Logia

a journal of lutheran theology

B   W reformation 1998 volume vIi, number 4 ei[ ti" lalei', wJ" lovgia Qeou' logia is a journal of Lutheran theology. As such it publishes articles on exegetical, historical, systematic, and liturgical theol-    ogy that promote the orthodox theology of the Evangelical T C A features the center section of a Lutheran Church. We cling to God’s divinely instituted marks of plaque of carved ivory showing Dr. Luther nail- ing the Ninety-five Theses to the church door the church: the gospel, preached purely in all its articles, and the at Wittenberg. It dates from about . sacraments, administered according to Christ’s institution. This name expresses what this journal wants to be. In Greek, LOGIA It was given to the Concordia Seminary Library, functions either as an adjective meaning “eloquent,” “learned,” Saint Louis, by Mrs. Lydia and the Rev. Paul or “cultured,” or as a plural noun meaning “divine revelations,” Kluender in . Its origin is Austrian, and  : “words,” or “messages.” The word is found in Peter , Acts the artist is unknown. :, and Romans :. Its compound forms include oJmologiva (confession), ajpologiva (defense), and ajvnalogiva (right relation- ship). Each of these concepts and all of them together express the purpose and method of this journal. LOGIA considers itself a free conference in print and is committed to providing an indepen- dent theological forum normed by the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. At the heart of our FREQUENTLY USED ABBREVIATIONS journal we want our readers to find a love for the sacred Scrip- AC [CA] Augsburg Confession tures as the very Word of God, not merely as rule and norm, but AE Luther’s Works, American Edition especially as Spirit, truth, and life which reveals Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life — Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, Ap Apology of the Augsburg Confession we confess the church, without apology and without rancor, only BAGD Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Freder- with a sincere and fervent love for the precious Bride of Christ, ick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament the holy Christian church, “the mother that begets and bears every Christian through the Word of God,” as Martin Luther says BSLK Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche in the Large Catechism (LC , ). We are animated by the con- Ep Epitome of the Formula of Concord viction that the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession represents the true expression of the church which we confess as FC Formula of Concord one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. LC Large Catechism LW Lutheran Worship SA Smalcald Articles LOGIA (ISSN #–) is published quarterly by the Luther Academy,  Lavant Drive, Crestwood, MO . Non-profit postage paid (permit #4) at Cres- SBH Service Book and Hymnal bard, SD and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to L, PO Box , Cresbard, SD . SC Small Catechism  . Editorial Department: Pearl St., Mankato, MN Unsolicited material is SD Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord welcomed but cannot be returned unless accompanied by sufficient return postage. Book Review Department:  University Avenue SE, Minneapolis, MN . SL St. Louis Edition of Luther’s Works All books received will be listed. Logia Forum and Correspondence Department:  S. Hanna, Fort Wayne, Tappert The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical IN –. Letters selected for publication are subject to editorial modifica- Lutheran Church. Trans. and ed. Theodore G. Tappert tion, must be typed or computer printed, and must contain the writer’s name and complete address. TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Subscription & Advertising Department: PO Box , Cresbard, SD . Advertising rates and specifications are available upon request. TLH The Lutheran Hymnal SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: U.S.A.: one year (four issues), ; two years (eight issues), . Canada and Mexico: one year surface, ; one year air, . Tr Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope Overseas: one year air, ; one year surface, . All funds in U.S. currency only. Triglotta Concordia Triglotta Copyright © . The Luther Academy. All rights reserved. No part of this publi- cation may be reproduced without written permission. WA Luthers Werke, Weimarer Ausgabe [Weimar Edition] logia a journal of lutheran theology

reformation 1998 volume vii, number 4   ......   Luther and Erasmus: The Debate on the Freedom of the Will By Charles L. Cortright ......  De servo arbitrio and the Patristic Discussion of Freedom, Fate, and Grace By Mark Nispel ......  Bondage of the Will: Calvin and Luther By Burnell F. Eckardt Jr......  Pastoral Letter Regarding the Divine Service and the Sacrament of the Altar By Jobst Schöne Translated by William Staab ......  In Memoriam: Tom G. A. Hardt By Frederik Sidenvall ......  The Ecclesiology of the Smalcald Articles By Tom G. A. Hardt† ......  Gospel-Based Exhortation By Paul R. Raabe ...... 

  ...... 

 ......  R E: Return to Grace: A Theology for Infant Baptism. By Kurt Stasiak. The Nature of Confession: Evangelicals and Postliberals in Conversation. Edited by Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Ockholm. Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. By Rainer Riesner. Translated by Doug Stott. The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought and Ministry. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. The Foolishness of Preaching: Proclaiming the Gospel against the Wisdom of the World. By Robert Farrar Capon. A Boy Named Jesus. By Robert Aron. Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings. Edited by Marcus Borg. The Original Jesus. By Tom Wright. The Rise of Christianity. By Rodney Stark. One Jesus, Many Christs: The Truth about Christian Origins. By Gregory J. Riley. B N

  ......  The Decay of the Catechumenate • Unorthodox Opinions • That Which Remains Open Communion among the Divorced • A Matter of Taste Two Mountains • The God Who Kills • Switching Degrees Less Intelligent or More Frivolous? • Methodist Songs in Lutheran Sunday Schools Narcissism and Repentance • Impoverished Confession    Communion Hymn ......  By David Jay Webber Inklings by Jim Wilson ......  A Call for Manuscripts ......  C

j

T    relationship to hermeneutics (my Fort (see the scholarship of Adolf von Har- “G E, Y M” Wayne S.T.M. thesis on Gadamer) and its nack). This adaptation resulted in a historical origins (my Union Seminary— significant conflict with biblical theology, h When members of the Lutheran New York Ph.D. dissertation on Harnack which conflict was expressed in the Trini- Church tell me that another church is bet- and historicism). As M. Andrew has dis- tarian and Christological controversies. ter for them, I rarely disagree. If they want covered, post-modern relativism is Second, although the creeds put an to speak in tongues, the Lutheran Church absolutely inimical to a confession-based end to the Neoplatonic threat to Chris- is not the church for them. If they want a religion of any type. How does one then tology, they made little headway against preacher to tell them they are getting bet- read the Confessions? The Formula of the influence of Neoplatonic soteriology. ter every day and will soon achieve moral Concord asserts that the Lutheran Con- Neoplatonism envisioned salvation as perfection, there are other preachers who fessions are a pattern of doctrine “from some sort of “stairway to heaven,” by will suit them better. But I will engage which and according to which, because it which the believer became deified by them in dialogue if they misunderstand is drawn from the Word of God, all other degrees. This corresponds to the Eastern either the Lutheran Church or the church writings are to be approved and accepted, Orthodox doctrine of theosis. The for- to which they are headed. For this reason, judged, and regulated” (FC SD Rule and mer Neoplatonist Augustine of Hippo I respond to M. Andrew’s “Go East, Norm, ). Therefore Gerhard, Walther, realized that theosis, which posited man Young Man,” in Forum, L , no.  Pieper, the early church —yes, even reaching up to God, conflicted with the (Easter ), –. Luther himself— are to be judged by this New Testament theology of gratia, in M. Andrew observes that there are standard pattern of doctrine. For exam- which God reaches down to man. many “Lutherans” who want to be ple, when Walther and the Confessions Augustine’s critique of Neoplatonic something else: Evangelicals, Romanists, disagree over a particular article of doc- soteriology reformed the Latin church, or liberal Protestants. He observes that trine, a “confessional Lutheran” will side but to my knowledge had little impact others do want to follow the Lutheran with the common confessions of the on the Greek church. Confessions, but read the Confessions church. That is what it means to be Third, the Greek church was politically disparately through Gerhard, Walther, a confessional Lutheran. reunited to the Roman church at the Pieper, or the early church. He properly The most serious error made by east- Council of Florence in  (see the arti- notes that “the question is really one of ern-leaning Protestants is the assump- cle by Wayne Jorgensen, “Eastern Ortho- hermeneutic.” Then he asks, “Which tion that the theology of the ancient doxy,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the glasses does one put on?” The imagery fathers is still taught and practiced in Reformation,  vols., ed. Hans J. Hiller- of “glasses” betrays Andrew’s hermeneu- today’s Eastern Orthodox churches. brand [New York: Oxford University tical misunderstanding fostered by post- They simply ignore, or are unaware of, Press, ], : ). The Greek laity and modern relativism.  years of doctrinal development in lower clergy adamantly rejected the East- Post-modernism asserts that no text the Orthodox churches. Several critical West union, which they saw as tanta- can be read without the “spectacles” of turning points can be mentioned that mount to apostasy. But the conquest the reader’s prejudices, especially the prove the gradual deformation of bibli- of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman prejudices of class, gender, or ethnic situ- cal doctrine and practices in those Turks quickly brought this struggle to an ation. If one accepts these tenets of post- churches. First, possibly as early as Justin end, with the Romanizing influence the modernism, then a church cannot be Martyr, and definitely by the time of the winner. From the sixteenth century on, objectively evaluated on the basis of its Alexandrians—Clement, Origen, Euse- the Jesuits increased the Romanizing infl- text-based theology, but only on subjec- bius, et al.— the Greek church had uence in the Greek church, until the only tive bases. I disagree strongly with post- adapted its teaching to the methods, significant differences were papal author- modernism, not simply out of reaction, term definitions, and thought-forms of ity, married clergy, the lay reception of the but because I have carefully studied its Middle-Platonism and Neoplatonism communion cup, and the filioque clause.   

Fourth, under Nikon, the Patriarch of The conclusion of this historical thought to be a truly tragic if unavoidable Moscow from –, the Russian overview is that a Protestant who joins one by both sides. I do not know M. church, which saw itself in the fifteenth an Eastern Orthodox church today is Andrew either, but I do know that confes- century as the pure Greek church, began basically getting Roman Catholicism sional Lutherans have begun to take the to imitate the Romanist-Greek church along with the cup for the laity, married Orthodox a little more seriously than we (see Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Profiles in pastors, and no pope. There may be a have in the past, and it really has nothing Belief , Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, renewal of Greek Christianity happening to do with intelligence. Like McCain, I and Eastern Orthodox [New York: today in some Orthodox parishes, with a have no plans to jump over to the nearest Harper and Row, ], –, –). conscious rejection of the Romanizing Orthodox Church, but unlike him, I do The “Old Believers” who upheld the influence and a recovery of patristic and not believe that Lutheran pastors and the- most ancient Greek teachings and tradi- biblical doctrines and practices. If this is ologians who choose to take a second look tions were viciously persecuted. Tens of happening, then such reformers should at the Orthodox are doing so merely thousands were burned alive under Patri- contact the office of the Missouri Synod because they think the grass is greener arch Nikon’s orders, effectively bringing president and its Commission on Theol- over there. Rather, it’s precisely because to an end the theology and practice of ogy and Church Relations for what could they are Lutherans who take the Lutheran the Greek fathers. There are still a few be a very fruitful dialogue. Confessions seriously and therefore cannot Russian “Old Believers” left today, but deny certain striking areas of affinity eastern-leaning Protestants do not seem Martin R. Noland between Lutheran and Orthodox confes- to be interested in these “losers,” even Oak Park, Illinois sions. Particularly worthy of note is the though they lost only because the Niko- issue of theosis and its favorable compari- nians were inquisitorial butchers. h Your last issue contained a piece of son to what we Lutherans prefer to call Fifth, M. Andrew mentions the collo- correspondence from Paul T. McCain, justification. Concerning theosis there is quy between the Lutherans and Con- to which I am compelled to make a no small amount of material in Luther’s stantinople in the sixteenth century brief reply. McCain takes exception to works, but without reference to the Ortho- (–; see Jorgensen, ), but com- an earlier piece by M. Andrew because dox, due no doubt to Luther’s severely lim- pletely misrepresents the results of that in it the writer “seems to have despaired ited knowledge of Orthodoxy. Much in dialogue. The Lutherans found that the of his church and now looks fondly recent Luther research has provided Greek church agreed with the Roman toward the East.” McCain then proceeds greater credence to a more favorable com- doctrines of tradition, free will, syner- to tear into the Orthodox (notwith- parison to the East. gism, justification, good works, church, standing his disclaimer, “I respect the Burnell F. Eckardt Jr. ministry, sacrifice of the mass, prayers Orthodox Church and find myself St. Paul’s Lutheran Church for the dead, invocation of the saints, agreeing with it on numerous points, Kewanee, Illinois propitiation by the saints, purgatory, but . . .”), giving a list of reasons their indulgences, fasting, and monasti- tradition ought to be found entirely cism — all of which the Lutherans had wanting. He pleads with M. Andrew rejected. The Patriarch Jeremias  was “and those who share his inclinations, S  V’ particularly critical of the Lutheran not to insult Lutheran intelligence by A “innovation” of the doctrine of justifica- trying to convince us that we have tion by faith alone. The only church that merely misunderstood Eastern Ortho- h The Epiphany  issue provided I am aware of that has maintained the doxy.” He then sprays his fire at every- much meat for thought, and I continue doctrine and practices of the ancient one: Rome, Geneva, Willow Creek, and to be challenged by the articles and edito- church, with little deformation, is the Orthodoxy. In the first place, McCain rials of L. Keep up the good work. nearly defunct Armenian [sic] church ought to know the difference between In the Epiphany issue, Martin Noland (see Piepkorn, : –). Although non- the Orthodox and such flagrant error- writes regarding women’s suffrage and Chalcedonian, the Armenians reject ists as the Willow Creek crowd. Of the church, but raises the larger issue of both Nestorius and Eutyches, following course, we cannot suspend our concerns, suffrage per se and the nature and power instead the biblical christology of Cyril but we also ought to recognize that there of the average voters’ assembly. Truly the of Alexandria. The Armenians confess is a time and place for invective. Even issue of women’s suffrage is not nearly that salvation is a free gift of God. They when East and West went their separate as thorny as the issue of the voters’ reject veneration of, or prayers to, the ways in the eleventh century, such a assemblies that exist through the con- saints, since God alone gives grace and prominent Western churchman as St. gregations of the Lutheran Church — mercy. Furthermore, with a unique Anselm of Canterbury held his Orthodox Missouri Synod. “Missouri Synod” touch, the Armenians “brethren” in high regard, in spite of his I take issue with Pastor Noland’s state- elect their pastors by majority lay vote, disagreement with them over the filioque ment regarding women participating in and all supervisory clergy are elected (the omission of which, to play the “who- the election and call of their pastors. by an assembly consisting of two-thirds is-oldest” game, easily predates its inclu- According to Noland, “experience has laymen and one-third clergy. sion). That split of ..  was generally shown that women at call meetings make   the issue of women’s roles their chief cri- J  G I for a woman “who prays or prophesies” terion for candidates . . . [and therefore] ( Cor :). There would be little point women should not be given the power to h In “Eating Cake or Having It” in in his lengthy argument here if he were participate in call meetings.” This may be L , no.  (Holy Trinity ), going to make an absolute prohibition the experience of Martin Noland, but has –, David Scaer engages in the exer- against such praying or prophesying not been mine. Women seem to be no cise of first shooting his arrow and then anyway. Furthermore, AC  cites more or no less single-issue constituents drawing the bull’s eye. This draws high the rule that speakers in the assembly of call committees or voters’ assemblies scores only from those who don’t know should be heard in order, from the same than men. Indeed, by Pastor Noland’s where the real target is. section of chapter  as another rule criterion a host of men would also have It is not true that a sound case for the made for good order but not absolutely to be excluded. ordination of women requires the elimi- necessary. My own personal experience as a nation of  Corinthians :– and This note certainly does not settle the vacancy pastor and circuit counselor has  Timothy :, so the conclusion that question of the appropriateness of the shown that men are more likely to use the  Corinthians passage is part of ordination of women. (I have given a financial cost as the chief criterion for the Paul’s original text is hardly the triumph somewhat more detailed treatment of election and call of a pastor. Surely this is that Scaer wishes it to be. Nor do propo- this issue in Lutheran Forum , no.  no less objectionable than a woman’s con- nents of the ordination of women have []). But it should be clear that it is cern for the issues relating to a woman’s “to say that Paul was dead wrong,” as also not settled simply by pointing to role in the congregation and larger church. Scaer would like them to. The passages the “standard” verses in  Corinthians It is men I had the most trouble with: men in question are parts of canonical Scrip- and  Timothy. In addition to interpret- who wanted to know which candidates ture, whether or not Paul wrote them, ing these verses properly, it is important were baptized in the Holy Spirit, men and of course they prohibit women to consider other biblical passages that who wanted to know if any candidates from speaking. But having said that, we speak of the role of women among the were headstrong pastors or the kind who must then ask if these prohibitions are people of God. would listen to the advice of their elders, to be understood as permanently bind- George L. Murphy men who insisted that any pastor who ing, or if they are limited to particular St. Mark Lutheran Church was liturgical or who favored a weekly situations in the life of the church. Tallmadege, Ohio eucharist be removed from the call list That the latter possibility is quite real because he was suspect as to his man- can be seen from the way in which the hood, men who insisted that candidates church has understood the command to over (or under) a certain age be automati- “abstain . . . from blood” in Acts :. B R  L cally removed from a call list because they This was by no means a minor matter: it lacked experience or expected too much could be enjoined upon both Jews and h I was surprised to read Vernon money, men who insisted that a lowball Gentiles because it was understood to be Gerlach’s reply to my article regarding compensation package would be raised rooted in God’s covenant with Noah, J. A.O. Preus in L , no. , especially and a commission package would be set which applied to all humanity (Genesis so since there is no argument with me up to reward the pastor for finding more :), and thus resembles arguments except as to the term “rigorism” applied members. The list goes on an on. against the ordination of women based to unionism. I believe Pastor Noland had the issue on “orders of creation.” Yet some Chris- The article was first written as a per- right when he questioned the rights and tians today eat blutwurst and are not sonal remembrance of one I termed a powers of voters’ assemblies in general. threatened with excommunication. “serious theologian who loved his Sav- How can it be allowed that the frequency Closer to the issue at hand is Paul’s ior.” It appeared in Faith Life. As Prof. with which the sacrament of the altar is insistence that women should have their Gerlach must know, such a reminis- offered in the congregation is a matter of heads covered in church, a demand he cence, even in the best publications, is majority vote in the voters’ assembly? bases in part on creation ( Cor :–). not an appropriate avenue for scholarly How can it be allowed that issues such as AC  gives this as an example of an documentation, especially not if the the form and content of the divine ser- ecclesiastical regulation that is made for account has to do with matters of public vice be subject to the whims of a voters’ good order but that it is not sinful to knowledge, as mine did. It was Robert assembly instead of the divinely called break without offense to others. And in Preus, although not always in agreement and ordained pastor? Clearly these issues fact, few churches today insist on the with his brother, who, having read my stand as the larger and more difficult veiling of women in public worship. account, called it the best he had read problems facing our congregations today. There are good reasons to believe that on the subject. He asked me to allow its I fully encourage that this subject be fully the prohibition in  Corinthians :– republication in L, and I said that discussed, and I can think of no better is not to be seen as binding in all situa- was all right with me. forum than L. tions. As I have just noted, in chapter The choir-participation argument at Larry A. Peters eleven of the same letter Paul sets out Bethany College was, as I noted above, a Clarksville, Tennessee the regulation of proper head covering matter of public knowledge in the mid-  

s. Jack disagreed with Alfred in fellowship with Missouri. So did Jack LOGIA CORRESPONDENCE AND Fremder’s pastoral application of union- Preus, but he never dreamed that it COLLOQUIUM FRATRUM ism to the situation at hand. In fact, he would as a matter of simple logic be We encourage our readers to respond to found it shockingly legalistic. Yet he also applied as did Fremder, Gullerud, and the material they find in L — believed that Fremder took his unpopu- several others who eventually formed the whether it be in the articles, book re- lar position “in fear and trembling Church of the Lutheran Confession. To views, or letters of other readers. While before God.” Bad faith was not the ques- Jack that was sectarianism and an we cannot print everything that is sent, tion. Jack on another occasion referred instance of canon-law legalism. You can’t we hope that our Colloquium Fratrum to Fremder as “a gift of God to Bethany solve complicated issues in life by look- section will allow for longer response/ College.” Jack’s argument was that ing up rules in, say, documents of the old counter-response exchanges, whereas our between rigorism and laxity, both of Synodical Conference. And as to rig- Correspondence section is a place for which he objected to, pastoral practice orism being the scriptural principle, Jack shorter “Letters to the Editors.” must find a way that avoids both. He simply denied it was that simple. Jack’s If you wish to respond to something knew that isn’t easy. use of the term “canon lawyer” was cen- in an issue of L , please do so soon It was Jack Preus who introduced the tered to his own understanding of evan- after you receive an issue. Since L terms “rigorism” and “canon lawyer” gelical practice. In other words, Jack had is a quarterly periodical, we are often (the latter term he never applied to respect for Fremder’s and Gullerud’s meeting deadlines for the subsequent Fremder). I suspect that every church consciences; he simply believed they issue about the time you receive your body, even the most conservative, has its tipped things toward the legalistic. current issue. Getting your responses in share of both rigorists and laxists. For As to what is rigorism, and whether it early will help keep them timely. Send instance, I vicared under a serious but is necessarily bad, that has always been your Correspondence contributions to pastorally generous ELS gentleman. I debated and always will be in circles L Correspondence,  Pearl belonged to the congregation served by where the primary commitment is to Street, Mankato, MN , or your my brother-in-law, C. M. Gullerud. They scriptural faithfulness. Colloquium Fratrum contributions to each thought of the other in negative L Editorial Department,  Pearl terms so far as issues of unionism were Leigh D. Jordahl Street, Mankato, MN . concerned. Yet both supported the break Decorah, Iowa Luther and Erasmus The Debate on the Freedom of the Will

C L. C

j

My dear Erasmus . . . I praise and commend you highly for this faith as claimed by such characterizations. Similarly, Erasmus— also, that unlike all the rest you alone have attacked the real to use Bainton’s depiction —was not so much the apostle of rea- issue, the essence of the matter in dispute, and have not wea- son, as that of reasonableness. ried me with irrelevancies about the papacy, purgatory, indul- Equally as bad are the prosy evaluations of historians such as gences, and such like trifles (for trifles they are rather than Stefan Zwieg. He turns Luther into a caricature, a “stout, thickset, basic issues), with which almost everyone hitherto has gone hard-boned, full-blooded clod of clay” in “perfect health.” hunting for me without success. You and you alone have seen (Zwieg describes him this way, despite the fact that the corpulent the question on which everything hinges, and have aimed at Luther painted by Cranach did not see the light of day until Katie the vital spot (AE, : ). had had him in her kitchen for several years and despite Luther’s well-known illnesses). And Erasmus? He (the underdog in all    L  his tour de force De this) wielded his “all embracing intellect” encased in its “sluggish servo arbitrio, which he wrote in answer to the Dutch and anemic frame” in a battle that featured his “conciliatory tem- humanist Desiderius Erasmus (c. –). It is a perament as opposed to the fanatical, cosmopolitanism against W  seemingly well-known fact that Luther considered his riposte to nationalism, evolution versus revolution.” Erasmus, together with his catechisms, as the only works from his Fortunately, a more balanced understanding of both men and pen he thought worth saving. But despite this evaluation by of their relationship is available through correspondence of the Luther, the whole Luther-Erasmus showdown is often neglected period. and passed over. Luther first became known to Erasmus through Spalatin. A Luther’s own assessment of the matter is cause enough for man with a prodigious number of correspondents throughout interest, of course. But the confrontation between Luther and Europe, Erasmus received a letter from Spalatin in December Erasmus is important because it is still being played out today: the , in which the chaplain transmitted Luther’s criticism of Eras- “vital spot” of theology is still challenged and attacked along the mus’s interpretation of Romans  and  regarding the abroga- lines first drawn by Erasmus’s De libero arbitrio. As a result, an tion of the Mosaic law, a point over which they would still dis- understanding and appreciation of Luther’s response is both agree eight years later. Luther had asked Spalatin to relay his crit- important and relevant to confessional Lutheranism. As an aid for icism to Erasmus, which Spalatin did, although he referred to understanding the clash between Luther and Erasmus, this study Luther only as “a certain Augustinian.” Erasmus did not respond seeks to trace the significant history leading up to the debate. even though Spalatin wrote a reminder in November . By this The relationship and eventual conflict between Luther and time, however, Erasmus knew the “certain Augustinian” by name Erasmus can be easily misrepresented, over-simplified, and over- for different reasons. dramatized. Because two influential and interesting personalities How and when Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses Regarding Indul- were involved (Erasmus, like Luther, remains a potent force today, gences became known to Erasmus is not clear. In March , even if his spiritual fatherhood is not acknowledged by his Erasmus sent copies of the theses to John Colet and Thomas offspring in the same way Lutherans acknowledge Luther), and More in England. It would seem he did so out of a sense of because the debate involved such a pivotal and controversial sub- approval. Erasmus told John Lang of Erfurt: ject, the historical figures of Luther and Erasmus have often been dropped in favor of two contrasting figures epitomizing faith and I hear that Eleutherius is approved by all good men, but it is reason respectively. Such a view is inaccurate and unfair. To be said that his writings are unequal. I think his theses will please sure, Luther was a man of faith, but as his writing against Eras- all, except for a few about purgatory, which they who make mus shows, it was faith born of the Word, not a hazy, subjective their living from it don’t want taken from them. I have Prierias’s bungling answer. I see that the monarchy of the Roman high priest (as that now is) is the plague of Christen- C L. C, a L editor, teaches at Martin Luther dom, though it is praised through thick and thin by shameless College, New Ulm, Minnesota. preachers. Yet I hardly know whether it is expedient to touch   

this open sore, for that is the duty of princes. But I fear they The scholar was slow in responding. He was not anxious to conspire with the pontiff for part of the spoils. I wonder what have closer ties with Luther because he already had enemies at has come over Eck to begin a battle with Eleutherius. Louvain who were stating that he had “laid the egg that Luther hatched.” He preferred the part of a referee in the struggle, not This letter to Lang also reveals the Erasmian approach to the that of an actual participant. Already, of course, many were whole “Luther affair” from the start. Erasmus’s approbation of charging him with timidity and fence-sitting on the issues raised Luther is guarded and cautious: the theses will “please all,” but by and against Luther, but Erasmus was most concerned with the does Erasmus include himself? Certainly up to this point both threat the Luther affair posed to bonae litterae, the humanistic- men were on common ground in regard to the indulgence ques- patristic studies so dear to Erasmus’s heart. Inasmuch as Luther tion: “What filthy traffic this is,” declared Erasmus, “designed to was being associated with “good letters,” he, like Reuchlin earlier, fill coffers rather than stimulate piety!” Even so, Erasmus’s char- deserved defense. If the cause of good letters were in danger of acteristic aloofness shows itself, something that would become an being stigmatized by Luther’s enemies, then Erasmus would urge irritant to the Lutherans as time wore on. his protection. Accordingly, letters went out from Louvain to various influential personages in which Erasmus maintained that Luther was “unknown” to him personally, but which urged protection of Luther because of the Augustinian’s fine reputation Luther’s letter was an attempt to and for the sake of bonae litterae. Frederick the Wise received one  establish friendship and win such letter in April , in which Erasmus admonished: approval from the scholar. I am not involved in Luther’s cause. [But] as it is your nb responsibility to protect the Christian religion through your own piety, you must be concerned not to deliver an inno- cent man who is under your protection to impious men on In March , Luther made his first direct approach to Eras- the pretext of piety. mus, then in residence at Louvain. Despite his early misgivings about Erasmus’s understanding of Paul, Luther’s letter was an This letter was construed by friends and foes of Erasmus alike attempt to establish friendship and win approval from the scholar. to mean that he approved Luther’s writings and actions. Luther The letter is interesting in the way it contrasts with Luther’s usual himself remarked to Spalatin that Erasmus’s letter to the prince directness and force of expression. Luther adopted the manner was pleasing (AE, : ). And Philipp Melanchthon, who kept used by the humanists of the day in addressing Erasmus: up a relationship with Erasmus long after the debate on free will, received a letter commending Luther’s character. Jesus. Greetings. I speak so often to you and you to me, my The “other side” also received overtures from Louvain. Albert Erasmus— our glory and hope — and yet we do not know of Mainz, whose indulgence had sparked the whole conflagration, each other personally. Is that not most peculiar? Actually received a lengthy apologia from Erasmus in October . In it this is not strange at all, but something obviously that hap- Erasmus again defends Luther’s character. He is solicitous of pens every day. Where is there someone whose heart Eras- Luther’s safety and right to be corrected charitably, but he is care- mus does not occupy, whom Erasmus does not teach, over ful to keep distance between himself and Luther: whom Erasmus does not hold sway? I speak of course of those who truly love learning. I am very glad that you dis- I am not accusing Luther nor am I defending him nor am I please many, since this, among other things, is also to be responsible for him. I would not dare judge his motives .... counted among the gifts of Christ. By this I usually differen- I would not want him to be crushed by the factions of the tiate between the gifts of the merciful and of the wrathful wicked if he is innocent; if he is in error, I would want him God. As a result I congratulate you that while you delight all cured, not destroyed. good people tremendously, you no less vex those who want to be alone on top and want to be the most popular. Erasmus’s mode of dealing with the controversy is again appar- Yet I am foolish that I, with unwashed hands and without ent. He would defend the man, but not judge his cause; he would a reverential and honorific introduction, address you, such a referee, but not become involved. great man, in the most familiar tone .... Now I have heard from the excellent Fabricius Capito that you are acquainted I favor Luther as much as I can, even if my cause is every- with my name through those trivial writings on the indul- where linked with his. Those who favor him wish he would gences [!] . . . As a result, my Erasmus, amiable man, if it be more civil and less mordant. But to remonstrate is now seems acceptable to you, acknowledge also this little brother too late. I see sedition under way. I hope it will turn out to in Christ. He is certainly most devoted to you, and has the the glory of Christ. Perhaps scandals have to come, but I greatest affection for you (AE, : –). don’t want to be their author.

Luther would soon drop this deferential manner and rather char- All in all,  was to prove to be the high-water mark in the acterize Erasmus as a “croaking toad.” relationship between Luther and Erasmus. Erasmus had written     directly to Luther in June , in a friendly and paternal tone that Erasmus’s would he but take up the pen and write against Luther. urged him to temper his attacks and to pursue piety. Praise was Erasmus tactfully declined, saying he had not the talent. While he given for Luther’s commentary on the Psalms. An Erasmian had no intention of attacking Luther at this point, at the same benediction was pronounced, but in it all the same impression of time he was not about to irritate the pope. A letter written late in a man attempting to maintain a difficult equilibrium is apparent.  to Cardinal Campeggio, the papal nuncio to the imperial While Erasmus pursued his balancing act, Luther for his part court, reveals his stance. seems to have had few if any false hopes about the true nature of the relationship. Many had made an early association between the Reformer and Erasmus, but it was an association that Luther, despite the earlier letter of praise for Erasmus, saw in its true light. Dreams of alliance belonged more He would have welcomed open friendship in warm appreciation to Luther’s supporters than to of Erasmus’s many talents and contributions (Luther continued to give thanks for Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, for example), Luther himself. but dreams of alliance belonged more to Luther’s supporters than nb to Luther himself.

Some people have in hand a magnificent letter of Erasmus to He wrote to the cardinal that he found Luther’s good points the Cardinal of Mainz. [Erasmus] is quite concerned about laudable: “actually, I favored not him, but the glory of Christ.” He me [in this letter] (perhaps it will be published sometime) defended himself to Campeggio, stating that he had maintained and protects me quite nobly, yet in his usual skillful way, good relations with Luther in order to better advise and direct which is to defend me strongly while seeming not to defend him: “My purpose was that, once his natural qualities were cor- me at all! (AE, : ). rected and purified, he might with rich results and also with great glory and profit for Christ restore for us the philosophy of the Luther recognized all too well that Erasmus was not so much gospel which had almost become cold from neglect.” His concern concerned over him and the evangelical cause of the Reformation was that Luther be treated fairly and given a just hearing; as for bonae litterae. nowhere had he given approval of Luther’s writings. Rather, he Throughout the year  the two continued to drift farther continued to claim that he had only dabbled in Luther’s books: apart. Battle lines had long been drawn between Wittenberg and “Of all Luther’s books I have read less than a dozen pages, and Rome, and now the fray escalated. In June, the sluggish Leo  those here and there.” He concluded by saying: roused himself to call upon all the saints to root out the wild boar from the vineyard. The papal bull Exsurge Domine was given reply I have never been and shall never be a willful teacher of error, in Luther’s major Reformation writings An den christlichen Adel nor shall I ever be a leader or an accomplice in any turmoil. deutscher Nation (August ), De captivitate babylonica ecclesiae Others may desire martyrdom; I do not consider myself wor- (October ), and, once the bull had actually reached Luther, thy of that honor. I realize I am hateful to some — not for Adversus execrabilem antichristi bullam and Von der Freiheit eines being a follower of Luther; in fact, they are angry because I Christenmenschen (November ). Erasmus pronounced depre- am not. I am hateful to persons who are pleasing only to silly cations against both Rome and Wittenberg. “This bull is appalling, women and to illiterate and superstitious folk. Only those are breathing the savagery of the mendicants rather than the spirit of really displeased with Erasmus who are not pleased with the gentle Leo.” “This tragedy has sprung from the hatred of good good learning and the evangelical truth, namely, men who letters and the stupidity of the monks.” Spalatin received this are nurtured and enriched by the folly of the mob. assessment of Luther’s part in the worsening affair: By the time this letter was on its way to Rome, Luther had burned I pray that the supreme and wonderful Christ will so tem- the papal bull. per Luther’s pen and spirit that he can be of very great Fifteen twenty-one dawned as a fateful and dramatic year. In profit to evangelical piety .... He is encumbering good January, the diet called by the newly elected emperor, Charles , learning with an ill will that is disastrous to us and of no opened in Worms. Among its points of business was a promised profit to himself. hearing of Luther brought about by the intercession (under the influence of Erasmus?) of Frederick the Wise the previous Leo’s bull had the immediate effect of emboldening the ene- November. mies of both Luther and Erasmus. An auto de fe, the burning of Luther made his courageous and defiant stand on the Word of Luther’s books, took place in Louvain in October where Erasmus God before Charles in April and was promptly declared an out- was in residence. Erasmus himself was attacked from the pulpit as law. Spirited away for his own safety to the seclusion of the Wart- being a Lutheran. The preacher on this occasion, a Carmelite burg, Luther dropped out of sight, but not out of mind. News of named Egmondanus (“the Camel”), also screamed at Erasmus: his disappearance spread quickly, together with vague and con- “You wrote for Luther, now write against him!” It was a demand fused reports about his fate. Kidnapped, imprisoned, mur- that was beginning to be heard from many corners. From Rome dered — all these possibilities were successively proposed. The came the news— discreetly leaked — that a bishopric would be artist Albrecht Dürer wrote in his diary: “I know not whether he   lives or is murdered, but in any case he has suffered for the Chris- Rome the Lutherans will cry that I have been suborned and tian truth .... O God, if Luther is dead, who will henceforth will refuse to read me. explain to us the gospel?” Casting about for Luther’s successor, he injected: “O Erasmus of Rotterdam, where are you staying? Even while this exchange with Adrian was going on, Erasmus’s Ride forth, you knight of Christ. Defend the truth and win the attempts to remain aloof were stunned by the arrival in Basel of martyr’s crown!” Ulrich von Hutten. Posting from von Sickingen’s quixotic attempt As for Erasmus, he reacted to the rumor of Luther’s demise not to restore the power of the failing Junker class, Hutten attempted by taking up the sword, but by wearily dismounting his horse and to see Erasmus. To be caught or even suspected of dealings with commenting: “The Lutheran drama is over; would that it had Hutten would have sounded the death knell of Erasmus’s goal of never been brought on the stage,” and that “Luther has willfully non-alignment: the man was simply anathema to Rome. Hut- provoked his fate.” ten’s persistence and subsequent rebuff by Erasmus (the latter unwisely stating his real reason of refusal in a letter that was shown to Hutten) led Hutten to issue his scathing Expostulatio. In it, the one-time admirer denounced his former idol as a lying By this time, Erasmus’s unclear and hypocrite who had abandoned the truth and was now attempt- equivocating position was galling to ing to curry Roman favor in the most spaniel-like terms. “I would never have thought this of you. I would have sworn that one who was literally risking his life. you would stand to your post. I believed you would be unshak-  nb able for the truth. I grieve over your defection.” Unknown to Erasmus, Hutten had subsequently died in Zurich, where Zwingli had given him sanctuary. Hutten’s Expos- But soon letters from “my Patmos” and “the Wilderness” tulatio fairly reeked of a martyr’s blood to the enemies of Rome appeared, proving that the rumors of Luther’s death were, so that Erasmus’s stinging reply was doubly damning. Published indeed, “greatly exaggerated.” Nor had the conflagration stopped under the title Spongia, Erasmus sought to wipe away Hutten’s on the side of the Romanists in the meantime. Luther’s books aspersions by means of an acid bath of his own eloquent Latin. were the fuel lighting the night sky in public burnings all over But moving beyond Hutten, Erasmus went on to address the the Low Countries. (Someone suggested wryly that the books Lutherans as well. might better have been sold and the money sent to Rome to burn the pederasts.) But with Luther apparently disposed of, [Hutten] says one should be ready to die for the gospel. I attention was now turned to Erasmus who had hoped matters would not refuse if the case called for it, but I am of no mind could now be composed. “My position here is odious,” he con- to die for the paradoxes of Luther .... I am not willing to be fided to one correspondent. When a preacher cried out in regard a martyr for Luther. to Erasmus’s supposed Lutheran sympathies: “If I could bury my Let us not devour each other like fish. Why upset the teeth in Luther’s gullet, I would not hesitate to go with bloody whole world over paradoxes, some unintelligible, some mouth and receive the body of Christ”— it was simply too debatable, some unprofitable? The world is full of rage, hate, much. Declaring it to be the “worst century” since the days of and wars. What will the end be if we employ only bulls and Christ, Erasmus left Louvain and returned to Basel. the stake? It is no great feat to burn a little man. It is a great Early in March , Luther left the Wartburg and returned to achievement to persuade him. Wittenberg to quash the disturbances caused there by Carlstadt and the Zwickau prophets. Once re-established in Wittenberg, One could hardly contrive a more goading message to Luther, the Reformer turned to the wider situation. By this time, Eras- but Rome was not satisfied with Erasmus’s reply to Hutten either. mus’s unclear and equivocating position was galling to one who As a result, Erasmus was urged on all sides to issue a real sponge was literally risking his life. In Luther’s mind and in the minds of to wipe away his suspected heretical leanings: he must write his followers a middle position was no longer tenable. The lines against Luther. between evangelical Lutheranism and the papacy were fixed: one And Luther? In a letter to a mysterious unnamed person, was either a citizen of Wittenberg or Rome. Luther issued a warning to Erasmus not to take up the pen Of course, Erasmus had gone to Basel to avoid this very thing. against him. Reproached and courted at the same time by Adrian  (–), the new occupant of Peter’s chair, Erasmus sought to I knew before that Mosellanus agreed with Erasmus on pre- remain unaligned: destination, for he is altogether an Erasmian. I, on the con- trary, think that Erasmus knows less, or seems to know less, I trust you will permit your little lamb to speak freely to its about predestination than the schools of the sophists have shepherd. Is it your thought that I should come to Rome in known.... Erasmus is not to be feared either in this or in order not to be corrupted by the Lutherans? I assure you I almost any other really important subject that pertains to am far enough away to obviate that danger. As for curing Christian doctrine .... them, more can be done at close range. How can a patient I shall not challenge Erasmus; if challenged myself once be healed by a doctor who is not there? Besides, if I come to or twice, I shall not hurry to strike back. I think it unwise,    

however, for him to array the power of his eloquence against that the Lutherans could hardly be considered heretics since they me, for I am afraid he will not find in Luther another held the fundamentals of the faith in the same sense as the one, Lefevre . . . if he casts the die, he will see that Christ fears catholic church. To him, the matter of the freedom of the will was neither the gates of hell nor the powers of the air. Poor stam- a non-essential of the faith. merer that I am, I shall parry the eloquent Erasmus with all Erasmus’s Diatribe was published in September . Copies confidence, caring nothing for his authority, reputation, or were sent to Wittenberg to Melanchthon together with a cover good will. I know what is in this man just as I know the plots letter in which Erasmus declared that he had written it “for the of Satan; but I expect him to reveal more clearly from day to sake of my many enemies.” Melanchthon wrote back in his usual day what grudge he nurses against me. balanced manner to say that the writing had been received with calmness in Wittenberg and that Luther would be responding Erasmus still hoped to avoid a clash and protested against “with the same moderation” Erasmus had shown. Luther’s letter in one of his own to Spalatin. The reason he declined to write was not because of a lack of fortitudo, but for the sake of concordia. Despite his own bravado, Luther, too, was desirous that Erasmus stay out of the fray. Both men realized the The hatefulness of the anti-Lutherans gulf separating them. Neither held out much hope of winning the was equally obnoxious. But on the other over. Such dreams were rapidly evaporating from the most ardent of Erasmus’s admirers among the Lutherans, most notably other hand was the growing fury Melanchthon. But in a sense, Luther’s letter to his anonymous of Luther and his followers. correspondent had actually cast the die. Erasmus could not stay nb out of it. He would not leave the Roman church; he did not want to attack Luther. But the Lutherans demanded the one; the pope, Erasmus’s Roman friends and detractors, the other. He found As events turned out, Luther’s answer was delayed for over a himself in a position worse than embarrassing: on the one hand year. He was embroiled in his dispute with Carlstadt and com- were all the abuses of the church that he had abhorred. The hate- pany, and then the Peasants’ Revolt occurred. But these may not fulness of the anti-Lutherans was equally obnoxious. But on the have been the main reason for the delay. Luther told Spalatin in other hand was the growing fury of Luther and his followers. “I November : am a heretic to both sides,” he lamented. Pleas, offers, and threats were now pouring in to Erasmus to It is unbelievable how much the book about the freedom of take up his pen and write. Erasmus responded to one of his for- the will nauseates me; I have not yet read more that two mer English colleagues: pages. It is irksome for me to have to reply to such an edu- cated man about such an uneducated book. You, too, tell me I am suspected of favoring Luther, and that I must prove my innocence by writing against him. You say I Despite this, Melanchthon noted that Luther— to his friends’ can settle it all. Would that I could! It is easy to call Luther a great relief— had begun his response to Erasmus in April . fungus; it is not as easy to answer him. I might try, if I was But then the Peasants’ Revolt intervened, making late summer sure that those at the head of things would use my victory to the real starting date. By September Luther was absorbed in his honest purpose. I do not see what business it is of mine. writing. In mid-November he finished, and the work was pub- However, I will think of it. lished in December under the title De servo arbitrio. Melanch- thonian hopes that the courtesy of Erasmus would make it diffi- Replying to all with the utmost care (Adrian  had again cult for Luther to be angry proved empty: Luther quickly sur- renewed the offer of a red hat), Erasmus continued to make mounted the difficulty. excuses. “I don’t have learning enough,” he responded to the The rest of the history can be given in brief. Erasmus was stung pope. But at last, bowing to pressure, he agreed and began to cast by the vehemence of Luther in De servo arbitrio and made reply around for a suitable subject that would allow him to dispel the in Hyperapistes  and . But Luther felt he had spoken his final heresy charges of the one side without unduly aggravating the word on the matter and had no need to make further answer to other. Henry  of England had suggested a topic some time Erasmus. He did include, however, a cover letter with the copy of ago: the freedom of the will. De servo arbitrio that was sent directly to Erasmus. Although this In the opening sentences of De libero arbitrio, diatribe sive col- letter has not survived, Erasmus’s response has— the last per- latio, Erasmus lightly raised the subject as merely something in sonal exchange between the two men. From Erasmus’s words it which he differed from Luther; he saw their discussion as an would appear that Luther had affirmed his confidence in his engaging disputation over a highly debatable point of doctrine. thinking on the bondage of the will, but that he had also Luther’s answer gave a vastly different assessment of the topic’s acknowledged some truth to the cry of “Foul!” by Erasmus. From importance. Erasmus had previously written a colloquy, Inquisi- Basel came this retort: tio de fide, in which a Lutheran is queried about the truths of the Apostles’ Creed. Erasmus had the Lutheran answer with a firm The whole world knows your nature, according to which and faithful subscription to every article. His intent was to show you have guided your pen against no one more bitterly  

and, what is more detestable, more maliciously than that it should die down .... I should wish you a better dis- against me.... The same admirable ferocity which you position were you not so marvelously satisfied with the formerly used against Cochlaeus and against Fisher, who one you have. Wish me any curse you will except your tem- provoked you to it by reviling, you now use against my per, unless the Lord change it for you. book in spite of its courtesy. How do your scurrilous charges that I am an atheist, an Epicurean, and a skeptic And with that it was over. Erasmus continued to nurse his help the argument? . . . It terribly pains me, as it must all injured ego to the end of his life. He felt that his “lamps had been good men, that your arrogant, insolent, rebellious nature blown out by the Lutheran gust.” For his part, Luther continued has set the world in arms .... You treat the Evangelic to rail against Erasmus with great gusto: the Tabletalk is littered cause so as to confound together all things sacred and pro- with vituperative remarks and sneers. News of Erasmus’s death in fane as if it were your chief aim to prevent the tempest July  elicited the final assessment from Luther that Erasmus  from ever becoming calm, while it is my greatest desire had died sine lux et crux. LOGIA

