Concordia Journal

Home , Andreas Karlstadt, Becker Psalter, Genevan Psalter, Lutheran hymn

CONCORDIA JOURNAL

Volume 28 July 2002 Number 3

CONTENTS

ARTICLES

The 1676 Engraving for Heinrich Schütz’s Becker Psalter: A Theological Perspective on Liturgical Song, Not a Picture of Courtly Performers James L. Brauer ...... 234

Luther on Call and Ordination: A Look at Luther and the Ministry Markus Wriedt ...... 254

Bridging the Gap: Sharing the Gospel with Muslims Scott Yakimow ...... 270

SHORT STUDIES

Just Where Was Jonah Going?: The Location of Tarshish in the Old Testament Reed Lessing ...... 291

The Gospel of the Kingdom of God Paul R. Raabe ...... 294

HOMILETICAL HELPS ...... 297

BOOK REVIEWS ...... 326

BOOKS RECEIVED ...... 352

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 233 Articles

The 1676 Engraving for Heinrich Schütz’s Becker Psalter: A Theological Perspective on Liturgical Song, Not a Picture of Courtly Performers

James L. Brauer

The engraving at the front of Christoph Bernhard’s Geistreiches Gesang- Buch, 1676,1 (see PLATE 1) is often reproduced as an example of musical

PLATE 1 in miniature

Dr. James L. Brauer is Professor of Practical Theology and Dean of the Chapel at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO.

234 performance in the elector of Saxony’s chapel,2 but it may yield more insight into a theology of liturgical song than into seventeenth-century performance practice. While most modern reproductions seem to ignore the paraphrase of Psalm 150 that originally accompanied the engraving,3 the numbers that appear in both the psalm and the engraving link and interpret what is going on in the music-making shown in the engraving. It is not so much a snapshot of a “performance” but a statement about what is happening when Saxon Christians use the worship resources in the three volumes of hymnal resources for which the engraving serves as a frontispiece. To explore this meaning, we need (1) to recall the origins of the Becker Psalter, (2) to observe how Schütz’s music served this psalter in the devotional life of Lutherans in Saxony, and (3) to identify the theological insights offered in the engraving and its accompanying psalm paraphrase in Christoph Bernhard’s edition of Heinrich Schütz’s music for the Becker Psalter.

Origins of the Becker Psalter

The Becker Psalter was a replacement for an earlier German translation of the Genevan Psalter. Among staunch Lutherans Becker’s collection found some favor, but in territories where the Reformed tradition dominated it saw little use. The collection of paraphrased psalms was meant to give a stronger expression of the Lutheran faith and was also designed to feature hymn tunes of German origin. Cornelius Becker (1561-1604) designed his hymnic version of psalms to be a Lutheran counterpart to the Lobwasser Psalter (1573), a German version of the Genevan Psalter. Becker, a German theologian and poet, had been a pastor at St. Nicholas Church in Leipzig (1594) and later a professor at the University of Leipzig (1599). He was an opponent of crypto- Calvinism (a name given to a theological position of Philip Melanchthon and his followers seeking to suppress Luther’s views on the Lord’s Supper and replace them with Calvin’s views while declaring loyalty to

2Both the engraving and the psalm paraphrase are reproduced in Heinrich Schütz, Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke, Der Psalter in vierstimmigen Liedsätzen nach Cornelius Beckers Dichtungen, ed. by Walter Blankenburg (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1955), volume 6, between pages xiv and 2. Perhaps because it is the same editor, this engraving and psalm paraphrase are also given as a frontispiece to Leiturgia: Handbuch des evangelischen Gottesdiensts: Vol. 4, Die Musik des evangelisch Gottesdienstes, ed. by Karl Ferdinand Müller and Walter Blankenburg (Kassel: Johannes Stauda Verlag, 1961). 3For example, one of the most popular histories of classical music for college courses in the 1960s-80s was Donald Jay Grout’s A History of Western Music, Third edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 1980). It supplies a reproduction of this very image with the following caption: “Heinrich Schütz surrounded by his singers in the chapel of the Elector of Saxony in Dresden; he was master of the chapel from 1617 until his death” (243). Similarly, Allen B. Skei’s Heinrich Schütz: A Guide to Research (New York: Garland Publishing, 1981) offers this engraving as an illustration (192) with this caption: “Schütz directing his choir at the Dresden court chapel.” Typically, such a caption plants the suggestion that this is an actual “performance,” but the combination of engraving and psalm paraphrase hardly supports this view.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 235 Lutheranism), and he sought to reduce the influence of the poetry of Ambrosius Lobwasser (1515-1585) who had modeled his German versions of the psalms after the French metrical versions of Clement Marot (1497- 1544) and Theodore Beza (1519-1605), which formed the Genevan Psalter of 1562 and were widely circulated in musical settings by Claude Goudimel (ca. 1505-1572). Reformed Geneva had made French paraphrases of the psalms the congregation’s song. Rejecting Latin hymns and other hymns not derived from psalms, the Genevan worship tradition employed only psalms4 and New Testament canticles for congregational singing. In Reformed services psalms were to be sung in the vernacular (French) and to use the hymn form (a series of stanzas fit to a repeated melody). The work of paraphrasing the psalms had begun with Marot, briefly imprisoned in Paris for “Lutheran” views in 1526 and 1527. As he began to put some psalms into metrical form and to fit them to “old French tunes and popular secular songs,”5 they soon became fashionable with the French royal family and with courtiers. When theologians at the Sorbonne raised objections to connections with Protestant doctrine, Marot was forced to flee to Geneva in 1543. By 1543 Calvin had assembled a collection of fifty of Marot’s psalm texts for congregational use. The work of versifying the other hundred psalms was done by Beza so that in 1562 all 150 psalms could be published. In Geneva’s worship the congregational singing was done with unison voices in these French psalms; there was no harmony and no instrumental sound. When performed outside the Reformed services these texts and tunes might be done with both harmony and with instruments. At home amateur musicians desired harmonies, perhaps even instruments, and publishers provided various settings. Claude Goudimel, a celebrated French composer, theorist, and publisher known for his chansons, prepared four-part, note- against-note settings of the Genevan Psalter. His settings were published in Geneva (1565), not long after the whole French psalter was available. Friedrich Blume identifies this as “the first complete Psalter in a strictly homophonic setting”6 though the traditional melodies were in the tenor (being in the tenor was not unique since this was the usual placement of a quoted melody for several centuries before 1600) and only occasionally in the highest voice. Paul-André Gaillard summarizes the influence of Goudimel’s homophonic arrangements as follows:

4According to John Calvin’s “The Form of Church Prayers Strassburg, 1545, & Geneva, 1542” in Bard Thompson’s Liturgies of the Western Church (Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1961), 185-210, the only non-psalm texts that were sung were the Ten Commandments and a New Testament canticle like that of Simeon in Luke 2. A summary of the development of this Reformed psalm tradition can be found in Friedrich Blume, Protestant Church Music: A History (New York: W. W. Norton, 1974), 133ff. and 507ff. 5Fred L. Precht, Lutheran Worship: Hymnal Companion (St. Louis: Concordia, 1992), 693. 6Blume, 535.

236 These note-against-note settings were originally intended for domestic use, but they quickly supplanted the monodic psalmody that until then had been used in the services of the Reformed Church. The appearance in Leipzig in 1573 of a German edition by Ambrosius Lobwasser did much to speed this process and greatly helped to fuse the Lutheran and Genevan musical traditions.7

Goudimel had also launched a more artistic series of psalms in motet form for three to eight voices for household or other performance.8 The Genevan Psalter soon found its way into Germany through the work of Ambrosius Lobwasser (1515-1585), a Saxon Lutheran theologican, poet, and educator. He was a professor of law in Königsberg (1563-1580), had become acquainted with this psalm tradition, perhaps while studying at the University of Paris in the early 1550s, and grew enamored of the tunes and the metrical paraphrases. He prepared his own German psalms using the same metrical patterns and tunes as the Genevan Psalter. While his German paraphrases may have been completed already by 1565, they were not printed until 1573 in Leipzig under the title Der Psalter dess Königlichen Propheten Davids. To each psalm Lobwasser appended a summary of it and a prayer, translated from prayers by Augustin Marlorat of Rouen.9 Over the next two centuries this Lobwasser psalm collection was so popular that it received about one hundred editions. It was probably not that Lobwasser’s poetry was so attractive but that people enjoyed the tunes of the Genevan psalter and Goudimel’s arrangements, presented “in simple, four-voice, note-against-note cantional settings.”10 Soon this four-voice homophonic sound for hymns by the congregation became a common practice. Friedrich Blume explains the phenomenon this way:

It does not matter whether the melody lay in the tenor or, as later became the rule, the soprano. It was, in any case, the only part actually sung. As the evidence shows, men and women could sing it in octaves, and the other parts, it must be supposed, were instrumental. Indeed, it is quite possible that organ accompaniment to congregational singing came about in this way. The organist could intabulate the more complicated, polyphonic settings usual

7S.v., “Claude Goudimel,” by Paul-André Gaillard in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (London: Macmillan Publishers, 1980) 7:578, hereafter cited as NG. 8“Claude Goudimel,” Baker’s Biolgraphical Dictionary of Musicians, 5th ed. (New York: G. Schirmer, 1971), 593. 9H. A. Köstlin, “Ambrosius Lobwasser,” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950), 7:5. These prayers and psalm summaries can be seen in the facsimile edition of Lobwasser’s psalter from Düsseldorf, 1612: Das Düsseldorfer Gesangbuch von 1612, Faksimile-Nachdruck (Cologne: Rheinland- Verlag, 1983). 10Blume, 134.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 237 in the Reformation period, and use them to alternate with the congregation but not to accompany it, whereas the simple cantional settings were almost ideal for accompanying.... Now, however, the polyphonic settings were arranged so that the congregation could sing the melody to the accompaniment of a simple, four-voice setting. The concept of “choral singing”...changed from one of absolute unison singing to one of accompanied unison singing.... The Huguenot Psalter therewith provided the impetus for a practice that has remained to the present day one of the foundations of all Protestant church music.11

So when Lucas Osiander (1534-1604) published fifty of the simplest cantional settings of Lutheran hymns with the melody in the upper voice (1586), the new prototype was clearly set for future congregational hymnbooks.12 Lobwasser’s translations, then,

allowed the French metrical psalms together with the Genevan melodies to be used in German-speaking countries, both in their monophonic versions and in the homophonic settings for four voices by Claude Goudimel.13

This assisted their widespread acceptance, especially in German regions influenced by Reformed theology and where the hymn repertoire and practice was built on the Strasbourg and Constance songbooks.14 The work of other poets did not diminish the influence of Lobwasser’s rhyming psalter. Hans Joachim Moser summarizes it this way:

Through the German translation of these [Marot and Beza models], first by Paul Melissus-Schede in 1572 and then especially by Ambrosius Lobwasser in 1573, these 150 compositions became the central hymn book of the Reformed Church in Germany.15

Though Reformed hymnals in Germany gradually included more and more hymns (non psalm-based songs) alongside these psalms, the only form of church music, in general, was “unison, unaccompanied congregational singing.”16 It was not until 1602 that a different model of psalm texts and tunes

11Blume, 134f. 12Blume, 136; here the reader will find nine examples of this kind of setting for a single hymn melody by various Lutheran composers between 1569 and 1610. 13Walter Blankenburg, “Ambrosius Lobwasser” NG, 11:103. 14Blume, 549. 15Hans Joachim Moser, Heinrich Schütz: His Life and Work, trans. by Carl F. Pfatteicher (St. Louis: Concordia, 1959), 445. 16Blume, 551.

238 emerged in German territories. This time the tunes were borrowed from German Lutheran hymn melodies and meant to resist the influence of Genevan models. Cornelius Becker’s German Psalter provided 143 new texts that could be sung to melodies already in use in Lutheran services. His was

a deliberate, if ineffectual, attempt to displace the Lobwasser Psalter, which had gradually penetrated the Lutheran hymnbooks too. Precisely for this reason Becker had linked his texts with known church melodies.17

His Lutheran melodies included texts and tunes from seven of Luther’s own psalm paraphrases (Psalm 12, 14, 46, 67, 124, 128, and 130). Because Becker’s poetry did not explore as much diversity of metrical form as the Genevan models did, it was easy to use existing chorale melodies for the many texts. The introduction to Becker’s psalter with music18 says that he intended to supplant not only the Lobwasser paraphrases but also, as Becker himself phrased it, the use of “the strange French melodies, which ring sweetly in lascivious ears,”19 an evaluation of the French aesthetic exhibited in its meter and melodic patterns. The doctrinal purity of the Becker texts, that is, their avoidance of Calvinistic views, rather than their poetic qualities, was undoubtedly a strong argument for their adoption in Lutheran territories. The tunes, though few in number, helped cement the association with historic Lutheran faith and practice.

Music by Schütz for the Becker Psalter

Various Lutheran musicians sought to remedy Becker’s limited number of melodies with their settings of the tunes. Already in 1605 Seth Calvisius, cantor at St. Thomas in Leipzig, provided forty-three settings in four-part (note-against-note) harmony for the psalm paraphrases, and this was successful enough to see five editions by 1621. In 1624 Heinrich Grimm, a pupil of Michael Praetorius and cantor in Magdeburg, provided similar settings for a Latin version of the Becker psalter, intended for the Magdeburg

17Blume, 143. 18Der Psalter Davids Gesangweis / Auff die in Lutherischen Kirchen gewöhnlichen Melodeyen zugerichtet /Durch Cornelium Beckern, Leipzig 1602. S.v., “Cornelius Becker” by Käte Lorenzen in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 1:1482, hereafter cited as MGG. 19S.v., “Cornelius Becker,” by Walter Blankenburg in NG, 2: 337. Lorenzen, in MGG 1:1482, provides the German: “fremden frz. und für die weltlüsternen Ohren lieblich klingenden Melodeyen” and an insight into the crypto-Calvinistic point with this quotation: “was zudem auch die Gefahr mit sich führe, Religions-irrthümer im Sacrament zu befördern und dem hochschädlichen Calvinismus den Weg zu bahnen.”

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 239 school choir20 in a period when Latin psalm paraphrases were sought for school use. The most important melodies and settings, however, were provided in 1628 by Heinrich Schütz (1585-1672). His service to the Elector of Saxony put him in a place where a loyal Lutheran aristocrat’s court wanted both attractive music and orthodox Lutheran texts. Schütz provided more than ninety new tunes and homophonic settings for all the psalms. His work could not extend the number of meters since the texts were designed to fit a few existing Lutheran hymn tunes, but he was able to provide excellent artistry in service of the psalms that Becker had paraphrased in German. In the preface of his settings, addressed to the widowed Electress Hedwig, Schütz offers his reasons for providing new melodies and settings:

Most gracious Lady! Inasmuch as the little psalm book of the late Cornelius Becker, with its old melodies, has arrived at almost universal usage in many places, countries, and towns for Christian edification in churches, schools, and homes, a devout mind will perhaps consider it unnecessary or inopportune that I should now wish to provide these psalms with new and hitherto unknown melodies. First of all, however, with regard to those melodies which for almost a hundred years have been used in the advancement of Gospel truth, let me say that I have not only retained them, but, much more than this, I wish to add my public praise and testimony. Some of them I consider to have been composed by the heavenly seraphim in praise of their Creator rather than by man. And indeed, such old melodies, together with the blessed words for which they were composed, have been preserved and commended also in the present psalm book. On the other hand, I did not think it appropriate that such old melodies by Dr. Luther and other devout Christians as are sung on special occasions or at special seasons should be borrowed for the present psalm book without distinction and that hence these especially devout songs of the late Dr. Becker should appear and have to be heard in Christian assemblies in borrowed clothing, as it were.21

20Blume, 143. Grimm’s work was titled: Cithara Davidica Luthero-Becceriana...ex Musis Cremcovianis errantibus instructa. 21Moser, 445f. Blankenburg’s edition, Schütz, Neue Ausgabe, 6:vii, gives the original text: “Gnädigste Fraw / Es ist numehr D. Cornelij Beckers /seligen / Psalm Büchlein in sienen alten Melodien vieler Orther / Land undt Städten zur Christlicher Erbawung / in Kirchen / Schulen und Häusern fast gemein worden / dahero wol etwa ein Gottseliges Gemüte unnötig / oder auch numehr unzeitig zuseyn erachten möchte / das dieselben ich jetzo erst mit newen / und also gantz bisshero unbekandten Melodeyen versehen wolle: Und zwart belangende / Erstlich / die alten und numehr fast in die hundert Jahre mit sonderbaren auffnehmen Evangelischer Warheit üblichen Melodeyen / so habe ich es bey denselbigen nicht alleine billich gelassen /sonder meines theils / thue

240 The first edition of Schütz’s music was printed in Freiburg (1628; reprinted in Güstrow in 1640)22 and bears the title:

Only when an old melody appeared to be unacceptable to others did Schütz replace it with his own tune.24 Considering that it appeared in the midst of the devastations of the Thirty Years’ War, his work was well-received and other editions followed. In 1640 Duke Adolf Friedrich von Mecklenburg reprinted the work in Güstrow in a quarto format. In 1661 an “extended and partly revised version with figured bass by Schütz” was printed in ich ihnen hierüber noch vielmehr dis offentliche Lob und Zeugnüss geben / das etliche deroselben ich mehr von den Himlischen Seraphinen zu Lob ihres Schöpffers / als von Menschen ertichtet halten thue: Wie aber solche alte Melodeyen sampt denen Gottseligen Worten / worüber sie anfangs componirt und gemacht worden / (Inmassen derogleichen auch in gegenwertigen PsalmBüchlein noch geschicht) billich ferner ohngeendert erhalten / und männiglichen commendiret werden. Also hat im gegentheil / und für das Andere /mich nicht allerdings bequem gedeuchtet / dass solche alte Weisen Herrn Doctor Luthers und anderer frommer Christen Gesänge (bevorab derer Psalmen und Lieder / welche sonst nur zu gewissen Jahreszeiten pflegen gesungen zu werden) ohne anterscheid zu gegenwertigen PsalterBüchlein entlebnet werden / und also diese D. Beckers seligen nichts minder Geistreiche Gesänge und Wort / gleichsam mit geborgeter Kleidung in Christlichen Versamlungen erscheinen / und sich hören lassen müssen.” 22MGG, 1:1482. 23Moser, 446. 24Moser, 451. In his 1628 preface Schütz had remarked:

Although my new melodies to Dr. Cornelius Becker’s psalm book do not reveal great artistry and craftsmanship [e.g., polyphony and counterpoint], they were nevertheless not produced without difficultes [sic]. I was governed at first by the old church melodies. Yet I had to accommodate myself to the music of today. Instead, therefore, of constantly using breves and semibreves, I used, for the most part, minims, semiminims, and fusae in order that the song might not only be more vivacious but also that the words might not be drawn out too long, might be better understood, and that a psalm might thus be more likely to be sung through. These more rapid notes, when sung in the modern manner in an appropriate time, do not detract from the serious nature of the work. Yes, the old church songs themselves, even though written with slow notes, are nevertheless sung in Christian gatherings at a more rapid pace.

Quoted in Moser, 453. The German can be found in Schütz, Neue Ausgabe, 6:viii.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 241 Dresden (in folio) and this received three republications (Leipzig, 1671; Dresden, 1676 the version under discussion here; a Saxony-Weissenfels hymnal, 1712). The added figured bass part (1661) recognized the regular leadership of congregational singing by a small group of singers, more and more being assisted by an organ playing harmonies.25 The melodies and settings of Schütz made these contributions to the Becker tradition: (1) he created tunes in order to avoid recycling melodies already closely associated with a hymn text and its seasonal or special use, (2) he provided cantional settings (note-against-note, four parts) with the melody in the soprano–the favored sound palette of congregations, (3) he devised music which was “lively” as opposed to ponderous, meditative singing, and (4) with his 1661 edition he offered keyboard support to the singers with his thorough bass part—this format gave the soprano line and the bass (with notations for filling in the harmonies) since this was becoming a preferred way to assist unison singers. Not only did he create numerous new tunes, they had harmony in support of them, even keyboard sounds. There was no desired separation of practice, one sound at home and another in school or church or one way of singing psalms and another of hymns. In this way aspects of the Lutheran hymn-tune tradition and of the Genevan psalm tradition were brought together. The result was an orthodox Lutheran text and a solution to the search for tunes that grew from a German aesthetic.

The Engraving and Its Psalm Paraphrase

Elector Johann Georg II arranged that Heinrich Schütz’s favorite pupil, Christoph Bernhard (1627-1692), should publish the 1676 version of Schütz’s settings of the Becker Psalter as Part I of the general Saxon hymnbook. The edition, not surprisingly, honored both the famous Kapellmeister and the Elector by including David Conrad’s engraving at the front of the book. Heinrich Schütz, undoubtedly the best German composer of the seventeenth century, had served the Saxon court from 1617 until his death four years before this hymnal appeared. In this edition only the music for the outer voices (soprano and thorough bass, a musical line for the voice and one for the shorthand of the instrumental accompaniment) were provided because this was the emerging standard in German Lutheran hymnals. The engraving at the front of the book reveals how singing and the use of instruments join in the praise of God in contrast to the Calvinistic tradition of unison singing and an avoidance of instrumental sound in worship. It

25Compare the practice at Leipzig at the time of Bach: “The choir also had to lead the congregational singing of the hymns, for organ accompaniment for these hymns was not yet customary in Leipzig in the first half of the 18th century. In those services and devotions where no choir was available, specific persons were to lead the hymns.” See Günther Stiller, Johann Sebastian Bach and Liturgical Life in Leipzig (St. Louis: Concordia, 1984), 90.

242 shows an eternal praise of God for His mighty acts and links Saxon liturgical song with its Old Testament roots and the heavenly voices and instruments. An accompanying psalm paraphrase confirms these connections. The paraphrase of Psalm 150 which accompanies the engraving reads as follows:

The 150th Psalm in the copper-engraved title:

See here the chapel of the king of Saxony, [namely,] the figure of David, in his expensive, exquisite, and intricate finery! See David himself (1) standing and his Asaph (2) directing, arranged for devotion. Listen as the choir of singers (3) praise God in the sanctuary, and as the angel-band above (4) extolls the greatness of the Lord in his mighty festival [and] as his deeds (5) in sounds of praise surround him in his majesty (6). Hear the trombones (7) resound, the echo of (triangular) harps (8), the praise of drum and dance (9), the honor of strings and pipes (10), [and] the soft tintinnabulation of small bells (11) which ring oh-so-pleasantly. Yes, everything that breathes (12) sings “Hallalujah!” to him.26

This paraphrase seeks to show how music in the worship at the tabernacle in David’s time and Elector Johann Georg II’s chapel are linked. The Elector of Saxony is shown as David (see PLATE 2), the figure with the harp and wearing a crown in a central position before the altar of his chapel. The aristocratic figure as spiritual overseer of a people needs no explanation; his importance is emphasized by placing him at the center of the picture, in front of the altar and under the crucifix on the altar. He is leading the song. The elector’s sponsoring of the three-volume hymnal is

26Der CL. Psalm | im | Kupfer=Titul: | SEht hier das GOttes=Hauss des Königs untern Sachsen / | Des Rauten=Davids / an / wie seine Zier erwachsen / | durch Kosten / Kunst und Fleiss! Seht selbst den David (1) stehen / | und seinem Assaph (2) vohr–zur Andachts Floge–gehn. | Hört / wie die Sänger-Köhr’ (3) im Heiligthum GOTT loben; | und wie das Engel=Volk (4) in seiner Mach=Fäst’ oben / | des HErren Ruhm erhöht; wie seine Tahten (5) Ihn / | in seiner Herrlichkeit / (6) mit Lob=Getöhn’ umzühn. | Hört der Posaunen Hall (7) des Harffen=Psalters (8) Schweiffen / | der Pauk=und Reygen (9) Lob / den Ruhm der Säit=und Pfeiffen (10) | der Zimbeln (11) Lispel=Spiel / das wohl=und lieblich klingt; | Ja / was nuhr Odem hat (12) Ihm / Halleluja! singt. A photographic reproduction of the paraphrase (from a copy in the Stadtbibliothek in Augsburg) is in Sagittarius 3 (Kassel, Bärenreiter-Verlag, 1970), illustration 8, where it is part of Alfred Berner’s “Bildzeugnisse zur Aufführungspraxis der Schütz-Zeit,” 56-65.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 243 PLATE 2 pointed to by the presence of the three “books,” one on the altar and one on each column at the front of the chancel. The left one refers to the psalter (see PLATE 3), the right one to the hymnal (Gesangbuch) and the center one perhaps to the prayers. Each book carries the date 1676.27 In the center of the nave the Elector’s chief musician (see PLATE 4), the Kapellmeister Heinrich Schütz with the beard and the upraised hands,

27The six figures who guard the screen separating the chancel and the nave could be viewed as part of the military who accompany a “king.” The four in front of the screen clearly carry spears. The two just behind the screen, one at each gate, are only partially visible.

244 is directing the singers. According to 1 Chronicles 6, 15, and 16, King David had put Asaph and others from the tribe of Levi in charge of the service of song at the tent for the ark of the Lord in Jerusalem. 1 Chronicles 15:16- 17 reports:

David also commanded the chiefs of the Levites to appoint their brethren as the singers who should play loudly on musical instruments, on harps and lyres and cymbals, to raise sounds of joy. So the Levites appointed Heman the son of Joel; and of his brethren Asaph the son of Berechiah; and of the sons of Merari, their brethren, Ethan the son of Kushaia....

Later Asaph was also among those who sounded bronze cymbals. In 1 Chronicles 25 the sons of Asaph were set apart, placed among those “who should prophesy with lyres, with harps, and with cymbals” (1 Chron. 25:1). They were involved in the praise of God and in presenting God’s Word—

PLATE 3 all as part of well-appointed worship. The Elector’s Asaph is leading the liturgical song of the singers in the center of the chapel.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 245 PLATE 4

These vocal performers are identified with several 3s (seen above the heads of the singers on the nave floor). Such a large number of singers (twenty-seven in all, with the director, an equal number to those mentioned in 1 Chron. 25:2-6) suggests a well-appointed chapel which results from the keen interest of the ruler himself and one who is willing to provide a full complement of performers. They stand around a music stand with scores on it. This is a typical arrangement of singers and scores for sacred music in European depictions through the centuries. Two sides of the stand (see PLATE 5) seem to have scores in large format, and one has a smaller format.28 On the side which is out of view we could imagine another small partbook. This suggests at least four different parts, though more could be

28There may be an explanation for employing two sizes of scores for the Becker Psalter, if that is what we assume is being performed, namely, that the singers could be using more than one edition. The 1661 (third) edition appeared in folio size with parts on facing pages, cantus and tenor on the left and altus and bassus on the right. See Psalmen Davids Hiebevor in deutsche Reime gebracht Durch D. Cornelium Beckern und nachmals Mit Elff alten und Zwey und Neunzig neuen Melodeyen von dem Chruf. S. Capellmeister Heinrich Schützen in den Druck gegeben...Gedruckt zu Dressden in Wolffgang Seyfferts Druckerey durch Gottfried Seyfferten 1661, Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, 1.5.1 Musica fol. This edition had a separate quarto format continuo part, but it perhaps makes little sense to exhibit that on a stand with only singers near by. [Psalmen Davids...Becker] Bassus Continuus Für die Organisten über die Auffs neue übersehenen und vermehrten Melodeyen Qvatuor Vocum, D. Beckers Aeel. Psalmen...gegeben von Heinrich Schützen.... Gedruckt zu Dressden bey Wolffg. Seyfferten 1661, Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, 2.6.6 Musica. In contrast, the 1640 (second) edition was in

246 PLATE 5 accommodated in such an arrangement since an open part book could provide all four parts on two facing pages of the score. It does not seem to be an arrangement of two choirs, though among Schütz’s early works are many polychoral settings of psalm texts. Instead, the singers here are seemingly devoted to the psalms in the Becker Psalter for which Schütz provided the music. There are no other singers in the nave and we may view them as representatives of all Israel or Saxon Christians who at any time or place would sing the psalms. There are other musicians in the balconies, even some angel musicians in the vaulted ceiling. For example, the angel above the foremost pillar on the right holds a harp similar to but smaller than the one held by the kingly figure in front of the altar. At the top of the opposite pillar is another angel (see PLATE 6) with an instrument, a cornetto which could be used as a soprano trombone in Renaissance and early Baroque ensembles. Near each angel and at various other places among the heavenly creatures in the ceiling is the numeral “4,” a reference to the angel-band which “extols the greatness of the Lord” in the paraphrase. Above the side balconies hang large paintings. Those on the left are identified with the numeral “5,” alerting us that these celebrate the great deeds of the Lord. The foremost one on the lest (see PLATE 6) depicts the quarto format and gives all parts on the same page or on facing pages. See Psalm Davids Hiebevorn in Deutsche Reimen gebracht Durch D. Cornelium Beckern vnd anjetzo Mit Ein hundert vnd Drey eigenen Melodeyen darunter Zwey vnd Neunzig Newe vnd Eylff Alte Nach gemeiner contrapuncts Art in 4. Stimmen gestellet Durch Heinrich Schützen.... Erstlich gedruckt zu Freybert in Meissen bey Georg Hoffman Anno 1628...nachgedruckt zu Güstrow Durch Johan Jägers Erben Im Jahr Christi 1640, Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, 2.6.9 Musica.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 247 PLATE 6

248 Israelites led by a pillar of cloud by day with Moses stretching his rod over the Red Sea when the Egyptian horses and chariots were covered by the water (Exodus 14). Those on the right are identified with the numeral “6,” focusing on the majesty of the Lord as praised by the creatures that surround him. The foremost on the right could depict God on a throne surrounded by twenty-four elders, each holding a harp (cf. Rev. 4:4ff.). In the galleries above the chancel are additional earthly musicians. High on the right are three trombone players (7) holding three different sizes of trombone (see PLATE 7). High on the left (see PLATE 8) are two fiddle players and two cornetto players (10). Their lack of scores has little or no significance since it is typical for woodcuts and engravings to show such intrumentalists without any visible score from which to read. Could these two groups of instrumentalists form two instrumental ensembles, a high-pitched one on the left and a low-pitched one on the right which may, at times, join in a seven-part ensemble? Or, might they be part of an ensemble with the singers around the music stand, the one group supporting high pitches, the other low pitches? But we get ahead of ourselves because we have yet to account for the musicians in the lower balconies.

PLATE 7

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 249 PLATE 8

On the left in the lower balcony we see five figures (see PLATE 8). One figure has a pair of small kettle drums (note the “9” on the organ case behind the player and a similar “9” above the triangle, associating these instruments with the rhythm of the dance). One figure has a triangle; two others have tambourines. The player closest to the center has a lyre or harp (note the “8” nearby). This group is balanced by five figures in the right balcony (see PLATE 7). One has an English harp (8), another has a triangle (note the “11” next to it), and a third has a shawm, a reed instrument which was an ancestor of the oboe. The fourth figure has a tambourine and the fifth has a small bell (11). How could all these instruments in the lower and upper balconies be involved in the ensemble led by Schütz? We can hardly overlook the three organs in the central balconies. Since organs make sound through the power of air (wind, breath) passing through the pipes, are they referenced in the paraphrase with the words “everything that breathes (12)?” In opposite corners of the lower galleries are two positive organs, apparently those acquired by the Elector in 1662.29 No 29Cf. Alfred Berner in Saggittarius 3, 61 and Irmgard Becker-Glauch, “Dresden,” MGG, 3:761. In a handwritten dedication to his final composition, a German Magnificat published with his setting of Psalm 119 (1671), Schütz makes reference to these small organs. He requests the elector to have the Magnificat performed ‘in your Highness’ Court Chapel by eight good voices, with two good organs, by the two beautiful musical choirs placed opposite each other above the altar.” Quoted in Moser, Heinrich Schütz, 686.

250 one seems to be playing these (see PLATE 9). Also in the center of the uppermost gallery is a much larger instrument, which, according to Michael Praetorius, had thirty-three stops in four divisions and was built by Gottfried Friztsche in 1614.30 It is difficult to imagine how this grand instrument might be part of the several smaller ensembles. Though it was typical to have keyboard instruments (or plucked string instruments) provide the

PLATE 9

30See Michael Praetorius, Syntagma Musicum II (Wolfenbüttel, 1619), facsimile ed. by Wilibald Gurlitt (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1978), 186-188.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 251 chords that serve a figured bass, there appears to be no bass instrument— other than a trombone—and no singer appears to be located near an organ. Are all these instruments and performers in the engraving part of an ensemble led by Schütz, or if they are not performing a single piece, why are they depicted in this arrangement in Dresden’s court chapel? Several factors argue against a single performance: (1) the distance between performers is too great not to have the usual subconductors to assist the ensembles,31 (2) all the singers are in one place when multi-choir pieces from the seventeenth century generally required at least one singer in each group so that there would always be a text presented when a group of mainly instrumentalists performs separately, (3) the lower balconies have almost all percussion instruments—antique ones, a combination unknown in seventeenth-century music literature and iconography, and (4) if this is to be a performance of the Becker Psalter, there seems to be no thorough bass player(s). However, when the psalm paraphrase is used to interpret the engraving, almost every aspect of what we see can be explained. The performance has a location, the Dresden court chapel. One musician from the Elector’s chapel created the music of the psalter; another made the new 1767 edition. In this project they served their patron, the Elector, who now provides it as a hymnal resource to Saxon Lutherans. His chief musician Schütz, who has recently died, is the symbolic leader of the singers of the psalms in Becker’s Psalter wherever and whenever they are used in Saxony or elsewhere. The singers standing around him are representatives of all believers and thus of all the times that this psalter was used in the court chapel and elsewhere. The same activity, the honoring of God and the praise of His mighty deeds, is engaged in by the angels in heaven and by the Old Testament worshipers (David and the musicians in the lower balconies above him, many of whom are playing percussion instruments). Also “modern” wind and string instruments in the balconies above are employed in the music-making. Even organs are available. It is a joyful noise—in unity with heaven and all who join in psalms with voice and instrument. Let everything that is capable of making sound and everyone who has breath praise the Lord in the past, in the present, in the future and on the earth as well as the heavens.Thus, the engraving is not a snapshot but a symbolic performance. So the engraving’s paraphrase says in its final line, “Yes, everything that breathes sings ‘Hallelujah!’ to him.” It must include past, present, future as well as heaven and earth. Likewise, Becker’s own paraphrase of the 150th psalm, as it is carried by the Schütz setting within the first of the three-volume liturgical resource, says in its final lines, “Let everything that has life and breath praise the Lord from

31See, for example, the engraving for the titlepage of Michael Praetorius, Theatrum Instrumentorum in his Syntagma Musicum II.

