oh loving God, be pleased, I pray thee, but not with the Christian is the personal awareness of his total help- the good deeds that I bring before thee. Will though consider lessness in the face of affliction. Through this sense of      

helplessness, the Christian is taught to pray correctly. Christ which has made him holy and worthy to pray thus. In Anfechtung add both depth and dimension to prayer. this way he truly glorifies God and manifests his confidence in Prayer indicates that the Christian has not given up hope him. The believer himself benefits from this witness. Luther and his willingness to seek help from God. The praying exudes this confidence in his introductory remarks to the Lord’s Christian means that Satan has not yet conquered.¹⁰ Prayer in the Large Catechism:

Through this entire process the believer learns to judge God Consequently, nothing is so necessary as to call upon God not based on his providences, which he can neither divine nor incessantly and to drum into his ears our prayer that he understand, but only upon his promises, which are true and may give, preserve, and increase in us faith and the certain. Therefore, fulfillment of the Ten Commandments and remove all that stands in our way and hinders us in this regard.¹² The ways of God to men are one. Despite the paradox of Law and Gospel, despite His myriad providence, despite our wondering and paltry understanding, we may yet discern a THE OUR FATHER AS WORD OF GOD unity in the way in which the holy God deals with us. It is As the Lord’s Prayer can be seen as a summation of the believ- the way of His grace, of which Christ is the archetype and er’s life, so the prayer finds its highest embodiment in Christ. the Lord’s Supper the consequent and continuing form.¹¹ Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh. Every word of God is Christ; he is the content and fulfillment of all of God’s words. Here in the Incarnation and in the Supper the providences and Therefore Christ is this prayer, for it is the word of God. He is promises of God come together, though in experience they remain its author, content, teacher, and its answer. All the petitions find apart and seem contradictory. Experience drives the Christian to their substance and fulfillment in him. He is the only-begotten prayer; the Incarnate Christ comes to his aid in the Supper. Son of the Father, who through the adoption that comes by his blood in holy baptism has made us sons of God. Jesus is God and Lord, and at the name of Jesus every knee will bow. See Jesus, and you see God. Hear and speak Jesus’ name, and God’s name is spoken and heard. As he himself said to the Father At one and the same time the Lord’s about his own, “I have manifested Your name to the men You Prayer becomes the Christian’s plea, but have given me out of the world. They were yours. You gave them also God’s answer. n to Me, and they have kept Your word” (Jn :, emphasis added). Through the name of Jesus the kingdom comes. He is nb the King, and he has made his own joint-heirs with him. They can be confident of this because it was the Father’s will to crush him and not them, the very will that the Son prayed would be Although various divisions for the Lord’s Prayer have been done. He is the Bread of Life come down from heaven, the true suggested, one might argue that the prayer is a reflection of the bread that is sacramentally present, and in whom all other believer’s life, beset as he is by Anfechtung and aided as he is by bread is comprehended. Led by the Spirit into the wilderness he his Savior. The believer is given no small opponent when he is defeated the evil one. On the holy cross he took all evil into baptized into the hallowed name of God. Satan would have him himself, and in his dying the evil one was vanquished. He is our doubt his sonship and that he is a member of God’s kingdom— “Amen” to this and every prayer. a temptation that the incarnate Son himself suffered in the Therefore, the Lord’s Prayer becomes what St. James called wilderness. Though he is baptized, his flesh remains, and so he “the implanted word” (Jas :). At one and the same time this must continually have his own will broken and pray that the prayer becomes the Christian’s plea, but also God’s answer. For will of God be done in his life. His Savior, who is the Bread of when he says “Father” he thinks of the Son who is the very icon Life, comes with his forgiveness, but still the believer must daily of the Father who has renewed the believer in his image. When pray for forgiveness, and also for grace to forgive the many who the Christian prays about God’s holy name he thinks of his bap- sin against him because he is a son of God. Temptation will tism into that name. When he asks for daily bread he thinks of haunt him to the end. Therefore, he will pray for a blessed end, the Supper, etc. When believers pray the Our Father they are the deliverance from all evil. Though the final deliverance will praying Jesus to the Father. They can be confident of the come at the end of his life, the believer daily dies as he lives in Father’s hearing for Jesus prayed this prayer in all its fullness his baptism. Through this daily dying he begins to learn the when he gave his life on the holy cross. This was the “effective truth that the ways of God to men are one. and fervent prayer” of the “righteous man” that “avails much,” While Anfechtung can be used by Satan to cool the believer’s for it transmits the balm of the oil of salvation through the ardor for prayer, it is exactly when he is cool that he ought to anointing of Holy Baptism (Jas :–). This is what it truly pray most boldly. This is especially true when he has fallen means to pray in Jesus’ name. While cautions are in order in deeply in sin. When the believer prays boldly, even outrageous- regard to distinguishing between prayer and the means of ly, in this circumstance he gives witness not only to God’s will- grace, the Lord’s Prayer as the word and gospel should not be ingness and power to give, but to the sacred, cleansing blood of slighted.  

LUTHER’S TEACHING ON THE OUR FATHER as these great saints in order to pray. “Away with such thoughts! We now give our attention to Luther’s teaching on the Lord’s The very commandment that applied to St. Paul applies also to Prayer in his two catechisms. Citations are from the Concordia me” (LC , ). “I freely admit that he is holier in respect to his Triglotta and the Kolb-Wengert edition of the Book of person, but not on account of the commandment ....Moreover, Concord. References are to the Large Catechism (LC) unless I pray for the same thing for which they all pray, or ever have otherwise noted. Luther’s  work An Exposition of the Lord’s prayed” (, ). Indeed, I need God’s help just as much as they! Prayer for Simple Layman on the Our Father is also cited from The believer is further enticed to prayer by God’s gracious the American Edition of Luther’s Works (AE), volume . This promise. This promise is “enfleshed” in God’s own Son. “The work should be read in tandem with the catechisms in any Scriptures say, ‘No one ascends into heaven but he who study of Luther’s teachings on the Our Father. It should also be descended from heaven, the Son of Man’ (John :). In his skin noted that the two catechisms most resemble each other when and on his back we too must ascend. Thus all who are heavy- it comes to the treatment of the Lord’s Prayer. laden, and even those who do not know the meaning of these words, may well pray this prayer” (AE : ). To fail to pray is Our Father to deny the Incarnation and to dishonor and anger God. The first thirty-four paragraphs of Luther’s explanation in There is even more. Yes, we have God’s command and LC serve as a commentary on what is known as the Address; promise, but the believer is not left to go it alone when it comes they also give basic teaching about prayer. Law and gospel, the to prayer. God’s Son gives the form of prayer in his own perfect first two chief parts, have preceded this third part of the prayer.“Thus there is no nobler prayer to be found on earth, for Catechism. They form the basis for Christian prayer; for the law it has the powerful testimony that God loves to hear it” (LC , shows the Christian’s great need, and the gospel, the Savior’s ). Finally, Christians are moved to pray due to their own great great grace. Since the devil is constantly whispering in the needs. Anfechtung impels the distressed to the Lord’s Prayer, believer’s ear, he needs to “call upon God incessantly and to and it is the Lord’s Prayer that defines for them their true needs drum into his ears” his prayer (LC , ). The Father already and what Anfectung truly is. “This need, however, that ought to knows his prayer, but by drumming his prayer the believer concern us—ours and everyone else’s—is something you will drowns out the demonic whispers. The inducements to prayer find richly enough in the Lord’s Prayer” (, ). The Christian are next elaborated and are four in number: the command to is not even left alone when it comes to defining what truly ails pray, the promise to hear and act, the form for prayer, and the him, for he is often wrong about the things he thinks are wrong. believer’s own need (Anfechtung). Here the Father “tenderly He should specifically pray for those whom his flesh would invites” the believer to pray, which is the rendering of most ignore: “preachers, magistrates, neighbors, and servants.” And English translations of SC. Of interest is the Kolb-Wengert then, having prayed, he should “spread [his] apron wide to translation: “entice,” from loden, to draw, to decoy. receive many things” (, ). Such prayer is a necessity, for the believer is too weak and the foe too strong. Just the same, he stands in the position of strength when he prays. Had the confessors not been bold and frequent in prayer, Luther says, then “the devil would have The greatest profaning of God’s name is destroyed all Germany in its own blood” (, ).“This we must false teaching. know, that all our safety and protection consists in prayer nb alone,” for the object of prayer is God alone who is our help (, ). The believer should never be left wondering if prayer is worth it, or if God hears prayer. As Martin Franzmann said of An entire study could be made of the wonderful synergy abstract questions dealing with our divine election, “questions among the three chief parts of the Catechism. For example, the like these are gray and sightless creatures born to live in dark- command-word for prayer is the Second Commandment; this is ness. They simply cannot live in the air and light of the New especially seen in Luther’s positive explanation of the command- Testament.”¹⁴ ment in SC. Prayer is the Christian’s “duty and obligation” (“sollen und mussen”), but not to be carried out as it was under The Holy Name of God the pope, with “babbling and bellowing” (LC , ). While Luther With this petition Luther begins a pattern which is carried recognized the use of “external repetition” (LC , ) for the through the first four petitions, and also the sixth, which asserts young and the simple folk, the command to pray is a tender, the independence of God’s characteristics and mercy from gospel invitation that touches the heart. He next refers to God’s man, but which nonetheless expresses the hope that the benefits command to obey parents. The command places them in God’s of God come to the petitioner. “It is true that God’s name is stead so that they become God for their children. Disobedience holy in itself, but we ask in this prayer that it may also become to them is a high crime.¹³ In the same way the believer should holy in and among us” (SC , ). “Is it not already holy? reason, “On my account this prayer would not amount to any- Answer: Yes, in its essence it is always holy, but our use of it is thing; but it is important because God has commanded it.” The not holy” (LC , ). thought is wonderfully expanded with reference to saints Peter The content of this petition is most important, for God and Paul. Luther dispels the notion that one needs to be as holy reveals himself to us in his name and all men are by nature blas-       phemers. Therefore we must pray for help so “that it may also redeemed who have been delivered from the devil. They have become holy in and among us” (SC , ).¹⁵ This help comes to been brought into this kingdom by the bestowal of the name of the believer when he is baptized into the name of God: “the God in baptism. This king does not reign for his own advantage; Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in rather, he is a “king of righteousness, life, and salvation against heaven and earth is named” (Eph :, ).“How does it become sin, death, and an evil conscience” (LC , ). The petition also holy among us? The plainest answer that can be given is: when asks that God’s “name may be praised through God’s holy Word both our teaching and our life are godly and Christian....(For and Christian living” (, , emphasis added). This is but one everything we do on earth may be classified as word or deed, example of the recurring themes that serve to link the petitions speech or act)” (, –). For Luther pure preaching carries together. An additional blessing of the coming kingdom is “that the freight, for here is our salvation and sanctification.¹⁶ it may find approval and gain followers among other people and Therefore the greatest profaning of God’s name is false teach- advance with power throughout the world” (, ). ing. Since the best of men will perish everlastingly for their The kingdom comes to God’s people now and in eternity. good deeds, preaching is man’s only hope. It is on account of Now Satan hinders it, but it will fully come when his kingdom these “holy” people that we need to pray earnestly, for “the is eradicated. world is full of sects and false teachers, all of whom wear the “From this you see that we are not asking for crumbs” (, ; holy name as a cloak and warrant for their devilish doctrine” the German is Parteken, literally “token alms”). What the (, ). These are people “who blaspheme God’s name more Christian is praying for is beyond his wildest imagination, and shamefully with their respectable lives than all others do with had God not commanded that he pray for his kingdom he their evil lives” (AE : ). would not have dared ask. “But because he is God, he also claims the honor of giving far more abundantly and liberally than anyone can comprehend” (, ). As an old collect puts it, “Almighty and everlasting God, who art always more ready to hear than we to pray and art wont to give more than either we Keep your good works out of heaven, desire or deserve ....”¹⁷ To gainsay this benefactor, Luther says, Luther would say. God doesn’t need is like a foolish beggar who asks for “a dish of beggar’s broth” ,  them, but your neighbor does. ( ) when a king has promised to give him all. Such a man is “a rogue and scoundrel” (, ). To put it another way, “For nb how could God allow us to suffer want in temporal things while promising eternal and imperishable things?” (, ).

Secondly, God’s name is “profaned by an openly evil life and The Will of God wicked works” (, ). The Lord said to David, “However, The Christian has prayed for great treasures in the first two because by this deed you have given great occasion to the ene- petitions.¹⁸ He desires that God be honored and that he be mies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you saved. The arch fiend and the Old Adam cannot abide this. shall surely die” ( Sam :). The believer praises, extols, and Satan is every bit on Luther’s mind when it comes to this peti- honors God that David’s Lord and greater son gave up his life tion as is God and his holy will. Well over half of his explana- for all blasphemers. Through the sacramental giving of the holy tion in LC is devoted to Satan and to our aberrant will. The name the believer is incorporated into the Holy Trinity, into human will is the blind, dead, enemy of God. This is especially Christ’s death and resurrection, and into everything that is evident when the human will becomes religious, for religion is God’s. Since the believer has been freed from the agony of self- Satan’s most clever tool, and here man does most poorly and salvation and self-preservation, he is then free to be of use to his damnably. Nevertheless, this strong man has met more than his neighbor. Keep your good works out of heaven, Luther would match in the valiant one, who robs the strong man’s house and say. God doesn’t need them, but your neighbor does. The neigh- rescues the spoils (Lk :). Satan cannot stand it when “a bor’s relief is the praise of God’s name, whether the benefactor breach is made in his kingdom. Therefore, like a furious foe, he is thanked or not. raves and rages with all his power and might, marshaling all his subjects and even enlisting the world and our own flesh as his The Kingdom of God allies” (, ). Luther the young novice sought escape from the The woodcut that accompanied this petition in the early edi- devil in his monastery cell. He could not reckon that Satan tions of the Catechism was the scene of the first Pentecost. would be his bunkmate and that he would bring his worst Luther directly linked the fulfillment of this petition to the work enemy with him. Therefore,“in this petition you will notice that of the Holy Spirit. “How does this come about? Answer: God bids us pray against ourselves. In that way he teaches us Whenever our heavenly Father gives us his Holy Spirit, so that that we have no greater enemy than ourself (sic)” (AE : ). through his grace we believe his Holy Word and live godly lives “This petition has the same twofold effect as the preceding one, here in time and hereafter in eternity” (SC , ). that is, it humbles and it exalts; it makes sinners and it makes What is the kingdom into which the Spirit has brought us, righteous people; for the Word of God always works both judg- and how has it been established? The Son whom his Father ment and righteousness” (AE : ).¹⁹ The Christian must crowned as king has established it. It is the kingdom of the learn to pray the prayer of Gethsemane, for he will be baptized   into the baptism of the Lord and he will drink from the cup same. He advises that the coins and the coat of arms of every from which the Lord drinks (Mk :–).²⁰ For this reason prince be emblazoned with a loaf of bread, and not with lions and Luther says, “He who reflects deeply on this and the other peti- such, to remind both the governed and the government of the tions can truly have but little love for this life” (AE : ). worth of the civil office, and how the governed ought to daily pray Luther puts a human face on the old evil foe: “bishops, for this estate (, ). He next gives many examples of the things tyrants, and heretics” all join in opposing the preaching of the that believers ought to pray about in this regard. Believers are gospel (, ). That is why “where God’s Word is preached, especially encouraged to pray against Satan, who not only hinders accepted, or believed, and bears fruit, there the holy and pre- spiritual government but also earthly government. Satan knows cious cross will also not be far behind. And let no one think that well that we are belly-servers at heart, and when in need we easily we will have peace” (, ). Here Luther counsels Christian fall into doubt and misbelief. Here God’s command to pray gives endurance, encouraging believers to refrain from resisting these hope, for the prayers of believers restrain evil (, ). Luther con- evil foes. Indeed, he says, “We should really pay such assailants cludes with a warning for those who oppress the poor with “false all our goods, for they are the ones who fulfill this petition in us. coinage,” “daily exploitation” in commerce, and “usury.” If they They are the ones through whom God breaks our will so that continue they will “lose the common intercession of the church,” his will may be done” (AE : ). For “why should we poor lit- (, ) that is, the intercession of the General Prayer. tle worms make such a fuss about our will, which is never free Space should be devoted to the question as to why Luther does of evil and always deserves to be thwarted?” (AE : ). This not deal with the “daily bread” of this petition in the greater con- petition infuriates the flesh and unsettles our hearts. text of Jesus’ “Bread of Life” sermon in John , and in turn the context of the Supper, while he makes this link in his Exposition and elsewhere (as he does in his Personal Prayer Book, , AE ).²² Two quotations will be cited as examples of this. Each is set within the context of the Fourth Petition. “The bread, the Luther encourages his readers to look Word, and the food are none other than Jesus Christ our Lord beyond the “flour bin” to “broad fields,” himself. Thus he declares in John  [:], ‘I am the living bread to associations with neighbors, which came down from heaven to give life to the world’” (AE : ). About the giving of Christ to his believers we also to government, and finally to God. read in the Exposition, “And this is also done in two different nb ways: first, through words; second, through the Sacrament of the Altar” (AE : ). By the time of the writing of the two cate- chisms the eucharistic controversies with the sacramentarians Yet there is hope in the face of these assailants. The believer had been raging for some time. Luther had seen how terribly knows that it is God’s will that he be a part of his kingdom, for Zwingli had handled the interpretation of John . Perhaps he he was commanded to pray such. Here too he and his fellows avoided the association between the Fourth Petition, the Supper, are to pray. “Against [these foes] a simple Christian or two, and John  on account of this. This would have also served his armed with this single petition, shall be our bulwark, against pedagogical purpose of leaving such discussions to the theolo- which they shall dash themselves to pieces” (, ). gians and keeping matters simple for the simple. Be that is it may, Christ remains the Bread of Life. Those who seek him and his Our Daily Bread righteousness will have all of the other necessities of life added to In his  Exposition Luther sees the shift in pronouns, which them (Mt :).²³ begins with this petition, as significant. Until now it has been “Thy,” now it is “our,” “ours,” and “us.” The reason for this, he Forgive Us As We Forgive states, is that God has given us his holy name and brought us “‘And remit our debt, as we remit what our debtors owe.’This into the kingdom of believers. Now, quite literally, all hell breaks petition has to do with our poor, miserable life,” Luther begins. loose. The Christian looks at his foe and at himself and he We ourselves are not without the flesh, and we live “among peo- begins to despair. In all earnestness he cries out for himself and ple who sorely vex us and give us occasion for impatience, for his fellow believers saying,“Give us this day our daily bread.” anger, vengeance, etc.” (LC , –). On account of this, the The Fourth Petition, and those that follow, give him divine per- overwhelming proportion of Luther’s remarks deal with the mission to do so.²¹ believer’s need for forgiveness. He can be assured of it, “for This is the longest explanation of a petition in LC. The expla- before we prayed for it or even thought about it, he gave us the nation of the same petition in SC captures the flavor of this expo- gospel” (, ). The gospel is “the mightiest letter of indul- sition. It deals principally with temporal needs. Here we consider gence that ever came to earth, one which, moreover, cannot be the poor breadbasket—the needs of our body and life on earth” bought with money but is given free to everyone” (AE : ). (LC , ). Luther encourages his readers to look beyond the This petition is the great leveler, for all have sinned and “all “flour bin” to “broad fields,” to associations with neighbors, to must lower their plumes” (LC , ). The purpose of this peti- government, and finally to God. He pays special attention to the tion is that we might have a “cheerful conscience so that we may civil estate. God uses good government to provide us with our stand before him in prayer” (, ). For where there is doubt material blessings. Consequently, bad government hinders the faith cannot live for long, and without faith there is no prayer.      

There is something more here. “There is, however, attached to sense of the devil and his power there is also given a hearty this petition a necessary and even comforting addition, ‘as we desire to pray. To put it another way: the more real Satan is, the forgive our debtors.’” (, ).²⁴ Luther makes it clear that the more real Christ becomes. Heiko Oberman notes that Luther believer’s forgiveness comes from the loving heart of God and is would be outraged that some have said of him that his unwa- not the product of his heart (fides charitate formata). Forgiving vering faith in the omnipotence of God meant others is a sign of faith given for “our strengthening and assur- ance,”not a condition for forgiveness, for that would rob us of all only narrow limits for the Devil’s activities . . . the omnipo- comfort. The incarnate Christ dwelling within the believer and tent God is indeed real, but as such hidden from us. Faith carrying out his ministry of compassion and forgiveness through reaches not for God hidden but for God revealed, who, the believer in the world is the testimony or sign to the believer incarnate in Christ, laid himself open to the devil’s fury. At that he is a believer, just as the incarnate Christ dwelling in bap- Christmas God divested himself of his omnipotence—the tism and the Lord’s Supper makes them effective signs of God’s sign given the shepherds was a child “wrapped in swad- grace. “For whatever baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which are dling clothes, lying in a manger” (Luke :). For Luther appointed to us as outward signs, can effect, this sign can as well, Christmas was the central feast: “God for us.” But that in order to strengthen and gladden our conscience” (, ). (The directly implies “the Devil against us.”²⁷ sacraments are never far away for Luther!) Luther’s brilliant han- dling of this petition, one which has troubled many Christians, Those unafraid of the devil are not only fools, but they will also will serve us well as caretakers of souls. remain Christless. Oh, what horror and misery the evil one cre- “So, on the other hand, we, too, truly want to forgive heartily ates: “he incessantly seeks our life and vents his anger by caus- and to do good gladly to those who sin against us” (SC , ).²⁵ ing accidents and injury to our bodies. He crushes some and This is especially so among those who kneel together at mass to drives others to insanity; some he drowns in water, and many he receive the sacred body and blood. hounds to suicide or other dreadful catastrophes” (LC , ). Luther once said that when experiencing a great misfortune the Lead Us Not into Temptation Christian should say, “The devil did this!” and then make the “Moreover, although we have acquired forgiveness and a sign of the cross.²⁸ good conscience and have been wholly absolved, yet such is life that one stands today and falls tomorrow” (LC , ). In his Exposition Luther gives the reason why God does not entirely remove temptation: first, so that we know ourselves and what evil we are capable of, and then, that we might run to God for The Word of God is the impetus to prayer: grace and strength. his command to pray, his promise to Temptation comes from three sources: flesh, world, and devil hear, and the form he himself gives. (, ). The young are prone to sins of the flesh. Older people are tempted by the world. Those concerned with spiritual mat- nb ters are especially troubled by the devil (, ). The believer prays for help so that he might resist and stand firm, “even though the attack is not removed or ended. For no one can The last petition is last for a reason. Here we come full circle; escape temptations and allurements as long as we live in the “for if we are to be protected and delivered from all evil, his flesh and have the devil prowling around us” (, ). name must first be hallowed in us, his kingdom come among However, to experience an attack is quite different from saying us, and his will be done” (, ). This is stated with beautiful yes to it. At this point in his commentary in the Exposition cadence and symmetry in SC: Luther uses his old favorite about the birds nesting in one’s hair. Nonetheless they do nest. Since God tempts no one to sin, how- We pray in this petition, as the sum of all, that our Father ever, and since his Son bids us pray for help and escape, we can in heaven would deliver us from every evil of body and be sure of his aid. In other words, the temptation to sin did not soul, property and honor; and at last, when the hour of come from him, but the promise of absolution did. The wood- death shall come, grant us a blessed end, and graciously cut selected for this petition of Christ with his sheep, tempted take us from this valley of sorrow to himself in heaven.²⁹ in the wilderness, is especially illustrative of this thought. The rendering of the explanation in SC found in the Enchiridion Luther ends his comments with certitude. How vile and delud- published by the Lutheran Synod Book Company (ELS, ) ed, then, are they who pray “as a matter of luck” (LC , ) or displays this surety and best captures the gist of the German: who do not pray at all on account of their unworthiness. “That “and though we be tempted, that we may still in the end over- means that they are looking not at God’s promise but at their come and retain the victory” (emphasis added).²⁶ own works and worthiness, and thereby they despise God and accuse him of lying” (, ). Professing one’s unworthiness in Deliver Us from Evil this manner is a perverse form of arrogance. These prayers will In the final petition the believer is urged to direct everything not be heard (Jas :–). Here we come full circle again. The Word against his archenemy, the devil. To whom God grants a lively of God is the impetus to prayer: his command to pray, his   promise to hear, and the form he himself gives. Here is the believ- sionally to concentrate on one person or a particular situation er’s escape from the evil one. This gives the believer confidence to while praying the Lord’s Prayer. For example, when praying the conclude his prayer with the great word of faith. In contrast to Lord’s Prayer with an elderly shut-in one might think this while the ungodly the righteous will say “Amen” to their prayers.³⁰ They praying the Fifth Petition: “Dear Lord, although her daughter say, “‘Amen, amen’ . . . ‘Yes, yes, it is going to come about just like visits her faithfully, she forgets this and becomes resentful. Help this’” (SC , ). They are like the Syrophoenician woman,³¹ her to forgive her daughter for supposed sins and grant her who, when she heard the word “dog,” scurried under the table to peace through the blessed sacrament she is about to receive.” catch the blessed fallout when the children of Israel tossed aside The agile human mind is quick enough to think such thoughts their heavenly Bread. As Johannes Bugenhagen said in his com- without vocalizing them, and one will be able to keep pace with mentary on the Psalms, “Christ would not be king were he the recitation of the prayer. defeated in his saints.”³² In this vein Luther concludes, “God has attached much importance to our being certain so that we do not pray in vain or despise our prayers in any way” (LC , ). “Therefore the wise man declares that the end of a prayer is bet- ter than its beginning [Ecc :]” (AE : ). “Let it flow out like a fog,” he said, “so that we can think about what PASTORAL AND PRACTICAL CONCERNS we are praying.” As pastors in Christ’s church the Our Father will certainly be a part of our devotional life and something that we will com- nb mend to the people in our care. Luther’s frequent use of the prayer ought to serve as a pattern and inspiration for us. Teaching about prayer, and especially about this prayer, will As an additional thought, I was once approached by a parish- enliven our catechesis. Making use of the aforementioned ioner who counseled against what he called rapido speech when works on prayer by Dr. Luther will help in this regard. Another it came to presiding at the divine liturgy, especially in regard to helpful work is A Simple Way to Pray (, AE ), which Luther the Our Father. “Let it flow out like a fog,” he said, “so that we wrote for his barber, Peter Beskendorf. Master Peter had asked can think about what we are praying.” In this regard there is Luther for simple counsel on prayer and received from his much to be said for the measured pace of chanting the prayer.³³ client’s hand nearly twenty pages (that’s what you get from a God bless each of us in our respective ministries, and may he preacher!). In this work Luther advises those who pray to fash- give us confidence to pray as did our namesake: ion “a garland of four strands” (AE : ) whenever they are praying the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, or even the Dear God, I have begun to preach, and to teach the people. Commandments. First they are to ask what the petition or the It is hard. If it offends here and there, may no harm be commandment teaches them. Next they are to ask what reason done. Since you have commanded me to preach your the matter gives them to give thanks. Also, what reason the mat- word, I will not stop. If it fails, it fails for you. If it succeeds, ter gives them to confess sin. Finally they are to proceed with the it succeeds for you and me. Amen.³⁴ request. It is a helpful way to pray and keeps prayer from becoming merely rote. Some have also found it helpful occa- +In the Name of Jesus+ LOGIA

NOTES . All Scripture citations from The New King James Version (Nashville: . Norman Nagel, “The Incarnation and the Lord’s Supper in Luther,” Thomas Nelson Publishers, ). Concordia Theological Journal (September, ), . . Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Life Together (San Francisco: Harper, ), . .LC , ; Kolb-Wengert, –. . Lutheran Worship (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), . . Luther also refers to the Fourth Commandment in his attack on the . AE : , . sectarians in the section on baptism in LC. The sectarians had disdained . The restoration of the General Prayer to the Divine Service is baptismal water and earthly magistrates as mere external things, even long overdue. though they had been ordained by God. . Divine admonitions in regard to prayer recorded in Scripture are . Martin Franzmann, Romans, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: not that people are not praying often and earnestly enough, but that the Concordia Publishing House, ), . petitioners are not praying with faith in the gracious promises of God. . The  version of the Small Catechism published by Northwestern This takes the matter out of the realm of the law and places it in the con- Publishing House (WELS) renders bie uns “that we too may keep it holy,” text of the gospel where it belongs. rather than “among us” (the more common rendering). The former can  Martin Luther, Devotions and Prayers of Martin Luther (Grand leave the idea that instrumentality for hallowing God’s name lies with us. Rapids: Baker Book House, ). The latter links up better with the intrinsic holiness and sanctifying power . The German word Anfechtung means attack and vexation. The Latin of the name of God. equivalent is tentatio. . The woodcut that accompanies this petition in the earliest edition of . Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (New SC was of a preacher delivering a sermon. Haven: Yale University Press, ), . . The Collect for the Eleventh Sunday after Trinity, TLH, . Fr. John . David Scaer, “Luther on Prayer,” Concordia Theological Quarterly Fenton has brought to the author’s attention that the traditional structure (October, ), . of the collect seems to have its origin in the structure of the Lord’s Prayer.      

The format of the collect generally begins with an address, sometimes fol- passing away,  Cor :). It should be further noted that if the content of lowed by the “who” clause (usually a statement of the gospel or an attribute this petition is principally the gospel and not just about earthly bread, of God), the petition itself, occasionally a purpose clause (“that”), and the then the connection with the following petition, dealing with forgiveness termination. The first three petitions of the Lord’s Prayer resemble the and forgiving, makes more sense. “who” clause of a collect. The petition portion of the Lord’s Prayer would .Kolb-Wengert render the following sentence, “yet on the condition then begin with the Fourth Petition, with the doxology and Amen serving that we also forgive our neighbor.” The German is doch sofern, “still inas- as the termination. much,” not “on the condition that.” This takes it out of the realm of con- . Acts :. Among other things, the early believers devoted them- dition. Our forgiving is a natural consequence of the powerful pardon of selves to “the prayers” (not the NIV’s “and to prayer”). Could this be a ref- the absolution. erence to the petitions of the Our Father? .The accompanying woodcut is of the parable of the unforgiving . It is interesting to note that while we are very concerned about the servant. distinction between law and gospel and are able to classify Bible verses as .The German is behalten, “to retain.” This is better than “obtain” or one or the other, no one knows what effect, whether that of the law or of “win,”the most common renderings. the gospel, any word of God has on any given sinner. This is in the realm of .Oberman, . the Holy Spirit. .See Luther’s encouragement to make the sign of the cross included .The woodcut illustrating this petition is Christ beaten by the soldiers with his morning and evening prayers in SC. This salutary custom ought to at the foot of the cross. be regained by the Lutheran Church. . Typically a threefold division of the prayer is proposed: Petitions – .Luther, Small Catechism (Mankato, MN: Lutheran Synod Book - spiritual blessings; Petition —temporal blessings; Petitions –—avert- Co., ), . ing evil. Luther’s twofold division seems preferable. .While Luther includes the doxology in St. Matthew’s account of the .The choice of the woodcut for this petition is interesting because it Lord’s Prayer in his German Bible, he does not include it in the catechism, makes the connection to John . Jesus is pictured with the boy at the feed- for the doxology was not commonly used in his day. St. Luke’s briefer ing of the five thousand with a reference to John :–. account of the prayer was used in catechesis and in the mass. In most mod- .If this petition has implications for the Supper, then might we see ern catechisms it is included with Luther’s explanation of Amen. One a correspondence between the Our Father and the mass, and in turn a should not fail to see the Trinitarian overtones in the doxology. correspondence between the mass and the Our Father and the life of the . She is pictured in the final woodcut. believer? The Liturgy of the Word corresponds to the first three petitions, . Cited in David Scaer, “God the Son and Hermeneutics: A Brief and also to the believer’s life in this wretched world where he views life as Study in the Reformation,” Concordia Theological Quarterly “in a mirror, dimly” ( Cor :, just as preaching in the mass must deal (January–April, ), . with the here and now, the things of “faith and hope,”  Cor :). The . Luther’s versification of the Lord’s Prayer was mentioned earlier. Not remaining petitions, beginning with the request for the Bread of Life, cor- all of the attempts to set the prayer to music are as fortunate. The setting of respond to the Supper, which is the guarantee of the believer’s deliverance Mallot comes quickly to mind. However, not even Mallot deserves what from all evil and his continued participation in the feast of love, where he most soloists do to his piece. will see God “face to face” ( Cor :, the Supper pertains to this feast of .Martin Luther, Luther’s Prayers, ed. Herbert Brokering love, which is greater than faith and hope, since they pertain to things (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, ), .

A CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS

The editors of L hereby request manuscripts, book reviews, and forum material for the following issues and themes:

ISSUE THEME DEADLINE

Reformation  Wittenberg  Geneva April ,  Epiphany  After Ten Years July ,  Eastertide  Lutheran Synodical Conference October ,  Holy Trinity  Oratio, Tentatio, Meditatio January , 

Send all submissions to the appropriate editors and addresses as listed on the inside back cover. Please include IBM or Macintosh diskette with manuscript whenever possible. (Specify word processing pro- gram and version used.) Submit all articles to the Coordinating Editor: Erling T. Teigen •  Pearl St. • Mankato, MN •  • or [email protected] • All submissions must be accompanied by an abstract of the article,  words or less. Please write for style sheet. Sharing His Meal, Proclaiming His Death Five Fundamental Theses on Fellowship

Brian Hamer

j

   H S  of the threat of Thesis . Fundamentalism is an overreaction to liberalism. I Unionism to the churches of the Reformation: The analogy of the church as a boat (nave) provides a helpful metaphor to illustrate the twin evils of liberalism and evangelical- If one is tempted to doubt the correctness of the proposi- ism. The liberal versus conservative conflict of the s and early tion that full church fellowship presupposes the full fel- s climaxed for the LCMS in  with a dramatic walkout at lowship of faith, doctrine, and confession, let him study its St. Louis seminary. Missouri defended the inerrancy of the unspeakable and deplorable plight of the churches of Scripture against those who adopted the historical-critical the Reformation, seen in their deepest humiliation in the approach in her own midst. The liberal passengers fell off the left history of the modern unions. This history can teach us side of the boat, but the majority stayed safely on the deck of the what the church’s confession is, and what the struggle for S.S. Missouri. But a boat that tilts a little to the left risks leaning God’s truth in the church militant means for a world even further to the right. While Missouri congratulated herself on which faces the threat of being drowned by the lie.¹ her victory over liberalism in , Satan sent the equal and oppo- site error of evangelicalism to Missouri and other confessional In , a group of Lutheran pastors in the Florida-Georgia Lutheran bodies. The timing of his temptation was especially District of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) dis- deadly to Missouri as the “Year of the Evangelical” was ,per- tributed the following statement on Communion fellowship: fectly timed for the LCMS to embrace other Protestants who believed in the inerrancy of Scripture. While liberals denied the Scripture imposes no denominational requirement on authority of Scripture, evangelicals denied the authority of the baptized Christians who accept the Real Presence and are gospel. Too many of the passengers on the S.S. Missouri rushed to able to examine themselves and desire to receive the Body the starboard side and dived head first into the waters of pop- and Blood of Christ offered in the Lord’s Supper. protestant evangelicalism. Therefore we affirm the right of the Lutheran congrega- Those who sink in the waters of evangelicalism are soon caught tions and pastors to offer the Eucharist to all who share in the undertow of fundamentalism, a narrow form of evangeli- this biblical and confessional stance. We declare this to be calism.³ The name of the movement was inherited from a series of our eucharistic understanding and practice and commend twelve tracts entitled The Fundamentals published in the early it to others.² twentieth century. Harold Bloom, a self-proclaimed unbelieving Jew, summarizes the five fundamentals in a critique of funda- The purpose of this essay is to trace the doctrinal divide that mentalism: separates Sasse’s formulation of the classic Lutheran orthodox view of church fellowship from the current “Lutheran-funda- . The Bible is always right. mentalist” practice in the Florida-Georgia District of the LCMS . Jesus resulted from a Virgin Birth. as espoused by the Celebrate! statement. This article will sketch . His Atonement substitutes for us. the roots of Lutheran fundamentalism as an overt reaction to . He rose from the dead. liberalism, describe the pitfalls of biblicism and their effect on . He will come again, in a refreshment of miracles, to govern church fellowship, and examine the implications for the church over a final dispensation of a thousand years of peace upon and her doctrine as a body. While the following pages will focus earth, before the final Judgment.⁴ primarily on the situation in the Florida-Georgia District of the LCMS, the admittedly parochial plight in Florida is presented as It is not surprising that these are five of the fundamental doc- a case study with implications for the church at large. trines denied by liberal theologians. Inerrancy comes first and quickly takes center stage in theology. From a Lutheran perspec- tive, the fifth point must be circumscribed to omit any millennial fantasy of a this-worldly kingdom, so that “He will come again” is B H is pastor of Christ the King Lutheran Church, Riverview, all that remains.⁵ The resultant Lutheran [sic] list gives five bullet- Florida. points to defend against the liberals, but what emerges in the final    analysis is nothing more than a religious protest against the high- In sum, evangelicals talk about the gospel; fundamentalists talk er-critical method. Lutheran fundamentalists may keep their head about Jesus; biblicists talk about the Bible. For the purposes of this above water as they swim the ocean of evangelicalism, but they are essay, the oxymoron “Lutheran Fundamentalism” is defined as a quickly caught in the undercurrent of narrow fundamentalism narrow form of protestant evangelicalism which, while omitting and can only define themselves by who they are not.⁶ the millennial expectations of mainline fundamentalism and Harold Bloom describes the flaws of fundamentalism and its retaining some of the vestiges of Lutheran theology, reduces the inevitable biblicism: gospel to a few biblicistic points of doctrine until inerrancy is all that remains. Even as Fundamentalists insist upon the inerrancy of the Bible, they give up all actual reading of the Bible, since in fact Thesis . Biblicistic exegesis alters the doctrine of church fellowship its language is too remote and difficult for them to begin to through its narrow “show-me-a-passage” approach to Scripture. understand. What is left is the Bible as physical object, limp At first glance, liberalism and evangelicalism appear to be and leather, a final icon or magical talisman.⁷ opposite errors that will only quarrel with one another. But is there a connecting link between these two extremes? The liberal If fundamentalism is a genus of evangelicalism, then biblicism Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) adopted several is a narrow form of fundamentalism. Once the riches of the gospel compromise formulas in  and did voluntarily what the have been reduced to a shopping list of five fundamentals, the Prussian Union was unable to do by force. But what of Lutheran next logical step is a reduction to one fundamental, namely, fundamentalism? inerrancy. Mark Noll has exposed the flaws of the monotheism of The Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding and Practice inerrancy in his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.⁸ (hereafter DEUP) claims, “Scripture imposes no denominational According to Noll, fundamentalists defended the Bible by arguing requirement on baptized Christians who accept the Real for the inerrancy of Scripture’s original autographs,⁹ an idea that Presence.”¹² In other words, the authors of DEUP checked their trusty concordance for the word “denomination” and found no passages that deal directly with the denominational issue. Therefore, they conclude that Scripture teaches no denomina- Those who sink in the waters of evangel- tional requirement for the Lord’s Supper. The response to the DEUP formulated by the Commission on icalism are soon caught in the undertow Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) of the LCMS, Admission of fundamentalism, a narrow form to the Lord’s Supper (hereafter ALS), states: of evangelicalism. In  Corinthians  and  Paul does not speak to the same nb denominational situations as exist today because he is addressing an intra-congregational situation . . . however, the Scriptures do address doctrinal divisions very much like never assumed a central role for Christianity. While this approach those that mark the contemporary scene. skillfully avoided any accusations of liberalism, it was narrow and Therefore, novel enough to render the experience and personalities of the biblical writers meaningless. The Bible was still the Word of God, The Lord’s Supper presumes and requires a unity (Acts :) but it was no longer mediated through human agents. Noll cites that is contradicted when, under ordinary circumstances, the example of James Brookes, a founder of the Niagara Prophecy opposing confessions are represented among those who Conference, and his instructions for Bible study: commune together.¹³

Have your leader select some word, as faith, repentance, love, A document prepared in response to the CTCR document and hope, justification, sanctification, and with the aid of a good distributed among the pastors of the Florida-Georgia District of Concordance, mark down before the time of the meeting the the LCMS, Admission to the Lord’s Supper: Initial Response (here- references to the subject under discussion. These can be read after ALS-IR), cites Romans : and, while skillfully avoiding the as called for, thus presenting all the Holy Ghost has been word “denomination,” concludes: “Romans : plainly does not pleased to reveal on the topic.¹⁰ necessitate avoidance of people who are members of church bod- ies not in fellowship with our Synod. To apply this passage to peo- Noll notes the obvious flaw of leaning too heavily on the ple who otherwise meet the clear biblical requirements for com- versification of Scripture, a process that was not complete until muning in a worthy manner is wrong.”¹⁴ the sixteenth century.¹¹ Lutherans may note a similar problem Whether one speaks of “denomination” or “synod” or “church with the approach to the doctrine of the Trinity, a word curiously body” is secondary. The unionism inherent in biblicism sounds absent from the five fundamentals and from James Brookes’s top- suspiciously similar to the unionism in the ELCA. In the final ical study of the Bible. A good Concordance will not reveal any analysis, liberalism and evangelicalism are kissing cousins who verse with the word Trinity, but the doctrine of the Trinity is the will never seriously quarrel with one another, for they meet in first topic of theology proper. the dishonesty of ecumenism. While the liberals became   ,    

Unionists by giving up on the whole idea of truth altogether, the er who breaks his big toe cannot dismiss the toe as having noth- biblicists adopt ecumenism by resting their case on the use of ing to do with his pitching arm. The lack of support will adverse- words that are not present in the Bible (synod, denomination, ly impact his game. The doctor who tells the patient the malig- Missouri, Lutheran) to skirt the doctrine in the Scriptures. This nant tumor in his brain can remain untreated because it has “show-me-a-passage” approach becomes the trump card in the nothing to do with his other vital organs is missing the mark. The theological deck, and the Scriptures are tragically divorced from life of the patient is endangered by the cancerous growth. their own intrinsic doctrine: Bible without catechesis, exegesis The alternative to doctrine as body is the fundamentalistic fan- without systematics. tasy that doctrine is a string of pearls. In this line of thinking, one If one omits the word “denomination” and instead uses the may cheerfully remove or add a few pearls at random without biblical language of word, doctrine, and confession (including changing the essential nature of the necklace. Applied to the the sacraments), then there is no more room for a detour Lord’s Supper, all who have the pearls of baptism and the real around the issue. Kurt Marquart has noted that the modesty of presence on their theological necklace may take communion, the Lutheran Confessions leaves no room to maneuver. regardless of the other combination of pearls on their neck. A Everything that can be yielded has already been sacrificed. What Presbyterian from Michigan may commune in Florida six remains—the right preaching of the gospel and the proper giv- months out of the year because he is baptized and believes in the ing of the sacraments—is essential. Lutherans do not speak of presence of Jesus’ true body and blood, even if the rest of his the- fundamental points of doctrines because all doctrine is funda- ology is Calvinistic. mental in itself. Our unity is defined according to word, doc- trine, and confession. Other church bodies demand more than doctrinal consensus for ecclesiastical unity. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican churches insist on doctrine plus liturgical and canonical uniformity. Reformed Lutherans do not speak of fundamental churches require the right doctrine in addition to a divinely points of doctrines because all given church structure or polity (faith and order).¹⁵ doctrine is fundamental in itself. Lutheran fundamentalism departs from the doctrinal con- sensus of the Augustana in the opposite direction of Rome and nb the Reformed. Instead of the extra additive of liturgical unifor- mity or church government, Lutheran fundamentalism employs mathematical subtraction to take away from the entire Once doctrine degenerates into a few fundamentalistic and doctrine of the church (that is, the entire countenance of God) radically isolated truths, the need for catechesis in the doctrine and to highlight only a few “fundamental” doctrines. According of the apostles is no longer present. A quote from the ALS-IR to DEUP, the only two fundamentals necessary for participa- probably reveals more sacramental impoverishment than the tion in the Lord’s Supper are baptism and belief in the Real authors intended: “Apart from the account of the institution of Presence. What one believes about the rest of doctrine is sec- the Lord’s Supper in the Synoptic Gospels there are only two ondary. As we are often informed in various conferences con- extended references in the New Testament that explicitly speak ducted by the promoters of DEUP, the rest of your creed has of the Eucharist ( Cor :– and :–).” Having reduced “nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper.” Paul’s emphasis on the the sacramental references in the Scriptures to a token few, the real presence in  Corinthians  and  is often cited in support, authors are quick to add, “Neither [of the portions of  noting the alleged absence of Scripture passages that teach that Corinthians] was intended to deal directly with the Lord’s fellowship in the Eucharist is fellowship in the entire doctrine of Supper.¹⁶ the Apostles. While baptism and the Lord’s Supper are certain- To be sure, all theology revolves around AC  and  (Christ ly important articles of doctrine, does their fundamentalistic and justification). Lutherans do not treat justification as one arti- isolation from the rest of Christian doctrine square well with cle among many, but as the article on which the church stands and the teachings of Scripture? falls. But all the joints of the Augsburg Confession are vital to our body of teaching. To remove just one joint is the first step in killing Thesis . Doctrine is a body, not a string of pearls. the entire body. The use of the English word “article” for the Trinitarian shape A parabolic example of the importance of all the articles of of the Creed is appropriate because “article” comes from a word doctrine comes from the late choral conductor Robert Shaw. He that means “joint,” such as an elbow or a knee. The Creed is a would stay up all night writing letters to his choirs on the positive body with three joints. Similarly, the Augsburg Confession is a and negative aspects of their performance. On one occasion body with twenty-eight joints. As a body, doctrine is fearfully and Mr. Shaw was not content with his choir’s performance of the wonderfully made of many organs, ligaments, muscles, and shorter eighth and sixteenth notes, which often serve as pick-ups sinews. Christ is the head of the body. If the body is merely to the longer (and seemingly more fundamental) whole notes. In bruised, it will survive. But if the body is severely impaled, it may other words, they were treating the music as a string of pearls hemorrhage and die. If the head is cut off, the body is of no use. instead of as a body. The following letter is adapted from Mr. As any athlete will attest, an injury to any one part of the body Shaw’s memo by likening articles of doctrine with the oft-neglect- will impact the performance of the whole body. A baseball pitch- ed short notes and inerrancy with the longer whole notes:  

Dear Lutheran fundamentalists, the same thing, but by the verbal tribute of putting Jesus first in our I can think of a couple of emphases that have not been lives. Here recall that evangelicalism talks about the gospel, funda- emphatic enough up to now. The first is that all articles of doc- mentalism talks about Jesus, and biblicism talks about the Bible. trine are important and have their place. I get the horrible pic- This is fundamentalism—talking about Jesus —coupled with a ture, from the way you teach, of little bitty articles of doctrine curious denial that the words of Christ’s teaching are our theolog- running all over the place to keep from being stepped on. ical life. Doctrinal disagreements other than baptism and the real Millions of them! Meek, squeaky little things. No self-respect. presence are dismissed out of hand as “honestly held differences” Standing in corners, hiding behind doors, ducking into sub- or “deficiencies,”conveniently skirting any notion of calling people way stations, peering out from under rugs. Refugees. to repentance for believing the wrong thing. Is false doctrine a sin? You fundies are a bunch of Nazis for inerrancy! Look—this Only if you take AC  and  seriously and remain in the eccle- is a democracy. All the articles count. They are included in the siastical boat. Evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and biblicism give census. Articles can vote. They carry ID cards. They belong. lip service to the gospel, Jesus, and the Bible (respectively), but they An article of doctrine walks into a bar tended by a Florida have neither the theological integrity nor doctrinal substance to fundy and says, “Give me a beer.” The Florida fundy teach and guard the whole counsel of God. Compare this approach responds, “I am very sorry, my little man; we only serve to Luther’s explanation of the sixth petition and the realistic threat inerrancy here.” any false doctrine poses to the church: Point: give him a drink!¹⁷ God tempts no one, but we pray in this petition that God Thesis .AC  And  are two sides of one ecclesiastical coin. may so guard and preserve us that the devil, the world, and Article  of AC describes the invisible nature of the church:“It our flesh may not deceive us or mislead us into unbelief, is also taught among us that one holy Christian church will be and despair, and other great shame and shameful sins, but that, remain forever. This is the assembly of all believers among whom although we may be so tempted, we may finally prevail and the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are gain the victory (SC, , ). administered according to the Gospel.” Article  describes the visible nature of one and the same What of the Scriptural admonition to avoid false teachers and church: those who put a stumbling block in your way contrary to the teachings of the Lord (Rom :)? The ALS-IR claims, “Those Again, although the Christian church, properly speaking, is who create the divisions and set the snares are those who should nothing else than the assembly of all believers and saints, yet not commune, but those who truly believe the biblical teaching, because in this life many false Christians, hypocrites, and quite apart from their ecclesiastical affiliation, should be wel- even open sinners remain among the godly, the sacraments comed.”²⁰ According to this false teaching, the unfaithful shep- are efficacious even if the priests who administer them are herds who promote false doctrine should be denied the Lord’s wicked men, for as Christ himself indicated, “The Pharisees Supper, but the sheep that are led into the poisonous grass should sit on Moses’ seat” (Mt :). be left there to die.

The DEUP tragically severs AC  from AC  by emphasizing the piety of the individual communicant, but dismissing AC  out of hand as mere (man-made) denominational affiliation. The ALS recaptures AC  by noting, “The Eucharist is God’s means According to the Lutheran fundies, we for preserving the unity of the church, maintaining the many are united in Christ not by believing Christians as one body since they all eat of the one loaf.”¹⁸ the same thing, but by the verbal However, the authors of the ALS-IR are not so sure about AC : tribute of putting Jesus first in our lives. nb The unity of the church is found in Christ, not in subscription to a set of detailed doctrinal declarations. True, visible unity is important. Jesus prayed for it, and the church must work for Why this impatience with AC ? At first, it is tempting to it. But honestly held differences or deficiencies in one’s under- point to trends of declining institutional loyalty in America since standing of some aspect of the mysteries of God can hardly be the Vietnam War. This is fair enough but it is does not answer the regarded as impiety requiring repentance. Nor can it be said question. What is really at stake is the visible nature of the church that the Lord’s Supper was intended to be a sign of unity in the as the body of Christ. The Apology addresses AC  and  as Confessional sense. A sign of unity in Christ? Yes! A sign that one issue and declares: there is no error among those communing that they are all in agreement in all points of doctrine? Hardly!¹⁹ To make [the church] recognizable, this association has out- ward marks, the pure teaching of the Gospel and the admin- Note the fatal separation of Christ and his teaching. According istration of the sacraments in harmony with the gospel of to the Lutheran fundies, we are united in Christ not by believing Christ” (Ap  and , ).   ,    

AC  and AC —to have one without the other is to have in that each is the physical complement and extension of the neither. one and the same Person and Life. They are all expressions of a single Christology.²³ Thesis . Sharing his meal is proclaiming his death. Is the church united by her entire body of doctrine or by her lip Is the application of “body” to Christ and his church a double service to Jesus while selectively picking and choosing what she meaning? No, for St. Paul is speaking of one and the same person. wants to believe? What makes the church the body of Christ? The The sensus literalis only holds exegetical weight if the referent is debate over the interpretation of the word “body” in  Corinthians one person namely, Christ. To interpret “body” as Christ and his : (“For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats church is perfectly consonant with Christ’s self-identification with and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” his church as his very own body.²⁴ NKJV) is a case in point. ALS treats : as a eucharistic reference and a “subtle allusion” to the church that gathers around the Sacrament. Therefore, discerning the body of Christ necessitates faith in the real presence of Jesus’ true body and blood, a desire for the effects of the Lord’s Supper, and a “repentant willingness to Is the church united by her entire body of remove sinful divisions between Christians that fracture the visi- doctrine or by her lip service to Jesus ble unity of the congregation and contradict the Gospel-corporate character of the Lords’ Supper.”²¹ while selectively picking and choosing The authors of ALS-IR describe this effort to understand v.  what she wants to believe? sacramentally as “exegetical contortions,” claiming the CTCR nb allowed systematic theology to predetermine its exegetical conclu- sions. Florida fundies omit the sacramental reference in v.  and claim, “Simple honesty should have compelled the writers of the ALS to admit that the reference here clearly is to Christ’s body as A similar dynamic can clarify the use of the Greek word myste- the community of believers, the Church.” The authors of ALS-IR rion in  Corinthians :– (“stewards of the mysteries of God”). conclude that the understanding of the body of Christ as Christ’s The ALS-IR is impatient with the idea that the “mysteries” in sacramental (bodily) union with the body of Christ (church) is a question are the sacraments, noting the “use of the Greek term to “crass betrayal of hermeneutical principles dear and precious to refer to the sacraments is found no earlier than the fourth centu- orthodox Lutheranism.”²² ry of the Christian era.” Many of references to mysterion refer to Is the church sharing his meal and proclaiming his death at one proclamation, which, according to the ALS-IR, is also the empha- and the same time? Much of the issue revolves around St. Paul’s sis in  Corinthians :. “Inclusion of the Sacrament under this use of the word “body” in  Corinthians :. Is the ALS correct term is possible only if one follows the Augustinian definition of that St. Paul is referring to the Lord’s Supper and to the church (or a sacrament.”²⁵ In short, the mystery of Christian proclamation at least involving the church) in one gospel action? Or can the has nothing to do with the Christian sacraments: different pearl, Lutheran fundies nullify this Christology by playing the trump different string. card unus sensus literalis est (“The literal sense is one”)? The use of the term sacrament in the fourth century is easily While Lutherans were flirting with fundamentalism and plan- explained by the advent of the Latin Vulgate (edited by Jerome). ning for our triumphalistic future based on the post-World- “Sacrament” is simply the Latin translation of the Greek “mys- War  baby boom, John A. T. Robinson was penning his classic yet tery.” The Eastern Orthodox are more comfortable in Greek and oft-neglected volume The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology. often speak of “mysteries,” while church bodies in the west are According to Robinson, the use of the word “body” to mean a more akin to use the term “sacraments.” The word is secondary group of people is so familiar to us that it is easy to forget that “it and the etymology is primary. What is the theological significance was quite unfamiliar, if not entirely unknown, to the people to of the term? The mystery of the presence of Christ in the flesh: the whom Paul was writing.”The phrase “body of Christ” did not call mystery (sacramentum) of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resur- attention to the church as a collection of men, but to Christ him- rection; the mystery of his ongoing presence in the flesh in the self. Therefore, “One must be chary of speaking of ‘the metaphor’ preaching of the cross and the giving of his gifts in baptism and of the Body of Christ. Paul uses the analogy of the human body to the Lord’s Supper. From the manger to the second coming, the elucidate his teaching that Christians form Christ’s body. But the mystery or sacrament is the presence of Christ. Gregory J. analogy holds because they are in literal fact the risen organism of Lockwood describes the “mysteries of God” as our entire body of Christ’s person in all its concrete reality.” Since Christ self-iden- teaching: “‘The mysteries of God’ (:) include much more [than tifies his flesh and blood with his church, the metaphorical inter- the Sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper]: they embrace pretation of “body” misses the point: all the articles of evangelical doctrine, of which the Sacraments are an important part.”²⁶ To say that the Church is the body of Christ is no more of a In short, Christian proclamation cannot be severed from the metaphor than to say that the flesh of the incarnate Jesus or Christian sacraments any more than one may readily amputate the bread of the Eucharist is the body of Christ. None of articles of doctrine from Christian theology.²⁷ Whether it is the them is ‘like’ His body . . . each of them is the body of Christ, church or the supper, it is one and the same body of Christ.  

Whether it is the mystery of baptism, preaching, or the Lord’s NOTES Supper, it is one and the same Christ. Sharing his meal is pro- . Hermann Sasse, Union and Confession: Christ and His Church, Essays claiming his death, not just in generic lip service to a one-size-fits- by Hermann Sasse , trans. Matthew C. Harrison, ed. Ronald R. Feuerhahn, all Christ, but the entire reality of his life and, yes, his teaching. Matthew C. Harrison, and Paul T. McCain (St. Louis: The Office of the President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, ), . . Celebrate! A Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding and Practice (hereafter cited as DEUP) by fifteen pastors of the Florida-Georgia District of the LCMS. Published and distributed by Bishop & List Interests, Inc. (Pentecost ): . DEUP is strikingly similar to A Christian proclamation cannot be severed Statement from  clergymen of the LCMS signed  September  and distributed throughout the synod. A Statement claims that church fel- from the Christian sacraments any more lowship is possible without full doctrinal agreement. Carl S. Meyer, ed., than one may readily amputate articles Moving Frontiers: Readings in the History of the Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod (St. Louis: Concordia, ), –. The common link of doctrine from Christian theology. between the two documents is their curious identity as doctrinal state- ments that dismiss all doctrinal statements. nb . Erling Jorstad describes the relationship of fundamentalism and new evangelicalism: “Both schools have evolved from the same general sources and today . . . their many differences must be weighed against the several commitments they share in common.”“ Two on the Right: A Comparative Kurt Marquart asks an insightful question about the Florida Look at Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism,” Lutheran Quarterly , fundies: “How can a whole district announce its own doctrine of no.  (May ): . . Harold Bloom, The American Religion (New York: Touchstone, open communion, seemingly without any inkling of the confes-   ²⁸ ), . sional implications?” Several reasons come to mind. . See David P. Scaer, “Lutheran Viewpoints on the Challenge of Geographical separation from Missouri, Ohio, and other states Fundamentalism: Eschatology,” Concordia Journal ,no. (January ): gives Floridians the impression of sailing on a Caribbean dingy –. Scaer says, “Eschatology is another clear ‘Continental Divide’ for while the midwest Lutherans continue to cruise the high seas on Lutherans and fundamentalists. Fundamentalistic, or evangelical, eschatol- the S.S. Luther. The Lutheran heartland is “up there”; we are ogy presents a complex maze for Lutherans. Apocalyptic speculation does not belong to the Lutheran doctrinal heritage” (). See also Warren L. Vinz, “down here.” Conferences and conventions in the Midwest are “The Tale of Two Controversies –: Fundamentalism-Modernist more costly to attend when traveling hundreds of miles. There is Controversies among Northern Baptists and Missouri Lutherans,” no seminary or Lutheran college from which to borrow professors Foundations  (January-March ): –. For an early history of the or to take a class in theology. Theology by geography tempts the controversy in Lutheran theology, see James Echols, “Charles Michael Lutherans to fuse into the protestant-fundamentalist scene. The Jacobs, the Scriptures, and the Word of God: One Man’s Struggle Against Biblical Fundamentalism among American Lutherans” Ph.D. Thesis (Yale abiding atmosphere in Florida includes theme parks, beaches, and University, ). other forms of consumer-oriented self-worship, which remain . Richard Shuta describes the Lutheran Fundamentalism of LCMS open all year round. Retirees and snowbirds often make two deci- Lutheran Hour radio preacher Walter A. Maier (–): “Not afraid to sions a week: where to commune on Sunday mornings and where call himself a fundamentalist with a lower case ‘f,’Maier was an erudite ally to eat brunch after church. Any pastor who stands in their way is of a number of individuals later called evangelicals,’ joining with them to establish the National Religious Broadcasters Association. Maier still accused of being unloving and opposed to mission. reflected much of the orientation of his synod, characterized as “Old These explanations may clarify the issue, but they will not fur- Lutheran,” militantly confessional, separate from American Protestantism, ther the issue. Whatever reasons lurk beneath the communion yet committed to evangelizing its culture. While supportive of the militan- question in Florida-Georgia, the underlying captivation is no cy of American fundamentalists, the synod condemned the revivalistic different than the original temptation from the great deceiver “new measure” and fellowship practices tolerated among these conserva- tives. Maier’s ministry reflected the tension between his strict Lutheran himself: “Did God really say?” Did God really say we need to identity and his desire to express his unity with non-Lutheran Christians.” instruct the church in the entire doctrine of the apostles before “The Militant Evangelicalist of Missouri: Walter Arthur Maier and his sharing his meal?²⁹ To turn winter visitors away from commu- Theological Orientation” Ph.D. Thesis (Drew University, ), abstract. nion if they believe differently? To retain our theological identi- Leigh D. Jordahl says, “A reading of Maier’s radio sermons give on the ty in the midst of fast-changing times? In sum, did God really say impression that he is reading a thoroughgoing fundamentalist.”“Theology of Franz Pieper: A Resource for Fundamentalistic Thought Modes among Communion fellowship is church fellowship? American Lutherans,” Lutheran Quarterly  (May ): . C. F. W. Walther’s final thesis on Communion fellowship with Paul Maier, son of Walter A. Maier (WAM), compares the theology of those who believe differently has only grown in poignancy for the his father with WAM’s successor, Oswald C. J. Hoffman (O.C.J.H.): “WAM church which faces the threat of being drowned by Satan’s lie: did all he could to put the Germanic Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod ‘on the American map’ and diminish its insularity and the legalism of some of its leaders. O.C.J.H. continued this effort both as the church’s director of The more unionism and syncretism is the sin and corrup- public relations and as Lutheran hour speaker, forging important links with tion of our time, the more the loyalty of the orthodox the secular media, mainstream Christianity, and evangelicalism. His close church now demands that the Lord’s Supper not be misused personal friendship with Billy Graham, with whom he has shared many a as a means of external union without internal unity of platform, is a case in point.” Oswald C. J. Hoffman, What More is There to Say but Amen? (St. Louis: Concordia, ), . faith.³⁰ LOGIA .Bloom,.   ,    

. Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: by slim majorities” (). The present writer has noted a trend among the Eerdmans, ), – and –. Florida fundies to change the verbiage of their Communion announce- . Lawrence R. Rast and Grant A. Knepper have traced the history of ments from welcoming all baptized Christians who believe in the real pres- Missouri’s adoption of the defense of the inerrancy of the autographs and ence “regardless of denomination” to “who share our doctrinal position.” the subsequent assumption that inerrancy does not extend into later edi- While the phrase “doctrinal position” is an improvement over “denomina- tions and translations. See “Collecting Autographs: Missouri’s Assumption tion,”the underlying meaning for Lutheran fundamentalists is still a string of Princeton’s Doctrine on the Autographs,” in All Theology is Christology: of pearls, not a body of teaching. Essays in Honor of David P. Scaer, ed. Dean O. Wenthe, William C. . ALS, , . Weinrich, et al. (Ft. Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, . ALS-IR, , , . ): –. Rast and Knepper build on the previous work of Milton . John A. T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology Rudnick, Fundamentalism and the Missouri: A Historical Study of Their (London: SCM Press, ), , . Robinson continues:“In the same way as Interaction and Mutual Influence (St. Louis: Concordia, ). Rudnick no clear distinction can be drawn between the flesh-body of Jesus and the defends the Lutheran roots of Missouri’s doctrine of inerrancy: “Not body of His resurrection, so there is no real line between the body of His Fundamentalism but Lutheran Orthodoxy is the Synod’s source of this resurrection and the flesh-bodies of those who are risen with Him; for they doctrine” (). Rast and Knepper agree with Rudnick on this point, but are members of it” (). postulate that an element of Fundamentalism found its way into Missouri, . David P.Scaer describes the flaws of the sensus literalis and its non- namely, “the doctrine of the inerrancy and inspiration of the autographa, sacramental approach to Jesus’ Bread of Life discourse: “John  is the the idea that original God-breathed character of the Scrpitures rests only in chessboard on which the traditional hermeneutical rules are either the “signed” copies produced by the original authors” (). Jordahl sum- ignored or shown to be inadequate. In making John  a discourse on marizes: “An inspired text which is unavailable cancels out precisely the faith, the unus sensus literalis est —which interprets “eating” as really “eat- intention behind sola scriptura”(). One popular Fundamentalist ing” and not “faith,” and “flesh” as really “flesh”—is replaced by a purely bumper sticker says, “If it ain’t King James, it ain’t Bible.” A Lutheranized allegorical interpretation in which these words are given a different version might say, “If it ain’t the autograph, it ain’t the Bible.” meaning.” “Once More to John ,” in Teach Me Thy Way, O Lord . Noll, . Noll cites Truth  (): , as quoted in Timothy P. (Houston, Texas: The Zweck Festschrift Committee, ), –.If Weber, Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming (New York: Oxford one understands the sensus literalis as one person instead of one calendar University Press, ), . day event, then John  may survive this precarious hermeneutical princi- . Ibid., –. ple. Jesus is speaking of the mystery of the Word made flesh. To omit any . DEUP, . sacramental reference is fundamentalistic. To seek an exclusive reference . Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran to the Lord’s Supper is too narrow. Church—Missouri Synod, Admission to the Lord’s Supper: Basics of Biblical . ALS-IR, . and Confessional Teaching (ALS), . . Gregory J. Lockwood,  Corinthians, Concordia Commentary: A . Admission to the Lord’s Supper: Initial Response (ALS-IR), .The Theological Exposition of Sacred Scripture (St. Louis: Concordia, ), unpublished ALS-IR (n.d.) is signed by a handful of the men who compiled . Lockwood notes that the word “sacrament” in the broad sense corre- the DEUP. The use of Romans :– in ALS-IR is cast in the spirit of the sponds to Paul’s use of “mystery,”for instance, the mystery of Christ and his fifth of twelve theses in “A Statement” by the :“We ... deplore the fact that church, the Trinity, the incarnation, the two natures in Christ, and election. Romans :,  has been applied to all Christians who differ from us in . Shuta notes a similar bifurcation between Christ and his Creed in a certain points of doctrine. It is our conviction, based on sound exegetical  sermon excerpt from Walter A. Maier on St. John :–: “This story and hermeneutical principles, that this text does not apply to the present of the blind man also shows us how we are to accept Jesus. When the Savior situation in the Lutheran Church of America” (Meyer, ). Oswald C. J. asked him, ‘Dost thou believe on the Son of God?’ and he answered, ‘I Hoffman was the youngest member of the  and wrote the defense of this believe,’ we see that our acceptance of His mercy must be personal, indi- thesis (Hoffman, –). vidual.You will never be saved by the creed of a church, even if it is  per- . Kurt Marquart, “The Church In The Twenty-First Century: Will cent in agreement with the Scriptures” (). There be a Lutheran One?” in All Theology is Christology, . . Marquart, . . ALS-IR, . David P. Scaer describes the sacramental challenge of . A humorous anecdote from my last days at the LCMS seminary in fundamentalistic exegesis: “Fundamentalists, or evangelicals, are consistent Ft. Wayne, Indiana, illustrates the need for instruction before Communion. in their antisacramentalism and demonstrate their loyalty to the Reformed A few days after receiving a divine call to a congregation in Florida, I heritage. They read the Scripture with a veil over their eyes. Evangelicals received a telephone call from a woman in Ohio who identified herself as a have a sacramental blindspot [sic]” (). What Scaer says of fundamentalist member of my congregation (yet unseen) in Florida. She mentioned that eschatology also applies to their doctrine of fellowship: “The Lutheran she and her husband lived in Ohio about six months of the year—a thirty- response to fundamentalist eschatology must, however, be given in anoth- minute drive from my seminary—and they would like for me to join them er way besides seeing who has the most Bible passages on his side” (). for dinner the following Wednesday night. She said Wednesday. I came on . Joseph A. Mussulman, Dear People . . . Robert Shaw (Chapel Hill, Tuesday. She definitely invited me for Wednesday. I hopped in my car and NC: Hinshaw Music, Inc., ), –. spent thirty minutes rehearing the newfound name “Pastor Hamer” as I . ALS, . drove to Ohio—on Tuesday. We quickly identified my sin of not listening . ALS-IR, . carefully to her instructions and arriving early for dinner. After polite intro- .ALS-IR, . The authors of ALS-IR reveal their secret partnership ductions and a good laugh, I drove back to Indiana and returned to their with the ELCA, “To load upon a potential communicant all the doctrinal home for dinner on Wednesday. Similarly, many folks wanting to take the positions advocated within a church body, as the ALS does, is going beyond Lord’s Supper in our congregations are not turned away from a lack of love what can legitimately be derived from [Rom. :–]. Who, except per- or deficient people skills, but because instruction precedes the meal. They haps a professional theologian or church administrator, is aware of every are early, not unwelcome. theological view advocated or even officially adopted by a church body over . Theses  from Theses On Communion Fellowship With Those the course of time? Even a professional theologian may have qualms about Who Believe Differently, trans. Lawrence White, ed. Paul T. McCain (Ft. some positions that have been adopted by a convention—sometimes even Wayne: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, ), . Called to Common Mission: A Lutheran Proposal?

Mark D. Menacher

j

     Called to Common Mission has been vocal and unremitting. In response, ELCA advocates of (hereafter CCM), the full-communion agreement between CCM have affirmed the Lutheran Confessional relationship to H the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the “episcopal succession” in a variety of ways. Congruent with CCM Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. Both the passage and the imple- paragraph , Michael Root, a professor at Trinity Lutheran mentation of CCM have been acclaimed by many Lutherans and Seminary and a member of the ELCA’s CCM drafting team, stat- Episcopalians as ecumenical milestones that have “made history.” ed in the journal dialog just prior to the ELCA’s passage of CCM: CCM initiates between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church an unprecedented level of cooperation and interchangeability that The Confessions are clear: the Lutherans were explicitly will- promises to enhance their common mission. ing to preserve the traditional episcopal order if they could These historical events have been made possible because the do so consistently with their evangelical commitments. The ELCA and the Episcopal Church have agreed to share an ecclesial Reformers did not wish to create a new church; they did not tradition called the “historic episcopate.”¹ The “historic episco- wish to break fellowship with the wider church; they explic- pate” in CCM refers to the sign of unity in the form of a tactile itly confessed their “deep desire” to preserve the traditional succession of bishops that ostensibly stretches back to the early polity (Ap , )....As Dorothea Wendebourg of times of the church. Permission, as it were, for the ELCA to adopt Tübingen has recently shown in detail (in a paper in Visible an “historic episcopate” has been granted by CCM paragraph , Unity and the Ministry of Oversight, the Church of England- which reads: Evangelical Church in Germany conversations), the Reformers made great efforts to preserve a traditional epis- “Historic succession” refers to a tradition which goes back to copal order, but this was so politically difficult as to be prac- the ancient church, in which bishops already in the succes- tically impossible in the Holy Roman Empire of the six- sion install newly elected bishops with prayer and the laying- teenth century. on-of-hands. At present The Episcopal Church has bishops Further on he says: in this historic succession, as do all the churches of the Anglican Communion, and the Evangelical Lutheran Some opponents of CCM are insisting that the ELCA will Church in America at present does not, although some violate its commitment to the Lutheran Confessions if it member churches of the Lutheran World Federation do. The adopts CCM. For at least some of us who support it, the issue Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of /, the ecumeni- is precisely the reverse. On the issue of ministry, the cal policy of The Episcopal Church, refers to this tradition as Confessions call us to embrace the opportunity CCM offers.² “the historic episcopate.” In the Lutheran Confessions, Article  of the Apology refers to this episcopal pattern by Similarly though more robustly, David Yeago, a professor at the phrase, “the ecclesiastical and canonical polity” which it Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, argued in an article is “our deep desire to maintain.” written for Lutheran Forum:

By thus equating the Anglican (Episcopalian) understanding of We must say No to polemics, which claim to represent true “historic episcopacy” with the polity mentioned in the Apology to Lutheranism, but obscure the clear endorsement in our the Augsburg Confession, CCM paragraph  cleared the way for Confessions of that body of practice now called the historic the ELCA’s  Churchwide Assembly to adopt CCM. episcopate as a bond of communion between the Churches: Despite the stated relationship between “historic succession” in “On this matter, as we often testified at Augsburg, we desire the episcopal office and the ranks of clergy mentioned in with the greatest eagerness to preserve the polity of the Article  of the Apology, opposition to CCM within the ELCA Church and the degrees of office in the Church, even if these were established by human authority. For we know that the Church’s order was set up by the Fathers in this way, as the M D. M is pastor of St. Paul Lutheran Church in Au Grés, ancient canons describe, by a good and helpful plan” Michigan. (Apology , ).”³   

Finally, Carl E. Braaten, of the Center for Catholic and tolic succession in the office of diocesan bishop could have no Evangelical Theology, in a more recent edition of dialog also binding power.” Referring to research by Georg Kretschmar,⁸ addressed the matter. Whereas Braaten first appears to aid the Wendebourg proceeds with the statement that when the notion of opponents of CCM when stating, “In the sixteenth century there “apostolic succession” had been “rediscovered” and had become a was no discussion whatsoever about the ‘historic episcopate.’ . . . marginal topic in rapprochement negotiations at Worms and at The same goes for the term ‘episcopal apostolic succession,’”⁴ he Regensburg (–), the “Wittenberg Reformers reacted to it then turns on such opponents and remarks: with a sharp rejection: With the theory of apostolic succession in the episcopate, the church would be made dependent upon the The folks linked to the Word Alone Network claim that the succession of the bishops.”⁹ Notably, although Wendebourg adoption of the episcopal office in apostolic succession employs the term “apostolic succession” in the body of her paper, would contradict the Lutheran Confessions. If this were the the primary source from Melanchthon to which she refers speaks case, why did the primary authors of the confessions— plainly of the pattern of Episcopos successisse and of successionem Luther and Melanchthon—express their “deep desire” to ordinariam as something that Melanchthon considered to be retain the episcopal office? Why did they call it “good and fraught with errors.¹⁰ useful?” The fact is that they saw no such contradiction, nor do the majority of Lutheran theologians around the world and most of the seminary faculties of the ELCA.⁵ The historical claims made in and made In a variety of ways, these ELCA scholars have sought to certify  that the concept of “episcopal succession” of whatever description congruent with paragraph are with- either was operational or was so integral to the office of bishop out historical foundation. that the Lutheran Reformers were referring to it when the nb Augsburg Confession and its Apology were written by Philip Melanchthon in –. In fact, without this support from the Lutheran Confessions it is highly unlikely that most people in the Third, in her next paragraph Wendebourg cites Ap ,  and ELCA would have taken CCM seriously as a viable ecumenical explains how the Reformers desired to maintain the constitution agreement. Therefore, it will come as a surprise to many in the and ranks of clergy in the church. From the context of these three ELCA that the historical claims made in and made congruent with paragraphs in Wendebourg’s paper, it should be clear that the CCM paragraph  are without historical foundation. The rest of Reformers’ desire to retain various ranks of clergy as per Article  this essay examines CCM paragraph  in relation to four topics: of the Apology included no desire to accept the pattern of “epis- academic credibility, historical reality, intellectual integrity, and copal succession” as both CCM paragraph  and the proponents ethical accountability. of CCM opine. Root’s misappropriation of Wendebourg’s research to support CCM AND ACADEMIC CREDIBILITY his position on CCM has not gone completely unnoticed. In certain respects, the proponents of CCM cited above are correct Elsewhere, Wendebourg herself indicates that she is both aware of when they state as per Article  of the Apology that the Lutheran and also disapproves of Root’s citing her in ways reversely to her Reformers desired to maintain the episcopal office as it then exist- historical research. Wendebourg rejects Root’s assumption that ed. These proponents, however, do not explain clearly what this the change in political circumstances since the Reformation peri- meant for the Reformers. Since Root cites Dorothea Wendebourg od somehow obliges Lutheran churches today to accept the in support of his position, perhaps the fruits of her research might medieval episcopal order, including the so-called historic episco- offer clarification on the matter at hand.⁶ Three points will be pate. On the contrary, the Lutheran Reformers were necessarily made from three successive paragraphs in Wendebourg’s paper. obliged to break with the then existent ecclesial order so that they First, when Wendebourg states that the Wittenberg Reformers could maintain “apostolic continuity.”¹¹ Thus, according to strove emphatically to preserve the episcopate in its traditional Wendebourg, the single office of ministry in Lutheran churches order, and when she further remarks how striking it is that they exists as a legitimate ecclesial development that occurred under sought to do so with such persistence and readiness to compro- the guidance of the Holy Spirit.¹² mise, Wendebourg refers chiefly to the political motivation of the To make this point absolutely clear, Wendebourg’s research as Reformers to retain the office or estate of bishop as an entity reported in her essay in Visible Unity and the Ministry of Oversight within the Holy Roman Empire. As Wendebourg comments, demonstrates that when the Lutheran Reformers began to ordain “One did not want to place oneself outside the legal structures of pastors regularly in , candidates for the ministry of word and the empire.”⁷ Clearly, the Reformers’ activities had already made sacrament were ordained to the single office of pastor as bishops.¹³ their predicament in the Holy Roman Empire precarious Wendebourg further shows that the Reformers’ ordination prac- enough. Thus at Augsburg in  they sought to demonstrate tice modeled the ordination practice of the early church according that they were responsible subjects and churchmen and not rad- to Canon  of the Council of Nicea, wherein pastors as bishops ical revolutionaries. from neighboring cities gathered to ordain their new colleague(s) Second, in the next paragraph of the sequence in question into office. Consequently, “[t]he newly ordained entered thereby Wendebourg then shows that for the Reformers “the idea of apos- into an episcopal line of succession.”¹⁴ Again, with reference to    :    

Georg Kretschmar,¹⁵ Wendebourg continues, “Nevertheless, this which Luther expressed the following similar sentiment on the idea carried no weight in the considerations of those participating matter in . Luther contended unequivocally, “In the church, [in such ordinations] as the concept of apostolic succession in the the succession of bishops does not make a bishop, but the Lord office of bishop in the sixteenth century generally—on all sides— alone is our bishop.”²¹ played only a marginal role.”¹⁶ In summary, at the time of Melanchthon’s writing of the As the insights to be gained from Kretschmar’s research are the Augsburg Confession and its Apology in –, neither the next topic of discussion, at this juncture it would be fair to con- Roman ecclesial establishment nor the Lutheran Reformers knew clude that Root’s invocation of Wendebourg’s research to support of “episcopal succession.”Also, the validity of an ordination in the his position in his article in dialog is simply incredible, in the sense Roman church was neither dependent upon nor restricted to the of having no credibility whatsoever. Viewed in its totality, the laying on of hands by bishops, to say nothing of bishops in “his- material in Wendebourg’s paper not only redresses Root’s misuse toric succession.” Finally, although the Lutheran Confessions are of Wendebourg’s paper, but more importantly it undermines dra- silent on the matter of “episcopal succession” for the reasons matically the text of CCM paragraph , which Root helped to shown, the Lutheran Reformers were not. When the notion of draft. Whereas such “scholarship” would hardly be deemed “episcopal succession” was “rediscovered” (or invented) in acceptable from a seminarian, from a seminary professor it is –, both Luther and Melanchthon rejected it out of hand. esteemed in the highest echelons of the ELCA to be laudable. Kretschmar’s research clearly demonstrates that both the text of CCM paragraph  and the claims by the proponents of CCM CCM AND HISTORICAL REALITY cited above are historically inaccurate, misleading, or both. The research from Georg Kretschmar to which Wendebourg repeatedly refers in her paper in Visible Unity and the Ministry of CCM AND INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY Oversight impinges directly upon the historical accuracy of The next portion of this essay will concentrate both upon CCM paragraph  and its claim that “historic succession” in the Kretschmar’s research as cited above and upon the relationship office of bishop was the “ecclesiastical and canonical polity between his research and the nature of the claims made in the text which the Lutheran Reformers desired to maintain.”The essence of CCM paragraph . For the sake of thoroughness, six points will of Kretschmar’s research in this respect may be encapsulated as be made. These points raise a number of important questions follows. about the intellectual integrity of CCM and of its proponents. First, Kretschmar indicates in the very first paragraph of his First, in addition to being familiar with Kretschmar’s findings essay that the concept of “apostolic succession” was not a matter through Wendebourg’s essay in Visible Unity and the Ministry of of controversy in the first decades of the sixteenth century. “The Oversight, Michael Root indicates elsewhere that he has known of Wittenberg Reformers, at least until the time of the Imperial Diet Kretschmar’s essay in Heubach’s Festschrift since its publication in at Regensburg in , had neither affirmed nor rejected it. They .²² Despite this, CCM paragraph  appears to have been draft- knew of the concept just as little as their contemporaries. Also, the ed without regard to Kretschmar’s historical insights. If Root has Lutheran Confessions were not taking issue with this ancient known of Kretschmar’s research since , why then did he not ecclesial conception.”¹⁷ Also relevant for the terms of agreement make his knowledge of it widely known in order to facilitate a bal- in CCM, Kretschmar further notes that under the papacy at that anced and historically accurate discussion on CCM? time ordinations were not the exclusive domain of the bishops. Abbots and priests duly authorized by the Pope could also ordain candidates into the priesthood.¹⁸ Second, Kretschmar in the main point of his essay later explains The Lutheran Reformers could not have that the concept of “episcopal succession” was, in a sense, “redis- covered” and advanced by Johannes Gropper (–) between been referring to “episcopal succession” –, partly in response to the Reformation and partly as a as the “ecclesiastical and canonical ¹⁹ means to reform the Roman church from within. Then, when polity” that they “desired to maintain.” the idea of “episcopal succession” began to gain currency in –, the Reformers reacted against it. In , Philip nb Melanchthon countered:

This testimony is cited by one, so that it will be thought firstly Second, as one who has read Kretschmar’s research, Root what the church might be, and the spirit is separated from the should be aware of the fact that “episcopal succession” was “redis- carnal opinions, which imagine the church to be a state of covered” around – by Johannes Gropper.²³ From the bishops and bind it to the orderly succession of bishops, as chronological order of events, it should have been rather obvious the empires consist of the orderly succession of princes. But to Root that if the concept of “episcopal succession” was not oper- the church maintains itself differently. Actually, it is a union ational in –, then the Lutheran Reformers could not have not bound to the orderly succession but to the word of God.²⁰ been referring to it as the “ecclesiastical and canonical polity” that they “desired to maintain”as per Apology . That being the case, Kretschmar’s reportage of Melanchthon’s position regarding how and why could Root as one of CCM’s drafters sanction the “episcopal succession” also clarifies the historical context in present text of CCM paragraph ?  

Third, as neither the Roman ecclesial establishment nor the Thomas Cranmer. Cranmer was heavily reliant upon Martin Bucer Lutheran Reformers knew what “episcopal succession” was until for his concepts, and it should be noted that Bucer had worked –, it is rather difficult to understand how anyone can closely with Gropper around .²⁹ Thus from Kretschmar’s maintain, as Root does,²⁴ that “episcopal succession” was never- research it seems plain that Anglican ecclesial polity represents a theless “practiced” when the Augsburg Confession and its variant form of the Roman “episcopal succession” already rejected Apology were written. Surely, for something to be practiced it by the Reformers in  and . Moreover, because Pope Leo  must be done so consciously and deliberately. More importantly, in his Bull of , Apostolicae Curae, declared all Anglican ordina- however, Article  of the Augsburg Confession and its Apology tions since —that is, since Bucer’s activities in Britain—to be speaks primarily and specifically about the orderly, that is, the reg- “absolutely null and utterly void,”³⁰ why has Root not acknowl- ular calling of ministers, and not at all about their orderly succes- edged that “historic episcopacy” in the Anglican sense is doubly sion. Having been cognizant of Kretschmar’s findings since , rejected and thus doubly removed from the medieval Roman poli- why did Root apparently not inform even his colleague David ty mentioned in Article  of the Apology? Yeago about this, who was still of the opinion in , as shown If, according to CCM paragraph , “historic succession” in the above, that Article  of the Apology clearly endorsed “that body episcopal office is merely “a tradition which goes back to the ancient of practice now called the historic episcopate”? church, in which bishops already in the succession install newly elected bishops with prayer and the laying-on-of-hands,” and if, according to CCM paragraph , “episcopal succession” is “not nec- essary for salvation or for recognition of another church as a Article  of the Augsburg Confession church,”and if, according to CCM paragraphs  and ,³¹ this same succession can be interpreted even in contradictory ways to suit the and its Apology speaks primarily and fancies of any given church, then the “historic episcopate” in CCM specifically about the orderly, that is, the would seem to be so narrow and so isolated and so meaningless as regular calling of ministers, and not at to have no inherent value at all. The attempts made in CCM para- graph  to collapse the complex, medieval Roman ecclesiastical and all about their orderly succession. canonical polity into such a crude, mechanistic, and meaningless nb pattern of “episcopal succession” and the further witting or unwit- ting attempts made by some proponents of CCM to force history to conform to a present ecumenical goal centered on this superficial Fourth, as Kretschmar notes, Philip Melanchthon rejected pattern of “episcopal succession” represent an intellectual crisis in “episcopal succession” in  as the polity advanced by “carnal the ELCA of untold proportions. Sacrificing the remarkable intel- opinions, which imagine the church to be a state of bishops and lectual tradition of the Lutheran Reformation for a mindless pat- bind it to the orderly succession of bishops.”²⁵ The “carnal opin- tern of “historic succession” in the episcopal office hardly seems like ions”of Melanchthon’s day stand unmistakably close to those a fair or honorable arrangement. If Root had been more forthcom- today who advance “episcopal succession” as part of an “organic” ing with the contents of both Wendebourg’s and Kretschmar’s understanding of the church and of its unity. How then have essays, then perhaps many ELCA Lutherans, including “most of the scholars so well versed in ecumenical affairs apparently failed to seminary faculties of the ELCA,” would have more readily recog- make this rather simple conceptual association as it impinges nized the clear contradictions between CCM and the Lutheran tra- upon the nature and requirements of CCM? dition that many ELCA Lutherans hold dear. Fifth, Root should have learned from Kretschmar’s essay that Despite all that, the research and arguments presented above Gropper’s formulations on “episcopal succession” were anti- may at this time be moot. The history-making events of the pas- Protestant in nature.²⁶ The same applies to the polity of Anglican sage and implementation of Called to Common Mission have come churches, especially since . Otherwise, their so-called historic and gone, and they are themselves becoming history. The ELCA catholic episcopate (see CCM paragraphs ,²⁷ , and ) would has now set itself on the long process of making itself “episco- not be the primary obstacle to unity between Anglican and non- palian” enough to be eligible for full communion with the historic episcopally ordered churches.²⁸ With such knowledge, Episcopal Church. This will transpire only after it has been deter- why has Root as a Lutheran theologian helped to engineer an mined that both churches share a “ministry of bishops in the his- agreement whose primary goal is to oblige the ELCA to accom- toric episcopate” (CCM paragraph ).³² Thus, contrary to modate and then to administer against its own clergy this anti- Melanchthon, this process began when the ELCA as a church Protestant polity of the Episcopal Church? bound itself to an orderly succession of bishops (CCM paragraph Sixth, having read Kretschmar’s work, Root should also be aware ), and it will be completed, contrary to Luther, after all the ELCA’s that the “ecclesiastical and canonical polity” practiced by the bishops have been made bishops by bishops in succession (CCM medieval Roman church included a seven-layer understanding of paragraph ). It should not be this way, but now it is. the office of ministry in which ordination to the priesthood was the seventh and final step. Later, Kretschmar also points out that the CCM AND ETHICAL ACCOUNTABILITY “first post-medieval church order in the West in which the threefold In light of the preceding discussions, perhaps it should not be office and apostolic succession were assumed” was that established surprising that this essay will conclude with a few words about in the Ordinal to the first Book of Common Prayer (–) by CCM and ethical accountability. As a result of CCM paragraph ,    :     many members of the ELCA—particularly the voting members and their accompanying atrocities is the insidious ambition of of the ELCA’s  Churchwide Assembly, which passed CCM — episcopalian religious intolerance. have been wrongly led to believe that in the Lutheran By incorporating the principles of episcopalian religious intol- Confessions “Article  of the Apology refers to this episcopal erance into its ordained ministry, the ELCA has become an entity pattern by the phrase, ‘the ecclesiastical and canonical polity’ of institutionalized ethical hypocrisy. Henceforth many existing which it is ‘our deep desire to maintain.’” Likewise, many ELCA or future ethical pronouncements or policies made by the ELCA members have also been wrongly led to believe by Michael Root will be undermined and discredited by the ELCA’s sharing of this that “the Confessions call us to embrace the opportunity CCM episcopalian religious intolerance that has wrought countless vio- offers,” and by David Yeago that there is a “clear endorsement in lations of human rights and dignity. Here are a few readily avail- our Confessions of that body of practice now called the historic able examples of such ethical hypocrisy. episcopate,” and by Carl E. Braaten that the primary authors of the confessions—Luther and Melanchthon—“saw no contradic- tion” between the episcopal office in apostolic succession and the Lutheran Confessions. Given the length of time since Michael  Root first became aware of Kretschmar’s and Wendebourg’s CCM paragraph serves chiefly to research, there should be no reason whatsoever for anyone in the divert attention from the real condition ELCA to have been wrongly led to believe anything about the in CCM for unity between the ELCA Lutheran Confessions or about the intentions of the Reformers in relation to “episcopal succession.”³³ and the Episcopal Church. As ethically serious as these matters might be, they are not the nb primary ethical consideration in relation to CCM that now faces the ELCA. Whether or not by design, CCM paragraph  serves chiefly to divert attention from the real condition in CCM for unity In  the Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA voted “[t]o between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church. As CCM stand by those members of this church, who, being motivated by paragraph  makes clear, the unity sought between the Episcopal deep faith and led by conscience, offer sanctuary to refugees Church and the ELCA is to be achieved not according to the “eccle- fleeing life-threatening situations”³⁷; and in  the ELCA’s siastical and canonical polity” mentioned in Article  of the Churchwide Assembly adopted A Social Statement on the Death Apology, but instead according to the principles of the  Preface Penalty which stated, “It is because of this church’s ministry with to the Anglican ordination rites, namely, the Ordinal. Notably, this and to people affected by violent crime that we oppose the death Preface is firmly anchored in the  Act of Uniformity, and penalty.”³⁸ Yet through CCM the ELCA has now aligned itself with through this Act the English state and the bishops of the Church of a religious tradition that caused thousands to become “refugees England sought to eradicate all non-episcopalian forms of fleeing life-threatening situations,”due in part to the death penal- Christian expression in England and Wales. In that process, about ty; and worse yet, the ELCA has placed this tradition’s religious two thousand—or one-fifth—of the clergy in the Church of intolerance at the heart of its ordained ministry.³⁹ Also in  the England were ejected from ministerial office for refusing to submit ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly committed itself “to addressing in to episcopal ordination by  August .³⁴ In addition, many all aspects of its life and work the destructive results of racism.”⁴⁰ thousands were persecuted, jailed, and fined, and many hundreds In contrast, the ELCA’s commitment to the episcopalianism died from such treatment or were killed, all for the simple reason demanded by CCM has brought destructive results to much of the that they aspired not to be episcopalian. Still today, all Anglican ELCA’s life and work, as present divisions over CCM clearly churches are bound by the same intolerant principles of this demonstrate. In  the ELCA decided “[t]o denounce hate, vio- Preface through which Anglicans—and Episcopalians—set them- lence, and intolerance, in all forms, including acts directed at reli- selves apart from non-episcopalian Christian traditions.³⁵ gious groups.”⁴¹ Nevertheless the ELCA has now obliged itself to Consequently, in order to become acceptable for full communion adopt and to internalize a form of church governance defined by with the Episcopal Church, CCM now requires the ELCA to share seventeenth-century religious intolerance that has brought and and to administer against its own future pastors and bishops these still brings hate and violence in its wake. It is no coincidence that same principles of religious intolerance.³⁶ This is hardly what Jesus the ELCA is now prepared to expel from its roster of leaders cler- meant when he prayed “that they might be one” (John :, ). gy who are part of religious groups or congregations deemed to be For many in the ELCA, it would be ethically rather disconcert- schismatic,⁴² like those that actively oppose CCM. Finally, in  ing to discover that their church has bound itself to the principles the ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly directed “the Division for of seventeenth-century, English parliamentary legislation that has Church in Society to continue its work with other appropriate caused so much destruction and death. Yet this too does not rep- churchwide units to study the matter of religious persecution and resent the ethical dilemma facing the ELCA. Certainly, no one religious freedom and assist this church to respond effectively and today would expect either the ELCA or the Episcopal Church to sensitively to violations of the human right of freedom of repeat the atrocities that accompanied the implementation of the thought, conscience, and religion.”⁴³ At that same Churchwide principles of the Preface to the Anglican Ordinal, the  Act of Assembly the ELCA adopted CCM, and in so doing the Assembly Uniformity, and the other relevant Acts used to enforce them. voted to require the ELCA to commune fully with an ecclesial tra- Nevertheless, what undergirds CCM and unites it with these Acts dition that owes its present existence to the  Act of Uniformity   and to the persecution used to enforce this Act against that if he could not be convinced by the testimony of Scripture or Presbyterians, Baptists, Catholics, and other religious groups. by clear reason (“nisi convictus furero testmoniis scripturarum By binding itself to the intolerant principles of the  Preface aut ratione evidenti”), then he would stand firmly in his refusal to to the ordination rites, that is, the Ordinal of the Episcopal submit to those authorities.⁴⁴ Being held captive by the word of Church, the ELCA violates the freedoms of thought, conscience, God meant that Luther was truly free, something he began to and religion that the Lutheran Reformers fought so hard to demonstrate as early as – by changing the spelling of his acquire. Because CCM requires the ELCA to adopt and to share name from Luder to Luther to reflect the Latin and Greek words the intolerant principles of an episcopalian “ecclesiastical and for “free,” eleutherius and eleutheros, respectively.⁴⁵ canonical polity” that was restored and enforced for decades Contrary to Luther and Melanchthon, in recent years the “car- through “the cruelty of the bishops” (Ap , ;Tappert,) of nal opinions” in the ELCA have allowed their imaginations to the Church of England, it should be self-evident that the whole of become captivated by the notion of binding their church to the CCM runs contrary not only to the letter and spirit of Article  orderly succession of bishops. “Episcopal succession” is some- of the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, but also to the corpus thing for which there is no basis in Scripture,⁴⁶ and the propo- of the Lutheran Confessions. nents of CCM as cited above, especially Root, show little evidence To conclude, by putting the legal principles of episcopalian reli- of employing clear reason in their support of CCM. By binding gious intolerance before the promises of the gospel, and by itself to the principles of the Preface to the ordination rites, the putting the sinister statutes of the seventeenth-century English Ordinal of the Episcopal Church, the ELCA has lost it footing, kingdom before the rightful domain of the kingdom of Christ, the has submitted to base, temporal authorities, and has—in more ELCA has created for itself a series of crises with respect to acad- than one sense of the word —made the reality of the seventeenth emic credibility, historical reality, intellectual integrity, and ethical century, episcopalian religious intolerance, constitutionally part accountability. When the young monk Martin Luther appeared of the ELCA. As a result, it is fair to say that Called to Common before the Emperor Charles v, the nobility, and the ecclesial Mission is not a Lutheran proposal for unity with the Episcopal authorities at the Imperial Diet at Worms in , things were very Church. Rather, Called to Common Mission would be better different. There Luther confessed that his conscience was held named The Episcopalian Captivity of the Evangelical Lutheran captive to the word of God (“capta conscientia in verbis dei”), and Church in America. LOGIA