NOTES . Luther makes this assessment in a letter to Wolfgang Capito. . It was in November  that Frederick had asked Erasmus— See AE, : –. who was part of Charles’s entourage—for his judgment of Luther. . Consider, for example, Will Durant’s treatment of the charac- The scholar responded with his now famous quip: “Luther has com- ters of Luther and Erasmus in volume  of his The Story of Civiliza- mitted two errors: he has struck at the crown of the pope, and poked tion, –. the bellies of the monks.” Frederick received a more serious answer in . Stefan Zwieg, Erasmus of Rotterdam (New York: Viking Press, Erasmus’s Axiomata to Spalatin, , by which it may be argued that ), . Frederick was convinced to seek a hearing for Luther from Charles. . Zwieg, . . Roland Bainton, Here I Stand (Nashville: Abingdon, ), . . AE, : –. In his letter to Spalatin of October , , . James A. Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus (London: Long- Luther criticizes Erasmus especially for following Jerome instead of mans, Green, and Co., ), . Augustine, a criticism that surfaces again in their debate. . Froude, . This is from a letter to Justus Jonas in which Eras- . Erasmus is referring to Prierias’s Dialogue of . mus advises Jonas to disassociate himself from a lost cause. Although . Eck had attacked Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses in his Obelisks of Erasmus admits that Luther was unduly provoked by events, the chief . blame for “this tragedy” rested on Luther. . Opus epistolarum D. Erasmi Roterdami, ed. P. S. Allen (Oxford, . Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom, . ), , . Abbreviated as EE in subsequent notes. . EE, : . . Roland Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom (New York: Scribners, . Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom, . ), . . Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom, . . EE, : . . AE, : –. Mosellanus is identified as one Peter Schade, a . EE, : . friend of Erasmus’s. Lefevre d’Etaples (Faber Stapulensis) had . EE, : . engaged in a sharp debate with Erasmus and was generally considered . EE, : . the loser. . Margaret Mann Phillips, Erasmus and the Northern Renaissance . Froude, . (London: English University Press, Ltd., ), . . WA, Br : . . EE, : . . Preserved Smith, Erasmus (New York: Dover, ), –. . Phillips, . . Bainton, . . EE, : . . Smith, . See also WA, Tischreden, , No. .

COMMUNION HYMN     (suggested tune: “Ellers”) David Jay Webber

Lord Jesus Christ, to your words we attend; We in the struggles of this life are weak, We hear your sacred promise, dearest Friend, And in our frailty help and comfort seek. That in the consecrated wine and bread You give us here, Lord, as faith’s eye can see, You give your body and the blood you shed. A medicine of immortality.

You told your servants, sent forth in your name, Your flesh, as heav’nly food, our life sustains; “He who hears you, hears me,” so we acclaim A saving drink for us your blood remains. You as the host whose voice we hear today When we in faith approach you in our need, When pastors speak the words you bid them say. Please, with yourself, Lord, soul and body feed.

Your body sacrificed for human sin, We who receive your truth have unity Your blood outpoured, did full salvation win. With you and with each other; may this be We penitently take these pledges, Lord; By our communion jointly manifest, To us, we pray, your pard’ning grace afford. As we confess you in this banquet blest. De servo arbitrio and the Patristic Discussion of Freedom, Fate, and Grace

M N

j

       in the lan- rational versus irrational is found already in Homer and perme- guage of prayer and worship, but when it turns to teaching ates Greek thought and language. Thus the concept of some T and confessing, this language does not always suffice. part of human psychology that is separate from irrational desire Therefore, Christian theology has often turned to the philosophi- and from rational decision — the human will, as we term it— cal schools for language and concepts with which to confess that was not used by the earliest fathers. To discover the context of which is believed. The doctrine of human nature is one such case. the early patristic statements concerning human freedom, we The concepts of human freedom, moral responsibility, and fate must turn to the ancient debates concerning fate, necessity, were debated vigorously by the Greek philosophers. This debate of rationality, responsibility, and the terminology expressing these the academies is clearly reflected in the theology of the early Greek concepts. These ideas were dealt with mainly in two classes of the fathers as they confessed human freedom. Further, the very con- philosophical literature: cosmology and ethics. cept of “will,” as we use it, is itself derived from reflection upon In Greek cosmology there were two competing ideas within human psychology and is not a part of a divinely revealed the description of the nature of the universe. The first is found schematic of human nature. Yet in churches all around us and in already in the epic mythologies, wherein we read that life was our general society, it is quite common to speak of the unques- seen as ultimately ruled by a deterministic Fate. Particularly death tionable axiom of “free will” as some positive and indispensable and destruction seemed to be associated with Fate. And while part of mankind. In this context, Luther’s De servo arbitrio (“Con- Fate might be avoided for a time, eventually that ruinous cerning Bound Choice”) and Article  of the Formula of Concord goddess had her way and overcame even the heroes. Not even stick out like two sore thumbs. Given this state of philosophically the capricious gods themselves could dominate Fate. No “system- packed language, a long Christian history, and the Lutheran con- atic formula for the relation between destiny and the gods” was fession’s denial of human free will, it is important to consider the given by Homer, however. To what level of detail of life Fate language and context of the confession against free will. In so applied is unclear. Nevertheless, the idea of unavoidable fate was doing, I believe that it will be discovered that Luther’s De servo never consistently applied to every detail of life in all its logical arbitrio reflects much of Augustine’s approach to free will, divine conclusions, nor was it used to deny the virtues of mankind or foreknowledge, and predestination. But unlike Augustine, Luther the heroes. The nuances of Fate’s relationship to the gods and keeps these doctrines subject to the preaching of law and gospel, other parts of life were left as a problem to the later philosophers, the revelation of God in Christ. but the idea was never entirely lost in the Greek mind. The second fundamental Greek concept was created when the CHOICE AND VIRTUE, FATE AND RESPONSIBILITY early Greek myths had lost their power of conviction and the Greek philosophy, anthropology, and religion knew of no con- early natural philosophers began constructing a new view of the trast between divine grace and natural free choice. An examina- world independent of the Olympian gods. At this time, there tion of Homeric literature reveals that the idea of freedom itself arose a profound conviction of nature and the universe as essen- played only a small part in early Greek thought. The term “free” tially orderly and rational. This concept was to influence almost was slow in developing and did not lead to a Greek doctrine of all subsequent Greek thought. From the early natural philoso- free will. In fact, it is scholarly consensus that the Greeks them- phers through the classical period and across the various philo- selves did not have a concept of will at all corresponding to our sophical schools, the universe was considered a rationally contemporary idea. The Greeks instead made use of a basic dis- ordered place that the rational human mind is able to observe tinction in describing human action as, on the one hand, ratio- and understand. Therefore the mind can come to agree with its nal choice or, on the other, as emotional or passionate action, order and attain virtue. that is, irrational action. It was the former that the Greeks prized This emphasis upon the rational aspect of human nature as virtuous. This basic and even fundamental psychology of strongly influenced the Greek philosophers, who developed many of the ideas and technical terminology that in turn would infl- M N is a Ph.D. student in ancient and medieval history at the uence early patristic authors. Although the various schools University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. differed greatly in the specifics of their cosmology and anthropol-    ogy, the influence of the ideas of fate and rationality can be seen in in order to make them more intelligible to his Hellenistic audi- all of them, whether in a positive sense or in a negative reaction. ence. This only demonstrates more clearly how current the mat- This was already the case with Socrates, the father of classical ters of fate, freedom, and responsibility were at the beginning of  Greek philosophy, for his famous dictum oujdei;" eJkw;n aJmartavnei the Christian era, even to non-philosophers. (“No one knowingly does wrong”) expresses the fundamental Greek concept of the rationality of the soul, which would continue THE CHURCH’S REJECTION OF SALVATION to hold sway among those after him. Plato, the student of Socrates, BY NATURE AND FATE believed it was the philosopher’s goal to be able to see and under- It was in this mixed Hellenistic atmosphere that the Christian stand the transcendent realm of ideas from which all reality church drew its first breaths. The New Testament reflects its Jewish comes. This, however, could only happen through the careful con- religious roots and its soteriological concerns in that the concepts templation and study of the rational nature of the soul. Through of fate, necessity, to; ejf∆ hJmivn, and ethical responsibility are not knowledge one knows the good and can choose rationally to per- discussed directly as philosophic matters of inquiry. The New Tes- form the good. The discipline of the academy was to lead towards tament is concerned with the ideas of the law, righteousness, faith this end. Thus the body and its irrational passions were basically and good works, and salvation. It was not, therefore, primarily the understood as a prison that held the rational soul. New Testament writings that motivated the early fathers to discuss Aristotle, Plato’s student, developed many of the arguments and determinism or fate and to defend human freedom. Instead, there much of the anthropological terminology important to later were two external factors that apparently led them to speak as they patristic argument, particularly in his ethical writings. Aristotle did: the Greek perception of the Christian use of Old Testament had a full system of categories and distinctions by which he dis- prophecy, and the Gnostic doctrines of salvation by nature. cussed human emotion (pavqh) and actions (pravxei") and their The first clearly identifiable factor that called for an assertion relation to blameworthiness. He began Book  of his Nicomachean of man’s freedom was the Greek perception of the church’s appeal Ethics with a rather fundamental distinction: to the Old Testament in order to prove that Jesus was the Christ, that he should be called God, and that he had to suffer and die As virtue is concerned with emotions and actions, and such and rise again. When these arguments were used to speak to the emotions and actions as are voluntary are the subjects of pagans, as opposed to Jews, they were not received in precisely the praise and blame, while such as are involuntary are the sub- same way, since the Greeks did not share the Jewish conviction jects of pardon and sometimes even of pity, it is necessary, I that the Old Testament is Scripture. They could not help but think, in an investigation of virtue to distinguish what is vol- compare this to their own religious or superstitious thought con- untary from what is involuntary. cerning the Sibylline oracles and other similar institutions, namely, the idea of fate. If it was prophesied and thus it hap- Thus Aristotle began with the conception that human life can pened, the Hellenistic pagan mind understood this in terms of be divided into emotions and actions and can be further divided dark fate. That this is in fact what happened can be observed into the subcategories of involuntary and voluntary. Involuntary directly in Justin Martyr’s First Apology. acts are those things “done under compulsion, or from igno- rance,” that is, those things that have their origin “external to the agent or patient.” An act is voluntary “if the agent originates it with a knowledge of the particular circumstances of the action.” Aristotle began with the conception Aristotle also indicated these same categories by distinguishing between those things that are and are not ejf∆ hJmin, “depending that human life can be divided on us” or “in our power.” These things are directly related to into emotions and actions. whether an agent of some action is deemed to be blameworthy nb for what he has done. It was Aristotle’s doctrine that any action performed under compulsion is not blameworthy. And the idea of necessity imposed by fate provided just such a source of com- Though the use of Old Testament prophecy caused such diffi- pulsion, which ethical theory had to face. culties, it does not appear that this was the main threat for the It was in the schools that came after Aristotle that fatalistic church in regard to determinism. The second cause of the early determinism and moral responsibility would be fully debated. patristic assertion of man’s freedom was the Gnostic doctrines of For example, the Stoics believed in fate, while the Epicureans salvation by nature. We can take Valentinus as the foremost were accused of this but denied it. Both schools had to defend example. Irenaeus reported that between  and  .. Valenti- themselves against the accusations that they rendered ethical nus was active in Rome promoting his doctrine, against which behavior irrelevant. For if all things are fated, no one can be the fathers generally protested. He also gave a detailed report of responsible for his actions. Over the following centuries, these the Valentinians’ cosmology, which served as a basis for their ideas were destined to make their mark on the entire Hellenistic soteriology. In the end, claimed Irenaeus, the Valentinians sup- intellectual world. Josephus even portrayed the Jewish sects as posed the existence of three kinds of substance in the world, one having differed precisely because of what they taught concerning called matter, a second called animal, and a third called psychic. these questions of fate and responsibility. It appears that he did From the animal substance was made a being called Demiurge, this so as to make them resemble the Greek philosophical schools who proceeded to give form to heaven and earth from these three     substances. Therefore, it was concluded that mankind can be teaching. For while second-century culture and the Gnostic divided into three basic types. Those made from the material sub- threat gave early motivation for Christian soteriological teaching stance (matter), reported Irenaeus, are called “on the left hand,” to develop along the lines of Greek anthropological thought, and must of necessity perish. Those made of the animal sub- within the church the liturgy and sacraments made clear that stance go to good or evil, depending on inclination. And finally, mankind needed the grace of God given in Christ for obtaining those made of the psychic substance, the Valentinians themselves, salvation. Right alongside the ideas of ethical responsibility based are predetermined to become perfect through knowledge and to upon human freedom are statements of absolute necessity of the receive salvation by necessity. forgiveness of sins, the reception of the Holy Spirit, and participa- This idea of salvation by nature, in spite of behavior, was unac- tion in Christ for salvation. It was an indisputable point for the ceptable to the fathers. It was contrary to the very Christian mes- second and early third century fathers that the forgiveness of sins sage of the coming judgment of all people and of preparing for it by and the Holy Spirit, both given in baptism, were the necessary receiving the salvation offered to all through the church. As Origen first step in the process of salvation. would state against this Gnostic necessity, “the doctrine of a right- eous judgment is contained in the church’s teaching, which when those who hear it believe its truth, are moved to live well and in every way to flee sin.” The Valentinians, according to the fathers, The idea of salvation through knowledge, had taken away the ethical responsibility from most of mankind an idea heavily dependent upon contem- and had granted a fated salvation to themselves. This threatened porary Platonism, definitely affected the validity of the Christian message in toto. The fathers consis- tently and energetically rejected these ideas. the early doctrine of the church. In addition, by the mid-second century the doctrine of cre- nb ation, which was so vital in the church’s early life, came to make use of mankind’s being created in the image of God. This became a vital part of Christian anthropology, serving to frame the Greek Already in Ignatius, at the beginning of the second century, sal- fathers’ soteriology. According to this theology mankind, made in vation is described as immortality gained through participation in God’s image, sinned, losing or tarnishing this image in which Christ and the redemption he worked. This salvation is found in mankind was created, and thereby became subject to death. the church because the economy of salvation, which was carried Therefore, salvation is a restoration of the primitive image and out in Christ, now continues in the church. The word and the even a surpassing of it, leading to immortality. To say that sacraments administered there by bishop and presbyters bear the mankind did not have a power of choice or freedom transgressed gift of life because they bring participation in Christ and his work. the very idea of what a human is. And the response to the Valen- And baptism gains its content from participation in Christ, who tinians was one that was consistent with this model. Thus appeal also underwent baptism. Those who enter the church are purified was made to the idea that man was created with a rational nature by baptism because Christ “was baptized that by experiencing it and was able to choose right or wrong. Therefore, by referencing he might purify water.” That purification worked by Christ is Greek ethical thought and terminology, it was proven that man is now communicated by baptism to those who enter the church. responsible for his actions and not subject to a natural or fatal For “the Lord did suffer the ointment to be poured upon His necessity unto salvation or destruction. This argument is found head, that He might breathe immortality into His Church.” already in Justin and Irenaeus. Origen argued in the same way Irenaeus likewise made clear the distinction between the “car- in Book 3 of his De principiis. nal” man and the “spiritual” man. Only by reception of the Holy Spirit does a man become spiritual and capable of immortality. THE EAST: HUMAN FREEDOM The Word made flesh has reconciled the world to the Father and AND THE SOTERIOLOGY recapitulated all things in order that people might begin even now When these arguments are observed in isolation, they leave one to be perfected in the image and likeness of God, for people with the impression that salvation is a simple weighing of works, become acceptable to the Father by being conformed to the image and that each one receives according to his choice of works, of the Son. But being conformed to the image of the Son occurs whether good or bad. Salvation appears to be merely a rational only by the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit choice of the rational mind. In this view there seems little more to who changes people from being merely flesh, which cannot inherit God’s grace or Christ’s work than the revealing of knowledge, the kingdom of God, into spiritual people. And it is the Holy that is, the law, so that mankind might turn away from evil deeds Spirit who is the earnest of the final inheritance, who cries “Abba, and become virtuous and thus be saved. The idea of salvation Father” in the hearts of those who believe, testifying that even now through knowledge, an idea heavily dependent upon contempo- God’s people have received the adoption of sons. And thus by the rary Platonism, definitely affected the early doctrine of the Holy Spirit the person once dead is vivified and made to join in church. But indications are that these rather “vapid expres- union and fellowship with the Son and the Father. Union with God sions” of Christian doctrine represent an apologetics to the out- is life and salvation. And so this comes by baptism: side pagan world, but that inside the church, the liturgy and con- fessions of faith actually contain the deeper, fuller content of the When [do we bear] the image of the heavenly? Doubtless Christian faith, though not yet fully expressed in the church’s when he says, “Ye have been washed,” believing in the name of  

the Lord, and receiving His Spirit. Now we have washed away, was by nature inclined to do evil and required the grace of God to not the substance of our body, nor the image of our [pri- enable it to accomplish good. Augustine’s solution to the difficulty mary] formation, but the former vain conversation. In these of sin, necessity, and freedom aggravates philosophers to this members, therefore, in which we were going to destruction by day. He solved the problem, not by denying that there was such a working the works of corruption, in these very members are thing as “free will” as such, but by redefining the terminology. we made alive by working the works of the Spirit.”

In summary, the early Christian message recognized all men as sinners, subject to death, and thus in need of forgiveness, the By claiming that every person has a “free Holy Spirit, and the gift of immortality. The Christian message was universal, intended for all mankind. This required a rejection will” and makes “free decisions,” Augus- of fate and Valentinian natural necessity and a defense of human tine intended to state that everyone was freedom. And this was expressed through the language of Greek still responsible for his own decisions. ethics, which was based upon the idea of rationality and the choice of right and wrong. Nevertheless, baptism and the Holy nb Spirit were taught as necessary for salvation. The beginning of salvation was entrance into the church through baptism, not some choice wielded by free will. Therefore, it is important to Augustine used the term voluntas, normally translated “will,” note, these early fathers worked with no other doctrine of “con- as the “human psyche in its role as a moral agent,” our “moral version” than their doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins. self.” “Each human being can make decisions by virtue of what Salvation for them was not a moment of conversion. It was a Augustine called his free choice (liberum arbitrium).” By claim- process that begins with baptism and reception of the Holy Spirit, ing that every person has a “free will” and makes “free decisions,” was a restoration and recreation of human nature in the image of Augustine intended to state that everyone was still responsible for God through union with Christ, and would culminate in the his own decisions. But he no longer intended to indicate that one coming of the risen Christ, who will judge the living and the dead was really able to choose good or evil with equal ability. He and bring perfection in immortality to those who believe. believed that our free will was sufficient to do evil but not good. With his so-called free will, fallen man is free from virtue and the THE WEST: AUGUSTINE ON HUMAN NATURE slave of vice. The Christian, on the other hand, is free from the AND DIVINE GRACE necessity of sin and a slave to God. In short, “man belongs to one The West was exposed to many of the same philosophic ideas as of two camps, and obeys one of two rulers.” Thus Augustine in the East through the classical Roman authors. So the early west- his own mind reconciled the ideas of free choice and necessity. ern theologians were familiar with the ideas of astronomical fate Just because human nature by necessity served evil did not mean and of free will. Nevertheless, these seemed to have concerned it was not free to make any choice that it was able to make. them much less than their colleagues in the East. By the turn of Augustine decided that God “determines our wills when we will the fifth century, however, Latin theology was to come under the what is good, and also that such willing is nonetheless free choice, enormous influence of Augustine, who would drastically affect for which we are responsible.” western thought in regard to these questions. The bishop of After Augustine had begun to work out these ideas, Pelagius Hippo was highly reflective and developed a sophisticated model and his cohort Celestius began teaching a doctrine of salvation of human psychology. He thus considered salvation from the that Augustine found entirely unacceptable. Pelagius taught that subjective point of view of personal faith much more closely than free will was the gift of God to man, and that man was responsi- had been done before him. When this was combined with his ble to use it in such a way as to keep God’s commands and live Pauline doctrine of salvation by faith apart from works, this ulti- righteously in order to attain perfection. Since he could not do mately led him to consider salvation from the point of view of a away with the church’s language about grace altogether, he used beginning of saving faith. This consideration along with the the word, apparently ambiguously, to indicate the gift of creation, motivation of controversy led Augustine to discover weakness in the gift of free will, and the gift of the law and teaching, which the emphasis upon human freedom made by those before him. shows mankind how to live with free will. Thus, contrary to Yet his own emphasis upon the subjective part of salvation led normal ecclesiastical language, which contrasted nature and him into new and potentially dangerous areas. grace, Pelagius designated as grace part of created nature itself or In his earliest writings, Augustine spoke very similarly to those merely external teaching of the law. To Augustine this redefinition before him. In c.  he wrote that it was “open and perspicuous of grace amounted to the claim that one could become righteous to all” that anyone who sins by necessity does not sin at all, and in oneself with no other help from God than having been created thus God had given mankind free will so that his reward and pun- and having been given the demands of the law. This implied that ishment for righteousness or sins would be just. But what was even without ever hearing about Christ, one might live right- “open and perspicuous” to the early Augustine was rejected by the eously and be saved, making Christ and his cross unnecessary. mature Augustine. Already by  he had abandoned these earlier It did not prove difficult for the West to condemn Pelagian ideas. Augustine came to believe, even before the Pelagian contro- doctrine. It proved more difficult to deal with the implications of versy, that human nature could not accomplish good on its own. It Augustine’s doctrine articulated against Pelagius. From his inter-     est in philosophy, Augustine was aware of the debates concerning When Augustine himself is consulted in this matter, it becomes fate and free will, and ultimately he oriented his doctrine in rela- clear that his opponents had fairly estimated his doctrinal claims. tion to these. In his City of God, Augustine pointed out the fool- In the works of his final years, Augustine clearly discussed predes- ishness of the normal idea of fate, which he equated with popular tination and the gift of perseverance because of those who dis- astrology governed by the position of the heavenly bodies. Never- agreed with him on these points. In these works, Augustine’s the- theless, he claimed that the idea of fate does not need to be ology became focused more and more on the principle that rejected entirely. It is acceptable if it refers instead to the “train of “nothing comes to pass except what either he himself does, or causes that makes everything become what it does become,” himself allows to be done.” which is based on the foreknowledge of God that leaves nothing unordained. Cicero was wrong, Augustine claimed, when he Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is rejected the foreknowledge of God in order to avoid the apparent God’s gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless resultant necessity of all things. “They are far more tolerable he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift who assert the fatal influence of the stars than they who deny the is given to some, while to some it is not given. But why it is foreknowledge of future events. For, to confess that God exists, not given to all ought not to disturb the believer, who and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future believes that from one all have gone into a condemnation, things, is the most manifest folly.” Augustine realized that the which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even if none foreknowledge of God seemed to the philosophers to exclude free were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for will, but he claimed that “the religious mind chooses both, con- finding fault with God. fesses both, and maintains both by the faith of piety.” Fore- knowledge and predestination would play ever-increasing roles in With this basic model in mind, Augustine was able to speak of Augustine’s thought as time progressed. predestination unto faith and holiness. But since only those are Augustine’s struggle with the Pelagians made him consider saved who are elected, it followed for Augustine that God only righteousness by faith in relation to free will. This, combined with truly wants to save those he has elected. The rest he has left in their his own reflective interest in human psychology, led him to areas natural sin to be condemned. This becomes apparent in Augus- that the eastern theologians had never gone. Augustine came to tine’s treatment of biblical passages that teach God’s desire for the view conversion in terms of the beginning of faith, and he came universal salvation of mankind. For example, on numerous occa- to believe that the Bible demanded him to confess that faith itself, sions in treating  Timothy :, he struggled to find an interpreta- the very beginning of salvation, is the gift of God. Thus the tion that fit this basic theological model. In the Enchiridion he solution to the question of why some are saved and not others is argued that the text “God wishes all men to be saved” must be no longer found in human choice, but rather in God, who has interpreted to mean that all those who are saved are saved by mercy on some and not on others. In his work Ad Simplicianus, God’s will. In On Rebuke and Grace he argued that the passage written c. , Augustine came to the conclusion that God does can be understood in a number of ways. First, “all men” could not have mercy in vain. Those he does not pity are damned. mean only “all the elect” or “men of every kind.” Or another Those he pities are saved. “If God wishes a man’s salvation, salva- option is to understand that God makes us Christians desire all tion follows of necessity.” In , Augustine expressed this men to be saved, though he himself does not, and in this way God slightly differently, leaving something to the will of those whom is said to want all to be saved. God calls. Here he stated that the will cannot believe of its own accord, but God must act in such a way to give it the possibility of believing. But to receive or reject this summoning of God is a function of the person’s will. Thus the massa damnata would consist of those who were never offered grace and those who were Augustine’s struggle with the Pela- offered grace but rejected it. But this possibility of leaving some- gians made him consider righteous- thing to the human will is based on Augustine’s ideas of God’s ness by faith in relation to free will. two types of calling, one infallibly effective and the other resisted by an evil will. Thus this something left to the will was in reality nb nothing at all, which became more clear especially as Augustine came to emphasize the doctrine of predestination over against the so-called semi-pelagians. In this model, all is left to the choices of God, made before time, Some churchmen who rejected Pelagian dogma did not accept to save some and to leave others. Thus Augustine clearly distin- the full extent of Augustine’s claims. There arose a group of the- guished between the two calls of God: that by which he calls all ologians who, unlike the Pelagians, fully accepted the doctrine of people through preaching, about which it is said, “Many are called original sin, yet did not accept the Augustinian view of predesti- but few are chosen,” and the true effective call of God, which is nation. They felt Augustine had resolved the tension between always effective and is based on the foreknowledge and predestina- inevitability and free choice in the direction of inevitability. tion of God. He distinguished between those who are called Augustine, they felt, had reintroduced into Christian doctrine the God’s children by us according to grace received in time, and pagan notion of fate. They preferred to answer the question of those who are called God’s children by God himself according to why some are saved and not others by reference to human choice. foreknowledge and predestination. And he limited the extent of  

Christ’s redemption by distinguishing between the world that did that he recognized his lonely position and claimed that he, like not know God because it was “predestined to condemnation really Erasmus, had long been under the sway of the fathers. But, deserved,” and the world “which he reconciled unto himself Luther continued, none of them were saints, had the Holy Spirit, through Christ.” Likewise, Augustine could on occasion speak of or ever performed a miracle on the basis of what they taught con- a “predestination to death” and of those “predestined to punish- cerning free will. Luther would stand with Scripture alone. Even ment.” Gerard O’Daly explains Augustine’s language, saying: so, he did not fail to point out that Erasmus had forgotten to “predestination to damnation is simply the withholding by God of mention Augustine, “who is wholly on my side.” grace from those he does not will to save. That is to say, whereas The question arises then to what extent Augustine is on predestination to salvation is actively caused by God, God merely Luther’s side, or stated differently, to what extent Luther agreed permits the damned to suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin.” with Augustine. Of course, Calvinists, who rightly claim Augus- However true, Augustine had moved beyond the limits of the rule tine, also often claim Luther on the basis of De servo arbitrio. On of faith accepted by the fathers by denying the essential universal- the other hand, Lutherans, eager to point out Luther’s agreement ity of the Christian message of salvation. with the Formula of Concord, often deny the same and point out the clear differences of emphasis in Luther’s and Calvin’s overall theological models. But it must be admitted from the beginning that Luther borrowed many of Augustine’s expressions and ter- The argument from God’s foreknowledge minology, and thus seems to have important points of agreement with him that cannot be overlooked. For example, consider and predestination is one of Luther’s Luther’s famous analogy of the human will as a beast ridden by primary attacks on free will. one of two masters. This seems potentially to be a dressed-up nb version of Augustine’s sentiments, variously expressed, that “car- nal cupidity rules wherever the love of God isn’t.” Or again, Luther’s discussion of the light of nature, the light of grace, and The dangers of Augustine’s language and theological model the light of glory is very similar to Augustine’s own appeal to wait were apparent to many of those after him. Augustine had his for God’s justice to be revealed at the resurrection. Occasions defenders in men such as Prosper of Aquitaine and his opponents like these deserve their own investigation as to the extent of their in men such as Faustus of Riez and John Cassian. All of the impli- correspondence and the paths they might have taken between cations of Augustine’s doctrine were debated in regard to such Augustine and Luther. But for this article I will limit the remain- things as the sacraments, the preaching of repentance, and the ing observations to the main points of Luther’s use of arguments universality of salvation. Ultimately the controversies led to the concerning God’s foreknowledge against free will. Synod of Orange, which “vindicated Augustine’s essential teach- I believe it can be safely stated that the argument from God’s ing on grace but muffled his views on predestination to punish- foreknowledge and predestination is one of Luther’s primary ment.” As time passed, however, a form of so-called semi-pela- attacks on free will, to which he returned again and again. Luther gian doctrine became generally accepted, in what Jaroslav Pelikan turned his doctrine of God against Erasmus’s doctrine of man. calls the “Augustinian synthesis.” This synthesis continued to mod- Namely, he stated ify and understand Augustine in a way acceptable to most. And “central in the Augustinian synthesis was the universally accepted that God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that he principle that ‘we ought to believe both the grace of God and the foresees, purposes, and does all things according to his free will of man,’ neither without the other.” The Middle Ages immutable, eternal, and infallible will.... saw a number of attempts to regain the Augustinian emphasis on grace alone and predestination, but only with limited success. From which it follows irrefutably, that all things which we do, although they may appear to us to be done mutably and contin- LUTHER’S DE SERVO ARBITRIO gently, are yet, in reality, done necessarily and immutably, with It was against this background that Luther made his theological respect to the will of God. confession against free choice (liberum arbitrium). His attack This is very similar to Augustine’s reference to fate as the “train against the notion of liberum arbitrium was early and energetic. of causes,” decreed by God, by which all things become what they When Erasmus wrote his defense of free will, Luther felt he had become. With this argument Luther intended to prove that all addressed the central issue of the entire Reformation, namely, things that happen, happen by necessity. He was careful to say man’s ability to attain to salvation. The purpose of this article is what he meant by “necessity,” not implying force or compulsion not to review Luther’s work as a whole. Here I merely want to or unwillingness, but rather simply that all things happen just as investigate in part the relationship of Luther’s discussion of free God has foreseen them and as his omnipotence brings them will to that which went before him. about. Luther did not deny that Judas betrayed Jesus willingly, but Erasmus, in his work against Luther, appealed to authority and he maintained that Judas willed to betray him at a time infallibly claimed that his position agreed with the martyrs, theologians, predefined by God. If there were such a thing as truly free will, colleges, councils, bishops, and popes of the church, while Luther it would be impossible to know what the future would be, was left with no one save Wycliffe and Laurentius Valla— a ques- because every free choice would alter the course of the future tionable supporting cast at best. Importantly, Luther responded immeasurably. But Luther believed that the doctrine of God     proves that all things are absolute. God immutably knows the damned.” “It is this, that seems to give the greatest offence to future, and thus there can be no free choice. common sense or natural reason . . . that the God, who is set forth Luther, in the name of the gospel, even made use of that which as being so full of mercy and goodness, should, of His mere will, the church had fought so long to reject. He asked why this should leave men, harden them, and damn them.” Luther had con- be so shocking to us Christians when even the pagans knew this cluded that “the love and hatred of God towards men is truth. “How often does Virgil alone make mention of Fate?” immutable and eternal; existing, not only before there was any And seen from this point of view, Luther, unlike Augustine, merit or work of ‘Free-will,’ but before the worlds were made; and rejected the terminology “free will” as entirely deceptive and the that, all things take place in us from necessity, accordingly as He thing itself ultimately as a non-entity. And this applies to every loved or loved not from all eternity.” The doctrine of free will, on act and detail of life. Thus it would be “most safe and most reli- the contrary, portrays God as if he had not “determined by certain gious” to do away with the term altogether and remove it from election who should be saved and who should be damned.” the “mouths and speech of men.” Luther, of course, recognized These and other places show that when it is asked why one is saved that there were other ways of speaking about this ambiguous and not another, for Luther the answer clearly lay not in man but thing called free choice. He granted with Augustine that if some rather in the decisions of God before eternity. Some were chosen; power is to be given to men, it should be taught that people have others were left in sin to perish in judgment. The cur alii prae aliis free will in regard to those things below them but not in regard to mystery resides entirely in the inscrutable majesty of God. In this those things above them. But, in reality, this should hardly be the bishop of Hippo is wholly on his side. given the grand title “free will.” Nevertheless, despite his senti- But these great similarities between Luther’s and Augustine’s ment expressed here, Luther made use of this mode of speaking doctrine, which, perhaps, are not cheerfully admitted by some on many occasions, and it was this type of language that came to Lutherans, must be balanced by consideration of the differences. be embodied in the Lutheran Confessions. And this has much to do with the relationship of this doctrine of God to Luther’s overall theology. When Luther explained the rela- tionship of this teaching to the rest of Christian doctrine, he made great use of the distinction between God himself and God as he is What separates Luther here from preached and worshiped. So he claimed that God “does not will Augustine is precisely the relation- the death of the sinner” in his word, but he wills in his inscrutable will. Thus with his word he preaches that all men should be saved ship of Luther’s doctrine of God and comes to all with the word of salvation, but according to his to God’s self-revelation. majesty God has decided not to remove or change the fault of sin nb in all people and those he leaves by necessity to perish. Luther went so far as to speak of Jesus as God incarnate