252 morning to night.”32 Thus, the Saxon hymnal project of 1676 with its psalms and hymns and prayers, the music of Schütz for Becker’s psalter was prepared so that all singers who draw breath to praise God can join in one mighty ensemble combining their voices with whatever instruments can be brought into use wherever and whenever. Though they are separated by time and place and though they make sounds with voices or with instruments, they are all part of one glorious Hallelujah which remembers the mercy and might of the Lord who saves and is worthy of all praise now and forever.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 253 Luther on Call and Ordination: A Look at Luther and the Ministry

Markus Wriedt

Introduction

Ecclesiology was not a subject of discussion in the Middle Ages. “I believe in the one and holy, catholic church.” With that sentence from the Creed laity and clerics alike summarized their understanding and doctrine of the church. Even though several reform movements criticized the practice of the ministry in different ways—the lack of pastoral care and the worldliness of bishops and popes, for example—none ever doubted the reality of the one church as the basis of society and culture, of daily life, and political affairs. The unity of the religious and non-religious areas was not touched. “Religio est vinculum societatis”—“religion is the chain of society.”1 That is, religion is the binding force, the glue that permeates and holds all together. The proverb clearly illustrates the deep conviction of man in the Middle Ages, even in the fifteenth century when complaints about the “real church” as they experienced it became overwhelming. Thus Martin Luther’s critique was often interpreted as a sequel to the late medieval reform discussion about church, ministry, and the implementation of pastoral care derived from reform movements such as the Modern Devotion (Devotio Moderna), the Bohemian Brethren, the Hussite movement, and from several of the reform congregations of the mendicant orders. As a member of this last group, the reformed congregations of the Augustinian order, Luther was educated by Johann von Staupitz and others in the ideas of a Biblical-based reform “in head and members” of the church. It seems Staupitz concentrated or blended the different attempts at reform and became, as Heiko A. Oberman provocatively pointed out, a “forerunner of the Reformation.”2 In what follows we shall see how much Luther is distinct from his medieval precedents. His critique of the late medieval church was based

1For the understanding of religion see the study of Ernst Feil, Religio. Die Geschichte eines neuzeitlichen Grundbegriffs vom Frühchristnetum bis zur Reformation (Göttingen, 1986). 2“Martin Luther. Vorläufer der Reformation,” in: Verifikationen. Festschrift für Gerhard Ebeling zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. Eberhard Jüngel, Johannes Wallmann and Wilfrid Werbeck (Tübingen, 1982), 91-119. Dr. Markus Wriedt is research professor at the Institut für Europäische Geschichte in Mainz, Germany, and newly appointed Visiting Professor of Theology at Marquette University in Milwaukee. A shorter version of this article was delivered at a student-faculty convocation at Concordia Seminary on November 8, 2000.

254 on another foundation and destroyed the system of religious and secular unity of the last thousand years. With Luther a new epoch began. He was—even though he did not want to become this—the founder of a new understanding of church and society, and with that, one of the prophets of the modern age. At the same time, bear in mind that Luther was indeed a man of the late medieval age. Not only that, he was thoroughly educated by late medieval teachers, monks, and professors. He internalized the system of philosophy as well as that of theology, the daily piety as well as the social life, the stress on hope and faith as well as fright and sorrow, all bound up within the mindset of a later medieval “individuum.” Yet when I say “individuum,” I am mistaken in a sense, for that concept—the individual approach—was not his starting point but the result of a long-lasting process of emancipation and recognition. Looking back at the end of his life, Luther commented in the preface to his Latin writings that he had been in all the controversy quite by accident and unintentionally driven by hostile opponents to rethink things over the years.3 I think Luther is right in his self-assessment. The revolving results of the Reformation—today’s historians of the Reformation discuss these phenomena under the title of “confessionalization” which means the modernization and introduction of social discipline to the reformed societies4 —were not completely intended by Luther. He did not want to found a new church or, even worse, a new religion called Protestantism. He wanted to “re-form,” to bring the established church back to its roots of the consensus quinquesecularis, that is, the consensus of the first five centuries as well as the roots of Biblical times. Several consequences of his reform attempt he tried to correct. After the 1530 Diet of Augsburg he drew back and with great irritation saw the Reformation taking on a secular face.

Luther’s Understanding of the Ministry

Even though Luther intensified the discussion about church, he never wrote a book “de ecclesia.”5 When he disputed with Cardinal Cajetan in Würzburg in August 1518, the Roman legate summarized Luther’s

3Martin Luther, Werke (Weimar, 1883- ), vol. 54, pp. 179-187; p. 180, line 3f. [Hereafter cited as WA; hence: WA 54, 179-187; 180, 3f.] Martin Luther. Luther’s Works (Philadelphia and St. Louis, 1957- ), vol. 34, pp. 327-338; 328. [The “American Edition” hereafter cited as LW; hence LW 34, 327-338; 328.] 4Cf. Wolfgang Reinhard, “Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and the Early Modern State. A Reassessment,” The Catholic Historical Review 75 (1989): 383-404. For a short survey of the whole debate see Thomas Kaufmann, “Die Konfessionalisierung von Kirche und Gesellschaft,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 121 (1996): 1008-1025; 1112-1121. 5For the current research on Luther’s ecclesiology see the following titles which have been consulted for the recent study. Carl Axel Aurelius, Verborgene Kirche. Luthers Kirchenverständnis aufgrund seiner Streitschriften und Exegese 1519-1521 (Hannover, 1983). S. J. Barnett, “Where Was Your Church before Luther? Claims for the Antiquity of

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 255 explanation with the sentence “What you say means founding a new church.” Luther responded that he wanted to reform but certainly not to break with the Roman church which he had accepted life-long as the true, apostolic, and catholic church.6 To reiterate, Luther never explained his Biblical understanding of the church as a whole in one comprehensive treatise, but he articulated several reform ideas within his polemical writings. Interpreting Luther’s ecclesiology has to take note of this literary dimension: the Wittenberg professor wrote polemical writings, aggressive critique, and powerful answers to his enemies. Thus he never had time—and a calmed/quiet/ peaceful heart—to develop a systematic study. That is one problem of discussing Luther’s ecclesiology. Do not forget this as we look at Luther’s comments, or we risk coloring what are Biblically rooted ideas with circumstances that likely no longer exist or apply in our day. Not every word becomes a norm for all time. The other problem in grasping Luther’s ecclesiology lies with the different fronts he encounters in his battle for a reform of the church. We can name at least three different battle lines. In the first years Luther started to discuss the late medieval understanding of church in the context

Protestantism Examined,” Church History 68:1 (1999): 14-41. Horst Beintker, “Aspekte zu Amt und Gemeinde in Bugenhagens und Luthers Kirchenordnungsprogramm,” Evangelische Theologie 47 (1987): 120-137. Michael Beyer, “Luthers Ekklesiologie,” in: Helmar Junghans, ed., Leben und Werk Martin Luthers von 1526-1546 (Berlin, 1983), pp. 93-117, 755-765. Martin Brecht, ed., Martin Luther und das Bischofsamt (Stuttgart, 1990). Robert J. Goeser, “Word of God, Church, and Ministry,” Dialog 29 (1990), 195-206. Konrad Hammann, Ecclesia spiritualis. Luthers Kirchenverständnis in den Kontroversen mit Augustin von Alveldt und Ambrosius Catharinus (Göttingen, 1989). Scott H. Hendrix, Luther and the Papacy (Philadelphia, 1981). Eilert Herms, Luthers Auslegung des dritten Artikels (Tübingen, 1987). Wolfgang Höhne, Luthers Anschauungen über die Kontinuität der Kirche (Berlin, 1963). Friedrich Wilhelm Kantzenbach, “Jesus Christus Haupt der Kirche. Erwägungen zu Ansatz und Einheit der Kirchenanschauungen Martin Luthers,” Lutherjahrbuch 41 (1974): 7-44. Ulrich Kühn, Kirche (Gütersloh, 1980). Volker Leppin, “Luthers Antichristverständnis vor dem Hintergrund der mittelalterlichen Konzeption,” Kerygma und Dogma 45 (1999): 48-63. Hellmut Lieberg, Amt und Ordination bei Luther und Melanchthon (Göttingen, 1962). Jürgen Lutz, Unio und Communio. Zum Verhältnis von Rechtfertigungslehre und Kirchenverständnis bei Martin Luther. Eine Untersuchung zu ekklesiologisch relevanten Texten der Jahre 1519-1528 (Paderborn, 1990). Gudrun Neebe, Apostolische Kirche. Grundunterscheidungen an Luthers Kirchenbegriff unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner Lehre von den notae ecclesiae (Berlin, 1997). Todd Nichol and Marc Kolden, Called and Ordained: Lutheran Perspectives on the Office of Ministry (Minneapolis, 1990), Tarald Rasmussen, Inimici ecclesiae. Das ekklesiologische Feindbild in Luthers Dictata super Psalterium 1513-1515 im Horizont der theologischen Tradition (Leiden, 1989). Klaus Schwarzwäller, “Rechtfertigung und Ekklesiologie in den Schmalkaldischen Artikeln,” Kerygma und Dogma 35 (1989). Wolfgang Stein, Das kirchliche Amt bei Luther (Wiesbaden, 1974). Joseph Vercruysse, Fidelis Populus. Eine Untersuchung über die Ekklesiologie in Martin Luthers Dictata super psalterium (Wiesbaden, 1968). Jared Wicks, “Heiliger Geist—Kirche—Heiligung. Einsichten aus Luthers Glaubensunterricht,” Catholica [München]) 45 (1991): 79-110. 6Dockumente zur Causa Lutheri (1517-1521) 2. Teil: Vom Augsburger Reichstag 1518 bis zum Wormser Edikt 1521. Herausgegeben und kommentiert von Peter Fabisch und Erwin Iserloh (Münster, 1991), 87-109.

256 of his critique of the praxis of indulgence-letters. Starting at the point that there is no theological legitimacy for that practice, he quickly found that the process of establishing legitimacy itself caused several problems for understanding the church and its authority. Another frontline was opened in the early 1520s when reform-orientated radicals brought tumult to the Wittenberg group of reformers. Not only Andreas Karlstadt and Thomas Müntzer but also spiritualistic radicals denied the necessity of the ministry and the need for pastoral order in an evangelical church. A third frontline distinguished different positions or meanings within the Reformation group. Luther’s understanding of ministry is a result of his struggle for righteousness and his exploration of the “evangelium.” His distinction between Law and Gospel as much as the consequences of this finding for an Biblically-based ethic caused separation and distinctions within the group of the Wittenberg reformers, starting with Johann Agricola and going forth to Georg Major and Philipp Melanchthon. As already mentioned, the starting point for Luther’s development is late medieval ecclesiology, concentrating on the terms “potestas ordinis” and “potestas iurisdictionis.” Potestas—translating the Greek “exousía”— refers to the authority and power of the minister. He holds by the way of his ordination—or better: consecration—the power to administer the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist that is understood as the holy sacrifice of the blood and body of Christ. The medieval liturgy for the consecration of a priest puts the formula this way: “accipe postestatem offerendi sacrificium in ecclesia pro vivis et mortuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.”7 The authority to be a priest leading or presiding at the service is called the “potestas ordinis.” The priest not only carries out his work within the church, that is, within the service, but one of his most important duties is also pastoral care. During the Middle Ages the term “pastoral care”—cura animarum or “care of souls”—describes especially the duties of a bishop. It includes administration of his diocese, organization of the services, and the calling and installation of various clerical positions: deacons, presbyters, sextons, and others who hold many assignments in the church in that area or diocese. In the later centuries, pastoral care was understood more and more as the duty of a minister to care for the souls of his parishioners. To teach the ecclesiastical doctrine, to guide people seeking answers, and to judge the orientation of their life and community became especially the most essential duty of a priest. He was the guide on the way to salvation. The church became the exclusive “mediatrix salvatoris.” The prime authority of a priest was concentrated in the sacrament of penance: he tested the contrition of the sinner, he gave absolution, and he imposed penalties. Thus the priest became both father in faith and judge, combined in one person. The accent

7Quoted from the Bulla unionis Armeniorum “Exsultate Deo” (22.11.1439), quoted from Enchiridion Symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, eds. Heinrich Denziger and Adolf Schönmetzer, Freiburg 36 1976, No. 1326.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 257 on the latter was intensified in late medieval times.8 So Luther experienced priests, church, and especially the pope as the most powerful authority not only on questions of religious life but also on the question of eternal salvation. And when Luther started to discuss the practice of indulgences, he quickly became involved in the question of ecclesiastical authority and the ministry of priests. He denied the understanding of “postestas iurisdictionis” exclusively for the priests only and claimed in his interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 that Jesus gave this authority not to Peter alone but to all the apostles and that meant to the whole church.9 This was the result of the dispute with Alexander Prierias, a poor scholastic theologian who tried to defend the papacy on the grounds of tradition. For example, he asserted five points against Luther and other Wittenberg heretics. One of these is formulated to claim that those who say the church is not permitted to do what it is doing are to be condemned (anathemata sit). With that he tried to establish a broad papal tradition that Luther destroyed by his arguments based on the Scripture alone. In the years that followed, Luther came to the conclusion that with this argument he had moved fundamentally the ground of the medieval church. The discussion about indulgences and Biblical proof for the administration of the Sacraments through priests alone were no longer the focus. The dispute concentrated more and more on the question of who or what has the last authority in church and in society as a whole.10 In the early 1520s Luther found that Matthew 16:18f. is not the foundation of the papacy and not even of a specific ministry. He combined this quotation with Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22f. and claimed that the authority to bind and loose sins was given to the church as community, not exclusively to a special person or ministry: “All Christians here are given this authority even though several unrighteous claimed this power exclusively for themselves, some such as the pope, bishops, and clerics who claim this power and say it has been given to them alone and not to lay people.”11 With that Luther touched on the question of what “church” means and pointed to his doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

8Cf. Thomas Bonhoeffer, Ursprung und Wesen der christlichen Seelsorge (München, 1985); Gerhard Ebeling, “Luthers Gebrauch der Wortfamilie ‘Seelsorge,’” Lutherjahrbuch 61 (1994): 7-44. 9WA 2, 189, 33-35: “Relinquitur ergo, quod Christus responsum Petra acceptarit non pro solo Petro sed pro toto collegio apostolurum et disciplulorum” (Resolutio Lutheriana super propositione sua decima tertia de potestatie pape 1519). 10Kurt Victor Selge, Normen der Christenheit, Habil.Schrift Heidelberg; in an abbreviated form published as “Das Autoritätengefüge der weistlichen Christenheit inm Lutherkonflikt (1517-1521),” Historische Zeitschrift 223 (1976): 591-661. 11WA 10/3, 96, 15ff.: “Allen Christenn wirdt hye (Joh 20, 22f.) gebenn dyse gewalt, wiewohl etzliche unbilliche yhn allein tzu geeygent haben, als Babst, Bischoffe unnd Pfaffen, die woellen die gewalt habenn und sagenn, sie ist yhn allein geben und nit den leyhen.”

258 Luther and the Priesthood of All Believers

In the year 1520 the Franciscan monk Augustin Alfeld of Leipzig provoked Luther with the publication of a pamphlet “On the Apostolic See, Whether It Is of Divine Legitimacy or Not.” At the end of May 1520 Luther received a copy of the tract. In this booklet Alfeld tried to prove on the basis of Scripture that the papacy is legitimized through divine authority. Therefore, Alfeld insisted, Luther had to respect the pope. Alfeld used a very simple argument: no community can exist without a head that unified the widespread interests and many members, and in the church that one head is the pope. Not only logical reason but also Scripture proves the case, said Alfeld: the high priest Aaron is the true model from the Old Testament for the ministry of Peter. So Rome became the new Jerusalem. All true scholarship in the church has to be based on the teachers of the church, that is, on the fathers, just as true piety is related to the holiness of Peter and his successors. Alfeld orchestrated his tract by blending in several Biblical quotations and then called himself a theological Alexander the Great who cuts the Gordian knot of Luther’s ecclesiological problems with seven swords. Luther was shocked. But he was not alone. The academic community was irritated by the poor argumentation and the ridiculous style used by Alfeld. Thus nobody was particularly eager to stoop to write an answer. Luther first left it for his famulus, Johannes Lonicer, asking him to write something. But several days later Alfeld published a German translation of his Latin tract, making it available to the wider Leipzig citizenry and dedicating it to the city mayor and to the members of the curia. Now Luther could no longer keep silent. He wrote his famous treatise “On the Papacy in Rome Against the Most Famous Romanist in Leipzig.”12 We can’t follow his arguments throughout this book —arguably, it seems to me, the best ecclesiastical study Luther ever wrote—but we can start our sketch of Luther’s ideas with lines from the tract where Luther gave a brief but fully satisfying definition of what he understood by the word “church”:

Scripture speaks about Christendom very simply and in only one way...[that is] that Christendom means an assembly of all the people on earth who believe in Christ, as we pray in the Creed: “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the communion of saints.” This community or assembly means all those who live in true faith, hope, and love. Thus the essence, life, and nature of Christendom is not a physical assembly, but an assembly of hearts in one faith.…”13

12WA 6, 285-324; LW 39, 55-104. 13Die Schrift redet von der Christenheit gar schlicht, und zwar nur auf eine Weise. Über diese hinaus haben sie (i.e., die Römer) zwei andere Weisen in den Gebrauch gebracht: Die erste Weise, die nach der Schrift, ist, daß die Christenheit eine Versammlung aller Christgläubigen auf Erden heißt, wie wir im Glaubensbekenntnis beten: “Ich glaube

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 259 “An assembly of hearts in one faith”—that is the meaning of church. Nothing more. Luther says nothing about ministry, law, order, obedience, councils, household, and other things like that. Luther knows about all of these, but he concentrates on the Biblical foundation to lay out his vision of church. In another book from the year 1520, his famous De captivitate Babylonica (“On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church”) Luther wrote:

It is a shameful and an unrighteous slavery, that a Christian, who is free, is subjected to other power and doctrines than heavenly and divine.14

In his “Freedom of the Christian” Luther explains this argument more clearly. The church has no authority to judge all dimensions of human life. The church cannot promise or give grace.15 The church is not able to implement new Sacraments. The church has no power to found new laws. The administration of the pope does not have the same authority and legitimacy as the Word of God. His government has to be judged by the Scripture and is subordinated to the revelation of the divine will in the Gospel. Instead, the church has the authority to distinguish clearly the Word of God from human sayings. That is the power of the church. There is no other realm for ecclesiastical judgment.16 If there is no theological, i.e., Biblical-based distinction between ecclesiastical ministers and the true believers, and if the church is constituted by the community of hearts in one faith, then there is no legitimacy in the distinction between clergy and laity. Luther turns this negative argument to a positive one: the potestas iurisdictionis is given to the church, that is, to all believers. All believers are members of the church through Baptism. If all baptized Christians possess the authority of judgment about life and doctrine, all believers hold the authority of priests. Thus Luther claimed that all baptized are priests and receive through Baptism and faith a part in Christ’s ministry as Prophet, King, and High Priest. Therefore,

Everyone who knows himself as a Christian shall be sure and know for certain that we are all priests in the same sense, and that we

an den heiligen Geist, eine Gemeinschaft der Heiligen.” Diese Gemeinde oder Versammlung umfaßt all die, die in rechtem Glauben, rechter Hoffnung und rechter Liebe leben, was zur Folge hat, daß der Christenheit Wesen Leben und Natur nicht eine leibliche Versammlung ist, sondern eine Versammlung der Herzen in einem Glauben; WA 6, 292, 35-293, 4; LW 39, 65. 14WA 6, 563, 7-9: Turpe enim est et iniquiter servile, Christianum hominem, qui liber est, aliis quam coelestibus ac divinis subiectum esse traditionibus. The quotations can be found in LW 36, 11-126. 15WA 6, 561,19. 16WA 6, 561, 3ff.

260 have authority in relation to the word and any sacrament.17

And interpreting 1 Peter 2:9, Luther explains it this way:

We are all priests before God, as much as we are Christians. For since we have been laid on the stone which became our high priest, we share everything that he owns.18

This understanding of the priesthood of all believers implies two dimensions of Christian life. On one hand, the Christians are part of the new folk of God and share its promise for eternal salvation that Christ had merited for His people, the church. On the other hand Luther’s understanding of the priesthood of all believers implies that the Christians are entitled to the rights and duties that were maintained exclusively by the clergy in former times. With that, Luther destroyed the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the foundation of the medieval church.19 As a consequence, Luther finally denied the legitimacy of the consecration and the associated understanding of the character indelibilis. Ordination is no Sacrament. It is an invention of the church and without divine legitimacy. Rather a man becomes a priest through Baptism: “We all become priests through the consecration of the baptism.”20 This vision of the church constituted by its believers has a strong spiritualistic tendency. Thus it was just a question of time before Luther would be confronted with the radical consequences of his ecclesiology. The challenge came quickly and forced Luther to consider another essential aspect of the ministry.

The Necessity of the Ministry

Even though Luther in his early years accentuated the priesthood of all believers and a more spiritualistic view of the church against Rome, he never lost the point of a special ministry in the church. He never denied a special vocation and ordination of individuals for a specific duty. Luther was—as a man of the late medieval era—deeply convinced that the church has its own order which had to be followed. Even before the radical challenge

17WA 6, 566, 26-28: Esto itaque certus et sese agnoscat quicunque se Christianum esse cognoverti, omnes nos quequaliter esse sacerdotes, hoc est eandem in verbo et sacramento quocunque habere potestatem. For the status questionis in the recent research about Luther’s doctrine of the priesthood of all believers see Harald Goertz, Allgemeines Priestertum und ordiniertes Amt bei Luther (Marburg, 1997). 18WA 12, 317, 6-8: “Alle sind wyr priester fur Gott, so wyr Christen sind. Denn syntemal wyr auff den steyn gelegt sind, wilcher der ubirst priester fur Gott ist, so haben wyr auch alles, was er hatt.” 19See Luther’s more elaborated discussion of this theory in his “De instituendis ministris,” WA 12, 169-196; LW 40, 7-44. 20WA 6, 407, 22f. (An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation..., 1520) LW 44, 123- 217.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 261 erupted, Luther already had written in his “Babylonian Captivity of the Church”:

But it is not allowed that everyone individually uses this potestas without being asked by the community or without a call through one of the elders. (Because what belongs to all of the community is not for one alone, and he is not allowed to take it exclusively without being called to do so.)21

There are several other passages with the same meaning. Luther targeted that view of reforming the church aimed especially against the radical reform movements with their spiritualistic or political background such as Andreas Karlstadt, Michael Stifel, Gabriel Zwilling, and Müntzer. Already before the outbreak of the Wittenberg disturbances Luther wrote to the Christian nobility:

Because we are all alike as priests, no one stands up on his own and without proper consent of the community and calling and does things that everyone can do with the same authority. Those things that are common should no one exclusively claim without allowance of the community or without special calling.22

The contexts targeted in these critiques are clear. There remains the exclusivistic self-understanding of the Roman clergy. And then in the early 1520s a new frontline opposing that mainstream Reformation in Wittenberg was established by the radicals. On that other side we find a great number of former friends and colleagues of Luther, most notably Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, a most prominent preacher and one-time university professor. He accented a more spiritual understanding of church and ministry and denied all forms of ritual, order, and legitimizing administration. Against those, the above-mentioned arguments of Luther are seen in a new light. Not only the exclusive claim for a special standing and order in society but also now the radical assaults on the necessity of a ministry and church ordinances come into play. Quoting 1 Corinthians 14:40 Luther emphasized two arguments: first, the public nature of the church life, and second, the general order which God created and which Christians as much as heathens need to obey. Both arguments are linked together: right order in the church is a model for right order of society. As far as the Christians obey the divine Law, so far

21WA 6, 566, 32f.: Verum non licere quenquam hac ipsa uti nisi consensu communitatis and vocatione maioris. (Quod nim omnium est communiter, nullus singulariter potest sivi arrogare, donec vocetur.) 22WA 6, 408, 13-17: weyl wir alle gleich priester sein, musz sich niemant selb erfur thun und sich unterwinden, an unszer bewilligen und erwelen, das zuthun, des wir alle gleychen gewalt haben. Den was gemeyne ist, mag niemandt ohn der gemeyne wille und befehle an sich nehmen.

262 will the society in which they live flourish and grow. Luther thus emphasizes an argument based on the Pauline conception of the early church, that the rights and duties that belong to all Christians likewise for the reason of maintaining proper order must be used in common by all members of a congregation. This seems to be a contradiction: on the one hand Luther criticized the Roman clergy for proclaiming an exclusive special ministry, and, on the other hand, he argues for the necessity of a special ministry. But there is, in fact, a deeper relationship or tie. Luther argues using the priesthood of all believers based on the Scripture against a Roman claim of potestas, while that special ministry Luther never denied is necessary to continue the ecclesiastical duties in the Reformation. Some modern researchers call Luther’s view of the ministry “functional.” That understands the ministry as a pragmatic creation of the priesthood of all believers where the priesthood sees needs—functions—to be managed and so sets something to get the jobs done. But the ministry is more than that for Luther, and I doubt that these sociological categories fit exactly with Luther’s understanding. Luther was neither an heir of the Bielefeld school of sociology familiar to us Germans, nor was he a systematic theologian. Rather with Scriptural principles or Biblical theology undergirding his thought, Luther speaks to occasions or problems, arguing in the context of controversies, responding to circumstances as he tries to advance the Biblical view against the traditionalist interpretation of the Roman Catholic theologians. So what are the main aspects of Luther’s understanding of the ministry?

To be a priest means nothing else than to be a minister of the Word. Of the Word, I said, not of the Law but of the Gospel.23

First of all, the authority of a priest is based on the Word contained in the Scripture. A priest is not a priest in his own right. Nor is he a priest by virtue of participating with the authority of other humans. Rather a priest becomes a priest through the Word of promise that has been said to him in the Baptism. And this Word is the Gospel. Luther’s distinction of Law and Gospel cannot be discussed in full.24 But let us briefly sketch Luther’s important ideas. “Gospel” in Luther’s understanding means the promise of salvation that is brought to mankind through Christ. Thus every sentence of the Bible that leads to the

23WA 6, 566, 32f.: Sacerdotium proprie esse non nisi minsterium verbi, verbi, inquam, non legis sed Evangelii. 24For a more extended explanation see Albrecht Peters, Gesetz und Evangelium (Gütersloh, 1981), and with respect to the patristic and medieval tradition the last study of Bernhard Lohse, “Gesetz und Gnade—Gesetz und Evangelium.” in Evangelium in der Geschichte II: Studien zur Theologie der Kirchenväter und zu ihrer Rezeption in der Reformation (Göttingen, 1998), 231-254.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 263 understanding of salvation coming to the sinner and the message of the merciful God has to be interpreted as Gospel. In contrast or distinction to the Gospel, the Law accuses and shows the everlasting sin of mankind. Every sentence of the Scripture that leads to man’s self-understanding as a sinner has to be interpreted as Law. This distinction is not a static or an ontological one but a hermeneutical one: no sentence of the Bible has a static, fixed objective meaning as if we simply add up vocabulary words, for the Bible’s sentences are the lively Word of God that is spoken to me in a very special moment and context. Thus a sentence can be heard as Gospel and yet in the same time be understood as Law. Here is an example. The First Commandment that declares “I am your God; You shall not have any other,” can be understood as Law: “You must not look to other gods. You need to be exclusively obedient to the Lord. If you fail, this causes terrible punishment. What is the last authority for you? Do you listen to God or to your own understanding, reason, self-confidence, etc.? If you do so, you failed and you are a sinner.” That, again, is Law. At the same time you can listen to the First Commandment as Gospel: “You don’t need to look for other gods. I will be with you and support you in any situation. I will give all you need. If you feel lonely, just turn around and find my face in the face of your neighbor, for I have not created you to be alone. No matter what your reason, self-understanding, your conscience, etc., may sow as doubt, keep calm, for I will be with you. And I will have the victory, for I am your God.” Those are the same vocabulary words in the text of the commandment, but the meaning in this case is Gospel. Luther‘s understanding of the ministry is closely linked to that distinction. The priest has to serve the Word. He has to preach the Gospel. Again the frontline is clear: it is not the duty of a priest to be a ruler, to correct people, to judge their lives, and intervene in the concrete plans. That is what the Roman clergy did with their intervention in political, cultural, and other secular matters. The Roman clerics were not alone. The radicals did the same in their translating of the Old Testament commands word for word into their contemporary, concrete situations in Wittenberg, Mühlhausen, or Orlamünde. Instead, Luther insisted, the duty of a priest is to take care for the Gospel so that it is carried out into the world. And in the collective public life of the Christian congregation with all its believers, that public duty is carried out by the minister. But from this work of proclamation, some interpreters then take a “functionalist view” of the minister and ministry. As mentioned above, this is not adequate, for Luther laid out a concrete view of a minister in an office which is there for serving, for making known “the Word in function.” We have to look at this in a bit more detail.

Call and Ordination No one can lay claim to the special ministry of serving the Word by his own authority. The priest needs to be called and ordained. Even though

264 Luther denied a special consecration and rejected an indelible character, he emphasized the vocation and demanded a formal act of ordination because of the need for right order: “Ordination means nothing else than to call and to order into the ministry of the Word.”25 We have to distinguish two steps: call and ordination. For Luther the community of all believers has the highest authority, humanly speaking, in the church: the minister has to be called by the local parish. Responsibility for the ministry as a whole rests with the church which is concrete in the local congregation. Thus the local community has to find its ministers for preaching, teaching, pastoral care, etc. After 1527—the visitations in Saxony that revealed a disastrous picture of the church in the electoral territory—Luther understood the necessity for a complete reform and a new constitution of the ministry. Luther had said already in 1524:

We will preach and ordain in another way than these bishops. Because we have already a ministry, we will ordain on that basis. Ordination does not mean consecration. If we know a pious man, we will call him and give to him in the power of the Word what we have already: the authority to preach the Word and to distribute the Sacraments. That is what it means to ordain.26

Luther put this understanding of the call into practice with the ordination of Georg Rörer: Luther ordained the man on the fourteenth of May 1524 in the city church of Wittenberg as deacon. After the formal calling he laid his hands on Rörer and prayed for the benediction of God on his ministry. Even though there was no formally constituted procedure, Luther tried to find a right order. In his formulary for the ordination of evangelical ministers27 and his sermon from October 20, 1535,28 Luther emphasized three fundamental acts which constitute the ordination:

1. the Baptism. 2. the call of a local congregation. 3. the acknowledgement of the legitimacy in a public service through a high ecclesiastical authority (bishop, superintendent, etc.).

This understanding of ordination implies the obedience to the Word of Christ, for Christ is the one who acts through His ministers in the church:

25WA 38, 401: Ordinirn sol heissen beruffen und befelhen das Pfarrampt. 26WA 15, 721: Nos praedicabimus et ungemus aliter quam illi Episcopi. Sed nos qui iam habemus ministeria, commendabimus in nostrum ministerium. Ordinare non es consecrare. Si ergo scimus pium hominem, extrahimus eum et damus in virtute verbi quod habemus, auctoritatem praedicandi verbum et dandi scramenta. Hoc est ordinare. 27WA 38, 423ff. 28WA 41, 454ff.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 265 “The ministry is of Christ, who establishes them.”29

No Character Indelibilis

Therefore ordination does not change the character or ability of an ordained Christian. It is the obedience to the call of God—formulated in the call of the parish—that demands future obedience to the will of God by the one ordained. Thus a minister can fall like all other Christians by not following the commands of God but instead by pursuing his own understanding and will. To avoid such failure the church has to watch out for candidates who may fall into trouble and to protect their parishes as well as themselves from the temptation of evil.30 The priest serves as a minister of the Word as long as the parish needs his service. He becomes a normal parishioner again—not reduced to a “mere layman” but a priest like all others priests with him—the moment the parish calls and ordains another candidate or finds a strong reason that he does not preach the true Gospel. This argument has an anti-Donatist accent: the ministry is not linked to any individual constitution of the person who is ordained. Neither is some special ability needed, nor, as noted above, does ordination constitute a special behavior or charisma connected exclusively to the minister.

The Duties of a Minister

The Augsburg Confession describes the duties of a minister as “docendi evangelii et porrigendi sacramenta,” that is, teaching the Gospel and administering/distributing the Sacraments. This sounds almost like the medieval ordination liturgy, but there is an important difference: for Luther and the Wittenberg Reformation the Word has the last authority, and this authority cannot be divided. Thus a minister is subordinated to the Word and has to be judged in all dimensions of his life in the light of the Scriptures. The minister himself has no power/authority over other people. His duties are to comfort the mourning, to console the depressed, to bring the promise of redemption to those who seek redemption, to carry forth into the world the Word of the merciful God with its promise of salvation:

For Christ did not found empires, nor powers, nor rich and wealthy lordships in his church, but he established serving ministers as we have learned from the apostles.... He calls for faith in the confessing

29WA 41, 242: Die empter sind Christi, qui instituit. 30WA 41, 457f.: Noster princeps hat geordnet..., ut priester nicht geweihet wird nobis ignorantibus, Ut in primitiva Ecclesia musten verbieten nec ubique weiheten und eundeins wurde cum preudoapostolis und lieff davon.... Ideo estote testes, quod ordinatus, et schicken hin gen Gotta.... Debetis orare, ut dominus maneat pfarrer, teuffer, Sacramentsreicher, i.e., ut serventur, ut ordinavit.

266 sinner, that this man, when he receives redemption in faith, comes through the promise to deep security of the realization of the salvation in the end of the times. This is not a question of power (potestas), but a question of the ministry of him who can give redemption alone.31

The ministry of the word makes a priest and a bishop.32

Luther destroyed the ecclesiastical hierarchy. But he still emphasized the necessity of different duties in the church. In the Roman understanding, the full ministry is possessed by the pope. He divides his power and authority to the bishops and they again to their clergy. Thus a pyramid-shaped model of the ecclesiastical hierarchy describes the Roman system with the pope at its top and the deacons, etc., down at the bottom. There is no doubt where power and authority ultimately reside. Luther turned this system upside down. With respect to the early church (ecclesia primitiva) he understands the Christian hierarchy as a functional relationship and not as an order of individual dignity and ability. On top are the believers, the community of hearts in one faith. It divides or commits its authority to the called and ordained ministers. They again or in turn elect one candidate as pastor pastorum, as a bishop or superintendent. He has to serve as minister ministrorum. What are his duties? In several letters Luther addressed his friends, colleagues, and other priests as “bishop.” It is astonishing how many people Luther called “bishop.” What did this term of address imply for Luther’s understanding of the leading ministry in the church? Let me briefly sketch the results that emerge after analyzing his letters.33

1. Because Luther addressed several non-bishops as “episcopus,” we have an indication that he understood that there was a leading ministry in the church. But because he used this title without or apart from a formal system or legal, established structure, we have to be quite careful not to over-interpret these letters and read too much into them. 2. It seems clear that Luther addressed ministers of cities as bishops or superintendents. But this does not establish a hard and fast rule for the title: Luther did not address every minister of a city as

31Non enim imperia, non potestates, non dominationes, sed ministeria in Ecclesia sua constituit, sicut ex Apostolo didicimus...fidem provocat poenitentis, ut hoc promissionis verbo certus sit, si solveretur credens, vere solutum se esse in caelo, ubi plane nihil potestatis, sed ministerium tangitur absolventis (De capt. Bayl.). 32WA 6, 566, 9: Ministerium verbi facit sacerdotum et Episcopum. 33Cf. “Luthers Gebrauch der Bischofstitulatur in seinen Briefen,” in Luther und das Bischofsamt, ed. Martin Brecht (Stuttgart, 1990), 73-100.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 267 bishop. Even though the title of bishop for the minister of a city hearkens back to the ancient times of the early church, we do not have a real proof that Luther saw this link. He certainly did not use the title automatically. 3. A survey of the letters in which Luther used “bishop” as title for a minister gives some brief indication of what Luther outlined as the duties of a leading or supervising minister.