NOTES . The word “episcopate” is derived from the Greek word episkopos or the menische Studien zur Frage des kirchlichen Amtes, ed. D. Wendebourg Latin word episcopus which means “overseer” or “supervisor.” Episkopé refers (Göttingen: ), pp. ff. This essay was first published with the same title to “oversight.”Cognates of “episcopate”in English are “episcopal,”meaning “of in Kirche in der Schule Luthers —Festschrift für D. Joachim Heubach,ed.B. a bishop or bishops,” and “episcopacy,” which refers to the “governance of a Hägglund and G. Müller (Erlangen: Martin-Luther-Verlag, ), –.In church by bishops.” all, Wendebourg refers eight times to Kretschmar’s essay in the course of her . Michael Root, “Called to Common Mission and the Ecumenical Vision paper. of the Confessions,” dialog: A Journal of Theology ,no. (Spring ): – . Wendebourg, Die eine Christenheit, . CCM makes both the ELCA’s (italics original). unity with the Episcopal Church and the ELCA’s constitutional existence . David Yeago, “Gospel and Church: Twelve Articles of Theological “dependent upon the succession of the bishops.” Principle Amid the Present Conflict in the ELCA,” Lutheran Forum ,no. . Wendebourg, Die eine Christenheit,  note . Here Wendebourg (Spring ): –. Michael Root agrees with David Yeago that succession quotes Melanchthon’s critique of the Regensburg Book regarding apostolic in the episcopal office was “practiced” at the time of the writing of the “episcopal succession.”There Melanchthon comments,“And there were these Apology to the Augsburg Confession (correspondence from th June errors in the article that states that bishops stand in succession [Episcopos suc- ). cessisse] in the place of the apostles. From this saying many errors immedi- . Carl E. Braaten, “Episcopacy and the E.L.C.A.,” dialog: A Journal of ately follow: that the church is tied to the orderly succession [successionem Theology ,no. (Fall ): . ordinariam], as if it were impossible for the bishops to err because they hold . Ibid., . the place of the apostles, or as if these were bishops, so they are called, and it . Dorothea Wendebourg,“Die Reformation in Deutschland und das bis- were necessary to listen to them as heads of the church” (Corpus chöfliche Amt,” in Die eine Christenheit auf Erden (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr Reformatorum, ed. C. G. Bretschneider and H. E. Bindseil [Halle/Saale, - [Paul Siebeck], ), –. Whereas Root refers in his dialog article to the ], : ). English version of Wendebourg’s paper, the German version and its English . Dorothea Wendebourg,“Das Amt und die Ämter,”Zeitschrift für evan- translation were first published, as Root indicates, in Visible Unity and the gelisches Kirchenrecht (Sonderdruck) ,no. (March ) [hereafter ZevKR]: Ministry of Oversight. The Second Theological Conference held under the –, especially , note . Meissen Agreement between the Church of England and the Evangelical Church . Wendebourg, ZevKR, –, note . in Germany, ed. I. Dalferth and R. Hoare (London: ), – (German); . Ibid., –, –. – (English). Unless otherwise stated, all translations in this essay are the . Wendebourg, Die eine Christenheit, –. author’s. . Kretschmar, “Die Wiederentdeckung des Konzeptes der . Wendebourg, Die eine Christenheit, . Furthermore, the Reformers »Apostolischen Sukzession« im Umkreis der Reformation.” For the purposes also recognized that a dismantling of the estate of bishops would allow secu- of this essay, citations from Kretschmar’s essay are taken from its original pub- lar princes with little interest or time for theological matters undue influence lication in the Festschrift for Joachim Heubach as per note  above. over the life of the church. For obvious reasons, the Reformers desired to . Wendebourg, Die eine Christenheit, . The material in brackets is avoid just such a situation (see also pages –, –). added for the sake of clarity of the quotation. . Wendebourg, Die eine Christenheit, , note . Wendebourg provides . Kretschmar, . the full reference on page , note , as G. Kretschmar, “Die . Ibid., , note . Wiederentdeckung des Konzeptes der ‘Apostolischen Sukzession’ im Umkreis . Ibid., –. der Reformation,” in Das bischöfliche Amt. Kirchengeschichtliche und öku- . Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, ed. von Robert (Gütersloh:    :    

Stupperich, ), : , –. See Kretschmar, –. . The English Parliament eventually came to the realization that .WA : . enforced conformity to Episcopalianism was not civil. Thus in  it passed . Correspondence from  June  (see note  above). the Act of Toleration, which ameliorated but did not repeal the  Act of . See Kretschmar, –. Uniformity or the penal laws used to enforce it. The  Act of Toleration . Correspondence from  June  (see note  above). serves as an “act of admission” by the English Parliament that the  Act of . Kretschmar, . Uniformity was an act of religious intolerance. As one might expect, though, . Ibid., . In light of Wendebourg’s research, the question arises the Act of Toleration of  could not legislate a more inclusive attitude. whether Gropper’s “rediscovery” of “episcopal succession” emerged as a “Even under the new liberty granted to Dissenters by the Act of Toleration means to counter the recently developed Lutheran practice of ordaining pas- there was still strong episcopalian antipathy” towards Dissenters, their acade- tors as bishops. If so, then by adopting an “historic episcopate” the ELCA mies, and their ministries. See John T. Wilkinson, –and After: Three would subscribe to a central moment of the Counter-Reformation. Centuries of English Nonconformity (London: Epworth Press, ), . . Any attempt to attenuate Melanchthon’s and Luther’s rejection of Unfortunately, by strictly adhering to the Preface to the Ordinal from the  “episcopal succession” and its anti-Protestant nature in Anglicanism by inter- Book of Common Prayer, as required by the  Act of Uniformity, preting it in relation to CCM paragraph  (that episcopal succession is not Episcopalianism has never fully disavowed its intolerant stance in relation to necessary to salvation nor essential to the church as church) should be regard- non-historic episcopally ordained clergy, such as those who serve in the ed as subterfuge.As shown above, the terminology used by both Melanchthon ELCA. That the Episcopal Church is willing to suspend its religious intoler- and Luther refers unmistakeably to the pattern of “episcopal succession” ance temporarily until the ELCA can implement this intolerance (CCM para- (CCM paragraph ), with little or no emphasis upon its ecclesial nature or its graph ) is hardly a concession. Also, the decision by the ELCA’s  salvific value (see CCM paragraph ). Clearly, the ELCA will be in full com- Churchwide Assembly, a half year after CCM came into force, to adopt a bylaw munion with the Episcopal Church only when it has been determined that allowing ministerial candidates in “unusual circumstances” to be ordained both churches share the pattern of Anglican Holy Orders, which which CCM outside the “historic episcopate” confirms paradoxically both the incivility of paragraph  describes as the “ministry of bishops in the historic episcopate.” Anglican religious intolerance and the predominance of such religious intol- . Generally, Episcopalians consider non-historic episcopally ordered erance in the ELCA. churches, like the ELCA, to be inferior to their own. According to Arthur . ELCA Churchwide Assembly Action CA.. ()—Central Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury (–), Protestant American Refugees. churches without an historic episcopate are incomplete. “() With the lack . A Social Statement on the Death Penalty, Evangelical Lutheran Church of the historical structure, the sense of worship as the act of the one historic in America, September . society has been lost....() With the defective sense of worship as the act . Those who refused to conform to Episcopalianism were called of the historic society, there grows easily a false emphasis on the place of Separatists or Dissenters and later Nonconformists. In order to eradicate human feelings in worship and in religion generally. . . . () With defect in persistent dissent from the Church of England, in April  “there was life and worship there is defect in the presentation of truth. By its attempt passed An Act for Retaining the Queen’s Subjects in their due Obedience. to make a ‘nude’ appeal to Scripture, Protestantism has failed to find a cen- Anyone over the age of sixteen who refused to attend church for a month tre of unity and authority in doctrine.” See Arthur Michael Ramsey, The [that is, the Church of England], or who attempted to persuade others not Gospel and the Catholic Church (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), to attend church, or who attended unauthorized religious meetings, was to –. Furthermore, according to the Lambeth Conference of , for be committed to prison. If the offender did not conform within three Anglicans it is impossible either “to declare the sacraments of non-episco- months he was to be given the alternative of exile or death.” See Michael R. pal bodies null and void” or “to treat non-episcopal ministries as identical Watts, The Dissenters: From the Reformation to the French Revolution in status and authority with the episcopal ministry.”See Richard A. Norris, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), –. Understandably, most of those who “Episcopacy,” in The Study of Anglicanism, ed. Stephen Sykes and John did not want to conform to Episcopalianism, such as the Pilgrim Fathers, Booty (London: SPCK; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ), . Thus with- opted for exile, often in The Netherlands, rather than face execution. out the “historic episcopate” non-historic episcopally ordered churches are . ELCA Churchwide Assembly Action CA.. ()—Racism. considered in classic episcopalian thought to be defective and not fully part . ELCA Churchwide Assembly Action CA.. ()—Extremist of the body of Christ. Groups. . See Kretschmar, , , –. . On Ordained Ministers: Manual of Policies and Procedures for . See Paul F. Bradshaw, “Ordinals,” in The Study of Anglicanism, Management of the Rosters of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,Part –.  (revised March ), . “Other Matters—B. No Dual Roster Membership: . CCM paragraph  indicates that Lutheran bishops entering the “his- An ordained minister of this church who enters the ordained ministry, or toric episcopate” will be considered by the Episcopal Church to have been joins a congregation of another church body or religious group, or who serves ordained into it. The ELCA, however, will consider such bishops only to have a group schismatic from this church or from a congregation thereof, shall been installed, not ordained, into it. By interpreting this same episcopal rite in cease to be a member of this church. The ordained minister’s name shall be contrary ways the ELCA and the Episcopal Church demonstrate that CCM removed from the roster of the ordained ministers by the bishop of the synod, offers no true unity between these two churches. who shall report the action to the secretary of this church and to the next . In relation to the Concordat of Agreement, the predecessor agreement Synod Assembly.” This new disciplinary measure mimics in certain ways a to CCM rejected by the ELCA’s  Churchwide Assembly, Root readily talks central provision of the  Act of Uniformity in that refusal to accept about accepting an “historic episcopate” as a condition for unity with enforced episcopalianism resulted in expulsion from the Church of England. Anglican churches generally and with the Episcopal Church specifically. See . ELCA Churchwide Assembly Action CA.. ()—Religious Michael Root,“Conditions of Communion: Bishops, the Concordat, and the Persecution. Augsburg Confession,” in Inhabiting Unity: Theological Perspectives on the . Luther, WA : , –. Cf., “Address of Doctor Martin Luther before Proposed Lutheran-Episcopal Concordat, ed. E. Radner and R. R. Reno (Grand the Emperor Charles and the Princes,” in Deutsche Reichstagsakte–Jüngere Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ), –. Reihe (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, ), : , –. Notably, this condition for unity in the Concordat became a “gift” to be . Bernd Moeller and Karl Stackmann, “Luder-Luther-Eleutherius: “freely” accepted in CCM (paragraph ). Erwägungen zu Luthers Namen,” in Nachrichten der Akamemie der . Luther would put the matter more strongly. In Against Hanswurst Wissenschaften in Göttingen. I. Philologisch- Historische Klasse (Göttingen, Luther wrote, “Therefore the holy church cannot and may not lie or suffer Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ). false doctrine, but must teach nothing except what is holy and true, that is, . Ernst Käsemann, “Verkirchlichte Freiheit,” Der Ruf der Freiheit, th God’s word alone; and where it teaches a lie it is idolatrous and the whore- ed. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], ), –. Käsemann church of the devil” AE : ). writes, “The apostolic succession of the episcopal office is quite simply — . David Ogg, England in the Reign of Charles , d ed. (Oxford: naturally I can only speak in the name of historical criticism—one of many Clarendon Press, ), : –. Christian fictions. There is only one apostolic succession that allows itself . See note  above. undoubtedly to be proven historically, namely, the discipleship of Christ.” Private Confession and Absolution

Wilhelm Loehe With an Introduction by the Translator K G. W j

     and absolution has been ation of sins since the Fourth Lateran Council in  .. neglected within the Lutheran Church to such an extent Voluntary confession to a presbyter is known to have exist- T and for so long that the average person thinks it to be a tra- ed already since about  ..⁵ dition of the Roman Catholic Church only. The confession of sins at the beginning of the Divine Service (referred to in this Q. When then did our public, corporate confession come into use? essay as corporate confession)¹ is that to which most Lutheran A. For the Lutheran Church, it has been there from the churches have become accustomed, and now even that is left as beginning, as Loehe will point out. Prior to that, it had optional in the Lutheran Book of Worship, though not without already existed for at least  years.⁶ However, “What we good reason. Nevertheless, Lutherans who desire to be faithful now term the General Confession, as for instance, in The either realize already that private confession and absolution is an Lutheran Hymnal, comes from the Reformed Church and important part of the faith, or they are willing to learn about it. was not accepted as a substitute for private confession by The Lutheran Confessions are not silent about this practice.² It is the Lutheran Church....”⁷ Loehe will show that both are troublesome that Lutherans have moved so far from a penitential to be used, neither to the exclusion of the other. life and the faithful use of private confession and absolution. Consequently, most parishioners are ignorant of its confessional Q. But is not the public confession good enough? Why should one status, as are many pastors. bother going to confess sins privately? As the Lutheran Church struggles to regain this wonderful and A. First, there is a public confession that predates what is salutary practice, it is an absolute necessity that her pastors regain today known as public confession by more than  a knowledge of the nature of confession and absolution, by which years. This public confession of the early church was a called and ordained pastor can proclaim absolution to his con- called Exomologesis and consisted in an individual coming gregation; and of individual confession, by which only a skilled before the presbyter and all the brethren to confess his Seelsorger³ can beneficially administer and proclaim absolution particular sin. (This was not the exclusive use of this term; to the individual. The misuse and abuse of individual confession it also referred to confession in general). Discussed at that led to its abandonment serves to warn that if private confes- length in Chapters – of Tertullian’s On Repentance ( sion is to be brought into use again, our pastors must be skilled ..), Exomologesis was seen as the method of confession Seelsorger who know how to teach it to their parishioners dili- used for the lapsed (those who have sinned after baptism), gently, to administer individual absolution faithfully, and to con- wherein fasting, wearing sackcloth and ashes, and lying in fess their own sins to their father-confessors. It is to this end that the dirt served to display great humility. Within the the following translation from Wilhelm Loehe has been pre- Medieval Roman Catholic Church Tertullian’s talk about pared, so that our English-reading pastors and seminarians may satisfactions, which a penitent makes, came to be much better understand and be better equipped to use and administer abused. Nevertheless, this system of repentance had the this special gift of God to the church. individual confessing a particular sin and receiving per- However, a few historical questions need first to be addressed sonal counsel and absolution from the presbyter. briefly. As the last question and answer demonstrates, aspects of con- Q. Is not private confession and absolution just a Roman Catholic fession may be left out of discussion by common terminology. practice that Luther was not willing to give up completely? Moreover, the multiplicity of terms, sometimes interchangeable, A. Private confession and absolution was in fact practiced in sometimes not, sometimes from an original writing, sometimes the early church, but not in the same manner as the from a translation, can easily result in confusion. Roman Catholic practice,⁴ which has required an enumer- Discussion may be simplified by breaking confession into two bipartite fields: () private or public, () general or particular. Although common usage equates “general confession” with K G. W is a graduate student at Concordia Theological “public confession” in reference to the formula “I/we confess . . .” Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana. spoken by the congregation at the beginning of a service, such    usage limits these terms to a field narrower than their actual body of people at one time. Note also the common practice applications. For example, it excludes the fact that one can make to follow this confession with a declaration of grace instead a general confession in private, and that one can make a public of absolution.) confession without the whole congregation simultaneously speaking the same confession. These applications of confession Particular-Public Confession is an individual’s confession of a are easily forgotten and indeed often not used at all when defined public sin that may have resulted in excommunication. too narrowly. This may appear to be inconsequential to some, but Following public absolution, the penitent again is able to nothing less than the salutary use of private confession and receive the Lord’s Supper. excommunication is at stake. Private Confession is either a general or a particular confes- sion made in the presence of only the father-confessor by an individual who receives either a general or a particular absolution, respectively, from the father-confessor. While If private confession is to be brought into the absolution itself is almost always general (for example, use again, our pastors must be skilled “I forgive you all your sins . . .”), particular absolution Seelsorger who know how to teach it involves the application of admonition and comfort direct- ed to the particular sin or sins confessed. Note that this to their parishioners dilligently. confession is not “for the record”; the father-confessor is nb never to make it public.

Why all this bother with definitions and discussion, especially In light of the above, the following definitions are offered to if confession and absolution can be beneficial when it is done cor- provide some clarification of the terms in question. porately? Origen points out a tremendously significant reason, one that should give pause to all of us who tend to think it might Public Confession is confession made in public, “for the be better simply to confess to God with the congregation, or on record.”It can be either the general confession of sins or sin- our own, or to a friend: fulness made by the congregation with a formula, or the con- fession of a particular public sin made by an individual Only be circumspect in the choice of him to whom it will be before the congregation. fit to confess thy sin. Try first the physician to whom thou art to reveal the cause of thy distemper, and see that he be one General Confession is confession made without naming who knows how to be weak with him that is weak, and to specific instances of sin. This can be done either by a congre- weep with him that weeps; one who understands the disci- gation in public, or by an individual in private. (If someone pline of condoling and compassionating; that so, at length, if went to private confession intending to confess only general- he shall say anything, who hath first showed himself to be ly, it would serve no more purpose than confessing publicly both a skillful and a merciful physician, and give thee any with the congregation, except that this experience of confess- counsel, thou mayest observe and follow it.⁸ ing in private may establish a sense of comfort in the penitent that would eventually lead him also to confess particular sins It might also be added that Loehe also preferred the briefest in private and receive the benefits of particular absolution). private confession to public (corporate) confession, since it is precisely the pastor who is to be this physician. The following Corporate Confession is the general-public confession of the will be most helpful for the pastor to learn the discipline of pri- whole congregation, which receives the general absolution vate confession and absolution for the health of the souls that from the pastor. “Corporate confession” will be the consis- God has put under his care. It would also be most beneficial if tent translation for allgemeine Beichte below. (Although all- the pastor reads Loehe’s Simple Instruction in Confession, for gemein is usually translated as “general,” “common,” or which, thankfully, the parts pertaining directly to this issue have “universal,” the term “corporate” best describes the mean- already been translated.⁹ ing, since the intent of allgemeine Beichte is not merely to A translation of Loehe’s Die Privatbeichte und Absolution, () have a general confession, but to have it confessed by a follows.¹⁰ l 

Private Confession and Absolution Wilhelm Loehe 

    a divine nor an ecclesiasti- must have time to read and consider what he has to advise, tell, or cal command for the individual; rather, it is a privilege and impress upon the penitent¹³ before or at the absolution. P a blessed right. The enumeration of sins is commanded in Finally, a Christian can also have the intention at his confession the Roman Church. With us it is left to the discretion of the indi- to humble himself. He knows and believes, perhaps, that all sins vidual, but the church cares for it through instruction and admo- are forgiven him whether he names them or not; perhaps he does nition in order that this marvelous adjuvant of all spiritual life not not need any spiritual advice or knows it already, or is familiar remain unused, but rather at all times be sought, used, and the with the father-confessor to such an extent that he is not able to great blessing that lies in it received with joy and thankfulness. give any advice, as is unfortunately enough so often the case. He Incidentally, one can have very different intentions at private could, with respect to all of these considerations, confidently be confession, and it will appropriate a distinct form according to silent, but [depending on] how proud he is and how difficult it is each different intention. A Christian may simply have the inten- for him, feel [a need] to confess certain sins. What does he do in tion at private confession not to confess particular sins, but only this case? He seizes the resolution to kill the Old Man and to con- to apply the absolution to himself alone and to the condition of fess the old and new sins from time to time, always by the New his soul. In this case no enumeration of individual sins is needed; Man, and indeed so thoroughly as is necessary to battle pro- one does not doubt that the absolution blots out all sins but will foundly against pharisaical arrogance and self-righteousness, quite unquestioningly receive it for himself alone, in order to then thereby lying in the dust. This method of private confession is trustingly sink into its salutary floods all that he has consciously most rare, but a very precious one and may well be recommend- or unconsciously committed. A confession in the shape of a fixed ed to those people who hunger after humility. formula suffices here to attain the goal. Furthermore, one may have the intention at private confession to obtain forgiveness for a certain period of life, generally for the period from one partaking of the Lord’s Supper to the next, or for ff particular sins. In this case one will seldom be able to use a fixed One can have very di erent intentions formula. One will have to characterize the period or name the sins at private confession, and it will for which absolution is especially desired, and here the heart and appropriate a distinct form according mind must well indeed overflow with one’s own thoughts. It must ff become possible for the father-confessor to become acquainted to each di erent intention. with the period and sins for which he shall speak absolution; oth- nb erwise his absolution will not be enough for the burning desire of the confessing soul; [it] will not be able to be given in that pastoral form and with the emphasis that such a heart truly needs.¹¹ All of these methods of private confession are commendable, A third intention that someone may have at his private confes- right, and blessed. Only two things should yet be set down for the sion is that not merely absolution for past sins be received, but completion of the above said. also advice for avoiding new sins, and medicine for certain sinful First: Every method of confession, with the exception of that conditions and temptations. In this case a confession-dialogue is which needs only spiritual advice to begin with, shall not be a con- more suited as the solemn form, where it may be a freely spoken fession of condition, but a confession of sins committed. One can private confession. One may thereby not forget that the confes- complain for decades over sinful conditions and confess, without sion-dialogue that uses a formula and one that uses freely spoken getting rid of them, if one does not name individual fruits and private confession are of the same worth. works that grow out of such conditions. Also in the confession of Fourth, one can also occasionally have the intention at private conditions, there is very often nothing humbling because the confession to become truly well known to the Seelsorger whose father-confessor himself and other people have to give the reply: spiritual advice and guidance one desires henceforth, in order that “that happens to me also, it happens to many, it happens just like he may be able quite faithfully and prudently to exercise his office that to everyone.”In the end, nothing is confessed here, and it also of father-confessor. In this case the confession will be about the brings no comfort. That is why the confessions of condition often course of life with special consideration of temptation and sins produce so little benefit and foster such a pathetic whimpering and under which one has suffered now and then; and the written con- whining case. Whoever desires to confess properly confesses sins of fession may well be recommended most of all for the attainment deed, specifies them by name, [and] expresses the exact circum- of this goal.¹² It allows the greatest measure of reflection for the stances so far as he can, without revealing the secrets of other peo- one confessing and likewise serves best for the memory and ple. With this he confronts the Old Man for the most part and sets reflection of the father-confessor. Accordingly, it goes without say- the father-confessor in the best position to perform his office. ing that the written confession must be given to the father-con- Second: One confession is not commendable. I will call it the fessor at a suitable time, and not directly before the absolution. He shameless confession, which one finds once in a while, and perhaps   more frequently with the female rather than the male sex. Without the blessing of private confession, nor learn to treasure correctly repentance and sorrow, without need of special comfort or advice, either of the two. If, however, he would always go to private con- without the intention and the fruit of humility, [this] naming, con- fession, even when no particular sins for which he needed advice fessing, describing, discussing individual sins, simply because one and comfort pressed him, then he would miss the stimulation that imagines that everything must be made known, abjectly stirring up a confessional address has to its advantage [when it is] occasion- the dirt of one’s own life and driving the sickening vapor from this ally before the prayer of a fixed formula, where it [the stimulation] into the nose of the father-confessor, who apart from this gets to would certainly not be begrudged him. Particular people, for hear enough sins and must listen, is an impudent manner, and is whom all prayer formulas and hearing of a private absolution eas- to be left alone. ily becomes mechanical and ineffective, would fall short hereby. Therefore it is to be desired that no single form of confession [be [Whether Corporate or Private Confession Should Be Chosen]¹⁴ used] by Christians who observe and feel [a need] to some degree, Both kinds of confession, corporate and private, have existed but that each use according to the soul’s desire now the one, now together in the Lutheran Church from the beginning. The one the other, and in this manner both the significance and the prac- came to be spoken by the pastor and the congregation at the tice may remain alive in the congregation. If it happens that a par- beginning of the Sunday Divine Service; the other would be used ticular sin needs to be handled, or one needs a particular absolu- for preparation for the Holy Eucharist and no doubt for the sake tion, then one should go to private confession. But if the desire for of not discontinuing the particular absolution bound with it. See the sacrament prevails, or a special desire exists to taste the sweet- Article  of the Augsburg Confession! In the course of time, pri- ness that lies in the common confession, where one answers for all vate confession became too much for both the pastors and con- and all for one, and in the common absolution, then one should gregations; they dismissed it, and a confessional address took its go to corporate confession. A Christian has power and authority place, followed by corporate confession or absolution, which for both. simultaneously disappeared more and more from the public Divine Service. Even this manner of confessing fell more and more into decline. Many hundreds, if they went to confession, knew hardly anything about the name, let alone the power and meaning of absolution, for the sake of which one chiefly confess- Every method of confession, with the es. As now in recent times God again has bestowed more light and exception of that which needs only spiri- grace on Christians here and there, they have learned to treasure tual advice to begin with, shall not be a absolution again, and for its sake confession, and because of Article  of the Augsburg Confession, some love and desire for confession of condition, but a confession private confession also has reawakened. Indeed, corporate confes- of sins committed. sion and absolution has for the most part not yet returned to the nb public Divine Service, in light of which the question will some- times seriously be considered whether one should rather attend corporate or private confession in preparation for the Holy Eucharist. Of course, for people who know not at all a need of the soul Think now of a congregation in which all or most members [and] never learned to mark its innermost stirrings, it is difficult wanted to make use of their right to go to God’s table every to decide for oneself exactly in which form one ought to confess. Sunday. In this case it would not at all be possible that private con- For them the sentence well applies: “The slightest private confes- fession should be practiced everywhere by everyone every time. sion is always to be preferred to the public.” Here they must say Corporate confession at the beginning of the Divine Service or with their own mouth but four things: () I am a sinner. () I after the end of the sermon would have to come to full power believe [there is] one forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus. () I ask again, and private confession would have to be the exceptional for absolution. And () I desire to improve. With these four sen- case. Not private confession, but discipline, as Christ [in] tences, which every confession-formula should contain, be it with Matthew  and His apostles after Him commended it, would many or few words, let there always be added, also in very pressed then have to take over, as it also once was and still should be, [as] times, a few questions, a few clarifications, warnings, encourage- guard and watchman over the altar, so that nobody take the Lord’s ments, etc., which in and of themselves, and especially under the Eucharist to one’s detriment and dishonor the institution of Jesus. solemn and moving circumstances of private confession, are of Everyone who is not excommunicated would have the ability to worth. Not to say anything regarding that even the shortest private go to God’s table every Sunday. Private confession would be used absolution can be given in a penetrating manner, effectively only by individually vexed and burdened Christians. It would be opposing the mechanical mind of the one confessing. Here it best and most beautiful if it were thus. depends on the talent and zeal of the Seelsorger. Now if a prepara- Regardless, the question is not how it shall be in one such con- tory Divine Service precedes private confession, as it sometimes gregation, which desires the Lord’s Supper every Sunday, but how does, then also a stimulating [element] is not lacking from the it should be held by us and in our congregations, which are far comprehensive elements. from such a desire.¹⁵ If someone would always want to make use The resolution already given prevails for the ever rare cases of corporate confession for himself, then he would neither know where a Seelsorger has receptive people, time, and ability to speak,      to instruct, etc. with individual penitents as much as desired about sion if he desires. Also, he can use a completely general formula or sins and forgiveness, all the more concerning ability. a generally sober confession of the heart, upon which he will nev- Private confession finds a hindrance with the present ignorance ertheless be absolved, whereas the Roman Christian must confess of congregations, which is very frequent, namely, that it is con- his individual sins, no matter whether or not they oppress him, fused with the Roman auricular confession. Nothing at all lies in whether or not he can even apply the absolution to his individual the name “auricular confession”; in the time of the Reformation sins in faith. Every penitent should take note of this, and not let his and shortly thereafter the most faithful Lutheran teachers used choice of confession-form be determined by the objection of this expression instead of the usual “private confession.”The main ignorant or malicious people, as if private confession were some- difference lies in that () the Protestant can use corporate or pri- thing Roman. vate confession according to his own discretion, but the Roman May the Lord allow and grant us both forms, corporate and Christian must use auricular confession; () the non-excommuni- private confession, to confess in the power of His Holy Spirit. cated Protestant can mention individual sins in his private confes- LOGIA