What other conclusions did Luther draw from his doctrine of who has been sent into the world for the very purpose of God’s foreknowledge and predestination in regard to salvation? willing, speaking, doing, suffering, and offering to all men The questions and answers are very similar to what one hears everything necessary for salvation. Yet he offends very many, from the fifth-century bishop. Why is it that some hear the law who being either abandoned or hardened by that secret will and repent while others do not? Why do some hear the gospel and of the Divine Majesty do not receive him as he wills, speaks, believe and others do not? Erasmus accounted for this by appeal- does, suffers, and offers .... It is likewise the part of this ing to one person choosing or accepting while another does not. incarnate God to weep, wail, and groan over the perdition of But Luther stated that this difference is the result of “God, who, the ungodly, when the will of the Divine Majesty purposely according to His own counsel, ordains whom, and such as, He abandons and reprobates some to perish. wills to be receivers and partakers of the preached and offered mercy.” And so Luther recalled the distinction between the will This contrast between God preached and God himself leaves of God revealed and preached, and God himself, not preached, one with the rather uneasy feeling that Luther is suggesting that all not revealed, not offered to us. God’s preached will wants all to be preaching, all of the Word of God, even Christ himself are some saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. But “why that sort of cruel joke. And it is this discomfort that makes so many Majesty does not take away or change this fault of the will in all, Lutherans uneasy with this work and struggle so earnestly to res- seeing that, it is not in the power of man to do it; or why He lays cue Luther from himself, or, if that can’t be done, to write off this that to the charge of the will, which man cannot avoid, it becomes work as a mere “private writing.” But Luther did not intend to us not to inquire.” Luther had rejected any place within theology turn Christ or the revealed will of God into a farce, although, per- for Aristotle’s relationship between necessity and blame. Thus, as haps, he said the opposite too unclearly in this work. in Augustine, some are granted to believe, while others are left in But when De servo arbitrio is set into the context of Luther’s their sin to perish. Luther recognized the difficulty of some “to other works and deeds, it is clear that he could not have been sug- defend the mercy and justice of God, seeing that, He damns the gesting that the revealed word of God is a joke. He did not struggle undeserving, that is, those who are for that reason ungodly, so hard for the Lord’s Supper, put his own life on the line before because, being born in iniquity, they cannot by any means prevent empire and pope, and spend years of life translating the Scriptures themselves from being ungodly, and from remaining so, and being for something as absurd as tomfoolery. This being obvious, some   have suggested that Luther intended to teach that there are two his catechism and his biblical exegesis, his doctrine of vocation, contradictory wills in God, a revealed and a non-revealed. Thus and then you can see where this work fits into his overall thought. Luther worked and defended the revealed will of God as best he One must not dismiss De servo arbitrio. Luther never disowned it. could, since that was all he had to work with, all the time knowing He prized it. Even in his latest years he continued to believe that all that the hidden will of God really overruled and contradicted this things are absolute. Yet at the same time, he claimed that we revealed will on many occasions. But Luther certainly never taught must not be uncertain about the gospel on account of the doctrine that there are contradictory wills within God. of divinity. “God did not come down from heaven to make you What separates Luther here from Augustine is precisely the uncertain about predestination, to teach you to despise the sacra- relationship of Luther’s doctrine of God to God’s self-revelation. ments, absolution, and the rest of the divine ordinances.” The For Luther, God is so far above us that we can never completely function of the doctrine of predestination is to be learned from know him. But he has revealed part of himself to us, in the law Paul. The first is that it throws down and destroys any last vestiges and in Christ. The law and gospel, one which says he hates the of hope in oneself or one’s own righteousness. Luther performed sinner, and the other which states that out of love for the sinner this function in De servo arbitrio. The second function is that since God has sent his Son to die on the cross to take away the sin of salvation does not depend on us we need not fear that anything, the world, are God’s revelation of his one will to us (even here we whether sin, death, or the devil, can keep us from God’s love and are speaking of God anthropologically, ascribing a human psy- salvation in Christ (Rom :–; Rom ). In this way one rightly chological attribute of “will” to the divinity). Even these two and profitably makes use of this doctrine. revealed elements of God’s will are easily confused and mingled. How can God hate and love the sinner at the same time? Yet this is not the sum total of everything God wills. Luther realized and confessed it to be true that God does in fact want all to be saved. The function of the doctrine of predesti- Yet at the same time, for reasons unrevealed, he has left some to nation is that it throws down and destroys perish. For Luther, unlike Augustine, this means truly subjecting the unknown of God’s will to that which is known of God’s will. any last vestiges of hope in oneself or The doctrine of foreknowledge and predestination must serve, one’s own righteousness. not dominate, the gospel. Luther, unlike Augustine, unlike nb Calvin, did not subject the revealed word to a rigorously logical application of God’s predestination and bring the revealed word to submit to the principle of God outside of his word. The A few final comments can be made in regard to Luther’s opin- Reformer could take  Tim. : in all seriousness. In some unex- ion of the other fathers on free will. Luther was often particularly plainable way God truly does want all to be saved, yet in judg- hard on some of the fathers, especially Jerome, in regard to their ment he leaves and condemns some who are unable by nature to opinions on free will. He noted that these ideas were part of the believe and save themselves. Both, for Luther, must be true. doctrine of man being created in the image of God. He also real- This being the case, Luther not only learned the doctrine of ized that that these “dangerous opinions” came about as the God’s prescience and predestination from Scripture, but also result of “an emotion and of a particular mood which we do not learned the place of predestination within Christian theology as a have and cannot have, since we do not have similar situations.” whole. It was most fitting indeed that already in , in the pref- Luther could excuse the fathers’ language to a degree if it was ace to the book of Romans in his freshly published New Testa- understood to refer to a “passive potentiality,” that is, a potential- ment, Luther appealed to the reader of Romans to place the doc- ity of believing that is realized only through God’s power. But it trine of election in the right relation within Christian doctrine. is clear also that he realized that hardly anyone understood the term in that way. Concentrate first of all on Christ and His gospel, in order to Finally, it should be noted that Luther was oriented to the whole learn how to recognize our sins and to know His grace. Next, question of free will as a member of the western church so pro- wrestle with the problem of sin as discussed in chapters , , foundly affected by Augustine. Both Luther and the Formula of , , , , , and . Then, when you have arrived at chapter , Concord recognized that a Christian cooperates with God in the dominated by the cross and passion of Christ, you will learn post-conversion life. So the controversy over free will concerns the right way of understanding the divine providence in only that time before and up to “conversion,” defined as the begin- chapters , , and , and the assurance that it gives. If we do ning of internal faith. After the denial of free will we may indeed not feel the weight of the passion, the cross, and the death, tack on the requirement for external word or baptism to effect con- we cannot cope with the problem of providence without version. But the thing itself, so defined, remains an internal event. either hurt to ourselves or secret anger with God. That is why Thus the question of free will, even when it is denied, always runs the Adam in us has to be quite dead before we can bear this the danger of orienting us to the subjective internal part of salva- doctrine, and drink this strong wine, without harm. tion in such a way that conversion is considered salvation itself, and conversion apart from baptism the norm. Conversion thus Seen in this light, it is easy to view De servo arbitrio as Luther’s becomes mostly a psychological event, and the church becomes chapter , , and . You must consider first Luther’s chapters –, merely a gathering of those previously so converted. One only need that is, his defense of the doctrine of Christ, faith, and the supper, look at the many free-will sects of Evangelicals today to observe     such a theology at work. Is there something yet to learn from the which records a discussion with a Jew over many Old Testament prophe- ecclesiology and sacramentology of the earliest fathers? cies concerning Christ.     Luther’s response to Erasmus was molded in part by the ques- . haer. . . . . haer. .. (ANF , ). tions asked by Erasmus and by western theology as a whole. . haer. .. (ANF , ). Luther’s answers were largely Augustinian, but the orientation of . haer. ... (ANF , ). Irenaeus took off from this point and his answers to his overall theology, which was centered in Christ made good use of the fate versus ethics principle. He stated that the Valen- and the cross as God’s greatest revelation, give Luther’s work a tinians, fated to salvation according to their own doctrine, engaged in all types of immorality, thinking they would not be affected by it. unique place in the history of Christian doctrine. LOGIA . princ. ..ff.        ff NOTES . apol. . (ANF , ). haer. . . . . princ. .–. . Citation of Latin works follows the method of Vetus Latina: . Take for example Justin’s rationalistic explanation of the way of Kirchenschriftsteller Verzeichnis und Sigel (Verlag Herder Freiburg, ). salvation in  apol.  (ANF , ). Notice Harnack’s comments on how in Greek works are cited according to the conventions adopted in G. W. H. this model the historical Jesus Christ loses all importance and is entirely Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, subjected to the cosmological Logos. Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, –), xi–xiv. Abbreviations used for editions cited are: trans. Neil Buchanan from the d ed. of the Lehrbuch der Dog- ANF, Ante Nicene Fathers, The Writings of the Fathers down to ..  mengeschichte (NY: Dover Publications, ), : –. (Grand Rapids, MI) . So Harnack concludes that “the Pauline formula, ‘Where there is CC, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, Turnhout forgiveness of sin, there also is life and salvation,’ had for centuries no dis- CS, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Wien tinct history. But the formula, ‘Where there is truth, perfect knowledge, . Il. . ff. See also Il. .–. and Il. .–. there also is eternal life,’ has had the richest history in Christendom since . Zeitler points out that Homer did not have a word meaning “will.” its beginning” (: , n. ). The ultimate result, according to Harnack, is Wolfgang M. Zeitler, Entscheidungsfreiheit bei Platon, Zetemata, Monogra- that “the moralistic view, in which eternal life is the wages and reward of a phien zur Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft  (München: Verlag C. H. perfect moral life wrought out essentially by one’s own power, took the Beck, ), . And Dihle shows at great length that the Greek philoso- place of first importance at a very early period” (: ). Pelikan notes: phers had no concept corresponding to will as “sheer volition, regardless “Bent as they were upon proving that Christianity was the fulfillment of of its origin in either cognition or emotion” as is found in modern Euro- the intuitions and expectations of all the nations, not only of the Jews, the pean languages and thought. Albrecht Dihle, The Theory of Will in Classi- apologists represented Christ as God’s answer to the ideas and aspirations cal Antiquity [University of California Press, ], . of the Greek philosophers. In their treatises, therefore, salvation could be . Dilhe, . He points out that Homer has this basic model even with- equated with the gift of this answer.” Pelikan, Catholic Tradition, . out the aid of a doctrine of the soul. . Pelikan, Catholic Tradition, . . The corresponding terminology that relates to the idea of rational . Mag. .. Where the church’s external unity with the bishop is thought is impressive. In the classical period bouvlomai meant “primarily “type and evidence” of the already present immortality. “There is no gain- the planning and reflecting which precedes action.” (ÔE)qevlw meant to be saying the fact that he [Ignatius] saw it [the church] as the scene and the prepared for something or even to have the ability to do something. mediator of salvation. Within the church, instituted and empowered by Proairevomai refers to such a choice “the intellect makes out of several God, those being redeemed were given grace, so that in the end they could possible objectives of action.” Dihle, . But these are merely representative ‘attain to God.’” Virginia Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch of a general class of terminology that expressed rational knowing and (New Haven: Yale University Press, ), . rational choice such as gignwvskw, dianoevomai, noevw, and the like. . Eph. .. See Smyr. ., where Ignatius quotes Mt. : to the effect . Il. .. that Christ was baptized to “fulfill all righteousness.” . Il. .. . This would appear to be a baptismal text referring to a chrism of . Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (Chicago: oil accompanying baptism, although this would be by far the earliest refer- The University of Chicago, ), . ence to such a practice. . Richard Sorabji, Necessity, Cause and Blame. Perspectives on Aristo- . haer. ..ff. tle’s Theory (Gerald Duckworth & Co., ), , n. . . haer ... Also haer ..; ..; ... . This is in contrast to Hebrew thought in which obedience to . haer ... Since Adam was first created in the image of God, that God’s commands, whether understood or not, is the nature of right- is, in the image of God’s Son, the recreation of man in the image of the Son eousness. God, the omnipotent creator of the universe ex nihilo, is sim- is a type of restoration of the original state of man. Cf. haer ... ply to be obeyed without reference to understanding. For the Greek “the . Christ was “joining and uniting the Spirit of God the Father with human mind has to be capable of perceiving and understanding the what God had fashioned, so that man became accruing to the image and rational order of the universe and, consequently, the nature of the likeness of God.” Dem. . See Irenaeus’s entire discussion on the exegesis divine.” Dihle, . Dihle notes that it was Galen, in the second century, of  Cor :, where Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the who first noted this fundamental difference between Hebrew and Greek kingdom of God.” The Gnostics apparently made much of this passage thought. All efforts to reconcile Greek philosophy and Moses, he said, against the resurrection of the flesh, and Irenaeus attempted to repudiate were ultimately trying to overcome this basic difference in the concept of their interpretation. haer ..ff. Also haer ... the Creator and the divine. Therefore it expresses the Greek attitude . haer .. (ANF , ). The connection between the Spirit and the when Seneca said, “I do not obey God; rather, I agree with Him.” ep. . adoption as sons is very close in Irenaeus as in the Christian tradition (Dihle, ). before him. “Thus does he attribute the Spirit as peculiar to God which in . Nich. Eth. .. the last times He pours forth upon the human race by the adoption of . Nich. Eth. .. sons.” haer ... . Anthony Kenny, Aristotle’s Theory of the Will (Yale University . “accipiens Filium Dei, ut et homo fieret particeps Dei,” haer ... Press, ), –. “[T]he Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having become united . Ant. Jud. . ff. Also see Ant. . ff. and Bell. . ff. with the ancient substance of Adam’s formation, rendered man living and . Wächter therefore suggests that “it is very doubtful that the spiri- perfect, receptive of the perfect Father, in order that as in the natural tual leaders divided themselves over this question.” Wächter, . [Adam] we all were dead so in the spiritual we may all be made alive,” haer .  apol. . (ANF , ). It is important to note that this episode ..; cf. ..; ..; ..; ..; ... “. . . calling man back again into occurs in the Apology addressed to the pagans and not in the Dialogue, communion with God, that by communion with Him we may have part   in incorruptibility,” Dem. . On the other hand, “separation from God is . Luther: AE, : . Augustine: ench. ., “Then shall be made death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God clear much that is now dark. For example, when of two infants, whose consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store.” haer ... cases seem in all respects alike, one by the mercy of God chosen to Him- . haer ... self, and the other is by His justice abandoned (where, in the one who is . For. – (NPNF , –). chosen may recognize what was of justice due to himself, had not mercy . Gerard O’Daly, “Predestination and Freedom in Augustine’s intervened); why, of these two, the one should have been chosen rather Ethics,” in The Philosophy in Christianity, ed. Godfrey Vesey (Cambridge: than the other, is to us an insoluble problem.” Cambridge University Press, ), . . WA, ,  (AE, : –). . J. M. Rist, “Augustine on Free Will and Predestination,” Journal of . “disputamus . . . an tempore praedefinito a Deo infallibiliter Theological Studies  (): –. fieri oportuierit, ut Iudas volendo proderet Christum.” WA, ,  (AE, .“liberum arbitrium ad malum sufficit.” corr. .; .; .. : ). . Rist, . . “If we believe it to be true, that God foreknows and foreordains all . O’Daly, –. things; that he can be neither deceived nor hindered in his foreknowledge . Pelikan, Catholic Tradition, . and predestination, and that nothing can take place but as he wills it . na.  (NPNF , ; CL , –). (which reason herself is compelled to confess), then, even according to the . ci. . (NPNF , ). testimony of reason herself, there can be no free choice—in man—in . ci. . (NPNF , ). angel—or in any creature!” WA, ,  (AE, : ). . See re. ., where Augustine points out his own earlier error in this . WA, ,  (AE, : ). matter. Also prae. . (NPNF , ). . WA, , – (AE, : , ). . Rist, –. ench. . (CC ,–). “quia necesse est fieri . “Ezechiel . . . loquitur . . . non de occulta illa et metuenda volun- si voluerit.” tate Dei ordinantis suo consilio, quos et quales praedicatae et oblatae mis- . pec. –. ericordiae capaces et participes esse velit.” WA, ,  (AE, : ). . See Augustine’s response: pers. . . WA, ,  (AE, : ). . pers.  (NPNF , ).  . “qui damnet immeritos, hoc est impios eiusmodi, qui in impietate . prae.  (NPNF , ). nati non possunt ulla ratione sibi consulere, quin impii sint, maneant et . ench. . (CC , ). See Rist, –. damnentur coganturque necessitate naturae peccare et perire.” WA, , . corr. . (NPNF , ).  (AE, : –). . corr. . (NPNF , ). . WA, ,  (AE, : ). . prae. . (NPNF , ). See James Wetzel, “The Recovery of Free . WA, , – (AE, : –). Agency in the Theology of St. Augustine,” in Harvard Theological Review, . “et tandem eo venietur, ut homines salvi fiant et damnentur igno-  (): –. rante Deo, ut qui non discreverit certa electeione salvandos et damnan- . corr. . (NPNF , ). dos.” WA, ,  (AE, : ). . Jo. . (NPNF , ; CC , ). . “We are to argue in one way, concerning the will of God preached, . an. . “quos praedestinavit ad aeternam mortem” (CL , ). revealed, and offered unto us, and worshipped by us; and in another, con- ench. . “quos iuste praedestinavit ad poenam” (CC , ). See also Jo. cerning God himself not preached, not revealed, not offered unto us, and ., “Quomodo ergo istis dixit: ‘Non estis ex ovibus meis’? Qui videbat eos worshiped by us. In whatever, therefore, God hides himself and will be ad sempiternum interitum praedestinatos” (NPNF , ; CC , –); unknown by us, that is nothing unto us.” WA, ,  (AE, : ). Jo. .; . “mundus quippe ille damnationi praedestinatus” (CC , ). . AE, : . . O’Daly, . See also Rist, –. . Unfortunately for such a plan, the Formula of Concord not only . See Pelikan, Catholic Tradition, –; . calls upon Luther’s general argument against free will in de servo arbitrio, . Jaroslav Pelikan, The Growth of Medieval Theology (Chicago: Uni- but also states that “There likewise his meaning and understanding of versity of Chicago Press, ), . some other peculiar disputations introduced incidentally by Erasmus, as . Ibid., . of absolute necessity, etc., have been secured by him in the best and most . AE, : . careful way against all misunderstanding and perversion; to which we also . It is fairly common in our midst to excuse Augustine and to deny hereby appeal and refer to others” [Latin: “These things we wish thus that he questioned universal grace or proposed double predestination. repeated and we admonish all that they be read diligently”] (FC SD , ). This goes back at least to Franz Pieper (Christliche Dogmatik , –) and . Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings, ed. John Dillenberger probably to earlier Missouri, when the knowledge of the church fathers (New York: Anchor Books, ), . was quite minimal. It may very well derive from even earlier Lutheran the- . AE, : . ologians. . AE, : . . AE, : –. . AE, : . . ench. ., “regnat carnalis cupiditas ubi non est Dei caritas.” . AE, : . See FC SD , . See Rist, . . AE, : –. Bondage of the Will Calvin and Luther

B F. E J.

j

       Lutheran pastor to find guided by God’s prompting rather than by your own free- himself agreeing with the sentiments of Calvinists who are dom to choose.... I wont to emphasize the sola of divine activity in connection In discussing free will we are not asking whether a man is with faith and salvation. Indeed, John Calvin’s own insistence permitted to carry out and complete, despite external hin- on divine monergism, not only in connection with faith, but in drances, whatever he has decided to do; but whether he has, connection with all things, is something that appears to res- in any respect whatever, both choice of judgment and incli- onate with the position of Martin Luther. These two major pro- nation of will that are free. If men have sufficient of both, tagonists of the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century Atilius regulus, confined in a nail-studded wine cask, has no are in fact commonly understood as having striking similarities less of free will than Augustus Caesar, governing at his com- in the area of divine determinism. mand a great part of the world. But such an understanding is misleading. While the positions of Calvin and Luther may at first glance appear to converge, a God is thus utterly in control of all things that happen, even to more careful consideration of the theological context of each the point of ordering every individual occurrence. “God so demonstrates that there is much more to be said by way of con- attends to the regulation of individual events, and they all so pro- trast. Calvin’s final () edition of the Institutes of the Christian ceed from his set plan, that nothing takes place by chance.” Religion contains his clearest words on the subject, while To this Calvin added a further declaration that God has even Luther’s Bondage of the Will () is dedicated to the explica- “from the farthest limit of eternity decreed what he was going to tion of his position. A comparison based primarily on these two do, and now by his might carries out what he has decreed.” This works will bear this out. of course leaves nothing to chance, as Calvin also readily admitted:

CALVIN’S POSITION It is an absurd folly that miserable men take it upon them- John Calvin is generally viewed as having an extreme determin- selves to act without God, when they cannot even speak istic view of all occurrences in the course of history, a view per- except as he wills! haps best summed up in his own words: “God . . . so regulates Indeed, Scripture, to express more plainly that nothing at all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.” all in the world is undertaken without his determination, For Calvin, God’s will is the cause of all things, and therefore shows that things seemingly most fortuitous are subject to God’s “providence” must be seen as “the determinative princi- him. For what can you attribute more to chance than when ple for all human plans and works, not only in order to display a branch breaking off from a tree kills a passing traveler? But its force in the elect, who are ruled by the Holy Spirit, but also the Lord speaks far differently, acknowledging that he has to compel the reprobate to obedience.” This means that every delivered him to the hand of the slayer [Ex :]. event is caused by God’s active will and deliberation. Calvin’s position with regard to the “providence” of God was uncom- Calvin made much of God’s “secret plan,” understanding God promising. to be the hidden cause behind what may appear to be the result of pure randomness. “Whatever changes are discerned in the I contend: God, whenever he wills to make way for his world are produced from the secret stirring of God’s hand.” providence, bends and turns men’s wills even in external Calvin’s language consistently emphasized this; it was not for things; nor are they so free to choose that God’s will does him a subject open to debate, all weight of public opinion to the not rule over their freedom. Whether you will or not, contrary notwithstanding. Although “almost all mortals hold the daily experience compels you to realize that your mind is same opinion today, that all things come about through chance,” nonetheless, “anyone who has been taught by Christ’s lips that all the hairs of his head are numbered [Mt. :] will look farther B E, a L contributing editor, is pastor of St. Paul afield for a cause, and will consider that all events are governed  Lutheran Church, Kewanee, Illinois. by God’s secret plan.”   

Calvin was no fatalist, on the other hand, and said so himself. distinction between freedom of the will as pertaining to Adam’s “We do not, with the Stoics, contrive a necessity out of the per- original, natural capabilities (freedom as opposed to coercion) petual connection and intimately related series of causes, which is and freedom of the will as pertaining to the actual ordering of contained in nature.” Rather, for Calvin God is actively engaged events. Calvin upheld the former for Adam in his pristine state, in each event as “ruler and governor of all things,” and though he while denying the latter. In this way no contradiction results, “in accordance with his wisdom has from the farthest limit of since the former is set within the limits of the latter. This is eternity decreed what he was going to do,” yet he has not, as it merely to say that for Calvin man had within himself before the were, wound up the world and set it spinning on its own; on the fall the innate ability to be and remain sinless. In other words, it contrary, he directs its every event. He “now by his might carries was not by coercion that Adam made his choice to sin. This, out what he has decreed.” however, is not to say that Adam’s actions and disposition before the fall were not subject to God’s determination. Quite to the contrary, it was clear to Calvin that God’s ultimate determina- tion of all things extends even to Adam’s state before the fall. Calvin boldly confessed the resultant extreme position this Rather, for Calvin God is actively implies: “God willed, not only permitted, Adam’s fall and the engaged in each event as “ruler rejection of the reprobate.” This has been aptly termed Calvin’s supralapsarianism, or and governor of all things.” “double predestination,” according to which God “compacted nb with himself what he willed to become of each man.” Leaving room for no doubt about the implications of this position, Calvin declared that “eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal Moreover, God’s determination of all events does not imply damnation for others.” Each individual “has been created to one license to irresponsible behavior, but includes also the expecta- or the other of these ends,” which is why Calvin will speak of each tion of deliberation over proper actions by his creatures, who as “predestined to life or to death.” are not relieved of their responsibility. To know that God It is this perspective on God’s will with relation to all things desires that men take care to live and act with moral integrity that naturally led him to a strong stance against semi-Pelagianism was enough for Calvin to declare that it is incumbent upon or synergism in regard to faith. Here too, obviously to Calvin, them to act responsibly. Calvin is actually on record as ascrib- God is sovereign, and here is where his position sounds so akin to ing, in a specific sense, freedom of the will to Adam prior to the Luther’s. Human reason, Calvin declared, “neither approaches, fall. The context of his discussion, however, reveals that when nor strives toward, nor even takes a straight aim at, this truth: to Calvin did speak of a freedom of Adam’s will, he did not mean understand who the true God is or what sort of God he wished to to imply that Adam actually played a hand in determining the be toward us.” course of events. Calvin thus declared in no uncertain terms that the existence of faith in the elect is entirely God’s doing, with no credit of any Adam could have stood if he wished, seeing that he fell kind given to the elect themselves in coming to faith. His lucidity solely by his own will. But it was because his will was capa- on this point leaves no room for positions such as Melanchthon’s ble of being bent to one side or the other, and was not given three concurring causes (the Holy Spirit, the word, and the unre- the constancy to persevere, that he fell so easily. Yet his sisting will of man) of conversion. Calvin held firmly to divine choice of good and evil was free, and not that alone, but the monergism. For him, the thought of God’s complete determina- highest rectitude was in his mind and will, and all the tion of every human event was not troublesome. On the contrary, organic parts were rightly composed to obedience, until in it gave him comfort in that it set a person free “not only from the destroying himself he corrupted his own blessings .... extreme anxiety and fear that were pressing him before, but from The philosophers . . . held this principle, that man every care.” Calvin saw this comfort as the benefit, or return, for would not be a rational animal unless he possessed free the one who, acknowledging God’s complete and sovereign con- choice of good and evil; also it entered their minds that trol of all things, praises him for it. the distinction between virtues and vices would be oblit- erated if man did not order his life by his own planning. Those who ascribe just praise to God’s omnipotence doubly Well reasoned so far— if there had been no change in benefit thereby. First, power ample enough to do good there man.... But ... man was far different at the first creation is in him in whose possession are heaven and earth.... Sec- from his whole posterity, who, deriving their origin from ondly, they may safely rest in the protection of him to whose him in his corrupted state, have contracted from him a will are subject all the harmful things which, whatever their hereditary taint. source, we may fear.

The erstwhile freedom of Adam must therefore be understood The predestination of some to eternal life and others to eternal as being merely a freedom to do or not to do what is morally death appears to be a direct outgrowth of an insistence upon right, in consideration of Calvin’s clear position with regard to God’s total, sovereign control over his universe, and his freedom God’s providence and determination of all things. Calvin drew a in all things to act as he wills. Ford Lewis Battles, a leading Calvin      scholar in the late twentieth century (especially of the Institutes), causes in the universe. It was of primary importance for Calvin sees Calvin’s doctrine of predestination in this light. to uphold God’s sovereignty, because Calvin perceived the upholding of this principle to be God’s chief demand of his Behind the decretum arcanum, the decretum horribile, lies subjects. But inasmuch as sovereignty for Calvin included God’s freedom. Calvin, thus, posits for God a freedom God’s absolute control over the universe, Calvin was obliged to which negates for man freedom in the religious sphere; yet insist that nothing happens unless God wills it to happen, and Calvin insists upon man’s moral responsibility and guilt, what God wills always happens. For Calvin, the sovereignty of despite his bondage. God cannot be upheld unless this theistic determinism is also stressed. At one point in his discussion of the Lord’s Supper, while arguing against the Lutheran position, Calvin made a somewhat revealing admission. He stated, “I reject only absurd things which appear to be . . . unworthy of Christ’s heavenly majesty.” Calvin stated, “I reject only absurd This statement is informative because it appears to indicate Calvin’s true guiding principle. Though he appealed to Scripture things which appear to be . . . unworthy as his authority throughout the course of much of his argumen- of Christ’s heavenly majesty.”  tation, including this campaign on behalf of a “spiritual” pres- nb ence of Christ in the supper, here we find in fact another author- ity. Calvin’s conviction that the divinity of Christ must remain sovereign is primarily responsible for the extra Calvinisticum, the Calvin’s insistence on totally denying to man free will in all Reformed view that Christ’s divinity exists beyond or outside of things, including his everyday activities and even his thoughts, is his human nature. If a certain doctrinal stance is contrary to also evidently due to Calvin’s prior insistence that God is com- this conviction regarding divine sovereignty, then it must be a pletely in control. It is because of this that there can really be no priori incorrect. such thing as a true volition, though it may appear to man that he This stance has serious consequences for Calvin’s conception has freedom to act or not to act. Calvin must ascribe all aspira- of God, and particularly of what God desires. If God’s sover- tions, desires, passions, thoughts, and emotions ultimately to the eignty was Calvin’s guiding principle, then would it not be true active and complete control and will of God, who is the origina- that for Calvin, God must wish most of all to be praised as the tion of and who causes the destination of all activity in the uni- supreme majesty over all creation? Must not this desire be God’s verse, and all as a result of his utter sovereignty. So the chief rea- great, central motivation for all that he does? And must not the son for Calvin’s maintaining the principle of complete divine core of Calvin’s conception of God, the ultimate cause within determinism appears to be a conviction that any admission of God for every activity in which he engages, be a desire to be man’s ability to act of his own power would take honor from God praised? For Calvin — and he was abundantly clear on this— the and thus detract from his sovereignty. key reason for emphasizing the sovereignty of God was to give One can detect the fervency of Calvin’s desire to uphold God’s God alone all praise and glory. One can see evidence of this aim sovereignty especially in his rebuke of those who in some way throughout the Institutes. “Since God assumes to himself the would deny it. Those who, for instance, hold that chance or for- right (unknown to us) to rule the universe, let our law of sober- tune has a role to play in the course of human events are indi- ness and moderation be to assent to his supreme authority, that rectly but clearly judged guilty of blasphemy, inasmuch as they his will may be for us the sole rule of righteousness, and the truly by implication deny God’s total sovereignty in all things: “If we just cause of all things.” One must also conclude that Calvin’s say that God has exposed man, the noblest of creatures, to all own reason for making this consistent emphasis is that he sorts of blind and heedless blows of fortune, we are not guiltless believed it pleased God for him to do so. of reproaching God.” For Calvin it was of paramount impor- The result of this perspective concerning God is that God tance that the Christian understand God’s free determination of becomes one whose concern is to drive all things and all people his status coram Deo. This leads to what for Calvin was the pri- ultimately to complete submission. His will, then, is not arbi- mary purpose for which the elect were created and redeemed: to trary; it is always subservient to his need to be recognized as be instruments that may ultimately be employed for ascribing sovereign. honor to a sovereign God.

God always has the best reason for his plan: either to No one will weigh God’s providence properly and profitably instruct his own people in patience, or to correct their but him who considers that his business is with his Maker wicked affections and tame their lust, or to subjugate them and the Framer of the universe, and with becoming humility to self-denial, or to arouse them from sluggishness; again, to submits himself to fear and reverence. bring low the proud, to shatter the cunning of the impious and to overthrow their devices. Even though he claimed that God’s determination of all events gives the Christian comfort, Calvin was careful not to make the Calvin rigidly and emphatically stressed this point, because for comforting of the Christian the overall objective. The Christian’s him the sovereignty of God was at stake in any discussion of awareness that he has been comforted should lead him ultimately   to gratitude, which itself is another form of the acknowledgment certitude of the Christian may be upheld. While Calvin affirmed of God’s sovereignty. divine determinism in order to uphold God’s sovereignty, Luther affirmed it in order to refute free will, and ultimately to Gratitude of mind for the favorable outcome of things, guarantee the conviction of God’s good and unfailing provi- patience in adversity, and also incredible freedom from dence in all things. worry about the future all necessarily follow upon this knowledge. Therefore whatever shall happen prosperously Here, then, is something fundamentally necessary and salu- and according to the desire of his heart, God’s servant will tary for a Christian, to know that God foreknows nothing attribute wholly to God, whether he feels God’s beneficence contingently, but that he foresees and purposes and does all through the ministry of men, or has been helped by his things by his immutable, eternal, and infallible will. Here is a inanimate creatures. For thus he will reason in his mind: thunderbolt by which free choice is completely prostrated surely it is the Lord who has inclined their hearts to me, who and shattered, so that those who want free choice asserted has so bound them to me that they should become the must either deny or explain away this thunderbolt, or get rid instruments of his kindness toward me. In abundance of of it by some other means. fruits he will think: “It is the Lord who ‘hears’ the heaven, that the heaven may ‘hear’ the earth, that the earth also may Luther’s arguments always have ultimately to do with consol- ‘hear’ its offspring” [cf. Hos :–, Vg.; :–, EV]. In ing the Christian with the knowledge of a God full of mercy, other things he will not doubt that it is the Lord’s blessing whereas Calvin’s seem bent on pleasing a God waiting for praises. alone by which all things prosper. Admonished by so many That is, Luther argued his point with its evangelical benefits for evidences, he will not continue to be ungrateful. the Christian in mind. Calvin, on the contrary, made his case pri- marily for its necessity in upholding the honor of God. To put the LUTHER’S BONDAGE OF THE WILL matter more succinctly (if perhaps crudely), Luther’s aim was to In some respects Luther’s position sounds similar to Calvin’s. preach the gospel, while Calvin’s was to uphold the law. This is He too declared, “God foreknows and predestines all things.” critical, and is itself the reason the mind of Calvin is inimical to For Luther, however, a different vantage point can soon be the mind of Luther. detected. Where Calvin was concerned with upholding God’s sovereignty, Luther was primarily concerned with upholding God’s grace. The reason Calvin felt obliged to renounce freedom of the will was that it stole from God some of his absolute power. Where Calvin was concerned with The reason Luther renounced it was that it robbed the Christian of God’s absolute mercy, and thus of the assurance of his own sal- upholding God’s sovereignty, vation. This is easy to find in passages where Luther spoke of Luther was primarily concerned God’s immutable foreknowledge of all things. with upholding God’s grace. If these things [i.e., propositions about the will of God] are nb not known, there can be neither faith nor any worship of God. For that would indeed be ignorance of God, and where there is such ignorance there cannot be salvation, as we But how are we to understand Luther’s position itself with know. For if you doubt or disdain to know that God fore- regard to divine determinism, putting all his reasons for holding knows all things, not contingently, but necessarily and to it aside? Luther has made some bold claims in Bondage of the immutably, how can you believe his promises and place a Will, claims that, if left without explanation or out of the context sure trust and reliance on them? For when he promises any- of Luther’s overall perspective, could lead the reader to suppose thing, you ought to be certain that he knows and is able and that there is really little difference between his position and that willing to perform what he promises.... of Calvin. One could understandably hold (as indeed some have For this is the one supreme consolation of Christians in done) that the two positions are essentially the same. It is state- all adversities, to know that God does not lie, but does all ments such as the following that could lead the reader astray, things immutably, and that his will can neither be resisted apart from Luther’s overall perspective: nor changed nor hindered. Scripture says . . . that all things stand or fall by the choice For this reason Luther even declared that if he had the option and authority of God, and all the earth should keep silence of free choice or not, he would choose the latter, inasmuch as before the Lord [Hab. :]. the former would render him “unable to stand firm . . . amid so It is enough to know simply that there is a certain many adversities and perils and so many assaults of demons.” inscrutable will in God, and as to what, why, and how far it When Luther spoke of God’s will as the absolute cause of all wills, that is something we have no right whatever to inquire things, he always did so in the context of argument against free into, hanker after, care about, or meddle with, but only to choice, an argument he championed in order that the personal fear and adore.     

How we are to understand claims such as these depends to a Luther could ascribe free will to all men in matters not pertaining significant degree on how clearly we keep Luther’s central con- to salvation, as we have seen in Calvin’s view of the pristine cern in mind. It is not, after all, merely to point out a difference in Adam. But like Calvin, Luther did not wish to suggest that God’s motive between Luther and Calvin, that the objectives of each freedom is lost, nor even to imply that the actions of men had an have been contrasted here. More importantly, it is to aid in con- ultimate bearing on the course of history. textually interpreting each in his claim for divine determinism in all things. When Luther declared that all things are under the Free choice is allowed to man only with respect to what is control of God, he always did so in order to highlight the cer- beneath him and not what is above him. That is to say, a tainty of God’s ability to carry out his promises. man should know that with regard to his faculties and pos- sessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, But now, since God has taken my salvation out of my hands according to his own free choice, though even this is con- into his, making it depend on his choice and not mine, and trolled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever has promised to save me, not by my own works or exertion way he pleases. but by his grace and mercy, I am assured and certain both that he is faithful and will not lie to me, and also that he is Like Calvin, Luther ascribed all things to God’s determination. too great and powerful for any demons or any adversities to Luther referred here to the distinction between the realm of grace be able to break him or to snatch me from him. and the realm of nature, in much the same way Calvin did with regard to the pristine Adam. Like Calvin, Luther did not mean to One can see in explanations of this kind Luther’s aim to preach the mercy of a good God, to comfort the troubled conscience. His zealous concern was for the personal certitude of the Christian. So overpowering was this concern for Luther that he had no thought of addressing the problem of the will from the standpoint of what Luther’s concern was always effect free will would have on the sovereignty of God. His concerns Christocentric, whereas ffi fi did not lie there. This is perhaps why it is di cult to nd in Luther Calvin’s was theocentric. a direct discussion as to why some are saved and not others, the cur alii alii non question. One could even go so far as to say that nb Luther saw no need to deal with any theological matter in the abstract when the abstraction of it does not pertain to the personal certitude of the Christian. The fruitlessness of such abstract think- imply that men play a role in determining God’s free governance ing was a major contention of his against the scholasticism of his of all things, nor did he mean to suggest that God’s free gover- day. When it came to dealing directly and abstractly with matters nance of all things places men under compulsion. pertaining to God’s will, Luther declared, “It is not permissible for men to pry into the will of the Divine Majesty.” Whatever is done by us is done not by free choice but of On the one hand he stood firmly on the side of sola gratia with sheer necessity.... regard to the elect, but on the other hand he refused to suggest in Now, by “necessity” I do not mean “compulsorily,” but any way that God might be responsible for the ultimate damna- by the necessity of immutability (as they say) and not of tion of the rest. He seldom dealt with this issue, which in itself compulsion. provides another point of great contrast with Calvin. At this point one can see the critical difference between the two reformers. Freedom here was understood to be freedom as opposed to coer- Luther’s concern was always Christocentric, whereas Calvin’s was cion, a freedom over which God’s providence can and does still theocentric. David Scaer has summarized it thus: freely operate. Thus man is responsible for his own sin, despite the fact that he could not have done otherwise. It might as well be For Calvin God moves from the motive of divine sover- said that he would not will to do otherwise. eignty. God redeems not for the sake of the sinner but for Himself. The question is no longer Luther’s, what God can When a man is without the Spirit of God he does not do do for man, but what man can do for God. For God there is evil against his will, as if he were taken by the scruff of the a type of internal satisfaction in having the sinner turn and neck and forced to it, like a thief or robber carried off repent. Of course, there is also a type of satisfaction when against his will to punishment, but he does it of his own the reprobate are consigned to hell. Damnation and salva- accord and with a ready will. tion are both satisfying to God. The doctrine of the double predestination is the classical expression of the sovereignty With regard to the upholding of God’s “choice,” by which of God. None of this is true for Luther. Luther claimed that all things stand or fall, one could legitimately ask whether this does not imply that God wills sin, as Calvin so Thus Luther was freer than Calvin to discuss free will, of a boldly asserted in the case of Adam. Yet Luther would not push kind, in matters not relating to faith and grace. Within limits, the issue that far. Rather, he explained the working of “evil” by  

God in a way in which God remains in control of every situation a hiddenness in God’s actions in order that the necessity of faith without being said to have desired that evil be done. might come into play.