He has to administer and to organize the local congregation. Luther emphasized especially the need to reform the liturgy, preaching and teaching and the abolition of non-Biblically based rites and ceremonies.

The bishop has to find the right candidates for the many duties in his congregation: teacher, preacher, sextons, deacons, etc. He has to care for these ministers, to guarantee their income, to care for their families, to judge their teaching and preaching.

The bishop has to mediate between colleagues when they are at odds, and he should arbitrate and settle differences over the right interpretation of the Gospel and doctrine. He also should mediate between ecclesiastical and secular interests and authorities.

The bishop has to teach and to preach. His ministry is based on the ministry of his priests. Thus he has to be a forerunner or model of their administration.

The bishop has to care not only for his ministers but also for difficult cases in his parish, especially questions of marriage and divorce.

The bishop represents the congregation in “ecumenical” contexts with other parishes or with other churches.

There is no clear distinction between a minister and a bishop in the light of Luther’s letters. A closer look at his books and tracts does not provide a more satisfying definition. It seems that Luther does not want to draw clear distinctions or create some great divide, for he understands the bishop as a minister and a minister as a priest like all other Christians. Their duties distinguish the ministers functionally but not on the basis of a different condition or nature of their being. Luther kept his view of the ministry open. This all makes sense in the light of the early Reformation and the often-chaotic situation that befell a number of parishes in Saxony. Luther had solid ideas drawn from Biblical evidence. He applied those to various circumstances or occasions. The duties he outlines as noted here certainly have a feel that reflects his time, place, and situation. But what

268 Luther generally hesitates to do is to fix administrative orders, to elaborate structures. They then can easily become a new law that extinguishes the Gospel in the church.

Conclusion

I have tried to show what Luther envisioned as an evangelical church and how he understood the ministry. There are two lines that are closely intermingled. The one line is Luther’s doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. The other is his conviction of the necessity of the ministry. These two lines are not contradictory. Rather, they complete each other. This can be seen if one looks to the background controversies in which Luther accents one or the other. Against Rome Luther emphasized the priesthood of all believers to correct the non-Biblical understanding of the clergy and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Against the radicals and spiritualists Luther stressed the argument for an ordained ministry to avoid spiritualistic chaos or radical revolts. The ministry could not be dismissed as unnecessary or hijacked by any or all simply driven by their imaginations. It became the duty of Philipp Melanchthon, Nikolaus von Amsdorf, and others to establish or organize an evangelical church. They did it by amending, concentrating, interpreting, and discussing the position of Luther. It is clear that they were not out to establish a Lutheran church, even though it was called so later on. What they did do was to implement, expand, and build on a highly polemical and prophetic sketch Luther left to them. Regularizing fell to them as the dust settled. Thus it seems inappropriate to criticize Luther for the results of the Reformation or to argue against Melanchthon and his followers on the basis of Luther’s early tracts and sermons. The situation had changed, and new challenges provoked new answers. Therefore, I cannot say that Luther’s ecclesiology must be explored and invoked “as is” as the solution to all the problems of our churches today. But we certainly must read Luther as a witness of true belief, as a preacher of the Gospel. We also can find with Luther a way back into the Scriptures and through the Word come to solutions for our own problems. Don’t make Luther a saint. But do let Luther be what he became for Lutherans and for many other Christians: a father in faith.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 269 Bridging the Gap: Sharing the Gospel with Muslims

Scott Yakimow

As soon as planes began running into buildings, people started asking questions as to what could have possibly motivated such a horrific atrocity. Upon discovering that the hijackers were Muslims, many who had never thought much about Islam beforehand began to wonder about this religion.1 Post 9-11 events in Israel where violence is spinning out of control between the Israelis and the Palestinians have also served to focus attention on the religion of Islam. The average church attendee knows little to nothing about Islam and may actually be scared of Muslims. Yet it is into this confusion that an informed discussion regarding the nature of Islam must take place—not for the sake of dispensing information, but so that Christians might be motivated to engage Muslims with the Gospel in an informed manner. This is an historic opportunity for the church to prepare Christians to witness their faith to Muslims. This paper seeks to enable this preparation by defining the “gap” between Christian teaching and Islamic teaching so that adequate “bridges” for the Gospel of Christ can be discovered.

Methodology

Throughout almost all of Islamic history, Muslims and Christians have come into uneasy contact with each other. Armed conflict between “Christian” and Muslim2 civilizations is the sad legacy of many of these encounters from the time of the Islamic expansion into Byzantium and

1It is important to note that those who participated in the massacres of 9-11 were of a radical, extreme Muslim sect, and even most Muslims who are termed “Fundamentalists” reject what they did. However, all indications point to that at least in their own minds, the terrorists thought that what they were doing, they were doing for God. 2The word “Christian” is in quotations because there is a legitimate debate as to whether or not it is possible for any civilization at any time to carry the moniker “Christian,” or whether it is analytic within Christianity that it can never be actualized within any given state. Islam, on the other hand, is traditionally understood as a religion that encompasses all of human life including the organization of the state, though many argue as to what form that state should take. Some Modernist Muslims contest this interpretation saying that Islam can and should exist within a pluralistic modern state as a private religion. In any case, it is in accordance with classical usage to speak of Muslim states and societies, so quotation marks are avoided when using these terms.

Mr. Scott Yakimov is a student at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO. He is beginning a vicarage for Synod’s Board for Mission Services in Nairobi, Kenya. He has a Master of Arts degree in Islamic Studies.

270 across Christian North Africa and into Christian Spain to the Crusades to Western colonialism to 9-11 and its repercussions. Rarely have Christians and Muslims enjoyed peaceful co-existence; rather, suspicion and fear have characterized attitudes on both sides. In light of this appalling history, some Christians and Muslims have made it a priority to discover ways that Christians and Muslims can live together peacefully. To do so, they have marshaled religious resources on both sides. Christians point to the Biblical concepts of reconciliation3 and unselfish love4 as Christian paradigms for achieving peace between the two communities. Muslim scholars point to the Qur’anic teaching that God has intentionally created more than one religious community in the world, so religious pluralism is a good creation of God.5 In both cases, the common goal is productive and peaceful coexistence between the two traditional religious rivals, Islam and Christianity. This goal does not rule out a priori the possibility or desirability of conversion from one religion to the other, but there is a danger that the importance of conversion will be relativized in favor of political harmony.6 Even so, many, if not most, Christians and Muslims believe that their respective religions make ultimate truth claims that should be propagated to non-believers so that they might come over / convert to Islam or to

3“As Christians we can bring restoration and harmony because we carry the peace and presence of God who acts through us.…” “We suggest that the new martyrs of our Christian age will be the men and women who give up their lives for the work of reconciliation, peace, and justice. Like Mahatma Gandhi, whose action towards healing the rift between Hindus and Muslims cost him his life, or Sister Rani Maria, whose attempts to empower tribal villagers led to her murder, we too will be tested and tried…” (Andreas D’Souza and Diane D’Souza, “Reconciliation: A New Paradigm for Missions,” Word and World 16 [1996]: 205, 212). 4Roland Miller speaks of four pillars bonded together by unselfish love. He speaks of “mutual respect, founded on objective knowledge, fed by motivational inspiration, and released in cooperative action…” and all this explicitly based upon unselfish love (Roland Miller, “Religious Coexistence in Kerala,” in Christian-Muslim Encounters, ed. by Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad and Wadi Z. Haddad [Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1995]: 279). Miller doubts that “enlightened economic self interest” (ibid., 268) is a sufficient basis for inter-religious harmony. Realizing that we are not going to achieve “the ultimate principle of understanding and forgiving love” this side of heaven, he still asks: “is it not perhaps wiser to settle for a penultimate principle that is also worthwhile struggling for and that can be practically advanced?” (ibid., 280). He hopes that such religious resources will prove durable enough to achieve a lasting harmony. 5“To begin with, the Qur’an teaches that it is God who permits that there be more than one religious community in the world. If He willed otherwise, He would have made humankind one single community (umma). This idea is repeated several times in the Qur’an” (Issa J. Boullata, “Fa-stabiqu l’khayrat: A Qur’anic Principle of Interfaith Relations,” in Christian-Muslim Encounters, ed. by Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad and Wadi Z. Haddad [Gainesville, Florida: University Press of FL, 1995]: 43). 6This is not necessarily the case since attempts to achieve political harmony need not take up an undue amount of time. Further, it can be argued that such a non-polemical, peaceful environment may actually benefit evangelism in the long run as it creates a space within which the Gospel can be preached and understood. Civic peace and harmony—the goal of the first use of the Law—can serve the proclamation of the Gospel.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 271 Christianity and make this their primary goal. Muslim powers, such as Saudi Arabia, use petrodollars in the interest of Islamic da’wah (mission) by funding mosque building and dai’yahs (missionaries) to convert non- Muslims to Islam. Mosques funded by petrodollars have been popping up worldwide for decades, most especially in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. On the other side, Christians continue to reach out with the message of Jesus as well as various forms of aid to minister to both the physical and spiritual needs of non-Christians. This type of competition for adherents might result in continued tension between the Christian and Islamic communities. Even so, most on both sides would attribute much of the tension to the diametrically opposed teachings of the two religions and see such tension as inevitable in light of the differing claims regarding ultimate truth. Yet, such inevitable tension should not become an excuse for either unloving conduct or eschewing evangelistic outreach. Rather, both faith communities should be expected to remain true to their basic commitments which includes propagation of their teaching. Realizing that peaceful coexistence between Christians and Muslims is a worthwhile goal within the context of the Lutheran understanding of the first use of the Law7 and the work of God in the left-hand kingdom,8 this paper urges that the primary calling of the Christian church is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus to all people and to administer the Sacraments so that more people might come into a saving relationship with Jesus. It is in this endeavor that the vast majority of time and effort should be spent because Christians should always be witnessing to the justifying, life- changing death and resurrection of Jesus that freely gives eternal life to all who believe. To facilitate the proclamation of Jesus, this study will investigate contemporary trends and their historical bases in Islam, including its outreach to non-Muslims (da’wah), the basic beliefs and practices of Muslims, and the various forms of evangelistic Christian outreach to Muslims. Approaches that focus mainly on achieving peaceful coexistence between the communities will not be treated due to the lack of space even though this school of thought is highly influential within Christianity (it is less influential in Islam). Additionally, the important topic of folk Islam will not be covered in depth though it is of great importance to any particular attempt to reach Muslims with the Gospel.9 The purpose

7That use by which God creates and sustains order in the world in order to preserve and protect life. Negatively stated, it curbs and prevents sin. 8God rules through both the left- and the right-hand kingdoms, but He does so through different means. The left-hand kingdom is the arena of the civil government where the law is dominant. The right-hand kingdom is where grace is found in the church through Word and Sacrament. It is in the administration of Word and Sacrament that the “kingdom of God” referred to in the Bible can be found. 9In a fine article on the missiological importance of folk Islam, Paul Hiebert points out the differences between “orthodox” Islam and folk Islam: “Orthodox Islam seeks truth—truth about the ultimate nature of reality; truth about the way to heaven. Consequently, it is founded on revelation, insight, and reason. Folk religion, on the other hand, focuses on problem solving in everyday life. It is, therefore, basically pragmatic.

272 of this paper will be to give some perspective of the context of contemporary Islam and to describe and evaluate the various Christian approaches to witnessing to Christ in an Islamic context. This is done in the hope that these observations will help people who endeavor to proclaim the message of Christ to Muslims orient themselves to the Islamic context.

Trends in Islam

A great debate rages in Islam over the proper stance to take in relation to the changing face of a world greatly influenced by the phenomenon of globalization with its concomitant pressures toward capitalism, modernity, and pluralism.10 There are many sides in this debate, and even within various camps there are disparate voices arguing in different ways. However, the most prominent divide is between the Modernist Muslims who take a more liberal and progressive stance toward the changing times advocating a more spiritualized Islam and the Islamist (Fundamentalist) Muslims who reject most of modernity in favor of a repristinized Islam ostensibly along its original lines. It would be too simplistic to say that only the Islamists seek a reformed Islam; rather, both seek to reform Islam but along different and often conflicting lines. Both camps have roots in Islamic history. The particular phenomenon Modernist Muslims represent can be traced back to the mid-eighteenth century, but the roots may go much deeper. During the time of the Abbassid Empire11 and even among the Ummayyids,12 there was an adab culture that advocated the pursuit of the arts, medicine, philosophy, science, and toleration. The adabs helped to form one of the most advanced civilizations

Any method can be used so long as it works. Moreover, several methods can be used simultaneously without apparent contradiction, for one of them may work. A father with a sick son will ask the mullah to pray to God for him, tie an amulet to his arm to drive off evil spirits, and give him modern medicine to kill the germs, all at the same time” (Paul Hiebert, “Power Encounter and Folk Islam,” in Muslims and Christians on the Emmaus Road, ed. by J. Dudley Woodberry [Monrovia, CA: MARC Publishers, 1989]: 49). 10For a discussion of the influence of globalization on Muslim societies, see: Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World (New York: Ballantine Books, 1995). For a discussion of Postmodernism and its effects on Islamic thinking, see: Akbar S. Ahmed, Postmodernism and Islam: Predicament and Promise (New York: Routledge, 1992). 11The name of the second unified, hereditary Muslim empire under Caliphs of the Abbassid family. It is commonly dated from the takeover of Damascus and the end of the Ummayyid Caliphate in 750 A.D. until the sack of the new capital of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258. 12The Ummayyid Caliphate is the first hereditary Muslim empire and is traced from the death of Ali at the hands of the first Ummayyid Caliph Mu’awiyah in 661 until the successful rebellion led by the Abbassids in 750 that led to the takeover of the capital of Damascus.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 273 in the world at the time and oversaw great advances on many humanistic fronts.13 However, since the current debate takes place in the face of Muslim cultural weakness and Western dominance, a better place to locate the start of the Modernist Muslim ethos is during the nineteenth century with leaders like Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan of India (1817-1898) and Muhammad Abduh of Egypt (1849-1905). Khan stressed that Islam is first of all a morality focused around taqwa—the proper attitude of a creature in the face of the awesome Creator. He saw true religion’s essence as that explicated by natural law and, therefore, available to all people. In practice, this meant that the West had something to teach. Reason is superior to revelation. Abduh taught along similar lines though emphasizing the primacy of revelation over reason while still claiming that morality is the most important aspect of human conduct. He was also a great advocate of education, both moral and intellectual. Like Khan, Abduh saw that the West had something to teach, but he thought that it should be evaluated critically and only the good aspects taken without the bad. Both thinkers have many similarities to Western moral philosophers like Kant when they speak of the primarily ethical dimensions of Islam. In Egypt, Abduh’s student, Rashid Rida (1865-1935), and he worked to eliminate the old conservatism that said the laws of Islam are unchangeable,14 but they ultimately had little to show for their efforts. Other important Modernist Muslims include Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1876-1938) and Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958), both from India. Modernists have always had trouble making their presence felt in most of Muslim society because of their high intellectualism and difficulty packaging their message in an easily understandable form. Further, they have rarely been in power or had the financial backing to propagate their ideals. This is true even today as the petrodollars of Saudi Arabia and elsewhere flow to Islamist movements worldwide. In addition, they have frequently been seen as agents of Western culture as many Modernists are educated either in the West or along Western lines; there is something “un-Islamic” about them to many ordinary Muslims. Like the Modernists, the Islamists carry a long heritage. Most obviously in this ideological line are the Kharijites15 who surfaced even during the time of the Pious Caliphs, the first thirty years after Muhammad’s death.

13An in-depth treatment of the adab culture can be found in: Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Classical Age of Islam, vol. 1, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 444-472. 14Taqlid is the teaching that one cannot add or subtract anything from Islamic law because all aspects of life have already been addressed. Ijtihad, what Abduh and Rida advocated, said that Muslims “scholars,” not “laypeople,” did indeed have the right to interpret contemporary situations by adding to Islamic law. 15The Kharijites emphasized pure Islam in the sense of the worship of God alone even going so far as to destroy and defile Muhammad’s tomb because it had become a place of religious pilgrimage.

274 The Wahhabi tradition in Saudi Arabia is also influential upon Islamists, and, oddly, Modernist Muslims like Abduh and Iqbal are also a part of the background of Islamist thinking.16 The two most influential Islamist ideologues are Sayyid Qutb of Egypt (1906-1966) and Maulana Abul ala Mawdudi of India / Pakistan (1903-1979). More than any others, these two thinkers have had profound effects on the mindset of many ordinary Muslims. Both thinkers advocated a type of Islamic state where the Qur’an and Sharia reign supreme and the domination of man over man (read as democracy) is abolished. Both downplayed the role of reason in favor of revelation and advocated puritan ethics including the separation of sexes.17 The concept of jihad allows a convenient entry point to understand the differences between the Modernist and Islamist approaches to Islam. Technically meaning “struggle [in the way of God]” and not “Holy War,” jihad is interpreted vastly differently by the two groups. Modernist Muslims see jihad as obligatory on both an individual and communal level, but they make a distinction between the “Greater Jihad” and the “Lesser Jihad.”18 The Greater Jihad takes place during peacetime and can be an individual striving for ordering one’s entire life along the paths of God or it can be a communal striving for creating a good society. Along these lines, Modernists speak of an educational jihad, an economic jihad for the poor, or a social jihad to abolish class differences. As opposed to the Islamists, none of these “jihads” are explicitly connected with Sharia law as codified by the thirteenth century. The Lesser Jihad, that of Holy War, is only permissible in defense and never in offense. The Islamists do not distinguish between Greater and Lesser Jihad. For them, all of life is striving in the way of God and can take place just as legitimately during wartime as during peacetime. The communal jihad is primarily understood as war in the way of God to spread the rule of God. It is incumbent on the Muslim to fight such a war if he is able and if there is a prospect of victory. The goal of this war is true peace—a peace based

16In describing the intellectual influences on the thought of Ismail Ragi Al-Faruqi, Esposito and Voss trace Al-Faruqi’s Islamist tendencies to the failure of Modernist Islam to achieve a truly Islamic paradigm for countering Western influences on Muslim societies. “Al-Faruqi combined the spirit of Islamic modernists such as Egypt’s Muhammad Abduh and Pakistan’s Iqbal with the revivalist outlook of earlier leaders such as Saudi Arabia’s Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab.… Like Abduh and Ibn Abdul Wahhab, he grounded his interpretation of Islam in the doctrine of tawhid, combining the classical affirmation of the centrality of God’s oneness with a modernist interpretation (ijtihad) and application of Islam to modern life” (John L. Esposito and John D. Voss, Makers of Contemporary Islam [New York: Oxford University Press, 2001], 29). 17It is important to note that these two Islamist leaders were both highly educated, and the type of Islam they advocate is not of the Taliban variety. Rather, the Taliban are generally uneducated, uncritical thinkers who are notorious for following their leaders unquestioningly. 18This distinction is based upon an uncertain Hadith where Muhammad says that the Greater Jihad is that which takes place during peace while the Lesser Jihad is war.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 275 upon the rule of God rather than on the tyranny of man.19 Islamists see democracy with its founding principle that the people make the laws as being outright rebellion against God and the domination of man by his fellow man. It is an awful situation to be caught in, and the only solution to end such tyranny is to implement God’s law—the Sharia understood as that which has been promulgated since the thirteenth century.20 Wars must be fought even against so-called Muslim nations that are run based upon Western laws since the laws are tyrannical and the leaders are apostate Muslims as evidenced by their refusal to implement Sharia law. 21 As can be seen, Modernist Islam has imbibed much of the Enlightenment, liberal spirit of the times while Islamist Islam critiques this spirit and is a reaction against it. Both ostensibly struggle to implement true peace, but what true peace looks like is conceived of quite differently. Modernists justify their approach to governance based upon their human responsibility to act as God’s khalifas, God’s co-workers in creating a just society. Islamists say that there is no justice in a society conceived along the lines of modernist Islam. This divide helps to explain much of what happened following 9-11. In the U.S., most pious Muslims tend toward the Modernist side and emphasize

19Sayyid Qutb makes this clear when he says: “When Islam strives for peace, it does not want a cheap peace, a peace that does not mean more than that one is safe in that particular territory where people embrace the Islamic faith. No, it wants a peace wherein all religion belongs to God, which means that all people worship God alone and that they do not take each other as objects of worship to the exclusion of God” (Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam: A Reader [Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1995], 131). 20Mawdudi: “For Islam is not concerned with the interest of one nation to the exclusion of others and does not intend to advance one people to the exclusion of others. It is not at all interested in what state rules and dominates the earth, but only in the happiness and welfare of humanity. Islam has a concept and a practical program, especially chosen for the happiness and progress of human society. Therefore, Islam resists any government that is based on a different concept and program, in order to liquidate it completely.... Its aim is to make this concept victorious, to introduce this program universally, to set up governments that are firmly rooted in this concept and this program, irrespective of who carries the banner of truth and justice, or whose flag of aggression and corruption is thereby toppled. Islam wants the whole earth and does not content itself with only a part thereof. It wants and requires the entire inhabited world. It does not want this in order that one nation dominates the earth and monopolizes its sources of wealth, after having taken them away from one or more other nations. No, Islam wants and requires the earth in order that the human race altogether can enjoy the concept and practical program of human happiness, by means of which God has honoured Islam and put it above the other religions and laws. In order to realize this lofty desire, Islam wants to employ all forces and means that can be employed for bringing about a universal all-embracing revolution. It will spare no efforts for the achievement of this supreme objective. This far- reaching struggle that continuously exhausts all forces and this employment of all possible means are called jihad” (ibid., 128). 21Even the classical scholar Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328) allows for the possibility of war against un-Islamic Muslim leaders: “If a rebellious group, although belonging to Islam, refuses to comply with clear and universally accepted commands, all Muslims agree that jihad must be waged against them, in order that the religion will be God’s entirely” (ibid., 50).

276 the peaceful, progressive aspects of Islam. They were horrified and outraged at what happened to the World Trade Center and vigorously insist that what happened was un-Islamic and that Islam is a religion of peace. Many nominal Muslims were shocked to think that Islam was in any way connected to such an act, and, if Islam does teach people to fly planes into buildings, they want nothing to do with it. From a Christian perspective, these Muslims would be receptive to the proclamation of the Gospel of peace, but many probably went to Modernist Muslim leaders and were assured that Islam was not to blame for these attacks. The end result is that many nominal Muslims have become pious Modernist Muslims. Even Islamist Muslims worldwide were alarmed by the attacks because they were carried out against civilians including women and children without any warning. Much of the anger at our attacks against Osama bin Laden is the result of the refusal of these Muslims to believe that such a “pious” Muslim as bin Laden is capable of such an attack since Islam forbids the killing of innocents and sneak attacks during times of peace. For them, a pious Muslim by definition could not carry out such an attack; therefore, bin Laden, a pious Muslim, did not do it. Further, many Muslims feel that the attacks on the U.S. are understandable in light of past American policies. At the head of the list is the current American policy toward Israel where we give over $3 billion a year to the Israeli government. In the words of Sheikh Abdul Majeed Atta, a Palestinian member of Hamas:

[9-11] was an awful thing, a tragedy, and since we live a continuous tragedy, we felt like this touched us…but when we see something like this in Israel or the US, we feel a contradiction. We see it’s a tragedy, but we remember that these are the people behind our tragedy.... Even small children know that Israel is nothing without America…and here America means F-16, M-16, Apache helicopters, the tools Israelis use to kill us and destroy our homes.22

In addition, the pride of many Muslims has been absolutely crushed following centuries of colonialism and the general backwardness of Muslim societies. War is rampant, Muslim governments dictatorial and repressive, and military defeat after military defeat is handed to Muslim countries by the West and Israel. A poem written by a Saudi ambassador, a member of one of the richest families in the world, nicely summarizes Muslim sentiment:

Children are dying, but no one makes a move. Houses are demolished, but no one makes a move.

22Peter Ford, “Why do they hate us?” Christian Science Monitor, special ed. (September 27, 2001), 6.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 277 Holy places are desecrated, but no one makes a move… I am fed up with life in the world of mortals. Find me a hole near you. For a life of dignity is in those holes.23

This type of despair and wounded pride fuels anger and disenchantment with everything Western and a desire to do anything to restore lost dignity. It is into such a context of despair, resurgent Islam and inter-Muslim conflicts, that the Gospel is preached. It is a message tainted by long association with the West and its oppressive, arrogant stance towards the rest of the world. This is particularly true of the lone superpower who bestrides the world as a colossus, unchallenged and seemingly invincible. To speak of humility, sacrifice, love, and forgiveness in the name of Christ seems to be the height of hypocrisy for a rich Western person to do. Christian converts from Islam are seen as people who betray their culture, their religion, and their pride; each convert is one more slap in the face to people who already feel dominated and humiliated through no fault of their own. If Muslims want to seek rapprochement with Western dominance and thought patterns, Modernist Islam provides a way to do so and remain Muslim. For Muslims who want nothing to do with the West, Islamist Islam provides them an alternative and a vision for all aspects of society that relies solely upon seemingly “Islamic” resources such as the Sharia and classical interpretations of a puritanical Islam; it is the way of no compromise and the way of pride. Paradoxically, 9-11 has served to increase the effectiveness of Islamic da’wah (mission)24 for both Islamists and Modernists. One Muslim cleric from New York said that he has seen the number of converts to Islam quadruple in the weeks following 9-11 as more and more people sought to learn more about the religion of the hijackers to understand their reasoning.25 Modernist Muslims push their agendas of a liberal Islam that preaches peace and progressive ideas that look like much of contemporary American society—help for poor people, better education, building a better

23Ibid., 5. 24Da’wah (Muslim mission) is conducted on the following principles: (1) it is non- coercive; (2) it is non-manipulative; (3) it is directed both at non-Muslims to convert them to Islam and Muslims to strengthen them; (4) it is accomplished by purely rational argumentation; (5) its propositions have theoretical and ethical implications; (6) it aims for what is known internally by everyone via natural law; (7) it is ecumenical in the best sense because it sees all religions as better and worse expressions of God’s will. The content of da’wah: (1) Essence of Islam is unity and singularity of God; (2) Reality is dual—Creator and creature; (3) God is related to His creation; (4) Man is capable of true action; (5) Man can act or not act—he has free will; (6) Man can actualize the divine will within history; (7) Man has dignity as God’s co-worker and is not in need of a savior (Isma’il al-Faruqi, “On the Nature of Islamic Da’wah.” Evangelical Review of Theology 20 [1996]: 126-135). 25Jodi Wilgoren, “Islam Attracts Converts by the Thousands, Drawn Before and After Attacks,” The New York Times (October 22, 2001). Cited 21 March 2002. Online: http://www. nytimes.com/2001/10/22/national/22CONV.html.

278 society. Islamist Muslims reap in a harvest of disaffected Muslims worldwide who see Muslims asserting their power over against the supposedly invincible America. The courage and vision of the nineteen hijackers to destroy an icon of Americana, kill thousands, and cause over $300 billion in damage to American infrastructure is seen as an example of what determined Muslims can do and a source of pride. Both sides of Islam have benefited from 9-11. Christians have also unwittingly contributed to the increase in conversions to Islam by their salutary attempts to portray Islam as seen by the Modernist Muslims—a religion of peace and justice—and ignoring that the Islamist Muslims also have a legitimate position in their interpretation of Islam. Even the seminars that Christians have put on to help people understand Islam better are double-edged—they are needed to help Christians better witness to Muslims and to increase the safety of Muslims by reducing Christian fear of Muslims, but they also serve as platforms for the preaching of the message of Islam. Any action undertaken by Christians to educate people about Islam needs to remember both the benefits and the dangers of such education. All is not dark, though. Acts of Christian charity and love have yielded fruit for Christ. Christian action to protect and love Muslims even in the face of the 9-11 attacks has caused many Muslims to want to learn more about Christianity. There is a story told by an ELCA Palestinian pastor who held a joint prayer service with Muslims and, after the service, was asked by the leader of the mosque to have a private Bible study because the imam could not understand why Christians reacted in love toward Muslims rather than anger.26 While joint prayer services should be avoided (who, exactly, is being prayed to?), patient and long-suffering love can and does overcome the barriers Muslims put up against Christians. Most crucial is that opportunities for Christians and Muslims to come into contact with one another are created in order to make it possible for the Gospel to be proclaimed with love and tact. Christians must affirm that God is at work in the world and uses all things to bring people to Himself through Christ. The events of 9-11 must be seen in this light—as events that somehow God will turn to good, a good defined by the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins, especially to Muslims. We stand at a crossroads in Christian-Muslim relations; because of 9-11, there are many opportunities and many dangers. We can either increase our outreach with the word of the Gospel in love or we can watch Muslims become strengthened in their faith—whether that is the liberal

26Story told at the POBLO “Time of Challenge, Time of Opportunity” Conference held in Detroit in November 2001. Joint prayer services with people of other faiths are fraught with many theological and confessional difficulties. The point here is that Christians need to find ways to actively and lovingly engage Muslims in a trusting atmosphere so that the Gospel of Jesus might be heard and that the Holy Spirit may use many different situations to break down the barriers Muslims erect against faith in Christ.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 279 faith of Modernist Islam or the strident faith of Islamist Islam. More than ever it is clear that the time for Christian outreach to Muslims is now, and we dare not miss the opportunity. The alternative is too grim to consider.

Beliefs and Practices

Orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy characterizes Islam. To be a true believer is to be one who properly practices Islam. This can be reversed— one who properly practices Islam is a true believer. It is praxis that defines a Muslim. On the other hand, Lutheran Christianity focuses on divine monergism in salvation thereby defining a Christian by faith / belief in the grace of God through Jesus Christ with even this faith being solely a gift of God. It is faith / belief in Christ that primarily defines a Christian, and the teaching of simul iustus et peccator guarantees that proper practice is never definitive of what makes a Christian. Therefore, at their roots, Islam and Christianity see the proper relationship between humans and their Creator differently—Muslims see human beings as co-workers (khalifa) with God who can choose to obey Him or not while Christians see human beings as sinners in need of salvation.27 The teaching that humans are free co-workers with God is fundamental to Islamic teaching. A helpful outline of Muslim belief can be found in Miller’s Muslim Friends28 where he breaks the basic, almost universal teaching of Islam into five categories: God, angels and djinn, prophets, books, and the Day of Judgment. Seeing Islamic teaching in this light, one can see that each truth claim addresses a different aspect of the human condition. The primary teaching of Islam is that God is one, and there is no god but God. Setting up a strict dichotomy between Creator and creation, it is implicit within this claim that some relationship must exist between God and His creation. Other spiritual beings exist, such as angels and djinn, but it is human beings who are God’s most important co-workers as the Qur’anic description of Adam’s creation shows where even the angels are commanded to bow down and give reverence to Adam (Qur’an 38:71-85). At creation, human beings are born with an ability to believe and obey God or to disobey Him. This leads to what is perhaps the most existentially profound differences between Islam and Christianity—there is no need of a savior within Islam. Rather, what people need is simply right guidance to do God’s will. Therefore, in His grace and mercy, God sent down prophets

27“Man, as Islam defines him, is not an object of salvation, but its subject. Through his agency alone the moral part, which is the higher part of the will of God, enters, and is fulfilled in, creation. In a sense, therefore, man is God’s partner, but a partner worthy of God because he is trustworthy as His khalifa, not because he is pitifully helpless and needs to be ‘saved’” (Al-Faruqi, 135). 28Roland Miller, Muslim Friends: Their Faith and Feeling (St. Louis: Concordia, 1995).

280 to instruct the peoples,29 and some of these prophets even brought books for instruction.30 Finally, at the Last Day, one’s works will be judged based upon how well they did or did not line up with the instruction that God provided. It is important to note that Muslims do not accept the veracity of the extant texts of the Torah, Psalms, or Gospels. A common contention is that Christians and Jews have corrupted these texts by either misinterpreting them or actually changing the text itself. The sheer number of textual variants in NA27 is sufficient justification for this claim. As opposed to these texts, Muslims believe that the Qur’an is specially protected by God against all deviation and so supersedes all the previous texts.31 Because of the focus on correct practice as the way to be rewarded with heaven, there is no assurance of salvation in Islam. In fact, many Muslims see the idea that one can be sure of salvation as weak and unworthy of the dignity of humanity.32 Muslims repeat over and over the mercy of God when they state: “bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim,” (in the name of God the Merciful Mercier), but they also emphasize the justice of God in all His dealings. Therefore, Islam operates at the nexus where mercy and justice meet without ever resolving the tension between these aspects of God’s character. As to correct Muslim practice, Islamic law is of primary importance. Muslim jurists base their legal opinion upon an analysis of the four principles of Islamic law: the Qur’an, the Hadith, ijma, and qiyas. The Hadith are sayings concerning the practice of the prophet Muhammad as transmitted by more and less reliable people. This is a large body of literature and is theoretically second in importance to the Qur’an but is frequently more important in practice.33 Third in importance is the past consensus of the community as to proper Muslim practice (ijma). Finally, the least important basis of Islamic law is the principle of analogy (qiyas) where a contemporary situation is compared to a past situation to see if the same decision might

29It is said that God has sent a prophet to each nation so that no one is without guidance from God. 30Normal prophets are termed nabi while prophets who bring books are greater and called rasul, messengers of God. Some prophets who brought books are: Moses—Tawrat (Torah); David—Zabur (Psalms); Jesus—Injil (Gospel); and Muhammad—Qur’an (The Recitation). 31Many Western scholars claim that there were actually other textual traditions of the Qur’an in existence in the early years of Islam. In the name of unity, the third pious Caliph, Uthman, is said to have destroyed all differing texts in favor of a single textual tradition. Muslims sharply counter this claim by asking to see these deviant texts for themselves which, of course, cannot be produced. 32“…unlike Christianity, Islamicity is never a fait accompli. Islamicity is a process. It grows, and it is sometimes reduced. There is no time at which the Muslim may carry his title to paradise, as it were, in his pocket. Instead of ‘salvation,’ the Muslim is to achieve felicity through unceasing effort” (Al-Faruqi, 129). 33Perhaps a good comparison here would be theological decisions being made by appealing to the Bible and to the Book of Concord. Since the Book of Concord deals more explicitly than the Bible with various theological issues, it functions as a hermeneutical

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 281 apply. It has frequently been stated that the right of personal judgment regarding application of the law (ijtihad) has ceased since the law has already addressed everything necessary. This principle is called taqlid and is frequently the target of attack by Modernist Muslims who say that Islam can indeed change and adapt to contemporary life. All aspects of life are legitimate concerns of the law, whether it be inheritance law or the proper way to brush your teeth in the morning. However, various activities fall into different categories of approval ranging from obligatory to forbidden actions,34 and actions such as proper tooth- brushing are generally considered to be meritorious if done right and will not hurt you if done wrong. The so-called “Five Pillars of Islam” are simply obligatory practices of Muslims, and pious Muslims will be sure to do much more. The first pillar is the confession of faith (shahadat) which, upon earnest repetition three times, makes you a Muslim: “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.” Ritual prayer (salat) is the second pillar and takes place five times a day. Third, the annual giving of alms (zakat) to Islamic causes and the poor is incumbent upon Muslims. Fasting (saum), especially during the month of Ramadan, is emphasized as is the pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj) for all who have the financial means to do so. Much ink has been used regarding the importance of these “pillars,” but it should be remembered that Islamic law covers much more than just these practices extending to all of life.