NOTES . Sometimes called the General Confession or public confession, Ganzert, Wilhelm Loehe: Gesammelte Werke, Dritter Band, . Teilband this is an alteration of the form and use of the Confiteor. Cf. Fred L. (Neuendettelsau: Freimund-Verlag, ). Precht, ed. Lutheran Worship: History and Practice, (St. Louis: Concordia With only a few minor alterations of words and punctuation, it is the Publishing House, ), –. Also Walter R. Bouman, “Confession- same as the second half of section  and the whole of section  of Loehe’s Absolution and the Eucharistic Liturgy,” Lutheran Quarterly :  (May Beicht- und Communionbuch für evangelische Christen, . Aufl. (Guetersloh: ): –. C. Bertelsmann, ), –; also Ganzert /: –, Section , has . See especially AC  and ;Ap  and , –; SA  ; SC ; the heading: “Concerning the different ways to confess and to absolve.” LC ,  and “A Brief Exhortation to Confession”; and FC SD , . . In this sentence Loehe is not speaking of absolution in the narrow . The German Seelsorger will be retained throughout the translation sense (forgiveness of sins) as if the effectiveness of God’s forgiveness since it conveys so much more accurately than “pastor” the nature of the depends on one’s enumeration of sins. Instead, Loehe is speaking here of ordained minister as one who cares for and has a deep concern for the soul absolution in the wider sense, including whatever admonition and com- of each of his parishioners. Cf.“Its Care of Souls,”in Wilhelm Loehe, Three fort the pastor may provide from Scripture. The effectiveness of God’s Books About the Church, trans. James L. Schaaf (Philadelphia: Fortress forgiveness is always independent of how many sins are confessed or how Press, ), –. many details are provided, but if the penitent does not offer sufficient . Cf. Joseph Bingham, Origines Ecclesiasticae: The Antiquities of the details regarding the sin, the pastor will naturally have a greater challenge Christian Church, vol.  (London: Henry G. Bohn, ).”There are almost to provide admonition and comfort that help the penitent after receiving twenty passages in the same author [Chrysostom], very full and pregnant the absolution proper. to the same purpose, which the learned reader may consult in their proper .The written confession must of course be destroyed following the places, or view them at once collected together by Mr. Daille in his excellent absolution. book of auricular confession, where he not only vindicates these passages . Beichtkind, that is, the person who confesses to the father-confessor. of Chrysostom from the sophistical glosses and evasions of the Romanists, .Rather than this heading, which is given to section  of the Beicht- but also has unanswerably proved, by no less than thirty arguments, and a und Communionbuch, the Haus-, Schul- und Kirchenbuch simply has a line cloud of other ancient witnesses, that there could be no such thing as pri- to set off the following section. vate, auricular, sacramental confession enjoined, as of necessity to pardon . This is not to say that Loehe had no desire for the Lord’s Supper sin, in the primitive church. Chrysostom is not the only person that main- every Sunday, but rather that many congregations in Loehe’s time, as in tains this assertion” (). “Thus the [Roman] doctrine of auricular con- ours, lacked such a desire. Although he did not include it in this writing, fession was established in the thirteenth century, and not before: and even it is obvious from a portion of Die evangelische Geistliche: Zweites after that there wanted not witnesses, such as Wickliff, and Huss, and Bändchen (dictations of Loehe published by his students, with his fore- Semeca, and Michael of Bononia, and Petrus Oxoniensis, to bear testimo- word) that Loehe did desire the Sacrament every Sunday. This can be ny against its novelty, to the time of the Reformation” (). found in Ganzert /, , where it says,“He [Loehe] desired to guide into . See the first elucidation following Tertullian’s On Repentance,in a more abundant participation of the congregation in the Sacrament of Alexander Roberts, ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers (reprint Peabody, MA: the Altar, and did what he could to destroy the old routine of going to the Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., ), : . Lord’s Supper two or four times per year. For a long time already, hover- . See Laurentius Klein, Evangelisch-lutherische Beichte: Lehre und ing before his eyes as a pastoral goal for guiding the congregation was Praxis (Paderborn: Verlag Bonifacius-Druckerei, ), .“Corporate con- every-Sunday communion and participation in the same, not according fession [allgemeine Beichte]—also called ‘public confession’ [offene to habit or days traditionally having the Lord’s Supper, but always accord- Schuld]—‘with signs of her use in the public Divine Service reaches back ing to need.” until at least into the th century’ (Details from Jungmann, Die Further evidence may be found in the Memoirs of J. Heinrich Ph. Lateinischen Bussriten, ).” Graebner, where he writes:“According to our church order which we had . Paul H. D. Lang, “Private Confession in the Lutheran Church,” Una received from Pastor Loehe, the Lord’s Supper should be celebrated on Sancta :  (), , . Congruent with the previous endnote, Lang also all Sundays, as well as on the first celebration of the feast days. notes on p.  that the offene Schuld developed in the Middle Ages. Exclusively, in connection with all these services, private confession and .Orig.Hom.. in Psal. .t.., cited in Bingham, . absolution was practiced.” Kenneth F. Korby, “Loehe’s Seelsorge for his . See Delvin E. Ressel, “The Sacrament of Repentance,” Una Sancta Fellow Lutherans in America,” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly, :  (): –; :  (): –. Note that he retains “General :  (November ): . Confession” as the common translation for allgemeine Beichte, which I One might also note that as a confessional Lutheran pastor, Loehe translate as “corporate confession” in order to distinguish it more easily would have known of and longed for the retention of AC ,  (Lat.), from general confession. which says, “Inasmuch as the Mass is such a giving of the sacrament, one .This is part B. (–) of the Oratorium section of Loehe’s common Mass is observed among us on every holy day, and on other days, Haus-, Schul- und Kirchenbuch für Christen des lutherischen Bekenntnisses, if any desire the sacrament, it is also administered to those who ask for it” Zweiter Theil (Stuttgart: S. G. Liesching, ). (See also – of Klaus (Tappert, ). With Angels and Archangels Some Thoughts on Real-Time Worship

Dean M. Bell

j

he Proper Preface for Holy Communion concludes by plac- exactly the same as it was five hundred years or  years ago. ing these words in the mouth of the officiant: “Therefore Liturgy develops; it evolves. But this evolution is a matter of detail, T with angels and archangels and with all the company of not of type. Were Martin Luther of the sixteenth century or St. heaven we laud and magnify Thy glorious name.”“Therefore with Augustine of the fifth century to enter a Lutheran church on angels and archangels!” This statement is both glorious and utter- Sunday morning, he would recognize our liturgy as being his ly incredible. With these words we are transported. Suddenly time liturgy. It isn’t that the church once worshipped by shooting off and space fall away; they recede into insignificance, and we are guns and swinging from ropes but no longer does. Rather, there is united with heavenly choirs. an ebb and flow over the centuries that modifies the details of our In the Holy Communion we are joined to an ongoing feast in liturgical practice while allowing the structure itself to remain the presence of God. This is the feast that will never end. This is intact. In all liturgy, in all ages, God remains the gracious Giver, worship. This is the worship of saints. And here you have your while we always remain the recipients. God is always the eternal place, a place reserved for you from the foundation of the world. Initiator. We receive the gifts he chooses to bestow, and then we At the Holy Communion heaven overlaps earth and the words of respond in ways that he has taught us. This does not change. Hebrews  become present reality: “But you have come to Mount Always we use his words, words he has given us to speak. Always Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and his sacraments surround and envelop us. And in this it always to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the remains evident that we are Christians; we are Lutherans. first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect.”In the liturgy of THE INVOCATION the church this eternal worship of God enters time —our time. The divine service begins with the Invocation. But this is not the This is the “real” time, time that finds its beginning in God, time ecclesiastical equivalent of turning down the house lights in a the- that is never diminished. atre, reminding people the show is about to begin. Nor is it sim- ply a proclamation of what we are doing. The Invocation is pri- THE LITURGY marily a statement of the gospel, the first proclamation of the Worship assumes liturgy. It must, because worship assumes struc- gospel you hear on Sunday morning. It is God who speaks, albeit ture. While it is true that we gather as sheep around the heavenly through a human voice. And in that speaking God invokes his Shepherd, we do not engage in mindless bleating! Our worship presence in his church. He drapes his name over you. Before you will always have liturgy because we are caught up in a heavenly have confessed your sins, before you have had opportunity to rhythm that originates outside of us. To be Lutheran is to be litur- stammer out your unworthiness—before everything else God gical. From beginning to end, Lutheran worship (Lutheran litur- speaks. In the Invocation God speaks his name over you and thus gy) takes on a structure (a form) that reflects our theology. you are reminded of who you are. From football games to corporate board meetings, human life For most, your first encounter with God came long before you is lived within structures, within forms. Change the structure and can remember. You were brought to him. To the baptismal font the thing itself is changed. Remove the yard lines or time clock, you were carried so God could deal with you according to his and football is no longer football. With no agenda or chairman a mercy. You were baptized in God’s name. Really, you were bap- corporate board meeting becomes something else. So too in the tized into God. In that moment two things happened. In that church. Change the Lutheran structure (the liturgy) and Lutheran moment you died, and in that moment you were born again. In worship is changed into something else. your baptism you died with Jesus on the cross and you were raised This, however, does not mean that our liturgy is stagnant. In the back to life in his resurrection. In your baptism you were born as same way that football rules gradually evolve and meetings change Christians. Truly, you left the baptismal water a different person, their configurations, liturgy is also adaptive. Our liturgy is not and you haven’t been the same since. By God’s action you entered the heavenly kingdom, the realm of God. In this recreating activity God wrapped you in his name. It was D M. B is pastor of Immanuel Lutheran Church, McIntosh, “in the name of the Father, and of the + Son, and of the Holy Minnesota. Spirit” that you were baptized. Now, in the Invocation, you are    reminded once again of that activity by God. You are reminded When God reminds us of our baptism in the Invocation, he that God has dealt mercifully and graciously with you. No one is gives us standing before him—not a standing of our own cre- baptized as part of a crowd. No one is baptized because of his ation, mind you, but a standing bestowed upon us by God. The membership in a human family. It wasn’t as a Johnson or an baptized are children of God. As such they are invited to come to Olson or a Smith that you were baptized. God does not pay atten- their heavenly Father. God invites us to lay before him the burdens tion to family names. He knows you by your given name. It was as of our conscience. He invites us to confess our sins. Richard or Charlotte or Denise that you were taken up by God Confession is a matter of simple truthfulness. The truth is that into his family. Individually God received you. Individually he we have sinned. In ways we remember only too well, and in ways gave you a new life. Individually he united you to himself. This all we are not even aware of, we have sinned. Sin is the fruit of our fall- happened then. Now, every Sunday morning God reminds you in en nature. We are not sinners because we sin. Rather, we sin the Invocation that he has not changed his mind. Nor will he. The because we are sinners. Sinning is what we do. It is the warped fruit recreating power of God’s word in baptism remains with you. of warped lives. Generation after generation the sinful natures of parents have been passed on to their children. Humanly speaking it can be no other way. God knows this even before we open our mouths. But he wants us to know it, to recognize it, as well. Thus Seventeenth-century German Pietists he invites us to speak the truth: to confess our sins. And when we do, a wonderful thing happens. In response to convinced Lutherans that the sign of our truthfulness, God too is truthful. He absolves us. He forgives the cross was an unfortunate residue us. Indeed, he is compelled to do so. All we have done is confess. of Roman Catholic superstition. That is all we can do. We are incapable of removing even the smallest of our sins. But our capabilities are not the issue; God’s Unfortunately, we believed them. mercy is, and that mercy has taken on human form in the person nb of Jesus Christ. Jesus is God enfleshed. He is the second person of the Holy Trinity made visible to human eyes, the second person of the Holy Trinity come for the salvation of man. The hymnist sets Here we must take an excursus, an “aside,” if you will. The before us a glorious picture: “Jesus has come as the mighty church often takes note of physical speech. In other words, your Redeemer. / See now the threatening strong one disarmed!” actions speak. When you fold your hands you are saying some- Absolution is the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the Invocation the thing. Also when you bow your head, and when you kneel you faithful are reminded who they are. Baptized in the name of the “speak.” So, too, when you make the sign of the cross upon your- Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, they are incorporat- self. Seventeenth-century German Pietists convinced Lutherans ed into that timeless number known as the people of God, the that the sign of the cross was an unfortunate residue of Roman Bride of Christ. God has spoken to his own and now his own can Catholic superstition. Unfortunately, we believed them. As a result speak in return. They do so first by confessing the truth of their we have lost an important component of true Lutheran piety. unfaithfulness. When God baptized you, he traced the cross of Christ upon you. For Confession the pastor does not so much stand before his In reality you were marked by God. The finger of God carved people as he stands with them. He too is a member of the congre- Christ’s cross into your flesh. In the Invocation that cross is once gation. Not only does he plead for God’s mercy on their behalf; he again placed over you. For what purpose? That you may simply be pleads for himself. He makes his confession with them. And the reminded of what God has done? No. Christ’s cross is your cross. words of absolution that he speaks to them he also speaks to him- There you also died. And now God invites you to take what he self. Our liturgical practice indicates this. To this point everything once applied to you and trace it anew upon yourself. By crossing has occurred outside the chancel. As one with the congregation, yourself you acknowledge what God has done for you. It is an act the pastor urges that confession be made. As one with the congre- of confession, an act of faith. It is an action that only the Christian gation, he kneels on the chancel steps to make his own confession. can perform. A Moslem or a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness can And the forgiveness he proclaims also absolves him. fold his hands or bow his head or kneel. Only Christians, howev- Everything to this point has been preparatory. It is only after er, can bless themselves with the sign of the cross, because only Confession and Absolution that the divine service actually Christians believe that Jesus accomplished their full salvation by begins. Sin is an abomination to God. Nothing sinful can come his sacrifice of death on the cross. into his presence. God’s hatred of sin is complete. But having been forgiven of all sin, the congregation is cleansed and accept- CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION able to God. And even more, they are now urged by God to come Until God speaks, we are dumb; we have nothing to say. If God into his presence. This coming into the presence of God is made remains silent we can know nothing of him. Sinful man is so total- evident in the introit. ly corrupt that he is incapable of addressing God as he should, or Our English word introit derives from the Latin introitus, which even finding him. Indeed, sinful man is only dimly aware of God. means “enter.” As he ascends the chancel steps during the chanti- The divine service takes note of this. God speaks first, and when ng of the introit, the pastor is “entering” into God’s presence. He God speaks he invites man to reply. Thus we come to what the approaches the altar where Christ sits enthroned in the holy church knows as Confession and Absolution. Eucharist. And when the pastor enters God’s presence he takes his      people with him. Our eyes see only one man moving, but actual- God who comes in human flesh as our Savior. The liturgy simply ly the entire congregation moves. Pastor and people together gath- places before us an ascending progression of this truth. er around God. It is no accident that the introits of the church are taken from the Psalms. The New Testament church sings to the same God as did the saints of the Old Testament.We simply worship God from the other side of the Incarnation. The One who was promised of The Salutation is not an ecclesiastical old has come. Yet we do not do “new” things. We sing to God with equivalent of “Hi, how ya doin’?” ancient words. The hymns of King David in the Psalter are also and “Fine, how ’bout you?” our hymns. Our worship is anchored in God’s word. The introits simply place portions of that word on our lips and our tongues. nb As the seasons of the church year hold before us the whole histo- ry of God’s activity for man, so the introits change from week to week to reflect this. The music of the introits also changes, God, having introduced himself anew in the Invocation, now although less frequently. The eight chant tones that we use reflect draws from his people words of praise wherein the faithful will- the colors, the moods of the church year. From expectation to joy ingly confess his goodness. That this hymn should divide itself to somber reflection, the music itself reflects reality. God’s word is into three parts comes as no surprise. Here we simply acknowl- given to God’s people, and they enter into God’s presence. edge the epitome of God’s will, the sending of his Son into the flesh for the salvation of man. As nothing stands between God’s THE KYRIE will and its fulfillment, so nothing separates the Kyrie from the Some portions of the liturgy seem at first glance to be misplaced. Gloria in Excelsis; the later flows from the former. The church has The Kyrie is one of these. Since we have been absolved of all sin sung these words since at least the fourth century, another indica- and have entered God’s presence by being gathered around his tion of the timelessness of our liturgy. Week after week the Gloria altar during the introit, it might seem strange to us that mercy is unites us with the church of every age and every place. the first thing to occupy the Christian’s mind. Indeed, mercy becomes our first plea before God. Two things, however, will help THE SALUTATION clarify this. A particular detail appearing several times in a novel is noted. First, the structure of the Kyrie mirrors our confession of the Similarly in music, a repeated theme attracts our attention. The true God. The three-part arrangement of this prayer flows from liturgy is no different. With its economy of language, things our acknowledgment of the trinitarian nature of God. All three repeated in the liturgy take on special significance. persons are addressed. Christian worship always gives voice to The Salutation is not an ecclesiastical equivalent of “Hi, how ya Christian confession. Even when our sinful nature hinders the doin’?” and “Fine, how ’bout you?” The liturgy has no time for perfect expression in our lives of what is believed, the confession such perfunctory pleasantries. Rather this versicle and its that the liturgy places on our lips will reflect the true faith. response, occurring as it does three times, alerts us that something Second, the Kyrie reminds us that Christians know only one of unique importance is about to happen. The first use of the prayer. In spite of variety in detail, the prayer of the faithful always Salutation comes just before the Collect of the Day. This prayer, remains the same. Our only prayer is the Third Petition of the which we shall discuss shortly, summarizes the common petitions Lord’s Prayer, “Thy will be done.” This is the constant plea of the of the faithful on that Sunday. Second, we find the Salutation redeemed. For the Christian there is nothing beyond God’s will, introducing the second major portion of the liturgy, the service of and the Kyrie reflects this. Thus the Kyrie simply expresses what is the sacrament in which the living Jesus unites himself physically most certainly true. In his constant condition of saint and sinner with his people. Finally, we find the Salutation at the very close of (simul iustus et peccator) the child of God prays, only and always, the service, just before the Benediction when God once again for God’s will to be accomplished in him. And what is God’s will? places his name over the faithful. Repetition denotes significance, To have mercy. The Christian never moves beyond the need for and the significance of the Salutation comes in this: we are alert- and the desire for this mercy. Apart from that mercy we would ed that something especially important is about to happen. cease to be. If God’s will, God’s mercy, is not accomplished, we are But there is more here. This is formal language. It is not so doomed. much prayer as it is proclamation. The pastor is describing what exists. The Lord, by his choice, is with his people. He deals with THE GLORIA IN EXCELSIS them through the words and actions of his pastor. That any man Our liturgy is not a hodge-podge of unrelated parts. Rather, our should stand before the people of God—stand between them and worship is like a moving tapestry that simply confesses the same God’s altar and presume to speak to them for God —this can hap- faith and truth from beginning to end. Its unity is constant. There pen only because God allows it. We recognize the pastor as speak- is no time when God is not being worshipped. On Sunday morn- ing and acting at God’s direction. God has chosen this man to do ing we simply join the ongoing liturgy, the liturgy of “angels and these things. Thus the Salutation finds its basis in a pastor’s ordi- archangels and all the company of heaven.” On Sunday morning nation. He has been called by God to do what God directs him to you enter into something that was taking place even before you do. The congregation recognizes this by its response: “And with were born. The constant object of our worship is “God for us,” thy spirit.” Here both congregation and pastor are reminded that   he has received the gift of the Holy Spirit. St Paul speaks of this in . The Petition. This is the actual request, based on spiritual writing to Timothy: “Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, needs, cleansing, forgiveness, comfort, and the like. which was bestowed upon you through prophetic utterance with . The Aspiration. Not appearing in all collects, the aspiration the laying on of hands . . .” ( Tim :). He expands upon this is often introduced by “that” and states the reason for our later:“I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you petition. through the laying on of my hands. For God has not given us a . The Pleading. “Through Jesus Christ our Lord.”We have but spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline” ( Tim one mediator, one advocate, the God-man Jesus. Historically, :). While no Lutheran would contend that ordination bestows the pleading concluded with the doxological words Òwho an indelible character upon a pastor, it is very difficult to argue liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, ever that ordination is simply a human rite in which nothing spiritual one God, world without end.Ó occurs. No, the pastor stands before his congregation as God’s chosen spokesman and on that basis speaks and acts at God’s Even though various parts of the collect sometimes blend behest. God has gifted him for this work. together, an example will help us see the structure. Below is the Collect for Ash Wednesday. THE COLLECT As mentioned earlier, all Christian prayer is subsumed into the . The Address. “Almighty and everlasting God . . .” Third Petition of the Lord’s Prayer: “Thy will be done.” This is a . The Acknowledgement. “because you hate nothing you have constant both in the Christian’s private devotional life and in the made and forgive the sins of all who are penitent . . .” public prayers of the church. This truth we see quite clearly in the . The Petition. “create in us new and contrite hearts . . .” church’s collects, which plead above all else that God would . The Aspiration. “that we, worthily repenting our sins and accomplish his will by bestowing his highest blessing, his favor, acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain from you, the upon the faithful. God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness . . .” . The Pleading.“through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.” A Collect is not merely a jumble of words As mentioned, the Collect form is somewhat variable, but the tossed together. Over the centuries these general structure remains. This is “collective” prayer that is the prayers have been polished and refined. property of no one individual in particular, but from which none nb of the faithful are excluded. THE LESSONS Like much of the church’s language, the word collect comes The pastor does not arbitrarily choose which portions of the Bible from a Latin word collecta, which means “gathered up.”Week after he will read in the divine service. The Lessons (really, series of week the common desires flowing from the lessons for the day lessons) have grown out of the accumulated life of the church. That and the church year are “gathered up” into one petition and laid is to say, various collections of readings have developed over the before God’s throne of grace. centuries to bring the word of God to the faithful. These selections In the Collects we clearly see the ecumenical nature of the from Scripture, called pericopes, are organized around the rhythm church. Imagine for a moment being transported back in time to of the church year and the various feasts that the church keeps. fifth-century Rome. Naturally you would know Latin, for that was The Lutheran Hymnal, on pages  and , contains two series the language of the church. Amazingly, you would hear familiar of lessons. These are usually called the historic pericopes, having prayers. The vast majority of our collects can be traced to three long been associated with their various Sundays. Page  also Roman bishops: Leo I (–), Gelasius (–), and contains pericopes for various minor feasts and festivals. Other Gregory the Great (–). By and large, we speak the prayers pericopal systems have also been developed and are used by many. that these men wrote. Add one more individual, Thomas Understood in the development of these series of readings is that Cranmer, a sixteenth-century Archbishop of Canterbury, and we the church finds her life in God’s word. It is that word which called have the ancient collects in English. her into being and which defines her life. Without God’s word A Collect is not merely a jumble of words tossed together. Over there is no church, because without that word there is no knowl- the centuries these prayers have been polished and refined. The edge of God’s saving work for us. collects follow a specific pattern that generally consists of five parts. The Lessons for Sunday morning, readings from the Old Testament, the epistles of the New Testament, and the Gospels, . The Address. This is the invocation, usually made to the become the focus for the divine service. Chief among these is the Father, and based upon John :, “whatsoever ye shall ask Gospel. While the entire Bible is God’s word, there are distinctions the Father in my name, he will give it to you.” to be made within it. The Old Testament, encompassing the histo- . The Acknowledgement. This is the doctrinal foundation upon ry of Israel, always points forward to Messiah’s coming. By contrast, which our request is made and reflects a quality of God relat- the epistles of the New Testament, dealing with life rooted in ed to that which we are praying for. Messiah’s appearing, always point back to him. It is the Gospels that      stand at the center. In the Gospels, Jesus the Messiah stands before Regardless, the Creed defines the church by confessing the true us. In the Gospels we don’t simply hear about Jesus; we hear him! God who creates, redeems, and sanctifies her. Unlike the Old Testament and the epistles, the Gospels give us the actual words of Jesus. The congregation indicates this distinction by THE SERMON its posture. It is only for the Gospel, for the words of Jesus, that the A minister’s most important pastoral work takes place in his pul- congregation stands. The Gospel brings them into the living pres- pit on Sunday morning. There he addresses more people than at ence of Jesus, who speaks to them and acts for them. any other time during the week. His fundamental calling is to Obviously the Bible can be read by anyone. We have the bibli- preach, to be the spokesman of God in that place. Thus his cal text available in many languages, including our own. But what preaching must be with utmost clarity and faithfulness. about the public reading of the Bible in the divine service? Who has been given this responsibility? The public reading of Scripture is intimately connected to its preaching. Reading assumes expla- nation. This duty God gives to his ministers. They are charged with “opening” the Scriptures for the faithful. Reading and “Felt needs” are illusions. Your sinful preaching go together; they are two sides of one coin. We recall St. nature always lies to you. You have but Paul’s directive to St. Timothy: “Until I come, give attention to the one real need, and that is to be saved. public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching” ( Tim :). It appears that Paul intended all three —public reading, nb preaching, and teaching—to be kept together. Thus the one who preaches publicly reads publicly. The sermon is not a time for entertainment or amusing anec- THE CREED dotes. Nor is its purpose to address people’s “felt needs.” “Felt The Christian Church confesses three creeds. These are called needs” are illusions. Your sinful nature always lies to you. You have “ecumenical” because they confess universally accepted truth. but one real need, and that is to be saved. Eternity is at stake and if They mirror God, confessing back to him the revelation that he you are to be saved, that “saving”must come to you. Salvation is not has given of himself. Scripture is God’s voice. The Creed is man’s within your power to accomplish. The true seriousness comes in reply. While faith makes one a Christian, his confession of the this: someone may be hearing the gospel for the last time. Someone Creed marks him as one. in the pew may well go to his grave before the next Lord’s Day. Each The Apostles’ Creed, which can be dated to the mid-second Sunday the battle between death and life is joined, and sermons century, is called the baptismal creed. It unfolds the meaning of must always show people who they are in themselves and who they the baptismal formula given in Matthew . Luther described it in have become through the gracious activity of Jesus Christ. these words: “As the bee gathers the honey from many a beautiful In an earlier age when congregations kept the prayer offices of and delicious flower, so this creed has been collected in com- Matins and Vespers,those were used to expound the Old Testament mendable brevity from the books of the beloved prophets and lesson and the Epistle. The Gospel was always reserved for the apostles, that is, from the entire Holy Scriptures.” Sunday divine service, the Hauptgottesdienst. The chief portion of The Nicene Creed dates from the First Ecumenical Council of Holy Scripture, the actual words of Jesus, belongs to the chief ser- Nicea in . In opposition to the Arian heresy, it emphasizes the vice of the church. It must, because the Gospel reveals to us the full, eternal deity of Christ. This is the Creed of the Lord’s Supper incarnate, living Lord as no other portion of Scripture does. since it confesses the eternal and complete divinity of the Son who The purpose of preaching is not to “touch”people. The purpose gives himself to us in the sacrament. In the early church it was is not to make people feel good about themselves. Preaching is chanted antiphonally each Sunday. The priest would begin: meant to transform people, to turn them away from faith in “Credo in unum Deum” (“I believe in one God”), and the people themselves and to faith in the One who cleanses from all sin by his would respond, “Patrem omnipotentem” (“the Father death and resurrection. Preaching places people into the narrative Almighty”). So it would go, back and forth, until the end. of the gospel. There they must see themselves, and there they must The longest of the creeds, the Athanasian, comes from the see their Savior. In the sermon hearers are told who they really are. fourth century. It is the creed for the Feast of the Holy Trinity. Their disbelief, the seedbed of all sin, is held before them. They are Thomas Aquinas called this creed a “manifesto of faith . . . a doc- judged. The sermon is not about “the world.” It is about them. As trinal exposition.” It is the summary of trinitarian and individuals they have become unclean. As individuals they have Christological orthodoxy, which stands against all heresy. sinned in thought, word, and deed. As individuals they stand con- Confessing the creeds has never been a question in the demned before the holy righteousness of God. Christian church. Their position in the divine liturgy has been, But this is not the end. Hearers are not to be left to wallow however. Some have placed the Creed just before the sermon. In about in self-designed plans of self-improvement. They are not to that position it sets limits upon what can be preached. All preach- be given principles for Christian living and told,“Go to it!”Having ing must be in agreement with the Creed. Others have placed the been killed through the preaching of the Law of God, they must Creed after the sermon. There it becomes the congregation’s be made alive through the preaching of the gospel of God. They answer to what they have just heard. Preaching calls forth a are to be shown who they really are: recipients of divine mercy in response, and that response is encompassed by the Creed. Jesus Christ. It is not enough to preach about the gospel; the   gospel itself must be proclaimed. To say, “Jesus loves sinners,” or, God. In the atonement we die with Christ. St. Paul describes it this “the gospel forgives sins” is really to say nothing. Generalizations way:“For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God” provide no comfort. The penitent must hear that God is for him; (Col :). The crucifixion of Jesus is much more than a simple his- has had pity on him; has acted for him. Of all people, God has res- torical event. It is a present reality. In a sense there is nothing cued him. Jesus has lifted all your sins from you. He has wrapped beyond the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The sacrifice of himself in those sins and carried them into death. Your sins were Jesus always stands before the face of God the Father. This is why laid in the tomb with Jesus, and there they remain, buried forever, the crucifix on Lutheran altars is so important. Jesus’ death for the though he has risen from the dead. Jesus’ death was your death. sins of the world is always true, always valid, always “now.” Our His resurrection was your resurrection. God looks at you —sees heavenly Father sees us there. He does not see us apart from the you —only through the sacrifice of Jesus. The God who created atonement. Always the death and resurrection of the Son stands you has died for you. You are forgiven. God no longer sees your between us and the Father. This reality informs our prayer in the sins. They are gone. You are hidden in the wounds of Christ, and Offertory. We pray, in words taken from Psalm , that we might be there you now live. His holiness has become your holiness. God offered to God the Father as a people pleasing in his sight. We wish looks at you and sees Christ. He does not see you apart from to be offered to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Christ. This is the gospel that people must hear. Holy Spirit. Our wish is that the divine plan be accomplished: “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”(Heb :). We are offered to God with Christ. His death is our death. In his sacrifice we too die and are made holy (sanctified) through his blood. Constantly recreated The constant plea of the redeemed is through the power of the word that is preached, we always seek the summarized in the Third Petition of the clean heart and right spirit that restores to us the joy of our salva- tion. We long for the image of God. We long for the words of St. Lord’s Prayer: “Thy will be done.” Paul to be accomplished within us: “Therefore if any man is in nb Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” ( Cor :). To be kept by the Spirit of God in the sacrifice of Jesus is to be a new creation of God. How is this accomplished? By showing people their place in the text. The Gospels are not simply nice stories about a nice Jesus who THE GENERAL PRAYER did nice things for nice people once upon a time.As redeemed chil- God does not require our advice. He knows what we need. We are dren of God, the Gospels are about you. You are Jairus’s daughter the ones who do not. It isn’t that God must somehow be encour- whom Jesus has rescued from the death of sin and restored to life aged to pay attention to our needs. Rather, we must learn what in the Father’s house. You are the widow’s son, raised from the those needs actually are. God knows our situation. We are the ones devil’s domain of death. You are the man whom Satan has attacked who often have mistaken ideas about things. It isn’t that prayer and left wounded and bleeding in the ditch. To your rescue has changes things. Rather, we need to be changed. By nature our eyes come a stranger, a Good Samaritan, Jesus, who carries you to the are drawn inward upon ourselves. We are the center of our atten- house of his Father. You are the treasure hidden in the field for tion. God would have it be otherwise. Thus God would teach us which someone—Jesus —finds and gives all that he has. You are a how to pray. treasure that Jesus dies for. You are the pearl of great price. And on As mentioned earlier, Christians have but one prayer. The con- it goes. We sinners, rescued by the mercy of God, find ourselves stant plea of the redeemed is summarized in the Third Petition of defined by Jesus. In the gospel you learn who you have become the Lord’s Prayer: “Thy will be done.” For the faithful there is through the activity of the Holy One of God for you. And now, nothing beyond God’s will. Nothing else is needed. In addition the having seen yourselves in a new way, the crucifixion of Jesus Christian desires that his will be conformed to God’s. That God’s becomes not just one event among many; it becomes the only will be accomplished is his fondest wish, and his greatest necessi- event that really matters. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, ty. And what is God’s will? To have mercy. In every age and in the sacrifice of Jesus, becomes the moment that defines you. This is every situation of life God’s will remains the same: to be merciful. the message that must permeate every Sunday sermon. The Holy Spirit seeks to guide us into seeing our need for that mercy. That’s the essence of prayer. With that understanding we THE OFFERTORY can pray for our families, our fellow Christians, our nation, our The preaching of the gospel always generates a response. Within the neighbor—even our enemies—as we should. Always it’s the same Christian that response finds its expression as prayer. Additionally, prayer, that God’s merciful will in Jesus Christ be accomplished our prayer is not that God would help us do something, but that his for us, in us, and through us. power would help us become something. The faithful always pray Understanding this, we can pray with complete confidence. that God would reshape them in his image, into what he intends. “Ask whatever you wish,” Jesus says, “and believing, you shall They pray that God would accomplish his will in them. This desire receive.” Our faith that God’s will is to be merciful rests upon his for divine intervention stands behind the Offertory. word. The entire liturgy has moved us in this direction. The The Offertory is not our act of giving something to God, our General Prayer does not follow the sermon simply by accident or “offering” him something. Rather, we ask that we be offered to for convenience. Instead, everything to this point—especially the      preaching of the gospel—has prepared us to pray as we should. ished, ever. The One whom heaven and earth cannot contain Through preaching we are led to see God as Pater Noster (Our hides himself under the form of bread and wine and comes to Father). We are shown the One who “wills” to be merciful. And you. Truly there is mystery here for a lifetime of meditation and even more than that, the proclamation of the gospel has shown us wonder. The holy God comes to and is received by sinful men. Not the Father who “willed”his Son to be our Savior. Jesus is the mercy for destruction, but for salvation. In utmost humility God deigns of God, and the God who is “for us” invites us to pray that his will to become one with you. be done in us. In the Lord’s Supper we see another reason for the presence of the crucifix on our altars. Even though our Lord Jesus was THE HOLY COMMUNION “crucified, dead, and buried,” and even though “the third day he In the prologue to his Gospel, St. John declares, “The Word rose again,” he always remains the sacrifice for our sins. The Son became flesh, and dwelt among us.” This is, of course, a refer- always remains the One who is sacrificed before the Father. In the ence to the Incarnation. The Word who is both with God and is seemingly contemptible weakness of crucifixion and death he God took on human flesh. This is Jesus the Christ. He is the conquers sin and hell. His glory is in the shame of crucifixion. His Second Person of the Holy Trinity made visible in human form. power manifests itself in what appears to be absolute helplessness Jesus is God. He speaks. He can be touched. He becomes hun- and defeat. It is this body and blood that you receive. That which gry and eats; He grows tired and sleeps as a man. And yet he is was once offered upon the altar of the cross is now given to you. not simply man. He is man’s atonement. He is the very Lamb of Here is the culmination of the divine service, for here is the ulti- God, the One who takes away the sin of the world. He is the mate service of God to man. God dies so that you may live. And eternal Lamb, the sacrificial Lamb, who bleeds and dies for the his living body is given to you so that you may never die. sins of all men. The words of Jesus accomplish what they declare. He is the THE POST-COMMUNION CANTICLE Word through whom creation was spoken into existence, and his A parishioner once remarked to his pastor, “After communion word remains forever powerful. We see this clearly in the Lord’s there really isn’t much left.” Unwittingly, that individual had said Supper. Through his word he unites himself to earthly elements. a great deal. With the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the divine With the words of institution he enthrones himself upon the altar. service quickly draws to a close. In the sacrament we have No longer do we gaze upon mere bread and wine. At his speaking glimpsed the heavenly Jerusalem. While still on earth we have par- he, too, is there. The body and blood of Christ become a present ticipated in the heavenly banquet. We have feasted in the compa- reality for his people. The consecrated elements do not become ny of angels. The faithful departed have been our companions at the body and blood of Jesus at the moment you receive them. this festal board. We have knelt with the saints. For a few moments Rather, Christ is there already. He himself is placed in your mouth heaven and earth have overlapped. We have received life from him and upon your lips. who is the Life. The One who is the Way has fed us in the way of The liturgy contains a profound progression to which you his sacrifice. He who is Truth has given the substance of our sal- may never have given much thought. Holy Communion is cele- vation into mouths cleansed by the truth of forgiveness. What brated after the sermon has been heard, not before. This is not more could we possibly want? by chance. This is the proper order. Were the Supper to precede the sermon, you would not know of your Lord’s saving work for you. You would not have heard of his passion and death, which has atoned for your sins. You would not have been told of his sacrifice for you. Preaching brings to you the lifegiving word of The words of Jesus accomplish what they redemption. Jesus is God’s eternal sacrifice who has borne your declare. He is the Word through whom sins and their punishment, thus reconciling you to your heaven- creation was spoken into existence. ly Father. And yet, in preaching you only hear the words of Jesus. nb Wonderful words, to be sure, but still only words. In the Holy Supper, by contrast, Jesus, the Word, takes on flesh. What previ- ously came only to your hearing now comes to you in the physi- The Nunc Dimitis places the song of Simeon (Luke ) on our cal, bodily presence of the only begotten Son of God. First you lips. Holding the Christ in his arms, this righteous man spoke the hear Jesus speak his mercy into your ears, then that mercy is phys- words we now sing.“Salvation has come to me,”he declares.“I can ically given into your mouth. The eternal body and blood of Jesus now depart in peace.” So it is with us. We, too, have received our become part of you. First you hear of your forgiveness, your sal- salvation. We, too, can depart. St. Augustine described the matter vation, then you taste it. The same Jesus who created within you a this way: “When the great sacrament has been partaken, a thanks- new life in holy baptism, the same Jesus who heard your confes- giving concludes all.”We are much like the disciples on at the Last sion and declared you forgiven, the same Jesus who preached for- Supper. After they received the Lord’s body and blood, their ser- giveness and life into your ears in the sermon—this same Jesus vice concluded in this manner: “When they had sung a hymn they now gives himself wholly into your mouth. It is a miracle virtual- went out to the Mount of Olives.” Similarly we take our leave. ly beyond comprehension. The whole Christ unites himself to Two thoughts stand before us in this canticle. First, the Lord’s you. By your eating and drinking he is neither divided nor dimin- Supper is a very personal matter. You, “thy servant” (singular),   ask God’s peace for yourself. And yet the entire world remains in and becomes the hand whereby they claim for themselves what view. You have received not just your salvation, but present here God is doing in the liturgy. Dictionaries typically define “amen” is the “salvation which thou hast prepared before the face of all in terms such as, “so be it” or “may it be so.” In the liturgy God people.”As you were invited into the presence of God to receive places words in our mouths that describe what he has done and his gifts, time stood still. Now, however, the clock begins ticking what he continues to do for us.“Amen” receives those activities of once again and we prepare once more to take up our various God as our own. vocations in the world. When, for instance, the Christian attaches his “Amen” to the Lord’s Prayer, he claims for himself all those petitions offer. “May THE BENEDICTION your name be made holy to me.”“May your kingdom come to me.” Having begun with the gospel, the divine service concludes the “May your will, in heaven and on earth, be done for me.”“May that same way. In the Invocation we heard the dominical words with bread which is needful for the day be given to me.” On and on it which we were baptized. The Invocation introduced God to us as goes. “Forgive me.”“Do not tempt me.”“Deliver me.” The “Amen” the Holy Trinity. Inherent in that introduction was God’s promise of a Christian is like a child’s eager hand that grasps hold of what to act for us. God comes in and with his name. This he has done, is set before it. is doing now, and will continue to do. Our liturgy is a timeless order in which this “coming” of God takes place. It is within the liturgy, after all, that we hear of the divine Son who takes our sins upon himself and becomes the atonement whereby we are recon- ciled to the Father. Moreover, this gracious Word comes to us The church in the year  stands through the power of the Holy Spirit who becomes our tutor in where she has always stood, in constant the faith. In essence the Benediction brings us back to the begin- ning of the service, to the Invocation. In this way each divine ser- communion with God and in opposition vice prepares us for the next. to the culture that surrounds her. As the service concludes, God directs us once more to himself. nb The Benediction leads us back into the Old Testament. From the book of Numbers (:–) we hear the blessing that God spoke through the mouth of Moses, the words by which the sons of Israel were to be blessed. This is entirely as it should be. All who A seminary professor once lectured his liturgics class in this have been reborn by the baptizing, faith-creating word of God manner: “Gentlemen, never step on the voice of the people!” To constitute the new Israel. All this St. Paul describes when he the students it seemed an odd thing to say. After all, how can one declares, “Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who step on a voice? The advice, however, was good and proper. What are sons of Abraham” (Gal :). the professor meant was simply this: “Gentlemen, allow your peo- The Benediction speaks trinitarian language. The Father bless- ple to claim what rightfully belongs to them. Don’t rush them. In es us in all things. From him comes the life that animates us, both the liturgy God’s blessings are placed before them like courses at a in body and in soul. The Son’s face shines upon us as our Pascha — banquet, and the faithful need time to take what is theirs.” our Passover Lamb whose blood cleanses from all sin. We are Specifically, the professor was urging that ministers act with Jesus’ delight. He delights in taking our death into himself and greater solicitude. The congregation sings its “Amen” as a claimant bestowing his life upon us in return. That our sins might be placed of holy things. The pastor, by his actions, should indicate his upon him was the eternal plan of the eternal Godhead, a plan that recognition of this. He shouldn’t be walking around, or turning to was forever accomplished in Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. It face a different direction, or doing something else. Rather, he is to this atonement that the Holy Spirit constantly points us. We should simply and quietly wait until the congregation has finished are directed always to the One whose countenance is lifted over us receiving the gifts meant for it. from the cross and who declares our peace by his words “It is Following the Benediction this action of receiving holy things finished.” The Benediction bespeaks the God who goes through becomes very pronounced. The end of the liturgy is met with a death to bring life, the God who takes our death into himself, threefold Amen. This is both reception and confession. All that bestowing eternal life in return. God has declared to the faithful during the divine service, they claim. Moreover, they make their rightful claim while confessing THE AMEN the Holy Trinity. The activities of God the Father, the Son, and the Mention has already been made of repetition in the liturgy. Words Holy Spirit pass before the eyes of believing souls and are recog- and phrases that reoccur catch our attention. So it is with the nized in turn. For a final time God has spoken and his people have Amen. This word appears fifteen times during the Order of the responded. Now, the gospel being the last thing they have heard, Holy Communion (page ) in The Lutheran Hymnal. Most the redeemed are ready to resume their vocations in the world. significantly, it is always placed in the mouth of the people. The divine service has ended. Nothing more ought to be said. No The significance of “Amen” belies its humble appearance. This announcements, no directives to go and do something should be is not simply a churchly way of saying “the end.” It isn’t that added. Instead, just as the gospel began the liturgy, so it concludes something must conclude all prayers, and “Amen” has become it. The cycle of God’s grace has kept, is keeping, and will continue the code word of choice. Rather, “Amen” belongs to the faithful to keep his people.     