When God works in and through evil men, evil things are In order that there may be room for faith, it is necessary that done, and yet God cannot act evilly although he does evil everything which is believed should be hidden. It cannot, through evil men, because one who is himself good cannot however, be more deeply hidden than under an object, per- act evilly; yet he uses evil instruments that cannot escape the ception, or experience which is contrary to it. Thus when sway and motion of his omnipotence. God makes alive he does it by killing, when he justifies he It is the fault, therefore, of the instruments, which God does it by making men guilty, when he exalts to heaven he does not allow to be idle, that evil things are done, with God does it by bringing down to hell, as Scripture says: “The himself setting them in motion.... Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and It is thus that he hardens Pharaoh, when he presents to raises up” ( Sam. [:]).... his ungodly and evil will a word and work which that will Thus God hides his eternal goodness and mercy under hates— owing of course to its inborn defect and natural eternal wrath, his righteousness under iniquity. This is the corruption. highest degree of faith, to believe him merciful when he saves so few and damns so many, and to believe him right- Luther’s intent here, unlike Calvin’s, was not ultimately to pre- eous when by his own will he makes us necessarily serve God’s sovereign honor, but more importantly (to Luther), damnable, so that he seems, according to Erasmus, to God’s ability to keep any evil from thwarting his good purposes delight in the torments of the wretched and to be worthy of for his people. There was no thought of preserving for God a free- hatred rather than of love. If, then, I could by any means dom to be arbitrary in his determination of events, nor even of comprehend how this God can be merciful and just who preserving for him a freedom merely to advance his own honor. displays so much wrath and iniquity, there would be no “The will of God is effectual and cannot be hindered, since it is need of faith. As it is, since that cannot be comprehended, the power of the divine nature itself; moreover it is wise, so that it there is room for the exercise of faith when such things are cannot be deceived.” For Luther there was always wisdom in preached and published, just as when God kills, the faith of God’s will, a wisdom by which God continually maintains the life is exercised in death. working of all things for the good of his people. Calvin, on the other hand, sought only to advance God’s sovereignty. So where for Calvin evil serves ultimately to advance God’s sovereignty, evil for Luther, under the sway of a good God, neces- sitates faith. Comparing Luther to Calvin on faith itself, that is, believing the gospel (fides qua creditur), one might be inclined to suppose The purpose for which men are saved that at least here Luther and Calvin were similar. To be sure, was of much more fundamental Luther also asserted in no uncertain terms the monergistic origin significance to Calvin than to Luther. and perseverance of faith. nb Neither you nor I could ever know anything of Christ, or believe in him and take him as our Lord, unless these were first offered to us and bestowed on our hearts through the The purpose for which men are saved was of much more fun- preaching of the Gospel by the Holy Spirit (LC , ; Tap- damental significance to Calvin than to Luther. In this especially pert, ). one can see the difference in overall intent between the two In relation to God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or reformers. The purpose of salvation for Calvin was primarily to damnation, a man has no free choice, but is a captive, subject provide God with people who would praise him. For Luther, and slave either of the will of God or the will of Satan. however, the primary purpose of salvation was “in order that I may be his” (SC , ; Tappert, ). It is somewhat difficult, however, to assert that Calvin’s position Luther’s explanation for the evil appearance of things under amounts to a subscription to sola gratia, at least in the sense that the dominating sway of a wise and good God is quite different Luther understood it. It might be more accurately labeled sola from Calvin’s, although both declared that the evil in an event is, voluntate Dei, depending, of course, on one’s definition of grace. as it were, a veil behind which God hides in this world. For For Calvin it was not what Luther deemed grace, technically Calvin, “God’s providence does not always meet us in its naked speaking, that converts a man; it was the will (voluntas) of God, form, but God in a sense clothes it with the means employed,” without means. For Luther the use of the term “grace” always and for Luther, “God hides his eternal goodness and mercy under implied a connection with the means of grace. The Holy Spirit eternal wrath, his righteousness under iniquity.” But the differ- operates through the word of God. ence lies in the fact that Calvin must place the origination of evil ultimately in God, in that it ultimately serves to advance his sov- [The Christian church] begets and bears every Christian ereignty when he finally suppresses it. Luther on the contrary saw through the Word of God. The Holy Spirit reveals and     

preaches that Word, and by it he illumines and kindles agenda behind his insistence, but it was not one that demanded hearts so that they grasp and accept it, cling to it, and perse- that he defend God’s superiority. Rather, it was one that moved vere in it. him to defend God’s mercy, a mercy that brings God to the level Where he does not cause the Word to be preached and of fallen mankind through the means of grace. Perhaps the great- does not awaken understanding in the heart, all is lost.... est area of similarity between Luther and Calvin is the singular For where Christ is not preached, there is no Holy Spirit to guiding motif of each. Yet for Calvin this motif was the sover- create, call, and gather the Christian church, and outside it eignty of God, while for Luther it was his mercy. no one can come to the Lord Christ (LC , –; Tappert, The bondage of the will was a reality for Luther and for Calvin ; emphasis added). alike. The critical difference between the two is their different understandings of God himself. For Luther it is the nature of God Calvin made no such connection. For him the gospel itself to be merciful: he punishes the wicked because he has to; he saves does not have the power to convert a man, and thus the elect are the faithful because he wants to. But for Calvin it is the nature of not elected “in Christ,” as Luther and the Lutherans consistently God to be sovereign: he saves the faithful to glorify himself; he contended. Their election is the result of God’s sheer will, punishes the wicked likewise to glorify himself. In the end, it which, when God wishes them to believe the word, is irresistible. makes no difference, for in either case God is glorified. Such a Thus the similarities between Luther and Calvin on the view was foreign and inimical to Luther. bondage of the will are clearly outweighed by their differences. It can be seen, therefore, that Calvin’s approach to all of theol- While it is true that both insisted on complete divine determin- ogy is radically different from Luther’s, and here is the most help- ism, their purposes in so insisting and the conclusions to which ful result of a comparison between the two. This comparison their assertions led them are quite different. Even on the question demonstrates that Christian theology either must begin with a of the origin of faith, although both strongly favored divine deter- merciful God, or it will inevitably result in a God whose chief aim minism, they had profound differences when it came to the is to take rather than to give. Although to begin with a merciful means whereby this monergistic grace is exercised. For Calvin God is no guarantee of faithful theology, to begin without such a God’s exercise of it was immediate, whereas for Luther it was God is surely a guarantee of a theology whose heart will not be — always connected to the means of grace. Perhaps the profundity indeed cannot be — the gospel of Christ. The reason God loves a of this difference is best understood when we look to the apparent cheerful giver ( Cor. :) is that God himself is a cheerful giver; reason for the difference. Calvin so strongly wished to uphold the reason he requires mercy is that he himself is merciful (Lk God’s sovereignty that he was forced into a position that would :); the reason he would have his people love their enemies is not allow God’s grace to be resistible, as would be the case when it that in this way they may be seen to be his children (Mt :–), is proffered through means. But Luther, always aware of the ori- the children of a God whose nature it is to love. “For God sent gins of faith through the word, insisted that God has revealed not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the himself through this word. Luther, like Calvin, had a prominent world through him might be saved” (Jn :). LOGIA

NOTES . John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. . Inst., ... McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, ), . Inst., ... book , chapter , section , henceforth to be indicated according to . “When the light of divine providence has once shone upon a the form Inst., ... This is the final edition of the Institutes, dated godly man, he is then relieved and set free not only from the extreme . anxiety and fear that were pressing him before, but from every care. . Inst., ... For as he justly dreads fortune, so he fearlessly dares commit himself to . Inst., .., . God. His solace, I say, is to know that his Heavenly Father so holds all . Inst., .., emphasis added. things in his power, so rules by his authority and will, so governs by his . Inst., ... wisdom, that nothing can befall except he determine it. Moreover, it . Inst., ... comforts him to know that he has been received into God’s safekeep- . Inst., ... ing and entrusted to the care of his angels.” Inst., ... . Inst., ... . Inst., ... . Inst., ... . Ford Lewis Battles, Analysis of the Institutes of the Christian Reli- .“We are not at all hindered by God’s eternal decrees either from gion (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, ), . looking ahead for ourselves or from putting all our affairs in order, but . Inst., ... always in submission to his will. The reason is obvious. For he who has . The claim has been made that Calvin taught the Bible to be the set the limits to our life has at the same time entrusted to us its care; he sole authority in matters of faith and conduct more consistently than has provided means and helps to preserve it; he has also made us able any other Reformation leader. Georgia Harkness, John Calvin: The to foresee dangers; that they may not overwhelm us unaware, he has Man and His Ethics (New York: Abingdon, ), . offered precautions and remedies.... If the Lord has committed to us . This term first appeared in the Crypto-Kenoticist debate the protection of our life, our duty is to protect it; if he offers helps, to between the Tübingen and Giessen theologians of the mid-sixteenth use them; if he forewarns us of dangers, not to plunge headlong; if he century, occasioned by the disagreements between Calvinists and makes remedies available, not to neglect them.” Calvin, Inst., ... For Lutherans regarding the presence of Christ in the eucharist. See David more on this particular aspect of Calvin, see Wilhelm Niesel, The The- Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology: the Function of the So-Called Extra ology of Calvin, trans. Harold Knight (London: Lutterworth, ), . Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology (London: Brill, ), –. . Inst., ... . Inst., .., emphasis added. .Inst., .., emphasis added. . Inst., ...  

. Suzanne Selinger agrees: “Calvin repeatedly says that man must . AE, : . be reduced to nothing in his own estimate in order not to attribute . AE, : –. something to man that is God’s exclusive possession. Man has no . AE, : . goodness: that would be to attribute something to man that is God’s . Calvin scholar Lucien Joseph Richard disagrees with this. “The exclusive characteristic.” Suzanne Selinger, Calvin Against Himself: An work of the Spirit is not to supplement the revelation made in scripture Inquiry in Intellectual History (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, ), . [for Calvin], nor to supersede it, but to authenticate it. . Inst., ... “The Spirit and the word are correlated reciprocally. One cannot . Inst., ... separate the Spirit from the word or word from Spirit.” Yet Richard . Inst., ... continues, negating his own assertion: “The word of God has no . Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (), AE, : . efficacy [for Calvin] unless the Holy Spirit is at work in man, creating . AE, : –. faith and opening his mind to receive the word.” Lucein Joseph . AE, : . Richard, The Spirituality of John Calvin (Atlanta: John Knox Press, . AE, : . ), . . AE, : . . “For before the time of the world, before we existed, yea, . AE, : . before the foundation of the world was laid, when, of course, we could . AE, : –. do nothing good, we were according to God’s purpose chosen by . Francis Pieper, however, does discuss this question in some detail grace in Christ to salvation, Rom. .;  Tim. ..... God in His in Christian Dogmatics,  vols. (St. Louis: Concordia, ), : –. counsel, before the time of the world, decided and ordained that He . AE, : . Himself, by the power of His Holy Ghost, would produce and work in . David P. Scaer, “Sanctification in Lutheran Theology,” Concor- us, through the Word, everything that pertains to our conversion” (FC dia Theological Quarterly  (April–July ): . SD , ; Triglotta, ; emphasis added). Since election was not . AE, : . controverted during Luther’s lifetime, it is difficult to find much . AE, : . material on the subject in his writings, other than passingly in his . AE, : , . commentaries—for instance, in his  commentary on Galatians . AE, : . :– (Lectures on Galatians, , AE, : –). Here the “in . Inst., ... Christ” formulation is used.

T C A of this issue features the center section of this plaque of carved ivory showing Dr. Luther nailing the Ninety-five Theses to the church door at Wittenberg. It dates from about .

It was given to the Concordia Seminary Library, Saint Louis, by Mrs. Lydia and the Rev. Paul Klu- ender in . Its origin is Austrian, and the artist is unknown. Pastoral Letter Regarding the Divine Service and the Sacrament of the Altar

J S Translated by William Staab j

Dear co-workers, brothers in the ministry of the church, dear nothing is in conformity with the Confessions that does not lead vicars! to praise and worship and flow into it. If therefore our ecclesias- tical order determines that the forms and formulary of divine       of holy communion, service liturgically laid down and defended by the church are to adopted by the eighth church convention in Erfurt, , is be observed, it is not because these are as such sacrosanct and T going to be printed in the coming year and will be found unalterable, to be observed for their own sake, but because they on the altars of our churches. It should help us to preserve the are the vessel of doctrine. What is laid down in them requires no richness of service order that distinguishes the Lutheran Church, new examination of their conformity to the Confessions. to reclaim it wherever necessary, and to make it accessible to The vessel can change, surely. If, however, it is not a vessel our congregations in any case. At the same time it will enable fitting to its contents, a different content can flow in, that is, us to worship in a common and unified manner and in confor- through an order of divine service borrowed from the context mity with the apostolic challenge: “that with one heart and of another doctrine. That content can flow directly and speedily, mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus or indirectly, slowly, and subtly. In the age of the Leuenberg Con- Christ” (Rom :). cord and the ecumenical declaration at Lima, it is obvious: if Preserve, reclaim, make accessible, glorify “with one heart liturgical pieces, prayers, hymns, and service practices are taken and mouth.” All this will happen only if we have the desire and up that no longer clearly and unequivocally bear the Lutheran intention to preserve and express the confession to which we stamp, even though embossed by deep piety and an impressive have bound ourselves and for which the forms of the divine “spirituality,” then that which alone gives us the right to exist as service furnish a vessel. For just as surely as “it is not necessary a Confessions-oriented church will be lost to us. for true unity of the Christian Church that humanly estab- Having said that, I do not wish to deny or ignore the fact that lished ceremonies be conducted uniformly everywhere” (AC many other aspects can determine the choice, assumption, or , ), it is equally clear that not every liturgical form can be modification of service forms. Such aspects include the “mis- an appropriate expression and fitting vessel for the gift of grace sionary factor,” the question of intelligibility, whether such forms entrusted to us. are appropriate to situations or the object groups, and other Therefore the fourth church convention in  already matters. To be sure, nothing has been enforced or enacted in decided that “the liturgies current in the Selbständigen Evange- legalistic form, yet our “freedom” does have boundaries. lisch-Lutherischen Kirche [SELK] . . . determine the order of Nowhere else is that as clear as in the Lord’s Supper. Here the divine service.” “The ecclesiastical orders of SELK and the litur- Lutheran service is at its most susceptible place. It must remain gies approved by her are binding on him [the pastor].” To them thoroughly receptive to elements that, for example, emphasize we as pastors are bound. Our personal tastes, our individual the fundamental communal character of the Holy Supper; stress desires must “take a back seat.” The divine service has removed its paschal eschatological features; focus on its commemorative from us our freedom of choice — and it is good that it is so. nature; or, when this is properly understood, bring to expression For liturgy and doctrine stand in an interchangeable relation- sacrificial thoughts. Our confession is well acquainted with the ship: “the order of prayer determines the order of doctrine” and thank offering in the eucharist; one need only read Apology vice-versa. Nothing should or ought be expressed, or occur in , –. But if this pushes into the background the the service, which is not in conformity with the Confessions; and Lutheran proprium in the Lord’s Supper, that is, the real pres- ence and the forgiveness of sins, one must vigorously ask: What are we doing there? Can that be defended? J S, a contributing editor for L, is Bishop Emeritus of There is no doubt that the liturgical practice proves whether the Selbständigen Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche of Germany. This the confession of the real presence of the body and blood of article was originally published under the title“Hirtenbrief zum Gottes- dienst und zum Altarsakrament” in Lutherische Beiträge , no.  (): Christ and the certainty of the forgiveness of sins granted through –. The translator, W S, is Associate Pastor of Good union with Christ has only a formal value, or whether it in fact Shepherd Evangelical Lutheran Church, Burnsville, Minnesota. determines ecclesiastical behavior.   

For this reason, in this letter I would like to remind you of which is the linen cloth, ca.  x  cm., on which the chalice some viewpoints and to pose a series of practical questions and paten stand; also the pyx and flagon, if necessary, if their regarding the carrying out of the divine service. Therefore with contents have been consecrated; as well as to the chalice deep gratitude I take up again that which my predecessor in the cloths, which are made of linen, for support when administer- bishop’s office, Bishop Emeritus Dr. Gerhard Rost, had presented ing the cup and for purifying the chalice, if necessary; also to in an encyclical in  and had laid on the hearts of the the velum which covers the paten and chalice; and to the pall, brethren. which is a square linen pouch, stiffened by inserted paperboard, for covering the chalice. Finally the sacred vessels themselves . Concerning the Elevated Position of the Celebration require attention. of the Sacrament The placement of the vessels on the altar is determined by the Anyone who studies the Augsburg Confession and the Apology usage of the congregation. They stand either in the middle or on in Article  will easily recognize that for us the celebration one side of the altar nearest the sacristy. Short access from the of the sacrament dare not be shoved into a corner and become sacristy was the reason for placing them on the side. In the of secondary importance. Without making anything law— not Lutheran churches of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, even the frequency of the celebration of the sacrament— it is ordinarily only the chalice and paten were placed under the true that this sacrament of the altar should be part of the Sun- velum. The pyx and wine flagon were placed openly and uncon- day divine service, as an integral component of it. If the Sun- cealed in order to testify, “Here the sacrament is administered day celebration of the eucharist is missing in a Lutheran con- under both kinds.” gregation, the question may be asked: Is this the normal situa- The use of individual cups is scarcely found or under discus- tion or one of necessity? And if a matter of necessity: What are sion in our congregations; on the other hand, it is met with very we doing to change it? And if Luther gave his opinion —“What frequently in North America and in churches in other parts of else is the entire gospel but a glorification of this testament? the world influenced by it. This practice raises questions and Christ has captured the entire gospel in brief with the words of problems. Bishop Dr. Rost writes: this testament or sacrament”— then ought we not bring this “entire gospel” to light? Do we not owe that to our congrega- I believe we do well in this to remain as close as possible to tion? It follows therefore that those “who would be Christians the form of celebration of the sacrament instituted in the make ready to receive this venerable sacrament often” (LC , New Testament. There is no doubt that Jesus and the early ), for “the entire gospel and the article of the Creed ‘I church, as well as the church in general up to recent times, believe in one holy Christian Church, the forgiveness of sin,’ used the common cup.... The use of individual cups is etc., are by the word embodied in this sacrament and presented also a serious break with established liturgical tradition, by to us (LC , ).” which the notion of communio with the one and in the one Christ is rendered indiscernible. The need for hygiene of modern people can be taken into account in other ways.

The use of individual cups is met with Such ways would be meticulous cleanliness of the celebrant; wip- very frequently in North America ing off the lip of the chalice following each table; if necessary, dis- infecting it with pure alcohol [: certain types of “pure” and in churches in other parts of alcohol are poisonous, including carbinol, methanol, isopropyl, the world influenced by it. denatured, and wood alcohol — ed.]. If that does not suffice, in nb individual cases a special small chalice similar to that for com- muning the sick can be consecrated at the same time as the com- mon cup for those especially sensitive, or the desires of some We can be of service in this if we unfold it and present it thor- members of the congregation may be taken into account through oughly and frequently in our sermons, in our catechesis, and in intinction, but as an exception, not the rule! In any case the all other opportunities. And unquestionably it also follows that necessary, scrupulous purification of the individual cups with the we as pastors increase our competency through continuous study, consumption of the relicta is problematic. Their use is for that through acquisition of knowledge about the theology of this reason advised against. sacrament, the theology of the divine service, and about our rich Because in some places paper towels are used in place of linen liturgical heritage. for cleaning the chalice, one should consider whether the cheap- ness of the materials is appropriate. I personally am acutely dis-  . Concerning Responsible Preparation: The Sacred Vessels turbed by this, though I admit that paper towels can be practical: Certainly it belongs to responsible preparation of the celebra- you can burn them after using them. tion of the sacrament that we give attention to the altar, the sacred vessels, and everything else that pertains thereto. The . Concerning Responsible Preparation: The Elements altar cloth should be at least as clean as the cloth on the pastor’s That the Calvinists and Reformed paid special attention to the Sunday dinner table. The chalice linen should likewise always elements is well known. It was significant for them that no be clean, washed, and pressed. This applies to the corporal, host, but real bread be administered, and that it be red wine        because the symbolic color could supply the realism lacking in . Concerning the Consecration their understanding of the communion gift. These things do The elements are to be consecrated by the ordained officiant not play any significant role for us, since the true gift is certain using our Lord’s words of institution. In this the verba testa- and sure for us, so that the elements are merely the bearers of menti are not only to be understood to proclaim the testament this gift and have no value of their own. of Christ as the “Summa des Evangeliums” (Luther), but also Yet it is advisable that care be taken that such bearers of the that they at the same time consecrate, that is, dedicate, the bread body and blood of Christ be appropriate to the dignity and and wine as vehicles of the body and blood of Christ. This value of the communion gifts. The host should be neither too means the verba should not only be heard by the congregation, thin, nor too hard, nor crumble to pieces. It is right that it be but they also effect what they say. produced with reverence. The host manufacture at the Neuen- dettelsau Deaconess Institute founded by Wilhelm Löhe takes such care; you can obtain the host there. One should fre- quently test it, for example, after lengthy storage in the sacristy, It is advisable that care be taken that to see whether it has begun to deteriorate. It may come to the such bearers of the body and blood of point of being consumed by mealworms, and that is distressing under the circumstances. Christ be appropriate to the dignity Certainly the wine should not be of the cheapest sort. One and value of the communion gifts. should see to it, above all, that it be a pure wine, unadulterated nb by any admixture. It is also important that it be in an unspoiled condition, especially if a wine bottle has been open for some  time. The recitation of the words of institution at the Lord’s Sup- The use of grape juice cannot be tolerated, because, without per can be traced in an unbroken succession since the second question, in doing so a different element from that used by century, in which they were not seen as “an isolated consecrato- Christ at the institution of the holy supper would be intro- rial formula, but as an organic part of, and incorporated into,   duced into the service. That can only lead to uncertainty as to the eucharistic prayer”; so writes Rudolph Stählin. Later the whether one is still following Christ’s institution. We dare not western church assigned to them alone the consecratory action, give rise to such uncertainty. Grape juice, even though it is sim- an interpretation that the Lutheran tradition follows. On this ilar to wine, is not wine — and who gave us the right to substi- point Luther is absolutely clear. The words of institution estab- tute or modify anything here? May we ever be preserved from lish the connection of the present eucharist with that of the such presumption! Christ-instituted meal of Maundy Thursday. They are one and Only so much of the host and wine should be placed on the the same institution; thereby they remind us not only of an ear- altar for consecration as is expected to be distributed. Bishop lier event, but are spoken in the assurance that he who insti- Dr. Rost writes, “A different practice gives the act of consecra- tuted it on Maundy Thursday is now present himself acting and tion a relatively non-binding nature or raises unnecessary ques- consecrating. Christ “jubet: ‘hoc facite’ Ich thet ims nicht nach,  tions for which there is no generally acceptable and satisfying nisi iussiset.” Thus the consecration is an act of God, the con-   answer.” And he continues that it “cannot without further ado secrating celebrant only larva Dei, and the words filled with proceed from that, that everything which is on the altar is also creative power bringing about what they say: “prolatis verbis  consecrated.” Accordingly it is appropriate when (hoc est corpus meum) fieret ex pane corpus Christi.” Hence the Formula of Concord formulates: from the pyx the required amount of host has been placed on the paten, the pyx is closed again. In the same manner The true and almighty words of Jesus Christ that he spake after the approximate required amount of wine has been at the first institution were efficacious not only at the first poured from the flagon into the chalice, the flagon is closed Supper, but they endure, are valid, operate, and are still again. The consecration limits itself therefore to those ele- efficacious, so that in all places where the Supper is cele- ments that are on the paten and in the chalice. Through the brated according to the institution of Christ, and his words gestures: taking the vessel in the hand, extending the hand are used, the body and blood of Christ are truly present, over it, and making the sign of the cross— the intention distributed, and received, because of the power and efficacy and reference of the consecrator’s acting should be made as of the words that Christ spoke at the first Supper. For . . . clearly unambiguous as possible....Here one should Christ himself, through the spoken words, is still efficacious clearly act cautiously for the sake of the clarity and assur- by virtue of the first institution, through his word, which he  ance of the communicants. wishes to be there repeated (FC SD , ).

In the majority of our congregations, the common practice of The words of institution therefore can neither be omitted nor announcing for communion allows us, as a rule, to determine deputed. On them hangs the validity of the celebration of the the expected number of communicants, even if some may come sacrament. They provide the presence of the body and blood of “unannounced.” Let us do what we can to see that this Christ for the reception that follows, that is, for the distribution announcement practice is not entirely neglected! of it, for this and no other purpose, since that is the purpose for   which Jesus instituted the sacrament of the altar. A valid conse- means of grace to be used and of the food that will be cration therefore only occurs within the framework of such an eaten — not fulfilled in itself in a static or isolated manner. usus, of such an actio, where these words of institution are He then asks: used for the purpose of distribution, for the attainment of the forgiveness of sins, that is, in order to do now what Christ him- Should one raise the consecrated elements [elevation] self wanted done and has himself done. before their use and venerate them [adoration]? Why not? This is, in any case, more appropriate than a manifestly secular and irreverent posture. It should not be assumed that everything This is close to Luther. Schanze observes: that is on the altar has automatically been It is obvious that Luther’s heart clung to the elevation. It ff was for him the expression of a proper understanding of included in the consecrative e ect of the the sacred presence of Christ in the sacrament. He himself first recitation of the verba testamenti. genuflected in adoration at that moment. nb In Luther’s Table Talk we find the expression “Cum Christus vere adest in pane, cur non ibi summa reverentia tractaretur et The actions of the celebrant at the consecration must be visi- adoraretur?” In the Kurzen Bekenntnis von heiligen Sakrament bly related to the elements, indicating that he deals with them () Luther said: and that they become the vessel of the sacramental gift. This may be done by facing the elements, extending the hands over That would be a fine expression [the elevation], that the them, making the signatio crucis and the elevation, and by priest was doing nothing other at the elevation than to genuflecting. The rubrics of the Agenda provide what is clarify the words “This is my body”— as though by this act important about that. he wanted to say, “Look, dear Christian, this is the body that has been given for you.” . Concerning the Post-Consecration Should the consecrated elements, or a single element, be insuffi- Since the adoration of the “really present Christ” could depart cient for the distribution of the sacrament, and therefore need from the intention of the sacrament as instituted — that is, to to be refilled, the celebrant will consecrate the additional ele- follow the command “Take, eat!”— and because in this way then ments by repeating the words of institution or that part of them the sacrament itself could be distorted, there have always been which refers to the respective element. The additional elements reservations and restraint over against an accentuated practice may be taken from the pyx or the flagon on the altar, if these of adoration. As long as the stated purpose of the institution of had not been expressly consecrated along with the elements on the Lord’s Supper is preserved and guaranteed, then I don’t see the plate and in the chalice, or by bringing new bread or wine why one should deny the adoration of the Lord who is truly pre- from the sacristy. It should not be assumed that everything that sent with his body and blood. We do not render this honor to is on the altar has automatically been included in the consecra- the vessels of his presence, the visible forms of bread and wine. tive effect of the first recitation of the verba testamenti. Wolfgang Schanze observes: No one, however, unless he be an Arian heretic, can and will deny that Christ himself, true God and man, who is For Luther and the Lutheran churches of the Reformation truly and essentially present in the Supper, should be period it was taken as an undisputed matter of course that adored in spirit and in truth in the true use of the same additional elements brought to the altar be consecrated. It (FC SD , ). was not open to question .... The old ecclesiastical ordi- nances have almost invariably the same instructions. In the Catalogus testimoniorum, which is appended to the Formula of Concord, Augustine is cited as concurring: “He Nor is that disputed among us. It could only be called into ques- gave this very flesh to be eaten by us for salvation. But no one tion by those who create doubt about the consecrative effect of eats that flesh unless he has first worshiped it . . . so that we not the verba testamenti themselves. only do not sin by worshiping, but sin by not worshiping.” That may suggest to us the practice of allowing a moment of . Concerning the Real Presence and Adoration complete silence to occur after the Sanctus in the service or, In his much-too-neglected treatise “Was geschieht im Heiligen when using the A-form, after the Lord’s Prayer. In other Abendmahl?” Ernst Kinder posed the question, Does the words, the silence would occur before the Words of Institution “Real Presence” already exist between the consecration and and correspondingly after them. In those moments of silence, reception? and he answers clearly: one would practice the elevation according to Luther’s exam- ple, then sing the Agnus Dei as a hymn of praise and adora- Yes, but a “real presence” that is open, expectant, moving tion, thus keeping it from becoming lost in the bustle of com- toward use, and impelling us to reception, a real presence of municants coming to the altar. Certainly one cannot make any        binding rule on that, and should in every case give attention to in the sense of a parallel spiritual process; the earthly reception the local customs and tradition of the congregation. But in an is of bread alone. Bishop Emeritus Dr. Rost comments: age of a watering down of the confession of the real presence, we are asked how we then want to give recognizable expression The introduction of “hand communion” will raise new to our conviction. questions and uncertainty. It should therefore be treated with greatest caution. . Concerning the Distribution Kinder writes: Where it is in the meantime already in usage, one may con- sider it adiaphoron and retain it— as long as one is sure that According to the Reformers’ interpretation, the recitation the communicants are conducting themselves in a proper man- of the words of institution occurs with all that is effected ner in its use. through them on the strength of the reception and only on the strength of the reception and with no other goal .... In the words of institution, which define the whole, the words “This is my body” do not stand unconditionally, but It does not serve the furtherance of partici- are bound up with the command, “Take and eat,” and the promise, “given for you for the forgiveness of sins.” pation of the congregation . . . if the cele- brant excludes himself . . . and suggests in He continues: that way that the gift . . . is “optional.” To be sure, the real presence does not exist only in the moment of believing reception, or on the strength of the nb believing reception. Rather, it exists on the strength of the words; yet it exists, precisely on the strength of the words, If we have members who are alcoholics or allergic to alcohol  only for and toward the reception. among our communicants, concern for their illness is naturally mandated, but that can be demonstrated in a variety of ways. When we are conscious of that, we are obliged to use extreme care In many cases, intinction of the host in the consecrated in the distribution so that nothing falls to the floor or is spilled. wine will pose no danger to the sick; in others, just a small The distribution formula has had a great significance in the swallow from the chalice can be used; while in still other cases, history of our church. The Prussian Union introduced a repor- even the most minute quantity of alcohol is forbidden. In these torial formula for distribution, which left it open whether the last situations one should propose communing under one confession regarding the real presence and the manducatio form, that of the consecrated bread, and not offer the sick the impiorum should still be valid or not. We have in part turned cup at all. One should seek a conversation with him before to other distribution formulae. The newly adopted liturgy for communion and determine whether he could give some kind the divine service offers two of them. If the shorter of the two of hand signal to indicate that he must forgo the cup. It has is used, that is, “The body of Christ, given for you,” then it already been declared above that, in place of the element of should immediately precede the Confessio Corporis et wine, no substitution in the form of grape juice or other sub- Sanguinis. In that way, through the context, what is distrib- stance may be used. uted here is guaranteed. The distribution formula alone does not do this. . Concerning the Participation of the Celebrant If communion assistants are employed for the distribution, It does not serve the furtherance of participation of the congrega- such as church elders, vicars, or other congregation members, tion in holy communion if the celebrant excludes himself from then we ministers must be conscious of the fact that the the sacrament and suggests in that way that the gift of the sacra- administration of the body of Christ is in the last analysis ment is “optional.” He should rather be an example in this matter admission to the sacrament, charged also with all the responsi- and include himself with the communing congregation. bility connected with it, which the ordained minister has and This is especially true when communing the sick, where the cannot delegate to another. There are no dogmatic or canon joint communion of the pastor and the members of the family law objections to communion assistants. But the impression ought be striven for. This also demonstrates that this is not must never be given that the sacrament of the altar cannot be “extreme unction,” that one does not wish the sick person to distributed only, but also administered, that is, consecrated, by enter alone this encounter with Christ. any church member. As a side note, it might be of interest to you that the Old There is dispute over whether hand communion, that is, Lutheran Church knew a “Regulation Concerning the Self- receiving the host in the hand rather than the mouth, should be Communion of the Pastors,” which had been proclaimed in practiced. Earlier it had been propagated by the Reformed, November  by the Consistory council. This regulation because they insisted on a ceremonial “Take,” considering emphatically rejected whatever arguments could be brought reception of the host by mouth as not appropriate. Moreover, forward against joining in communing with the congregation, the secularity of the distributed element could thereby be among them the misleading claim that Luther himself had emphasized: only the believing soul attains to the body of Christ repudiated the communing of the pastor.  

. Concerning the Continuance of the Real Presence a misunderstanding fraught with consequences of the and the Treatment of the Relicta Reformers’ rejection of the doctrine of transubstantia-  If together with the Reformers, indeed with the entire true tion, from which one could deduce that the substance of church, we should confess the real presence of the true body the elements can be viewed as relatively insignificant. For and blood of Christ effected by the powerful effectiveness of the Luther it was precisely the opposite: the true presence of verba testamenti, then at their verbalization a terminus a quo Christ in, with, and under the bread and wine gives these  has been set, from which point on there exists the real presence. substances a dignity that is emphasized in the strongest  It exists, however, for the purpose and with the established goal possible terms. In his passionately defended vere and est of reception — for that reason the sacrament was instituted. is bound up the whole of Luther’s ardor in the question of  Hence, with the reception the terminus ad quem is set, up to the Lord’s Supper. which point we may believe the real presence with certainty. In this entire actio or usus we are given what Christ has promised. Schanze then offers examples for Luther’s attitude: how he in The Formula of Concord expressly emphasizes this: Halle in — exhausted by the large number of communi- cants— spilled some drops from the chalice, immediately went And the use or action here does not mean chiefly faith, nei- to his knees, and absorbed the drops with his mouth; how ther the oral participation only, but the entire external, visi- Luther became incensed with Chaplain Besserer in Thuringia, ble action of the Lord’s Supper instituted by Christ: the con- who, following the service, had placed a consecrated host with secration or words of institution, the distribution, and the the unconsecrated, because extra usum. “There’s no differ- reception or oral partaking (FC SD , ). ence.” Luther wrote, “vadat ad suos Zwinglianos,” that is, he should go to his fellow Zwinglians. Kinder comments: Luther is not taking an extreme position with that, but is The real presence does not exist only for faith, and that drawing the consequence from his understanding of the real means effectively on account of faith; on the contrary, it presence based on the efficacy of the verba testamenti. In his exists on the strength of the word and calls forth faith. Table Talk he advanced the following proposition: Hence we can only say: on the basis of the consecration for sumption, from consecration to sumption real pres- One must oppose the heretics, for there are some who ence exists with certainty. We cannot fix this at one would only consider it sacramental as long as it is in use. moment .... Whether we have clear certainty through the Whatever is left over, they throw away. That is not right.  word for a more precise differentiation within the entire We require a sumieren. act established and enclosed by the words of institution, or for an extension past them, we cannot cite any dogmatic That is the way it is when many old ecclesiastical orders pre- assertions for the one certainly more than the other. Here scribe precise scrupulous treatment of the elements and the remains only the reverential gesture. relicta. As late as  the Magdeburg Ecclesiastical Order prohib- ited the sacristan from pouring the communion wine into the One certainly would do well not to draw any false conclusions chalice, but the pastor alone bore that responsibility, so that con- from the limitation to the “reverential gesture” and the waiving secrated and unconsecrated wine might not be mixed — corporal of “dogmatic assertions.” Once again Ernst Kinder: and capital punishment were threatened for negligence.

But how is it now then with the elements, over which the cre- ative words of institution have been spoken, and which have not been used: does “real presence” still exist here? Since we I personally cannot think of any more have clear, unequivocal certainty of the “real presence” only in the use, we cannot answer this question unequivocally proper way of disposition than a with “Yes.” Yet I do not dare answer it unequivocally with quiet, dignified consumption. “No” either, since these elements after all had been enlisted nb through the efficacious word for the reception of the . . . body of Christ and his . . . blood .... Thus I still honor the vessels for the sake of the precious treasure. To take it less seriously today, to behave less scrupulously, there is truly no inducement: quite the contrary. Since we cannot say To those who assume “at the consecration a broken disposi- with certainty when the real presence ends, all questions tion” and who “narrow the actus sacramentalis to the sumptio” should — according to Luther’s advice — be removed by the and to those who “treat the elements of the Lord’s Supper extra immediate consumption of the leftover consecrated elements. and post usum in a decidedly careless and depreciative man- Peter Brunner summarized the Wittenberg practice thus: ner,” Schanze raises the following objection: “That in so doing Luther’s doctrine and practice regarding the Lord’s Supper is The last communing guests at the Lord’s Supper or the co- abandoned cannot be denied. Have we a right to do that?” communing clergy or the clergy administering the sacra- Schanze considers it ment should, before the conclusion of the distribution,       

consume the remaining consecrated bread and drink Dear brothers, one should not think of such considerations empty the consecrated chalice. If the Lutheran doctrine of as trivial, matters of casuistry, or superficial. From the practi- the real presence has validity, then one will not dare deny cal, visible way in which we consume or pour out the conse- this behavior the mark of propriety. crated elements, we indicate how serious we are about our con- fession of the real presence. And Ernst Kinder maintains: Therefore, in carefully treating these things, after the service We ought rather to go too far with this wordless confes- we ought also be mindful of the sacred vessels, to wash and dry sion, in which we recognize and with thanks esteem it, them, at least the chalice, before they are placed in the hands of than by a markedly profane behavior effectively dimin- the sacristan or church officers. Rather a bit more carefulness ish, weaken, or deny it; all the more today, when the dan- than slapdash carelessness! ger of scornful secularity is without doubt greater and Whoever is interested in questions in other respects about the more serious than that of superstition. administration of the Lord’s Supper according to Lutheran principles should refer to the study by Jürgen Diestelmann, What does that mean for us in practical terms? It means this: Actio Sacramentalis, from which one can learn a great deal. careful evaluation of the probable required quantity of the ele- ments; if necessary, new consecration of additional elements; . Concerning the Glorification of the Gifts of God eventual consumption of the relicta at the altar or immediately In this pastoral letter I have not addressed the questions that after the service in the sacristy, including communicants from appear in connection with admission to the sacrament. The the congregation, if necessary, or from fellow brothers in min- official regulations of our church body have dealt with these, istry. Bishop Emeritus Dr. Rost states: and they have not been revoked. We would do well to observe them. Our goal in these matters must above all be to do justice to It is not acceptable for consecrated wine to be removed by a double responsibility. On the one hand, that we do not admin- the sacristan without control by the pastor . . . certainly not ister this precious sacrament frivolously to any despiser of the right that this wine then . . . is poured down the drain.... sacrament, to anyone ignorant or unaware, to anyone who It is an unacceptable solution to pour consecrated wine refuses to sever himself from false unions—we could make our- back into the bottle. If consecrated host remains, it should selves equally guilty of indifference and approval of error. On the under no circumstances be put back into a bag or carton in other hand, we are charged to invite to this sacrament and to the which it . . . becomes moldy. salvation that is offered in the inexpressibly precious gifts of the body and blood of Christ. Here, weighing carefully and coming Luther considered as a possible “disposition in a proper man- to proper decisions is left to the pastoral wisdom of the brothers ner” burning of the host which had not been completely con- in ministry. May we therefore pray for wisdom, avoid all frivolity, sumed when communing the sick. With the consecrated wine, I and prove ourselves faithful stewards of the mysteries of God! personally cannot think of any more proper way of disposition Above all we praise him who has so richly gifted us: Praise be than a quiet, dignified consumption. I know of course that in to Jesus Christ through all eternity. Amen. LOGIA difficult cases, that is, where consumption for a variety of rea- Hannover, sons is not possible or appears to be a “tall order,” even pouring St. Andrew the Apostle Day, it out “on a pure spot,” if necessary, is permissible. But which November ,  churches today possess a sacrarium, which conducts bap- Your Bishop, tismal water and other liquids directly to the soil? ✝Jobst Schöne

NOTES . In a pastoral letter a bishop can address directly the congregations (Freiburg: SELK, ). and their pastors. This occurs within the scope of his office as he makes . The commitment to the Confessions in the SELK is based on the sure that God’s word is preached and taught in conformity with the confessional writings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, “that is, the Scriptures and the Confessions and the sacraments are administered three ecumenical symbols (the Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian properly (Grundordnung der Selbständigen Evangelisch-Lutherischen Creeds), the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and its Apology, the Smal- Kirche [hereafter SELK], Article []). Within the scope of ecclesiastical cald Articles, Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms, and the Formula of encyclicals, the pastoral letter provides information regarding what is the Concord” (Grundordnung der SELK, Art. []). current practice of the SELK. So that even non-theologically trained . Ceremonies are the external matters of the divine service, in so individuals might have free access without hurdles to what he has writ- far as within the order of service they serve to glorify God. From the ten, the bishop has authorized the editorial staff of the Lutherische Latin caerimonia, it means “worship, reverence, solemnity.” Beiträge either to translate or to clarify theologically technical terms and . BSLK, . Latin citations in the annotations. Pastor A. Eisen, Associate Editor of . “Mit Christus leben,” Wegweisung für evangelisch-lutherische Lutherische Beiträge, has provided this service and also completed the list Christen, . Adopted by the synod convention of the SELK, . of references. [L readers interested in subscribing to this our “sister . “Pfarrerdienstordnung der Selbständigen Evangelisch-Lutherischen journal” may write to Lutherische Beiträge, J. Junker, D.D. (Hrsg.), Kirche,” in Ordnungen für die SELK, ed. SELK Kirchenleitung, Johannes Ohofer Weg ,  Meinersen, Germany. Send . U.S. dollars in Junker, Executive Secretary, Hannover, ., §(). currency (i.e., cash) only, for four issues per year—ed.]. . After a maxim that goes back to the ancient church: “lex orandi, . Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirchenagende, vol. : Der Hauptgottesdienst lex credendi.”  