Christian Outreach to Muslims

John Terry outlines five different models of evangelism to Muslims that have been utilized by Christians in the past.35

Confrontational Model

This strategy involved the attempted conversion of Muslims through public disputations and debates where missionaries try to show the flaws and inferiority of Islam to Christianity. This approach thrived when colonial governments gave protection to the missionaries but was never very successful in terms of converts frequently leading to anger on the part of Muslims who felt that their religion was under attack. The polemical and

key to interpret Scripture. Similarly, the Hadith are used as a lens through which the Qur’an is read. As is the danger with all such interpretive devices, the lens can become more important than the text to be interpreted, and in practice, the Hadith are regularly used more frequently in making legal decisions than is the Qur’an. 34There are five classifications: obligatory, meritorious, indifferent, blameworthy, and forbidden. 35John Mark Terry, “A Suggested Approach to Sunni Muslims,” Ogbomoso Journal of Theology 8 (1993): 19-29.

282 apologetic literature put out encouraged rebuttal by the Muslim intelligentsia, and the competitive nature of the debates led many to study their religion more deeply to refute the missionaries thereby strengthening their understanding of and faith in Islam. The converts that did result were mainly intellectuals while the masses were generally untouched.

Traditional Evangelical Model

Rather than focusing upon the weaknesses of Islam, this approach emphasizes the distinctive existential doctrines of Christianity such as sin, the atonement, the mediation of Christ, and the incarnation. Generally, relationships are fostered with individuals and also with small groups (sometimes called “friendship evangelism”), and converts are gathered into western-style churches and asked to publicly make a break with Islam. Many evangelistic books and tracts were published to aid the cause.

Institutional Model

Many missionary agencies and churches emphasized the building of institutions such as hospitals, schools, and orphanages to minister holistically to Muslims. These types of approaches are frequently used in countries where public proclamation of the Gospel is outlawed. The hope is that active love of Christians will attract Muslims to Christ because “their deeds will speak louder than their words.”36 However, these institutions are expensive to run and are frequently nationalized by the government.

Dialogical Model

This is different from the WCC approach to dialog where the goal is mutual understanding and cooperation rather than faith in Christ. Proponents of this approach say that it is necessary to take the other seriously as a person who has an opinion and then lovingly seeking to change their heart based upon an accurate portrayal of their position. Barriers to the relationship are removed so that the proclamation of the Gospel is unhindered. Four purposes of this type of dialog are articulated: “(1) to learn what Muslims believe and to appreciate their beliefs in relation to their culture, (2) to seek to establish both contact and rapport on the basis of sincere, honest friendship, (3) to learn how to witness to them and (4) to bring them ultimately to salvation in Christ.”37

36Ibid., 24. 37Ibid.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 283 Contextualization Model

While it is the most recently articulated approach, the contextualized model is also the most controversial. An advocate of this model, Joshua Massey, defines this approach as hoping to yield “Muslim followers of Isa.”38 The emphasis upon “Muslim” is necessary to understand what is at stake. The hope is not to create a group of “Followers of Jesus” who see themselves as outside of Islam; rather, the goal is to create a Messianic sect within Islam. In order to add clarity to the discussion, proponents of contextualized approaches have articulated a “C1-C6 Spectrum” to categorize various church models.39 The following chart, taken from Joshua Massey’s discussion, illustrates these categories.

Description of Church Community Percption of Self-Perception Outside Society C1 “a traditional Christian church “Christian” “Christian” which either reflects the culture of foreign Christians or that of the minority indigenous national church.” C2 “basically the same as C1, except “Christian” “Christian” C2 churches use the daily language of the surrounding Muslim population.” C3 “essentially the same as C2, “Christian” “Christian” except C3 makes use of local music styles, dress, and other indigenous cultural elements. C3 makes a clear distinction between practices that are purely ‘cultural’ and those which are ‘Islamic.’ Islamic forms are rejected” [emphasis mine]. C4 “much like C3 but have been “Followers A kind of adopted biblically permissible of Isa” Christian Islamic forms and practices (e.g., praying prostrate, perhaps towards Jerusalem; washing before prayer and before touching the Bible; abstaining from pork, alcohol, or from keeping dogs as pets; using some Islamic terms; wearing some clothing popular among Muslims)” [emphasis mine].

38“Isa” is the Arabic name of Jesus. 39The following discussion and chart is based upon: Joshua Massey, “God’s Amazing Diversity in Drawing Muslims to Christ,” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17 (2000): 7. The quotations come from the text of the article.

284 C5 “much like C4 with the primary “Muslim A strange difference being self-identity. Followers kind of Whereas C4 believers identify of Isa” Muslim themselves as ‘followers of Isa,’ C5 believers identify themselves as ‘Muslim followers of Jesus’— much like Messianic Jews calling themselves ‘Jewish followers of Jesus.’ Islamic theology incompatible with the Bible is rejected. Some C5 believers remain in the Muslim community for as long as they can to ‘win Muslims as Muslims’ (1 Cor. 9:19-23).” C6 People who are privately “Privately Muslim Christian but publicly Muslim. ‘follower of Isa,’ or ‘Muslim follower of Isa’”

Advocates of contextualized approaches disagree as to how far is too far in creating visible bodies of Christians in Muslim countries—C4 or C5. The creation of a new Islamic sect is characteristic of the C5 approach while creating a kind of Christian is the characteristic of the C4 approach. Justification for both approaches lies in Paul’s insistence that the Gentiles did not have to become Jews to be Christian and his desire to be all things to all people. Further, proponents of this approach see it as superior to prior approaches where, it is alleged, the missionary tended to wrongly and unjustly “extract” converts from their own culture by placing the unnecessary and Biblically unmandated label of “Christian” on the new believer.40 Instead, new believers should maintain a “low profile” approach for the purpose of remaining in the society to reach out to other Muslims within the society.41 Because C5 believers can remain in a society that would otherwise kick them out, proponents say this type of approach might be most appropriate for those Islamic contexts where the majority of Muslims are pious and content with Islam.42 40Proponents of C5 believers point out that the word “Christian” is not the necessary self-designation of the believers in the New Testament; in fact, it was initially probably a derogatory label given to them by people of the wider culture. They would also point out that in most Islamic contexts, “Christians” are identified with the dominant Western culture and its immoralities along with the (to a Muslim, disgusting) practice of eating pork as well as drinking alcohol. 41“Low profile approaches involve remaining in society; identifying those who are open; appropriately arousing people’s interest; and wooing them toward Christ. Low profile does not mean huddling in fear and failing to give any sort of witness. It means giving sensitive witness appropriate to a situation, all in the context of maintaining relationships in one’s family and community.... Effective low profile ministry occurs as the transformed life of a believer abides in community” (Bernard Dutch, “Should Muslims become ‘Christians’?” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17 [2000]: 21). 42Massey outlines a “M1-M9 Spectrum” to help visualize appropriate contexts for a C5 approach. M1-M3 signals high to low disillusionment with Islam; M4-M6 signals high ambivalence to low ambivalence abut Islam; M7-M9 signals low to high contentment with Islam. The claim is that a C5 approach is best with M7-M9 Muslims (Massey, 12).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 285 Sam Schlorff, who critiques the Contextualization / Translation model, summarizes it helpfully by saying:

The Objective of Mission: This model views the objective, as far as the church is concerned, in terms of the emergence of “a people movement to Christ that remains within Islam,” i.e., a Muslim church composed of Muslim Christians. Theology of Non-Christian Religions: It views Islam and Islamic culture neither negatively nor positively, but rather as a neutral vehicle for the contextualization of the gospel and the church; all cultures are equally valid. Contextual Starting Point: On the assumption that Islamic culture is a neutral vehicle, the process of contextualization is launched from within Islam. This means that, on the level of theology, select passages of the Qur’an are used as a theological starting point or source of truth for proclaiming the gospel (e.g., trying to prove the crucifixion on the basis of certain qur’anic passages). On the level of the church, it means importing Muslim ritual forms, such as the ritual prayer, into the convert church and attempting to fill them with Christian meanings. Cross-cultural Hermeneutic: This approach to contextualization involves what I have called a hermeneutics of synthesis. By synthesis I mean a hermeneutic that interprets the Bible and Christian forms along with the Qur’an and Muslim forms in such a way as to more or less bring the Christian and Muslim perspectives closer together into a kind of dialectical unity.43

After providing a summary, Schlorff goes on to offer a two-pronged critique.44 First, he disagrees with the claim that such a model is necessary because past models are allegedly to blame for the “extraction” of new converts from their culture. Rather, he places the blame for the need to “extract” converts squarely on the shoulders of the Islamic cultures rather

43Sam Schlorff, “The Translational Model for Mission in Resistant Muslim Society,” Missiology 28 (2000): 313-314. 44Other critiques have been offered, but Schlorff provides an especially thorough treatment. Don Eenigenburg also critiques a C5 approach by disagreeing with each one of its three presuppositions that he outlines: (1) A C5 approach is necessary because other approaches are not working; (2) Islam is compatible with the Gospel; (3) C5 believers will be accepted by the Muslim community. He says that the failure of Muslims to come to faith in Jesus may simply be due to neglect of Islamic areas by missionaries. Second, Islam by nature contradicts the Gospel as being a religion of works. Finally, “Muslims are not likely to permit a ‘Jesus sect’ to take root within their community. It is more likely that Muslim reaction to being duped will result in an even greater backlash than if conversion followed normal lines. Missionaries cannot remove the offense of the cross” (Don Eenigenburg, “The Pros and Cons of Islamicized Contextualization,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 33 [1997]: 313-314).

286 than the missionary. Citing the dhimmi system45 and the law of apostasy46 in particular, Schlorff convincingly argues it is Islamic ideology that makes it necessary to remove new Christians from Muslim cultures, not Christian missionaries. If someone is to be made a second-class citizen or even killed for converting to Christianity, extraction from the culture becomes a viable option; it is a choice foisted upon the convert by the dominant Islamic culture, not by foreign missionaries. Second, Schlorff takes issue with the C5 ideal as such. He points out that Islamic forms are not “neutral” but carry a great amount of cultural baggage. He says that Islam, as a religion, focuses on doing things to please God and thereby earn merit, and this is simply incompatible with Christianity. Any forms that echo such an ideal, such as the ritual prostration during prayer, need to be avoided. He states:

Because of the repression and substitution inherent in Islam, the Qur’an and Islamic culture cannot be considered neutral vehicles that may be used as a contextual or theological starting point, or source of truth, and filled with Christian meanings. These are used only as a communicational starting point to help the receptors connect with the biblical message.47

In sum, Schlorff rightly criticizes the Contextualization model, in its more radical C5 form, as being a confusing and dangerous path to pursue. Ultimately, it may result in more difficulties for new believers rather than less because the dominant Muslim society will ultimately catch on to the deception and attempted subversion of Islam thereby engendering increased hostility to converts—perhaps more than they would have endured had they simply been forthright in their confession of faith. As David Racey correctly points out: “We must not be perceived as deceptive (Eph. 4:25). We must study what constitutes deception in the local culture, especially with regard to religion, and then avoid all appearances of deception.”48 Further, the C5 ideal postulates a distinction between culture and theology that, in most forms of Islam, simply does not exist.49 Islam is a religion

45The dhimmi system segregates “people of the book”—Christians, Jews, and Zororastrians—from the majority of the Muslim community thereby making them second class citizens within society subject to special laws and taxation. Social barriers are also placed against dhimmis such as the inability for men to marry non-dhimmi women (Schlorff, 315). 46Laws against apostasy are in effect in many Muslim countries such as Pakistan where if a Muslim converts to Christianity, he can be legally killed by anybody. Frequently, it is the families of the “apostate” who carry out the death sentence to salvage family honor. 47Schlorff, 321. 48David Racey, “Contextualization: How Far Is Too Far?” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 32 (1996): 307. 49In fact, such a distinction could be seen as extremely colored by Enlightenment presupposition such as the division between church and state as well as the secular approach most Western governments now pursue.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 287 that claims to govern all aspects of life, both for the individual believer and the community (umma) as a whole. Even so, there are aspects of the Contextualization model that can be helpfully appropriated (especially along C4 lines), and the concept of the C1-C6 continuum shows that it is not an “either-or” choice. Contextualized approaches occur along a range of options that are more or less culturally appropriate manifestations / confessions of the Gospel. Advocates of even the more extreme C5 model give a salutary warning that cultures should be taken seriously and all efforts should be made to enable a Christian witness to spread within the culture by new believers who know their own culture best.

Concluding Thoughts

From a missional perspective, the uncertainty of one’s position before God in Islam could prove a major psychological need that the Gospel could address. Much like medieval Roman Catholicism, Islam operates on an idea similar to the acquisition of merit before God. One’s deeds are recorded and ultimately weighed on the Last Day when one’s final determination will be decided. The assurance of salvation that comes through the action of Christ could be an effective way to counteract this concern for conscientious and pious Muslims. Since Islam does not have a concept of original sin or the boundness of choice, Jesus as Savior becomes a difficult proposition to explain. What may be helpful in this area is an attempt to reorient the narrative thought- world of a Muslim through the use of the Old Testament descriptions of sin as an assault against God that causes one to be impure and incapable of being in the presence of a completely righteous God; righteousness cannot stand unrighteousness. The Temple cultus and its emphasis upon blood as that which purifies a person from sin can then be presented as a description of what Christ has done for all of humanity upon the cross. Even so, attempting to understand original sin in terms of original guilt is a difficult proposition in an honor-shame culture as opposed to the Western love-guilt culture.50 Rather, we may need to look for ways to express the Gospel to Muslims that “focus on honour and shame rather than initially on love and guilt.”51 In this context, evangelism might start with the claim that the one God reigns supreme over all things and “demands absolute loyalty”52 from us. Then, rather than portraying sin in terms of guilt for discrete actions or even original sin as original guilt because of Adam and

50Two defining features of an honor-shame culture are the valuing of relationships over abstract notions such as truth, which entails the fostering of trust between people and an emphasis upon the group over the individual (Bill Musk, “Honour and Shame,” Evangelical Review of Theology 20 [1996]: 156-167). 51Bruce J. Nicholls, “The Servant Songs of Isaiah in Dialogue with Muslims,” Evangelical Review of Theology 20 (1996): 168. 52Ibid., 170.

288 Eve’s sin, sin is understood as the breaking of the relationship between God and human beings—a shame dynamic. Humans have lost face by failing to maintain the honor of God. An example of interpreting Scripture along an honor-shame axis can be found in Bill Musk’s discussion of the Prodigal Son in his article, “Honour and Shame.”53 Here we see three primary characters: the younger son, the older son, and the father. The younger son brings shame upon the father by demanding his inheritance now while his father is still alive. In the Semitic society of Jesus’ day, such a request is equivalent to wishing that the father was dead. It is a repudiation of any relationship between the father and the son—a spitting on the grave before it is even dug. The shame brought upon the father by this disobedient and disrespectful son is immense. Even so, rather than disinheriting his son, the father takes this shame and gives his son the money. The son then goes out and loses all personal integrity and returns to his father, realizing his own shame. Enter the elder son. It is interesting that this son is frequently over- looked in the parable because he may be the most important character. He, too, shames his father, but the way he does it reveals a deeper disdain for the father than his brother’s greed. First, he refuses to come in and celebrate with the household and makes his father come out, hat-in-hand, to him. When the father comes out in a manner that could only be understood as that of a supplicant—imagine a Semitic father being placed in such a position to his son—the son insults the way in which he was a father to him. He says: “You never....” After insulting his role as father, the elder son disowns his status as brother and the integrity of the family unit by saying: “This son of yours....” All this from the person who was supposed to be the mediator within the family in the role of elder brother within Semitic society! How did the father respond to his sons? He responded by embracing shame upon shame for their sake. He embraced the shame of the younger son’s greed and gave him the money. This eventually led to repentance, and then the father, in his excitement, embraced the shame of running to meet his son—old men in Jesus’ day never ran. With his older son, the father stooped so low as to plead with him in order to maintain the relationship between them. Rather than avoiding shame, the father embraced the shame in order to bring about repentance and the restoration of broken relationships. The Parable of the Prodigal Son is really about the way God, the heavenly Father, relates to sinful humankind. He does not eschew shame, even to the point of dying upon the cross. His shame is really our own shame as well because we are the ones who broke the relationship and acted disgracefully, but it is His action in embracing the shame that overcomes our sinfulness. Interpreted along such an honor-shame dynamic,

53See note above.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 289 this New Testament parable can be used to show Muslims just what it was that Christ did for us and why. Bruce Nicholls points out that the Old Testament may be easily used to illustrate this dynamic as well. In particular, he points to the Servant Songs of Isaiah as possible bridges for witnessing to the Gospel.54 Within these songs, the servant of Yahweh is shown to be the one who maintains the honor of Yahweh exactly through his suffering. By willingly undergoing shame in order to maintain his witness to the integrity of God’s character as loving and merciful, the servant gives all honor and glory to God. Such themes may help make the Gospel more understandable to Muslims. Of course, any attempt to proclaim the Gospel to Muslims is going to run into difficulties. The Qur’an states that Jesus was not crucified on the cross, and Muslims believe that it is beneath the dignity of a prophet to die in such a manner—especially the great prophet Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah). Further, a degree of indulgence will need to be granted on the part of a Muslim to even read the Bible in light of the claim that the Jews and Christians have corrupted it. In short, there is no “silver bullet” that will enable the Christian evangelist to “shoot down” the religion of Islam. There are no privileged positions, interpretations, or arguments that will demonstrate to Muslims that Christianity is irrefutably true. Rather, a holistic approach that addresses Muslims as people will likely be the most effective. The events of 9-11 have shown that we are at a crossroads in Muslim- Christian relations. Either the so-called “Christian” world and the Muslim world will continue to be antagonistic towards each other, or there will be some type of rapprochement. In terms of Christian mission, it is more important now than ever to reach out in self-sacrificing love to Muslims even in the face of the horrific attacks of 9-11. Such a witness may help to reach nominal Muslims in the U.S. before they come to understand the attractive liberal thinking of Modernist Muslims and so short-circuit attempts at Christian outreach. Overseas, even Islamist Muslims may now be reached with the Gospel of Christ if they see Christians acting in love rather than attacking them with words as well as bombs. Harsh polemic against Islam has no place; rather, an approach of respect and love stands the best chance of properly confessing Christ to Muslims so that the Gospel might be heard.

54Nicholls points to some major themes / emphases from the Servant Songs that may be especially helpful in making the Gospel understandable to Muslims: (1) There is no God but God (e.g., 40:18, 25, 28; 42:6-23; 44:6); (2) God the Creator is great (e.g., 40:26; 42:5); (3) God is righteous in all His acts (e.g., 42:1, 7); (4) God acts with compassion and mercy (e.g., 40:11; 41:10, 17-20; 42:3; 44:28); (5) God judges and redeems (e.g., 42:6, 18-25; 43:1ff. 25; 49:8); (6) God speaks through His Word (e.g., 49:1-6; 50:4); (7) The servant of the Lord is the mediator of a new covenant (e.g., 50:8; 52:13-53:12); (8) The servant of the Lord brings glory to God (e.g., 52:13; 53:12; 54-66) (ibid., 174-176).

290 Short Studies

Just Where Was Jonah Going?: The Location of Tarshish in the Old Testament

Reed Lessing

Just where is Tarshish? This question has plagued Old Testament scholars for generations. Some have attempted to equate the city with Tunis.1 Still others believe it is some “distant paradise”2 or they simply understand Tarshish to mean “the sea.”3 Current Old Testament scholarship appears to regularly equate Tarshish with the Tartessos at the mouth of the Baetis River, known today as the Rio Guadalquivier in southwestern Spain.4 Typical of this line of thinking is Victor Hamilton, who writes in the Genesis 1-17 New International Commentary: “Most scholars have identified Tarshish with Tartessus, a mining village in southwestern Spain.”5 At least three problems frustrate any attempt to definitively locate Tarshish. The first is the constant change in the word’s spelling. This problem may be delineated as follows:

1. Tarzi, Tarzu (in Neo-Assyrian texts). 2. TRZ (Aramaic legend on coins). 3. Tarsha (Hittite documents). 4. IVDF@4 (Xenophon). 5. IVDF@H (other Greek sources).

1So A. Herrmann, “Die Tartessosfrage und Weissafrike,” Petermanns Geogr. Mitt. 99 (1942), 353-366. 2The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick, et al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 4:517. 3Cyrus Gordon, “The Wine-Dark Sea,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 37 (1978), 51-52, states that in many contexts the Targum translates –*–9( “the sea.” He also references a statement by Jerome based on Isaiah 2:16, namely, that the Hebrew scholars of Jerome’s day maintained that –*–9( is the Hebrew word for “sea.” Therefore, Gordon argues that –*–9( is actually a color, dark wine to be exact. Hence, the word is to be translated “wine-dark sea.” 4Following the lead of W. F. Albright, “New Light on the Early History of Phoenician Colonization,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 83 (1941), 14-22, representatives of this view are as follows: J. Tsirkin, “The Hebrew Bible and the Origin of Tartessian Power,” Aula Orientalis (1986), 179-185; Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12, trans. Thomas Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 117; Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman, et al. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:333; Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. D. N. Freedman, et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1276. 5Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, 333.

Dr. Reed Lessing is Assistant Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 291 6. IVDFg4H (2 Macc. 4:30). 7. 1•DF@H/I•DF@H (Josephus). 8. 22$) (in later Jewish sources)6

The second dilemma is that in the Old Testament Tarshish can have at least four different meanings. Depending upon context it may denote:

1. A personal name, e.g., Tarshish the descendant of Javan (Gen. 10:4; 1 Chron. 1:7). 2. A type of vessel (e.g., 1 Kings 22:49; Is. 2:16; 60:9; Ps. 48:8). 3. A seaport (e.g., Is. 23:6, 10). 4. A precious stone, possibly a gem such as jasper (e.g., Ex. 28:20; Ezek. 28:13).

Third, the versions offer little help, as they locate Tarshish with the most famous of the Phoenician colonies, the city of Carthage, located on the north coast of Africa. For example, in Ezekiel 27:12 the LXX reads 5"DP0*`<4@4 for –*–9(—while the Vulgate reads Carthaginenses. The recent work by André Lemaire goes a long way toward clearing up the confusion.7 He notes that the passages shedding particular light on the problem are those in the Old Testament where Tarshish is listed along with other countries. These texts are Genesis 10:2-4, Isaiah 66:19, and Ezekiel 27:12-14.8 Given the geographical horizon of Genesis 10:2-4, the assumption that Tarshish is some place far away (i.e., in Spain), does not seem warranted. Genesis 10:4 states, “The sons of Javan (= Greece) are; Elishah (= Cyprus), Tarshish, Kittim (= Kition, a city on the southeast coast of Cyprus), and Dodanim (= perhaps the island of Rhodes).” Isaiah 66:19 and Ezekiel 27:12-14 confirm this location of Tarshish as being close to Greece, the island of Rhodes, and Tubal and Meshech (= Asia Minor). 9 The only extra-Biblical toponym reference to Tarshish10 is one of the royal inscriptions of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon.11 This text contains a

6For details see Arie van der Kooij, The Septuagint of Isaiah XXIII as Version and Vision, VTSup. LXXI (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 44-46. 7Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld, eds., “Tarshish-Tarsisi: Problème de Topographie Historique Biblique et Assyienne,” Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zecharia Kallai, (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 44-62. 8Other texts in the Old Testament where Tarshish occurs as the name of a country are of no help in finding its location, i.e., Ps. 72:10; Jer. 10:9; Ex. 38:13 and the book of Jonah. 9To see how the LXX of this verse also favors the view of Asia Minor, cf. van der Kooij, 42. 10Lemaire discusses extra-Biblical references to Tarshish (e.g., the Nora Stele) (Galil and Weinfeld, 50-51). These references only confirm the connection between Tarshish and silver. 11On this inscription, see K. Galling, “Tarsis,” Biblisches Reallexikon 2, ed. K. Galling. (Tübingen: Tübingen University, 1977: 332-333), 332. The idea that Asia Minor is the geographical horizon of the passage in the inscription of Esarhaddon is supported by a description of a similar political situation two years later; for details, see van der Kooij, 43.

292 description of the campaign of the year 671 B.C., when Esarhaddon besieged the city of Tyre. It reads: “All the kings who live in the area of the sea, since Cyprus and Javan until Tarshish threw themselves at my feet, and I received heavy tribute.”12 As the kings from Cyprus, Greece (Javan), and Tarshish submit to Esarhaddon, it seems apparent that here Tarshish is in the same vicinity as Cyprus and Greece. Consequently, it is reasonable to understand the Tarshish of the Old Testament as referring not to southern Spain, but rather to Tarsus in Cilicia, the hometown of St. Paul (Acts 22:3). This city is situated about ten kilometers from the Mediterranean coast, on the river Cadnos, a river that was navigable in antiquity. As such it played a strategic role as its control assured the control of the Silician ports. Tarsus lies at the opening of the passage from the central mountains and was well known for its mineral content.

The Taurus Mountains are…an area in which innovative technology in metals took place. Long assumed to be the “silver mountains” of Hittite and Akkadian legends, the range abounds with extensive cedar forests and polymetalic ore deposits.... Silver, lead, copper, gold, iron, and tin are among the mineralizations within these mountains.13

Relating Tarshish with Tarsus of Cilicia clarifies the following Old Testament accounts. First, Tarshish ships (e.g., 1 Kings 22:49; Is. 2:16; 60:9; Ps. 48:8) were ships that originally carried valuable metals from the Taurus Mountains. These ships later became synonymous with power, wealth, and prestige, so much so that Isaiah could include them with “all that is proud and lofty” (2:12). Second, in Isaiah’s Tyre Oracle the prophet gloats over the city’s imminent downfall by telling Tyre’s inhabitants to “cross over to Tarshish” (23:6); a command that would have been possible for the island’s inhabitants as Tarsus was a main Phoenician trading partner at the time. Moreover, in Isaiah 23:10 the observation that “Tarshish will no longer have a harbor” came to pass when Tyre fell under Assyrian domination and the merchants in Tarsus had no place to sell their wares. Third, due to the mining activity that took place in the Taurus Mountains, it is reasonable to understand Tarshish as referring to a precious stone, possibly a gem such as jasper (e.g., Ex. 28:20; Ezek. 28:13). Finally, against many Bible studies and commentaries on Jonah, the prodigal prophet was not attempting to flee to Spain (i.e., as far away from Nineveh as possible!); rather he simply wanted to leave Israel, for in doing so he believed he could escape the presence of Yahweh (Jonah 1:3).

12J. B. Prichard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University, 1969), 290. 13K. Alishan Yener, “Taurus Mountains,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. E. M. Meyers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 155-156, 155.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 293 The Gospel of the Kingdom of God

Paul R. Raabe

In Matthew 24:14 Jesus tells His disciples that “this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations and then the end shall come.” Thereby Jesus commissioned all of us as His disciples to be about the task of proclaiming the Gospel of the kingdom of God to all nations until the very end, the day of His glorious parousia. If the church is about proclaiming the Gospel, it must be about proclaiming the kingdom of God. For the expression “the kingdom of God,” or its Matthean synonym “the kingdom of heaven,” is an idiom of the Gospel itself. It is good news, good news indeed. But what is the content of the Gospel of the kingdom? Permit me to make a few observations in terms of Biblical theology. The expression he basileia tou theou in the New Testament designates the end-time kingly rule of God anticipated and promised in the Old Testament. Announcement of the end-time kingly rule of God presupposes the two-age framework, the present evil age and the future holy age. Evil powers have usurped God’s good creation. Death, sin, the devil, and his demons have conspired to rule over the world and to enslave God’s human creatures. And, God’s human creatures themselves have fallen into sin. The coming of the end-time rule of God means that the Creator reclaims His creation, drives out the evil usurpers, and gives eternal life with God. When the end-time rule of God comes there is a war against sin, death, and the devil, and only God can drive out the evil overlords. Fallen human beings cannot stand up to such stronger powers. Only God can cast out demons, and only God can conquer death. It is instructive to study the actual language the Synoptic Gospels use for the kingdom of God.1 The kingdom draws near to people, and God gives the kingdom to people. But they do not give the kingdom to others. People receive it, enter it, and inherit it, but they cannot establish it, build it, or anticipate it by their actions. People can reject the kingdom and say no to it, but they cannot harm it or destroy it. People work for the sake of

1See George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 101-102.

Dr. Paul R. Raabe is Professor of Exegetical Theology and Chairman of the Department of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO. This paper was originally presented at the Day of Theological Conver- sation held at Eden Seminary, March 9, 2002. The topic for the day was the kingdom of God.

294 the kingdom, but they do not act upon the kingdom itself. It is God’s kingly rule and not subject to the plans and actions of human beings. Earlier in Matthew, chapter four, we read that after His Baptism and temptation Jesus began to proclaim, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near” (engiken).2 Before Jesus came onto the scene, the end- time rule of God was far away, anticipated, and promised in the Old Testament to be sure but not yet “near.” When Jesus showed up, however, the promised and anticipated kingdom of God came near and was staring them in the face.3 By His work of proclaiming the kingdom, healing, exorcism, raising the dead, and by the climax of His work in His death and resurrection, Jesus of Nazareth inaugurated the end-time rule of God. As He says in Matthew 12, “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (v. 28). The final day, the future reign of God, has reached back into history as it were and appeared ahead of time with Jesus. The promised turn of the ages—from the present evil age to the future holy age—has invaded the present age and set itself up through the ministry of Jesus. This is the very promised, glorious kingdom end-time rule of God Himself that came in advance, but it came in a small, insignificant, and hidden way. It came with this lowly Jesus of Nazareth. That is the mystery of the kingdom. The kingdom came through Jesus, but the old age continues. The governments of this present age, the Roman Empire of the first century and all of the subsequent governments, continue to exercise their power. Death continues to swallow up the living. To this day even churches have cemeteries. To the eyes of fallen human reason it looks as if nothing has changed with the coming of Jesus Christ. But the eyes of faith see in Jesus the very kingdom of God anticipated and promised of old. The book of Daniel shows us that there is a basic and fundamental distinction between the end-time kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. This distinction continues into the New Testament. The Roman Empire of the first century did not establish or anticipate or prepare for the kingdom of God. Only God can establish it. It is God’s rule and reign. Yet the kingdoms of this world are not autonomous; they are under God. As many psalms say, God as king rules over the nations. God preserves the created world through the earthly kingdoms. We live in the time of overlap between the old age and the age to come, between the kingdoms of the world and the end-time kingdom of God. The overlap period lasts until the parousia of Christ. Now we enjoy

2On the meaning of the sentence, see Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Matthew’s Gospel (St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press, 2000), 35-40. 3For more discussion of the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament regarding the kingdom of God, see James W. Voelz, What Does This Mean?: Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Post-Modern World (St. Louis: Concordia, 1995), 244-262.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 295 the fulfillment but not yet the consummation. When Christ comes in glory, then our voices will say, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever” (Rev. 11:15). Then we will hear the joyful invitation from Christ the crucified and risen King, “Come, you who are blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34). Where is the kingdom of God today? According to the New Testament, it is wherever Jesus Christ is. Only God can set it up, and God has in fact set it up and inaugurated it through His Son Jesus Christ. It is wherever Jesus Christ, the Son of God is. And where is Jesus Christ? He is wherever the Gospel of the kingdom is purely preached, wherever His Baptism and His Supper are rightly taking place. There is the glorious end-time kingly rule of God. So now, in this in-between time, what is the mission of the church? It is to proclaim the Gospel of the kingdom of God to all nations. It is to make disciples of all nations by baptizing and teaching them, and in that very mission Jesus Christ is with us to the end of the age. And where Jesus Christ is, there is the kingdom of God.

296 Homiletical Helps on LW Series A —Epistles

Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost Romans 8:35-39 August 4, 2002

The context of the text: Romans 8:31-39 (an inclusio with Romans 5:1-11, for each accentuates the confidence that springs from the hope of the believer) recalls the substance of Romans 5:1-8:30 and considers the magnitude of that which God has achieved on behalf of those who believe (this and much of the following agrees in large part with the fuller discussion of the same in Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 456-468). Romans 8:31-39 represents also the apex of Romans 8. Verses 1-17 feature the transformation that God has wrought in the life of the believer. Verses 18-30 feature the constancy of the hope of such a believer, even in the face of the suffering of the present. It is the Spirit who instills such confidence, grounding the same in the assurance of a glorious future. All things work for the good for the one who believes. For the groaning and the suffering of the present is akin to that of Christ Himself, in whom the believer lives, breathes, and has his being. For, if the end of such for Christ was life, then the end of such for the believer will be the same. One rhetorical question after another contributes significantly to the interest of verses 31-39, the apex of the chapter and the apex of Romans 5-8. One after another rhetorical question factors significantly into the following sequence of propositional statements:

God is for us; therefore, none may successfully stand against us (v. 31).

That God is indeed for us is supremely indicated in the giving of the Son. Because the Son is ours as God’s greatest gift, He surely provides for all that we need (v. 32).

(Verses 33-39 expand upon the idea that God is for us.)

None may level charges against the elect of God, for God has justified us and comforted us with the knowledge that we are the elect of God (v. 33).

None will condemn us in the Day of Judgment, for Christ has died, is raised, is seated with God, and intercedes for us. He will in no way condemn us but will, instead, defend against every suggestion of an accusation (v. 34).

(In place of the forensic language of verses 33-34, verses 35-39 employ the relational language of love.)