CONCLUSION with God and in opposition to the culture that surrounds her. The We began by reminding you of your place in the heavenly worship world is always turned in upon itself. By contrast, the church is of God. Week after week you gather with angels and archangels. always turned outward toward God. The church knows but one You are joined to all the company of heaven when you appear Lord and seeks after him alone. He has the gifts she needs. He has before the altar. You become part of an ongoing liturgy, the ongo- the words of eternal life. He has the promise of forgiveness that ing divine service of God. Truly the most meager congregation is guarantees her well-being, her salvation. The church does not filled to overflowing at each divine service. We are surrounded by liturgically disembowel herself at the fickle altar of cultural rele- heaven itself. This is the constant reality of Lutheran worship, vance by attempting to become attractive to the world. Whenever Lutheran liturgy. she chases after such significance or pertinence, she finds only a The church of all ages is one. We do not trace our existence back chimerical fantasy that destroys her. Wherever she accedes to this only to the Saxon immigration of the s or the Ninety-five temptation, she finds herself led from one mirage to another. The Theses of . Our history is far older. Our life passes back through church catholic knows this. In her liturgy she recognizes this. The the apostles, back through the prophets and patriarchs. Indeed, the church knows herself to be holy and beautiful in God’s eyes, and church has existed since the Garden of Eden. Adam was the first with this she is content. She has no interest in the world’s pastor. Eve was the first congregation. The first man was given approval. responsibility for teaching the first woman how the true worship of The liturgy of the divine service places us where we belong. God would be maintained. That order has not changed. With all the company of heaven we gather before the throne of the So where does this put us in our day? The church in the year Lamb and there receive his gifts. This is timeless worship, and in  stands where she has always stood, in constant communion this timelessness we enter the “real time” of God. LOGIA Inklings

Sorry I wasn't here earlier, but you did tell me to be mindful of my baptism and, well . . . C F “Through the mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren . . .” Smalcald Articles /

j

RESPONSES TO THOMAS NASS J. Webber does not specifically mention The Large Catechism LOGIA ,NO. (HOLY TRINITY ) derivation, but he comes close to relating a teacher’s catechism The “Symposium on the Ministry” in L ,no. lacked instruction with the duties of the parent, concluding that the cate- consideration of a confessional writing addressing the relation- chist’s work is not “a definitive or culminant statement” of the ship of school teachers to the Preaching Office. In The Large preaching office (L ,no.: ). Catechism, Luther traces a teacher’s authority from that of The authority of the gospel is exercised by preaching or teach- parents (LC I, ;Tappert,; cf. AE : –). He also treats ing and by administering the sacraments (AC ; , –). pastors and their authority as distinct (LC I, ;Tappert,). Where school teachers might “teach” the word, they do not The Large Catechism’s teaching advances that of Luther’s earlier administer the sacraments, and thus they do not exercise the “To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany that They authority of the gospel as do those in the preaching office. The Establish and Maintain Christian Schools” (, AE : –), word “ministry” in the definitive “preaching office” sense of AC ’s and Luther’ s treatment in The Large Catechism promises a “teaching the gospel and administering the sacraments” excludes more extensive explanation. non-ordained teachers, organists, and the like. These latter may be Luther’s “Sermon on Keeping Children in School” (, AE : in auxiliary offices or supporting/aiding positions with some dele- –) follows. In it, as in “To the Councilmen,” Luther speaks gated responsibilities of the preaching office, but they are not in of the need for schools to provide both future pastors and civil the office itself (L ,no.: ). The epithet “word and sacra- rulers. Luther can group pastors and teachers together, but there ment minister (or ministry)” used by some in reference to the the schooling seems to be the training of pastors. (This is espe- preaching office may need to become the norm in the face of cially against the notion of an untrained priesthood or no priest- an unstoppable onslaught of “ministries.” Jayson S. Galler hood at all.) When he turns to supplying civil rulers, Luther out- University of Texas, Austin lines the need for male and female teachers for boys and girls in fields such as grammar and rhetoric. Luther writes that if he I have a number of concerns about the view of the ministry would leave the preaching office, he would be such a schoolmas- presented in the recent article by Thomas Nass. ter. Thus Luther consistently sees a teaching position as being . The office of the keys is completely misunderstood and con- distinct from the work of the preaching office. (This reflects the fused with the priesthood of the baptized until the two are indis- development of schools then [see, for example, AE : ].) tinguishable. The scriptural and confessional definition of the In modern times, parochial school teachers instructing students keys is the power to forgive and bind sins. Nass seems to include on grammar, science, and the like may or may not also give reli- simply telling someone about Christ as part of the office of the gious instruction. Those who do are like public school teachers keys. He confuses the keys with the office or responsibility of par- who also teach Sunday School. Those in both positions “witness,” ent in citing Ephesians :! In the confessions absolution is always but neither serve as ambassadors (see L ,no.: ). reserved for those who are called to the Predigtamt, the office of Irrelevant are distinctions based on the employer, course content, bishop or pastor, even in private confession except in an emergency. full- versus part-time status, those based on gender (where a male The confessions are very clear on this point: individual members teacher can be “called” to fill the same position for which a of the church do not have the right to exercise the keys unless they woman can only be “contracted”), or those made for tax purposes. have a call to the public office. Telling others the gospel is not the Neither private nor public teachers are generally “called” in the same as exercising the keys. To confuse the two is to denigrate Confessions’ sense of also being instructed, examined, and both the priesthood of the baptized and the pastoral office. It is ordained (into the preaching office, for which only the word is an attempt to elevate the priesthood of the baptized, held by all used in LCMS circles [see L ,no.: ]). Christians, by equating it with the keys. This implies that being WELS views the church as free to establish pastors and a Christian, without the regular exercise of power of the keys but Christian teachers as forms of the one ministry of the Word with the power to speak the gospel privately to others, is some- (L ,no.: ), but the Confessions put teachers under the thing less than dignified. This is an insult to the priesthood, authority of parents, as they act in loco parentis. Do some teachers whose work is exalted and honored by Scripture. in the process serve the “ministry of the word”? Luther, like . Nass’s exegesis is curious. His use of Acts : to speak of the Melanchthon, recognizes some such service (AE : ). In exam- first Christians as “preaching” is misleading since the Greek word ining the “ministry of the word” phrase from Ap , ,David is euaggelizo rather than the more specific public proclamation    embodied in kyrisso. He implies that there are various forms of the called ministry of the church. This implies that the layperson will ministry based on Ephesians :. At least two of the offices, apos- tell the sinner he is forgiven (v. ). Both the confessions and tle and prophet, however, involved a direct call from God. Nass Luther use Matthew  as a key proof passage to show that the cites claims  Corinthians :– to prove that there are different keys are given to all Christians (Tr , ; AE : ; : ). It is forms of the ministry than simply pastor. That passage does not interesting to notice that when a layperson uses the keys in prove this. It notes that God has appointed in the church some Matthew :, it is not something done in an “emergency” or in with diverse gifts that lead them to concentrate on certain aspects a case of “necessity” when no pastor is at hand. It is the ordinary of the ministry. It does not state or imply that “workers of mira- first step in admonition, even when a called ministry is available. cles” do not baptize or that those with “gifts of administration” To say that only pastors may speak an absolution is a return to do not celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Nass’s quotation from Luther Grabau and Loehe. I find it ironic for Steinmann as a professor is misleading, since the Reformer was not thinking of our contem- in the LCMS to imply that Grabau and Loehe represent “the porary Christian grade school principal when he spoke of school- mainstream of Lutheran thinking” on this topic, when clear state- masters. He was thinking of pastors who concentrated on running ments from Walther, Franz Pieper, and the current leadership of schools, as the quotation indicates: These men were able to per- the LCMS (as demonstrated in the theological essays for the th form the ministry of word and sacrament. anniversary of the LCMS) maintain that laypeople may use the . The New Testament recognizes an office of deacon along keys. To say that only pastors may speak an absolution with with the office of the bishop. It thereby approves of the church Christ’s power is also a subtle return to Romanism. Suddenly creating offices to assist the office of the ministry. Yet the New the person is the key, and not the power of the word. Testament contains no mandate to call deacons. Thus they are Some words of Luther seem timely in the current discussion. not holders of the Predigtamt with full privileges to publicly In  Luther wrote, “We need pay no attention to the bogey man preach and administer the sacraments. While their office is not of these masqueraders when they distinguish between the power mandated by God, it is valuable. Paul honors the Deacon of the keys and the use of the keys, a distinction based on no Tychicus, calling him a dear brother and syndoulos in the Lord Scripture but on their own recklessness alone....[They] go on (Col :). Nass, however, considers even the physical education to this fictitious distinction that the power of the keys belongs to professor at a WELS college to be in the same office as pastor the church, their use, however, to the bishops....Christ gives because he is expected to use the word. Should we not also expect both the power and the use of the keys to each Christian” (AE the Christian who is a physical education professor at a public : ). In a  sermon on John :–, Luther said, “Therefore university to share the word when appropriate? Does the source the following order is to be observed: the congregation shall elect of the paycheck make the difference? How about expecting the one, who is qualified, and he shall administer the Lord’s Supper, same of the university’s maintenance personnel? preach, hear confession and baptize. True we all have this power; In summary, Nass’s view of the ministry does not place him in but no one shall presume to exercise it publicly, except the one the mainstream of Lutheran thinking, but requires a tortured who has been elected by the congregation to do so. But in private reading of the Scriptures and the Confessions. I may freely exercise it. For instance, if my neighbor comes and Andrew E. Steinmann, Associate Professor of Theology and Hebrew says: Friend, I am burdened in my conscience; speak the absolu- Concordia University, River Forest, Illinois tion to me; then I am free to do so, but I say it must be done privately” (Lenker, Sermons, : ). Luther said much the same RESPONSE TO ANDREW STEINMANN in a sermon on the same text in  (Lenker, Sermons, : ff). Prof. Steinmann seemingly wants to drive a wedge between the So if I have a repentant child in my home, I will say: “Jesus died gospel and absolution. Laypeople may share the gospel, but only for the sins of the world. Go in peace, your sins are forgiven.”Since pastors may use the keys or speak an absolution. If I were to fol- I have the gospel, I have the keys. Then on Sunday my child and low Prof. Steinmann in my home, I suppose what I should say to I will hear our pastor announce forgiveness as the one commis- a repentant child is this: “Jesus died for the sins of the world. Let’s sioned by the church to use the keys publicly. My use of the keys go to the pastor so he can tell you that you are forgiven.” at home does not take away the need for and the importance of I don’t find any such wedge in the Lutheran confessions, or the public ministry. My use of the keys at home does not mean in Luther, or in the Bible. The Tractate says, “Just as the promise I will use the keys publicly without a call from the church. of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire As for applications of the ministry doctrine in WELS, the fol- Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, lowing can be said. WELS does not consider pastors and teachers because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this in Christian schools to be in the same office. They are both in promise is communicated to every one who desires it” (German the public ministry of the church, but they are in different forms text; Triglot , Goettingen ). All Christians have the keys, or offices of ministry. A WELS member who teaches at a secular because they all have the gospel. Luther says, “To bind and to school will witness to his faith as a private individual, but his loose clearly is nothing else than to proclaim and to apply the witnessing is not part of the public ministry of the church so he gospel. ...The keys are an exercise of the ministry of the Word is not called by the church. We don’t expect maintenance per- and belong to all Christians” (AE : –). sonnel to share God’s Word, so we don’t call individuals to these Most importantly, Matthew :– indicates that a layperson positions. may admonish a sinner. When the sinner is repentant, the layper- Thomas P. Nass, Martin Luther College son may bring the situation to a resolution without involving the New Ulm, Minnesota R “It is not many books that make men learned ...but it is a good book frequently read.” Martin Luther