. Connection, coherence. with the communicant and to make it possible for him to have an esti- . The “Konkordie reformatorischer Kirchen in Europa,” in force mate of the number of communion guests.” since October , , defines and delineates church membership among . Jesus’ words of institution, Matthew :– and parallel passages. the concurring Lutheran, Reformed, and Union churches, the Walden- . Reading aloud, repeating. sians and the Bohemian Brethren. Referenced in Evangelischen Gesang- . To the eucharistic prayer belong the Great Thanksgiving, the buch, under “Bekenntnisse der Kirche.” Prayer for the Holy Spirit, the Words of Institution, the Remembrance . The declaration referred to is published in English as the World of the Passion, and the Lord’s Prayer. See Form B of the Celebration of Council of Churches’ Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, Faith and Order Holy Communion in the Ev. Luth. Kirchenagende. Paper No.  (Geneva: World Council of Churches, ). This “Lima . Rudolph Stählin, Leiturgia: Handbuch des evangelischen Gottesdi- text” wishes to clarify the degree of proximity the churches on the way to enst, vol. , Geschichte und Lehre des ev. Gottesdienstes (Kassel, ), . unity have already attained. . “Christ commands: ‘Do this.’ I would not have done it if he . Instead of the specific German word Frömmigkeit, Spiritualität is had not commanded it.” Martin Luther, “Katechismuspredigen” a word in style today that in content is variegated and difficult to define. (), WA, /:  (§). Hans Urs von Balthasar has defined Spiritualität as a “practical basic atti- . The one celebrating the service, the liturgist. tude of humans.” . “Mask of God.” . “Eschaton” means the end times. Here also the anticipation of . “Through the recited words [‘this is my body’], the body of the return of Jesus according to  Cor :. Christ comes from the bread.” Martin Luther, “Disputatio contra mis- . “Thanksgiving” denotes the central Prayer of Thanks of the cele- sam privatam” (January , ), WA, /:  (§). bration of the Lord’s Supper, and by extension, the entire service with . BSLK, . celebration of the sacrament. . Usus means “usage,” actio means “action.” The action of the . BSLK, –. The Apology distinguishes between the once-for- Lord’s Supper is summarized in the Confessions by the following three all sacrifice of Jesus for the expiation of sins and the sacrifice of thanks- key words: consecratio, i.e., the words of institution; distributio, i.e., the giving that is presented by those who “have been reconciled, in order administration and reception; and sumptio, i.e., the consumption of the that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the remission of sins that consecrated elements. See FC SD , ; BSLK, . has been received or for other benefits received” (, ). . “Signing of the cross.” . “That which is intrinsic and essential of a thing.” . Elevating, i.e., raising the consecrated elements. . Praesentia in rebus means the presence of the body and blood of . “Rubrics” are instructions for the conduct of the liturgy. See the Jesus in the elements of bread and wine. “Anweisungen zum Gebrauch von Agende,” in Ev.Luth. Kirchenagende, . Gerhard Rost, “Zur Abendmahlsfeier,” March , , in Rund- –, especially  n. . schreiben der SELK, Liturgie und Gottesdienst, .. . Wolfgang Schanze, “Die Konsekrationspraxis in der lutherischen . BSLK,  and . Kirche,” Luthertum  (): . . In the explanations to the divine service in the Evangelisch- . Ernst Kinder, “Was geschieht im Heiligen Abendmahl?” Lutherischen Kirchenagende , one finds the statement: “The divine ser- Zeitwende: Die neue Furche , no.  (): –. vice is a service with sermon and celebration of the Lord’s Supper. It is . Ibid., . celebrated traditionally on every Sunday and festival day.” . Schanze, . . Martin Luther, Ein Sermon von dem Neuen Testament, das ist von . “If Christ is truly present in the bread, why should he not be der heiligen Messe (), WA, : . treated there with greater respect and be adored?” Luther, WTr, No. . . BSLK, . . Quoted by Schanze, . . BSLK, –. . Arianism is an early church heresy that denied the divinity of . To the sacred vessels (vasa sacra) belong the chalice, the flagon, Jesus Christ. Against it the Council of Nicaea expressed the faith of the the pyx, which is a canister or bread container, and the paten, which is a church, that Christ is “of one substance with the Father,” and therefore dish, usually a flat plate for the host, the bread of the sacrament. both may and ought to be adored. . To the chalice linens belong the corporal, which is a linen cloth . BSLK, . used as an underlayment for the body (corpus) and the blood of Christ; . “Catalog of Testimonies, both of Scripture and Orthodox the velum, originally a (door) curtain, which is a liturgical cloth; and the Antiquity” concerning the doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ; pall, originally a covering, which is a rectangular cloth. BSLK, –. . “Consecrate” means to sanctify or bless. . BSLK,  (§–). . I.e., cleansing. . The liturgy of the Lord’s Supper after the triple “Holy” of the . I.e., “communion.” According to  Cor :, the sacrament of the Sanctus follows either the A-form, which goes back to Luther: Lord’s altar creates community with Christ and with each other. That is why Prayer, Words of Institution, Distribution; or the B-form, which has its partakers of the Lord’s Supper are called communicants. origin in the early church: Prayer for the Holy Spirit, Words of Institu- . Rost, –. tion, Remembrance of Salvation, Lord’s Prayer, Distribution. . Dipping the host in the consecrated wine. . “Christ, thou Lamb of God.” In the Gottesdienstordnung des . Also designated as reliqua, i.e., what of the consecrated elements Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirchengesangbuches (Göttingen, ),  is remains after communion. found: “Where it is customary, the Agnus Dei may be sung before the . From the Latin hostia meaning “victim,” which is unleavened distribution.” white bread in the form of round wafers. . Ernst Kinder, “Die Bedeutung der Einsetzungsworte beim . The host manufacturer (Hostbereitung) of the Evangelisch- Abendmahl nach lutherischem Verständnis,” Luthertum  (): . Lutherischen Diakoniewerkes Neuendettelsau, Wilhelm-Löhe-Strasse , . Ibid., .  Neuendettelsau, Germany. . As preparation for the union of the Lutheran and Reformed . Rost, . Church in Prussia, a self-developed agenda was introduced by the . Ibid., . Reformed Prussian King, which included a purely reportorial Formula . The totality of gestures, i.e., body movements. for Distribution: “Christ said: Take and eat, etc.” . The aim or objective of a behavior. . “Eating by unbelievers.” This refers also to those who do not . Rost, . believe that they receive the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament— . In “Mit Christus leben,” Wegweisung für ev.-luth. Christen, , one certainly it is not a blessing to them. reads: “The communicants should announce before attending commu- . Formula : “Take and eat: this is the true body of our Lord Jesus nion in order to give the pastor opportunity for a pastoral conversation Christ, which was given into death for you. May this strengthen and        preserve you in the faith to eternal life.” Formula . Before distribution: transformed into the substance of body and blood of Christ while “This is the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ by which he has retaining their outward appearance. redeemed us from all sins.” To each communicant: “Christ’s body, given . Worth, value. for you.” From the Ev.-Luth. Kirchenagende, . . “Truly” and “is.” The body and blood of Christ are (adsint, from . The confession of the body and blood of Christ. See the previous esse and est) “truly” (vere) present. Thus also AC ; BSLK, . endnote, Formula . . Schanze, . . Secular as opposed to spiritual. . “Outside of the use.” . Rost, . . WTr, no. . Sumieren means “to consume what is left over.” . Matters of indifference in questions of the form of faith. See FC That which is left over is known as the relicta. SD ; BSLK, –. . Schanze, –. . Dipping in. . Brunner [incomplete citation—ed.], . . See the previous heading “Concerning Responsible Preparation: . Worldly, secularized. The Elements.” . Kinder, “Was geschieht,” . . The “Evangelisch-Lutherische (altlutherische) Kirche,” also . Rost, . called the “Breslau Synod,” which originated in opposition to the Pruss- . Understood here is the piscina, that is, a discharge basin, which ian Union and has been united since  with other Lutheran free (originally right next to the altar) conducted water directly to sacred churches in the SELK. ground, for example, from washing the hands before celebration of the . See Kirchenblatt , no.  (November ). eucharist. . “From that point on.” . To be judged on a case-by-case basis, without the guidance of . “Up to that point.” any general principles. . BSLK, . . Jürgen Diestelmann, Actio Sacramentalis: Die Verwaltung des . Kinder, “Die Bedeutung,” . Heiligen Abendmahles nach den Prinzipien Martin Luthers in der Zeit bis . “Reception,” “consumption.” See endnote . zur Konkordienformel (Gross Oesingen: Lutherischen Buchhandlung H. . Kinder, “Die Bedeutung,” –. Harms, ). [This significant book may still be available from the . Kinder, “Was geschieht,” . publisher. Write to Verlag der Lutherischen Buchhandlung, Heinrich . “Observance of the sacrament.” Harms, Eichenring - Gross Oesingen, Germany. Or telephone: . “Outside of and after the use.” /. Or fax: /.—ed.] . Schanze, . . “Pastorale Anschreiben des Kollegiums der Superintendenten . The philosophically based Roman Catholic doctrine that at the zur Frage der Abendmahlszulassung,” March , , in Rundschreiben consecrating words of the priest the substance of bread and wine are der SELK, Theologie und Kirche, .. Inklings

Post-Modernism Runamuck Department

OK— so I am imposing “my truth” on you about being too close to the ledge . . . Tom G. A. Hardt In Memoriam

F S

j

Tom G. A. Hardt of Stockholm, Doctor of Theology, died suddenly on June  of a heart attack during a summer vacation at Öddö, near Strömstad, Sweden. A contributing editor of L, Dr. Hardt was pastor of St. Martin’s Lutheran Church in Stockholm. Dr. Hardt was born on July , , in Stockholm. Funeral services were held in Stockholm on July , . He leaves behind his wife, Karin, neé Hassler, children Cecelia and her husband, Jan Åkerfeldt, and their children; Carrita and her fiancé, Mats Pehrson; Georg and his fiancée, Malin Hofstedt; Wil- helm and his wife, Marie; Carl John and his girlfriend, Victoria Söderberg; and Fredrik. The following tribute was written by Pastor Fredrik Sidenvall of Gothenburg, Sweden and appeared in Svenska Dageblat, a Stockholm daily newspaper, July , . Erling T. Teigen has translated the article from Swedish.

l

Tom G. A. Hardt, born in Stockholm, passed his student exams at Ostra secondary school in . He was a can- didate of philosophy [= B.A.] at Uppsala in , and in  he defended his doctoral thesis. In , together with some friends in the faith, he formed St. Martin’s Evangelical Lutheran Congregation in Stockholm, of which he became pastor. At the time of his death he was still pastor of this congregation. With Tom G. A. Hardt’s death, a unique theologian has passed from our time. During his youth, he came into contact with the growing high church movement, for whose most prominent figure, Gunnar Rosendahl, he had a lifelong appreciation. Growing out of this, he found that it was not aside from, but in its Lutheran Confessions that the Swedish Church possessed a catholic heritage. Tom G. A. Hardt found a mentor in the outstanding German theologian Hermann Sasse. The consequence of this was that he stood opposed to all tendencies toward general protestantism, and saw not least in the Lutheran doctrine of the sacraments with its realism, a truth that was not negotiable. Without romanticizing, he placed a high value on a rich liturgical form growing out of the faith in Christ’s true presence in the divine service. Philosophically, Tom G. A. Hardt took a position that he himself could describe as “naïve realism.” In that sphere, he could recognize a solidarity both with the older Roman scholasticism and with the popular apologist C. S. Lewis. On the basis of natural theology and natural rights, he could work together across confessional boundaries with other Christians, including the action group Rädda Familien [Save the Family]. His conser- vatism was not of the kind that very slowly accepts changes a little later than others, but which radically holds to eternal values based on divine truth. For a wider public, Tom G. A. Hardt and his congregation were known in the ’s when they won a ruling at the European Court for the right to give religious education to the children of the congregation in the schools. Tom G. A. Hardt’s work as a theologian stretched far beyond his own congregation. He spread the Word through sermons, articles, and lectures, which came in a steady stream via fax and post, formulated with almost legal exact- ness, absolute logical sharpness, and sometimes a polemic that displayed a golden vein of humor in the midst of seriousness. Recently, his great knowledge was in demand in Latvia, Finland, Norway, Germany, and the USA. As a theological advisor for confessional pastors in an ever more complicated situation in the Nordic national churches, he had stood out as a one-man-university and a bishop. His bibliography included nearly four-hun- dred entries besides his dissertation, which was translated into German, and also his translation and editing of Pieper-Müller’s Christian Dogmatics and Laurentius Petri’s Concerning Sacrament and Ministry. A summary evaluation of his life’s work would have to say that in our time he represented an evangelical church life apart from the influences of pietism and rationalism — catholic in the best sense of the word. In a time when doctrine is more and more reduced and fragmented, the doctrinal system of the Christian faith rose from his pulpit, altar, and writing table as a soaring cathedral pointing heavenward. The Ecclesiology of the Smalcald Articles

T G.A. H†

j

      before us, it has To this must be added Martin Luther’s specific, personal sit- come to appear far richer, containing more dogmatic uation at the time the requested articles were written. A week D content than it seemed at first glance. That first glance after the begining of his work, Luther became seriously ill on simply noticed a much smaller amount of text than is offered by December , and the last part of the articles were dictatated by the other symbolical books. The Smalcald Articles embrace the suffering Luther. The handwriting of these paragraphs is altogether forty-seven pages in the English text; the paragraph thus no longer Luther’s, which is also true of the nine lines on on the church counts only nine lines! In contrast, the Apology the church. It has accordingly been said that the articles can be of the Augsburg Confession is a book of  pages, of which the regarded as a kind of last will from Luther to the Lutheran paragraph on the church fills eleven pages. The difference seems church, which is also Luther’s own view in the preface that he to suggest that it is would hardly be worth working with such a was to add to the articles a year later: “Nevertheless, I have short treatment of the topic when we have access to a far richer decided to publish these articles so that, if I should die before a material in the work that precedes the Smalcald Articles in the council meets . . . those who live after me may have my testi- Book of Concord. mony and confession . . . to show where I have stood until now Yet the study of the Smalcald Articles has brought me to a and where, by God’s grace, I will continue to stand” (SA deeper understanding of them. Their style and situation present Pref., ). During the session in Smalcald in February , an unsurpassed concentration on the basic tenets of the Luther’s kidney disease developed even further, and his death Lutheran faith that illuminates the insight into what is meant by was regarded as imminent. It was when this crisis had passed the word “church,” so aptly called by Luther “that empy word,” that Luther wrote the words added to a letter to Melanchthon the word into which you can bring any of your own favorite that were to be frequently quoted and sometimes inscribed on ideas. What I mean by “style” and “situation” is that the Smal- Luther’s picture: “Pestis eram vivus, moriens ero mors tua, cald Articles are the work of one man, Martin Luther. Even if Papa”: “In life I was a pestilence to you; dying will I be your Melanchthon had the main responsibility for the Augsburg death, O Pope.” This expression, which may sound like a kind Confession and its Apology, they are above all documents pre- of polemical fireworks, belongs, as we will try to show, to the sented in a complicated parliamentary and political procedure, ecclesiology of the Smalcald Articles, as part of the warfare which makes them not less true or important, but yet, in a cer- between God’s and Satan’s realms, where the word in the tain sense, less immediately appealing to the reader. The mouth of the Christians or in their pencils is the destructive amount of material sometimes tends to drown the main errand. power of the coming Christ. Thus the preface finished with the That is all unavoidable, and the Smalcald Articles could be so words: “Dear Lord Jesus Christ, assemble a council of thine short because the main work was already done. That is the own, and by thy glorious advent deliver thy servants. The pope background when the Elector of Saxony, Johann Friedrich, and his adherents are lost. They will have nothing to do with invited Luther on December , , to make clear what had to Thee. But help us, poor wretched souls who cry unto Thee” be said and not said in view of the coming ecumenical council (SA Pref., ). Christ was invoked to fulfill and crown the con- of Mantua, summoned by the pope to meet on May , , in fession of his faithful. order to establish a united Christendom, the task of which The summoning of the council, however, was not, as the Elec- should be to start a crusade against the unbelievers with the tor of Saxony and his fellow princes thought, to be rejected final intention to convert them and thus to establish one Shep- entirely, even if a conversion of the adversaries was not to be herd and one fold, visible on this earth. expected. Luther said:

Not that we ourselves need such a council, for by God’s    ,  D . T G. A. H passed away on June . He was a grace our churches have now been so enlightened and sup- L contributing editor and was pastor of St. Martin’s Lutheran Church, Stockholm, Sweden. This article was originally a lecture plied with the pure Word and the right use of the sacra- delivered on March , , at the Theological Institute of Finland, ments . . . that we do not have to ask for a council for our Helsinki, Finland. own sake, but in the dioceses of the papists we see so many   

vacant and desolate parishes that our heart would break ingly the entire building, even when it is most holy and with grief” (SA Pref., ). beautiful, is nothing but deceitful falsehood and hypocrisy” (SA , , ). Pastoral concern and love for souls who are without the voice of the true Shepherd were good reasons to try to speak at a The statements on the absence of the church within the camp of coming council. the pope can only be understod with this background. At the end Summarizing the introduction of the Smalcald Articles in that of the Smalcald Articles there are some frightful words about the way undoubtedly gives a good picture of its ecclesiology, and that entire Roman system of sacramentals that “cannot be called bless- to an astonishing degree. It would, on the other hand, be wrong ings, and they are not, but are mere mockery and fraud. Such to bypass the feelings of the present readers who will react to what frauds, which are without number, we commend for adoration to has now been said, not so much denying that we have given an their god and to themselves until they tire of them” (SA , , ). adequate picture of the Smalcald Articles as denying that the To understand this rejection, this delivery of the Church of Rome Smalcald Articles have a Christian message today or even yester- to its god, Satan, we must take into account the entire evaluation of day. It sounds to a modern ear, and probably also to ears in earlier times, as a much too smug satisfaction, with its own dogmatical standard and an arrogant attitude toward others that can only be lamented. Doesn’t what we have heard support the view con- The papal system is superficial, built on tained in the dictum that Luther belongs now to the rubbish- the unconverted, unregenerate nature heap of church history? In order to answer that question, which cannot a priori be excluded as pointing to a possibility, it is neces- of man, who naturally tends towards sary to go on with the contents of the Smalcald Articles. creating manmade ceremonies.

THE CHURCH AS A CREATION BY THE WORD nb OF BIBLICAL REPENTANCE The article on the church says that the church is “holy believers the papal system, that it is superficial, built on the unconverted, and sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd” (SA , , ). unregenerate nature of man, who naturally tends towards creating The existence of the church and of the individual Christian is manmade ceremonies. This point turns up in the very article on thus exclusively related to the hearing of the word and the accep- the church, where it is said that the church’s “holiness does not tance by faith of what it says. It is expressly said also in this con- consist of surplices, tonsures, albs, or other ceremonies of theirs nection that this definition excludes the counterpart from the which they have invented over and above the Holy Scriptures, but church: “We do not concede to the papists that they are the it consists of the Word of God and true faith” (SA , , ). This is church, for they are not. Nor shall we pay any attention to what not a puritanical rejection of liturgy and of its paraphernalia— as they command” (SA , , –.). The cause of this harshness is long as it is not contrary to the Christian revelation, of course — to be found in the presentations of the basic biblical tenets that but it is an entire other way of looking at these things, which will by stand in the midst of the actual controversy. That controversy is a necessity dwindle down to something that is no longer the subject struggle about the spiritual position of man, about the salvation of solemn eccelesiastical legislation, the neglect of which is that he is in need of, about the repentance that he has to pass regarded as sin. This other way is the way of Christians, the way of through. The nucleus is to be found in this short sentence: the Christian church, to which the enemies do not belong.

It was impossible for them to teach correctly about repen- THE FALSE CHURCH OF IMPENITENCE tance because they did not know what sin really is.... UNDER THE PAPAL ANTICHRIST From this it follows that people did penance only for actual The false, impenitent faith cherishes the construction of a false sins, such as wicked thoughts to which they consented (for church that becomes the counterfeit of the wordly regiment: evil impulses, lust, and inclinations they did not consider “instructions are given concerning the ceremonies of churches, sin) (SA , , –). vestments, food, personnel, and countless other puerilites, fan- tasies, and follies without so much as a mention of Christ, faith, This is the pivotal point that is said to be of immediate pastoral and God’s commandments” (SA , , ). This ecclesiastical consequences in the life of the individual churchgoer. It is a “par- jurisdiction is thus born out of impenitence and promotes, tial and fragmentary” repentance (SA , , ), the “false repen- according to its origin, things “which contribute to the destruction tance of the papists” (SA , , ), entirely different from true of the entire holy Christian church . . . and come into conflict with repentance that knows “that we are all utterly lost, that from head the first, fundamental article which is concerned with redemption to foot there is no good in us, that we must become altogether in Jesus Christ” (SA , , ). All this is brought about by the Evil new and different men” (SA , , ); One through his most prominent instrument, the Antichrist. The statement “that the pope is the real Antichrist” (, , ) “the repentance which John preaches, which Christ subse- has come to be regarded as the real stumbling-block of the Smal- quently preaches in the Gospel, and which we also preach. cald Articles that makes their maintenance as a symbolical book With this repentance we overthrow the pope.... Accord- especially impossible in our time. For the proper evaluation of it,        it is, as we have already tried to stress, necessary to see it in the together and in common. The apostles did the same, and context of the entire dogmatical argumentation of the articles on after them all the bishops throughout Christendom, until the church, its dependence on the proper teaching of sin and true the pope raised his head over them all (SA , , ). penitence. It is certainly unbelievable that the pope would be the Antichrist if you understand him to be a teacher of the true This is not said to deny the possibility of a human arrangement gospel who mistakenly has gone too far in his claims as to the whereby the bishop of Rome would be “the pastor of the limits of his pastoral office. It is also impossible to assume the churches in Rome and of such other churches as have attached antichristian nature of the papal office if you yourself do not themselves to him voluntarily” (SA , , ). That kind of share the reformer’s understanding about what the true gospel is. human arrangement will, however, always be submitted to the Only if you are ready to accept that the papal jurisdiction is the spiritual wisdom and judgment of the Christians, and it is by fruit of impentience and creates impenitence, a false world of virtue of such a judgment that the Smalcald Articles seriously manmade obedience and self-righteousness, will it be possible to criticize the alternative of accepting a new pope who would understand the frightful accusation raised in the articles. It have surrendered all his antichristian claims and descended to should also be made clear on this point that the Smalcald Articles the level of an elected church president. The disadavantages of constitute in no way a peak of unsurpassed polemics, an outburst such an arrangement are elaborately developed, for instance, of malignant heat not to be heard at calmer moments. Luther that he would “quickly be despised and would ultimately be quite correctly remarked that he had put forth this doctrine in without any adherents at all” (SA , , ). It is not unimpor- many books (SA , , ). In them he has made clear that his tant to note that this argument is based on Christian judgment, doctrine of the Antichrist greatly differs from the moralistic, indi- because when Melanchthon, in his famous reservation added vidualistic, and often fantastic conceptions of the Middle Ages. to his signature to the articles, writes that he is willing to “con- He replaced that strange, nauseating imagery by something very cede him [the pope] that superiority over the bishops which he plain: a dogmatic, institutional Antichrist, corresponding to the possesses by human right” (Tappert, ), it is not in any way a biblical description that makes Antichrist last until the return of doctrinal denial of Luther’s opinion, but simply another use of Christ, visible through his claims to issue orders in the name of the Christian freedom on which Luther too had based his view. God, within the sacred walls of the church. This was the common There is thus no dogmatical difference here, as sometimes has teaching of the Reformation since its beginning, and we should been supposed. not be surprised to find it also here. It belongs to the discovery of the gospel that its rediscoverer found it countersaid by an institu- ition that not only rejected it, but also maintained that the gospel of self-righteousness was present once and for all by God’s com- It is also impossible to assume the anti- mand and as God-given in its mouth, and that the submission to christian nature of the papal office if you that claim was part of one’s salvation. yourself do not share the reformer’s under- THE TRUE CHURCH UNDER standing about what the true gospel is. THE EQUAL BISHOPS nb When the Smalcald Articles teach that “[t]he pope is not the head of all Christendom by divine right or according to God’s Word” (SA , , ), it is apparent that they do not define chris- The teaching of the Smalcald Articles on the ministry con- tendom, the church, as the pope does. It is not at all that out- tains also other aspects. It has been observed that the bishop ward organization that can be governed in the wordly way he they wish to retain in a certain sense is a pastor, one of the demands. The church is the church of the hearing and believ- “priests” of Alexandria. The description of the true bishop’s ing sheep, as we have already stressed. But that most definitely function stands out most clearly as a pastoral office in its full- does not leave us with an invisible church in the sense ness. The false bishops are accused of being “temporal lords and embraced by the spiritualizers. The sheep do hear, and they princes who are unwilling to preach or teach or baptize or hear an audible word from a visible pulpit and from the lips of administer Communion or discharge any office or work in the an ordained preacher of the gospel. The church is visible church” (SA , , ). The true bishop thus distributes holy through the ministerial acts, through the preaching and communion, which was, as a matter of fact, even in later Refor- adminstration of the sacraments as performed by the apostolic mation times regarded by unspiritual church leaders as belong- ministry. That ministry is entrusted with no wordly power at ing to the lowest and meanest tasks, not apt for a high church all, but only with the purely spiritual power inherent in the officer. The bishop is thus a parish priest, the rector of his means of grace. Thus by necessity we face a church where, as in church. We can compare this statement with what Luther says the ancient church, elsewhere of the ancient church and its episcopacy:

all bishops [are] equal in office (however they may differ in For each town had a bishop as they now have a rector, and gifts) and diligently joined together in unity of doctrine, Saint Augustine, who was consecrated or ordained a faith, sacraments, prayer, works of love, etc. So St. Jerome preacher by his pastor or bishop Valerius and after his death writes that the priests of Alexandria governed the churches was made a bishop in his stead, had no larger a parish than  

our parish of Wittenberg.... And the same little pastor or The requested concern about church and gospel amounts to a full bishop Saint Augustine has consecrated and ordained many acceptance of the Lutheran doctrine, which will thus accordingly pastors or bishops in his little parish...who were bring fruits also in the exercise of the episcopal office, even in the demanded and called by other towns, as we in our parish of purification of the liturgy of ordination. Certainly, no Lutheran Wittenberg may ordain and send to other towns that wish candidate to the holy ministry will accept the exhortation so and have no pastors. “Receive the power of sacrificing for the living and the dead.” Yet when all these necessary conditions on the one side have been This is yet no complete identification of priest and bishop, as is fulfilled, there is no necessity for the Lutherans on the other side easily seen by the example about Saint Augustine, the priest and to reinstall the converted heretics— that is the correct, canonical preacher, and Valerius, the bishop and pastor. Saint Augustine was description of them — in their offices. If this is done, it is merely not a bishop from the beginning of his ecclesiastical career, “for the sake of love and unity,” a loving concession of holy although he became one. It is in accordance with this view that mother church to aberrant but repentant children. If anyone is Luther, at the encounter with the papal emissary Peter Paul Verg- surprised to hear this, he has apparently not understod one word erius, when he was exposed to the emissary’s question “Do you of the Smalcald Articles. ordain priests too?” pointed to the pastor of Wittenberg, Johannes Bugenhagen Pomeranus, and said: “Look, there sits a bishop, whom we have consecrated.” As Peter Brunner has rightly said:

The pastor Luther has in mind is one through whose vocation The retraction of the Lutheran Confessions’ the fullness of the functions comprehended in the ministerium condemnations of deviating teaching may verbi has been commended for public exercise without any be aimed very clearly at the statements restrictions. Not the “auxiliary clergy” in country regions out- side the town, not the preachers, deacons, but the pastor is the of the Smalcald Articles on the papacy bishop, who gathers others around himself as helpers. and the Church of Rome. nb This preaching, celebrating, ordaining bishop is the full incum- bent of the apostolic ministry, which does not, however, exclude other non-local arrangements, as admitted in the concession of the voluntary submission to the bishop of Rome by other Italian At the same time, this concession makes clear that besides parishes. As a matter of fact, Luther had from the beginning the pope there are indeed in the Church of Rome “learned and accepted that supraparochial minstry as a practical necessity, sensible men” (SA , Introduction), that the condemnatory when in his famous letter to the Bohemians, the De instituendis passages do not imply that all are indurated. At the very begin- ministris ecclesiae of , he invited them not only to perform a ning of the Smalcald Articles Luther referred to “the good Ger- lay ordination but eventually to proceed, as he says, to the cre- son” (SA Pref., ), disciple of a cardinal of the Holy Roman ation of an “Euangelicum archiepiscopatum,” an Evangelical- Church, whom he had already described in his Large Cate- Lutheran archepiscopate. chism as a spirit-filled father of the church (LC , ), a refer- ence and an elevation to the glory of the altar that should be THE TRUE BISHOPS AS NECESSARILY taken seriously. Regarding the ecclesiology of the articles, we ORTHODOX BISHOPS possess another Luther book that can especially be regarded as Accordingly the articles contain a carefully guarded concession an authorized commentary on it— the ecclesiological parts of to readmit the former bishops to their offices. The conditions the unjustly much-despised Wider Hans Wurst. In  these established by the articles should not be carelessly bypassed, parts under the title “Von rechter und falscher Kirchen, wobei lest we draw illegitmate conclusions. It is not said, as some peo- jegliche zu erkennen sei” were attached to the second edition of ple think, that the Lutherans would submit to the Roman epis- the Smalcald Articles. Here we find the references to the seven copal system, provided the Lutherans would at least be toler- thousand men, “all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal” ated as possible candidates to the holy ministry. Even the most ( Kings :), to the innocent children purified by holy bap- superficial knowledge of church history or even secular history tism, and to some few others, “of whom I have myself known should prevent us from this highly anachronistic assumption of many,” and to the two orthodox bishops under the reign of the a pluralistic church in the sixteenth century. No, it is seriously Arian Emperor Constantius. This shows that in the midst of and sternly maintained: darkness there has been some light. Among those who could be counted among the “learned and sensible men” with whom “if the bishops were true bishops and were concerned about some conversation could be opened, we might not unjustly the church and the Gospel, they might be permitted (for the enumerate the papal emissary Vergerius, who had once been an sake of love and unity, but not of necessity) to ordain and instrument in starting the negotiations that led to the Smalcald confirm us and our preachers, provided that this could be Articles. When, fourteen years after his conversation with done without pretense, humbug, and unchristian ostenta- Luther, as a convert from the Church of Rome and deprived of tion” (SA , , ). his Croatian bishopric, he fled to territories outside the Papal        dominion, he might have learned the difference between true NOTES and false church, and that Johannes Bugenhagen was the true . “Churfürst Johann Friedrich an Luther und die übrigen Theolo- bishop of the urbs catholica of Wittenberg. No new episcopate, gen,” . Dezember ,W b, col. –. however, waited for him. . “Des Papst Paul des Dritten Bulle, womit er das Concilium aus- geschrieben und nach Mantua angesetzt hat, den . Juni ,” W ,  ff THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE SMALCALD col. . . All references to the confessional writings are from Tappert. ARTICLES TODAY . “An Melanchthon in Schmalkalden. . Februar ,” W b, Does Luther belong to the rubbish-heap of the church today? col. . The austerity of the message is in a most typical way This is the question to which this essay has to give an answer, mixed with a humoristic end of the verse: “Hospes ab Hassiacis, quan- especially with reference to the ecclesiology of his Smalcald Arti- tum potes, aufuge lectis,” that is, visitors are warned to avoid as far as ffi possible the beds of Hesse! cles. The answer in many quarters is undoubtedly a rmative. . “Der protestierenden Stände gemeinschaftliche Antwort auf The retraction of the Lutheran Confessions’ condemnations of dem Convent zu Schmalkalden, die dem päpstlichen Orator Vergerius deviating teaching issued so often by prominent churchmen zugefertigt ist. Den . Dezember ,”W , col.  ff. within the church bodies of Lutheran background may be aimed . See my article “Luther and the Papacy,” Lutheran Journal   ff very clearly at the statements of the Smalcald Articles on the ( ): . . Von der Winkelmesse und Pfaffenweihe, , W , col.  papacy and the Church of Rome. The Smalcald Articles are [The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests, 1533, AE, : indeed not very popular and are regarded as disturbing the peace –]. Translation from German to English by the author. of Israel, as much as the equally disapproved Formula of Con- . “Nachricht, wie Vergerius den . Nov.  zu Wittenberg cord. Because of the clarity that the ecclesiology of the Smalcald angekommen und auf churfürstlichen Befehl daselbst wohl gehalten Articles possesses, this is unavoidable. It not only draws a clear worden ist, wie auch vom Gespräch, welches er Tags daruf mit Luther angestellt hat,” W , col. . line between heresy and orthodoxy, but even more so makes this . Translation from Peter Brunner, “Vom Amt des Bischofs,” in difference to be something more than an academic controversy. It Schriften des Theologischen Konvents Ausgburgischen Bekenntnisses, her- goes to the very warfare between God and Satan, centered around ausgegeben von Friedrich Hübener, Heft  (Berlin: Lutherisches Ver- penitence as an escape from the doom of original sin to the alien lagshaus, ), .    righteousness of Christ. Such a belief has always belonged to the . Wie man Kirchendiener wählen und einsetzen soll, , W , col. ; Latin original WA, , , – [Concerning the Ministry, rubbish-heap of history, as Saint Paul rightly observes: “we are , AE, : ]. made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things . For a fuller treatment of the offers by the Reformers to use the unto this day” ( Cor :). In this sense as well our answer must former bishops as legitimate shepherds, see my article “Är samexis- be affirmative: Yes, the ecclesiology of the Smalcald Articles tensen luthersk?” Nya Väktaren, – ():  ff.  belongs to that rubbish-heap, where the sacrum depositum of all . “D. Mart. Luthers vorstehender Duplik Herzog Heinrichs zu Braunschweig entgegensetzte Schrift, unter dem Titel: ‘Wider Hans true Christianity is preserved until the day of judgment. Yea, “Let Wurst.’ Beendigt den . März . Ausgegangen umden . April ,” us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his W , col. –. reproach” (Heb :). LOGIA . See Real Encyclopedia, d ed., , ff.: “Vergerio, Pietro Paulo.”

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 Eastertide  Confessional Subscription  Doctrinal Statements November ,  Holy Trinity  Eschatology February ,  Reformation  Pietismus Redivivus April ,  Epiphany  Feminism August , 

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 program and version used.) Please write for style sheet. Gospel-Based Exhortation

P R. R

j

    continues to be a topic In addition to the type of sentence that says, “Do _____ just for discussion among Lutherans. Many theological and as God in Christ did _____ for you,” we see in the New Testa- T practical considerations must enter the picture in order ment another type of imperative addressed to the baptized. This for us to have a balanced biblical and confessional view, consid- type of sentence says in effect, “Be what you are.” One thinks of erations such as the proper distinction between law and gospel, the Lord’s saying in Matthew , ‘`You are the light of the world. . the relationship between justification and its fruit in the Christ- . . So let your light shine.” Compare Ephesians :: “For once ian life, the Christian as simul justus et peccator, the theology of you were darkness but now light in the Lord. Walk as children the cross, eschatology, the centrality of the means of grace, of light.” Again, these kinds of sentences should not be labeled church and ministry, the liturgy, catechesis, and vocation. In simply “law” without further explanation. They are much this discussion one part of the overall picture that deserves rather to be understood as exhortations driven by the gospel. more attention than it often receives is the hortatory material of According to Walther’s Thesis  in his classic on law and the New Testament. I press this point because, after all, horta- gospel, these kinds of sentences attempt “in a gospel way to urge tory sections addressed to the baptized occupy a rather large [evangelisch zu ermahnen] the regenerate to do good” in con- amount of space in the New Testament. trast to coercing by means of legalistic demands. On the one hand, the hortatory material in places consists of In this connection we should also note what the Formula of the warnings and threats of the law. Although law-threats can- Concord in Article  says about the liberated will of the Christian: not produce the God-pleasing, uncoerced works that flow from the free and merry heart of faith, Christians still need to hear From this it follows that as soon as the Holy Spirit has ini- them because Christians remain sinners (see  Cor :–; Gal tiated his work of regeneration and renewal in us through :–). the Word and the holy sacraments, it is certain that we can On the other hand, some of this material speaks in a way and must cooperate by the power of the Holy Spirit, even quite unlike the warning and threatening sounds of the law. For though we still do so in great weakness. Such cooperation example, consider these two well-known sentences: “Welcome does not proceed from our carnal and natural powers, but one another, therefore, just as also Christ welcomed you to the from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Spirit has glory of God” (Rom :); “Be kind to one another, tender- begun in us in conversion (SD , ). hearted, forgiving one another just as also God in Christ for- gave you” (Eph :). It goes on to say that this happens as much and as long as How should we describe these kinds of sentences? The “just God rules the Christian through his Holy Spirit, and that this as” clauses are clearly gospel. Paul is basing his appeal on the “cooperation” is not to be understood as if the Christian coop- gospel, not the law. But how should we label the imperative erates with the Holy Spirit the way two horses draw a wagon clauses? They are imperative clauses addressed to the baptized, together. Nevertheless, SD  stresses that there is a great differ- calling for action. They are not “gospel indicative” statements, ence between the baptized and the unbaptized in that the bap- nor are they “gospel imperatives” in the sense of “Believe in the tized have a liberated will and Lord Jesus Christ.” But these imperatives are not “law” either, if by “law” one means “harsh demands with punishments and “new activities and emotions in the intellect, will, and rewards attached.” So what should we call them? I prefer to call heart, so that the heart learns to know sin, to fear the them “gospel-based exhortations” after the verb parakaleivn, wrath of God, to turn from sin, to understand and accept used by St. Paul: “to exhort, beseech, urge” (Rom :;  Th :). the promise of grace in Christ, to have good spiritual thoughts, Christian intentions, and diligence, and to fight against the flesh, etc.” (SD , ).