Neither persons nor things are powerful enough to separate us from the love of God which (and who) is in Christ Jesus. Though many, though much, unrelentingly threatens us, we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us (vv. 35-39).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 297 The essential interest of the text: Again, in place of the forensic language of verses 33-34, verses 35-39 employ the relational language of love. The point to verses 35-39, however, is, for the most part, the same point. Neither persons nor things are powerful enough to separate us from the love of God which (and who) is in Christ Jesus. Though many, though much, unrelentingly threatens, we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For the God who is for us promises ever and always to protect His own from that which threatens. Themes which especially serve the interest of the text: Who will separate us from the love of Christ? No one! Nothing! Verse 35: The interrogative “Who?” may appear out of place since no agent of a personal kind is named until verse 38. Given the use of the interrogative in verses 33 and 34, however, a rhetorical purpose would seem to inform its repeated use here. The genitive “of Christ” is subjective. Featured, therefore, is Christ’s love for believers. The afflictions in question are frequently those that Paul himself experienced as apostle to the Gentiles (cf. 1 Cor. 4:10-13; 2 Cor. 5:4-5; and 11:22- 27). Commentaries will often identify these also with the Messianic woes or birth pangs. Verse 36: Verse 35 references those troubles that could threaten. Verse 36 asserts that these very same troubles do, in fact, threaten. None, especially believers, are exempt. The citation of Psalm 44:22 is instructive. The greater message of the Psalm laments the suffering of the faithful. Though these have been faithful, they are still made to suffer abasement, mockery, and defeat. According to Romans, afflictions of this kind are inevitable for those who believe. Verse 37: Given that which is inevitable (v. 36), verse 37 now attends to the questions of verse 35. The adversative that begins verse 37 may well offer the answer “No.” Rather than separating us from the love of Christ, our afflictions become the paradoxical means by which we “more than conquer.” Our “triumph” is not one that we accomplish on our own, however, but is ours “through Him who loved us.” Verses 38-39: Anything that could conceivably disenfranchise the believer from the love of Christ is in view in these verses. “I am persuaded” asserts the very authority of the apostle. These verses depart from speaking of “Christ’s love” (vv. 35 and 37) and prefer instead to speak with reference to the “love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The essential unity of Father and Son is thereby asserted. Verses 38-39 offer up itemized pairs (its reference to “powers” being an exception). The pair involving “angels” and “rulers” refers to angelic powers (cf. 1 Cor. 15:24; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:16; 2:10, 15). The term “powers” involving a personal referent, also has to do with angelic powers (cf. 1 Cor. 15:24; see also 2 Thess. 1:7). The powers in question are evil, for their purpose is to separate the believer from God. The pair involving “height” and “depth” is spatial in kind, though metaphorically, in keeping with the text’s poetic quality (cf. Ps. 139:8-9; Eph. 3:18). In the end there is nothing in all the creation that is powerful enough to separate the believer from the love of God in Christ. The pragmatics of the text: The goal of the text, it seems, is a fairly transparent one. St. Paul purposes to ground, to comfort, and to encourage the believer. All that which inevitably, even unrelentingly, threatens the believer is envisioned. But nothing in all of creation is powerful enough to separate the believer from the love of God in Christ. Suggested outline:

298 Introduction: All too often life can bring much in the way of surprises. All too often life even brings much in the way of crushing disappointments. Yes, that which troubles, that which threatens, is all too real. For the age and the world in which we live is genuinely evil. Therefore, genuinely, even unrelentingly besieged are we as the children of God. But beaten we are not!

Besieged, But Not Beaten

I. Besieged are we. The sermon may focus on recent, even local events and circumstances of an illustrative kind. The closer such illustrations are to the lived experience of the sermon’s hearers the better they will serve in fleshing out St. Paul’s interest. II. But beaten we are not! Consider the magnitude of that which God has achieved on behalf of those who believe! First, there is the transformation that God has wrought in the life of the believer. Secondly, there is the constancy of the hope of such a believer, even in the face of the suffering of the present. It is the Spirit who instills such confidence, grounding the same in the assurance of a glorious future. All things work for the good for the one who believes. For the groaning and the suffering of the present is akin to that of Christ Himself, in whom the believer lives, breathes, and has his being. For, if the end of such for Christ was life, then the end of such for the believer will be the same.

Conclusion: Therefore, neither persons nor things are powerful enough to separate us from the love of God which (and who) is in Christ Jesus. Though many, though much, unrelentingly threatens we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. Bruce Schuchard

Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost Romans 9:1-5 August 11, 2002

Context: This text is part of the lectio continua of the book of Romans for the Sundays after Pentecost in Series A. It begins the third large division of Paul’s epistle (chaps. 9-11), the first presenting justification (chaps. 1-4), and the second sanctification (chaps. 5-8). In chapters 9-11 Paul addresses the issue of God’s relationship with the nation of Israel. The apostle grieves that Israel, according to the flesh, has by and large rejected Christ. But he rejoices that Israel, according to the promise (“all Israel” = believing Jews and Gentiles, 11:26), will be saved. Since Paul uses this epistle as a platform for missionary activity (15:20-33), he is concerned to establish the rationale for outreach to the Gentiles as well as to explain the phenomenon of Jewish unbelief. Homiletical treatment: In this sermon the preacher should speak to what Paul addresses in the text—the Christian’s attitude toward the Jews. This text presents a fine opportunity to address a very relevant issue for Christians: How are we to understand and relate to people espousing other religions, particularly adherents of Judaism, a religion that shares a heritage with Christianity? Especially since the terrorist attacks of last September, our society (and therefore our parishioners) has considered the issue of tolerance and acceptance of all religions. Lutheran

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 299 Christians desire guidance in this regard, and Romans 9:1-5 presents an outstanding opportunity for the pastor to provide such. Focus statement: A Christian’s attitude toward unbelieving Jews is that of respect for their heritage, sorrow over their lostness, and love for them that they might be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. Function statement: That the hearer may love lost people (including unbelieving Jews) by seeking to bring Christ to them.

Possible outline and homiletical development of the sermon:

Introduction: Introduce the theme with the question: “What should a Christian’s attitude be towards the Jewish people?”

I. Attitude #1: Respect. A Christian will respect the Jews for their heritage (9:4- 5). A. The Jewish people have made significant contributions to us. 1. They have contributed much to enhance life and culture in the areas of art, music, medicine, science, literature, economics, etc. 2. More importantly, they have contributed much to humanity by being the stewards of God’s gifts in Old Testament times (9:4-5). a. They held a special status with God (“theirs the adoption as sons, theirs the divine glory”). b. They were entrusted with God’s means of grace (“theirs the covenants, the receiving of the Torah, the temple service, and the promises”). c. They were the ancestral line through which God provided the Savior (“from whom is the Christ”). B. God’s relationship with Old Testament Israel is fundamental to His establishing a saving relationship with us. 1. God blessed Israel in order that all the nations of the earth might be blessed (Gen. 12:3; 26:4; 28:14; Acts 3:24-25; Gal. 3:8). 2. God preserved Israel so that the Messiah might arise in its midst. II. Attitude #2: Sorrow. A Christian will sorrow over the Jews for their unbelief (9:1-2). A. Some Christians demonstrate erroneous attitudes about the religion of Judaism. 1. Acceptance. Some people who claim to be Christian accept Judaism (and other religions) as another road to salvation apart from Christ. This is erroneous because salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12; Rom. 8:29). 2. Antagonism. Some people who claim to be Christian think they are justified to hate and malign Jewish people. The sin of anti-Semitism can never be espoused by Christians. 3. Apathy. Some Christians simply don’t care about the eternal destiny of people who follow Judaism or other false religions. This sin of apathy is probably the most pervasive of the three errors. B. The proper attitude for us as Christians is sorrow over sin and unbelief. 1. We sorrow over the sin of unbelieving Jews. a. The basis of this sorrow is that although the Jews were given the revelation and gifts of God, many have rejected His Messiah.

300 b. This sorrow reflects Paul’s heart (9:2). c. This sorrow reflects Christ’s heart (Luke 19:41-44). 2. We sorrow over our sins of accepting other religions, of antagonism and malice toward Jews, and of apathy toward the lost. III. Attitude #3: Love. A Christian will love the Jews and seek after their salvation (9:3). A. Our sinful attitudes are contrasted with God’s gracious attitude: He has love for Jews, for Gentiles, and for all people (Rom. 9:24-26). B. God’s gracious attitude of love for us resulted in His gracious action of dying for us. 1. Paul wishes that he would be cursed and cut off from God instead of his Jewish brothers and sisters, but this cannot be (9:3). 2. Christ was, in fact, cursed and cut off from the Father instead of us and all sinners when He hung on the cross. a. Jesus bore our sin and its curse (i.e., hell) fully (Gal. 3:13-14). b. We are now forgiven of sin and freed from its curse. c. Because Christ was separated from the Father in our stead, we need never fear being separated from God (Rom. 8:35-39). C. Our sanctified response to God’s love is to love lost people and seek to bring Christ to them. 1. This was Paul’s response (Rom. 10:1). 2. We will seek opportunity to witness the Gospel to Jews and others out of God’s love for the lost that He has placed in our hearts. David Peter

Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost Romans 11:13-15, 29-32 August 18, 2002

Notes on the pericope: 1. In this pericope Paul concludes a lengthy discussion of the problem of Israel’s unbelief. As the chosen people of God, Israel’s rejection of His salvation raises a special difficulty. Did God’s Word somehow fail? No, Paul firmly asserts; it is rather that not all the physical descendants of Abraham are, in the end, children of God (9:6-8). Salvation is always a matter of God’s mercy alone, even among the Israelites (9:9-29). Divine mercy, however, is that which the chosen people would not acknowledge. Mercy was precisely what God demonstrated when He justified those who did not pursue righteousness, namely, the Gentiles. Mercy, moreover, was precisely that which God was upholding when He did not justify those who had been pursuing a righteousness before God, namely, Israel (9:30-31), because they would not submit to God’s own righteousness, the righteousness of faith (9:32; 10:3). But what of God’s promises to Israel? If God’s Word had not failed, could it be said that God had rejected His own chosen people (11:1)? Definitely not. Just as God had reserved for Himself seven thousand who would not worship Baal, so also now God had preserved a faithful remnant (11:2-5). Then could it be said that the people had stumbled to such an extent that they were now beyond hope (11:11)? Definitely not. Their stumbling had been the occasion for God to bring salvation to the Gentiles, which, in turn, was meant to provoke the Jews to envy, repentance, and forgiveness. Their stumbling, in effect, would actually bring about their

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 301 salvation (11:11-12). 2. At this point the pericope begins. Addressing the Gentiles, Paul reveals that he made much of his apostolic ministry to the Gentiles in the hope that he might provoke to jealousy his own people, the Israelites, and that some would be saved (11:13-14). After all, if their rejection of God’s justification meant the reconciliation of the whole world to God, then would not their subsequent acceptance of this justification mean nothing less than life from the dead (11:15)? Here Paul develops the point made in chapter nine, namely, that God was upholding His mercy both when, on the one hand, He justified the Gentiles, who had not sought righteousness before God, and when He would not justify those Israelites who pursued a righteousness of their own. Paul understood his ministry to the Gentiles as a means by which God would also bring His originally chosen people, Israel, to the righteousness of faith. 3. In the second part of the pericope, Paul sums up the situation. In terms of the proclamation of the Good News, the Israelites are enemies for the sake of the Gentiles, but in terms of election, they are still God’s beloved for the sake of their fathers (11:28), because God’s gifts (P"D\F:"J") and calling (68-F4H) are irrevocable (11:29). In this context, the “gifts” refer to God’s gifts of righteousness (5:15-21) and eternal life (6:23). The Gentiles were once disobedient, not pursuing the righteousness of God, but in their disobedience God had shown them mercy. In the same way, the Israelites were now being disobedient, not pursuing the very same righteousness of God. But in their present disobedience God would also show them mercy, for “God has consigned (FL

302 4. Finally, it might be helpful to recognize that such a sermon would do what the text talks about God doing: “God consigns all to disobedience, so that he might have mercy on all” (11:32). The first part of the sermon would talk about salvation, realizing that such talk can lead hearers to confusion about God, even doubt. In this way, the sermon would “consign all to disobedience.” But the second part of the sermon would promise the hearers God’s salvation, that is, it would “have mercy on all.” Joel P. Okamoto

Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost Romans 11:33-36 August 25, 2002

Notes on the pericope: 1. In the homiletical help for the Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost I briefly reviewed some of the main themes in these chapters, and I would refer readers back to the “notes on the pericope” for further background on this section of Romans. 2. The pericope consists of the doxology with which Paul draws the entire discussion of the problem of Israel’s unbelief to an end. It is a great “Thanks be to God” and a loud “Glory be to the Father.” It is clear that Paul is praising God not only for His salvation but especially for the way in which He saves. And Paul praises God not simply for His wisdom and ways, but for their quality. Paul magnifies God for the depth of His riches, wisdom, and knowledge, for His unsearchable judgments, and for His incomprehensible ways (v. 33; cf. Eph. 3:8 on the incomprehensible riches of Christ). Although it would appear that, by rejecting Christ and righteousness for His sake alone, the Israelites were thwarting or subverting God’s plan of salvation, they were actually advancing it. God used their rejection to bring salvation to the Gentiles. Moreover, God was going to use Israel’s own rejection to restore the elect of Israel, by making the Israelites jealous of the salvation given now to the Gentiles. According to this complicated and contrary plan, God was having mercy upon all. “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!” 3. Such profound wisdom and inscrutable ways lead Paul to praise God as utterly beyond compare. In the way He justifies both Jews and Gentiles, God exhibits His own peculiar wisdom and demonstrates His absolute incomparability. And so Paul asks (quoting the Septuagint from Is. 40:13): “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” No one, of course. “Or who has given him an advance, that he should be repaid” (cf. Job 41:11)? No one, of course. And if one were bold enough to ask, “Why should this be?” Paul has a simple answer: “Because from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.” Accordingly, to God be the glory into the ages. Amen! Notes for preaching: 1. The pericope is a doxology, and for this reason it would be appropriate for the sermon on this text to seek to lead hearers to make Paul’s doxology their own. 2. Such a sermon might begin with a review of Paul’s discussion in chapters nine through eleven. In particular, attention should be given, on the one hand, to the questions that Israel’s rejection of Christ and the Gospel poses even for Christians today, and, on the other hand, to the way that Paul is able to show that, contrary to usual human ways, this was God’s way of saving both Israel and the

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 303 nations. 3. The sermon would then focus on the wisdom and ways of God as exemplified in this passage. How does God save? In quite a strange way. He elects Israel, but when the promised Christ comes, He permits them to reject Jesus in order that the nations might be saved. Then, when the nations are saved, He will work repentance among Israel so that God would save by having mercy upon them all. It may seem strange, but God is consistent. As Paul rhetorically asked the Corinthians, “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world” (1 Cor. 1:20)? At this point, the sermon could go on by illustrating other ways in which God confounds sinful human reason. An obvious example is in Jesus Christ (see especially 1 Cor. 1 on the foolishness of the cross). Luther provides another example in the Heidelberg Disputation (1518). In thesis 4 he asserts, “Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits” (LW 31:44). The “works of God” that Luther names are the works that God does to save sinners. The way God works is ugly, is contrary, is foolishness. As Luther explains:

That the works of God are unattractive is clear from what is said in Isa. 53[:2], “He had no form of comeliness,” and in 1 Sam. 2[:6], “The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.” This is understood to mean that the Lord humbles and frightens us by means of the law and the sight of our sins so that we seem in the eyes of men, as in our own, as nothing, foolish, and wicked, for we are in truth that.... And that it is which Isa. 28 [:21] calls the alien work of God that he may do his work (that is, he humbles us thoroughly, making us despair, so that he may exalt us in his mercy, giving us hope), just as Hab. 3 [:2] states, “In wrath remember mercy” (LW 31:44).

4. The sermon would then point out that by acting in such ways, God demonstrates that He is God, that is, that “from him and through him and to him are all things.” God proves that He is entirely free from compulsion and influence, that He is entirely beyond compare, not only by accomplishing what He wants but accomplishing them in the ways that He wants. 5. The sermon would then not only point out that God does whatever He wants however He wants but also make clear what God actually wants to do, namely, to save the hearers. 6. And so, to such a God, beyond compare in power and in wisdom, and who has shown us His mercy, be the glory forever. Joel P. Okamoto

Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost Romans 12:1-8 September 1, 2002

Perhaps as a young child you learned this little exercise in Sunday School: “Here is the church. Here is the steeple. Open it up and see all the people.” It’s a cute little rhyme, and it’s cute to watch little kids doing the motions to it. But I wonder if it doesn’t communicate in our earliest years a misunderstanding of what the church really is. This is because when we say, “Here is the church,” our hands

304 form the shape of a building. This little poem communicates the popular idea that the church is something made out of bricks and mortar, of wood and glass and shingles. But that’s not what the Bible understands the church to be. The Greek word in the New Testament translated as “church” is ekklesia, which literally means “called out.” You can’t call out a building. But you can call out people! And that is precisely what the Biblical definition of the church is—people who have been called out of the self-centeredness and sin of the world to live in the grace of God. Have you ever noticed what is at the center of the word spelled “church”? The letters U and R. And you know what is the substance of the true church as well? You guessed it: you are! The church is made up of people—you and me who believe in Jesus as our Savior and Lord. This is the message which Paul communicates in our text from Romans 12. Paul says that we who believe in Jesus are integrally and organically related to each other. So much so that he compares us to parts of a body. Paul compares the church to the body of Christ. (read vv. 4-6). I see three main points that Paul is making in comparing the church to a body. First that there is unity in the body. Second that there is diversity. And third that there is interdependence. First, the unity in the body. Verses 4-5 of our text state: “Just as each of us has many parts in one body...so we who are many form one body in Christ.” The picture is that of a human body. It has many different organs and parts, but it is one body. You look at me and think of one person, not as a composite of organs and limbs and bones and skin. Similarly, we who make up the church may be many, individual, distinct, and yet we are one body in Christ. There is a unity. And the reason we are united with each other is we are all united with Christ through faith. When I was in junior high school, I remember my least favorite class being algebra. I hated balancing all those equations, like x = 2y + z. But there was one equation that I could understand. That is, if x = y, and z = y, then x = z. Got it? Well in a way that simple equation applies to our relationship with each other in the church. Because if, as the Bible affirms, I am united with Christ through Baptism (Rom. 6:3-4), and you are also united with Christ through Baptism, that means that I must be united with you. And indeed we are. As Paul states in our text, “We who are many form one body in Christ.” Jesus Christ is our common denominator. He’s the one who brings us together. And He brings us together with each other because He has brought us together with Himself. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5: “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not counting their trespasses against them.” In the person of Jesus Christ, God was reconciled with a sinful world, which includes us. God was united with humanity not only through the incarnation, but also through His taking upon Himself our sin upon the cross and giving us instead His righteousness and holiness. It is the one Gospel that makes us one in Christ. There is a real unity in the church, Christ’s body. One body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism (Eph. 4:4-5). And yet even though there is unity in the church, there is also room for variety and distinctiveness. And so the second point Paul makes in comparing the church to a body is that there is diversity (quote vv. 4-6). Again the picture is that of a human body. It is unified, true. Yet that doesn’t mean that it is all the same. Every part of my body is not an eyeball, and every part of my body is not a liver or a hipbone or a toe. No, the body is one, but it is made up of diverse parts and organs that have different functions. Likewise in the church we have one mission—making disciples of Jesus

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 305 Christ—and yet also various and diverse ways of carrying out that mission. As Paul says, “We have diverse gifts, according to the grace given us” (v. 6). Some of you might carry out Christ’s mission by teaching children in Sunday School or by visiting the sick in the hospital or by administering the finances for the congregation. As our text states, “all the parts do not have the same function” (v. 4). There is diversity in Christ’s body, the church. And yet sometimes that diversity scares us. We want everyone to be the same in the church—like us!—with the same interests and tastes and emphases. Basically, we want Christian clones. But God’s design for His church, His body, is not that it be composed of Christian clones. Instead, He desires diversity among us—that’s why He has given us diverse gifts and functions in the church. God promises in our text that all this diversity will only enrich our fellowship and ministry together. More than that, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us of our sin of not appreciating the different gifts and emphases of our Christian brothers and sisters. The third and final point that Paul wishes to drive home in our text is that of our interdependence within the church. Verse 5 reads: “We who are many form one body in Christ, and each part belongs to the others.” Again, Paul compares us to anatomy. Each part of our body is dependent upon the others. The heart is dependent upon the lungs for oxygen, but the lungs are dependent upon the heart for blood. The mouth is dependent on the legs for mobility, but the legs are dependent on the mouth to receive food and nourishment. Even the less glorious parts of our bodies are essential for proper functioning. Take the armpit, for example. Can you imagine what it would be like not having armpits? And so every part of the body needs the other parts in order to be healthy and whole. A Sunday School teacher of six-year-olds was teaching them the “Here’s the Church” exercise I described at the beginning of this sermon. Halfway through the exercise, the teacher was horrified to remember that one little boy couldn’t participate—he had only one arm. Ashamed of her inconsideration, she looked toward the boy, expecting him to be in tears. Instead, she witnessed a wonder. The girl sitting next to the boy had reached out her hand and intertwined her fingers with his so that together they could form the church. In the body of Christ, the church, we need each other to be healthy and whole. As our text states, “each part belongs to the others” (v. 5). So we need the children and teenagers just as well as the young adults and middle-aged folks and elderly people. We need the task-oriented as well as the relationally oriented people. We need the up-front leaders and the behind-the-scenes workers. Our church needs your distinctive gifts that God has given you. All of us are equally important in Christ’s body, and we need each other. God works through you by His Spirit to serve others, and He works through others to serve you. We are interdependent. If I could, I would prefer to re-write that little children’s couplet that I began this sermon with. My new version would say: “Where is the church? It’s under the steeple. Where is the church? It’s in all the people!” We are the church, the body of Christ. And in that body, we have a unity in Christ, a diversity of gifts, and an interdependence of service to each other. Amen. David Peter

306 Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost Romans 13:1-10 September 8, 2002

Respect, Honor, and Pay Taxes

(I realize that this Sunday is just before the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks last September 11. However, I am writing this in early May and am not sure what the remembrances of those attacks will be across the country. I have indicated where you may include some material about the anniversary. For example, you may wish to mention something in the introduction.)

Did you know you can pass by a policeman sitting alongside the road and not be afraid of getting a ticket? The radar gun can be out, trained right at your car, tracking you as you drive through his speed trap. Sure, your heart might speed up a bit when you see him. You might even ease up on the gas pedal. But there is a way that you can sail right by without having to worry. What is it? Go the speed limit! You do not get a ticket, lose points, or have your insurance rates go up when you obey the law. You see, submitting to the governing authorities is actually quite freeing. You can drive along and relax because you know the officer has no reason to stop you. If you are not already doing so, try it, and you will be surprised how much more relaxing the drive will be when you go the speed limit. The same principle works for other areas of life. Pay your taxes honestly, and an audit is much less likely or threatening. Don’t do drugs, and you do not get caught up in the violence and jail time of those who do. Obey the law, and you reduce your worries and problems with the government dramatically. That is why God has instituted governing authorities. He knows that the best way for us to live is to have everyone submit to the laws that govern our land. Do what is right, and life goes along fairly well. Break the law, and life breaks down. He wants us to submit, obey, pay taxes, honor the government, respect those in authority, and do what is right. Chaos and anarchy are not good. Order and authority are. So if you disobey, disrespect, and dishonor those in authority, you are not just hurting yourself and those around you, you’re also rebelling against God. Not a good thing to do. Yet, for some reason, we hear those commands to obey, submit, honor your elected officials, pay taxes, and respect the government in a more negative way. The other day I saw a bumper sticker that brought a smile to my face. “Bad cop. No donut.” I know it was meant in a lighthearted, sort of poke fun of the police way. We’re not talking rebellion or sedition here. But underlying those words is a disrespect that made me pause and realize how easy it is for us to criticize, tear down, and denigrate our governing authorities. Certainly the negative political advertising doesn’t help us to think positively about those in authority. The rancor and mean spirited debate on Capitol Hill or in the state governments gives us lots to complain about and imitate. The vicious battles between Republicans and Democrats create ill will throughout the country that carries over into our conversations. Yes, it is easy, even expected, to be disrespectful toward those in authority. Now, I’m not saying that every elected official does what is right and has only our best interests in mind. Of course not. We all know about the corruption or misconduct by police, congressmen, governors, and presidents. We know that politics turns even those who want to govern well into criminals or those who vote according

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 307 to money supplied by special interest groups instead of for their constituencies. Yet God does not let us use those who abuse their offices as a reason for our disrespect and disobedience. The institution is bigger than the person holding the office. Yes, President Nixon resigned because of Watergate. President Clinton’s actions with an intern were criminal. But the presidency still holds our respect and honor, regardless of what these men did, because it is a governing institution given by God for the good of this country. So also the other governing authorities around us. Some policemen may take bribes, but our respect for the police department is still God’s will because He has instituted these authorities to protect us. You may not like what the legislature does with your tax dollars, but the Lord wants us to pay those taxes honestly, honoring the government that makes those decisions. No, the failures of those who hold the offices do not give us an excuse for disobedience and disrespect. Yet it is there, isn’t it? The disrespect is there, in our lives. The way we think, the way we talk, the way we complain, the way we tear down, the way we feel can be anything but submitting to and honoring of the governing authorities. (Here you may say something about the sudden respect and pride in our country following the terrorist attacks and how that slowly disappeared as time went on. We may still have our bumper stickers and little flags, but our attitudes toward the government, taxes, and many laws are less than respectful and submissive.) Deep within all of us is a rebellious streak that finds it all too easy to hear the words obey, submit, respect, taxes, and honor as something negative rather than God’s good and gracious will for us. And make no mistake about it. God’s good and gracious will includes the governing officials. Long ago Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census be taken of the whole Roman world. A young couple, Mary and Joseph, traveled to Bethlehem, and while they were there Mary gave birth to a son. Jesus was born just where the ancient prophecies had foretold, and His parents were in Bethlehem because of Caesar’s decree. Yes, God will use the governing authorities to carry out His will. Some thirty years later, Pontius Pilate hears a case involving the Jewish Sanhedrin and their hatred for Jesus. He wants to let Jesus go. He finds no fault in Him. Yet Pilate knows his politics. He knows what will happen if he lets Jesus go free. Jesus’ enemies will report to Caesar that Pilate let a self proclaimed King go unpunished. So the order is given. Jesus is led away by the Roman soldiers to be crucified. The nails are driven in by the governing authorities. Yet all is happening according to God’s plan. Our salvation, our forgiveness, our eternal life, our status as citizens in God’s kingdom were all granted when Jesus was executed by the Roman government. Yes, God will use the governing authorities to carry out His will. Now jump ahead another thirty or so years. The apostle Paul has been arrested. Many want to kill him on the spot for proclaiming Jesus as the Savior. But he appeals to Caesar as a Roman citizen. His life is protected—for the moment. He will travel to Rome, and along the way he tells governors, soldiers, and prison guards the wonderful news of Jesus’ resurrection. Many believe. It’s not just Paul, either. The church is persecuted by those in authority. Yet that persecution just pushes the church into new and fertile grounds for mission work and the starting of new congregations. Yes, God will use the governing authorities to carry out His will. And did you notice what kind of governments were there. Not always good. Not always friendly to the church. Sometimes the people carrying out their governing

308 authority were evil, trying to kill this new religion called Christianity. Still Paul says to respect, obey, to do what is right because the government has been instituted by God to keep order, to punish wrongdoers, and to promote the good. Of course, when ordered to sin, to do something against God’s Law, we must obey God rather than men. But, otherwise, Paul’s word is simple—submit to the governing authorities. And, you know what—quite often those governing authorities are trying to do what is good and useful for the country they serve. When Jesus was met by a Roman centurion with a servant near death, the Jewish elders asked Jesus to help that centurion because he had done so much to help them. Another centurion stood beneath the cross and declared Jesus to be the Son of God. The Roman government had laws that promoted order and safety; roads that permitted the spread of the Gospel, leaders who sought to deal with criminals justly. Yes, God’s will is often carried out through the governing authorities. In the July 2000 Lutheran Witness, John Shimkus, who represents Illinois’ 20th Congressional District for the House of Representatives, wrote about being a politician who is also a Christian. He says that many members of Congress pray for each other, go to Bible classes and worship, and seek out fellowship times. Listen to what he says.

The majority of members are moral men and women committed to their families, faith, love of country and ideology. As in any profession, bickering and sin do exist. But Godliness and high moral standards also thrive in the political arena and our government—though they seldom grab the headlines (201).

In the article, Rep. Shimkus wisely encourages us to view our government as a gift from God and to be good stewards of that gift. Or, as Paul says, to respect, honor and obey the governing authorities. (What follows next is a personal story I plan to use when I preach this sermon. You may introduce it with a sentence such as “One of the professors at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis tells of a time when he...” or tell a similar story from your own pastoral ministry or relate something from the everyday or heroic responses to the terrorist attacks.) A number of years ago I was meeting with a student who had four children. A fifth child was on the way. As a student, he and his wife were always struggling to make ends meet. They did not have enough money to live on. He, however, was reluctant to ask for any government assistance for food or medical care. I encouraged him to make use of whatever programs he could. Why? I said that there are many Christians in this country who faithfully pay their taxes, myself included. I told him that I know some of that money is wasted and some is spent on the wrong programs. But my hope was that my tax dollars would also be spent for times just like this, where God could use the governing authorities to help people in need. I know you can’t trace where your tax monies are spent, but I do know that paying revenue where revenue is due is pleasing to God and is often used to bring good into the lives of the people in this country and around the world. And, yes, the student did receive the added help he needed for the birth of the child. Paul’s words are wise when he speaks of respect, obedience, and honor for our governing authorities—even when we have to pay taxes. I mean, do “you want to be

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 309 free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good.” Amen. Glenn A. Nielsen

Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost Romans 14:5-9 September 15, 2002

Imposed agendas…that’s one way of approaching this text. In overt and hidden ways people are always trying to impose their beliefs upon us. The high school student feels the weight of peer pressure. The new college graduate, fresh at the first job, senses the demand to do things according to the protocols of business. Within our congregations, and synod too, various views vie for supremacy. If the truth be told, it seems that almost everyone is seeking to urge his or her agenda upon others. How shall we preachers raise the Lord’s agenda above the fray? In historical context, Paul here addressed two specific cases. Some people were seeking to impose their views about Jewish festivals but were being resisted. A parallel case was whether or not to eat meat offered to idols. “Whatever,” as we say colloquially, is Paul’s response, but “each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” Paul bases his appeal for a higher unity on several facts that can guide us as we contend with conflicting agendas, especially amidst the jeremiads from brothers and sisters within our congregation or the LCMS. Fact: That other Christian, the one whose opinion we’re not buying, is also a servant of our Lord (v. 4). He or she doesn’t belong to us but to the Master. Fact: Each of us is accountable to the Lord. “Each of us will give an account of himself to God” (v. 12). True, this is a note of Law, but “the law is to be diligently applied not only to unbelievers and the impenitent but also to people who are genuinely believing, truly converted, regenerated, and justified through faith” (FC, Ep, VI). Fact: The motivation for magnanimity with one another is, or should be, the Gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ (vv. 7-9). He died and rose so that we, I with the opinions I think right and you with the opinions you think right…so that we together might identify ourselves by that more compelling relationship, our belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the agenda of our Savior who summons us to unity (cf. John 12:32; 17:21; Eph. 2:14-18; 4:3). Yielding ourselves to His agenda by the effective work of the Spirit, we are free to relegate our own peculiar agendas and those of our peers to secondary status. They have not become unimportant, just not primary. You’ll be preaching this text in the aftermath of 9-11 remembrances. Your listeners will have seen, heard, and read numerous media accounts about the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Paul’s teaching that all days are inherently neutral has not stopped society from imposing some special days upon us, like 9-11. We accept some impositions because we are in the world, but at the same time seek another agenda to live by, one that is not of the world. That higher agenda was impressed on us at Baptism. The imposition of the sign of the cross upon forehead and heart, the pouring of water, the words of the Gospel…. This has raised our hearts above the fray and on the way has united us with those Christians we’re so wont to attack. Baptism has made us one.

310 Suggested outline:

The Imposing Agenda

I. “My way or the highway!” A. Everyone seems to strive to impose his or her agenda on us, even within the church. Give examples. B. Is unity among us possible? II. In Baptism God impressed His agenda upon us. A. You may not like your fellow Christian’s opinion, but through our incorporation into the burial of Christ we all have received forgiveness of sins. B. New life is theirs as well as yours through our participation in His resurrection. C. That Christian who holds different opinions? You’ll spend eternity together in heaven! D. Creedal and catechism facts that we share are of greater importance than some smaller religious opinions that divide us. III. God imposes His agenda on our life together. A. Baptism imposes upon us an agenda of unity. B. Explanation of the situation in the text. C. Examples of times when we ignore His agenda and pursue our own designs for ourselves and others. D. Analysis: We forget the agenda of unity imposed on us in Baptism. IV. Our amended agenda: “We are the Lord’s.” A. Our unity is derived from Jesus’ unity with each of us and all of us. B. Detailed in the fundamental truths of the Creed and Catechism. C. Devotion to His saving agenda leads us to… 1. Love one another. 2. Converse with one another in non-judgmental, affirming ways. V. Conclusion: 9-11. A. This week we have remembered the terrible attacks of last year. B. Mindful of such evil, of those “out there” who want to impose their agenda on us, should not we, impressed by Baptism, unite with one another in the affirming love of Christ? Dale A. Meyer

Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost Philippians 1:1-5 (6-11), 19-27 September 22, 2002

Introduction: People! At times we can’t live with them…but, then again, at times we can’t live without them! People! Our attitude toward people is a major thread that runs throughout Philippians. What follows is a study based upon Philippians 1:1-11 under the theme “Relationships 101.” Liturgical context: Attitude is everything when it comes to our approach to people (note the word ND@

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 311 revenge, one-up-man-ship, and pride. Yahweh’s thoughts are so very different! “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways” (Is. 55:8). The appointed Gospel lesson from Matthew 20:1-16 also accents this marvelous attitude God has toward people. Whereas we keep score, get even, and expect justice; He is generous with mercy and grace. “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?” (Matt. 20:15). Biblical context: Philippians is well known for its emphasis on the attitude of joy. In fact, the word P"DV and its cognates are used fourteen times. Based on joy, one way of looking at Philippians is to see St. Paul listing the “kill-joys” present in the Philippian congregation—e.g., suffering (1:12-30), selfish attitudes (2:1-11), complaining (2:12-18), legalism (3:1-11), lack of goals (3:12-20), anxiety (4:1-9), and discontentment (4:10-23). But perhaps the chief “kill-joy” is introduced in 1:1- 11 with it continuing throughout all four chapters—sour relationships with people! Comments on the text: Verse 1: The unique feature here is not that Paul links Timothy’s name with his own; Paul names other co-senders (1 Cor. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1). Rather, the uniqueness lies in the fact that Paul permits the noun *@Ø8@4 to stand in apposition both to his own name and to Timothy’s, a unique feature in the literary legacy left by Paul. By such an expression, Paul was setting the tone for the rest of the letter, i.e., Christian relationships are not based on authority, superiority, or inferiority, but on humble equality. This attitude is given classic expression in Philippians 2:6-8 which portrays our Lord with a humble attitude toward His Father. If one must chose between the Hellenistic-Roman environment idea of *@Ø8@H and that of the Old Testament, the better choice seems to be that of the former. In this case “slave” is a person possessing no rights or freedom. He lives totally at the service of others. Paul rarely uses the word B•F4< to address the readers of his letters (only here and in Rom. 1:7). The startling frequency of the expression “all of you” (1:4, 7 [two times], 8, 25; 2:17, 26; 4:21, 23) indicates a major theme of Philippians—relationships. One further relational note is struck with the inclusion of ¦B4F6`B@4H 6"Â *4"6`<@4H after the phrase J@ÃH •(\@4H. Aware of the dissention and self-serving attitudes of the church, Paul places the leaders after the members in a subtle attempt to foster humility. Verse 4: “With joy” (:gJ• P"D•H)—joy cannot be affected by external circumstances; rather for Paul it is a defiant “nevertheless” with which he approaches relationships that might otherwise destroy him. Joy allows the believer to see beyond any particular circumstance to the loving Lord who stands above all events and ultimately has control over them. Joy undergirds Paul’s relationships with people, and he seeks to inculcate this attitude into the Philippian church. Verse 5: 6@4

312 includes such ideas as “to think” or “to hold an opinion” about someone or something. It is a word that embraces both feeling and thought, emotions and mind. Note the twofold use of BV"< 6"Â §B"4<@< 2g@Ø (1:11). Reed Lessing

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 313 Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost (St. Michael and All Angels) Revelation 12:7-12 September 29, 2002

The context of the text: The drama that comprises the last half of the book of Revelation (chaps. 12-22) describes the defeat of the devil, who is cast down from heaven to earth (see especially Rev. 12:7-12) and from earth to the abyss, the “pool of fire and sulphur” (see especially Rev. 20:7-10). While on earth, Satan seeks to have his way with the inhabitants of this world. In the end, however, God and the Lamb thwart Satan’s efforts. And, a new heaven, which is a new earth, free from Satan and from his power, becomes the dwelling place of both God and man. The essential interest of the text: Attending especially to the issue of the power of the heavenly over that of the Prince of Darkness, Revelation 12:7-12, like so much of the rest of Revelation, focuses on the matter of the “now” over against the “not yet.” The veritable defeat of Satan is a present reality, even in the now. That one need no longer reckon with the threat of him, however, is yet to be (and will not be till Christ returns finally to judge both the living and the dead). Still, the present is a time of great blessing, of joy, and of hope. For, even now, Christ reigns over all, even over Satan. And a time will come when no vestige of Satan’s person or power continues to haunt or threaten the children of God. Themes from Revelation 12 which especially serve the interest of the text: Every reason for patient endurance is given with the “great sign” of Revelation 12. The long awaited child, the Messiah, “a male child destined to shepherd/rule all the nations with an iron rod” (Rev. 12:5; cf. Ps. 2:9) is born to the woman (a figure that bespeaks both the reality of the virgin and her people, the people of the promise? cf. John 19:26-27). Despite the dragon’s every plan and intention, the child mysteriously escapes the threat of the dragon, is “caught up to God and to His throne” (Rev. 12:5), and the dragon is cast down (Rev. 12:7-12). Both surprised and enraged at his defeat, the dragon goes off “to make war with the rest of her (the woman’s) offspring (Rev. 12:13-18), those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus” (Rev. 12:17). But woman and children are given to reside in safety for the present time in a place of refuge which is the desert (Rev. 12:6). Life in the desert, by definition, is harsh, threatening. But those belonging to both the woman and her enthroned son bear every reason to endure faithfully to the end. A cosmic battle has transpired which informs not just the reality of the now, but especially the hope of the not yet. Verse 7: Michael is a figure both familiar and defining. For Michael is an angelic “prince” whose work is to defeat the powers that oppose Israel (Dan. 10:13, 21). He is the heavenly “protector” of the people of God (Dan. 12:1), and the adversary of the devil (Jude 9). Michael and his hosts therefore fight on behalf of both the woman and her children. Verse 8-9: And this is the result. The great dragon and his host are thrown down, “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the inhabitants of the whole world.” He is thrown down to the earth, and his angels are thrown down with him. Verse 10: A loud voice in heaven therefore proclaims the glorious news. “Now (even now!) have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who was accusing them day and night before our God.” No longer has Satan any

314 opportunity to go before God that he might bring charges against the citizens of this world. Removed from the very domain of the heavenly is he. And gutted is his power. Verse 11: Victorious, then, even in the now are all God’s children. For “they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony” (i.e., the selfsame testimony of the loud voice from heaven). For this very reason, “they did not love their life even in the face of death.” The everyday perceptions of those who suffer on earth are therefore reversed. For the seemingly defeated are, in fact, the victorious, even as they await the glory of the not yet. Verse 12: Therefore, even the heavens have reason to rejoice. “Rejoice then, you heavens and those who tabernacle in them!” This is not to say, however, that life in the now will ever be free of toil and trouble. Indeed, “Woe to the earth and to the sea, for the devil has come down to you with great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!” The pragmatics of the text for all who live in the “now”: Again, every reason for patient endurance is given with the “great sign” of Revelation 12. Satan continues to threaten. The wicked prosper. The righteous suffer (or just don’t seem ever to “get ahead”). Evil seems to reign. Of course it does! The devil’s wrath is fierce, and he is relentless because he knows of his end. He knows that his time is short.