j

Boyle does more than show the inherent impossibility of statis- Review Essay tically quantifying everything. He also explores the philosophical issues and implications of materialism and the resulting vain attempts to divine meaning through numbers. As the book’s title The Sum of Our Discontent: Why Numbers Make Us Irrational. indicates, he concludes that our habit of quantification is not only By David Boyle. New York: Texere, . meaningless; it is also becoming increasingly disturbing to us, individually and collectively. He also muses on why we are h There are certain enlightening experiences that can best be obsessed with numbers: “Politicians can’t measure poverty, so described by the biblical allusion of scales falling from one’s eyes. they measure the number of people on welfare. Or they can’t mea- I recall one such incident when, after ten years in the parish, I took sure intelligence, so they measure exam results, or IQ. Doctors a summer school course in church administration. We watched a measure blood cells rather than health, and people all over the video by a famous business guru on the absolute necessity (and world measure money rather than love.” seemingly nirvana-inducing power) of a mission statement then What does all this have to do with our life together in the faddish in the business world. As I watched, the scales fell from my church? Take that quotation above and apply it to the church: The eyes: This is why every American institution, from fast-food church cannot measure spiritual growth, so we measure the num- restaurant to church, has suddenly become preoccupied with mis- ber of new members. Or we cannot measure faith, so we measure sion statements. The movers and shakers are all watching this attendance. We measure such numerical factors rather than doc- video. I felt a similar sense of the scales falling from my eyes as I trine, and people all over the church measure money rather than read David Boyle’s masterful book The Sum of Our Discontent: commitment. An example is national youth gatherings. We are Why Numbers Make Us Irrational. Now I understand: This is why, unable to measure the spiritual growth of attendees, so we boil even in the church, we are increasingly obsessed with numbers success down to one simple number: those in attendance.¹ In and statistics. accord with Boyle’s thesis, it seems that quantification in our cir- Boyle is a respected British economist who writes about eco- cles often consists of inaccurate, simplistic caricatures, largely neg- nomics for many international papers and magazines, including ative and disturbing. The Guardian and New Statesman, and is the editor of New At the recent convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Economics magazine and senior associate of The New Economics Synod, young people opened the sessions by asking multiple Foundation. This book is an americanized version of The Tyranny choice statistical questions about the synod. Delegates responded of Numbers: Why Counting Can’t Make Us Happy, published in from a list of possible answers using their keypads. Almost every Britain the previous year. question was followed by a negative twist. Delegates seemed pleas- Boyle alternates chapters between two themes. He ponders the antly surprised at the high number of children baptized annually fallacy of measuring abstractions, such as happiness and satisfac- in the LCMS. Then the sobering qualification was added that a tion (surveys find that Mexicans are the happiest people on earth; certain percentage of them will never be confirmed. But that neg- the Japanese are the most miserable). He also gives historical ative twist is meaningless without proper context: How does it examples of formative but ill-advised attempts at statistical exac- compare to previous years? To other church bodies? Do they titude—and the resulting fundamental misconceptions we still migrate to other church bodies or simply drop out altogether? live with—by such pivotal personalities as Robert Malthus, Jeremy Articles in The Lutheran Witness warned, “Projections are that Bentham, and John Maynard Keynes. without major changes,  to  percent of LCMS congregations Boyle’s main thesis is that complex systems and abstractions will be without a pastor in fewer than  years,”² and it is “a bad cannot be quantified and measured by statistics. Attempting to situation getting worse.”³ Yet they failed to mention or take into reduce such multifaceted matters to simple numbers is doomed to account in their projections that between – and – failure. Many measurements are inaccurate, simplistic caricatures. the number of LCMS pre-seminary students nationwide jumped Also, the measuring process itself changes that which is being an astounding  percent.⁴ During this time, all LCMS under- measured. In the end, what we choose to measure and how we graduate church-work students increased  percent.⁵ This measure it tells us much more than any result of measurement. across-the-board increase in the number of young people enter-    ing full-time church work in the LCMS is an extraordinary phe- and those already Lutheran. Based on his extensive market nomenon, unparalleled in any other denomination. Yet it goes research among the unchurched, Barna concluded: unmentioned.⁶ The LCMS and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America both Most nonchurched adults would prefer a service that incor- issued press releases in  summarizing membership statistics porates traditional hymns rather than contemporary for the previous year. The two denominations had almost identi- Christian music. This surprises many people, who assume cal, slight declines in membership. Yet the ELCA release was posi- that anything that smacks of tradition is automatically tively titled “Membership Remained Stable for ELCA rejected by those who are outside the church. The truth is Congregations in ,”⁷ while the LCMS release had a negative that nonchurched adults are twice as likely to say they would spin: “LCMS Reports ‘Flat’ Membership Figures.”⁸ prefer traditional hymns to contemporary forms of music.¹⁶ The fact is, by almost any statistical standard the LCMS can be comparatively regarded as a wildly successful church body. A  study commissioned by Lutheran Brotherhood con- Consider average church attendance, for example. The LCMS has cluded: “Lutherans overwhelmingly prefer traditional to contem- about . million members, and on a given Sunday about one mil- porary services, according to a national poll of nearly , lion nationwide are in church⁹—one of the highest percentages Lutherans. Seventy-seven percent of survey respondents said they among mainline American church bodies. By contrast, the favor traditional worship services.”¹⁷ Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has . million mem- How could these two studies, conducted by respected bers, but on a given Sunday only about . million are in church.¹⁰ researchers at the same time as the Church Membership Initiative, The Southern Baptist Convention boasts of having . million reach the exact opposite conclusion? The Church Membership members, but on a given Sunday only about . million are in Initiative predicated its methodology and subsequent conclusions church.¹¹ One article quoted SBC President Paige Patterson as on the a priori assumption that traditional worship is unable to admitting, “We’ve known for a long time the boasting numbers “meet the worship needs of people new to Lutheranism or to were inflated. Some of us were having a hard time with our con- Christianity.”¹⁸ The outcome was determined accordingly, by sciences about it. Churches have been cleaning up their rolls .We what they chose to measure and how they measured it. needed to get more honest about the numbers.”¹² In all, over  If there is any territory that should be foreign to modern man’s percent of all members of SBC congregations are totally inactive, obsession with the numbers, quantification, and statistics that even non-existent.¹³ An official report concluded, “Given the Boyle decries, it is the Christian church. Over and over again, the propensity of Southern Baptist churches not to remove members New Testament makes clear that success is not to be determined from their rolls, it is likely that most churches are declining in by numbers. In the Parables of the Sower (Mt :–;Mk :–;Lk active membership.”¹⁴ :–) and the Growing Seed (Mk :–), the sower is down- Considering the comparatively favorable statistics of the right haphazard in scattering the seed, but God produces results. LCMS, why this seeming penchant to cast everything in a negative “This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on light? Perhaps it is classic “Lutheran guilt,”which Garrison Keillor the ground. Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed has turned into a lucrative cottage industry. According to Boyle’s sprouts and grows, though he does not know how” (Mk :–). thesis, there is a deeper, underlying cause. The illusory reliance St. Paul takes the same attitude in  Corinthians :–: “I planted upon statistics to represent reality or ascertain meaning almost the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he inevitably leads to discontent. That was the sinful attitude of who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who David in  Chronicles :: “Satan rose up against Israel and incit- makes things grow.” ed David to take a census of Israel.” Boyle’s work sheds a new light on the old adage that pastors are The best examples of Boyle’s thesis in the LCMS are two major not called to be successful, but rather faithful. St. Paul wrote: statistical studies, the Church Membership Initiative and the Clergy Shortage Study. As mentioned above, the latter study fails So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as to take into account an extraordinary increase in the number of those entrusted with the secret things of God. Now it is pre-seminary students. Both studies are textbook illustrations of required that those who have been given a trust must prove Boyle’s contention that what we choose to measure and how we faithful. I care very little if I am judged by you or by any measure it tell us much more than any result of measurement. human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself .It is the For example, the Church Membership Initiative suggests that Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the in order to grow, congregations must adopt contemporary wor- appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to ship.¹⁵ It is transparently obvious, however, that this is the strong light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives personal preference of the researcher. Thus in accord with Boyle’s of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from thesis, we learn little about any connection between church God ( Co :–). growth and contemporary worship. Rather, we learn primarily about the preferences of the person conducting the study. According to Boyle’s thesis, it is impossible to measure something Boyle’s thesis is further demonstrated in this example by the such as faithfulness on the basis of statistics. It is an illusion to think fact that more extensive studies conducted by George Barna and you can boil down something so complex and multifaceted as a Lutheran Brotherhood showed the exact opposite result: a strong pastor’s or congregation’s ministry into a convenient handful of sta- preference for traditional worship among both the unchurched tistics. Those who attempt to do so reveal nothing about the pastor   or congregation, only about themselves—by what they choose to Coyote, that hapless cartoon character who never catches the measure and how they measure it. Attempting to judge faithfulness Road Runner. [They] exist solely to find the next “new” and find meaning and reality in the church on the basis of numbers thing, no matter how silly or painful the result. Sometimes is exactly what St. Paul is speaking of when he says,“Therefore judge the best thing a non-profit can do is focus on being the Road nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will Runner. That means doing what it already does well, only bring to light what is hidden in darkness.” better. Focusing on its mission, setting higher standards, In the LCMS, statistics are routinely thrown about that are shal- even adopting ideas from business—but never to excess.²³ low, fallacious, and out of context. Just a few examples I noticed when, after reading Boyle’s book, I visited the web site of a group Many in the realm of business are likewise tiring of the cycle of within the LCMS. There I found statements such as these: passing fads (just read the comic strip “Dilbert”). Here is a per- • % of our churches are dormant, declining or dying.¹⁹ spective from the business world (albeit somewhat caustic) that • Statistics can also help measure such factors as trust, approval, sounds eerily familiar: acceptance, patient endurance, peace, selflessness, humility and cooperation.²⁰ The way it works is so sinister that few even know they are • Roughly % of all Lutherans dislike change.²¹ nothing more than group-think stooges. The classic method Most disturbing are the clumsy comparisons routinely made is through an exclusive conference. Only “qualified” people between congregations, without any regard for their history, set- are invited to attend, and they have to pay for the privilege. ting, and other factors. Many pastors and congregations who are Of course, the advantage to them is that they get to meet laboring faithfully feel beaten up by statistics. I was one of the other suckers who all perceive each other as part of the cul- lucky ones. I was pastor of a congregation with regular annual tural elite. At the event, there are carefully chosen speakers increases in worship attendance. A young pastor once asked me, who pitch some idea backed by dubious information that “What’s the secret to having such a fast-growing, successful may indicate a new trend looming—an important trend. church?” I replied, “The secret is to build your church in the The new trend becomes the buzz and gets reported as gospel fourth fastest growing city in the entire United States.”²² in the trade papers. It then cycles back into the group in a Other pastors and congregations are not so fortunate. They are kind of forced feedback loop, making the original assertions in areas with a stagnant or declining population. Nevertheless, my more powerful.²⁴ own explorations of the statistics for congregations on the web site of the LCMS along with related population data on the U.S. Boyle’s book, however, is one of several “hot” new business Census Bureau web site has led me to conclude that many of our books, most notably The Myth of Excellence: Why Great most “successful” congregations are in precisely these areas. When Companies Never Try to Be the Best at Everything, by Frederick A. you factor in population growth or decline, some of these congre- Crawford and Ryan Matthews, that actually deconstruct many of gations are proportionally much more successful than the exam- the models we in the church have recently adopted from the busi- ples generally cited from growing suburbs. The most revealing ness world. In this case, we may wish to encourage the church to factor is average church attendance, especially as a percentage of leap ahead to this latest trend. membership. In many instances, congregations that are seen as models of church growth are indeed experiencing an increase in NOTES membership, but at the same time a decrease in attendance, as a . “Record Crowd Expected for  Youth Gathering,” Reporter, percentage of membership or even in sheer numbers. July , .  Is there a role for statistics in the church? I would say yes, if we . David L. Mahsman, “A Shortage of Pastors,” The Lutheran Witness, June , . keep them in their proper place. (Do send in your statistical . Alan C. Klass, “Clergy in Crisis,” The Lutheran Witness, June , . reports!) As with any form of human reason, statistics must take . Kevin D. Vogts, “Letters,” The Lutheran Witness, August, , . a ministerial rather than a magisterial role with respect to scrip- . The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Board for Higher tural theology. Another way of expressing Boyle’s thesis is that too Education, Statistical Report, –.  often we place statistics in a magisterial role. . I have taken to asking at random both laity and church workers whether they think the number of church work students in the LCMS is A final note. It can be very vexing the way the church imports, increasing or decreasing. Almost without fail they reply that it is decreas- a few years after the fact, warmed-over fads from the business ing—drastically. When I mention that it is actually increasing substantially, world. In the church we are often just getting fully on board about they often respond with disbelief or even anger. the time these fads are becoming passé in the business world that . ELCA News Service, “Membership Remained Stable for ELCA    spawned them. Paul Light, an expert on non-profit management Congregations in ,” July , . . LCMS News, “LCMS Reports ‘Flat’ Membership Figures,” August at the Brookings Institution, portrays this phenomenon in a light- , . hearted but enlightening way, comparing churches and other . LCMS News, August , . non-profit organizations to Wile E. Coyote, obsessed with catch- . ELCA News Service, July , . The ELCA touts itself as the ing up with the Road Runner: largest Lutheran church body in the United States, and the general percep- tion is that the liberal ELCA is more “successful” than—and twice the size of—the conservative LCMS. In terms of actual attendance, however, the The widespread wisdom today is that non-profit groups LCMS is much closer in size to the ELCA. When one combines the average must be run more like businesses to survive. But, taken to the weekly attendance of all conservative Lutheran church bodies in the U.S., extreme [this] can make non-profits behave like Wile E. mainly the LCMS, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and Evangelical  

Lutheran Synod, one finds that the liberal and conservative camps of Herod or the Sanhedrin; he took no political action; his dis- American Lutheranism are in fact almost equally divided. Even in terms of ciples were relatively uneducated. Yet he changed millions membership, both the LCMS and ELCA are among the ten largest religious more than Alexander the Great, Mohammed, and Napoleon bodies and the most ubiquitous religious bodies (membership as a per- centage of population) in the United States. (Preston Hunter, “Largest put together. It all happened because his message and his Religious Groups in the United States of America,” http://www.adher- physical resurrection transformed his early followers, who ents.com/rel_USA.html.) did not pick up the sword to defend themselves even during . Phillip B. Jones, A Large Convention of Small Churches: Analysis of brutal persecutions, but rather they went about spreading his  the Distributions of Southern Baptist Churches (Nashville: LifeWay, ). love and the need for his forgiveness by word and deed to . Cary McMullen, “Baptists Struggle to Pump Up Rolls,” The Ledger [Lakeland, Florida], June , . all—regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, poverty, or wealth. . David W.Cloud,“Half of SBC Members Are Inactive,”Fundamental They did so because they believed with all their heart, soul, Baptist Information Service, June , . and might the words of Jesus; “I am the way, the truth, and . Jones, A Large Convention of Small Churches. The story is much the the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” same with the Assemblies of God. Several years ago their statistical depart- (John :). They echoed the conviction of Peter’s words ment announced that the record growth they have been reporting may have been overstated for years by as much as  percent per year, due to spoken to his fellow Jews: “Salvation is found in no one else, existing members who were rebaptized (an Assemblies of God custom) for there is no other name under heaven given to men by being counted as new members. which we must be saved” (Acts :). . Alan C. Klass and Cheryl Brown, “Growing Churches Offer They took this stance because they knew that Jesus Christ,   Worship Variety,”Reporter, July , . who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, did in fact physical- . George Barna, Evangelism That Works (Ventura, California: Gospel Light, ), . ly and empirically rise from the dead. They knew that it was . “Lutherans Like Traditional Service,” Reporter,December,, . not their faith that validated Christ’s resurrection, as many of . Klass and Brown. today’s modern theologians teach and preach, but that it was . Charles S. Mueller Sr., “Each Congregation to Do Ministry Its Own his physical resurrection that validated their faith (). Way,”www.jesusfirst.net. . Daniel G. Mueller, “Survey Measures Institutional Health,” www.jesusfirst.net. Alvin Schmidt maintains that along with the message of . Charles S. Mueller Sr., “Avoid a Nasty Turn in the Way Worship Is Christianity came new ideas and institutions that even most non- Done,”www.jesusfirst.net. Christians today consider being basic requirements for civilized . Joe Gose,“Lawrence Gets Another Top Ranking in the U.S.,” Kansas life. In fifteen chapters he presents a brilliant and comprehensive    City Star, February , ,B . survey of how Christianity has profoundly influenced for two . Paul Light,“Non-Profit Pressure,”National Public Radio, All Things Considered, August , . thousand years such areas as education, morality, marriage, . John C. Dvorak, “The Group-Think Phenomenon,” PC Magazine, women’s rights, medicine, public health, economics, scientific June , , . knowledge, liberty, justice, art, architecture, music, and literature. Kevin D. Vogts The author carefully records how all these things that we cherish Mequon, Wisconsin most and take for granted can be traced to the teachings of Christianity. The book is filled with many photographs, timelines, and charts to illustrate the author’s position. Meticulous docu- mentation is provided. Schmidt has done extensive research to Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization. document how Christianity’s influence actually extends further By Alvin J. Schmidt. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan and deeper than most people realize. Publishing House—Harper and Colins Publishers, .  Dr. Alvin Schmidt, author also of The Menace of Multiculturalism pages. Hardcover. .. (Praeger, ), is regarded as one of the leaders in the defense of historic Christianity and western civilization. Anyone who is inter- h What has made the last two thousand years of civilization ested in how Christianity has influenced our civilization today different from the first four thousand years of history? Alvin J. should read this book. Paul Maier writes in the Foreword: Schmidt demonstrates why our world is a very different place because of Christianity. The book is a survey of the vast, pervasive With the increasing secularization of society and the current influence that Christianity has had for two thousand years and emphasis on multiculturalism—especially in matters reli- how it has transformed civilization. It discloses how far and how gious—the massive impact that Christianity has had on civ- deep the influence of Christ extends. ilization is often overlooked, obscured, or even denied. For Setting Christianity against its historical Greek and Roman this and many other reasons, a powerful response is long backdrop and against pagan cultures worldwide, the book reveals overdue, not only in the interest of defending the faith, but the full, radical nature of the Christian faith as a shaping force that more urgently to set the historical record straight. This book has knit the moral fabric and inspired the highest achievements of delivers that compelling response (–). western civilization, with untold benefits to the entire world. Schmidt writes: Schmidt was compelled to write this book for three major rea- sons. First, while doing research for a Christmas sermon in , Unlike the leaders of so many other religious movements, he discovered a pronounced paucity of information available Jesus was no political figure; he had no connection with regarding the influence and impact that Jesus Christ has had on   the world for two thousand years. In the book Schmidt thus seeks In Chapter  Schmidt demonstrates how Jesus and His follow- to discuss and cite the multitude of influences and effects that ers gave unprecedented dignity, equality, and freedom to women. Jesus Christ, through his followers, has had on the world, lifting He documents how the Church, like Jesus, often broke with the civilization to the highest plateau ever known. His second reason social customs of the day. He concludes, for writing is to provide a one-volume resource that the average reader may use to learn about the magnanimous influences that In numerous ways the church has always treated women as Jesus Christ, through his followers, has had for centuries on bil- man’s equal. For instance, before becoming a member of the lions of people and many social institutions to this very day. His church, she received the same catechetical instruction as did third reason is to try to convince those who disparage Christianity a man, she was baptized like a man, she participated equally that were it not for Christianity, they would not have the freedom with men in receiving the Lord’s Supper, and she prayed and that they now presently enjoy. sang with men in the same worship settings (). In chapter , “The Sanctification of Human Life,” Schmidt exhibits how the Christians defied the entire system of Rome’s But it should have also been pointed out that Jesus did not call morality. The pagan gods taught the people no morals. In con- a woman to be one of his apostles. The disciples did not choose a trast, Christianity saw human beings as the crown of God's cre- women to take the place of Judas, although several women ation; they believed that man was made in the image of God, fulfilled the qualifications (Acts :–) better than the man who according to Genesis : (). Thus Schmidt displays how the was chosen. Paul did not permit women to occupy a church early Christians countered the depravity of such things as infanti- offices that would exercise authority over men ( Tim :–). cide, abortion, gladiatorial shows, human sacrifices, and suicide. And the orthodox church never ordained a woman as a pastor, The chapter has a chart that summarizes the Greco-Roman view, priest, or a bishop. Was the reason that this role for women was the views of other cultures, and the position of Christianity on the always looked upon as a doctrine, and never as a custom or a tra- mores of human life. Schmidt thus concludes this chapter: dition? In the chapter “Christianity’s Imprint on Education,” Schmidt People who today see murder and mass atrocities as immoral points out that although the sex ratio in education was decidedly may not realize that their beliefs in this regard are largely the titled in favor of boys, there were still some prominent and well- result of their having internalized the Christian ethic that educated women who appeared throughout the Middle Ages. He holds human life to be sacred. There is no indication that the lists a few: Lioba was a co-missionary worker of St. Boniface wanton taking of human life was morally revolting to the (eighth century). Hrotsvitha of Gandesheim (–) was a ancient Romans. One finds no evidence in Roman literature canoness and was well versed in the Latin classics and wrote plays, that indicates that incidents such as the ethnic cleansing poems, legends, and epics. Hildegard of Bingen (–) atrocities in the former Yugoslavia during the s or the founded her own monastery, wrote a mass, and corresponded Columbine High School massacre in Colorado in , for with popes, emperors, and bishops. Brigitta of Sweden (–) example, would have been morally abhorrent to the ancient opposed high taxes and founded a religious order. Catherine of leaders of Rome or to its populace. The moral revulsion in Siena (–), one of the most famous women in the medieval regard to the taking of innocent life of humans, on a large or church, labored for peace and wrote letters of counsel to men in small scale, came about largely as the result of Christianity’s authority. Christine de Pizan (fourteenth century) authored a doctrine that human life is sacred. However, recent trends number of books. Queen Isabella (–) of Spain under- indicate that its salutary value is diminishing (). wrote Columbus’s trip to America. Young women who received their education in the nunneries were usually schooled in the lib- In the same chapter, the author also deals with the controver- eral arts. Some of these women were as competent as the men in sial subject of burying, not cremating, the dead. He writes: literary matters. Nevertheless, it might have also been pointed out that although So strong was the Christians’ belief that the dead were the church often broke with the customs of the day concerning its “asleep,”waiting to be resurrected, that they called every bur- treatment of women, it never ordained women as ministers. ial place a koimeterion, a word borrowed from the Greek that When the church in the twentieth century ordains women as pas- meant a dormitory where people slumbered. Koimeterion tors and bishops, this is not only a break with the entire history became “cemetery” in the English language. Thus, every time and practice of the orthodox church, but also a departure from people use the word cemetery they are using a term that the doctrine of Holy Scripture. harks back to the early Christians and their belief that the Schmidt also reveals () how Luther’s and Calvin’s desire to dead are merely slumbering until the day of their resurrec- educate everyone is not the product of the modern secular world, tion. Today, contrary to centuries of Christian opposition, but rather a concept that is the logical outgrowth of two of more and more Christian denominations, even some con- Christianity’s biblical tenets. God is no respecter of persons (Acts servative ones, are permitting their members to cremate the :). And every individual is responsible for his own salvation deceased bodies of their loved one. What accounts for the (John :). recent increase in cremation practices? Among many Schmidt discloses why slavery might well have remained an Christians it probably reflects ignorance about how strongly institution until today, were it not for Christianity. He points out the early Christians felt in rejecting the custom (–). how the concerns of human rights, equality under the law, and   economic freedom are deeply rooted in the Christian ethic. He Romans Debate and for substantive contributions to the study of also deals with how Christianity influenced both the Abolitionist – Thessalonians in The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters, and Civil Rights movements. He might have pointed out, howev- outlines the scope and nature of the debate in his introduction. er, that Martin Luther King was more influenced by Ghandi of The debate centers on the ways in which the blossoming study of India than by Christianity. ancient rhetoric impacts the interpretation of  Thessalonians. It In chapter , “Hallmarks of Literature: Their Christian shows the significant differences between those who continue to Imprint,” the author gives brief summaries of important literary approach the letter by examining epistolary structures and those contributions, beginning with the early Christian Church and who have run headlong in the direction of rhetorical analysis. continuing down to the twentieth century. He has a chart giving The essays in the first half of the volume engage in this debate the titles of major works, types of literature, and the authors’ by looking at a specific pericope:  Thessalonians :–. This text names and status. The reader might be surprised to find the name has long been considered an apology or defense by Paul against of Shakespeare omitted here. Some explanation should have been those who sought to discredit his ministry after he left given as to why this great author is not even mentioned in this Thessalonica. Although some scholars continue to defend this chapter on literature. interpretation, several others are now arguing that  Thessalonians This is a book that should find its way into church libraries and should be understood as epideictic rhetoric, namely, a standard pastors’ studies, as well as a textbook for college and seminary rhetorical form that uses praise and/or blame to lead people to a classes in history and apologetics. Schmidt shows Christianity’s particular action in the present (the other two major rhetorical countless contributions, but he also is aware that over the cen- forms are judicial and deliberative). If Paul actually had this turies those who bore the name Christian unfortunately perpe- rhetorical form in mind, then  Thessalonians :– is the first trated many sins of omission and commission.Yet in spite of them part of the narratio, the section of the rhetorical structure that God continued to furnish faithful followers of his Son Jesus recounts with praise the friendship established with this congre- Christ, who, as a by-product of their faith in him, introduced and gation as the basis for encouraging the behavior called for in the established immense improvements for two thousand years in probatio or “proof” section (:–:). Essays by Donfried, Rudolf virtually every human endeavor. Dealing frankly with the highs Hoppe, Traugott Holtz, Johan S. Vos, Otto Merk, and Jeffrey A. D. and lows of Christianity as its influence spread throughout the Weima focus on this same text. It is especially Weima’s essay that globe, Schmidt corrects common misconceptions and unearths substantively challenges and cautions the scholarly trend towards little-known facts about cultural settings, circumstance, events, application of rhetorical criticism to Paul’s epistles. competing ideologies, and key heroes and antiheroes of the faith. The second half of the volume is devoted to the larger method- Mark F. Bartling ological question of whether the structure of  Thessalonians is Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church best discerned through the use of epistolary analysis or rhetorical LaCrosse, Wisconsin analysis or a synthesis of the two. Jan Lambrecht presents a mas- terful discussion on the thanksgivings in  Thessalonians – that demonstrates how Paul went beyond typical epistolary style not only by introducing the body of the letter with a thanksgiving, but The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Method- also by incorporating two other thanksgivings that are central to ological Synthesis? Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Johannes the structure of the letter’s body (see especially :–; :; :–). Beutler. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans A second essay Lambrecht challenges the growing consensus that Publishing Company, .  Thessalonians – are primarily paraenesis that follows the body of the letter. Essays by Johannes Schoon-Janen, Frank W. Hughes, h Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians is receiving renewed Charles A. Wanamaker, Edgar Krentz, and Raymond Collins com- attention by New Testament scholars, especially since it is proba- plete the volume. bly the earliest epistle we have from this apostle, and possibly even The jury is still out on the helpfulness of rhetorical criticism in the earliest in the canon. This volume opens a window through the study of New Testament epistles. This volume helps one to see which an interested student of the New Testament can quickly that  Thessalonians is one of the prime targets of this method, view this recent resurgence of scholarship on  Thessalonians. It even though some scholars are urging moderation in how this consists of a collection of select papers given during – method is employed. These pages also evince that there is some- annual meetings of the Thessalonians Correspondence Seminar times a greater interest among biblical scholars in literary form of the distinguished Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. rather than theological substance. After a look at the title, one is led to ask: What is the debate? Charles A. Gieschen Karl P. Donfried, already known for editing the essays in The Fort Wayne, Indiana L Forum S S  C

   practice, the ensemble had to agree upon an exact tuning pitch U D before playing the symphony. The concertmaster stood up and From Werner Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, trans. Walter the principal oboe played the tuning pitch of inerrancy for the A. Hansen (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), page . musicians. But instead of agreeing upon the standard A-' ( vibrations per minute or the note “A”), the musicians It is not a uniform ethos, nor unity in administration, and, least chose to bicker over whether or not the tuning pitch of inerran- of all, not a common political policy that shows the unity which cy was a relic of antiquated theological minds. The Schweitzer alone is in keeping with the nature of the church; it is unity in strings argued over whether they should start a quest for the doctrine. “The manifest truth must make us one, not obstinacy,” historical A-', noting the modern pitch was a fabricated Luther had said in what he wrote to the nobility. product of the egalitarian mind. The Wellhausen violins also refused to tune to the sound of the oboe, claiming the entire concept of an oboe did not originate with the OT Faithful, but with various secular sources that were later conflated into a false oboe, which only the naive conservatives would ever believe. :     Principle trombone Troeltsch and his section refused to tune I F P until they could compare the oboe note to psychology, philoso-  S  S phy, and anthropology. The Feminist Fiddles observed that the pitch was played by a male and claimed it must be tainted with The following piece was penned in the spirit of C. S. Lewis’s novel outmoded and bigoted concepts of God as Father, Son, and The Pilgrim’s Regress, in which the story of salvation is rehearsed Spirit, instead of God as Source, Offspring, and Swell Friend. in a narrative allegory. This brief essay is set in the context of a Orchestral managers Braaten and Jensen deliberated whether or symphony orchestra in order to explore three contrasting views of not the whole history of the tuning pitch was a historical fact the proper place of inerrancy: the tuning pitch, which the orchestra or a later interpretive tradition. And Jesu wept. must critically debate, the main theme of the symphony, which is Maestro Jesu stepped in front of the Fundy Philharmonic to the standard for church fellowship, or the tuning pitch before the conduct the Symphony of Salvation. A number of former mem- concert (prolegomena), which is penultimate to justification. bers of the Liberation Orchestra had followed him to the new Any resemblance to persons living or dead is quite intentional. ensemble, noting their frustration with the lack of agreement on the tuning pitch of inerrancy in their previous orchestra. But Maestro Jesu stepped in front of the Liberation Orchestra to things would be different with the Fundy Philharmonic. The conduct the Symphony of Salvation. As per standard orchestral concertmaster stood up and motioned to the principal oboe to play the tuning pitch. Everyone agreed on A-' and congratu- lated themselves for not being akin to the Liberation Orchestra. A   L F may be reprinted freely for study The tuning pitch of inerrancy was absolutely fundamental, and and dialogue in congregations and conferences with the understanding it was worth dying for. Maestro Jesu raised his baton to start the that appropriate bibliographical references be made. Initialed pieces are Symphony of Salvation, but he discovered some of the players written by contributing editors whose names are noted on our mast- head. Brief articles may be submitted for consideration by sending them were still talking about how much they loved the tuning pitch. to Rev. Joel A. Brondos,  S. Hanna St., Fort Wayne, IN -. Maestro Jesu politely suggested that the tuning process was a When possible, please provide your work on a .-inch pre-concert exercise that only prepared them for the concert Windows/ compatible diskette. Because of the large number of proper. It was a prolegomena, not a main theme. He again raised unsolicited materials received, we regret that we cannot publish them the baton to start the Symphony, but the Princeton percussion all or notify authors in advance of their publication. Since L is “a free conference in print,” readers should understand that views section of Warfield and Hodge refused to play, noting that only expressed here are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not the original manuscript of the Symphony was authoritative. necessarily reflect the positions of the editors. Later performance editions were tainted with translation errors    and were not worthy to exist on their music stand. Fallwell the rejoice who have a voice to raise; And may God give us faith to fiddler also refused to follow the conductor, suggesting that sing always: Alleluia!” (LW : ). everyone in the ensemble wearing his “Jesus First” pin already Rev. Brian Hamer agreed on the fundamental tuning pitch and should call it a day. Riverview, Florida Principal saxophonist Schaller suggested that the orchestra reconsider their requirements for well-catechized musicians and enlarge the orchestra by welcoming everyone who agreed on the tuning pitch, regardless of their faith in the conductor. Barna     the bass player said the orchestra should stop worrying about the M A main theme of Christ our justification, because he had taken a From Joyce Irwin, “Music and the Doctrine of Adiaphora in survey in which he discovered that people no longer cared about Orthodox Lutheran Theology,” Sixteenth Century Journal , the orchestra, and the ensemble should be more sensitive to felt no.  (Summer ), pages –. This quote is from page  needs. General manager George started preparing the ensemble and demonstrates Irwin’s postulation that the Calvinists rather for the future by breaking the orchestra into small groups to talk than the Lutherans were playing the adiaphoristic trump card in about how the tuning pitch made them feel. And principal lutist church music debates in the early s. Luecke suggested that the orchestra already had the orchestral substance of the tuning pitch and should only concern itself The Lutheran failure and/or refusal to recognize Calvinist expres- with a pop style that would appeal to the uneducated concert sions of flexibility contributed to a gradual abandonment of goer. And Jesu wept. Lutheran flexibility. In the polemical period between the Formula Maestro Jesu stepped in front of the Christ-centered Colle- of Concord and the Thirty Years War, the Lutheran view of music gium of Wittenburg. The concertmaster rose and motioned for developed in explicit opposition to the Calvinist view. At debates the tuning pitch of inerrancy from the principal oboe. The which pitted Lutheran against Calvinist, it was more likely to be orchestra tuned accurately, contra the Liberation Orchestra. And the Calvinist who defended a concept of the indifference of forms, unlike the Fundy Philharmonic, the Christ-centered Collegium whereas the Lutherans were unwilling to settle for such a half- did not bother with self-congratulatory accolades. Rather, the hearted endorsement of music in worship. While alluding occa- members of this ensemble knew the tuning pitch was only a pre- sionally to the teaching on adiaphora, Lutheran writers saw lude to greater things to come. Maestro Jesu raised his baton to Scripture and Christian tradition as pointing clearly to the impor- start the six-movement Symphony of Salvation which was per- tance of music as a means of praising God and receiving benefits. formed in two halves (word and sacrament) of three movements Because God instructed such a means of praise, music was regard- each. The first movement was the Ten Commandments, an over- ed as far more integrally connected with the means of salvation ture set to a legalistic fugue in which the members of the orches- than its official place among adiaphora would suggest. On the tra learned to fear and love the Maestro above all things. The sec- positive side, this indicates that orthodox theologians had not lost ond section was the Credo, a musical exposition of Father, Son, Luther’s profound respect for music; on the negative side, their and Holy Spirit, which revolved around the Son and His death rigid adherence to the tradition they regarded as authoritative for our sins and His resurrection for our justification. This was made them insensitive to the paradoxical role of music in worship. followed by the Lord’s Prayer, which taught the life of holy living and applied the content of the Credo to spiritual warfare. After a brief intermission, the orchestra re-tuned before starting the second half of the program. The baptismal scherzo depicted the ,   lively rushing of water in which the ensemble learned the pattern T C of death and new life in Christ. The Allegro of Confession built These are the concluding paragraphs of Gerhard O. Forde’s “The on the baptismal theme as the orchestra played many of the bap- Lord’s Supper as the Testament of Jesus,” which appeared in the tismal motifs in reverse, recalling the need for daily repentance Winter  edition of Word and World (vol. ,no., pages –). (turning) and faith. And the Lord’s Supper combined all the themes into one festive finale for orchestra. Only the ones who The supper as testament firmly establishes the proper direction. were instructed in the first five movements could share fellowship The testament grants the inheritance from the testator Jesus to in the sixth section, for it was a testimony to their unity in the the heirs. This also should be insisted upon over against the doctrine of the Symphony of Salvation, not mere agreement covenantal language that has become so prevalent today. If about a tuning pitch. Christ was the principle motif in each covenantal language is used it should be understood as a testa- movement of this grand symphony. His message of forgiveness ment, not vice versa. As Luther observed, a testament differs and eternal salvation would not return to the Maestro empty, but from a covenant in that it goes into effect upon the death of the would accomplish the purpose for which he sent it. And the testator whereas a covenant depends upon the continued exis- Christ-centered collegium played on into eternity, for their song tence of the covenantor. Since, however, in this case Jesus is was the endless hymn that could not die. Day and night they raised and lives forever, testament and covenant can be taken as never stopped praising the crucified and risen One as they sang equivalent. That means that testament provides the interpreta- of Christ and his gifts. And they remembered the words of Fred tive key. The new testament is the new covenant, not vice versa. Pratt Green: “Let ev’ry instrument be tuned for praise; Let all This guards against lapsing once again into sacrificial language.   