P R. R is professor of exegetical theology at Concordia Semi- It is precisely to Christians that the New Testament’s exhor- nary, St. Louis, Missouri. tations are addressed. We should not think of the baptized in a    deterministic way as if they were mere automata. On the con- tament’s hortatory sections are rather unlike what one typically trary, they can be coaxed, urged, exhorted, and encouraged finds in Evangelical literature with its emphasis on “principles with respect to their Christian lives, because the Spirit works in for Christian living.” One does not see in the New Testament them new abilities and new impulses (Phil :). Therefore, it is principles for Christian money management and the like. The noteworthy that Paul uses imperatives to urge the baptized to New Testament refers the Christian life to baptism, an emphasis that seems absent from Evangelical literature. Moreover, the New Testament treats the Christian as simul justus et peccator and does not make the gospel conditional. One should not con- It is precisely to Christians that the fuse the New Testament’s approach to the Christian life with the New Testament’s exhortations popular Evangelical approach. Nevertheless, exhortations are certainly part of the biblical picture. are addressed. In short, it seems to me that we need to find a way to incor- nb porate the New Testament’s hortatory material into our Lutheran discourse and pastoral practice by both warning with the threats of the law and exhorting on the basis of the gospel. present their members to God as instruments of righteousness Christians as simultaneously sinners and justified need to hear and as slaves to righteousness in the very same context where both. As St. Paul charges Timothy in  Timothy :: “Preach the he declares with gospel indicatives that the baptized already are word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, slaves of God and freed from the dominion of sin (Rom :, exhort [parakaleivn], in all long-suffering and teaching.” How ). Precisely because they are in truth slaves of God, they can does one do such convincing, rebuking, and exhorting? The be exhorted to conduct themselves accordingly. same way the New Testament does. This does not mean simply I sense that the hesitancy on the part of some in this regard quoting Bible passages. But it does mean in addition to convey- stems from the desire to avoid the popular Evangelical approach ing the scriptural content that we think and speak in ways to sanctification. With this concern I quite agree. The New Tes- shaped by the Scriptures LOGIA C F “Through the mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren . . .” Smalcald Articles /

j

Response to Ronald Jones praise God for what people such as this do, not the people “Lived Faith: Theology and Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount,” who carry out the work themselves (Mt :). Thus the Ser- L , no.  (Epiphany ) mon on the Mount needs to be read as being primarily by Gerald Krispin, Associate Professor of Religious Studies descriptive of those who are in this dependent relationship Concordia University College of Alberta with God, not as prescriptive of how to attain or even main- tain this relationship. In other words, to avail oneself of the The Epiphany  issue of L included a number of arti- language of the philosophers, there is an existential or onto- cles that beckon for the presentation of a response. Such is logical character to all of what Jesus says in Matthew –. indeed the case with Ronald Jones’s “Lived Faith: Theology (There is of course great danger in the use of this abstract and Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount.” This is not to be vocabulary, especially since so many of these terms are very contrary, but simply to state that there might be another way much evocative. The word “dependence” evokes thoughts of looking at the same data. Nor does the response have to be of F. D. E. Schleiermacher; yet I hope the reader notes that I uncongenial, especially when it speaks to an opinion held by am not talking about some vague universal feeling of depen- one’s colleague. I hope what follows will be taken as a conge- dence here, but dependence in the way of faith as being at nial difference of opinion. the receiving end of God’s gifts. The same needs to be said While the emphasis of Dr. Jones’s article was upon the prac- of terms such as “existential” and “ontological.” I am again tical living of one’s faith in the context of responsiveness to not calling upon the ghosts of either Kirkegaard or Bult- what God gives, I would posit that it is faithful dependence mann, but seeking to use terms that give expression to the upon God that is the central theme of the Sermon on the fact that one’s relationship to God goes beyond what we do, Mount. While doubtless a reconstruction of a number of diff- but embraces everything that we are). Only when what is erent sayings and sermons of Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount done corresponds to what one actually is can one escape the is brought together by Matthew in such a way as to provide the charge of hypocrisy. Jesus therefore does not present a col- central theme of Jesus’ teaching: a call for complete depen- lection of rules or laws that his disciples are to follow, or dence upon God. even ideals to which they are to aspire. Jesus’ message is that Jesus thus begins to teach his disciples about the nature those who are children of God, that is, faithfully dependent of this dependence and in so doing comes to invert the very upon him, will act in the way that is consistent with the rela- nature of expectations so deeply rooted in human nature. tionship in which they stand with God. This attitude is sum- With the Beatitudes Jesus celebrates the new order under marized both in Jesus’ appeal to the image of God as the God’s gracious rule: happy are the poor, the meek, the indiscriminate lover of all of humankind (Mt :–) and peacemakers, not the rich, the powerful, or the aggressors. his presentation of the “Golden Rule” (Mt :), which again Persecution and oppression for the sake of being in the right describes the child of God as a reflection of the God who relationship with God is again not cause for dismay, but joy. takes the initiative in reconciling people to himself. The reason for such happiness in the face of such adversity Those religious works that propound to be God-directed is that such as these have abandoned all other recourse and when the individual is outside of this ontological reality of have no one to look to except God. True happiness is there- being a child of God are censured by Jesus. This applies fore not found in the national aspirations of the day, but in specifically to the “righteousness of the Pharisees and teachers the dependent relationship with God. People who let God be of the Law,” since the relationship between God and those all these things for them cannot but reflect this in their lives: who study, teach, and seek to live by the letter of the law as salt preserves and a lighted city on a hill is seen every- remains broken (Mt :). Not right action but who or what where, so those who are in this dependent relationship with one is in relation to God is decisive. While it is possible for God cannot but reflect whose they are to the world around anyone to do “good works,” even in the name of Jesus (Mt them (Mt :–). It is for this reason, too, that people :–), only those who are truly dependent upon God are

   known by him and thus members of his kingdom. Thus the these very standards to task. Characteristic of all of these acts Pharisees are excluded, not because they are people who have was their external and therefore public nature. Their practice fallen short of their quota of good deeds or even done particu- in public was meant to garner not only approval from God, larly heinous deeds, but because they presume to merit God’s but the accolades of the public before which they were dis- acceptance and approval on the basis of what they do. What played. The mentality expressed is one of reward, where those they have indeed failed to recognize is that the fundamental who practiced these acts assumed that God would thus reward problem between people and God is sin in the way of human them for their endeavor. Jesus addresses these actions in a self-determination that works separation from God. This sin twofold way. He first points to the reward that truly is fitting within is not overcome by external acts of piety or “righteous- from the attitude expressed in the acts. The public display ness.” In fact, all “good works” that fail to take into account reaps public approval. But that is the full extent of their this sin within will fail to recognize that the rift between God “reward.” There is no reward from God, however, not even his and people needs to be healed by God’s redemptive action. approval. Jesus then proceeds to deal with giving to the poor, Consequently the “righteous” acts of the Pharisees do not prayer, and fasting within the context of a dependent relation- bring them “closer” to God. They indeed propel them ever ship upon God. Within this context these acts of righteous- further from him, because they essentially constitute overt ness come to be in themselves confessions of dependence. acts of independence. Jesus thus proceeds to expose the crux Here it is not the seeking of reward or approval that is the of the problem by showing that God looks beyond the exter- underlying motivation, but the trust or faith that holds God nal act to the very heart of a person. He does so by lending his to be faithful and dependable in all things. interpretation to various commandments directed toward Those who therefore give to the poor give because they other people, such as murder, adultery, the taking of vows (in know the God who has provided for all their needs, and more the context of truth versus the lie), and the exacting of revenge (Mt :–). As members within the family of God, it thus (Mt :–). becomes a matter of course to share with those who lack what Overtly a person could plead innocent to any of the they need. With this understanding Jesus comes to express the charges brought against him or her on the basis of any of community spirit already inherent in the Old Testament these laws. Jesus, however, wrests these commandments out covenant and the preaching of the prophets. Yet he goes fur- of the civil (coram hominibus) realm and casts them into a ther by casting one’s actions into the familial relationship theological (coram Deo) framework. It is here that the case of God and his children. Giving children come to reflect the still needs to be settled. Indeed, God’s judgment reaches to gracious giver God, and are rewarded accordingly within the the core, to the heart of a person. It is Jesus’ message that the context of this relationship. heart exposed to God’s judgment cannot plead innocent. Nor Prayer also is not a means of manipulating the deity in the can it hide behind its external acts. It cannot but look to God way of the pagans, or even enlightening an ignorant god as to for forgiveness, and depend upon God to grant that funda- what one requires (Mt :–). Jesus speaks of God as the one mental change, the new nature that desires to carry out the who knows what we need even before we ask him. Nor does will of God not as a matter of necessity, but as a matter of God need to be worn down by constant petitions so as to grant course (compare Jer :–). Thus the basis for the relation- the requests made. Prayer is instead again an expression of ship between God and people is God’s action of forgiveness, dependence. Those who pray confess that they cannot meet upon which the person depends. All that which people thus their own needs. Christian prayer therefore comes to be a refl- do in the way in which Jesus speaks about them in the Ser- ection of the dependent relationship of people upon the God mon on the Mount depends upon remaining in this relation- who is Father to the faithful. It is not an independent meritori- ship. In other words, there is no righteousness before God on ous act that elicits God’s favor. the basis of such external acts, as though there were some This is no less true of the third of the “acts of righteous- virtue or merit inherent within them. It is neither the quality ness,” fasting (Mt :–). While in itself a private and indi- nor the quantity of such acts of the individual that con- vidual activity, the one fasting could potentially make a visible tributes to his value or rightness before God. Here one might public display of his self-imposed self-deprivation. Jesus cen- come to speak in the way of Luther about an “alien righteous- sures such public display as having no bearing upon one’s ness,” one that is not self-generated, but given by God. Thus relationship with God. Fasting in the way of Jesus is to recog- our value before people and God himself is not determined nize that even one’s most basic needs, in this case food, are by anything within ourselves, nor by the things we do, but not at point number one in the context of the relationship by the God who ascribes to us that value which surpasses between God and his people. While food is needed for life, quantifiable categories. Jesus therefore has his followers look God is the provider of the food for life. Fasting comes to focus beyond the accepted quantifiable determinates that had upon this ultimate dependence upon God as provider. In become the standards of measure for one’s relationship with other words, fasting too is a confession of the dependent rela- God in his day. tionship of people upon their God. That is why Jesus goes on to show his disciples that anxiety about the future, specifically ACTS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS about one’s material needs, is incongruous with this relation- Among such standards are “acts of righteousness” such as giv- ship to God. The God who provides for all creation provides ing to the poor, prayer, and fasting. In Matthew  Jesus takes even more certainly and daily for those who are his children.   

The disciples of Jesus are therefore free to seek the things of Response to Gerald Krispin the kingdom of God, rather than to be plagued with the anxi- by Ronald W. Jones, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, eties of daily life (Mt :–). Concordia University College of Alberta

TRUE LIFE IN THE KINGDOM That there are a number of ways of looking at the text of the The remainder of the Sermon of the Mount needs also to be Sermon on the Mount is clear from any review of the literature. seen from this vantage point of dependence upon God. Thus That two members of the same Religious Studies Division happen ff it is not for the disciples to judge what is in the heart of to have two di ering interpretations is a source of great delight another (Mt :). The integrity of one’s faith is beyond for our students at Concordia, who are amazed that such a conge- human perception. While one might want to expose the nial disagreement could exist on a single campus. Yet Dr. Krispin ff inconsistency in the life of another, Jesus points to the blatant and I do di er in our approaches. It is my view, as he captures hypocrisy that afflicts everyone. On the other hand, one can quite fairly, that the words of Jesus call us to response. It is his potentially evaluate the results of the work of the “false view, as he states in the former part of this Colloquium Fratrum, prophets” who come to reveal their true identity (Mt that these words call for complete dependence on God. :–). Yet those who appear to act faithfully, who use the On the one hand, these two positions are not so far apart as right words and who even perform miracles, are judged by they may appear. As I argue in an as-yet-unpublished essay, the the Lord himself. Since he knows his own not on the basis Sermon on the Mount shares some of the characteristics of the  of what they do, but as to who they are, he comes to dispatch giving of the covenant in Exodus , and both focus on the will the doers of even the most pious deeds as being unknown to of God. In this covenant relationship, God is the author, and we him (Mt :–). are dependent on him for his gifts. In this same relationship, on Yet while the judgment as to who is the Lord’s and who the other hand, people are expected to respond, as both the stipu- is not belongs to God alone, this is not to leave people in lations of the covenant and the ongoing imperatives in the Ser- uncertainty. People who hear what Jesus says seek and desire mon on the Mount make clear. ff to live within the relationship that he has described. Conse- The option is to accept or reject God’s o er. We do nothing to quently those who have heard the message of Jesus stand on deserve it; we are completely dependent on him for it. Yet if we solid ground and build the house of their lives accordingly. accept it, we commit ourselves to carrying out his will. In the con- Yet it is also possible to reject what Jesus teaches and to disre- text of the giving of the covenant and of God’s call to obey his gard what is heard. But those who do, do so at their peril, voice and to keep his covenant, the people respond with these   not only in the storms of life, but the final judgment itself words: “All that the Lord has spoken we will do” (Exodus : ). (Mt :–). They speak similar words at the end of the Covenant Code, dur- fi Far from presenting an ethic of right action, Jesus comes to ing the rati cation ceremony: “All that the Lord has spoken we   display the life of the Christian in terms of who and what one will do, and we will be obedient” (Exodus : ). The proper is. One’s actions are organically tied to what one is, as Jesus’ response to a covenant relationship is obedience, doing what is own illustrations in the context of the Sermon on the Mount asked by that God who establishes the relationship and on whom point out. The good tree produces good fruit, not in the way we are dependent. of being exhorted to that end, but in consonance with what it THE INVERTED EXPECTATIONS OF MATTHEW 5 is. Conversely, grapes do not grow on thorn bushes nor figs on thistles (Mt :). The inconsistency of such produce leads In the best sense, the Sermon on the Mount is descriptive “of to the recognition not of the truly faithful, but of the false those who are in this dependent relationship with God.” But this prophets. No signs are given by which the faithful can be dis- can only be true as they carry out the will of God in their lives. cerned. They, as mentioned above, are known only to the Lord Obeying his will does not gain the relationship, but there is a very himself. These are they who do God’s will by letting God be real sense in which obedience maintains it. To disobey the stipu- Father to them and who depend upon him in all things tem- lations of the covenant is to place oneself under its curses. To rebel poral and eternal. against what God asks of us, even in that covenant made tangible In a society whose religion had come to be defined by right in the person of Jesus, is to place oneself under the law and its action, his words therefore caused a tremendous stir. Matthew accusations. I agree that the Sermon on the Mount is not a collec- reports that Jesus’ teachings concerning the kingdom of God tion of rules or laws; what it is, rather, is a statement of the will and the fundamentally new relationship into which it places of God for those who are gifted to be a part of his kingdom. And, those who are within it was met by amazement (Mt :–). yes, God expects his children “to act in the way which is consistent This was so not only because of what was said, but also because with [this] relationship.” of the manner in which he taught, with authority. This stood To be a child of God may be an ontological reality, but this in contrast to other contemporary teachers who consistently child is known by what he or she does. It is no coincidence that we appealed to preceding authorities to bolster their own interpre- are to let our light shine before others so “that they may see [our] tations with such derivative authorities. In other words, Jesus good works and give glory to [our] Father who is in heaven”   spoke as one of the prophets had spoken, prophets whose ( : ). So the distinction in the concluding verses of the sermon. mandate it was to call God’s wayward people back into the Jesus does not say that those “who are truly dependent upon God covenant relationship of dependence upon God. are known by him and thus members of his kingdom.” What he   says is that the one who will enter the kingdom of heaven is the not to be anxious. If the latter two are more expressions of faith, one who does the will of the Father (:). The problem with the the first remains a matter of conduct. Pharisees is that, in spite of their good works, they have forgotten the will of God. The reinterpretation of the commandments in TRUE LIFE IN THE KINGDOM Matthew  reminds us that the simple keeping of the law is not The text says, in spite of Dr. Krispin’s protests to the contrary, that enough; God expects more of those who follow him, a greater God does know his own on the basis of what they do: “Not every- righteousness (:). one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of That the basis for any relationship between God and his people heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” is his act of forgiveness is clear. The response of the forgiven is to (:). Those whom God does not recognize, he does not know on do that expected by the Forgiver. One does, then, depend on God the basis of their being evildoers. One cannot ignore the impor- to give that “new nature which desires to carry out the will of tance of that conduct which is consistent with one’s commitment. God . . . as a matter of course.” One’s acts merit nothing; what To accept the gift of the kingdom is to accept the responsibilities one does gives no status before God; but what one does indicates that go with it, which the Sermon phrases in terms of conduct. how seriously one desires to do God’s will on an almost “routine” To phrase it another way: “One’s actions are organically tied basis, because one responds to the One who has given the gift to what one is.” I have no argument with this point; in fact, that of the kingdom. is much of what my essay tries to point out. Faith must be lived, or it is no faith at all. To reduce what one does in observing the THE ACTS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN MATTHEW 6 will of God to letting God be Father and being dependent on him The true member of the covenant community is dependent on that in all things is to miss the repeated calls of the sermon to action. God who does reward his children for what they do. It is not that The problem with the people of Jesus’ day, the scribes and Phar- one practices piety—“does righteousness” in the Greek text— to isees as a case in point, is that they misunderstood what right gain anything from God. The underlying motivation is one of action meant. They confused righteousness with a simple keep- response by those who have already experienced the gifts of God. ing of the law; Jesus throughout the sermon shows them that As one responds, however, God rewards. One may, of course, also more is required. seek human approval and reward, but doing so means the loss of In fact, if Jesus stands in the line of those prophets who called any divine counterpart. The key is that one in the community does people back into a covenant relationship, then his message some things— almsgiving, prayer, and fasting, for example— in requires both that they recognize the pre-eminence of God in the normal carrying out of one’s faith commitment. One remains establishing this relationship and the stipulations that God makes no less dependent on that God who knows one’s every need, but part of it. The stipulations of the covenant in Exodus  expressed one dare not simply presume on the gifts of God without a suitable the will of God for his people; the stipulations in the Sermon on response. To borrow elsewhere from Matthew’s Gospel, the man the Mount also express that will. God not only expects his people without a wedding garment discovered what it meant not to to be dependent on him; he also expects them to live their faith in respond appropriately to a gracious invitation (:–). a manner consistent with their relationship with him. It is finally a matter of priority and choice. One can seek The irony of the concluding statement from Martin Luther is human approval or receive the reward promised by God. One can that it better supports my emphasis on the practical living of one’s act publicly or privately, depending on one’s choice of audiences. faith as a response to God than it does an emphasis on faithful One can lay up earthly or heavenly treasure. One can live in light dependence on God: “True faith does not ask what works need to or darkness. One can serve God or mammon. One can live with be done; before it can ask, they are done already.” In other words, anxiety or with faith, in the latter case remaining dependent on faith expresses itself in works, in what one does, in conduct. One that God who provides even for the birds of the air and the lilies cannot deny the importance of our dependence on God; to make of the field. But the imperatives that begin and end this chapter this the central theme of the Sermon on the Mount, however, is do not ask us to be dependent; they ask us to beware of improper to miss Jesus’ call to those in a covenant relationship to take seri- piety, to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and ously the will of God and to live their faith. R “It is not many books that make men learned . . . but it is a good book frequently read.” Martin Luther

j

conclude that baptism of infants is an example of God’s indis- Review Essay criminate grace. Case closed. Not quite. Refusing or delaying baptism has surfaced as a theo- Return to Grace: A Theology for Infant Baptism. By Kurt logical issue among Roman Catholics, some of whom found Stasiak. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, . Paper. mandates for these Baptist-like practices in the decrees of Vatican  pages. .. Council . Essential to refusing baptism to infants is that in the New Testament practice baptism follows a catechesis. This means h Several years ago an LCMS pastor wrote for advice to give to that infant baptism cannot be supported by biblical practice. an ELCA pastor about whether with good conscience he could Father Kurt Stasiak, a professor at St. Meinard’s Seminary in baptize an infant brought by its grandparents. Not only did the Indiana, in Return to Grace: A Theology for Infant Baptism, offers a ELCA pastor have LCMS roots, but he was a direct descendant of detailed challenge to the new practice and defends the traditional two founding fathers. (Good LCMS blood flows in the ELCA, at doctrine that baptism is a remedy for original sin and hence should least before August came to Philadelphia.) Similar cases have sur- be administered to infants, an argument Lutherans will recognize faced with LCMS pastors who are concerned about maintaining from the Augustana . Those opposing infant baptism among the integrity of baptism, which often in their opinion includes the Roman Catholics are not all of one mind, but they agree in putting assurance that the child be given a Christian upbringing and the an added emphasis on catechesis. The Mature Adulthood school eschewing of an ex opere operato efficacy as magical. With the favors delaying infant baptism (–, ), and the Environmen- yuppie generation not sharing their parents’ religious convic- talist school wants it administered only where parents show a sin- tions, pastors face non-members or marginal ones who are pres- cere commitment to the Christian life (–), a view found among sured into having their children baptized. some Lutherans. In pre-Vatican  days, parents contacted the parish But in retrospect, this problem in pastoral practice is hardly office for the nearest Sunday afternoon set aside for baptizing new. What is new is pastors refusing to baptize these infants, or at infants. In some cases it might have been just as much for sentimen- least thinking about it. Motivation of grandparents for these tal reasons () as for a religious necessity, both of which are unac- allegedly improper baptisms is the salvation of these children, ceptable reasons to those who see adult baptism as the norm. Where which is hardly incidental in the light of such doctrines as original this thinking has taken hold, parents may be confronted with coun- sin, universal atonement, grace, and eternal damnation. This seling sessions in which a priest interrogates them about their faith matter could be settled quickly by pointing out that the synoptic and ability to bring up the child as a Christian. When this is found Gospels do not specify that those who brought children to Jesus lacking, as for example among non-practicing Catholics and the were their parents, though most probably were. It is not a ques- non-churched, baptism is best denied their infant children. Here is a tion of who brought the children, but simply that someone did. strange mixture of the revivalists’ “mourner’s bench” and a protes- Consider also the anonymity of the child whom Jesus put in the tantized inquisition to measure faith on modern Catholic soil. Vale midst of the disciples as an example of how God’s kingdom had ex opere operato and Protestant caricatures of Catholicism. to be received. In one case children were brought to him, and in Movements to deny baptism claim their mandates in the other case he randomly selected a child. One child as well as Vatican ’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (December , any other could have served his purposes. Children brought to ), which called for commissions to prepare new liturgical rites. Jesus became God’s children in a way that they were not before. If Provisions were made for an adult catechumenate, revised adult these parents resembled the formless and misinformed crowds baptismal rites (Constitution, , –), and rites for infant bap- that surrounded Jesus— and there is no reason to suggest other- tism with specified roles for parents and godparents (). Local wise — they would hardly have met today’s criterion of providing bishops were allowed to dictate the form and the age for adminis- a proper environment for Christian training. Neither prior com- tering confirmation (, , ). Separate commissions were set up mitment from parents or guardians nor their motivations are for each rite: Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RICA), Rite of suggested in the Gospel pericopes. Jesus was clearly indiscrimi- Baptism for Children (RBA), Rite of Confirmation (RC), and Rite nate in dispensing divine grace to children. We might therefore of Initiation for Children of Catechetical Age (RCIC) (). Each    commission understood itself as authorized to articulate Catholic have put the sacramental practice of that church under the doctrine and practice, and each came to different conclusions, umbrella of ex opere operato. We cannot avoid engaging the issues leading to a confusion in pastoral practice. raised by this controversy, since some Lutheran pastors may be Attracting the most attention were proposals of the RICA tempted to deny baptism to some infants or give such a high value (). Stasiak breaks their (Mature Adulthood School) propos- to catechesis that baptism’s efficacy is seen as dependent on it. als into five perspectives: () An indiscriminate baptism is unac- The ultimate question for churches administering baptism to ceptable and best resolved by abandoning it, especially in regard infants because their original sin requires it is the fate of the child to infants (–, ). () Adult baptism is the norm. Infant bap- who is refused baptism and subsequently dies. One child receives a tism is a malignant abnormality when administered because of benefit the other is denied. Limbus infantium provided a safety “pastoral malfeasance, theological obsession, or the decline of net in avoiding eternal damnation for previous Roman Catholic faith among Christians into some degree of merely social confor- generations. This, however, is no longer an operative doctrine, mity” (). [“Theological obsession” refers to administering bap- having fallen from grace and gone into its own limbo. As radical as tism as an antidote to original sin.] () Catechesis, understood as the RICA proposals are, they do allow for emergency baptism for “conversion therapy,” is necessary. () An intrinsic necessity infants in danger of death. This exception points to the problem, requires keeping the initiatory rites of baptism, confirmation, since we do not really know which child will be alive tomorrow and the eucharist together as a unified sacramental constellation (what about SIDS?). Omniscience is a divine attribute not shared (–). () Children are better enrolled in the catechumenate by us mortals. A critically sick child given an emergency baptism than baptized (–). lives and a presumed healthy unbaptized child dies. It is the practi- The Roman officialdom entered the fray in favor of baptizing cal application that raises real problems. What good is a certificate infants in the  Pastoralis Actio, instruction on infant baptism that the child has been enrolled in the catechumenate? If a child is (–). Children no less than adults are not to be deprived of the eligible for the catechumenate, why not baptism? If baptism is in eternal life promised in this sacrament, an argument based on John some way made dependent on catechesis and a necessary part of : (). But this encyclical also recognizes situations where baptism the constellation of confirmation and eucharist, then there is no can be delayed in order to educate the parents, without whose con- grounds for an emergency baptism. sent it may not be administered. Unbaptized children of non- Now we come to the practical problem in examining the reli- Christians and “irregular Christians” (read “marginal Christians”) gious standing and motives of those who bring the children to may be enrolled as catechumens with a view to their being baptized baptism. Reserving baptism only for the children of qualified later, but such enrollment may not be accompanied by a ceremony church members smacks of Calvin’s view of the family within the and does not give the child the status of a catechumen (). Thus covenant. Stasiak points out that nominal Christians desiring the encyclical avoids authorizing a Baptist-like child dedication cer- baptism for their children show they are not totally devoid of emony, but salvation cannot be assured the unbaptized child. faith. Here we reintroduce the pericope of those who brought Enrollment of the child in the catechumenate means hardly more children to Jesus. Hardly all of them could have had the exem- than that someone in the church keep an eye on him or her. plary faith of the Canaanite woman. Rather than settling the controversy, Pastoralis Actio fueled it RICA proposals also favor publicly administered baptisms with (–). Infant baptism is here to stay in the Roman Church, but congregational participation. Part of their rhetoric is that private with the proviso that it be administered where there is reasonable baptism is compared with private mass. Without question all hope that the child receive a Christian upbringing. On the sur- Christian rites, including baptism, are of great value to the face, the Environmentalist School may win the day, since accord- observers; but baptism, like all sacramental rites, is for the benefit ing to Pastoralis Actio baptism may be denied infants if their par- of the recipient, including the child, and not for the onlookers, ents need time for education. RBC’s suggestion for administering even if they are parents, sponsors, or congregation. An excessive baptism at age twelve finds no support in the encyclical, but like attention to the responsibilities of parents and congregation was the other contestants their voice is muffled but not silenced. typical of the Enlightenment baptismal liturgies, but not part of Stasiak intends to write an apologetic for infant baptism as the Luther’s rites for baptism. Focusing on parental commitment at normal means for families to initiate their children into the myster- the time of infant baptism may even suggest that something is ies of the Christian faith. Baptism expresses our adoption as God’s lacking in baptism itself. While ceremonies project the essence of children. Baptizing children is normative in a sense that the bap- baptism into the worshiping congregation, they are primarily and tism of adults cannot be. “The small helpless child at the font with fundamentally for the child. Other means are available to evoke new life in it, not the successful preacher in the pulpit, is the typical and confirm faith among the observers without turning sacra- Christian” (). Stasiak finds support for this view in the encycli- ments into object lessons for family members. cal, which does not recognize the baptism of adults as normative. A chief objection raised against baptizing infants is that this is Lutherans should have no difficulty in saying that in baptism we the sacrament of faith. Luther’s fides infantium allows Lutherans are all infants. This seems to be the suggestion of these words of to see baptism as the sacrament of faith. Baptism not only is Jesus: “Except you become as little children, you will not enter the received in faith, but first creates the faith it requires. As Roman kingdom of God.” We agree with Stasiak’s main thesis: infant bap- Catholics, Stasiak and his opponents do not, and perhaps cannot, tism is a “return to grace”— the book’s title. The baptism war— come around to this view (), but Stasiak moves in this direc- and that is what it is— has raged in the Roman Church for about a tion by pointing out that in the cases of both adults and infants quarter of a century, and it is an eye-opener for Lutherans who faith is a gift of grace (–). “Baptism is the pledge and   promise that infants are delivered from original sin — not by slow and instill faith. The real question is whether infant baptism trickles of water, but by the flood of Grace that rushes forth as should ever be used as the carrot and stick to make people Chris- one is transformed and brought into the family of God and the tians or better ones. Assurances given at infant baptism may be Church” (). The opponents of infant baptism were the Refor- only polite lies and hence no assurances at all. Using baptism to mation enemies of Luther. So in this matter we recognize an ally elicit a certain behavior (sanctification) from the parents uses the in Stasiak in his opposing any movement to delay baptizing gospel as law. infants or to suggest that their baptism is in any way inferior. Concern for sacramental integrity of baptism is commendable, Baptism in mediaeval Europe was indiscriminate by the stan- but barriers more properly belong around the altar than the font, dards set forth by those wanting to delay it, but these supposedly especially when children are concerned. Ancient church practice indiscriminate baptisms were essential to Luther’s defense against knew closed communion, but not a closed baptismal font for the Anabaptists in the Large Catechism: infants as the exercise of discipline for members of heterodox churches or those with an unacceptable lifestyle. Refusing baptism Since God has confirmed Baptism through the gift of his to infants because of their parents visits their sins upon those who Holy Spirit, as we have perceived in some of the fathers, such are truly innocent and whom Jesus invites to himself. The practice as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, and since the of open communion does not allow for discipline of any kind, cer- holy Christian church will abide until the end of the world, tainly not as exclusion from the Lord’s supper. Thus parents ineli- our adversaries must acknowledge that infant Baptism is gible to have their children baptized because of insufficient faith or pleasing to God. For he can never be in conflict with him- lack of evidence of Christian commitment would be welcome to self, support lies and wickedness, or give his grace and Spirit receive the eucharist. Amusing, if it were not so tragic. for such ends. This is the best and strongest proof for the Make Disciples Baptizing squarely faces the problem of children simple and unlearned (LC , –; Tappert, ). who are refused baptism and subsequently die: “Scripture gives no guidance on what happens to stillborn or unbaptized infants No Lutheran suggests going through hospital nurseries and bap- of Christian parents. Believers commend them to God’s mercy tizing all the infants. But more pleasing to God is the nurse who and trust in him without knowing what precise answers to the baptizes infants in peril of death than a clergyman who denies bap- questions, both existential and dogmatic, arise from such situa- tism to a child who has been brought to him. Perhaps we can pro- tions” (). Parents whose apparent lack of Christian commit- vide recent anecdotal evidence. Why not? Luther proceeded pre- ment was reason enough to deny their children baptism are now cisely in this way by using St. Bernard as proof of the efficacy of asked to rely on God’s mercy and to commend their unbaptized infant baptism. Russian parents and grandparents, some of them children to a merciful God. Those who were found with such known members of the Communist Party, secretly brought their insufficient faith or no faith at all are asked to believe God will grandchildren to priests for baptism when Soviet law proscribed take care of things. Parents who could not assure a Christian such baptisms and later catechesis seemed remote. Several infants upbringing for their children while alive are asked to commend baptized by my father without the knowledge of one of the parents their dead unbaptized children to a merciful God. not only remained Christian but became pastors. If a near-perfect With Luther, we are not completely agnostic about the fate of environment and commitment were necessary for baptism, then the unbaptized children, but in the face of the human catastrophe we would never baptize anyone. The Parable of the Sower (Soils) is of original sin for which baptism was given to provide an answer about planting the seed regardless of the environment. (AC : “Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly A postscript. Support for delaying or denying baptism to sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are infants because later Christian nurture cannot be assured is also not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit”), the con- found in Make Disciples Baptizing: God’s Gift of New Life and cern for maintaining an artificially constructed integrity of bap- Christian Witness (Saint Louis: Concordia Seminary Publica- tism rings hollow in whatever church it appears. tions, ). Comment on this book is limited to its suggestion To the question of whether catechesis is necessary for baptism, that in some cases baptism be delayed or denied infants, a con- Brian Spinks’s assessment of Luther should settle the matter. clusion also reached by RICA and RBC. The subtitle, God’s Gift of New Life and Christian Witness, shows the book’s thesis that Luther was not incompetent. He knew the importance of baptism is set within the context of evangelism. A request for instruction, of catechesis, of school, and parental care. But infant baptism “may provide a forceful witness of God’s these were pastoral issues, which were ongoing. The sacra- demands for faith and obedience. It may help drive home and ment was not human ceremony celebrating ecclesiastical focus on the need of both parents and infants to be reconciled to pastoral work. Baptism was the place where God had chosen God” (). Parents giving the assurance that they will raise their to justify and declare the non-imputation of sin. It was the children in the faith can have their children baptized. Others visible sign of the numerated justification through God’s must wait. In situations too close to call “it is better to risk on the grace (“Luther’s Timely Theology of Unilateral Baptism,” side of the gospel than on the side of the law.” At times non- Lutheran Quarterly  [Spring ]: ). members, nominal members, and members under discipline must be refused baptism for their children (). David P. Scaer We can all agree that a request for any pastoral service is cer- Concordia Theological Seminary tainly an opportunity to confirm the strong, strengthen the weak, Ft. Wayne, Indiana  