Revelation likens Satan to a rogue animal that the forces of God have coralled, driving it off the expansive plains of heaven into the fenced-in area of earth. The beast rampages within its newly limited circumstances, seeking to do as much damage as possible during the short time that remains.... Those who think that Satan rages because he is invincible will give up in despair, but those who recognize that Satan rages on earth because he has already lost heaven and is now desperate have reason to resist him, confident that God will prevail (C. R. Koester, Revelation and the End of All Things, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001], 123).

Suggested outline for preaching the text:

Down, But Not (Yet) Out

Introduction: Which is the more dire circumstance in our day? War? Or peace? To know in no uncertain terms the ever-present threat of death? Or to be lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that all is well when all most certainly is not (at least entirely) well? Which is the more deadly? As powerful and as real as St. John’s Revelation was to a people living in the first century in the midst of the threat of either being assimilated to the existing culture or being extinguished by it, just so is it powerful and real to the people of today. For even today, the devil is down, but he is most certainly not yet out.

I. Down is Satan! The death and resurrection of our Lord has secured Satan’s defeat. The present end of Satan is real. The strong man has been bound (Rev. 20:1-6). The future end of Satan is assured. In heaven no longer is he. Banished forever is he. Down is Satan.

II. But not yet out is Satan! Not yet consigned to the abyss is he. Rather, on the prowl is he, seeking those whom he may devour. Ours is the present and very

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 315 real trouble of “the great tribulation” (Rev. 7:14). “I know that you live where Satan’s throne is,” declares Jesus, “where Satan lives” (Rev. 2:13).

Concluding thoughts: Even so, ours is every reason for patient, even joyful, endurance. For the victory is now, as all God’s faithful await the glory of the not yet, when “To the victor I will give the right to eat from the tree of life that is in the garden of God” (Rev. 2:7). For “The victor shall not be harmed by the second death” (Rev. 2:11). “To the victor I shall give some of the hidden manna” (Rev. 2:17), declares Jesus. “To the victor who keeps to my ways until the end, I will give authority over the nations” (Rev. 2:26). “The victor will thus be dressed in white, and I will never erase his name from the book of life but will acknowledge his name in the presence of my Father and of his angels” (Rev. 3:5). “The victor I will make into a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never leave it again. On him I will inscribe the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, as well as my new name” (Rev. 3:12). “I will give the victor the right to sit with me on my throne, as I myself first won the victory and sit with my Father on his throne” (Rev. 3:21). “Let the one who has ears to hear hear,” says the Lord. May His coming be soon! Bruce Schuchard

Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost Philippians 3:12-21 October 6, 2002

A Good Pattern to Follow

Two, four, six, eight, ten—what’s next? Twelve. You know the pattern. The even numbers starting at two. Up, down, up. Up, down, up. Up, down,...of course, the next direction is up. The pattern was given, and you know what’s next just by following it. The church lives in a very specific pattern. It starts with an up in December with the prophecy and birth of Jesus. Quickly we move to His Baptism and His rising popularity through His life of teaching, miracles, and preaching. But then things go downhill. In Lent we watch as opposition to Jesus grows, especially by the religious leaders. Soon it’s Good Friday, the darkest, lowest day—betrayal, beating, mocked. It’s the end of His life. His head drops down, lifeless as He hangs on the cross. But all of a sudden we’re back up again—resurrection! Jesus is alive and showing Himself to His disciples. Forty days later He ascends into heaven and the rest of the year, from May until December, we joyously focus on how this risen Savior is present in and among His church. We live this pattern, this up, down, up, this birth, struggle and death, resurrection, year after year after year. But it’s not just the church year; it’s also the last week of Jesus’ life that has this up, down, up pattern. Palm Sunday is an up. Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey. He knows what lies ahead. He knows what’s coming. But His face is set toward that holy city. A mission has taken hold of Him. He will die for His people. He will bring salvation to all nations. And the people respond—at first. Shouts of Hosanna. Palm branches and cloaks. A triumphant parade. The week begins on a high note. But all too soon opposition appears, and it’s quickly downhill. Jesus stands up

316 for what is right and cleans out the Temple of the moneychangers. The religious leaders plot His arrest and execution. The crowds that had so enthusiastically welcomed Him into Jerusalem will soon yell, “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” By Thursday night the mission Jesus had so focused on, that had so taken hold of Him, is in full swing. The Last Supper is eaten. Final prayers are said in the Garden of Gethsemane. Soldiers arrest Him. The trial is fixed. By Friday He’s on a cross. The mission is nearly complete. Jesus is dying for His people, bringing salvation to us all. Yet Friday night, Saturday, and early Sunday He’s in the tomb, and His followers are down—grieving, depressed, hurt, disappointed. But Sunday morning is coming. Suddenly the up has returned. Resurrection Day! Easter joy! He’s alive again! Do you see the pattern? A mission takes hold of Jesus. It starts with celebration. The middle is filled with opposition and pain. But the end, oh the end, is glorious indeed. Up, down, up. For us in the church, that’s the pattern. What’s more, we are called to live in that same pattern. The beginning takes hold of us. For most of us it was at a baptismal font. Jesus reached down into our lives and took hold of us. He claimed us as His people. For some of you that beginning with Jesus came later in life. Faith was born as you talked with a friend or pastor about Jesus, as you read the Bible, as you attended church, as you came to a children’s program here at church. But somehow Jesus took hold of you. You became His. And that day is one of celebration. No day is more special. No day is more significant. The day you entered God’s family, the church, is the day of loud hosannas for you. If you want to pick a day to have a parade—take the day Jesus took you to be one of His holy people. We also know the end. We know there’s more to life than just what happens each day. There’s a resurrection from the dead waiting for us. New bodies. Glorified bodies. A citizenship in heaven that can never be taken away from us. Oh, the end, the end is indeed glorious. The beginning is up, one of celebration. The end is up, wonderful beyond imagination. The middle, however, is not so pleasant. You know the pattern. Opposition and pain. Rejection and hurt. There’s just something about Jesus that makes the pattern hold true in the middle. Someone once told me about a bumper sticker she had seen. It read, “Too many Christians, not enough lions.” Ridicule. Hurtful words. You can try to ignore them, but you know there are many more people who feel the same way and are getting bolder and bolder in saying so. Earlier this year a Lutheran pastor was asked to open a legislative session with prayer. At first he was excited—until he read the guidelines. He was told that he could not mention the name of Jesus or make the prayer so specific that it would exclude people of other faiths. It had to be a generic, one-size-fits-all, prayer. He couldn’t let his own faith be heard though. Resistance. Rejection. It’s painful not being able to speak freely about Jesus. Last March the St. Louis Post-Dispatch carried an article about Miss Black USA, Lisa Marie Miree. As Miss Black America, she has opportunity to speak around the country and chose sexual abstinence as her message . She wants to help teenagers avoid AIDS, pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and the emotional troubles that accompany pre-marital sex, and does so by simply telling them, “No sex before marriage.” This message is, of course, very Biblical. It’s simply the Sixth Commandment. The church has always taught no sex outside of

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 317 the marriage relationship. But as she presented this message to Metro High School, one of the top schools in Missouri, she was challenged, questioned, because her message was so out of the mainstream. Now it’s not marriage but a monogamous relationship. And sex is for those who choose to do so. Our values are unpopular and seem so strange that we’re just dismissed, not even heard. Yes, the middle of the pattern is not an easy part to live. There’s just something about Jesus that brings rejection, ridicule, resistance, pain. That’s why Paul encourages us to live according to the pattern given us and then tells us to pay attention to those who are doing so. You see, we learn in different ways. Some things you can learn from a book. Other things just by listening to what others tell you to do or not to do. But here Paul tells us to learn by watching others, by taking note of those who are living according to the pattern. We’ll start with Peter and John. The pattern is the same. They start out with Jesus and things go well. They end in glory, faithful unto death. In between, it was rough. In between Palm Sunday and Easter, they were afraid and hurt, feeling the rejection, the ridicule. Living the agony of Jesus’ death. But they couldn’t stay away. Peter watches as Jesus is beaten and condemned. John is at the cross, standing there with Mary. When Easter comes, they run to the tomb to see that it’s empty. Do you see what they did? Do you see the pattern? In the toughest moments of living in the middle, they went to the cross and ran to the empty tomb. Look at Paul himself. He starts out great. He has one of the most dramatic conversion experiences ever on the road to Damascus. Jesus appears to him in all His resurrection glory. He finishes with the same joyous experience—going to be with Jesus in heaven. In between, it was rough. He was beaten, arrested, ridiculed, rejected, slandered, badgered, attacked. Yet listen to what he says: “I want to know the power of Christ’s resurrection. I want to know the fellowship of sharing in Christ’s suffering.” Do you see the pattern? In the toughest moments of living in the middle, he went to the cross and ran to the empty tomb. Or the pastor who was asked to say the prayer, omitting Jesus, at a state capitol. His life as Jesus’ child began in his Baptism. He’s looking forward, pressing toward, the wonderful life eternal he will one day live. In between, though, it’s tough. People want to silence him. What to do? What to do? He wrote a strong letter back to the state official clearly objecting to the change in policy. You see, he had done the prayer just a couple of years before, and there was no such limitation. His letter indicated that his faith in Jesus could not be compromised. If he could not speak of his Savior, he could not do the prayer. Do you see the pattern? In the toughest moments of living in the middle, you go to the cross and run to the empty tomb. You stick with Jesus. How about Miss Black USA, Lisa Marie Miree? From the newspaper article you could not tell if she had any Christian background. But a quick check on the Internet and you will find she has written an article for Call and Post.com that lets us know. In her first sentence she says, “Those of us in the Christian community are quite familiar with the Biblical perception of the body being the sacred temple. It’s understood we should not defile it.” And she ends with, “May God bless us all. Life is like a battlefield, but we are all equipped with the armor of God.” The armor of God.... Do you see the same pattern again? We’re at the cross with Jesus and then running to the resurrection when the middle gets too tough to live. It’s a good pattern to follow. Because when we go to the cross and run to His empty tomb, He takes hold of us. Jesus takes hold of us and brings us into His

318 family. He takes hold of us at the end and brings us into life everlasting. And He keeps hold of us during the tough times in between. Yes, it’s a good pattern to follow. Of course, it only works because of Jesus. It only works because He’s already lived the pattern for us. Pay close attention to the last week of His life. Jesus starts out with an up—a parade and a mission that has taken hold of Him to bring salvation to us all. The middle of the week gets mighty tough. It’s a down, but He goes to the cross so that we always will have that cross to go to during our tough times. And the end of the week is glorious—an empty tomb for us to run to when the middle of our lives are not going so well. Yes, it’s a good pattern to follow, a very good pattern indeed. Amen. Glenn A. Nielsen

Twenty-First Sunday after Pentecost Philippians 4:4-13 October 13, 2002

Introduction: Anxiety, apprehension, and angst are some of its formal terms. Country cousins include: on pins and needles—fret—frazzled—in a stew—or from Elvis, “all shook up.” The German würgen is the closest “foreign” relative, and its meaning gets to the heart of what it does, i.e., “strangle, choke, slay, take by the throat.” The enemy thus described is…worry! Just how does one gain and keep an equilibrium in a world filled with worry-creating situations? What follows is a study based upon Philippians 4:4-9 under the title “Paul’s Equation for Conquering Worry.” Liturgical context: The Collect of the Day says in part, “…as your Son promised, we may be led into all truth.” The truth is that worry has been conquered in Jesus and the fruits of this victory are shared at His glorious eucharistic feast! The appointed Old Testament (Is. 25:6-9) and Gospel (Matt. 22:1-14) lessons paint a glorious picture of Yahweh’s victory feast. But it is a celebration in which we bring nothing. “On this mountain the Yahweh Sebaoth will prepare…He will destroy…He will swallow up…He will wipe away…He will remove…He saved us” (selected statements from Is. 25:6-9). Yahweh does it all! This truth of free salvation is echoed in Matthew 22:4, “Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner.… Come to the wedding banquet.” This Gospel, pictured in terms of a grand banquet, undergirds Paul’s equation for conquering worry. Biblical context: Paul did not write the words “Do not be anxious about anything” from the French Riviera! Betrayed by his countrymen under false pretenses (Acts 24:13), mistaken as an Egyptian renegade (Acts 21:26), almost murdered by forty men who had taken vows not to eat or drink until he was dead (Acts 23:21), caught up in Roman political machinery for two years (Acts 24:27), shipwrecked on the Island of Malta for a winter (Acts 28:11), and then placed under house arrest (Acts 28:16); we shouldn’t be surprised if we look up the word “victim” in the dictionary and see a picture of Paul! It is in this context of being “in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles, in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea, and in danger from false brothers” (2 Cor. 11:26) that Paul writes the words of our text. Comments on the text: Verse 4: The operative words in this well-known command are ¦< 6LD\å. Throughout the letter Paul has made it clear that the referent of 6LD\å is Jesus (cf. 1:2; 2:11, 19; 3:8; and 4:23). He has also spelled out what the

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 319 Lord Jesus has done, is doing, and will do for all believers (cf., e.g., 1:6; 21; 2:5-11; 3:20-21). He is the reason to rejoice! Verse 5: JÎ ¦B4g46¥H is a neuter adjective used as an abstract noun. Aristotle contrasted it with •6D4$@*\6"4@H (“strict justice”). For Aristotle ¦B4g46¥H meant a generous treatment of others that does not insist on the letter of the law. It is pre- eminently the character of Jesus (cf. 2 Cor. 10:1). The next phrase— Ò 6bD4@H ¦((bH —is deliberately ambiguous, thus conveying the meaning that Jesus is near spatially (i.e., sacramentally) as well as temporally (i.e., His Second Coming). Verse 6: The verb translated as “worry” (:gD4:<•Jg) is the same verb that was used in Philippians 2:20 where it had the positive sense of “to be seriously concerned for” the welfare of others. Now, however, it has the negative connotation of “anxious harassing care,” of attempting “to carry the burden of the future oneself,” or “unreasonable anxiety,” especially about things over which one has no control. To escape the clutches of such a menace, Paul offers three kinds of prayer: BD@FgLP- (a general word for prayer), *gZFg4 (a specific petition—see e.g., Phil. 1:19), and "ÆJZ:"J" (“request”). All of this prayer is to be done :gJ• gÛP"D4FJ\"H —such thankfulness is modeled in Paul’s attitudes displayed in Philippians (1:12-18 and 2:17-18). Verse 7: The result of these prayers (6"Â—functioning here to introduce a result clause) is that º gÆDZ<0 J@Ø 2g@Ø will ensue (a phrase used nowhere else in the New Testament). The genitive—J@Ø 2g@Ø—makes sense both objectively (meaning peace with God through the merits of Jesus) and subjectively (meaning peace from God that is the result of our righteous standing). Paul may have both ideas in mind. The apostle then describes this peace by a participial phrase º ßBgDXP@LF" BV

320 in a general way! In short, the way to be anxious about nothing is to pray specifically about everything! Second, “Give thanks in all things.” Important here is that we don’t give thanks for all things because all things are not good. Rather, we give thanks in all things. Imagine that, thanking God in all things, even before the prayer is answered! This author’s favorite example of such bold prayer is in 2 Chronicles 20:1-30. King Jehoshaphat directs the army to go into battle, thanking Yahweh before the military engagement (v. 21). Verse 22 states, “As they began to sing and praise, Yahweh set ambushes against the men of Ammon and Moab” with the result that “no one escaped” (v. 24). Such is the power of thanksgiving! Third, “Think about the right things.” The old adage is “Garbage in, Garbage out!” If we put garbage into our minds, we will surely never overcome worry. Paul says that all the countless concerns of life can be kept at bay, if believers will reckon up, think over, estimate aright, and fill their minds with all things good and true and then rise up and put into practice what they see and hear about him. Finally, “This equals God’s peace that surpasses anything.” Philippi in Paul’s time housed a Roman garrison so the metaphor explained above in verse 7 would have been easily understood—God’s peace, like a garrison of soldiers, will keep guard over minds so that they will be as safe against the assaults of worry as any fortress! Here accent the comments above also on verse 7, namely, that peace with God through the death and resurrection of Jesus (delivered sacramentally—note the phrase Ò 6bD4@H ¦((bH in v. 5)—brings the peace of God. With such an equation the believer may confidently believe Paul’s promise— Ò 2gÎH J-H gÆDZ<0H §FJ"4 :g2z ß:ä< ! Reed Lessing

Twenty-Second Sunday after Pentecost 1 Thessalonians 5:1-5a October 20, 2002

The congregation in Thessalonica began as the fruit of Paul’s preaching during his second missionary journey (Acts 15:40-18:22). In the face of synagogue opposition, Paul’s friends shuttled him on to Berea, leaving behind an immature congregation. They weathered challenges to Paul’s authority and welcomed Timothy’s return to help build up their faith. Then Paul wrote the first of two letters to encourage them in their new faith and life and to answer two questions that bothered them in particular. To the first—what happens to those who die before Christ returns? Do they miss out on eternity in heaven?—Paul points to Christ’s resurrection as their own, assuring them that all who are Christ’s in faith, be they the living or the dead when Christ returns, will be with Him in paradise. The second question lies behind today’s text: Then when will Christ come again in glory? Written from Corinth, possibly in the early 50s, 1 Thessalonians is one of Paul’s earliest New Testament writings. While things have just started, people are already looking for the end, for Christ to return in triumph and wrap everything up, taking them into glory. Given what is promised, it’s understandable that believers would want to know when this is going to be. It’s not a matter of wanting to sow wild oats until the eleventh hour and then come running back to the faith, to the church in Thessalonica. If anything they would like to know how long they are

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 321 going to have to endure opposition and then when eternal glory will come. Even Christ’s disciples had asked for an eschatological timetable in Acts 1:6-7. Here Paul refers to teaching that the Thessalonians had heard and known, the sort of things that will be preserved also in written form in other texts such as Matthew 24 or Luke 12. “When,” while important, is not theirs to know but is the business of the Father. But “how” and “what’s pointing to it” are matters Paul apparently has taught the congregation and now brings again to mind. The thief hardly announces his coming but simply strikes in the dead of night. The image is used in the New Testament both for Christ Himself (Rev. 3:3; 16:15) and for the Day of the Lord (this text and also 1 Pet. 3:10). In either case, being on guard and alert is the order of the day. Complacency is not, nor is an attitude that people in and of themselves are ready for this. Amos (5:18-20) had warned Israel not to be cavalier as if confronting God was some easy matter, just another thing on the calendar. Paul sounds the alarm as well. Beware false security. Are they in control? Are they capable of standing by themselves when Christ comes? They should remember, Paul writes, what childbirth is like: we know the baby is coming and fall into a kind of rhythm or routine, and then we are caught short when labor starts. It’s a common image for the sudden Day of the Lord (Is.13:8; Jer. 6:24; Hos. 13:13). Not only can labor come suddenly, but the reason for the labor pain, we know, lies within woman herself (Gen. 3:16)—perhaps another point to draw from this image. If the prospect of Christ’s return carries some fear or at least uneasiness, know that the roots are not in Him and His coming but in ourselves, also the result of sin, of our fallen human nature. But while all Paul has written is so, he is not out to conjure up fear among the Thessalonians. Rather with verse 4 he turns a corner and reminds them that they know better because they have better. They have more than themselves to prepare for whenever that day might be. Not groping in the dark, prey for a thief, they rather are children of light. They don’t know when Christ is coming, but they know that He is coming. Doubtless Paul, along with the image of the thief, taught them other things Christ said about His return, and they have seen the images all around them. That’s why they are so sure it will happen soon and want to know more. In addition, Paul’s very presence among them was proof that there was nothing more in history that had to be done before Christ would come again. He has ascended, sent the Paraclete, and the disciples had already been witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea-Samaria, and in the ends of the earth—not in terms of literal geography, but the Gospel had broken out into the Gentile world already early in Acts. So the Thessalonians knew they were already in the latter days. By our day things have changed somewhat simply because so much time has passed. All of those Thessalonians now await the resurrection, and we all are still waiting for Christ’s return. The signs described elsewhere in the New Testament continue to happen, so much so that we risk standing down and giving up watch, taking them as routine. One commentator wondered if our biggest problem with this text is not one of embarrassment, acting as if this is all still just about to happen now nearly two millennia later, as if this is urgent business (which it is!) even when the world yawns and some Christians risk nodding off. Some still want to know the Day and look for ways to decode texts as if to get an inside line on the timetable. But in these last Sundays of the church year we’d do well to remind ourselves that the watch is still on. Even as we look ahead to the church year coming around again in a few Sundays, we ought to rethink our image of Christ’s

322 return. If we are tearing off calendar pages, in one sense we might say we are closer to that day than the Thessalonians, taking time on a line as if it were behind a door at the end of a long hall and each day is one step closer. But perhaps a better image is this: even as we move down the hall in the building, going one day to the next, Christ’s return is not so much at the end but rather like the second story above us, always just as far away (above) us each step of the way. And where is the end? Here the image breaks down, for it’s not finally the door at the hall’s end—we can see that and plot it out—but rather the end is whenever the Father sends Christ again to break in from above, as it were, to come crashing through and put an end to things right then and there. That calls for a split vision on our part with one eye on our Christian life in this world, moving from day to day, and one eye turned upward, heavenward, knowing that He will come again to judge both the living and the dead and to take us home. We may be farther “down the hall” calendar-wise than were the Thessalonians. But as Christ’s church they and we both are alike. We live knowing what God has done for His people in the past and how He has brought us to our present. We live in the present and look to the future, living in the “now” and heading for the “still- to-come,” trusting in Christ’s promises. Faith now and hope for what’s to come lie together. Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to treasure that faith God has worked to bring them into the light. And, we might say, Paul exhorts us to treasure the same. Don’t think that Christ’s coming has dragged out. It’s not that far off! Keep living and keep watching. Suggested outline:

Wide Awake for the Light Is On

I. Surprises in the dark. A Christ comes like a thief in the night. B. Complacency and false security: where is Christ to be found? II. Awake in the light. A Christ’s children are not abandoned in darkness but given the light they need. B. Children of the light live now in promise and confidence. C. Children of the light live looking ahead in hope and joy. Robert Rosin

Reformation Sunday Romans 3:19-28 October 27, 2002

Paul’s message, it would seem, could not be clearer, but there are pitfalls that can derail the comfort offered by this text. On one hand, the congregation could yawn its way through a sermon about Law and Gospel rather than one that really is Law and Gospel. Observing at arm’s length risks being perfunctory and pedestrian about both Law and Gospel: yes, we know all that about what God expects, but in the end God will inevitably make a grand entrance at the last scene and bail us out. It’s not quite deus ex machina since we know He’s on the way, but it might as well be. God is reduced to the kindly old man who effects a stern visage and may even actually be angered, but only for a moment. In the end He will surely crumble and give in, rather like sending the youngster to sit in the corner with threats of calling

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 323 the day’s outing off, and then ten minutes later caving in with “let’s go to the zoo.” This first pitfall threatens when the Law doesn’t, that is, when we really don’t get the depth and breadth of God’s expectation of nothing short of perfection. We don’t take either the Law or God Himself seriously. The second danger is not quite a polar opposite, but it does focus more on neglecting or misunderstanding the Gospel. To be sure, this danger also involves, to some extent, a misconception of the nature and depth of the Law, viewing the Law as somehow attainable: if only we were to do this or that.... The presumption is that something for our part can be done about this, maybe not in its entirety but in part—“in part” in terms of keeping some or enough of the Law or “in part” in terms of our contribution or energy that we bring to the table. Paul makes it clear to the Romans that they—that we—are sadly mistaken if that is our approach. That kind of thinking still does not comprehend the Law, so it’s related to the first pitfall. That thinking takes the Law more seriously than the casual dismissal noted above, but it still falls short. It’s short not only in terms of the Law but worse, in terms of the Gospel. It fails to understand the Gospel as pure, total, undeserved goodness and mercy that forgives and does all, and instead sees the Gospel as something that empowers or enables us to get on with making things right. But Gospel, as Romans makes clear, flat-out wipes the slate clean and sets us before God by virtue of pleading Christ’s righteousness. Reading Luther’s “Preface to the Romans” in Luther’s Works (vol. 35 in the American Edition but also in other collections) may well prove helpful since it reviews concepts so basic to grasping Paul and Romans, concepts that are all too easily misunderstood or glossed. Sin, Law, righteousness, grace, Gospel all have their connotations in contemporary culture that at least mitigate if not run counter to Paul. What do people hear when the preacher speaks of “justification”? Excuse? Explanation? Rationalization? Or what of “sin”? Is it no more than simply doing wrong (and how big a wrong), or is it a condition? “I confess that I am by nature sinful and unclean and therefore have sinned.…” That line from the liturgy shouldn’t fly by so fast, for it describes the foundation from which we first start in our relationship with God. The preacher has to know his people to be able to get beyond preaching about Law and Gospel to address them directly with Law and Gospel, to be able really to wound and then to heal. It’s not a matter of laundry-listing sins or shouting loudly, but of finding the contact point where the nerve is first exposed and then salved. Modern culture offers ways to finesse the terminology, but actually this has always happened. Nearly 500 years ago Luther called Paul’s words “peculiar and exasperating” as they fell into the ears of what were then Luther’s “moderns” who also did not want to hear them at face value. Paul could well have said the same. In fact the problem we have with Law, Gospel, righteousness is not simply a cultural matter but a human matter. When Paul says “all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory” (v. 23), that is not a cultural comment but the truth about each human being since Genesis. Likewise since Genesis the all-too-human tendency (when we’re not trying to avoid responsibility) has been to offer some work, some effort as if being righteous were simply a matter of racking up more credits than debits. But the text makes plain that we are talking not about what we do but about who we are and how we are—first in sin and then in faith, first unrighteous and then righteous, justified by grace laid hold of not simply intellectually (assent) but with our whole heart (fiducia—trust). It’s clear in verses 27-28. And although the Greek doesn’t have a vocable for “alone,” the point is certainly made: sola fide, by faith

324 alone is there since verse 21 has already ruled out works of the Law. Plagued by his sin and terrified by the Law, Luther sought a gracious God. He found Him when he understood that righteousness was not his earned but Christ’s won and given over, imputed. Once that is clear we’d think that no one would ever want to tinker with that message. Yet the general assembly of the Lutheran World Federation in its 1963 Helsinki gathering declared that “the man today no longer asks: how do I come to a gracious God? The person asks more radically and fundamentally…where are you, God?” It only seems to be a more radical question if the sense of sin and guilt is lost and there is no fear and trembling at the prospect of standing before the Almighty. One ought to be careful about what one seeks. He may find it and then what? Luther and we as well know full well what we’ll find if we go hunting God on our own. The specter of success in finding Him on our terms should (as it did Luther) terrify us to death. No, the real radicality of the text is in the love of God that operates not because but in spite of who we are for Christ’s sake. That endless grace and love that gives us the righteousness we need is something we’ll never really understand, but something that, again by God’s grace through His Spirit, we will believe. It’s a wonder Paul could describe it, it’s such an utterly thrilling picture. “As if the gates of paradise were flung open,” Luther said. He had it right. God’s grace, Christ’s righteousness sets us free. Suggested outline:

The Liberating Word

I. Liberation gone sour. A. How God planned things out; what God expected/expects. B. Our plans, even modest, are lost before we start. II. Liberation achieved. A. Christ’s righteousness frees us from self-justification (failure!). B. Christ’s righteousness frees us for new life with God/others. C. Christ’s righteousness frees us from fear of death and points to paradise opened. Robert Rosin

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 325 “On the reading of many books...”

THE SPIRITUAL SOCIETY: What Lurks Beyond Postmodernism? By Frederic W. Baue. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2001. 192 pages. Paper. $12.99.