Second, the language of testament does much better in what Such is what a Lutheran understanding of the Lord’s supper we might call the “reality check.” Lutheranism has always insisted ought to look like. In a time when the pressure is on in ecumeni- on the reality of what transpires in the doing of the supper. It is cal circles to adopt views of the supper, the liturgy, the ministry, not a representation, not a repetition, not a mere symbolic pro- ordination, and the church which quite obviously rest on pre- ceeding, but real. If it is not real it is not gospel. How can this suppositions of an entirely different sort, we would do well to reality be perceived? Where the supper is interpreted in terms of pay some heed to these roots. the sacrifice one always runs afoul of the time question. How can the present celebration be a real reoccurrence of an event that happened so long ago? An event, indeed, that was said to be “once for all”? If it is truly once for all why does it have to be made pre-    sent again, and how is that possible? Various devices have to be T L L constructed for the time gap between the ancient sacrifice and Bo Giertz, Messages for the Church in Times of Crisis, Rock the present to be transcended. One must somehow be initiated, Island, Illinois: Augustana Book Concern, , page . so to speak, into a special time warp so as to become contempo- rary with a sacrifice buried in the sands of time. How can this be Perhaps there is little of real evangelical Lutheranism among us done? The ritual is the answer. The sacrifice must be ritually today. Too little, I am sure. Much of that which today is called “repeated,” or “remembered,” or in the preferred liturgical jargon Christianity and conversion would not be considered such by of today, “represented” (made present again) by exact observation Martin Luther. He would call it work-righteousness, egoism, of prescribed ritual action, usually by priests who have the proper and self-importance. He would say to us that we might just as ontological qualification to do it. Such interpretations, of course, well have remained under the pope as to land in a faith in our only pile more difficulties upon already existing ones. own commitments, our own feelings, our sacrifices, and our No such difficulties arise if the supper is understood as Jesus’ Christian zeal. The one is as bad as the other. last will and testament. What happens when Jesus’ followers meet That is why it is important for us to try seriously to make to “do this in remembrance of me” is simply the same thing that clear what evangelical faith really is. We can do it no better than happened in the night in which he was betrayed: the last will and by reading Martin Luther and studying him for ourselves anew. testament is distributed to his heirs. What is “repeated” is not Luther has been re-translated in modern language and we do Golgotha but exactly the same thing that was done at the last well to read his rugged and strong faith which can show us our supper. “Repeated” is even here a bad word. Rather, the will of salvation. To know the faith is not only a matter of honor for an Jesus is carried out, the supper extended now through time to evangelical Lutheran Christian. It is also a matter of salvation for include all Jesus’ heirs in accordance with the will itself, It is not our souls. That is the only question that a hundred years from a symbol wrapped up in a ritual time warp, not a repetition, not now shall be of any importance for each and every one of us. a re-presentation, not merely a memory, but rather a real event in our time. It is what it says it is: the new testament. To conclude here, thirdly, just a word is in order about the question of “real presence” that has so plagued the understand-    ing of the supper. This question too can be more, adequately C C handled through the conceptuality of testament. Jan Lindhart Recently there has been some public confusion regarding the has attempted this in intriguing fashion. Briefly, the bread and terms “close” versus “closed” communion in LCMS usage. It has the wine hold a place equivalent to the piece of paper called a been asserted that the position of the LCMS is not closed com- person’s “last will and testament.” The piece of paper “really” is munion, but rather close communion. “Closed communion,” it the last will and testament, just as are the bread and wine. They is averred, means congregations communing only members of are not mere symbols, just as the piece of paper establishing the their congregations, whereas “close communion” means that testament is not merely symbolic. Yet the piece of paper as such LCMS congregations may commune members of LCMS congre- is not the entire inheritance, the estate and all its goods. Still, gations as well as those who are members of congregations of without the piece of paper, the inheritance would not be an church bodies that are in altar and pulpit fellowship with the inheritance. It would not exist as such. So it is with the last will LCMS. Under this latter definition, the possibility for exceptions and testament of Jesus. The bread and the wine really are the tes- in the cases of “extraordinary situations and circumstances” is tament and they mediate the body and blood because without also included. In contrast, “open communion” is described as a them there would be no body and blood. Thus the body and practice where any and all are welcomed to the Lord’s Supper. blood are given “in, with, and under” the bread and the wine. In summary, “close” is positioned as a happy middle point In Luther’s terms, the literary figure at work here is synechdoche: between restrictive “closed” and libertine “open.” the part in reality “stands in” for the whole, not merely in a sym- On the basis of the following data, however, it appears that bolic or representational sense—in which case the body and the above distinction between “close” and “closed” is at best blood would “really” exist somewhere else. The presence of our misinformed, and that in fact the terms “close” and “closed” Lord’s body and blood “in, with, and under” the bread and the should be viewed as interchangeable terms in LCMS usage, with wine is real because it is given to us as the inheritance he has the former bearing the meaning of the latter—that is, “close” bequeathed to us. It is the new testament. means “closed.”  

. We may begin by looking at the most recent LCMS document actual English terms “open communion” and “closed commu- speaking directly to this issue, Theology and Practice of the nion.” It concludes, “Auch die apostoliche Kirche praktizierte Lord’s Supper (). On page , note  observes regarding nicht ‘open,’ sondern ‘closed communion.’” (“The apostolic the term “close communion”: “While the term ‘closed Com- church also practiced not ‘open,’ but rather ‘closed commu- munion’ has a longer history (cf. W. Elert, ch. ) and is regarded nion.’”) Amazingly, Pieper himself used the term “closed” in by some as theologically more proper than ‘close Com- English even as he was writing in German. Even more amazing- munion,’ the latter term, which has been used in more recent ly, his English translator omitted the discussion entirely. (For a history by writers in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, more thorough documentation of the use of “closed” vs. “close” may also properly be employed as a way of saying that confes- communion in earlier LCMS usage, see Norman Nagel, “Closed sional agreement must precede the fellowship of Christians Communion: In the Way of the Gospel; In the Way of the Law,” at the Lord’s Table. Whatever term is used, it is clear that the Concordia Journal  (January ): –.) LCMS’ official practice is consistent with the historic practice In conclusion, we may observe that nowhere along the way in of the church, which has regarded unity of doctrine as a pre- LCMS usage does one find the kind of novel distinction between requisite for admission to the sacrament (cf.  Res. -).” “close” and “closed” communion recently asserted. “Closed” cer- This is quite a mouthful, but it certainly seems to suggest tainly appears to be the older and more precise usage (and in that the term “close” is intended to convey the same meaning this writer’s opinion, clearer and more descriptively desirable), as “closed” in terms of church fellowship, and that both terms but even when “close” is used, it means “closed” —that is, the should be considered interchangeable in LCMS usage. This altar is closed to some and open to others. has been further reflected in LCMS convention workbooks The discussion right now in the LCMS centers around for and other CTCR literature following this  document, whom exactly the altar is closed. That is another story. But which have consistently denoted these interchangeable terms LCMS altars are certainly “closed” to some (or “close,” should with the single term “close(d) communion.” one prefer to spell it without the “d,” or even “close(d),” if we . In Elert’s Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four must!). Unfounded and novel distinctions between the two are Centuries referenced above, the term “closed communion” is not helpful to our ongoing conversation. consistently used (cf. ff.) to translate the German “gesch- Jon Vieker lossen” from the original German version, Abendmahl und St. Louis, MO Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche hauptsächlich des Ostens (cf.  ff.). According to Cassell’s German-English Dictionary, “geschlossen” is unambiguously defined as “closed.” .In Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (), , it is highly noteworthy that for the very first definition under  :   the entry “close” (as an adjective) one finds the definition T L A P “shut fast; tight; made fast, so as to have no opening; as, a R close box.” Further down one finds the variant “close corpo- ration; a corporation in which a few persons hold all of the For many in the protestant tradition (mostly those churches stock, which is rarely or never placed on the market: also with anabaptist roots, such as Baptist, non-denominational, and closed corporation.” Just above that one finds the variant also holiness churches like the pentecostal, apostolic, and charis- “close communion; see under communion.” Turning to the matic churches), the word “ritual” is a negative word. This word entry for “communion” on page , one finds this definition brings up all kinds of ideas of Christians walking lock-step of “close communion”: “in the Baptist Church, restriction of behind some man-made traditions that lead only to perdition. the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to those who have been There is an assumption that the Spirit cannot be present amidst baptized by immersion.”Although this latter entry is less services that consist of a formal or historic liturgy. It just does helpful in understanding LCMS usage, it perhaps reveals not feel right. It follows then that those who participate in such some of the term’s earlier origins in American usage. services are somehow less filled with God’s Spirit or maybe, . In Volume  of Francis Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics, one reads more seriously, do not value relationships. on page  of the English translation: “Christian congrega- One proponent of Church Growth philosophy within the tions, and their public servants, are only the administrants and LCMS, David Luecke, seems to bemoan the use of the word not the lords of the Sacrament. The Lord’s Supper is not their “liturgy.”After all, the Lutheran Confessions do not use this institution, but Christ’s. Therefore they must follow Christ’s word. Rather, they speak of “ceremonies and church rites.” He instructions in administering the Sacrament. On the one hand, might technically be correct on this point. Nevertheless, his real they are not permitted to introduce ‘Open Communion’; on point is to create a divide between “rituals” and “relationships.” the other hand, they must guard against denying the Sacra- Luecke asks, “Should we have more ritual or less?” He poses this ment to those Christians for whom Christ has appointed it.” question as the dividing question regarding future directions for worship within the LCMS. He says that one side says we need Astoundingly, when one compares this with Pieper’s original more liturgy, or at least more use of the hymnals. The other side German edition, a whole paragraph was apparently omitted opts for “more informal and relational” worship, thinking that from the English—a paragraph comparing and contrasting the “formal, repetitive church rites have become poor vehicles of    communication today.” Important to Luecke’s argument and liturgy it may be pointed out that Jesus read from the appointed that of church growth philosophy is communication. Good Scripture for the day. The word is still the word. The word still communication fosters good relationships. “Rituals” or “liturgy,” points to Jesus today. I know of no instance where Jesus attacked it is proposed (assumed?), does the opposite. the historic worship practices of his day to reveal the hypocrisy of Luecke wisely warns against “dangerous extremes of either people. Church Growth philosophers might do better to take heed direction.”Yet he clearly argues for dropping rites for the sake to Jesus’ wrath against the money-changers at the temple, who of relationships. Following the introduction to his brief essay made the Father’s house of prayer into a den of thieves. “Relationships Are More Important than Rituals” (www. But why make such a big deal? As Luecke argues, “Liturgy is, jesusfirst.net, April  May , updated June , ), Luecke after all, a technique.” He says that advocates of the liturgy call carries his discussion under three heads as he takes issue with the “their tradition” a “superior” way of presenting the word. He then views of Beth A. Schlegel, who wrote “Contending for Christian states that this is “but one short step to reach the justifiable claim Ritual” in “Lutheran Forum” (Fall ). They are as follows: that they are relying on human techniques rather than on God () Liturgy Advocated to Dangerous Extreme, () Liturgy Is, After to turn community into church.” Luecke revels in this idea that All, a Technique, () Submission to the Father, Not to Ritual. it is advocates of the liturgy and not Church Growth who rely First, Luecke notes Schlegel’s view that the modern generation on “human techniques.” Here Luecke does not provide any factu- is grieving, in his words, “the loss of ritual that connected it to past al basis for showing how the historic liturgy is based on human generations” and the connected loss of community. Calling it a techniques. I have yet to hear advocates for the historic liturgy call “claim,”Luecke really takes issue with Schlegel’s claim that “’Where the liturgy simply a technique. This language would seem more the historic liturgy of the Church with its ritual texts and actions is appropriate for those who call congregations “audiences” and regularly replaced by a simplified form of ‘gathering, word, meal, who use worship to entertain people rather than serve to focus and sending,’ there is the real possibility for the dissolution of the on Christ and his gifts to and for His people. Christian Church and the formation of a pagan cult.’” Finally, we are led to believe that liturgy or ritual is actually Luecke’s response to this statement is: “Wow! Ceremonies can wrong if it is long and “boring.” Luecke can do nothing else than do that—guarantee that a congregation remains a Christian to associate “reliance on ritual in current times” with “declining church?” Luecke then questions whether ceremonies can guaran- community.” Simply put, Jesus and Paul taught submission to tee a “vital community rather than decline into a shadow of a the Father, the Son, or other people, but not to “rules,”“rituals,” church in name and marks only.” Note Luecke’s emphasis here or “traditions.” In sum, Luecke writes, “What Jesus and Paul talk on a “vital community” based on relationships over against a about amounts to relationships. Many would claim that in “shadow of a church” based on rituals. Oh, yes, and the church today’s culture rituals get in the way of the personal relationships with rituals must “decline.” Luecke continues his critique of basic to Christian faith and, yes, worship.” Schlegel’s statement by arguing that historically Lutherans have For many years now we have seen big and growing communi- insisted on the preaching of the word to build a Christian com- ty churches that have very little “liturgy” or “ritual.”At first peo- munity. He admits that Lutherans have also insisted on the ple might be attracted to the community church that has great sacraments, but secondarily to the preached word. “Vital numbers but has little to offer spiritually. Certainly, as Luecke Christian community” has been historically associated, Luecke demonstrates, Church Growth is no friend of churches that use argues, with “the word preached with freshness and boldness the historic liturgy. Those who become members (with little or and particularized application.” Luecke takes his argument fur- no instruction) at Lutheran churches that have jettisoned the ther by pitting God’s word against ritual. liturgy are just as comfortable leaving for the Methodist, Citing the meaning to the Third Article of the Apostles’ Creed Assembly of God, or non-denominational church down the he writes, “Presumably the Holy Spirit is quite capable of also road. If, as Luecke argues, relationships are more important than preserving a church community where the word is preached even rituals, then this should come as no surprise. Based on Luecke’s in the absence of ritual.” Then he adds some hyperbole: “Does arguments, these other denominations might be preferable to anyone really believe that the Spirit can only preserve a Christian a Lutheran church that follows the liturgy or uses one or more community through Word that is confined to a ritualized presen- of the hymnals. Ultimately, the dichotomy that Luecke places tation of the means of grace?” Here is where Luecke really takes a between relationship and ritual has no basis in fact. Relationships dive. Apparently, for Luecke “ritual” or “liturgy” is anti-word, and are formed not just on Sunday mornings. There is no small thus anti-Spirit and anti-church community. Such a generaliza- number of liturgical churches with a strong sense of community. tion cannot pass unnoticed. Luecke would have us believe that In this essay, Luecke plays on false perceptions using faulty gen- the word is “confined” by what he calls “a ritualized presentation eralizations. Luecke’s hope is that we would associate liturgy with of the means of grace.” (Do the Lutheran Confessions use the declining churches and churches that follow Church Growth terms “means of grace?”) with relationships and community. From this essay one could Somehow for Luecke the liturgy or rituals confine the word and surmise that Church Growth is not as concerned with reaching the Spirit’s work through the word in building Christian commu- out to unbelievers as it is in pulling people out of liturgical nity. Following this reasoning one could ask, “Are the three read- churches and welcoming them into churches that “really” care ings of Scripture on Sunday morning made ineffective because for them. Yet does someone really care about me and my spiritu- they follow a lectionary schedule?”“Can the Spirit work through al welfare if they invite me to a church that entertains me rather the word if it is ‘confined’ in this way?” In defense of the historic than involves me in worship?  

Luecke would have us think that “ritual” or “liturgy” is bad. Little attention seems to have been paid to the very impor- There are many throughout the centuries who have learned the tant distinction in the Catholic response between the Declar- Scriptures and come to know the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ation and the Clarifications that followed. As His eminence through the liturgy. They have received Christ himself and his Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has pointed out in a letter to the gifts. Many now sing with the angels and archangels the same Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and published in that paper praises that we feebly sing here on earth. There are many who on July th last, only the Declaration is to be considered have learned to worship God through the liturgy because it is strictly as a response to the question raised in the Joint drawn from God’s word and focuses on timeless truth that is Declaration, and this response is clear and totally unequivocal: applicable to all people. Through these rites or liturgy they have “there is a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of also been and are blessed with relationships with fellow believers justification.” who join in the same worship. The second part of the Catholic response has a completely Timothy D. May different value to that of the Declaration. The points made in this Milwaukee, Wisconsin section of the response are entitled Clarifications, and as Cardinal Ratzinger mentions in the letter referred to above, could have been presented as “explanations,” since they deal with some of the questions that are considered as such in the Joint Declaration. O D S The Joint Declaration—and the resolution approved by the Lutheran World Federation in response to the Joint Declaration— The following is taken from The Epistle of Ignatius (.. –) to state that the dialogue needs to continue in respect of certain the Philadelphians. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St. John the questions. The Vatican response goes a little further and indicates Apostle. In this excerpt Ignatius exhorts the Philadelphian congrega- those points requiring some further dialogue. tion to have but one celebration of the Eucharist on any given day. It must be clear to all, from the long and difficult discus- sions concerning the Joint Declaration, in both the Catholic Chapter IV.—Have But One Eucharist, Etc. Church and the Lutheran World Federation that, notwith- Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one standing the fundamental agreement reached in that docu- flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the ment, further study is called for in the case of a few single unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with points. This cannot, however, be seen as going back in any way the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatso- on the consent expressly stated on fundamental truths of the ever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God. doctrine of justification. This consensus, especially as regards I have confidence of you in the Lord, that ye will be of no the Third Part of the Joint Declaration on the common under- other mind. Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is wor- standing of justification, is an enormous step forward in thy of God, and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind Lutheran Catholic dialogue and understanding. The consensus of] preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the covers the whole range of fundamental truths dealt with in the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; Joint Declaration. one loaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup As regards the second part of the Catholic response, there is distributed among them all: there is but one altar for the whole seems to have been a very one-sided reading of the document Church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fel- on the part of some Lutheran commentators. Apart from low-servants. Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, overlooking the essential distinction already made, statements even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and have appeared referring the to “the many reservations” made man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one in the Catholic response. In fact, there are no “reservations” preaching, and one faith, and one baptism; and one Church and just a very few clarifications, about which I submit for which the holy apostles established from one end of the earth to your consideration the following reflections. the other by the blood of Christ, and by their own sweat and toil; As was obvious from the discussions preceding the respons- it behooves you also, therefore, as “a peculiar people, and a holy es to the Joint Declaration, the point that continued to attract nation,” to perform all things with harmony in Christ. the most attention was that concerning the justified as sinner. The Catholic response does not question the agreement stated in No. , but focuses on one very precise point, namely the    Lutheran teaching as presented in the Joint Declaration that T V JDDJ post-baptismal concupiscence is properly called sin. It remains Elucidations to the Vatican’s answer to the Joint Declaration on difficult for a Catholic to see how this can be reconciled with the Doctrine of Justification. Letter from Edward Idris Cardinal the Council of Trent’s teaching that in baptism everything that Cassidy to Ishmael Noko, General Secretary of the Lutheran is really sin is taken away. There are consequences here also for World Federation E Civitate Vaticana, die ... the common understanding of the nature of the renewal and sanctification of the interior man. For the Catholic doctrine I take the occasion to offer some reflections which seem neces- the word “sin” is accepted as having the meaning used in sary in view of certain misreadings of the Catholic response that everyday life and defined by the Oxford dictionary as a “wilful have appeared since my presentation. violation” or “transgression” of God’s law and not simply as    the continuing taint of wrong desire against which one must response to No.  from the Lutheran World Federation and the struggle constantly. Catholic Church does differ slightly. While asking for further Elsewhere in the Joint Declaration (No. ), Lutherans study on some points, the Lutheran response has declared, that declare with Catholics that “by grace alone, in faith in Christ’s “the Condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our Declaration.” The Catholic response states that where a consen- hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.” Hence sus has been reached, namely on the fundamental truths of the our difficulty comes from a presentation of doctrine that doctrine of justification, the condemnations of the Council of seems to contradict itself. For that reason the Catholic Trent no longer apply—and as we have seen that includes all response does not state that the relative condemnation of that is said in No. . Trent remains, but that it is difficult to see how in the present The Catholic response does not state that any condemna- presentation the doctrine on “simul iustus et peccator” is not tion of the Council of Trent still applies to the teaching of the touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original Lutheran Churches as presented in the Joint Declaration. It sin and justification. Could this important point not be does, however, point out in the Clarifications that the Catholic resolved by a Lutheran presentation that explains the unusual Church cannot without further study and clarifications affirm use of sin in this context, by which the word loses its normal categorically that the doctrine on “simul iustus et peccator” character of being a willed and voluntary opposition to God? no longer incurs the condemnation. As indicated above, it In this case, there would be no real problem and the question remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presen- of the condemnation would no longer exist. tation, given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doc- The second point raised in the Clarifications should not be trine is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine cause of concern for Lutherans, since it merely sets out the Decree on original sin and justification. I do not see this as a Catholic understanding that justification has to be organically negation of No. , but as hesitation to affirm it categorically, integrated into the fundamental criterion of the “regula fidei,” pending further study. that is confession of the one God in three persons, christologi- Hence, in accord with common procedure in such cases, cally centred and rooted in the living Church and its sacra- frequent particularly in respect of solemn agreements in the mental life. We were assured before making our response, and international sphere, I believe that the agreement reached and this has since been repeated, that this clarification of ours was the nature of the clarifications allow the Catholic Church to perfectly in line with Lutheran doctrine as set out in the sign the Joint Declaration without delay and in its integrity. Augsburg Confession, in the Smalcald Articles and in other It is my fervent hope, and that of His Eminence Cardinal Lutheran doctrinal statements. In view, however, of the many Ratzinger, that this signing may take place in the coming discussions on this point in the Lutheran World Federation at months. We feel that a significant achievement, of great Hong Kong and elsewhere, it was thought well to state the importance for the ecumenical movement, has taken place. Catholic position clearly here for a more precise presentation Pope John Paul has expressed his joy and satisfaction at this of the Catholic doctrine in this connection. It would not seem “important ecumenical acquisition” and has extended his necessary to study this question further. “gratitude to all, both Catholics and Lutherans, who have con- The third and last clarification concerns again a difficulty tributed to this important outcome.” It is particularly your on the part of the Catholic Church to feel comfortable with responsibility and mine not to allow this historical moment the lack of a clear explanation of the Lutheran insistence on to lose any of its significance. the phrase “mere passive” when elsewhere in the Joint In conclusion, I regret that the point made in the Catholic Declaration and in official Lutheran writings such as the response concerning the authoritative nature of the approval Formula of Concord it is clearly affirmed that the justified of the Joint Declaration by the Catholic Church and the person is able to refuse grace (JD No. ) and “though still in Lutheran World Federation has resulted in some difficulty for great weakness can by the power of the Holy Spirit cooperate a number of Lutheran commentators. As you will observe, the and must so cooperate” (Formula of Concord par. ). Catholic response recognizes the great effort made by the It should be obvious in view of the above that there can be Lutheran World Federation, through a worldwide consultation no difficulty for the Catholic Church to affirm and sign the with the Synods of the member Churches, to reach a consen- Joint Declaration, since it accepts without reservation its con- sus that would be truly meaningful. There is no intention of clusion that “a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of calling into question the authority of the Lutheran consensus. justification has been reached.” The Clarifications do not It was felt, however, that even with such an overwhelming negate that consensus and would not seem to create major approval as the Joint Declaration received from these Synods, problems for further study and a more complete presentation. there still remain important differences concerning the under- Some questions have been raised about the Catholic under- standing by the two partners of authority in the Church, standing of the part of the Joint Declaration that deals with “the which leave unanswered certain questions. The whole question significance and the scope of the Consensus reached.” That is of authority in the Church is involved here indirectly and so it stated well in No.  and the Catholic response endorses this seemed necessary to indicate this as a matter for further study fully. Similarly, on Nos. ,  and  there is no difficulty. The in the ongoing dialogue. LOGIA books

◗ LUTHER ACADEMY BOOKS  Martin Chemnitz: Loci Theologici, De Coena Domini, De Duabus Naturis in Christo, Theologiae Jesuitarum Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics Four Latin classics published in a facsimile edition by Lutheran Heritage Foundation ( pages) • hardcover   Baptism By David P.Scaer ( pages) • hardcover • retail .—L price • . • retail .—L price • .  Church and Ministry Today: Three Confessional   Eschatology By John Stephenson ( pages) • hardcover Lutheran Essays. The Doctrine of the Call in the Confessions .  . • retail —L price • and Lutheran Orthodoxy, By R. Preus. “It is Not Given to Women  The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry, to Teach: A Lex in Search of a Ratio,”By W. Weinrich. “‘Church Growth’As Mission Paradigm: A Confessional Lutheran and Governance By Kurt Marquart ( pages) Assessment” By K. Marquart ( pages) • paperback • hardcover • retail .—L price • . • retail .—L price • .  Christology By David P.Scaer ( pages) • hardcover  Church Polity and Politics. Papers presented at the • retail .—L price • .  Congress on the Lutheran Confessions (Itasca, IL). Essays by D. Gustafson, D. Jastram, G. Schmeling, W.Weinrich, L. R. The Pieper Lectures Rast,Jr.,W.Brege,R.Feuerhahn,M.Noland,RolfPreus,K.Marquart A series of lectures in honor of Dr. Francis Pieper, sponsored by ( pages) • paperback • retail .—L price • . Concordia Historical Institute and the Luther Academy, on topics addressing current issues in the church. All books in this series are ◗ paperback and retail . —L price • . LOGIA BOOKS  Communion Fellowship: A Resource for  The Office of the Ministry (1996) Lectures by D. Scaer,  Understanding, Implementing, and Retaining the Practice A.R.Suelflow,K.Schurb,R.Kolb,L.R.Rast Jr. ( pages) of Closed Communion in the Lutheran Parish  .  Church Fellowship (1997) Lectures by W.C. Weinrich, C. P. By Paul T. McCain ( pages) •  Arand, S. Bruzek, K. Marquart, E. T.Teigen, D.A. Gustafson. ( pp.)  The Christological Character of the Office of   Pietism and Lutheranism (1998) Lectures by the Ministry & Royal Priesthood By Jobst Schöne ( . G.Krispin,R.Feuerhahn,P.McCain,W.Petersen,L.R.Rast Jr., pages) •  J. T.Pless, N. Masaki. ( pages)  Dying to Live: A Study Guide By John T. Pless ( pages) .  What Does It Mean to Be Lutheran? (1999) • (Dying to Live by H.Senkbeil may be ordered from CPH) Lectures by P.T.Ferry, S. Murray, C. Lindberg, M. R. Noland, J. A O. Preus ,D.O.Wenthe.( pages) TO ORDER  (2000) Essays by W.Weinrich, Lutheran Catholicity # Qty Price each Total amount C. MacKenzie, J. Maxfield, L.R. Rast, Jr., B. Schuchard, and P.Grime.

Other Luther Academy Books  Preaching to Young Theologians Sermons of Robert Preus The Luther Academy ( pages) • paperback .  . • retail —L price • Outside the U.S. add $5 per book for shipping & handling  God and Caesar Revisited Luther Academy Conference Total for Books Papers ( pages) • paperback • retail .—L price • . To pay by Credit Card (Visa or MasterCard), please include Card # and expiration date. • See inside front cover for more ordering information. •

(605) 887-3145 • [email protected] CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Ulrich Asendorf Paul Lehninger Richard Resch Pastor, Hannover, Germany Professor, Wisconsin Lutheran College, Milwaukee, WI Kantor and Professor of Church Music Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN Burnell F. Eckardt Jr. Alan Ludwig Pastor, St. Paul Lutheran Church, Kewanee, IL Professor, Lutheran Theological Seminary David P. Scaer Novosibirsk, Russia Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Charles Evanson Fort Wayne, IN Professor, Seminary for Evangelical Theology Cameron MacKenzie Klaipeda, Lithuania Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Robert Schaibley Fort Wayne, IN Pastor, Shepherd of the Springs Lutheran Church Ronald Feuerhahn Colorado Springs, CO Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Gottfried Martens Pastor, St. Mary’s Lutheran Church, Berlin, Germany Jobst Schöne Lowell Green Bishop Emeritus, Selbständige Evangelische Professor, State Univer. of New York at Buffalo, NY Kurt Marquart Lutherische Kirche, Germany Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Paul Grime Fort Wayne, IN Bruce Schuchard Executive Director, LCMS Commission on Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Worship, St. Louis, MO Scott Murray Pastor, Memorial Luth. Church, Houston, TX Harold Senkbeil Kenneth Hagen Pastor, Elm Grove Lutheran Church, Elm Grove, WI Professor Emeritus, Marquette University Norman E. Nagel Lake Mills, Wisconsin Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Carl P.E. Springer Professor, Illinois State University, Normal, IL Matthew Harrison Oliver Olson Executive Director, Board for Human Care, LCMS Professor Emeritus, Marquette University John Stephenson St. Louis, MO Minneapolis, Minnesota Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Catharines Ontario, Canada Steven Hein Wilhelm Petersen Headmaster, Shepherd of the Springs President Emeritus, Bethany Lutheran Jon D. Vieker Lutheran High School, Colorado Springs, CO Seminary, Mankato, MN Assistant Director, LCMS Commission on Worship St. Louis, MO Horace Hummel Andrew Pfeiffer Professor Emeritus, Concordia Seminary Professor, Luther Seminary, Adelaide, Australia David Jay Webber St. Louis, MO Roger D. Pittelko Rector, Saint Sophia Lutheran Theological Seminary Ternopil', Ukraine Arthur Just Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN Armin Wenz Fort Wayne, IN Pastor, Holy Ghost Lutheran Church Hans-Lutz Poetsch Goerlitz, Germany John Kleinig Pastor Emeritus, Lutheran Hour, Berlin, Germany Professor, Luther Seminary, North Adelaide South William Weinrich Australia, Australia Daniel Preus Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary First Vice-President of the Lutheran Church— Fort Wayne, IN Arnold J. Koelpin Missouri Synod, St. Louis, MO Professor, Martin Luther College, New Ulm, MN George F. Wollenburg Clarence Priebbenow President, Montana District LCMS, Billings, MT Peter K. Lange Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church Pastor, St. John’s Lutheran Church, Topeka, KS Oakey Queensland, Australia

STAFF Michael J. Albrecht, Editorial Associate Gerald Krispin, Editorial Associate Thomas L. Rank, Editorial Associate Pastor, St. James Lutheran Church West St. Paul, Professor, Concordia College, Edmonton Pastor, Scarville and Center Lutheran Churches, MN Alberta, Canada Scarville, IA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Joel A. Brondos, L Forum and Alan Ludwig, Copy Editor Erling Teigen, Editorial Coordinator Correspondence Editor Professor, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Professor, Bethany Lutheran College, Pastor, Zion Luth. Church, Fort Wayne, IN Novosibirsk, Russia lector@mail.nsk.ru Mankato, MN [email protected] [email protected] Martin Noland, Editorial Associate Charles Cortright, Editorial Associate Pastor, Christ Lutheran Church, Oak Park, IL Robert Zagore, Editorial Associate Pastor, St. Paul’s First Lutheran Church, North [email protected] Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church, Traverse City, MI Hollywood, CA [email protected] [email protected] John T. Pless, Book Review Editor Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN [email protected] SUPPORT STAFF Dean Bell, L Tape Reviews Patricia Ludwig, Layout and Design Derek Roberts, Webmaster, Fort Wayne, IN Pastor, McIntosh, MN [email protected] Novosibirsk, Russia [email protected] [email protected] Albert B. Collver , Webmaster Gretchen Roberts, Proofreader, Fort Wayne, IN Pastor, Hope Lutheran Church, Denise Melius, Advertising, L Books  [email protected] DeWitt, MI [email protected] Tapes, Subscriptions, Northville, SD [email protected] James Wilson, Cartoonist, Pastor, Deer Lodge, Mark Loest, Cover Design, MT [email protected] Concordia Historical Institute [email protected]