The Nature of Confession: Evangelicals and Postliberals in Con- Religions, Lindbeck maintains (indebted to Wittgenstein), are versation. Edited by Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Ockholm. like cultural-linguistic systems in which doctrines function as Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, . grammar. Thus there is no extralinguistic basis for judging the truth of one religion’s doctrine over another’s any more than one h Hans Frei observed, can determine the proper use of German according to English grammar. Religions are incommensurable language games. This Someone has rightly said, “A person either has character or may be true even of different confessions. The “cognitive-propo- he invents a method.” I believe that and have been trying for sitionalist” believes that doctrines are assertions about reality, and years to trade method for character, since at heart I really the “experiential-expressivist” regards doctrines as the expression don’t believe in independent methodological study of theol- of inner religious sentiment. According to the former, there could ogy (I think the theory is dependent on the practice), but so never be doctrinal agreement between Rome and Reformation far I haven’t found that I’m a seller to myself as a purchaser. churches until certain positions are actually changed. According to the latter, there is supposedly a shared “universal religious The late dean of the so-called Yale School of postliberalism, experience” that justifies a doctrinal system, and this is simply Frei represents the ironic tension with which Yale’s defenders have anthropocentric as well as naïve. Lindbeck’s rule-theory, however, had to live. On the one hand, their entire enterprise is oriented regards such differences as relative to certain conditions, compar- toward reversing modern theology’s penchant for defining Chris- ing the differences between papal infallibility to the conventions tian faith and practice in secular terms. So questions of method of driving on the right or left side of the road. When in England, are regarded as the bane of modern theology, the tendency “Drive on the left” applies. The argument is subtle and much toward making theology part of the general Wissenschaftsliche more sophisticated than a cursory summary can provide, but program of the university. But inasmuch as it represents a new these are the basic contours of Yale postliberalism. turn (or at least a twist in an older turn), Yale theologians have It is understandable that evangelicals would sympathize with felt obliged to tend the methodological part of the vineyard more aspects of the postliberal agenda. “Religious communities,” Lind- than they would like. beck writes, “are likely to be practically relevant in the long run to The Nature of Confession: the title itself suggests that method is the degree that they do not first ask what is either practical or rel- the topic under consideration. Edited by Timothy R. Phillips and evant, but instead concentrate on their own intratextual outlooks Dennis L. Ockholm (Wheaton College professors), the volume is and forms of life” (Nature of Doctrine, ). The perils, however, the published product of a conference held at Wheaton in  are present as well, and in many ways The Nature of Confession that brought evangelicals and postliberals together for thought- offers a useful summary of both. ful interaction. In a nutshell, postliberalism (at least the type Alister McGrath notes, “The emergence of postliberalism associated with Yale) is a narrative theology that insists on the may be regarded as a telling indication that the intellectual and uniqueness of the Christian story and refuses to surrender theol- cultural credibility of liberalism has been decisively chal- ogy to the supposedly “neutral” and “public” criteria of the lenged.” Nevertheless, he raises a concern that is repeated academy. Its most notable representatives besides Frei are David throughout the work: Kelsey, George Lindbeck, and Brevard Childs. Students of the school include George Hunsinger, William Placher, and Kathryn To what does this discourse relate? Is there some reality or Tanner. Shaped by Barthian presuppositions (especially the set of realities outside the biblical text to which the biblical metaphor of “the strange new world of the Bible” as the narrative relates? . . . [O]ne central evangelical anxiety con- believer’s dwelling place), postliberalism represents a significant cerning the postliberal approach is that it appears to repre- reaction against the general direction of academic theology over sent a purely intratextual affair, with little concern for its the last few centuries. Instead of the world’s absorbing the text, it possible relation to an external objective reality (). is time once again to allow the text to absorb the world, say the postliberals. Repeatedly in their works (especially those of Frei, McGrath points out Lindbeck’s questionable understanding of Childs, and Kelsey), readers are encouraged to read the Bible the the cognitive-propositional approach. way Luther and Calvin read and proclaimed it. Chief among those characteristics are the sensus literalis, a unified canon, and Lindbeck seems to posit that those inclined toward this a christocentric promise-fulfillment hermeneutic. Frei and position hold that it is possible to definitively, exhaustively Childs have done the most work on biblical narrative; Kelsey has and timelessly state the objective truth about God in propo- emphasized the nature of biblical interpretation; Placher and sitional form. This cannot be considered an adequate repre- Tanner have underscored the anti-apologetic thrust (Why don’t sentation of this position in either its classical or postcritical we just do theology instead of trying to get secular approval?). forms (). But it is especially George Lindbeck who has brought attention to the school with his book on method, The Nature of Doctrine It is simply pejorative to apply epithets such as “intellectualist” or (Westminster, ). A leading ecumenical theologian (ELCA), “literalist” to the cognitive-propositional approach (). Never- Lindbeck’s method is motivated by a drive to achieve unity with- theless, he thinks Lindbeck’s criticisms are reasonable when lev- out either Roman Catholic or Protestant sides having to change eled at “neoscholastic” views of revelation. “For evangelicals, their dogmatic positions. postliberalism reduces the concept of truth to internal consis-   tency” (). McGrath observes that evangelicals follow the Refor- ceptual anti-realism (which Lindbeck does maintain) and onto- mation openness to being corrected by Scripture. “However the logical or creative anti-realism. It is an important distinction that concept of truth may be stated, it is firmly understood to be critics of the school do not always recognize. located outside the language of Christianity as well as within it” He gets Lindbeck off the hook of creative antirealism by sug- (). Postliberalism “ultimately leaves the whole idea of ‘doing gesting that by saying that the text absorbs the world, there is the theology’ caught up in a matrix of an irresolvable epistemological assumption that there is a world to be absorbed. But he is not as relativism.” McGrath appreciates the narrative approach. successful in getting him off the hook of conceptual antirealism. It is not existence but meaning that is relative, Lindbeck insists. Yet Frei seems to take us back down a discredited Bultmann- Evangelical theologian David K. Clark appreciates the fact that ian route, without any due regard for its perceived weaknesses “Narrativists in theology will value theology rooted more directly and subsequent developments.... Evangelicalism has diffi- in the concrete biblical story and the specifics of Christian history culty with any approach, whether originating with Bultmann over against philosophized theology that traffics in abstract con- or with Frei, that apparently weighs history so lightly (). ceptions” (). He argues that postliberalism offers points of real convergence with evangelicalism. First, it respects the autonomy Miroslav Volf suggests that we abandon the metaphor of the of the Christian story. Second, it is theocentric. text absorbing the world. In disowning Roman Catholicism, the Reformers rightly repu- diated an anthropocentric soteriology in which salvation depends The notion of inhabiting the biblical story is hermeneuti- partly on human merit. Traditional Calvinism uses the notion of cally naïve because it presupposes that those who are faced God’s sovereignty to safeguard the theocentricity of theology with the biblical story can be completely “dislodged” from from encroachment by anthropocentrism (). their extratextual dwelling places and “resettled” into intra- Third, it accounts for diversity in the theological enterprise, textual homes. Neither dislodging nor resettling can ever including the need for propositions— contra excessive tendencies quite succeed; we continue to inhabit our cultures even after in neo-orthodoxy (). Clark’s analysis reflects the most thor- the encounter with the biblical story (). ough familiarity not only with postliberalism but with the wider conversation within which postliberalism has been forged. Clark In the NT itself, we read “nothing of inhabiting a ‘cultural-lin- suggests that we temper our zeal for postmodern epistemology, guistic system’ or ‘texts.’” recognizing “that affirming antifoundationalism without proper qualification entails risks. In rebutting strong (and therefore self- Much more prosaically, we are told that Christians live, on refuting) forms of foundationalism, we should not overstate the the one hand, “in Corinth” or “in Rome” and, on the other case by hitching our intellectual wagons to strong (and therefore hand, in some mysterious way also “in God” or “in Christ.” self-refuting) forms of postmodern relativism” (). They inhabit both “Corinth” and “God,” “Rome” and Reformed theologian Gabriel Fackre, a leading narrative advo- “Christ,” at one and the same time.... If I am supposed to cate, writes, “An important corrective to evangelical experiential- be located in a Christian “cultural-linguistic system,” where ism is the postliberal accent on communal norms in doctrine, the is that “system” itself located? Like some blimp fashioned web of Christian belief and their sacramental and liturgical habi- out of a canvas of religious intersignifications, Lindbeck’s tat.” Nevertheless, he asks, cultural-linguistic system seems to float in midair: we get into it and we see the whole reality anew from within it, and [C]an’t the Word speak against the community? . . . Doesn’t we behave differently because we are in it (). the sovereignty of the Word testified to in Scripture free us from the constraints of a theory of the social construction of Volf warns that in the process of “objecting against the liberal ten- reality? Second, how close does a communal view of plain dency to denarrativize Jesus Christ and abstract him into a sense bring us to what the Reformation resisted so mightily? replaceable principle or experience, postliberals should take heed What of Karl Barth’s warning, “Without the Bible over not to docetize Jesus Christ and evaporate him into an irreplace- against the Church, then we are in the Roman Catholic able chain of religious intersignifications” (). Wisely, Volf sug- camp”? Is there an evangelical catholicity that honors the gests that we distinguish the laudable postliberal project of restor- role of the universal Christian community, its historic doc- ing the dramatic narrative impact of the text from the attempt to trine and even a pastoral teaching office, but holds each of hitch it to “a model of Christian faith as a semiotic system” (). these determinedly accountable to a christologically read But Volf’s sharpest criticisms parallel McGrath’s on the question Scripture and thus is neither awed nor tempted by the of truth. Why would Lindbeck want to downplay propositional claims of Rome? (). belief? “If God and God’s grace are the proper objects of religion and theology (rather than religion and theology being just effica- In one of the strongest chapters, George Hunsinger thinks that cious talk about the talk about God), then religion and theology the redemptive-historical line leading from the orthodox Dutch must be propositional at their core” (). Reformed theologians like Kuyper and Bavinck, carried forward by Jeffrey Hensley, a Yale doctoral candidate, mounts an impres- Westminster Seminary’s Richard Gaffin, could be postliberalism’s sive effort to exonerate Lindbeck from the charge of antirealism, best conversation partner in the more conservative Protestant by employing Nicholas Wolterstorff’s distinction between con- world. Lindbeck executes a useful exercise, applying his method to   the doctrine of the atonement. This contribution alone is worth Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. By reading the price of the book. And it is followed by a panel discus- Rainer Riesner. Translated by Doug Stott. ISBN ---x. sion with Lindbeck, Hunsinger, McGrath, and Fackre. xvi +  pages.Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, . Paper- Like postliberalism itself, The Nature of Confession is a mixed back. ./£. bag. When, for instance, the evangelical editors declare, “At the center of this resurgence of confessional Christianity are the The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on postliberals” (), one may be inclined to wonder what “confes- His Life, Thought and Ministry. Edited by Richard N. Longe- sional” could mean in this context. Ironically, it is the Lutheran necker. ISBN ---x. xvi +  pages. Grand Rapids: and Reformed Yale theologians who have confessions in the first William B. Eerdmans, . Paperback. ./£. place and are discovering a renewed appreciation for their fecun- dity at a time when many evangelicals find themselves drifting h Both of the books reviewed here deal with the conversion of from even their minimalist statements of faith. Saul of Tarsus and have as their focus the nature of the change in Despite the volume’s diversity, one point on which agreement Paul’s theology after his conversion. seems to converge in this discussion is the repudiation (or at least Rainer Riesner brings together a mass of material in the publi- revision) of traditional evangelical theories of doctrine most cation of his – doctoral thesis. The material deals with closely associated with Carl Henry. While there may be reasons to the chronology, mission strategy, and theology of Paul’s early disagree with aspects of Henry’s approach (see his multi-volume period, and is organized with the purpose of showing that “it is God, Revelation, and Authority), the postliberal (and postmod- evident that the gospel proclaimed to [the church at Thessa- ern) aversion to “cognitive-propositionalism” may mask a peren- lonica] was no different than the gospel preached earlier in Gala- nial pietistic suspicion of doctrine. Given the fact that so much of tia or immediately thereafter in Corinth”(). Riesner’s thesis is modern liberalism was suckled in that nursery, confessional another challenge to what has been a major assumption of many Lutherans and Calvinists have every reason to be wary of such students of the New Testament during the twentieth century, evangelical critiques. At the same time, with the inclusion espe- namely, that Paul’s first interest as a Christian convert was the cially of David Clark’s essay, this fear is somewhat (but only imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth, but that after a prolonged somewhat) mitigated. delay of the expected parousia the emphasis of his teaching Ours is an ironic period in which a number of evangelical the- shifted to a doctrine of justification. ologians (especially Clark Pinnock, Stanley Grenz, and Roger Riesner’s basic argument is as follows: There can be found in Olson) are rushing toward modernity just when some of its lead- Paul’s “undisputed” writings a number of references to persons ing captives revel in their liberation from it. In their introduction and events from extra-biblical history. While these persons and the editors observe: events can be tied to approximate dates, no chronology for the life of Paul itself can be found in his writings. Those scholars who Contrary to the postliberal attempt to reverse the direction hope to establish a chronology of Paul’s life simply on the basis of of conformity, Grenz defends a theological strategy wherein his letters, without recourse to the Book of Acts, are overly opti- the academic guild translates Scripture into a contemporary mistic about the evidence to be found in them (). What can be “cognitive framework.” “The theologian seeks to . . . help found in the epistles, however, are a three series of chronological fashion the church’s message in accordance to the categories sequences: () Galatians :, , ; :; ()  Thessalonians :; :; of the recipients” ().  Corinthians :–; ()  Corinthians :; :, . In addition, it is also argued that Paul planned his mission strategy (not method They note that just at the time when postliberals are rediscover- but geographical movement) in accordance with the prophecies ing classical patristic and Reformation theology, many evangeli- of Isaiah : (compare Rom :) and Isaiah :–. It is cals are moving in the direction postliberals know all too well. noteworthy that the geographical movement suggested in Paul’s Whether one chooses to appropriate certain aspects of the letters corresponds to the sequences found in the book of Acts. postliberal project or reject it wholesale, it is clearly one of the most These findings force a reassessment of the reliability of Luke as a (if not the most) positive developments in academic theology. historian. In an evaluation of the eight accusations against the Lindbeck’s rule-theory has been widely criticized even by non-con- reliability of Acts (brought forward by Gerd Ludeman in a  servatives for at least a tendency toward doctrinal relativism, and work on apostolic chronology), Luke comes out much better his explicit lines of thought in The Nature of Doctrine are inimical than Ludemann claims. Furthermore, Acts should be viewed not in many respects to confessional orthodoxy. And yet the very fact only as a secondary source, quite removed from the events that academic theology is having to interact with canonical unity, recorded, but also, in part, as a primary source compiled by an the sensus literalis, the narrative (that is, evangelical and christocen- eyewitness to at least some of the events, as the “we” sections of tric) shape of Christian preaching, liturgy, teaching, and praxis, as Acts indicate. Upon analysis it becomes clear that Luke’s account well as the idea that doctrines actually serve as rules for linguistic of Paul’s work and preaching at Thessalonica is a well-informed competence should call us into dialogue with these sources. The report that corresponds to the information found in Paul’s Thes- Nature of Confession is a great place to start. salonian correspondence. Michael S. Horton Luke reports that Paul’s preaching at Thessalonica was a Associate Professor of Historical Theology preaching concerning Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified, who Westminster Theological Seminary in California rose from the dead, and who is the Christ (Acts ), a basic out-   line of the preaching of justification by faith that was characteris- the editor’s essay (“Christology”), that the risen Jesus of Nazareth tic of Paul’s preaching from the beginning. In spite of the fact that did appear to Paul on the road to Damascus and that that appear-  Thessalonians, perhaps Paul’s earliest extant letter, appears to ance was a revelation, the basic impact of which was that the have a major eschatological orientation, Luke’s report of Paul’s apostle experienced a “paradigm shift” that brought him to see Thessalonian preaching should not be doubted. In the first place, Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. It also seems safe Paul, as the language of  Thessalonians makes clear, assumes that to assume that most of the essayists share the editor’s view that the Thessalonian Christians understood his gospel. Second, the “Paul’s basic Christan conviction and starting point for all his eschatological emphasis of  Thessalonians is not the only, nor the Christian theology was not apocalypticism but . . . Christology.” major, emphasis of that letter. Third, Paul’s letters were occa- (What is hidden, if anything, in editor Longenecker’s “functional sioned by the specific needs of the churches to which he wrote. In christology” is another question.) Most, but not all, of the essay- the case of the Thessalonian church, certain misunderstandings ists would also probably concur with I. Howard Marshall that had arisen and were in need of correction due to Paul’s short stay “not only is there a maturity of understanding in Paul’s earliest there and his rapid departure, the state of the Christians who had letter, but also we gain the firm impression that much of what he died being one of those. It was not necessary for Paul to write is saying was not thought up freshly for the occasion but repre- concerning justification in the same fashion that he did/would sents his settled views”(). write to the Galatians and Romans. Prominent in the essays is the matter of continuity and discon- Rather than assume that Paul’s theology developed radically tinuity between Paul and his Jewish antecedents. The section on from an emphasis on eschatology to an emphasis on justification, Christology sees Paul as being in continuity with Israel in holding it is safe to assume that his theology was well in place from the to the categories of Messiah, Son of God (which the Qumran time of his conversion. The doctrine that Paul preached at the texts show was also a Jewish category), and Lord, but in disconti- beginning was the same that he preached in later years. The doc- nuity with Israel in thus identifying Jesus of Nazareth. The sec- trine preached in Thessalonica was the same as that preached in tion on Gentile mission contends that Paul, the Jewish prosely- Galatia and passed on to those Christians in Rome. tizer, continued proselytizing the Gentiles also after his conver- Formerly an assistant to Peter Stuhlmacher, Professor of New sion. Instead of inviting them to become Jews, however, he Testament on the Evangelical Theological Faculty at the Univer- invited them to become Christians. The author of the section on sity of Tübingen, Riesner is now a lecturer on that faculty. He fol- women sees Paul’s “patriarchal” view as being in continuity with lows Stuhlmacher and his colleagues who tend to view the New Jewish patriarchal society. Nevertheless, the “egalitarianism” in Testament documents “sympathetically” and who do not out of Christ that arose in Paul after his conversion is in discontinuity hand dismiss the tradition of the church. (Riesner dedicates seven with Judaism. That Paul would continue within a patriarchal pages to an evaluation of the early church tradition concerning framework was allegedly due to his willingness to accomodate for the date of the crucifixion.) Stuhlmacher, however, does not con- the purposes of his mission. sistently follow the tradition of the church (for him the pastoral Central to the essays in this collection is the discussion of “the epistles are not from Paul’s hand, though they do represent new perspective on Paul.” Can the new perspective still be new Pauline thought), nor does he seem to be able to accept the “clas- when the lapse of time between the introduction of the issue and sical” formulation of the doctrine of inspiration. It is from a simi- the publication of the present volume is thirty-four years? That lar stance that Riesner offers his thesis, which contains a vast the debate is not parochial is intimated by the range of nations amount of useful material for the student of the New Testament and institutions represented by the essayists. and important scholarly interaction concerning several current At any rate, already on page  the “new perspective” is intro- issues of interpretation. duced and the essayists begin dancing around it, generating useful The Road from Damascus, a collection of essays by scholars material in the process. As Bruce Corley describes it (“History of from Fuller Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Semi- Interpretation”), the “new perspective on Paul” rises out of a  nary, Kings College of the University of Aberdeen, McMaster essay by Krister Stendahl. The term itself, coined by J. D. G. Dunn University, and Cambridge University, among others, discusses in , “emphasizes the apostle’s call, rather than his conversion, the impact of Paul’s conversion under the headings of Christol- and his mission to the Gentiles, rather than justification by ogy, eschatology, Gentile mission, justification, reconciliation, faith”(). What that apparently means is that Paul did not, in fact, covenant theology, Mosaic law, Holy Spirit, women, and ethics. experience a radical conversion in this theology on the road to This second volume in the McMasters New Testament Studies Damascus, and that, contrary to the view of Acts (see also the the- series presents much valuable information in a form intended to sis of Rainer Riesner), the Pauline doctrine of justification did not be accessible to both pastors and laity. The chapter on the history arise until after the apostle had begun his Gentile mission. of intepretation is vital to an understanding of the book. It is not What is there in the new perspective that would generate the surprising that there is no section on the sacraments, and that in present volume of essays? What is at stake? In the view of the section on the Holy Spirit the connection between the Holy J. D. G. Dunn , a proponent of the new perspective, it is a matter of Spirit and the sacraments is not made, even in the biblical cita- securing “a properly rounded and integrated grasp of Paul’s teach- tions related to baptism. ing and to clarify as far as possible how much and in what way The editor assures the reader that the contributors do have a Paul’s conversion contributed to this fundamental element of his “sense of center” even though there is a degree of “diversity” thought”(). In other words, at issue, according to Dunn’s com- among them. Presumably all of them find common ground in ment, is the resolution of a historical question and an interpretive   problem. Sense has to be made of statements offered by Paul, “righteousness” but rather on “my own,” which implies that the whose appreciative and yet critical stance in relation to Judaism Gentiles may not have part in it because it belongs to the Jews. elicited from him comments that some feel the need to reconcile. The Christian Paul, a proponent of universalism and not of par- Most of the volume’s essayists demonstrate an interest in rounding ticularism, must criticize the former point of view. To all of this off the corners and making anomalies disappear. Westerholm responds that the only way that this view of the clas- On the other hand, Bruce Corley’s assessment of the matter sic slogan “by faith and not by works” can be sustained is by fail- (“Interpretation”) points in another direction and to an existen- ing to see that Ephesians :– and Titus :–, texts which tial dimension of the matter. The two major assumptions of the speak to Gentiles and are quite clear in placing faith and works in new perspective (cited by Corley and documented in Dunn, ,  opposition in the matter of salvation, reflect Pauline thought. ff.) are the following: () the Judaism of Paul’s day was not a legal- Two questions arise with regard to the new perspective’s con- istic religion in which acceptance with God was earned through tention that Paul offers no critique of the law: () Paul’s critique of works of the law; and () Paul’s doctrine of justification implied the law is that the law cannot be fulfilled by humankind, cannot no critique of the law, but addressed the entry of Gentiles into the save, and serves to point out and exacerbate sin. If, however, Paul people of God. What is at stake? In Corley’s view, “this approach does not offer a critique of the law or if his critique is not valid, represents a frontal assault on the Augustinian-Lutheran para- what does one make of Paul’s assertion that Christ became a curse digm, arguing that earlier understanding was a drastic misread- in order to redeem those who were under the law? Is he mistaken ing of both Judaism and Paul.” about the plight and mistaken about the solution? Paul may have With respect to the first assumption, Seyoon Kim (“Reconcili- seen the solution before he really understood the plight, but that ation”) asserts that it is precisely in the matter of legalism that does not invalidate his assessment of the plight. () Paul’s critique Paul made an innovation in the Jewish idea of reconciliation, of the law points to its accusatory character. But if Paul does not namely, that it is not human beings who reconcile an angry God critique the law, and if, therefore, the law has no important to themselves with their prayers, repentance, or good works (Jew- accusatory function, what is to be done with the law in preaching? ish legalism); rather, it is God who reconciles human beings to Is it to be preached only in its so-called third use? The Lutherans himself through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Perhaps it is have asked questions about the law before and have a pretty good because Luke has not been fully rehabilitated yet and because he framework for dealing with the new ones that come up in relation is the alleged perpetrator of the supposed misundertanding that to issues such as the new perspective. the new perspective is trying to reverse, that none of the essayists Martin A. Teigen point to his account of the Pharisee and the Publican as Jesus’ Mankato, Minnesota own commentary on Jewish legalism. As to the second assumption of the new perspective, Stephen Westerholm responds with a Lutheranesque set of eight theses on the law. In his view— one that might make the reader wonder if The Foolishness of Preaching: Proclaiming the Gospel against the he might not be familiar with Lutheran confessional writings— Wisdom of the World. By Robert Farrar Capon. Grand Rapids: when Paul affirms that Adamic humanity cannot submit to God’s William B. Eerdmans, .  pages. Paper. .. law, that the law cannot serve for them as a path to righteousness and life, that the law highlighted and exacerbated human h First there was Eugene Peterson. Now there is Eugene Peter- bondage to sin, he is offering a Christian reevaluation, a critique, son with an attitude! His name is Robert Farrar Capon. And his of the law made from the point of view of the cross. It is only in latest book is guaranteed to infuriate, stimulate, and educate any- the Messiah’s cross that the true nature and weakness of the law is one who reads it. clearly seen. (It should be noted here that Paul was probably a The Foolishness of Preaching is really two homiletics books— satisfied Jew before his conversion, and it is not necessary to one on theory and one on delivery— bound together in one. In it demand anguish of conscience on his part as a prerequisite of Capon, an Episcopalian priest, sets out to speak to both clergy conversion. But it was the cross of Christ that pointed out to him and laity of all denominational stripes. His goal is twofold: first, the problem with the law, a problem that he did not understand to make an impassioned plea for what he considers to be the the- before his conversion, a problem that he later found himself ological bedrock of preaching, and second, to demonstrate the obligated to spell out to his fellow Jews, as well as to Gentiles, in nuts and bolts of his own sermon preparation. order that they might see that before God and without Christ all Capon addresses his first goal in part , “The Bedrock of come up empty-handed. The only anguish we know about in Preaching.” Here he seeks to unpack his understanding of the Paul is that which he experienced after his conversion.) book’s sub-title. Here he identifies the wisdom of the world with The new perspective, as Dunn represents it, does not deny that a denial that death is salutary and with the promotion instead of justification by faith and not by works is a Pauline slogan. It con- what is termed “cult, creed, and conduct” (). The death of tends, however, that Paul’s affirmation of justification by faith which Capon speaks is first of all Christ’s, but secondarily also without the works of the law is a charge not against work-right- that of every Christian — especially preachers. In chapter , “A eousness but against Jewish particularism. Dunn’s spin on Philip- Passion for the Passion,” he argues forcefully that the cross of pians :– is that it is not first a denial of human initiative in sal- Christ must be at the center of all preaching. Contrasting this vation, but rather a rejection of Jewish particularism. The with the emptiness of self-help preaching, he argues that it is pre- emphasis in the phrase “my own righteousness” does not fall on cisely in the “deaths” and disasters of life that the good news of  

Christ’s death shines forth. The problem, he says, is to get preach- Daily Office, as well as the importance of using the original lan- ers themselves to believe it. This task then occupies the remainder guages, and the discipline of daily prayer. of part . My chief criticism of this work is that it is two completely diff- In chapter , “Stumbling Blocks,” he addresses the personal erent books in one, and that the second (more helpful) part is not faith of preachers, asserting that the typical career of ladder- intimated by the title, and is even overshadowed by part . A sec- climbing robs preachers of the edge of being “fools for Christ’s ond edition of the book should at least try harder to promote sake” (). This he explains by suggesting that “the great-grandfa- part  on the front cover. ther of all stumbling blocks” for pastors is “the fear of losing—of Even on its own merit, however, the first part was not very looking like a failure, and above all of being a failure” (). Most helpful for me. The general thesis, that the preacher must preach Christians, he says— pastors included — are too afraid of death to himself, is true enough. But the author’s liberal excesses cou- and spend their lives trying to deny it. He concludes the chapter pled with an often too-glib style are a little much to bear. Rather by “naming the biggest obstacle to the faith of preachers: their than extol the preacher’s sins, it seems that part  might better unwillingness to accept death as the instrument of their personal have extolled the confession of them and holy absolution as a salvation” (). means of achieving the desired death and resurrection. But alas, In chapter  Capon seems to relish more than ever the shock this is only “cult!” I was often confused, in part , with the use of value of his words. He begins tamely enough by stressing the the term “death,” especially regarding its subject. At first the death importance for preachers of admitting that they too are dead in of Christ was clearly emphasized as the bedrock of preaching. But their trespasses and sins and must “welcome the annihilation of as the book progressed it really emphasized more the “death” of our glittering images of moral success and clerical reputability” the preacher and each Christian. The connection between the (). But then he goes on to exalt and extol the importance of two could have been better clarified. sin in the preacher’s life saying, “We must not despise our sins, Part  was by far the more valuable portion of the book, in my or fear them as evidence of condemnation; we must relish them opinion. While I was generally not satisfied with the actual con- as the most impressive testimonials we have to our salvation” tent of the sermons, this was not the point of their inclusion. The (). He continues saying “that by the grace of God, we live all step-by-step explanation of moving from biblical text to sermon our lives in an irremovable suit of forgiveness” and “that every sin delivery was both interesting and helpful. we ever commit will be committed inside that suit— and there- In conclusion, I think that part  of this book (especially chap- fore that every sin in our lives is forgiven before, during, and ters  and , on how to hear Scripture and how to preach from after our commission of it. We don’t need to get forgiveness; we notes) would make excellent required reading for any homiletics need to learn how to cheer up in the forgiveness we’ve had all course or suggested reading for any pastor seeking to improve (or along” (). The chapter concludes with a personal testimony initiate) his preaching from notes. Capon has a very fresh and about one such flagrant sin and a provocative (universalist) exe- engaging style that makes him enjoyable to read, even when he gesis of Matthew . infuriates you. Fully admitting his provocative agenda now, Capon continues Peter Kristoff Lange his argument by saying that preachers are “addicted to religion” Concordia, Missouri (), which he labels as “cult, creed, and conduct” (). Cult, he says, “is all the ceremonial rigmarole . . . that you have to go through in order to persuade God to continue being pleasant to you.” Creed “is all the things you have to think correctly about in A Boy Named Jesus. By Robert Aron. Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, order to be religious.” And conduct is “the struggle to comply .  pages. Paper. .. with long lists of spiritual or ethical requirements you have to fulfill if you want to be on God’s good side” (). This triad recurs Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings. Edited by Marcus Borg. repeatedly in the remainder of the book as a favorite whipping Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, .  pages. Hardcover. .. boy whose chief aim, according to Capon, is the control of others. Part  concludes with two extended exegetical treatments (John  The Original Jesus. By Tom Wright. Grand Rapids: William B. and Acts ) and a return to the theme of death — both Christ’s Eerdmans, .  pages. Hardcover. and our own — as being the antidote to the ills detailed above. Part  of the book may be summarized much more quickly (it hAs these three Jesus titles suggest, the first focuses on his has lots of pictures). Here Capon demonstrates the nuts and bolts youth, the second on his adult sayings that seem parallel to those of his own sermon preparation. Most notable is the chapter detail- of Buddha, and the third provides a brief, popular overview of ing how he prepares to preach from notes with the aid of a com- Jesus’ life and career. A brief comment on each. puter. Included are many reproductions of what his Microsoft Robert Aron, a widely read French historian prior to his death Word-generated notes look like. Though preaching from notes in , explores the Jewish roots of the young Jesus in the first of receives the most attention, this section is also helpful on manu- these studies, providing us the best portrait of first-century Jew- script preaching. These two chapters at the heart of part  are pre- ish youth and education since the work of Alfred Edersheim. This ceded, in chapter seven, by an excellent discussion (à la Eugene is not one of those “hidden books of the Bible” offerings that Peterson) of “The Ingredients of Preaching.” Here Capon touches extract infancy narratives from the apocryphal New Testament on how to read (hear!) the Scriptures in sermon study and the gospels and are long on fantasy but short on fact. Rather, without   deviating from the biblical record, Aron supplies much relevant When the Anglican Dean of Lichfield Cathedral in England data about the sort of training and education a youth would writes a superb historical-theological study, Jesus and the Victory receive in New Testament Palestine. He also nicely supplements of God (which also indicts the Jesus Seminar for its shabby this with relevant material from the Greco-Roman environment methodology), he is known as N. T. Wright. But when he writes a of classical antiquity. brief, handsomely illustrated book intended for popular reader- Unfortunately, it is not Aron’s text but the introduction to it by ship entitled The Original Jesus, he becomes Tom Wright. Under controversialist Bishop John Shelby Spong that suffers. In starting either name, Wright is certainly one of the leading Jesus scholars to read Spong’s segment, I wondered just how soon his first of our day and quite unlike the gaggle of sensationalists in and assault on the biblical sources would occur. I did not have to wait out of the Jesus Seminar who seem to command so much atten- long: as early as the second paragraph, Spong writes about the tion in the media. Because of his excellent insights, reliable schol- episode of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple as follows: arship, and even a flair for writing, Wright can communicate with any audience. Yet the temple visit at age twelve we now recognize to be part In these pages, the first half of which were adapted from his of the birth tradition, which is almost universally regarded  series on the BBC, Wright sketches in broad strokes the life today as midrashic storytelling and not history. It is in all and message of Jesus as “God with a human face.” In the second probability a Samuel story being retold about Jesus (ii). half of the book, he also provides a highly readable introduction to the Gospels in fresh, untraditional language. For example, in What is pathetic is how Aron, on the contrary, devotes major differentiating the four Gospels, Wright states: space to this episode in his text, deeming it fully historical! Clearly, Ray Riegert, the book’s editor (/translator?), should have John’s Gospel is designed to bring you to your knees in won- asked someone more sympathetic with Aron’s historical method- der, love and praise. Luke’s is meant to make you sit up and ology to write the introduction to this otherwise valuable study. think hard about Jesus as Lord of the whole world. Matthew’s The teachings of the mature Jesus, of course, fill our gospels, is like a beautifully bound book which the Christian must and in his book Jesus and Buddha, the Jesus Seminar scholar Mar- study and ponder at leisure. Mark’s is like a hastily printed cus Borg has tried to match sayings of Jesus that would seem to revolutionary tract, stuffed into a back pocket . . . read by parallel statements made by Gautama Buddha. Inevitably, two torchlight, and whispered to one’s co-conspirators (). teachers who lived  years and , miles apart would never have used identical phrases, but a few of their thoughts and ideas Even the bibliography is worthwhile, interesting reading! do have some congruence. For example, Buddha said, “Consider Because The Original Jesus is comparatively slim and filled with others as yourself,” while Jesus taught, “Do unto others as you excellent color illustrations, it might be passed off as something would have them do to you” (Lk :). Again, said Buddha, not worth a serious reading. This would be a decided mistake! “Those who have sufficient faith in me and sufficient love for me are headed for heaven or beyond,” while Jesus said, “Whoever lives and believes in me will never die” (Jn :). Most other “parallels,” however, are somewhat less than that. The Rise of Christianity. By Rodney Stark. San Francisco: Harper, For example, Jesus: “Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin,” .  pages. Paper. .. (Jn :), whereas Buddha: “People compelled by craving crawl like snared rabbits.” Still others are not parallel at all, even though One Jesus, Many Christs: The Truth about Christian Origins. By apparently claimed to be so. Juxtaposed to Jesus’ famous mission- Gregory J. Riley. San Francisco: Harper, .  pages. Hard- ary command in Matthew , for example, is Buddha’s cover. ..

Teach the dharma which is lovely at the beginning, lovely in h In the face of Roman imperial persecution as well as fierce the middle, lovely at the end. Explain with the spirit and the rivalry from religious competitors, how could Christianity not letter in the fashion of Brahma. In this way you will be com- only survive but go on to dominate the West? Many answers have pletely fulfilled and wholly pure. been given to this question — a favorite on doctoral examina- tions— but Rodney Stark provides a fresh perspective with some The originality of neither Buddha nor Jesus is diminished by truly illuminating insights. Professor of sociology and compara- such parallels— near or remote — some of which do indeed tive religion at the University of Washington, Stark goes beyond reveal timeless truths. Jesus’ statements, however, have far greater the standard historical analyses to deal with issues involving such authority and credibility by being anchored in a gospel context sociological rubrics as the following: with impeccable geographical, historical, and even archaeological Demographics: yes, it was statistically possible for Christianity to credentials. The same cannot be said for Buddha. win over half of the Roman Empire by the mid s, even if there An editorial quibble might be added. Had more than one set of were only (by Stark’s calculation) a thousand Christians in .. . parallels been printed on each of the two opposing pages, this Class considerations: Christianity was not limited primarily to book could easily have been one-third its size without sacrificing the lower classes and slaves, as popularly assumed. More middle- a syllable. As it stands, you can easily read this -page text in less and upper-class Greeks and Romans were also involved in the than a half hour, courtesy of its copious blank space. early church than previously thought.  

Jewish conversions: More Jews became Christians, even into the that were narrowed by the age of the creeds beginning with fourth century, than hitherto supposed. Constantine in  into a single orthodoxy lasting until the Epidemics: Plagues sweeping the Roman Empire — a phenom- time of the Reformation, and then bulging again into the enon often overlooked in this discussion —worked to Christian rather spectacular diversity of Christianity in the modern advantage because of a greater survival rate among church people world (). who, unlike pagans, cared nobly for their sick. The role of women: In startling contrast to paganism, where This is true enough. Even supposedly “triumphalist” histori- men outnumbered women as much as  to  because of ans like Eusebius fill the pages of their church histories with female infanticide, Christianity forbade both abortion and infan- mention of many sects and heresies in the early church, ticide, resulting in larger families and more offspring. although Riley would be less inclined to call them heresies Stark provides also the more standard explanations for Christ- because of what he claims as the absence of any standard ortho- ian success that involved church organization, the intrinsic qual- doxy in the earliest centuries. That there was indeed something ity of the faith, the bankruptcy of paganism, and the example of of a standard or catholic core, however, could well be argued the martyrs. He defends the last against the inane charge by Rid- against this author’s claims. dle, Reik, and others that the martyrs were masochists who Riley is extremely well versed in the whole cultural milieu of enjoyed the pain— a new low in academic idiocy! Similarly, he Judaism, Greco-Roman paganism, Persian and eastern teach- disposes of Gibbon’s famous claim that Christianity caused the ings, and the Mediterranean mystery cults that served as the fall of Rome by demonstrating quite the reverse: the church, in fermenting seed-bed for Christianity. Ancient heroic myth fact, helped revitalize the aging Empire. after myth is paraded in these pages to demonstrate parallels Stark seems, however, to have underestimated the number of with Christian beliefs regarding Jesus. Whereas James Frazer in the earliest Christian converts, discounting— as do many critical his The Golden Bough used such parallels to suggest indebted- historians— the conversion claims in the book of Acts and the ness, Riley appears more concerned to demonstrate how Jesus letters of Paul. But if the reliable Roman historian Tacitus can could have been so readily adopted by pagan Gentiles in the report “a great multitude of Christians” persecuted by Nero in a Mediterranean world of his day. Ever since the Iliad and the Rome , miles distant just one generation after the first Christ- Odyssey, they had resonated to the concept of the tragic hero ian Pentecost, Luke would seem closer to the true number than before. Christian theology, however, would suggest another Stark. On the other hand, Stark appears to overestimate the num- reason for their embracing Christ: the proclamation of the ber of Jewish converts who, he claims, still streamed into the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit. church as late as the fourth century. Paul L. Maier Aside from statistical disputes, however, this book is excel- Western Michigan University lent, effortless reading that abounds in fresh data and original Kalamazoo, Michigan research. As the above examples demonstrate, Stark has opened new avenues for further inquiry into the rise of Christianity. Future historians of the early church will have to involve find-   ings like this. B N Gregory J. Riley, a New Testament scholar at the Claremont Meditations on the Cross. By Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Edited by School of Theology in California, answers the question that Manfred Weber. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Louisville, KY: opened this review in a different fashion. According to his latest Westminster Press, . book, One Jesus, Many Christs, the church succeeded because the struggle, suffering, and death of Jesus was that of a “tragic hero” h Arranged as a series of meditations for devotional reading, very well-known in various guises in the pagan Greco-Roman these selections from sermons, letters, and books of Dietrich world ever since Homer and Olympian mythology, particularly Bonhoeffer center on the theme of the cross— both Christ’s and as this image was mediated in the subsequent mystery religions. the Christian’s. The power and personality of this hero was far more significant in attracting pagans to Christianity than the varieties of its teach- Mark: Ancient Christian Commentary on the New Testament. ings, which were far more diverse in the early church than the Edited by Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall. Downer’s unity assumed from historians like Eusebius or symbols like the Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, . Apostles’ Creed. h General editor Thomas Oden states: Scholars, of course, have long been aware of the multiform variety of teaching in early Christianity, but, according to Riley, The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture has as its many still depict the church as a “tree with straight trunk that goal the revitalization of Christian teaching based on clas- gradually branches out in many directions.” The true historical sical Christian exegesis, the intensified study of Scripture picture, he claims, resembles instead by lay persons who wish to think with the early church about the canonical text, and the stimulation of Christian an hourglass or barbell, with wide bottom, narrow middle, historical, biblical, theological and pastoral scholars and wide top, symbolizing rather wide differences of opin- toward further inquiry into scriptural interpretation by ion at the beginning of the history of the Church, opinions ancient Christian writers (xi).  

Each pericope of the Marcan text (from the Revised Standard through the university. Harran demonstrates that the Reforma- Version of the Bible) is introduced with a paragraph summa- tion was both shaped by the academy and set in motion changes rizing the patristic interpretation of the text. A variety of com- that would shape the academy in the modern world. Chapter , ments from patristic writers are organized under topical head- “Martin Luther: A Child and Student of the Catechism,” ings. The volume concludes with an appendix entitled describes the Catechisms from the perspective of Luther’s under- “Method of Investigation into the Early Exegesis of Mark,” in standing of education. which the editors give their rationale for the patristic selections used in the commentary. This is an attractively done volume First Person Singular: Reflections on Worship, Liturgy, and that promises to be useful both in preaching and the devotional Children. By Carl Schalk. St. Louis: Morningstar Music Pub- reading of Scripture. lishers, . h Veteran River Forest music professor Carl Schalk introduces Sacred Meditations. By John Gerhard. Translated by C. W. this collection of personal reflections as “politically incorrect dis- Heisler. Decatur, IL: Repristination Press, . courses.” Schalk is not afraid to challenge such common h Repristination Press is rendering a distinguished service to assumptions as “liturgy and church music are just a matter of English-speaking Lutheranism by resurrecting theological and taste” or “Lutheran hymns are too difficult for children.” Written devotional classics of the church. First published in Latin in in a conversational tone, this book is a no-nonsense apologetic  as Meditationes Sacrae when its author was only twenty- for liturgy and hymnody. Here is a a sample: two years old, this book reflects the piety of Lutheran ortho- doxy. From the pages of Sacred Meditations we see how this Regarding worship and music— for our children’s sake if piety was shaped by the themes of the Catechism, firmly for no other reason — perhaps we should pay less attention grounded in the means of grace, and lived out under the cross. to those advocating faddish whims and passing fashions and more to those who can help young and old alike grow Martin Luther: Learning for Life. By Marilyn J. Harran. St. Louis: into the church’s worship, the church’s song, and the  CPH, . church’s life ( ). h Marilyn J. Harran, a professor of religion and history at Schalk offers some solid advice as to how this might be done. Chapman University in Orange, California, has traced Luther’s First Person Singular is an excellent book for church musicians, own academic career from his early childhood education Lutheran school teachers, Sunday school teachers, and parents.