Both the title and the content of Dr. Baue’s book validate C. S. Lewis’s familiar observation that the word “spiritual” does not always describe something good. When associated with the Holy Spirit and His gifts, the word “spiritual,” of course, has good connotations. But when the same word is used to describe a religious faith (objective or subjective) unconcerned about fact and truth, a faith that is vague, vacuous, eclectic, non-committal, “warm and fuzzy,” the word “spiritual” is anything but complimentary. A casual acquaintance recently told me of a person who had just died, “I know he didn’t go to church, and he rejected the traditional creeds, but he was a ‘spiritual’ person.” The lady meant well (whatever she meant), but the intended compliment ultimately backfired. So when Dr. Baue entitles his book “The Spiritual Society,” he is not describing a state of affairs in contemporary culture that we should be happy about. Oh, I suppose that title is more flattering than its opposite, “The Materialistic Society,” might have been, but the title is still a long way from complimentary. “An Ideational culture can be spiritual without being Christian,” Baue explains. “In fact, it can be positively antagonistic toward Christianty” (54). “People are attracted to religion today more than ever, though not necessarily Christianity” (135). “Few take theology seriously anymore” (166). “Each man becomes a denomination unto himself” (167). “On an individual basis, it [enthusiasm] means that people hold mutually contradictory beliefs based on nothing” (177). “Jesus is depicted in popular church art as smiling, athletic, and popular. Never mind that this is the Son of God, begotten before all worlds” (168). Should there be any lingering doubt about the author’s connotational intention in his use of the word “spiritual” in the title, there is the word “lurk” in the subtitle, “What Lurks Beyond Postmodernism.” The spirituality Baue is talking about “lurks”—and watch out for things that lurk! Baue’s contention that contemporary society is headed in a spiritual direction of an undesirable kind is not an emotional knee jerk or an intellectual burp. He roots his contention in an overview of secular and Christian history beginning with Greek culture of 800 B.C., continuing with the Roman period, the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, Rationalism, Romanticism, and ending with the Scientific Age, Modernism, and Postmodernism. He documents his overview of each period with reams of supporting evidence from the philosophers, theologians, artists, and poets of that period. Finally, he expresses his conclusion in a series of well-formulated thesis statements. That conclusion is that the pendulum of Western civilization has alternated with considerable regularity between two cultural modes: the Sensate and the Ideational. (The terms are borrowed from Pitirim A. Sorokin.) “In the Sensate cultural mode, true reality is sensory. Material values predominate. An example...would be the Roman Empire” (45). In the Ideational cultural mode, “true reality is supersensory. Spiritual values predominate. An example of this would be the Christian Middle Ages” (45). Each mode carries within itself the seeds of its own decay, accounting for the rhythmic fluctuations throughout history from Sensate to Ideational and vice versa. As the one mode gives way to the other, there are transitional periods of indefinite length (e.g., the Dark Ages between the Pax Romana and the Middle Ages), periods usually

326 marked by social upheaval but also, simultaneously, by artistic achievement. Presently, according to Baue, society is transitioning from a Sensate mode to an Ideational mode. But the spiritual direction in which it is heading, Baue fears, is spiritual in the bad sense already defined. The period into which we are careening is what the author calls the Therian Age, a coinage based on the Greek word for beast in Revelation 13:1-10 to describe a culture that is religious but hostile to Christianity. People want a Deity, but not the God of the Bible with all its foolishness about salvation through a cross and its call to sacrificial living. In Baue’s words, “We want something a little more reasonable, but at the same time something different, something we can come and go from, like dinner at a Chinese restaurant. Many Chinese restaurants these days feature buffets, allowing the customer not only to come and go but to pick and choose. Instead of one big plate of chop suey, you can have a little of this and a little of that. Not all of it sits harmoniously in the stomach. Something like this seems to be going on in our culture theologically as well as gastronomically. People try to nourish their souls with the most indigestible bits of incompatible beliefs” (142). Not only does Pastor Baue describe the problem in Biblical imagery (that of the beast from Revelation 13:1-10), but he also approaches the solution in Biblical terms. The model he suggests for our approach is the men who assisted King David, the “men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron. 12:32). What should the new Israel, the Christian church today, do about the Therian Age? Awareness of the problem, “understanding the times,” is, of course, a big step toward its solution. But Dr. Baue urges additional steps of a more aggressive character. One suggestion is to “hang in there,” “hang tough,” cling to and proclaim God’s inspired Gospel “in its truth and purity.” “The challenge now is to counter- balance the continuing arrogance of residual Rationalism with an emphasis on the legitimately supernatural elements of the faith such as miracles, mysteries, and the virgin birth. At the same time true Christianity will oppose the lingering subjectivism of Romanticism with an emphasis on the tangible elements of the faith such as Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and forensic justification” (174). It goes without saying that all such Biblical truths must be spoken in love (Eph. 4:15)— not in anger, pride, or self-righteousness. Another suggestion, refreshingly creative, is for Christians to take up careers in the arts—or at least generously support those who do. “As apologetics was well-suited to an age of reason, the arts will be well-suited to communicate the faith in this Therian Age when spiritual things and imagination are highly prized” (176). Dr. Baue’s perceptive analysis of contemporary culture in the context of history, his imaginative prediction of the Age of Aquarius degenerating further into the Age of Therius, and his Gospel-oriented remedies are the principal merits of his book. But there are numerous other goodies in store for the reader of this remarkable publication. The book is chock-full of intriguing insights: the Bible’s frequent association of water with acts of salvation and damnation (20-21); the unconscious ways in which contemporary man tips his hat to the grim reaper (24); the suggestion that each New Testament generation should look forward to the second coming of Christ as eagerly as Israelite women of each Old Testament generation hoped to be the mother of the Christ (28); the fact that Christianity is a balance of both Ideational and Sensate elements, a paradoxical blend of the spiritual and the material (63); the parallelism between Christ as both divine and human and His Sacrament as both bread and body (108); the contrast between the symbolism of the cathedral

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 327 dominating the skyline of a medieval city and the symbolism of the business skyscraper dominating the skyline of a modern metropolis (125); the possibility that the abortion of a baby is as much an unconscious pagan sacrifice as it is an act of personal selfishness (147); the Incarnation of our Lord as the validation for the arts: God becoming flesh in the one instance and art embodying a concept in the other instance (176). Merely listed as they are above, these insights may sound incidental to the thesis of Baue’s book. But for a reason that defies analysis, they don’t come off that way. The author’s insights are never intrusive, never “tacked on” or “worked in.” The same is true of the wealth of information available in this book. It never seems pedantic or encyclopedic. A reader might finish this book unconvinced by its thesis and still walk away with a veritable education! Maybe the reason doesn’t defy analysis—after all, the book is written in a delightful style. Samples follow. “Good works do not lead to salvation; salvation leads to good works” (67). “Enthusiasm is the wind and the fire and the earthquake. True revelation is the still, small voice” (88). “But to point people to the cross is risky...you might not make up that summer budget shortfall in time for Sunday school rally day, and your attendance statistics might not impress the denominational executives who are in a position to nominate you for promotion” (68). “But once the splitting [into denominations] started, like a crack in the windshield of your car, it just continued to progress and move in unexpected, crazy directions” (164). “She [a contemporary poet] doesn’t need her god any more than a fish needs a bicycle” (141). Charming humor is the spice in some of the stylistic gems. A reference to Leviticus 18 is followed by the aside “for those brave enough to read it” (15). (The reverse psychology works! I promptly looked up Leviticus 18, a chapter I might otherwise not have encountered in a decade!) “Consider it axiomatic that when church leaders finally catch on to a trend, it’s over” (15). “A modern Sodom and Gomorrah would qualify for federal disaster relief” (148). In the preface to his book, Dr. Baue credits the inception of his thesis to a serendipitous encounter with The Crisis of Our Age by Pitirim A. Sorokin during a casual stroll through a church library. I think it equally serendipitous that I was assigned to review this book, for I have gained immeasurably from it. Nearly two decades ago I had the privilege of having Frederic Baue in my class. Now he has returned the favor—he has taught me. Let him teach you too! Francis C. Rossow

NINE MARKS OF A HEALTHY CHURCH. By Mark Dever. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000. 255 pages. Paper. $15.99.

In America’s secular culture today, Christianity is often being widely disowned. Many baby boomers are seeking spirituality. Churches are vigorously competing to attract them and make the Gospel, as they think, more relevant to them. To attract them, unfortunately, too many evangelical churches have overstressed growing larger rather than what their true purpose should be, namely, to faithfully and effectively share the crucial message of the true Gospel and to glorify God. To carefully face this crucial issue, Dever helpfully offers an important prescription to seek to bring back a true vision of what a healthy Biblical church must be. In this book Dever offers a helpful prescription to seek to get pastors and

328 church leaders to carefully rethink what their true purpose and obligations are. He lays out and explains nine marks that are intimate features of a healthy Biblical church. The first mark stresses the importance of having and faithfully sharing in preaching a well-informed understanding of the Scripture and the text. The second emphasizes the crucial importance of a correct understanding of Biblical theology. The third stresses the need to have a well-informed knowledge of each Gospel in its setting and purpose as it records the true Gospel of Jesus’ life as the Savior of the world. The fourth mark emphasizes the decisive importance of the Biblical doctrine of conversion. The fifth mark takes up the true meaning of evangelism and why we should evangelize in keeping with the Great Commission. The sixth mark studies what a true church is and why one should be moved by the Holy Spirit to join the church. It also studies what true church membership means. The seventh mark defines the meaning of church discipline in its proper positive sense in the light of what the Scripture says about it. Included is the destructive result of a legal view of church discipline. And, then it carefully spells out five important reasons to practice proper Biblical church discipline. The next mark stresses what is the true Biblical practice of the growth of the church and of its members and its importance for true Biblical growth. This involves also the importance of growing together as a church through the Holy Spirit’s work and also the ongoing role of proper pastoral visitation. The ninth mark makes a careful Biblical study of church leadership: the Biblical qualifications for various aspects of the role of leadership and how to serve faithfully the needs of the church and its membership. Appendix 1 lays out tips for leading the church in a healthy direction. This book is a valuable resource for pastors and church leader to read carefully and review periodically as they seek faithfully to serve their challenging Biblical role in the church. Erich H. Kiehl

CULTURE SHIFT: Communicating God’s Truth to Our Changing World. By David W. Henderson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. 255 pages. Paper. $19.95.

When we weren’t looking, the world changed, and we weren’t ready for it. Christians may be nostalgic for “the good ol’ days,” when by and large the American society endorsed Biblical values and believed churches were important. But we will wait in vain for the culture to turn back the clock so we can speak to it again as we did in a more “Christian” period. In light of these cultural shifts, David Henderson pursues questions like: How do we relate to unbeliever’s beliefs without abandoning our own? What is negotiable and what is not? How do we speak to the postmodern culture so they will understand? Henderson offers a twofold answer to these questions. First, the church must recommit herself to Biblical authority. As an evangelical who believes in the inspiration of Scripture, Henderson’s passion is not about changing the Word, but it is about packaging it into ways that are meaningful for twenty-first-century Americans. He writes, “It is not our place to make the Bible relevant, but it is our place to communicate the relevance of the Bible.” Second, the church must regain an awareness toward audience sensitivity.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 329 Henderson writes: “Our commitment to the authority of the Bible will press us to ask what we should communicate in the face of its characteristics, while our commitment to be sensitive to our audience will nudge us to ask how best to communicate it.” The goal is to bring the Word and the world together. Dangers lie on both sides of this Bible/relevance paradigm. Henderson addresses those who err on the side of relevance with these words: “The Bible is not a self-help guide packed with helpful pointers. It is a door that brings self-absorbed humanity face to face with the self-giving God.” Christianity cannot be reduced to God meeting people’s needs, and when we attempt to do so, we invariably distort the heart of the Gospel. On the other hand, we can be so confident of the relevance of the Bible that we fail to translate what it says into language that is meaningful to the average American. Based on this balance between Bible and relevance, Henderson then surveys six important cultural features that prohibit the proclamation of the Gospel. Each of the six sections is divided into three parts. The first part of each section offers background about a particular characteristic (e.g., consumerism, individualism) explaining how we got where we are and how it affects us today. The second part presents practical suggestions about what and how to communicate in the face of the specific cultural feature. The third part offers a list of books to pursue in order to gain further insight into the topic being discussed. For example, in his discussion on consumerism Henderson notes that America’s favorite tourist attraction, beating out Disney World and drawing nearly ten times as many people as the Grand Canyon, is the Mall of America outside Minneapolis, Minnesota. Thirty-five million people visit there every year. He then offers practical ideas so that Christian communicators are sensitive to people’s shopping habits without catering too far toward their marketing mindset. In summary, dramatic shifts in American culture have nudged people out of reach of the Gospel. Henderson helps the reader discover where the world has moved and how to meet it. We can’t make the world believe, but we can speak in such a way that the world cannot help but listen. This book goes a long way toward enabling this. It is ideal for a church council or board of elders to study. Reed Lessing

DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY. Edited by Michael Walsh. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2001. xiv + 1250 pages. Cloth. $60.00.

The last decade has seen an avalanche of various dictionaries and encyclopedias (Biblical, biographical, mission, theological), one better than the one before, and each with an intentionally designed niche that gives it unique and complementary value. This new biographical dictionary clearly continues the avalanche but also maintains the high level of quality as well as the complementary fit. By the editor’s description, this dictionary comprises brief biographies of “rather more than 6,500 Christians…selected…because, in their public lives, their commitment to Christianity played an important part.” In addition to the normal succession of church leaders and theological thinkers, this approach allows inclusion of a much wider range of people who impacted the Christian faith and church, e.g., philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, artists, musicians. One niche this dictionary has carved out, in other words, is a much fuller cumulative sense of the variety of people who form part of the heritage of the Christian church.

330 The inclusion of 6,500+ biographies within 1,170 pages, however, means that while the book is rather inclusive, it is hardly exhaustive. On average, each page then must present between five and six entries, each of which has an average of some fifteen lines or approximately 150 words. Rare is the entry that spans one entire column, and even rarer (only one that this reviewer noted) that fills both columns on a page (Augustine). Happily, the articles are written in a very compact style, maximizing the built-in limits. The addition of a bibliographical reference or two would have been helpful for the person who needs more, though that would have either lengthened the book or reduced the number of entries. The appearance of this book from a Roman Catholic publisher may lead a person to the mistaken conclusion that it is a Roman Catholic dictionary. Though various saints and popes not given much emphasis in the Protestant tradition are featured, for the sake of representing church leaders from all ages of the church’s history, a conscious effort was made to feature all traditions of the Christian family, including Orthodox, conciliar Protestant, Evangelical, Pentecostal, or Lutheran. By way of illustration, two founding figures in the history of the LCMS gained interesting entries, namely, Wilhelm Löhe and C. F. W. Walther, and the latter was described as “generally regarded as the outstanding Lutheran theologian in America in the nineteenth century.” Among the features designed to make this dictionary a user-friendly resource are its two major indices, comprising some eighty pages. One is an index of dates of death, which provides a chronological index of people featured in this dictionary. The other is an index of places of death, which provides a geographical/cultural index of people, not only by country but by region, province/state, and city. (The nine out of forty-five pages devoted to Italy indicates the centrality of Rome for Christian history, as well as the emphasis the book gives the Roman tradition.) The continuing emergence of dictionaries and encyclopedias indicates the complementary nature of the task. Each has its niche and strengths, and none has everything. This dictionary takes its place in that succession, and at a fairly competitive price. It does not intimidate with technical detail, which would make it a good book to consider for a church library. Henry Rowold

THE SPIRIT AND THE FLESH IN SHANDONG, 1650-1785. By D. E. Mungello. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. xiii + 207 pages. Paper. $24.95.

Well-known in the history of Christianity in China are the monumental and heroic efforts of the Jesuit missionaries in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties (late sixteenth into the early eighteenth centuries). Names like Ricci, Schall, and Verbiest both impress and intrigue students of theology, history, and mission, because they not only ministered in the context of the imperial court, but they grappled with difficult questions integral to the Christian faith: how to name God where He had not been named before, how to relate cultural values to the Christian faith (i.e., reverence for ancestors). Through the efforts of scholars like Mungello, we are gaining a much fuller, more nuanced picture of that period of history. Active in China were not only Jesuits, but also Franciscans and Dominicans, at first surreptitiously but later openly. Though the China mission began as a Portuguese franchise, working largely through the Jesuits, it was later expanded through the ministry of the Sacred Congregation

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 331 of the Propagation of the Faith (SCPF) under the direct jurisdiction of Rome, and later the Missions Étrangères of Paris, and so came to include also Franciscans and Dominicans. Though the Jesuits continued to maintain higher visibility, presence, and activity in the imperial court, much mission and pastoral work at a local level was done through a variety of orders and agencies. What Mungello provides in this book is insight into mission and ministry in one locale, the province of Shandong, over the period of upwards of a century (mid-seventeenth to late eighteenth century), much as he did several years ago for the church in Hangzhou (The Forgotten Christians of Hangzhou). Several aspects of this tale are particularly fascinating. One is how the difference of piety and theology resulted in differences in missiological approach between the mendicant orders and the Jesuits. Distinct from the humanism and the academic prowess of the latter (which led to their accommodationist spirit), the mendicant monks tended to be more traditional and fundamental, even confrontational, in ministry and theology. As seen in the Shandong mission, this often brought the mendicants and Jesuits to mutual suspicion though there were rare exceptions of mutual respect and cooperation—not unlike the relations between Protestant denominations in a later age. Another interesting insight concerns the dedication of those missionaries. They went to a part of the world not well known, consigned to learn a difficult language with few study helps, working in a context where things foreign were not understood or accepted either by the local populace or government officials. Pirates by sea and robbers by land were so much a constant reality that trips to bolster personal and spiritual life and to replenish logistical support were few, and that in turn meant a life of loneliness, occasional poverty, and much mental and emotional stress. That this would erupt in unseemly problems (including rare cases of sexual abuse) seems understandable. One final insight concerns life and ministry in the period of persecution. Beginning in the 1720s severe restrictions were placed on the Christian church, which at times boiled over into prohibition and persecution. Amazingly, the SCPF continued to send missionaries into that setting of danger and potential death, and missionaries continued to go, some of whom indeed made the ultimate witness. Though the mission effort eventually came to a halt, the church continued to exist, however, at times underground and at times above ground, which raises one interesting point each of discontinuity and continuity. The discontinuity is that, unlike earlier periods, the church planted in this era did not die out when persecution came and the missionaries left. The point of continuity is that the reality of persecution is part of the heritage of the Christian church in China, as painfully (but joyfully) true of the church then as in more recent years. There is much more in this book, things in fact not easily found in other resources. Mungello has, for instance, researched meticulously the lives and careers of virtually all missionaries who were involved in the Shandong mission of those days. He has also summarized important Christian writings from those days, available only in Chinese. As meticulous and detailed as this material is, it has been presented in a very readable style, illustrated with maps, photographs, and drawings. Above, however, its value as a resource for the study of the church in this time and place, Mungello has alerted us to the richness and variety of Christian presence in China dating to the second generation of the Lutheran Reformation. He has also given encouragement that all branches of the Christian church study and share the witness of their own mission and ministry, in China and around the world. Finally,

332 as his title indicates, Mungello has highlighted the inescapable combination of spirituality and humanity (spirit and flesh) that shaped the mission of that day, as it does every day. Henry Rowold

TEN LIES ABOUT GOD: And How You Might Already Be Deceived. By Erwin W. Lutzer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 2000. 238 pages. Cloth. $19.99.

A few days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, I happened to be present at a large public gathering in San Francisco during which the master of ceremonies asked each of us to pray silently for our country, in his words, “to the God of your choice and in the manner of your choice.” Though commendably patriotic and spiritually well-intended, this request betrayed two major heresies in contemporary American religious culture, pluralism and tolerance of error. It was serendipitous that in the context of this experience Ten Lies about God was assigned to me for review. For pluralism and tolerance of error were precisely the first two “lies” the book considered. Already in his preface, Dr. Lutzer said concerning pluralism, “Our generation chooses...to meet its spiritual needs by shopping for a faith that has fragments of Christianity mixed with Scientology, Buddhism, and any number of notions derived from ‘personal experience’” (ix). “Americans, obsessed with consumerism and pleasure, have created a god who is tolerant of our lifestyles, lets us be in charge, and serves mainly to help us fulfill our potential” (xi). In the initial chapter, entitled “Lie 1: God Is Whatever We Want Him to Be,” the author continues his attack on this pick-your-own-or- make-your-own-god approach: “God is not a judge who has been offended, but a servant waiting for opportunities to affirm our dignity” (8). Though sympathetic to many of the current feminist movement’s concerns, Dr. Lutzer faults the cause for concocting a gender God, “a god created by women, for women” (10, emphasis his). At one point the author provides a memorable assessment of the attempt to make God into what we want Him to be: “Thus, as we shout across the chasm to God, His revelation turns out to be the echo of our own voice” (14). Tolerance of error is the issue Dr. Lutzer deals with in his second chapter, “Lie 2: Many Paths Lead into God’s Presence.” To be sure, we are to tolerate errorists— but not their errors. And, of course, tolerance is one of the Christian virtues. But it is not the only virtue. There are others too, like honesty, purity, fidelity, selflessness, etc. Yet tolerance seems to be one of the few survivors in the contemporary American value system. “In the last decade sin has been defined out of existence, but if one sin still exists, it is thinking someone else is wrong” (25). This observation fingers the difficulty: not merely the accent on tolerance to the exclusion of other virtues but also the character of the tolerance exercised—vacuous, empty-headed, permissive. It is one thing to remain silent about the errors we encounter, but it is quite another thing to endorse them. Carried to this extreme, the virtue of tolerance clearly becomes a vice since ultimately it causes us to approve, even encourage, erroneous religious beliefs that will jeopardize the eternal salvation of the very people we claim to love and accept. For example, “those who surrender the uniqueness of Christ do not simply abandon a part of the gospel message; they abandon the whole of it. Mathematics, like all truth, reminds us that there is only one way to be right, but many ways to be wrong.... To stand in the presence of God

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 333 without representation [by Christ] would be like standing a hundred yards from the sun; God’s holiness would liquefy us” (34). If the subsequent chapters of Ten Lies about God do not quite maintain the qualitative pace of the first two chapters, it is not because of any lessening of the author’s ability in logic and language. It is, rather, because the lies he deals with are not so widespread in our culture as those he initially diagnoses. Hence, to the average reader, the consideration of these lies may not seem quite so relevant. Certainly, however, in the last chapter, “Lie 10: God Helps Those Who Help Themselves,” it is clear that Dr. Lutzer still has his finger on the American pulse. After laying bare the root causes of work-righteousness (the prevalence of the work-ethic and the assumption of our innate spiritual abilities), Dr Lutzer deflates us with the devastating Scriptural truth that we are spiritually dead. “If you are dead, you have a God-sized problem. Resurrection is something only God can do” (175). “Our contribution is to do what Lazarus did: respond when God calls us” (182)—and Lazarus, you’ll recall, at the moment of his “response” had already been rotting in the grave for four days! If there is a weakness in the book, it is that the author tackles thorny theological issues and tries to resolve them more in terms of the sovereignty of God than in terms of the Gospel. Admittedly, not all problems in Christian theology are amenable to easy resolution. God’s ways are sometimes hidden and mysterious. But when we confront these problems, why not always approach them through what the hidden, mysterious God has disclosed about His character and purpose at the cross, in the sacrifice of His Son for the salvation of the world? Rather than insist that God has a right to be hidden and mysterious (and He has!), it is better to rely on the revelation that the hidden God has supplied us on Calvary. Because of our human limitations we may still end up with a less than satisfactory solution to a specific problem. But we’ll at least know we’re off on the right start, that we’re using the correct standard with which to interpret God’s ways. Take, for example, a problem that vexes many of us: God’s eventual disposition of those people who through no fault of their own have never heard the Good News of salvation through Christ. Frankly, we don’t know the answer, and the less said the better. But if we do say something, whatever we say must not, on the one hand, deny or diminish the intent and effort of God to save all people nor, on the other hand, negate or dilute the exclusivity of Christ as the way and of the Gospel and Sacraments as the means to that salvation. To be sure, we are bound to the Gospel and the Sacraments as the instruments through which we come to faith in Christ as our Savior, but that doesn’t mean that God is bound to those means in communicating Christ. He may have some other way of dealing with those people who through no fault of their own have never been exposed to the Gospel. If so, He hasn’t told us, and we have no clear mandate to affirm an alternate methodology for God—but we must let God be God. What we cannot do, in the light of the Christ-event, is assert that God has the “right” because of His sovereignty to ignore unevangelized people if He so chooses. The crucifixion of His Son is God’s audible and visible proclamation to the world that He chooses to ignore no one. I am uneasy when Dr. Lutzer writes, “God is under no obligation to treat everyone alike.... In some God displays His mercy, in others His justice. This is simply the way God has chosen to run His world.... We cannot stand in judgment of God on this issue; we can simply bow and accept His authority and the hiddenness of His purposes” (94). I am uneasy (as well as uncomprehending) when the author quotes theologian Benjamin Warfield approvingly, “God in his love saves as many of the

334 guilty race of man as he can get the consent of his whole nature to save” (96). If, as Dr. Lutzer correctly cautions us, we must not be “more broad-minded than God” (88) and “more lenient than biblical teaching” (90), neither dare we be more narrow- minded than God and more severe than Biblical teaching. Whatever solutions are attempted in our academic moments, Dr. Lutzer, to his credit, is aware that if we’re really worried about the damnation of unevangelized people, the immediate thing to do is to take the Gospel to them. “Our role is to spread the gospel with the firm conviction that faith comes by hearing” (96). The same weakness surfaces in the author’s discussion of the problem of evil. While in his efforts to preserve at all costs the sovereignty of God Dr. Lutzer never makes Him the author of evil, he certainly flirts with that error. “We can be confident that there must be a morally sufficient reason for evil, even if that reason is known to God alone” (154). “Senseless evil has a purpose only if it is a part of God’s plan” (154). What is the sweep of the phrase “part of God’s plan”? If the author means that God overrules evil, controls it, even makes use of it, I agree. But could the phrase mean that God plans evil? If so, the assertion goes too far. (See also the citation from Charles Alexander at the top of page 145.) To my relief, the author clearly says a few paragraphs later, “Needless to say, God does not commit evil” (155). But once again, I fear, Dr. Lutzer’s ambiguity is the result of overzealous defense of the sovereignty of God. “Only if God is sovereign do we have the hope that the evils of this world will further God’s purposes” (155). I would amend his statement to read, “Only because God so loved the world that He spared not His own Son do we have the hope that the evils of this world will further God’s purposes.” It is not that Dr. Lutzer is unaware of the cross as a proper approach to theological cruxes. “What is important is that we realize that there was a cross in God’s heart long before there was a cross raised upon the mount of Calvary” (147). The author often summons Luther to his aid in dealing with the mystery of God’s ways, even quoting Luther’s familiar advice to “flee the hidden God and run to Christ” (189). (In fact, Dr. Lutzer cites Dr. Luther so frequently and aptly [e.g., pp. 103, 107] that one begins to suspect the presence of an “h” where there is a “z” in the name of the former!) No, unawareness of the cross is not the problem in Ten Lies about God. It is, rather, the author’s attempt to put the principle of the cross on a seesaw with the principle of God’s sovereignty and giving the latter too much weight. “The final link in the chain is always the glory of God” (141). “God has no choice but to put His glory above all else” (141). “God’s primary reason for His personal investment in the lives of His people is His reputation” (162, emphasis mine). Dr. Lutzer tackles apologetics in terms of what God is (His attributes). It is better, I believe, to do so in terms of what God has done (on Calvary). God’s Scripturally narrated action there speaks louder than the Scriptural words describing His characteristics. Whereas many of us have been trained in the presence of God’s mysterious ways to find our comfort in the cross alone, Dr. Lutzer finds relief from his anxiety also—and even more so—in “belief in the sovereignty of God” (155). Such an ambivalence, I fear, not only diminishes the centrality of the cross but also contributes to the likelihood of greater error in our Christian apologetics. Despite a title and especially a subtitle that sound like a topic for a revival tent meeting, Ten Lies about God: And How You May Already Be Deceived is a profound and sophisticated theological work. The author is a master of logic and language, committed to the Scriptures and well-versed in them. Ten Lies about God is a difficult book to put down—and Dr. Lutzer is a difficult debater to “put down.” This should be no surprise. The blurb on the book jacket assures us of his credentials:

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 335 senior pastor of the Moody Church in Chicago, a featured speaker on the Moody Broadcast Network, author of over thirty books, a well-known professor and prominent lecturer. Read the book. You’ll like it. And you’ll gain from it. “I guarantee it.” Francis C. Rossow

THE VOICE FROM THE CROSS: Classic Sermons on the Seven Words of Christ. By Richard Allen Bodey (ed.). Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000. 104 pages. Paper. $7.99.

Of published collections of sermons on the seven words from the cross, there is no end. “What! Another book on this subject?” Granted, the topic is a vital and relevant one, the significance of which can never be exhausted. But the sheer quantity—and, in some cases, the poor quality—of the books on this issue have exhausted, if not the subject, at least many a reader. And, in this instance, not even an especially original title to alter minimal expectation. The Voice of the Cross— what good thing can come out of that Nazareth-like nomenclature? Well, the courage of both editor and publisher deserves, in this case, to be rewarded. Whether you read it for homiletical or devotional purposes, this collection of sermons is worth your money and time. Admittedly, the contents of this book are no more creative than its title. The adjective “classic” in the subtitle is accurate. All the sermons are cast in the traditional homiletical mode: balanced sermon parts with alliterating titles in every instance (e.g., I. Commencement, II. Continuance, III. Crises, and IV. Coronation), with an occasional alliterating sentence thrown in for good measure; carefully crafted structure and sentences, yet zinging with Law and passionate with Gospel; and of nineteenth (perhaps, eighteenth!) century length loaded with as many stories as a contemporary skyscraper. Yet “classic” and “traditional” need not carry negative connotations, no more than “original” and “creative” need necessarily convey positive connotations. What counts, regardless of the labels we apply, is the quality of the sermons’ substance and style. And substance and style is what these sermons have. Predictably, some of them are better than others, but none of them even flirts with failure. The sermons are consistently Christ-centered, people-oriented, unabashedly exegetical and doctrinal, simultaneously orthodox and timely, and loaded with insights attractively stated. In fact, the sermon contribution of the editor, entitled “A Window on Hell,” is itself worth the purchase of the book. His analysis of Christ’s cry “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” evinces an understanding of Christ’s damnation on the cross—what has been called “the crucifixion within the crucifixion”—that I on my self-reared Lutheran pedestal did not expect from my Reformed fellow clergy. Which leads me to a final observation. The Voice from the Cross assures me that what C. S. Lewis calls “mere Christianity” (subscription to the solid core of basic Christian doctrines by most Christian churches) is alive and well. In an age of sentimental, vacuous, anemic religious views entertained by a society riddled with the “if it’s right for me” approach (be it drug prescription or religious truth), it is reassuring to know that the Christian church, for all its fragmentation (both justified and unjustified), is still in its Father’s house and about its Father’s business. Francis C. Rossow

336 THE IVP BIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTARY: Old Testament. By John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. 832 pages. Cloth. $29.99.

The preface to this rather unique volume claims to attempt “to fill a particular niche in the vast field of one-volume commentaries on the Bible” (7). That niche is to provide background information to the text rather than the meanings and messages of words and phrases and paragraphs. That niche is to “shed light on the Israelite culture and worldview.” That niche is to understand a different way of thinking in a different age and culture and ethnic group and geographical segment of the world so as to avoid reading modern Western culture into the text of Scripture. It does not assume that the Israelites borrowed from surrounding nations, but it at least assumes that we are working with a “common cultural matrix.” For example, sacrifice in Israel is compared with sacrifice in the ancient Near East. See Leviticus 1:3-4. This book is not intended for the scholarly community, but for the layperson. For that reason, footnotes do not appear with the bibliographical information. Pastors who want to teach and preach on the Old Testament, but are intimidated by it, would find this book helpful. A few examples of the insights of this volume are needed to illustrate the modus operandi of the authors. At Genesis 50:1-3, for example, the book covers embalming practices in Egypt, explaining that this is the only place where any reference occurs in Scripture to the embalming of Israelites. The practice is explained, and its twofold purpose is “to soothe the feelings of the Egyptians” and to preserve the bodies for later burial in Canaan. On Job 3:3-6 the authors explain that day lists can be found in Mesopotamia that identify the evil days in the month, days in which people should not conduct business, build a house, or marry. Those examples contain parallels to practices in other countries. An example from my namesake, Joel 3:18, shows how Near Eastern parallels are not necessary to provide background. The phrase “valley of acacias” is explained by reference to the acacias that typically grow in dry, wilderness conditions and that the wadi that travels from the Kidron Valley to the Dead Sea still has acacias and therefore is the logical choice for the reference in this verse. This insight does not explain the passage, but it supports the context of this passage with the references to Jerusalem. Explanations of musical instruments, geographical locations, cultural customs, kinds of foods, and kings of other lands are all examples of background information supplied by this commentary. It would serve a useful purpose alongside traditional commentaries on the Old Testament, but it would not replace them. Professors of Old Testament will recognize the name of John H. Walton, one of the two authors (with Andrew E. Hill) of the much used college textbook, A Survey of the Old Testament. Walton is professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Moody Bible Institute, Victor H. Matthews is professor of religion at Southwest Missouri State University, and Mark W. Chavalas is professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, LaCrosse. The book contains brief introductory articles to the major sections of the Old Testament—Pentateuch, Historical Literature, Wisdom and Poetic Literature, and Prophetic Literature—as well as twenty-nine short essays on topics such as “The Date of the Exodus,” “Sennacherib’s Inscriptions,” “Retribution Principle,” “Afterlife Beliefs in Israel and the Ancient Near East,” and “Day of Yahweh.” At the back of the book the reader will find a glossary (defining terms in the text marked by asterisks), charts (appropriate to the nature of the

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 337 book, such as “Ancient Near Eastern Literature Containing Parallels to the Old Testament” and “Comparative Ancient Near Eastern Chronology 10,000-2100 B.C.”) and maps, and a somewhat limited three-page topical index. At the beginning of the book the reader will find a ten-page bibliography. Readers familiar with the name of John H. Walton will not be surprised by the placement of the Exodus in the fifteenth century or the patriarchs around 2000 B.C. (822), but they should not expect a book with this purpose to take a stand on the Messianic nature of Isaiah 53 or to identify the virgin in Isaiah 7:14. Joel D. Heck Austin, TX

THERE WE STOOD, HERE WE STAND: Eleven Lutherans Rediscover Their Catholic Roots. Edited by Timothy Drake. Bloomington, IN: 1st Books, 2001. 140 pages. Paper. $9.95. Electronic Book. $3.95.

Every Lutheran pastor is familiar with people who have left the Roman Catholic Church to become members of the Lutheran Church. They come for a variety of reasons. We hope the most important of these is the Bible-based and Gospel-centered ministry of the Lutheran Church. But we are also familiar with those who have left the Lutheran Church to become members of the Roman Catholic Church. Again, there may be a variety of reasons for this change. But I have often wondered what is the main attraction for a Lutheran to return to Rome? Timothy Drake’s book, There We Stood, Here We Stand, helps to answer this question. Timothy Drake is features correspondent with the National Catholic Register and associate editor of Envoy Magazine. He grew up in the ELCA. In college he met his future wife Mary, who was Roman Catholic. He was impressed with certain things he saw in the Roman Catholic Church, but the final blow for him was the ELCA’s draft report on sexuality and abortion. This initiated a personal search for truth and theological authority. Like all the other conversion stories in this book, Timothy’s search was very in-depth. Eight others tell of their return to Rome from the ELCA. Two came from the LCMS and one from WELS. In recent years there has been an increasing effort to offer a Roman Catholic apologetic to Protestants. One of the more notable spokesmen has been former Presbyterian minister Scott Hahn. His book Rome Sweet Rome describes his pilgrimage, and it is mentioned several times in There We Stood. Envoy Magazine is a journal of Catholic apologetics and evangelization. Other organizations to “help in the journey” are listed in the appendix. In the Introduction Father Richard Neuhaus, former LCMS and ELCA pastor, explains that almost 200,000 adults join the Roman Catholic Church every year through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA) just in the U.S.A. Why do Lutherans join the Roman Catholic Church? Neuhaus says he is often asked why he joined. His short answer is simply this: “To be more fully who I was as a Lutheran” (vi). This is one of the reasons that seems to precipitate from all the stories. Some of the writers felt that the Lutheran Church was abandoning the liturgy. Others, especially the ELCA Lutherans, complained that the Lutheran Church had compromised with culture on the issues of abortion, divorce, or women’s ordination. Anthony Gerring, former LCMS member, wrote a stinging criticism of the LCMS position on birth control. Each of them described their various struggles to accept certain Roman practices such as prayers to saints or the adoration of the

338 host. The two LCMS writers had a significant struggle with the doctrine of justification. On this particular issue they were resolved to the idea that the differences are mainly semantic. (There We Stood includes in its appendices: The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification; Official Common Statement (The Catholic Church and The Lutheran World Federation); Annex to Common Statement (Explaining Terms of Joint Declaration); Presentation of the Joint Statement (Edward Cardinal Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity); Responses of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration of the Catholic Church; and The Lutheran World Federation on the Doctrine of Justification (Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity). In most cases the writers were concerned that the Lutheran Church had changed, and that their return to the Roman Catholic Church was a refreshing return to the spiritual life they had known in earlier years. However, there is another important reason that attracted these Lutherans to the Roman Church. Neuhaus points to it in the introduction when he says, “Those in this book have come to the conclusion that authority resides in Christ and the Church which He established” (xi). Most of the participants witnessed theological controversies in their denominations. All of the writers found themselves searching for spiritual and theological answers. They knew that it was important to search the Scriptures and the confessions of the church for guidance. But these did not provide the irrefutable answers they wanted. No matter what the issue might be, in Protestant circles, there would always be arguments and debates. The magisterium of the popes and bishops provided a tangible authority to control the seemingly endless battles over doctrine and practice. As a pastor, this book challenges me to think carefully about Sola Scriptura. How well do my members understand the importance of the authority of God’s Word? When they hear of debates and controversies in the church, do they take comfort that God the Holy Spirit will lead and guide us according to the Word? On the other hand, how well do our members understand the weaknesses and the past failures of the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church? Could the failure to teach church history open the door for a naïve confidence in the papacy to solve all church controversies? All of our Lutheran congregations have an article in their constitutions affirming in some way the material and formal principles of the church. In every ordination and installation we witness the vows to uphold these principles. We would do well to review carefully what it means to believe that “the canonical books of the Old and New Testament are the inspired Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice,” and that we will perform the duties of our office in accordance with the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Above all we cannot afford to carry on “church as usual” without continually addressing the deep concerns that gave birth to the Reformation and will always need reclarification and reaffirmation as time passes. Michael P. Walther Collinsville, IL

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 339 BAPTISM. Volume XI, Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics. By David P. Scaer. Edited by John Stephenson. St. Louis: The Luther Academy, 1999. 222 pages. Cloth. $19.95.