JTP L Forum S S  C

T D   of sacramentaries and liturgical treatises and books about the scru-  tinies, but very few catechetical writings. C The catechumenate decayed; it was buried under the scruti- nies. This would perhaps have been less dangerous if conditions Michael Reu, Catechetics: Or Theory and Practise of Religious had been such that but few unbaptized adults remained within    Instruction (Chicago: Wartburg Publishing House, ), – . the precincts of the Church; but the opposite is true: as the Roman Empire crumbled before the onslaught of the barbaric fi The catechumenate of the Early Church received its rst blow peoples, ever new pagan nations settled within the boundaries of when the heathen in large masses crowded to the baptismal font. the Church which needed thorough instruction and training. Still, a considerable measure of Christian knowledge was imparted The sad state of affairs was aggravated by the fact that even those and a reasonably thorough moral training was accomplished as baptized in infancy received no regular or sufficient training. A long as the church insisted upon a careful examination of the bap- spiritually sterile Church, poisoned by hierarchic thoughts with ffi tismal candidates, upon a catechumenate of su cient length, and, its emphasis on mystic-theurgic acts, was unable to renew these especially, upon thorough instruction during the competent nations inwardly though she subdued them outwardly—with period. Now, however, just these three essential conditions were the help of the state. increasingly disregarded. The preparatory catechetical discourse was discarded, probably as early as the fifth century. The time of a catechumenate was dangerously shortened. Thus in  the Synod of Agde declared that Jewish converts   must remain in the catechumenate for eight months; hence, ordi- U O narily the time of preparation was still briefer (this action was From C. S. Lewis, Christian Apologetics, , –. Lewis, a con- taken because experience had showed that many former Jews with- fessed layman, is addressing an assembly of Anglican priests and drew from the church soon after they had joined). This, however, youth leaders. Emphasis added. was not all. At the council at Bracara in  time for low instruc-  tion of competentes was actually cut down to days; and in most It is not, of course, for me to define to you what Anglican Chris- cases religious instruction was so completely overshadowed by ever tianity is—I am your pupil, not your teacher. But I insist that increasing scrutinies that only a few formulae were memorized. wherever you draw the lines, bounding lines must exist, beyond That was all that remained of instruction which had one time had which your doctrine will cease either to be Anglican or to be Chris- been conscientiously cultivated and cherished as an indispensable tian: and I suggest also that the lines come a great deal sooner than obligation of the Church. But all the alien elements adapted from many modern priests think. I think it is your duty to fix the lines paganism, the ceremonies and Magic formulae, were retained in clearly in your own minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you the Church. No wonder that this period produced large numbers must change your profession. This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a A   L F may be reprinted freely for study and dialogue in congregations and conferences with the understanding that special professional conscience which obscures the very plain appropriate bibliographical references be made. Initialed pieces are moral issue. Men who have passed beyond these boundary lines written by contributing editors whose names are noted on our mast- in either direction are apt to protest that they have come by their head. Brief articles may be submitted for consideration by sending them unorthodox opinions honestly. In defence of their opinions they to L Forum,  S. Hanna, Fort Wayne, IN -. When possi- are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional .  ble, please provide your work on a -inch Windows/ compatible advancement. They thus come to feel like martyrs. But this sim- diskette. Because of the large number of unsolicited materials received, ply misses the point which so gravely scandalizes the layman. We we regret that we cannot publish them all or notify authors in advance of their publication. Since L is “a free conference in print,” readers never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held. should understand that views expressed here are the sole responsibility What we complain of is your continuing your ministry after you of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the editors. have come to hold them.   

T W R in his words, Jesus’ breathed words, and with the words his Spirit. As he had said, “The words that I speak to you, they are Spirit and Sermon for Cantate Sunday, May , , delivered by the Reverend they are life.” His words run with his Spirit; they are alive with his Dr. Norman E. Nagel at University Lutheran Chapel on the occasion Spirit, whose work it is to deliver what the words say. The words of the fifteenth anniversary of the ordination of Rev. John T. Pless, that our Lord gives them to say are the words of forgiveness. They based on John :–. are his lively words that go into their ears so that they may come out of their mouths, his words that he uses their mouths for his Campus memory is short, much shorter than fifteen years. Stu- speaking them. As we confess in the Catechism: dents come, students go. Pastors come, pastors go. What stays? What remains? What carries through? We could play some socio- I believe that, when the called ministers of Christ deal with logical theory. The best of that would be talking about people — us by his divine command, especially when they exclude very useful, but also very variable. What remains as surely as our manifest and impenitent sinners from the Christian congre- Lord is sure is the font, Scripture, confession and absolution, gation, and, again, when they absolve those who repent of altar and pulpit. Places and people move on, but they have with their sins and are willing to amend, this is as valid and cer- them always what was given them: the gifts. Putting his name on tain, in heaven also, as if Christ, our dear Lord, dealt with us them with the water, his speaking his words into them, words Himself.* carrying his forgiveness and life as surely as he gives into them his body and blood. These abide for sure, and each week are given With this we confess our pastors to be in the apostolic ministry, as into us deeper and surer. we do also in the Tractate. What was given the apostles was a task, So today again we began “in the name,” and so we began as an office, beyond the lifetime of the apostles, and they in turn put those baptized by the Lord. Then we were given his forgiveness, others into the task, the office of the holy ministry, and yet not they and in a way that our Lord leaves no doubt that he is the one who but the Lord in holy ordination, for he does the ordaining. So it is won it and who delivers it, in a way which cannot be rendered the Lord whom we thank for putting John Pless into the office of doubtful by reference to any person. That is to say that it is the the holy ministry fifteen years ago. Today we give thanks also for office that does it. Yet the office is not going on unless the Lord has Betty, his mother, and all mothers who taught their children the put a man into it for his use to speak in his name and to deliver his Scriptures and the life of prayer, along with Lois and Eunice, with gifts. Today we gratefully rejoice in his having put John Pless into it Hannah and with Mary. and having put him here. Yet he is not the ground of certainty of Our confessions speak of holy ordination, and so as that which our Lord’s giving out his gifts, but the office. This is what we con- the Lord does, surely does when done according to his mandate fess when we confess the office of the holy ministry. and institution, whose words were spoken upon him and into Holy is what is the Lord’s, what is from him, and with the him and prayer born of those words was spoken of him. That it means of grace what he is the doer of: holy baptism, holy absolu- was into him that the words, with them the Holy Spirit, were tion, holy communion, holy ministry. As the Large Catechism given, was made unmistakably clear with the laying of hands says: “To be baptized in God’s name is to be baptized not by men upon his head. Man’s hands, the Lord’s hands, the Lord’s man- but by God himself. Although it is performed by the man’s hands, dated and ordained servant. it is nevertheless truly God’s own act.” We are sure of this because The gift of these words and Spirit are what has kept, sustained, it is by the Lord’s mandate. What he has mandated, what he has and carried him through these fifteen years here at University instituted, he is committed to, he stays with it, he does it; and so Lutheran Chapel. Ordained and called, he is put by the Lord to he it is who sees it through. So that the means of grace will keep speak the words of the Lord to you, words which carry and bestow going on, he has instituted the office of the holy ministry, as we Jesus and his gifts— for they are alive with the Holy Spirit, who confess in the Augsburg Confession. For the words of institution, with his words works the delivery of the gifts which the words say. the mandate, our confessions quote Matthew , Mark , Luke Gifts are given to us from outside ourselves. All that our Savior , and John . What bounty! Matthew  gives also the words of did for us comes only as gift from outside ourselves, and so by institution of holy baptism and John  the office of the keys. the means of grace: holy baptism, holy absolution, holy commu- When you have confessed the office of the keys, what is there nion; and for these thus coming to us, the office of the holy min- more to say of the holy ministry? istry. That is gift which is given in the way of from outside our- The one who gives the mandate identifies himself by the selves. The office of the holy ministry is going on when a man has wounds of Calvary. “He showed them his hands and his side.” He been put into it. Then there is he who preaches and those who who has answered for all our sins, he who has come through, our hear. Where both, there the church: clergy and people, shepherd risen Lord, has achieved forgiveness and salvation, which are only and flock, pastor and people. Not the one without the other. The his doing; now he arranges for the delivery. “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Those whose *From a catechetical section on the office of the keys, not by Luther him- sins you forgive, they are forgiven them; those whose sins you self, but found in sixteenth-century editions of the Catechism used in Sax- ony and Thuringia and brought to America by the Saxon fathers of the retain, they are retained.” Jesus’ words, Jesus’ breath, Jesus’ Spirit, Missouri Synod. This section is included in editions of the Small Cate- and Jesus’ words. Where does the breath of Jesus stop and start? It chism published by the LCMS. See M. Reu, Luther’s Small Catechism doesn’t. His breath is in his words, in his breathing upon them, and (Chicago: Wartburg Publishing House, ), –—ed.   

Roman error enunciated at Trent was that the clergy run it. The into your pastor and through your pastor. Pastor Luther exclaimed, counterpart error is to say, no, the people run it. Both are wrong; “What could be more happy and joyful than this?” it is not the clergy’s church or the laity’s church. We do not run the church; it is the Lord’s church, and we are sure of that when We do not depend on our own strength, conscience, experi- what he has mandated and given are going on: the means of ence, person or works, but depend on that which is outside grace. And for their going on he instituted the holy ministry. We ourselves— that is on the promise and truth of God which are sure of holy baptism when it is according to our Lord’s man- cannot deceive. date and institution. We are sure of holy communion when it is according to our Lord’s institution, and so also holy absolution Stance of faith for fifteen years of blessing to you and through and holy ministry. That is how it goes in the confessions. Dr. you, and for all what more our Lord has still to give you. Amen. Luther says it beautifully:

For we must believe and be sure of this, that baptism does not belong to us but to Christ, that the gospel does not belong to us but to Christ, that the office of preaching does    not belong to us but to Christ, that the sacrament [of the O C Lord’s supper] does not belong to us but to Christ, that the  D keys, or forgiveness and retention of sins, do not belong to us but to Christ. In summary, the offices [Ampt] and sacra- Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity , no.  (May/June ments do not belong to us but to Christ, for he has ordained ). all this and left it behind as a legacy in the church to be exer- cised and used to the end of the world: and he does not lie Open Communion, the practice of otherwise divided Christians or deceive us. Therefore, we cannot make anything else out sharing Communion without having formal church unity, often of it but must act according to his command and hold to it. has been compared to having sexual relations before marriage. I However, if we alter it or improve on it, then it is invalid and have never been completely comfortable with that analogy, so I’ll Christ is no longer present, nor his ordinance. pose a slightly different one. If a man and wife legally separate, get It is not our work or speaking but the command and divorced, split up the property and the kids, remain single, and ordinance of Christ which make the bread the body and then some years later meet one another again, must they get the wine the blood, beginning with the first Lord’s Supper remarried before sleeping together? and continuing to the end of the world, and it is adminis- It seems that championing open Communion is similar to tered daily through our ministry or office. We hear these encouraging a divorced couple (who haven’t remarried) to sleep words, “This is my body,” not as spoken concerning the together whenever they wish. Until they formally address those person of the pastor or the minister but as coming from issues that caused the breakup of the first home and formally Christ’s own mouth who is present and says to us: “Take, bind themselves to unity in one house, there can be no genuine eat, this is my body.” marital love, no reconciled family. As much as we rejoice to see This is and must be our foundation and sure rock: Where them on the road toward full reconciliation, our encouragement the gospel is rightly and purely preached, there a holy, Chris- of their sleeping together without taking the step of remarriage tian church must be. And whoever doubts this may as well merely stems from sentiment and sympathy uninformed by also doubt whether the gospel is God’s word. But where moral reasoning. there is a holy Christian church, there all the sacraments, Christ himself and the Holy Spirit must be.

So it is here at University Lutheran [Chapel]. Pastors come and    pastors go. Each has his set of personal gifts; no pastor has them all. A M T Such a personal lack may not be used to deflect from the Lord or as Carl Schalk, First Person Singular: Worship Through Alice’s Look- a defense against him. If you have a problem with the Lord, best ing Glass and Other Reflections on Worship, Liturgy, and Children you face up to him and not dodge him by blaming your pastor. But (St. Louis: Morningstar Music Publishers, ), –. that is to look too much at the man. What a pastor is really worth is the office into which the Lord has put him, that is, as an instru- Every day standards and guidelines shape our lives. Without regu- ment of the means of grace. The Lord runs them even when the lations governing food, drink, health, safety, and even the state of man covered over by the vestments falters. And so we are refer- the air we breathe, our lives, health, and general well-being would enced to the Lord; he does not falter, and so for our pastor we pray be seriously at risk. Standards for healthy living are a fact of life and that the Lord would keep him faithful, and strengthen him are welcomed everywhere. through temptation and adversity, and give him joy in pointing Everywhere, it seems, except in discussions about the church’s you always to our Lord. worship and music. There, some say, everyone is entitled to his or He has been hearing your prayers, and so we pray large prayers her own opinion, no matter how uninformed or harmful such of thankfulness today in the confidence of the words of our Lord opinions may be. The self-evident connection between the music   of worship and spiritual health — affirmed by the Church in every Rather, he noted, “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship age — is conveniently overlooked. in spirit and in truth” (Jn :). “It’s all a matter of taste.” And with that, any attempt to establish In our own day, we may recognize similar arguments to those even basic liturgical or musical standards in parishes goes out the used by Samaritans and Jews. Our contemporaries would argue window. One predictable result is the inane concoction of musical about two other mountains of worship: Mount Tradition and and liturgical trivialities served up to many congregations Sunday Mount Contemporary, but these two represent a false antithesis. after Sunday as “relevant and meaningful.” Our enemies— the devil, the world, the curse of the law, and our But after all, isn’t “beauty in the eye of the beholder?” Erik flesh — are at the same time both traditional and contemporary. Routley once commented that “there is no . . . miserable or They are as ancient as Adam and Eve’s first sin and are still quite demoralizing hymn tune, no mawkish anthem or organ volun- modern. The Lord deals with these enemies by spirit and truth, by tary [and, we might add, no insipid setting of the liturgy] . . . the water and the word, by his true body and precious blood. but somebody has thought it beautiful.” The usual argument in Spirit and truth are not things we create or choose. Rather, they favor of bad music is that fine tunes are without a doubt “musi- are present in the gracious means by which the Lord creates in us a cally correct,” but people want something simple. In fact, as clean heart and a right spirit. True worship receives these gifts with Routley suggests, the phrase “musically correct” has little mean- gladness where they are given according to our Lord’s mandate. ing; the only “correct” music is that which is beautiful and And that is the well where both men and women receive living noble in character. As for simplicity, what could be simpler than water to their great joy. St. Anne or Old Hundredth? JAB Seeking musical refuge in “what I like” or “what appeals to me” is to withdraw into an individualism which seeks personal gratification before the building up of the community of faith. It avoids the simple fact that, in Ralph Vaughan Williams’ words,     the issue is, first of all, a theological and moral issue rather than T G W K a musical one. After serving for more than thirty years on the faculty of Luther Semi- It may be one thing, in Vaughan Williams’ words, “to dwell in nary in St. Paul, Minnesota, Gerhard Forde has now retired. The ser- the miasma of the languishing and sentimental hymn tunes [and mon he preached at the Baccalaureate service on May , , was a church music] which often disfigure our services.” It is quite sort of valedictory address. Over the years Forde has devoted consider- another when such an attitude is encouraged by those charged able time to Luther’s Bondage of the Will, and he summarizes his with leadership in worship. To say, for example, that the choice of convictions in a recent article in dialog: hymns in worship is simply “a matter of taste” is ultimately to avoid taking responsibility for the spiritual, musical, and moral As fallen beings we are compelled and driven. Our claims to development of ourselves and our children. freedom vis-à-vis God are precisely our rebellion against God. In matters medical we reject the advice and counsel of our doc- This is our original sin — a sin by which we are bound — we tor at our own peril. are not forced to it, we will it. That being the case, no theoreti- Regarding worship and its music— for our children’s sake if for cal or theological reformulation will help. The sinner cannot be no other reason — perhaps we should pay less attention to those cured by a more subtle theology. We can’t sit in our studies and advocating faddish whims and passing fashions and more to those save people. So the conclusion became inevitable: the only rem- who can help young and old alike grow into the church’s worship, edy for the sinner is death. Thus follows the matter of becoming the church’s song, and the church’s life. theologians of the cross. The old Adam or Eve must die and the new come forth who — for the time being — lives by faith alone. Somewhat in that fashion through the years my theology took shape. As I put it in my little book on justification, it is a   matter of death and life. And such death and life cannot be T M simply a metaphor for transformation or a change of heart. The Samaritans and the Jews could not agree on a number of There must be a real savior, a real death, indeed, one in which things, but especially on where and how to worship. The Samari- we are involved and implicated, i.e., put to death, and, conse- tans pointed way back to the time of the exodus when the children quently, a real resurrection from the dead. of Israel were about to re-enter the promised land. At that time, Mount Gerizim was the mountain of God’s blessing (Dt :; We Lutherans must not forget that this message is given to us to :; Joshua :; Jgs :), as the Lord God himself had instructed. be preached. In this sermon Prof. Forde shows us how this is to be The Jews, however, preferred to look back to the time of King done. The assigned texts for the day were Exodus :–;  David, who established a glorious home for the ark of the covenant Corinthians :–; Mark :–. in Jerusalem on Mount Zion ( Sm :). This tension was apparent as our Lord Jesus met with the “At a lodging place on the way the L met Moses and sought to Samaritan woman at the well (Jn :–). The woman noted the kill him.” What a strange, shocking, and terrifying turn of events! point of contention, but Jesus redirected her. He did not fall into The L who had called Moses, ordered him back to Egypt, the argument of which mountain was the proper one for worship. argued him out of all his excuses, equipped him with miraculous    powers, given him all he needed to carry out his calling, even this is predictable. They dance on it as though it were a bed of hot revealed his sacred name to him, meets him along the way and coals. Nobody knows what to do with it. Most everyone tries to get tries to kill him. Not only a strange text, you might say, but a weird God off the hook. Surely God is not responsible for these strange choice for a baccalaureate service. And yet, I think we might say goings on! Some say it means that Moses got deathly sick. Is that that this little incident, tucked away and obscured from sight by its all? But what help is that? Are you comforted by such a thought? very strangeness, is Moses’ baccalaureate. Here he is, all prepared Does it help to cut God out of the picture? Some think it has some- for his mission, all his objections countered (like some I’ve heard thing to do with the business of circumcision — that Moses failed tell of now and then, he is not particularly happy about the situa- properly to observe the rite of circumcision either for himself or tion into which he is being called!), but he is given all the “leader- for his youngest son. But does that help? Is that a “meaning” that ship skills,” as we would say today, to meet the challenge — of makes trying to kill Moses easier to take? Some will say it is a bit of course he modestly claims he is no good at public speaking (where ancient mythology, perhaps used to explain the practice of circum- have you not heard that before?)— so he has to be fixed up with a cision. But shall we be protected from the terror by the mytholo- “mouthpiece,” a smooth talker like Aaron. (I guess they didn’t have gists? And so it goes. speech therapy in those days— or God was no good at it! — or There is no way through this text. That is just the point. That is didn’t care about it?) He even has miraculous powers to dazzle and the terror of it. We are driven to halt before it— and tremble. The upstage the Egyptian magicians. He has it all. God who meets Moses and tries to kill him brooks no explana- But he must have forgotten something. What could it be? Our tion, and neither asks for nor needs any. With Moses we need to text seems to leave us with just one possibility. It could only be realize that this is all God’s affair, and that God will do as he God, something to do with God. Could it be he forgot God? At any pleases and that we had best stand in awe. It would seem that rate it appears that God was not through with him yet. We can well what a text like this has to do with — at the very least— is simply imagine that he had become so preoccupied with his anxieties and the fear of God. And I expect we should not move too quickly to acquiring his skills and techniques, and so on and so forth that he lessen the gravity of such fear. We are accustomed, you might became all tangled up in himself and impressed with — or worried recall in our teaching, to make a distinction between servile about his qualifications and all of that. And he forgot God, the fear— the fear of a slave for an angry master— and filial fear— God who could call into being everything that is out of nothing the fear of a child for a loving parent. Well and good. But the and blow it all away again with no apologies, who could flood the problem is that such neat distinctions desert us when the crunch whole earth, who drove Abraham to offer up Isaac, the very child comes. I don’t suppose Moses, confronted with the God who was of promise; the God who wrestled with Jacob all night at the Jab- bent on killing him, would be likely to say, “I know, God, that you bok and set his mark on him and sent him limping on his way. He don’t really mean this, and that at bottom you are going to let me forgot, no doubt, that God was not one who could be cut down to go, so my fear here is really only filial!” No, if the Psalm for con- size, who could be manipulated, not even by magic tricks. He sideration in this service, Psalm  (which ancient tradition might even have begun to think that the whole exodus affair attributed to Moses), is any indication, Moses learned something depended on him. And so God encountered Moses at an inn along through it all. Listen to some of the words again. the way and tried to kill him. Tomorrow we will celebrate the graduation of the class of Thou dost sweep men away; they are like a dream, . Tomorrow will be a happy day, smiles and sweetness and like grass which is renewed in the morning. fl light, a rite of passage, speaking of degrees earned, achievements In the morning it ourishes and is renewed; accomplished and awards granted. We shall all enjoy it and take in the evening it fades and withers. pictures and embrace and laugh and celebrate. It will be a joyous Who considers the power of thy anger, day. But today we have other business to attend to. “Baccalaure- and thy wrath according to the fear of thee? ate” means, according to contemporary wisdom (no doubt it So teach us to number our days meant something else according to the ancients), an address in that we may get us a heart of wisdom. the form of a sermon made to those being graduated. (I looked that up so I would have some idea what I was supposed to be Moses learned something about the fear of the L. Moses doing.) Today, therefore, someone else must come to word. learned that he would have to go to his calling as one who had Today we have to do with the one in whom all this roots, the escaped death only by the mercy of God. He learned that past is Creator and Disposer over all things, who nevertheless met his past, over and done with, and that he would have to look to the chosen leader and tried to kill him. future, laying his trust on this God who ends the past and makes What does this say to us? The trouble with this text is that there all things new. is no way through it or around it. It doesn’t surrender a “meaning” What are we to make of this? This being brought suddenly to a for us to grab onto. We aren’t told the why’s or wherefore’s at all. halt? Surely it is that the fear of the L is the beginning of wis- Try to kill Moses? Why? There is no recorded conversation. God dom. Think on that! Our problem is that today God has become says nothing. We might be able to imagine what was going on in something of a cipher, more or less just an empty name. God has Moses’ soul, but God is another matter. The problem is that it is been virtually stripped of all that makes him God. He has been just opaque, we can’t see through it. All it renders to us is what reduced to a mere projection of our wants and needs. God has Luther would call the deus absconditus, the hidden God. It is an been remodeled, renamed, toned down, watered out until he is awesome, awful event. What interpreters try to do with a text like nothing but a patsy. Some years ago J. B. Phillips wrote a book   entitled Your God Is Too Small. Perhaps we need a sequel today degree will become much more understandable within the acad- called something like Your God Is Too Nice! We don’t know what to emic world” and that “the new nomenclature is much more do with a God who would meet Moses and try to kill him. I some- desirable for those from outside our shores, especially in Asia times wonder whether our perplexity indicates that we don’t actu- and South America.” ally believe in God at all anymore. Do we believe that there is Perhaps we’ve become a biblicistic church. But if theological someone “out there,” “up there,” “in the depths” or wherever we history is still of significance, it seems to me that important think he might be, running the show, presiding over life and death aspects of our tradition were overlooked in that decision. Two and all things? In such a strait this text calls us to halt and ponder questions must be raised: First, can one ignore Europe and the the fact that such halting before the mystery of the God whom Lutheran tradition in speaking of “the academic world”? Second, Moses met—which seems so incomprehensible — is, as a matter since when are Asia and South America important leaders of the of fact, the beginning of wisdom. It constrains us to take to heart academic tradition? It is not common in academia to regard the those words of Holderlin (Empedocles?) Latin American universities as having strong scholarly standards. This is partly due to the fact that they are a student-governed Away! I cannot bear the sight of him rather than faculty-led university system. Some of these universi- Who follows sacred callings like a trade ties are more famous for their student activism than for academic His face is false and cold and dead accomplishments. As are his gods! But behind this lies a more crucial problem. Our theology has So now I say to you, especially to those being graduated, but also been anchored in the Lutheran Reformation. One of the most to all: You will meet this God, yes, even a God who kills, sooner or important axioms since the time of Philipp Melanchthon has been later. So number your days that you get you a heart of wisdom. But that the distinction between theology and philosophy must be the mystery before which you are to halt only gets deeper and strictly upheld in church and school. Theology rests upon revela- deeper. For the fact is that you have already met this God. He has tion, whereas philosophy builds upon human reason, also given by put his mark on you in baptism. You are sealed with the cross of God, but distinct from the sacred Scriptures. This distinction has Christ forever. You are baptized into his death, buried with him, so been upheld by our fathers through the intervening centuries up that being raised, you might walk in newness of life. As our Epistle until the present. text proclaims, this God has actually carried through to comple- To confer a doctorate in philosophy for theological work is tion what he, in forbearance, didn’t do to Moses. “We are con- deceptive. It implies that either the decision of “changing the desig- vinced,” Paul announces, “that one has died for all; therefore all nation” from Th.D. to Ph.D. is misleading, or, worse yet, that a have died.” It’s all over. The death is past tense. You have died. As genuinely theological program is being abandoned. The Ph.D. in our Gospel lesson announces, there is a resurrection. Death is not the Reformed world is commonly a degree in “philosophy of reli- avoided but defeated. gion” rather than in theology. The fear lurks that theology will be And are we not allowed, at last, to catch at least a glimpse of an replaced by philosophy, and that theological problems will hence- answer to the riddle of our strange and fearsome text, even if we forth be solved on the basis of human reason. see only “as in a mirror”— the mirror of faith — dimly? The God Let us return to the question of whether such a change will be who tried to kill Moses has remained in charge and has seen it “much more understandable within the academic world.” I fear through to its completion. Moses is indeed dead. He never got to that this innovation will be perplexing to our Lutheran brothers the promised land. God himself buried him, in an unmarked and sisters around the world, particularly in Germany and Scandi- grave. Think on it! The great law-giver cannot enter the promised navia, who follow the tradition that goes back to the Lutheran land! (There is a sermon just in that!) There will be no shrines for Reformation. Moses. But now you live. Yes, we have tried to give you all the the- Academic degrees did not start last year, nor can a tradition be ology we could get into you and equipped you with all the skills. So created by a majority vote or a decree. Our academic system goes now you go to your calling. But don’t forget Moses’ meeting with beyond Luther to the mediaeval university, which consisted of a God. Don’t forget that the fear of the L is the beginning of wis- lower or undergraduate department, called liberal arts or philoso- dom. You have “escaped” only by the mercy of God in the crucified phy, which was a prerequisite for entering one of the three gradu- and risen Lord Jesus. Thanks be to God! ate departments, and the three upper departments, viz. theology, law, and medicine. The terminal degree in philosophy was the Master of Arts. The terminal degrees in the three professional departments were, respectively, Doctor of Theology, Doctor of   Jurisprudence, and Doctor of Medicine. S D During the past century, and with the growth of the natural sci- A comment by Lowell C. Green, Dr.Theol. ences, the philosophy division chafed at having the master’s degree as its terminal degree; therefore, the Doctor of Philosophy was In a Concordia Seminary periodical, Focus , no.  (Spring invented. The Ph.D., however, was not “equal” to the three upper ), appeared an article entitled “Ph.D. Program Is Adopted.” degrees because work in liberal arts or philosophy (college) was on It announced that it would change the designation of its doctor- a lower level and only preliminary to post-graduate degrees of the ate from Th.D. to Ph.D., namely, from Doctor of Sacred Theol- seminary, law school, or medical school. No physician would trade ogy to Doctor of Philosophy. The article claims that “the [Ph.D.] his professional M.D. degree for a Ph.D. in health sciences.   

I fully realize that we have many men with Ph.D.’s in our semi- reference is to the act which the children, in their usual frank, if naries who are teaching theology, who are faithful to the sacred not brutal, manner, with more truth than poetry, call “the blessing Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, and who do a splendid of the nickels” or even “the blessing of the pennies.” It is a short work in distinguishing law and gospel. Moreover, simply having a prayer of thanksgiving spoken over the collection plates after the degree in theology rather than philosophy does not guarantee deacons or ushers have solemnly marched up the center aisle, with soundness in doctrine. Nevertheless, theology and philosophy the baskets or plates carefully stacked on the left arm. must be kept distinct in our church. And I do not think that we as Charity fails to find an excuse condoning such an act in a theologians can be undiscerning or indifferent about terminology Lutheran church. We have ever taught that good works and the or academic initials. I would therefore urge Concordia Seminary to merit of men should be kept out of sight as much as possible, par- reconsider this serious change, to bear in mind our theological tra- ticularly when we assemble in the house of God as poor sinners dition, and to return to the academic nomenclature that we inher- desiring the assurance of the forgiveness of our sins, without any ited from our fathers. merit or worthiness in ourselves. Formerly the collection was pur- posely taken (or “the offerings lifted”) as unobtrusively as possible, during the singing of the hymn following the sermon, not during a sentimental “offertory” played with soft stops. And now much ado is made, not exactly about nothing, but    surely about the least of our gifts for the kingdom. That a special L I prayer of thanksgiving is offered, or even a special service of M F thanksgiving arranged, for an unusual gift of God’s mercy in overcoming our close-fistedness is entirely in order, but to These P. E. Kretzmann quotations serve to illustrate Ecclesiastes :: include the Sunday collection in a regular order of worship, with “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will a special liturgical act, is— simply not Lutheran” (P. E. Kretz- be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.” mann, Magazin für evang.-luth. Homiletik und Pastoraltheologie, June , ). We must take note also of a most deplorable tendency of our times, namely, that of preferring the shallow modern “Gospel anthem” to the classical hymns of our Church. The reference is both to the text and to the tunes in use in many churches. On all sides the criticism is heard that the old Lutheran hymns are “too heavy, too doctrinal,     that our age does not understand them.” Strange that the Luther- M S L ans of four centuries and of countless languages could understand S S and appreciate them, even as late as a generation ago! Is the present generation less intelligent or merely more frivolous? (P. E. Kretz- The following translation is by Rev. Matthew Harrison of Fort mann, Magazin für evang.-luth. Homiletik und Pastoraltheologie, Wayne, Indiana. June , –). A very strong tendency toward sectarianism and even secular- Honored Sir, This morning I received your worthy letter, written ization is found in the increasing number of special days that are on the ninteeth of the month. In your letter you ask for my opin- celebrated, at least with a special “program” in the Sunday-school, ion on whether it is advisable to introduce the singing of if not with a similar perversion of the regular service in the church Methodist songs in a Lutheran Sunday School. May what follows itself. We have with us to-day Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Chil- serve as a helpful reply to your questions: No, this is not advisable, dren’s Day, Rally Day, Father-and-son Day, Decision Day, Wash- rather very incorrect and pernicious. ington’s Birthday, Lincoln’s Birthday, Roosevelt’s Birthday, . Our church is so rich in hymns that you could justifiably state Armistice Day, and a host of others, and apparently the end is not that if one were to introduce Methodist hymns in a Lutheran yet. “All these,” Rev. F. R. Webber says (Lutheran Church Art, school this would be like carrying coals to Newcastle. The singing November, ), “are anthropocentric. We have a church-year of such hymns would make the rich Lutheran church into a beggar that is highly Christocentric. Any so-called Lutheran who sets which is forced to beg from a miserable sect. Thirty or forty years aside the old church-year and out of desire to ape the sects ago a Lutheran preacher might well have been forgiven this. For at indulges in the sloppy sentimentalism of the sectarian, Christless that time the Lutheran church in our country was as poor as a beg- world-year is a traitor to the Word of God. What warrant have we gar when it came to song books for Lutheran children. A preacher to observe festivals, ferias, and fasts in honor of people?” The scarcely knew where he might obtain such little hymn books. Now, stricture, though severe, is well taken and well worthy of serious however, since our church itself has everything it needs, it is unpar- deliberation (P. E. Kretzmann, Magazin für evang.-luth. Homiletik donable when a preacher of our church causes little ones to suffer und Pastoraltheologie, June , ). the shame of eating a foreign bread. A very peculiar innovation showing the trend toward sectarian- . A preacher of our church also has the holy duty to give ism in our circles is a strange liturgical act, the possibilities of souls entrusted to his care pure spiritual food, indeed, the very which were evidently overlooked by the old Lutheran compilers of best that he can possibly obtain. In Methodist songs there is church orders and orders of service for Sundays and holidays. The much that is false, and that contains spiritual poison for the   soul. Therefore, it is soul-murder to set before children such glesworth cried out: “Behold, I am vile; when thou showest me poisonous food. If the preacher claims that he allows only “cor- my face, I abhor myself. Who can bring a clean thing out of rect” hymns to be sung, this does not excuse him. For, first of all, filthiness?” Such unhappy thoughts before the mirror would the true Lutheran spirit is found in none of them; second, our seem to be a long way from narcissism, but are they? There is, hymns are more powerful, more substantive, and more prosaic; after all an affinity between hatred and love. And is there not a third, those hymns that deal with the holy sacraments are com- certain attraction to that which is utterly vile, abhorrent, and pletely in error; fourth, when these little sectarian hymn books loathsome? come into the hands of our children, they openly read and sing Karen Horney explains the connection between the denigra- false hymns. tion of self and the adoration of self. The self-disparaging subject, . A preacher who introduces Methodist hymns, let alone she observes, “keeps reiterating the word ‘should’ with amazing Methodist hymnals, raises the suspicion that he is no true frequency. He keeps telling us what he should have felt, thought, Lutheran at heart, and that he believes one religion is as good as done. He is at bottom as convinced of his inherent perfection as the other, and that he is thus a unionistic man, a mingler of reli- the naïvely ‘narcissistic’ person, and betrays it by the belief that gion and churches. he actually could be perfect if only he were more strict with him- . Through the introduction of Methodist hymn singing he also self, more controlled, more alert, more circumspect.” She con- makes those children entrusted to his care of unionistic sentiment, cludes, “He wavers then between self-adoration and self-con- and he himself leads them to leave the Lutheran Church and join tempt.” In her description of this neurotic type, Dr. Horney the Methodists. seems to be giving an accurate picture of the evangelical person- . By the purchase of Methodist hymn books he subsidizes the ality. It is easy to see that with only slight modification, such a false church and strengthens the Methodist fanatics in their horri- personality could become narcissistic. ble errors. For the Methodists will think, and quite correctly so, Nowhere has this concentration on self been more evident or that if the Lutheran preachers did not regard our religion as good more influential than in Protestantism’s abiding faith in the con- as, or indeed, even better than their own, they would not introduce science. Almost from the beginning, New England religion had Methodist hymn books in their Sunday schools, but rather would been more concerned with the personal propitiation of an angry use Lutheran hymn books. God than with any mundane obligations to neighbors. Because . By introducing Methodist hymn books the entire Lutheran conscience was held to be the voice of God within the self, the congregation is given great offense, and the members of the same satisfaction of conscience became almost the sole criterion of are led to think that Methodists, the Albright people, and all such ethics. Jonathan Edwards would argue that the only assurance people have a better faith than we do. Christians have of their salvation is based on the good con- This may be a sufficient answer regarding this dismal matter. science which makes them aware that God is working savingly May God keep you in the true and genuine Lutheran faith, and in their hearts. help you not to be misled from the same, either to the right or to the left. Your unfamiliar yet known friend in the Lord Jesus Christ, C. F. W. Walther   St. Louis, Missouri I C January ,  Excerpted from Corrective Love, by Thomas C. Oden (St. Louis: CPH, ), –.

Naturalistic reductionism has invited us to reduce alleged indi-    vidual sins to social influences for which individuals are not N R responsible. Narcissistic hedonism has demeaned any talk of sin Against the Protestant Gnostics, by Philip J. Lee (New York: Oxford or confession as ungratifying and dysfunctional. Autonomous University Press, ), –. individualism has divorced sin from a caring community. Absolute relativism has regarded moral values as so ambiguous First, there is in Calvin’s denial of the self, the possibility of a cer- that there is no measuring rod against which to assess anything as tain concentration on the self. For instance, Calvin agreed with sin. Thus modernity, which is characterized by the confluence of Augustine’s advice to the Christian to “confess that you have all these four ideological streams, has presumed to do away with things from God, that all the good you have is from him, all the confession, and has in fact made confession an embarrassment evil from yourself.” Were a sensitive person to brood about this to the accommodating church of modernity. distinction, in an introspective fashion, he could become quite How inconvenient it is to the accommodating church to real- preoccupied with separating the divine from the human initiative ize that modernity is dead, its vitality spent. Now postmodern in a particular act or thought. consciousness is inviting us to a renewed sense of the need for This, in fact, seems to have been the reaction of many colo- a reconciling, forgiving community. Postmodern Christian con- nial Christians to their reading of Calvin. The preoccupation, sciousness has lived through this quiet valley of despair, and has at first, took the form of a “persistent and virtually inescapable now come out of this pit more ready to confess sin and joyfully hostility to the self and all its manifestations.” Michael Wig- to receive the forgiving Word. CONTRIBUTING EDITORS STAFF Ulrich Asendorf—Pastor, Hannover, Germany Michael J. Albrecht, Editorial Associate—Pastor, St. James Lutheran Church, West St. Paul, MN Burnell F. Eckardt Jr.—Pastor, St. Paul Lutheran Church, Kewanee, IL  Charles Evanson—Pastor, Redeemer Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN Joel A. Brondos, L Forum and Correspondence Editor—Pastor, Zion Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN Ronald Feuerhahn—Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Charles Cortright, Editorial Associate—Professor, Martin Luther Lowell Green—Professor, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY College, New Ulm, MN Paul Grime—Executive Director, LCMS Commission on Worship, Gerald Krispin, Editorial Associate—Professor, Concordia College, St. Louis, MO Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Tom G. A. Hardt—Pastor, St. Martin’s Lutheran Church, Stockholm, Sweden Alan Ludwig, Copy Editor—Professor, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Matthew Harrison—Pastor, Zion Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN Novosibirsk, Russia Steven Hein—Professor, Concordia University, River Forest, IL Martin Noland, Editorial Associate—Pastor, Christ Lutheran Church, Oak Park, IL Horace Hummel—Professor Emeritus, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO John Pless, Book Review Editor—Pastor, University Lutheran Chapel, Arthur Just—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN Minneapolis, MN John Kleinig—Professor, Luther Seminary, North Adelaide, Tom Rank, Editorial Associate—Pastor, Scarville Lutheran Church, South Australia, Australia Scarville, IA Arnold J. Koelpin—Professor, Martin Luther College, New Ulm, MN Erling Teigen, Editorial Coordinator—Professor, Bethany Lutheran Peter K. Lange—Pastor, St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, Concordia, MO College, Mankato, MN Alan Ludwig—Professor, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Novosibirsk, Jon D. Vieker, Editorial Associate—Pastor, St. Mark’s Lutheran Russia Church, West Bloomfield, MI Cameron MacKenzie—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN SUPPORT STAFF Gottfried Martens—Pastor, St. Mary’s Lutheran Church, Berlin, Germany Kurt Marquart—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN Dianne Bisbee of Bisbee Enterprises, Advertising, Book Distribution, and Subscription Services—Cresbard, SD Scott Murray—Pastor, Memorial Lutheran Church, Houston, TX Robert Franck, L Digest —Pastor, Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, Norman E. Nagel—Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Duluth, MN Wilhelm Petersen—President Emeritus, Bethany Lutheran Seminary, Brent W. Kuhlman, Development Manager—Pastor, Faith Lutheran Mankato, MN Church, Hebron, NE Andrew Pfeiffer—Professor, Luther Seminary, Adelaide, Australia Patricia Ludwig, Layout and Design—Novosibirsk, Russia Hans-Lutz Poetsch—Pastor Emeritus, Lutheran Hour, Berlin, Germany David Magruder, L Digest—Pastor, Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, Daniel Preus—Director, Concordia Historical Institute, St. Louis, MO Duluth, MN Clarence Priebbenow—Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church, Oakey, Queensland, Australia Richard Resch—Kantor, St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN E-MAIL ADDRESSES for some of the L staff David P. Scaer—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN Mike Albrecht: [email protected] Robert Schaibley—Pastor, Shepherd of the Springs Lutheran Church, Dianne Bisbee: [email protected] Colorado Springs, CO Joel Brondos: [email protected] Jobst Schöne—Bishop Emeritus, Selbständige Evangelishe Lutherische Kirche, Germany Gerald Krispin: [email protected] Bruce Schuchard—Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Charles Cortright: [email protected]. Harold Senkbeil— Pastor, Elm Grove Lutheran Church, Elm Grove, WI Alan Ludwig: [email protected] Carl P. E. Springer—Professor, Illinois State University, Normal, IL Martin Noland: .@compuserve.com John Stephenson—Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada John Pless: [email protected] David Jay Webber—Rector, Saint Sophia Lutheran Theological Daniel Preus: [email protected] Seminary, Ternopil', Ukraine Tom Rank: [email protected] William Weinrich—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN Erling Teigen: .@compuserve.com George F. Wollenburg—President, Montana District LCMS, Billings, MT Jon Vieker: [email protected]