Monumental projects, such as a confessional Lutheran dogmatics, require time and patience. This becomes quite evident in this second contribution by David Scaer to a venture initiated by Robert Preus nearly twenty years ago. The fact that this dogmatics is conceived as a supplement to Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics needs to be noted and noticed immediately, or criticism of content and emphasis may overtake the reader and reviewer. In over a dozen provocative chapters, Scaer addresses recent theological and contemporary issues, providing an American perspective along with insights drawn from Luther and the Confessions. For example, a strong, yet sensitive, anti-abortion theme (and dedication) permeates several sections of this work, particularly as the foundational significance of Baptism is beautifully and Biblically underscored. Almost from the start, this study exudes Scaer’s confessional perspectives on systematic theology—theology is always for the sake of Christ and His church. Yet it also provides ample evidence of Scaer’s classroom idiosyncrasies. “Scaerisms,” if I may coin a term, appear throughout the work. For example, he avoids the phrase “means of grace” except by way of allusion (1, 134, and 175); this is in sharp contrast to Francis Pieper (3:263) who has a section clearly entitled, “Baptism a True Means of Grace.” Similarly, Scaer exhibits a fondness for “covenantal” terminology when speaking of Baptism although he does not provide a clear rationale or full explanation for his preference. (His students may have heard it over and over, but this book is for the larger church.) He is careful, yet all-too- subtle, in defense of this problematic term in the face of Luther’s own consistent concern that covenant is perceived as bilateral. (Inimitably, Scaer simply declares on page 191 that it isn’t!) Scaer shows the breadth of his vocation as a confessional Lutheran systematic theologian in his exegetical insights from the Old and New Testaments, his comfortable conversations with the multiple views of dogmatic theologians of mainline Christian denominations, his utilization of historical insights into the understanding and use of Baptism throughout the past two millennia, and the pastoral concerns of practical theology dealing with birth and death, liturgy and catechesis. Scaer illustrates well his conviction that “the locus on Baptism is rarely the engine for any theological system, but more often than not it is the clue to uncovering the system’s foundations” (174). Confessionally conceived chapters initially cover the basic background to the church’s practice of Baptism “as the Remedy for Original Sin” (chap. 1), “as Divine Command” (chap. 2), and its “biblical origins” (chap. 3). Scaer gives an overall refutation of those who reject the Baptism of infants and also shows the importance of understanding the necessary theological dimensions to the doctrine of the total depravity of humanity. He takes pertinent points of theology from confessional Lutherans and compares and/or contrasts them with Anabaptist, contemporary Baptist, Calvinist, Reformed, and Zwinglian views as well as Roman Catholic positions. Next, Scaer deals with the efficacy of Baptism (chap. 4), by adding several exegetical insights from Paul (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:29, “Baptism for the dead”) and John (chapter 3 supports infant Baptism) and an excursus on ministry as an effect of Baptism. The next two chapters could have been reordered—The Baptismal Formula (chap. 5) and Administration of Baptism (chap. 6)—but provide insights into the

340 practice of Baptism, which could have been augmented by his later chapters on the church’s praxis. Extremely helpful, and well worth the price of the book, in light of the ongoing charismatic theology still present in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, is chapter 7, “Baptism and the Holy Spirit,” and an excursus, “Living Water: Water and the Spirit.” Scaer shows the contemporary difficulty and danger in using “common” terms from distinctly different denominations regarding baptismal theology and practice. Historically, Lutherans have continued the early Christian practice of infant Baptism, but Scaer shows how the rationale has not always been consistent. Beginning with an excursus on “A Case in Pastoral Practice” relating to infant Baptism, chapter 8 deals with the historical debate on infant Baptism “with theological implications.” This is supplemented with two further chapters on “the Biblical Support for Infant Baptism,” (9) and “Infant Faith” (10). This latter chapter provides a strong challenge to all non-paedobaptist churches and is followed by a Christological exposition of “Baptism’s Necessity and Its Exceptions” (chap. 11). Karl Barth’s understanding of Baptism is analyzed in a whole chapter (chap. 12) in addition to frequent references to Barthian ideas throughout earlier chapters. In several sections, Scaer’s Christological emphasis of Baptism is wonderfully enlightening and provides a perspective which draws upon the wealth of the church’s Gospel of justification. It also directs all Christians to ask the right question about faith; it is not what you believe, but in whom you believe. Editorial work, albeit graciously acknowledged by Scaer, could have improved several sections. A slight expansion or more careful editing of some of Scaer’s complex paragraphs with multiple allusions to contrasting arguments would aid most readers. Similarly, the Law-Gospel critique of several theologians in chapter one (10-12) would have fit better in an early section of chapter two. Scaer’s insightful material on infant Baptism and infant faith could have been unified into a tighter chapter, rather than as three uneven chapters. Similarly, the Barthian perspective on Baptism (chap. 12) should have been titled an expanded excursus (of which there are already three), rather than an independent chapter. Finally, the practical concerns of the ritual of Baptism and catechesis, while extremely interesting, could have been placed as an appendix to this volume, illustrating the breadth of Scaer’s interests and insights. There are several lacunae in this present volume. Infant faith becomes a major issue in the last third of the book, both its Biblical foundation and its relation to Baptism. Missing in this section is a more fully articulated exposition of the fact that Baptism “creates the faith which it requires” (200), which Scaer only mentions occasionally in passing. Also missing in this auxiliary resource of confessional dogmatics are references to two recent studies by Lutherans on Baptism, specifically A. Andrew Das’s two books on infant Baptism, Baptized into God’s Family (Milwaukee: Northwestern, 1991) and Born Again! By Water and the Word (St. Louis: Concordia, 1991), as well as Mark Tranvik’s 1992 doctoral dissertation, The Other Sacrament: The Doctrine of Baptism in the Late Lutheran Reformation. This is all the more remarkable because of the frequent citation of the Anglican Jonathan Trigg’s nice study of Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther (Leiden: Brill Academic, 1994), upon which Scaer admits fond and frequent dependence (xi). How this volume in the Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics series will be received by the church is still unclear. Arguably, Scaer has brought a strong, orthodox, confessional, and contemporary perspective to the magisterial work of Pieper, but

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 341 whether the vision of Robert D. Preus is being realized is still unclear. Time will tell, but certainly this volume fills a need for the present moment. Timothy Maschke Mequon, WI

12 PILLARS OF A HEALTHY CHURCH: Be A Life-Giving Church and Center for Missionary Formation. By Waldo J. Werning. Lima: Fairway Press, 1999. 106 pages. Paper. $12.95.

The introduction to this valuable book under “Healthy Church Initiative” lists two distinct and different spiritual characters/cultures in the church: those of the Institutional Church and those of the Biblical Church. “The Healthy Church Initiative” includes being a “Life-Giving Church and a Center for Missionary Formation.” Chapter 1 stresses “God says move—Go where He leads!” It emphasizes “Let Christ control, and the Holy Spirit change the Church.” It records Acts 14:21-25; Ephesians 4:1, 7, and 11-16 to be a New Testament model for the church and suggests 2 Timothy 2:2 as a disciplining model. Chapter 2 carefully describes in proper detail eight quality characteristic and four leading indicators of a healthy church on the basis of Scripture:

Pillar 1. Empowering Leadership (Eph. 4:7,12-16; 2 Tim. 2:2). Pillar 2. Gift-Oriented Service/Ministry (Eph. 4:7; 1 Pet. 4:10-11). Pillar 3. Passionate Spirituality (Eph. 5:15-16; 6:10, 18; Col. 3:1-17; Gal. 5:22-26; James 3:17; 2 Pet. 1:6-9). Pillar 4. Functional Structure/Administration/Servant Leadership (1 Cor. 1:30; 2:4; Eph. 1:22; 1 Tim. 3:1-5). Pillar 5. Inspiring/High impact/God-Exalting Worship Services (Ps. 100; John 4:23-24). Pillar 6. Multiplied Small Groups/Intentional Disciple-Making/Growing Com munity (Matt. 28:19-20; Rom. 14:19; 15:14; Col. 3:16; 1 Thess. 5:11). Pillar 7. Witnessing/Fruitful Evangelism/Missions (Mark 16:15; Acts 14:21; Luke 19:10). Pillar 8. Loving Relationships (John 13:34-35; John 17:23; 1 Cor. 13:13; 14:1; 1 John 3:16, 18).

The next section of the pillars provide leading indicators of spiritual health for the church:

Pillar 9. Centrality of God’s Word/Gospel Grace (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Rom. 1:16; Titus 2:11-14). Pillar 10. Mission and Vision-Drive (Matt. 28:19-20; 2 Cor. 1:18; John 4:35). Pillar 11. Biblical Financial Stewardship (Luke 12:15; 2 Cor. 8:1-2, 5, 8, 12; 9:6, 10-13). Pillar 12. Church Planting (Acts 19:10; Col. 1:6-8; 1 Thess. 1:6-8; Acts 14:24-25).

Each of the above includes a listing of resources and a reality check as to how the reader’s congregation rates in each of these. Chapter three stresses “Leading a Congregation Through Transition to Be a Healthier Church” and provides four different models:

342 1. Worship and “Come” Structure-Maintenance. 2. “Go” Structure, Activistic-Maintenance. 3. Pietistic-Experiential. 4. Balanced “Come” and “Go” Structure: Biblical Education-Mission Model. This includes ten action steps.

Chapter 4 stresses “Plan Your Master Strategy Immune System,” “Biblical Power Paradigms for Our System Towards Health,” “Balance of the Static and Dynamic, the Right and the Left, Institutionalism and Spiritualism.” It also includes “Four Key Spiritual Factors for Church Growth” which appropriately reflect Luther’s explanation of the Third Article. The fifth chapter stresses the importance of these words—empower and mobilize —for building a healthy church. Members must know and grow in understanding of their role as true members of the body of Christ. Ten Biblical expectations for church membership are carefully listed. Stressed is the crucial importance of growing in faith and its crucial importance for empowering maturity in dedicated service in sharing Christ effectively with others in Word and effective service in the church as a life-giving church. The chapter ends with a master mission statement for a life-giving church and a center for effective missionary formation. 12 Pillars of a Healthy Church is a very helpful down-to-earth resource, seeking through the Holy Spirit’s work, to carefully analyze the spiritual health of the local church. So that the church can be used by God to grow in deeper understanding of its true Biblical role and mission. Included are three helpful appendices and several planning forms for strategizing: Our New Goals and Strategy, Taking Action...A Working Guide, and A Social Ministries Profile of Your Parish. Erich H. Kiehl

AFTER PAUL LEFT CORINTH: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change. By Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. 344 pages. Paper. $28.00.

Professor Winter, Director of the Institute of Early Christianity in the Graeco-Roman World and a member of the Divinity Faculty at Cambridge University, writes with the ambitious goal of gathering “for the first time all relevant extant material about life in the first century in the Roman colony of Corinth from literary, nonliterary and archaeological sources” (x). His primary aim, however, is to determine what happened in the Corinthian Christian community after Paul left. Winter’s basic hypotheses are that the origin of many of the problems described in 1 Corinthians “can be traced to culturally determined responses to aspects of life in Corinth” (ibid.) and that Paul did not deal with the problems reflected in l Corinthians because either they had not arisen when he was there or the situation changed significantly after he left (4). After a succinct, but adequate, introductory section on the cultural setting of 1 Corinthians (1-28), Winter divides his monograph into two main parts. Part one examines the influence of secular ethics on the Corinthian Christians (31-211), and part two explores the significance of social changes in Corinth between the time Paul left the area and when he received a letter and verbal reports (215-301). The book includes indexes of Biblical references, ancient sources, modern authors,

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 343 and subjects, as well as an extensive bibliography. A good way to review this complex and detailed book is to share some of Winter’s most thought-provoking insights, conclusions, and opinions. Central to much of Winter’s reasoning is certainty of the high regard for status and honor in the Roman city of Corinth. Winter demonstrates how the divisions in Corinth can be traced to an elitist secular educational system that promoted competition rather than community. The Roman academic model promoted loyalty to one’s own teacher and disdain of other mentors and their students. That attitude misunderstood the relationship of Christian teachers and began to debilitate the church after Paul left (43). The divisions in Corinth ran so deep that Christians cursed rivals in the name of Jesus, e.g., 1 Corinthians 12:3 (181). Parallel to the contemporary Roman pagan convention of cursing someone with a god’s power and the later Coptic Christians’ curse practices, Paul knows “some Christians were invoking Jesus to punish, restrain or disadvantage others” (179). Winter challenges the more traditional English translation “Jesus be cursed” (e.g., NIV and NRSV) offering instead “Jesus [gives] a curse” or “Jesus [grants] a curse.” With regard to 1 Corinthians 5, careful linguistic analysis suggests that the father is alive and the incestuous relationship of the Christian son with the non-Christian stepmother is continuing. Since the son holds high social status, Corinthian Christians boast about continuing in table fellowship with him because it enhances their own prestige (57). In addition, the slogan “All things are permitted [for me]” (6:12; 10:23) demonstrates the prerogative of the privileged class. It was not a reference to Paul’s preaching of the freedom of the Gospel to legalistic Judaizers that was misunderstood by Gentile Christians in Corinth. Rather it was the “self-justifying aphorism for the notorious conduct of Corinthian Christians at dinners, concerning the ‘intimate and unholy trinity’ of eating and drinking and sexual immorality” (88). As has been long known, Strabo’s comments about 1,000 temple prostitutes in Corinth certainly did not apply to the Roman city. Yet Winter notes that traveling brothels were hired at Roman banquets for the rich and powerful (ibid.). Thus 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 deals with banquets, not brothels. The conduct implies class divisions because, Winter writes, elaborate dinners with the attendant immorality would “certainly not be the prerogative of those without status” (89). Winter notes his surprise that scholars continue to focus on the unveiling of women in 1 Corinthians 11:4 when clearly Paul begins with the veiling of men (121). Drawing on literary and archaeological evidence, Winter thinks that Christian males in Corinth claimed status by praying and prophesying with a toga drawn over their heads like elite leaders of pagan rituals (122-123). On the other hand, Roman women began to remove their veils in protest of the sexual double standard that demanded their faithfulness while accepting their husbands’ sexual encounters with maids or prostitutes. The woman in 1 Corinthians 5:1 may be an example of a woman “removing the veil” and having a sexual relationship with her stepson (126). Scandal and divisions occur in the Christian church when a veiled man claims status and an unveiled wife suggests or even proclaims profligacy. In “Part II. The Influence of Social Change,” Winter explores how, after Paul left, life changed in Corinth because of a severe grain shortage, the shifting of the site of Isthmian Games and the introduction of a new federal imperial cult. With less certainty, Winter suggests that the problem of eating meat arose because the Roman government withdrew the provision for Jewish rights of sale of kosher meat in the official market. As but one example of the impact of the changes, Winter

344 asks if the famine was the root cause of “the present distress” (7:26). If the Corinthian Christians connected the famine as well as earthquakes and social upheavals with the apocalyptic imagery of Mark 13, married couples may well have concluded the present was a time for prayer and that sexual abstinence was the prudent, moral way to avoid pregnancy and small children. For exegetes who recognize the importance of Sitz im Leben and delight in serious historical grammatical study, this book is a gem. Although some connections seem too facile and some conclusions tenuous, careful study of Winter’s work will greatly enrich study of 1 Corinthians. At most, Winter challenges some long held interpretations and makes a strong case that the Corinthian Christians seek Paul’s pastoral counsel due to influence of secular mores and changes in circumstances in Corinth. At least, Winter provides a thought-provoking antidote for the position of scholars, like John Hurd, who argue that Paul wrote to correct the Corinthian Christian misunderstanding of his own initial proclamation. If the Corinthian congregation was at all analogous to present-day congregations, I strongly suspect that continued research will indicate that secular mores, changing circumstances, and misunderstanding of the Gospel all lurk in the Sitz im Leben of 1 Corinthians. Nevertheless, Bruce Winter’s book will become required reading for professional scholarly study of 1 Corinthians and his suggestive insights interesting and useful for pastors teaching or preaching about the letter. Bob Holst St. Paul, MN

LOVE TAKING SHAPE: Sermons on the Christian Life. By Gilbert Meilaender. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. 118 pages. Paper. $15.00.

After preaching near Detroit last February, I was approached by a layman who was obviously faithful in worship and active in his congregation. Since I had referred in the sermon to teaching homiletics to seminarians, he asked why we don’t relieve the work pressures upon pastors by making it our practice to preach sermons written by others. Besides the fact that I’d be out of a job, I answered that the demand to write sermons puts a pastor in the blessed place of struggling to understand and then articulate the ways of God to the lives of real people in specific contexts. On the occasions when I’ve discovered that I heard a stolen sermon (yes, stolen; Seventh Commandment), I fumed that the pastor did not care enough about me and my fellow listeners to take the time and effort to craft a message for the specific people in the unique context to which he was called. That is a preface to why reading the sermons of others, and especially Gilbert Meilaender’s latest volume Love Taking Shape: Sermons on the Christian Life is a blessing awaiting your own faith life and then a boon to your sermon writing. A 1972 graduate of Concordia Seminary, Meilaender is one of our church’s leading scholars. In this new release, his vast learning surfaces in twenty-four sermons (one is more an allegory after the fashion of C. S. Lewis) that are easy to read but at the same time obviously erudite. The sermons are rich in their theological insight, delightful in their literary artistry, and practical because of their driving concern for common human experiences. From Meilaender’s adept theological presentations I was reminded of Psalm 139:17-18: “How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand.” Pastors

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 345 who spend insufficient time studying theology are prone to preach more Law than Gospel since the Law is innate but the Gospel is alien and demands attention for its fresh expression. Another common trap is that their theological content will reek of clichés that may be true but do not communicate in specific contexts. Love Taking Shape is both a model and an encouragement to present the promises of the Gospel in new, fresh ways in every sermon. That also shows the value of disciplined writing. I often find a lack of disciplined writing in student sermons, a fault of which I too have been guilty. In this cut-and- paste world of ours, it is easy to fill a manuscript with words that are technically correct but unfocused and uninspiring, and then rush off to our next duty. Meilaender’s sermons are to me a convincing argument not only to get the theology right but to make the writing focused and artful so that through such writing the Spirit of God is given more room to work on the hearer’s heart. Such writing takes time, not only in the preparation of a given sermon but in a lifetime of regularly closing the study door to outside distractions for the arduous purpose of writing and rewriting and rewriting again and again and again. All this meets the reader (Meilaender’s sermons, I think, are best appreciated when they are read slowly rather than heard quickly) in the common daily associations and duties that we all have. Family, friends, work, worry, sleep, death…these are the real areas where love divine “love (is) taking shape.” The sermon he preached for his daughter’s wedding, his fascination with the Lone Ranger, his thoughts about seeing a faithful parishioner on Sunday and then burying her a few days later, and similar personal experiences give these sermons a practical, an incarnational, quality. Since pastors are not exempt from the truth that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (2 Cor. 5:10), we should consider ourselves quite privileged to explore our own relationship with God through our preparation of the weekly sermon. The sermons of others help us “seek the Lord while he may be found” (Is. 55:6) and incidentally give us insights to apply to the tailored word we prepare each week for our listeners. My students will be reading Love Taking Shape. Dale A. Meyer

SONG OF SONGS. By Tremper Longman III. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. xvi + 238 pages. Cloth. $35.00.

The New International Commentary on the Old Testament series seeks to combine modern scholarship with “that interpretive tradition known as evangelicalism” (xii) within American Protestantism. It affirms the inspiration of Scripture, “through which God calls humanity to enjoy a loving personal relationship with its Creator and Savior” (xii). That view of God and Scripture is good, but especially in the modern pluralistic context of postmodernism, the present reviewer believes that such language needs to be disambiguated by added references, somewhere in the context, to Jesus Christ, grace, and faith. This latest volume attains its goal and represents a solid contribution that is in harmony with other volumes in the series. Since a book should be judged according to its own purpose, this book must be called a success. However, the present author, who admittedly has his own firm convictions about how the Song of Songs should be interpreted, believes that this commentary could have been much stronger and more helpful if it had continued its line of

346 interpretation into the New Testament more frequently and if it had, in turn, permitted the New Testament to help guide its interpretation of this Old Testament book. In addition, the present reviewer would have preferred to see in the commentary more influence from the rich history of the interpretation of the Song in the early church, medieval church, and Reformation eras. For the most part, Longman distances himself from the traditional Christian view that predominated through most of the last two millennia, namely, that the Song, as interpreted by any of a number of different hermeneutics, ultimately expresses the mutual love between Christ and His bride, the church. Longman expounds the book primarily as a poem about human love that may also remind the reader of God’s love, but Longman seems to avoid centering God’s love specifically in Jesus Christ. That orientation will undoubtedly give this commentary a more favorable hearing among Jewish, humanistic, and more secularly academic readers, but it lessens the worth of the book for servants of the church who seek to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the central message of the entire canon of the Scriptures. The best parts of the book, in the present reviewer’s opinion, may also be the best summaries of Longman’s view of the Song’s theology. Longman admirably expounds the message of the Song as a whole “As The Story of Sexuality Redeemed” (63-67) and “As Illuminating the Divine-Human Relationship” (67-70). He states at the conclusion, “the more we understand about marriage, the more we understand about our relationship with God. Human sexuality is part of the story of the creation, fall, and redemption of human relationships. Yet the Song holds out the promise of healing though complete harmony in relationships awaits the eschaton” (70). That is all true. Longman had mentioned some key New Testament passages on the previous page (69, citing Eph. 5:21-33 and Rev. 19:6-8), but he would have done the readers a service by filling out his discussion of redemption and eschatology in an explicitly Christological way. Another admirable summary is found in Longman’s commentary on Song 8:6, which is arguably the most important verse in the Song for theology. To explicate “stronger than death is love” (Longman’s translation, 207), he offers a paragraph about the New Testament and implies that Romans 8:38 and 1 Corinthians 13 may be references to this same love. This is all very good. However, this reviewer searched in vain for any comments that would explicitly affirm the view that the supreme revelation of love that is stronger than death (Song 8:6) is through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ’s death and resurrection may be presupposed by the New Testament passages Longman cites (Rom. 8:28; 1 Cor. 13). Perhaps Longman may have hoped that the reader would make such a connection, but it would be easy for the reader to pass quickly over his three sentences without absorbing the rich Christological possibilities. Of all the verses in the Song where it may be appropriate to articulate the Gospel clearly, Song 8:6 is a verse that begs for such articulation. Longman generally does a fine job of explaining the grammatical meaning of the Hebrew text, including poetic and literary features. Usually he presents the most likely interpretation of the grammar, and in the more challenging passages, he often presents several possibilities, including the most important ones advocated by other authors. Unfortunately, Longman does not join his responsible treatment of the grammar to an adequate appraisal of the historical setting of the Song. Like most Song commentators, he disregards the superscription that ascribes the book to Solomon (2-9). He considers the other references in the Song to Solomon, the king (e.g., Longman (92) on Song 1:4), and other persons, such as Solomon’s mother

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 347 in 3:11, to be fictive poetic references. He states about Song 3:6-11, “the Solomonic/ royal fiction is being exploited here” (133). Throughout the interpretation he misses many ways in which the history and theology of the Solomonic era help to explain the Song’s message. A positive feature is that even though Longman does not advocate the traditional Christian allegorical view, he does continue the recent trend (which seems to have begun with Murphy’s Hermeneia commentary in 1990) in which modern scholars of the Song are more respectful of the traditional Christian interpretations of the Song in the early and medieval church. Therefore Longman’s commentary is more reverent than those of Keel (Fortress Press, 1994, German original in 1986) and Pope (Anchor Bible, 1977) who found it necessary to poke fun at Christian interpretations. Longman’s survey of the history of interpretation (20-47) and other parts of his commentary include evaluations of publications in the last decade, and so he brings the reader up to date about secondary literature. Thankfully, while Longman studied Ugaritic under Marvin Pope at Yale (xiv), Longman distances himself from the mythological and cultic funerary interpretations in Pope’s influential commentary. Occasionally Longman mentions ancient Near Eastern mythology (e.g., 210, 214), but it does not guide his interpretation. Longman also should be applauded for avoiding the humanistic and pornographic excesses one can find in other Song commentaries. Longman contains no illustrations. In sum, this commentary improves upon some other recent commentaries. The few places where it integrates New Testament theology are the most promising portions, and they may stimulate the reader to employ the same constructive canonical methodology for interpreting the rest of the Song. Christopher W. Mitchell St. Louis, MO

PATER BERNHARDUS: Martin Luther and Bernard of Clairvaux. By Franz Posset. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1999. 426 pages. Cloth. $59.95.

This thought-provoking publication by the effort of Roman Catholic scholar, Dr. Franz Posset, is amazingly well documented with the original writings of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) and the Augustinian friar and later reformer, Martin Luther (1483-1546). Likewise, the extensive utilization of the authoritative sources, both primary and secondary literatures (397-422), provides a unique contribution for our generation. Bernard was a lifelong Cistercian abbot of the cloister of Bernardines, a man of admirable personality, eloquent preacher, prolific writer, and advisor of the pope and king. The serious inquiry is whether there is a theological congeniality between the two diverse personalities who had lived almost 400 years apart in different worlds. The interest of Luther on Bernard and similarities of the two men are carefully noted. In fact, according to research (Theo. Bell), there are more than 500 of Luther’s quotations on Bernard and references (48) covering many important theological subjects and thoughts, often quoting the comments of both men side by side. It is also interesting to note that the references are in the writings of both earlier and later periods of Luther’s works. In this book, we can see Luther through Bernard and Bernard via Luther. From this point, a rare monograph of this kind can be greatly helpful for both the Lutheran and Catholic readers to promote a better understanding and appreciation with ecumenical

348 perspective. Pater Bernhardus consists of five important subjects, in addition to a few helpful introductory writings and a comprehensive “Conclusion”: Luther’s esteem for “Father Bernard” and his indebtedness to the monastic tradition (including the approach to Scriptural studies), Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Christ Alone, and Evangelization Alone. In each chapter with several subtopics, the author presented what Bernard said and believed and what and how Luther responded and commented in his own way. We are not unaware of some critical comments on Bernard from the Lutheran side, such as the exaltation of monasticism as the ideal of Christianity, glorification of Mary, strong support of the papacy, involvement of the second Crusade, etc. For Luther students/scholars the respective references and notes (some 937) can be of enormous help and significance. It may lead to further reflection with different aspects of perception. In fact, this book may offer a new paradigm of study in the twenty-first century in a time when the religious and confessional tension and plurality are a complex issue in the West and the East and also among Christian traditions. Commenting on each vital subject in this publication is indeed beyond this brief book review; nevertheless, each subject certainly presents us with something to think about and many new insights into theology, in addition to the traditional understanding and impression about Bernard and Luther. Can this not be a fresh new assessment of the two great thinkers? This book has a mutually challenging aspect for the positive pursuit of a “congeniality” between Luther and Bernard and a critical assessment of Luther’s relationship to Bernard. The inclusion of twenty-six Plates is a special bonus to this extra-ordinary laborious work for a further observation on Bernard and Luther and their relationship which would be indeed enlightening. The editor may want to re-check the page numbers listed in the Table of Contents since they do not always correspond with the numbering in the text for future reprinting. Won Yong JI

THE ISRAELITES. By B. J. S. Isserlin. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. 304 pages. Paper. $29.99.

Isserlin has directed archaeological fieldwork in Jaffa and Mikhmoret, Israel, as well as in Sicily, Greece, and Spain. In marshaling his archaeological expertise, Isserlin’s work is much like W. G. Dever’s Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research (1990) and R. L. Harris’s Exploring the World of the Bible Lands (1995). That is to say, Isserlin’s primary lens through which he interprets Israel is that of archaeology. He is very conversational with past and present archaeological work and often cites the most current excavation evidence of particular sites, interacting with the work of Israel Finkelstein, James Pritchard, Yigael Yadin, et al. The objectives of this book are as follows: “A book on the ancient Israelites must, accordingly, keep in mind the different needs of two kinds of readers: those interested mainly in the elucidation of the Bible, and those concerned primarily with Israel as an ancient Near Eastern nation. Our aim in what follows will be to offer as concise a picture of Israel and her intellectual and material culture as emerges from the combined study of the Bible, extra-Biblical texts and archaeology, in the light of recent scholarship” (9). In general the author succeeds in this stated purpose, yet at times he does stray too far afield into archaeological complexities

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 349 and terminologies. Isserlin begins his study of Israel in the late thirteenth century B.C., dismissing the patriarchs because “they cannot at present be convincingly documented within the framework of what is known from historical sources” (9). And yet he does marshal some convincing arguments for taking the patriarchs as real people. “Such skepticism is, however, balanced by recent arguments showing that there are points in favor of a patriarchal age datable to the first half of the second millennium B.C.” (30). The survey ends with the exile in 586 B.C. Chapters include geography, government, architecture, agriculture, industry, economy, warfare, language, religion, and art. The section on geography may serve as an example of the work. Isserlin states that Deuteronomy 8 mentions that iron and copper could be dug in the hills of the Promised Land. “The latter is known to occur in significant quantities only in the Nubian Sandstone on the flanks of the Arabah, especially in Edom” (29). Again, the author notes that it would have taken Jonah forty-five days to walk from the Mediterranean Sea to Nineveh, and it is conceivable that Jonah 4:11 is no exaggeration when Nineveh is credited with 120,000 inhabitants. One more example will suffice: “Peaceful or warlike, however, travel in the country was not time- consuming: to get from Dan to Beersheba might take above a week, on to Elath, another, while traversing the country from east to west was only a matter of three to five days” (46). Consistent interaction with other ANE countries and cultures makes the book penetrating and insightful. However, at times Isserlin fails to synthesize the material, making the work read more like an encyclopedia than that of a book. The work is enhanced with numerous black and white pictures, charts, and maps— invaluable resources for teachers and professors. Those familiar with the Westminster/John Knox series entitled “The Library of Ancient Israel” with its focus on archaeology, anthropology, and sociology will appreciate Isserlin’s work as a summary of this series. Moreover, if the average reader of BAR wants to purchase a single reference work, it would be this one. A side-note: in several places Isserlin equates “Tarshish” with the Guadalquivir region of southern Spain. However, the recent work by André Lemaire, (“Tarshish- Tarsisi: Problème de Topographie Historique Biblique et Assyienne,” Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zecharia Kallai, eds. Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld [Leiden: Brill, 2000], 44-62) cites insurmountable problems with the identification of Tarshish with Spain. On the contrary, it seems more logical to look for Tarshish somewhere in the area of the other peoples mentioned in Genesis 10:4. Isaiah 66:19 and Ezekiel 27:12-14 also point in the same direction, i.e., Asia Minor. While not a minimalist—that is, one who believes that the Old Testament texts were written largely in post-exilic Yehud and portray a largely “fictional” history of Israel, thus driving a wedge between the literary works of the Old Testament on the one hand and archaeology and history on the other—Isserlin is certainly not a maximalist—one who attempts to reconcile the Biblical account with archaeology. When pressed to decide on an issue, more often than not, he sides with the interpretations of archaeology against the Biblical text. In doing so, Isserlin takes the line that the Biblical evidence exists as a one-sided view, largely representing the views and literary conventions of the intelligentsia. One example of this overstatement of archaeological finds is as follows: “Archaeologically, the tradition about Mount Sinai and the desert wanderings remains unsupported”

350 (53). But, one may counter, nomads are, as a rule, “archaeologically invisible!” On the other hand, Isserlin is able to distinguish himself from some of the more radical interpretations of Israel’s history. For example, he breaks from Norman Gottwald’s sociological emphasis on class struggle as foundational to understanding Israel. Isserlin writes: “Nor must we forget that individuals could shape events decisively: Israelite as well as non-Israelite sources point to this in cases of such rulers as Omri or Hezekiah. Models which do not acknowledge this do not fit Israelite history” (110). These reservations aside, if one is looking for a synthesis between the Old Testament text and Israelite history, archaeology and society, this is your book. Reed Lessing

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 351 Books Received

Balge, Richard D. TRINITY: One God, Three Persons. Milwaukee: Northwestern, 2001. 152 pages. Paper. $11.99. Bauckham, Richard. GOSPEL WOMEN: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. 343 pages. Paper. $22.00. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Editors Graig Nessan and Renate Wind. WHO IS CHRIST FOR US? Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. 87 pages. Paper. $6.00. Braaten, Carl E. and Jenson, Robert W. THE LAST THINGS: Biblical & Theological Prespectives on Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. 169 pages. Paper. $16.00. Childs, Brevard S. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY A PROPOSAL. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. 90 pages. Paper. $6.00. Christensen, Duane L. WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY: Vol. 6B Deuteronmy 21:10-34:12. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2002. 915 pages. Cloth. $34.99. Cory, Bruce, Lemke, Steve W. and Lovejoy, Grant I. BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002. 544 pages. Paper. $29.99. Davis, Jimmy H. and Poe, Harry L. DESIGNER UNIVERSE: Intelligent Design and the Existence of God. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002. 252 pages. Paper. $12.99. Garrett, Duane A. A MODERN GRAMMAR FOR CLASSICAL HEBREW. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002. 400 pages. Paper. $34.99. Kysar, Robert. PREACHING JOHN. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. 252 pages. Pa- per. $18.00. Leclerc, Thomas L. YAHWEH IS EXALTED IN JUSTICE: Solidarity and Conflict in Isaiah. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. 229 pages. Paper. $20.00. Mathewson, Steven D. THE ART OF PREACHING OLD TESTAMENT NARRATIVE. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. 288 pages. Paper. $16.99. Mueller, Wayne D. JUSTIFICATION: How God Forgives. Milwaukee: Northwestern, 2002. 138 pages. Paper. $11.99. Olson, Roger E. and Hall, Christopher A. THE TRINITY: Guides to Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. 163 pages. Paper. $15.00. Vander Broek, Lyle D. BREAKING BARRIERS: The Possibilities of Christian Community in a Lonely World. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2002. 175 pages. Paper. $15.99.

352 Thirteenth Annual Theological Symposium September 24-25, 2002

IN WE TRUST: The Public Ministry in the Public Realm

How do we fill in the blank? A simple answer to the question becomes more complex as we encounter American “civic religion,” the pluralistic culture in which we live, and crises requiring pastoral care. These issues form the discussion for the symposium.

Plenary Speakers:

Dale A. Meyer John A. Nunes Joel P. Okamoto

Ten sectional presentations are offered. In addition, this year study groups will begin in the areas of homiletics, systematics and archaeology. Study groups will engage cutting edge issues in the field with ongoing study from symposium to symposium.

Call for Papers

As in previous years, you are invited to submit a proposal for an open academic sectional. Paper proposals should be sent to Dr. Timothy Saleska by August 23, 2002.

For Information call (314) 505-7105 or e-mail [email protected]

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 353 354 CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2002 355 356