Concordia Journal

CONCORDIA JOURNAL

Volume 31 July 2005 Number 3

CONTENTS

EDITORIALS

Editor’s Note ...... 214 Theological Observers ...... 216

ARTICLES

The Challenge of Homosexuality: What Is at Stake? David L. Adams ...... 220 Christian Responses to the Culture’s Normalization of Homosexuality Robert W. Weise ...... 231 The Local Congregation Approaches the Issues: Lutheran Responses, “Sin, Sex, and Civil Silence” Joel D. Biermann...... 248 Where Is the Holy Family Today?: Marriage a Holy Covenant before God—The Biblical Role of Man and Woman Louis A. Brighton ...... 260

THEOLOGICAL POTPOURRI

On Preaching Theology John Frederick Johnson ...... 269

HOMILETICAL HELPS ...... 273

BOOK REVIEWS ...... 299

BOOKS RECEIVED ...... 339

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 213 Editor’s Note

The first three articles in this issue were presented as major papers at the annual Theological Symposium, which was held at Concordia Semi- nary, St. Louis, Missouri, on September 21-22, 2004. The general theme of the symposium addressed one of the major issues facing both the Chris- tian church and society today, namely, “Culture’s Normalization of Homo- sexuality.” One of the major agendas of gay and lesbian groups and the liberal media is the promotion of homosexuality as an accepted lifestyle and the promotion of same-sex marriages as legitimate and natural as marriages of heterosexual couples. One of the primary concerns of the symposium was to address the issue of how Christians can effectively respond to the current threats to traditional Christian morality and God’s institution and intentions for the marital estate. Related to this is the question of how pastors can minister effectively to individuals with a homosexual orientation who are wrestling with their sexuality and their Christian convictions. In the first article, “The Challenge of Homosexuality: What Is at Stake?,” Dr. David L. Adams examines the cultural changes that have occurred in our society, leading up to the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress on September 21, 1996, subsequent challenges to it, and the position of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod on homosexuality and same-sex marriage as expressed in study documents of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations and in convention resolutions. He concludes that the church has to think through the difficult issues of our time in order to have an appropriate response and that the church must take a firm Biblical stand in the face of social and possibly legal intimidation. Dr. Robert W. Weise in his article, “Christian Responses to the Culture’s Normalization of Homosexuality,” examines the onslaught of the media in promoting homosexual issues and how Christians should respond to it. He looks at the attempts of the advocates of homosexuality and gay marriage to find scientific evidence to support the supposed legitimacy of homosexuality. He also discusses appropriate pastoral responses to the various issues of homosexuality and pastoral counseling to “Gay Christians.” In the third article, “The Local Congregation Approaches the Issues: Lutheran Responses, ‘Sin, Sex, and Civil Silence’.” Dr. Joel D. Biermann calls attention to the success of the advocates of the homosexual lifestyle in gaining tolerance and acceptance in our society. The church, he points out, cannot remain silent or on the sidelines in this matter. The church today must follow Paul’s example in Romans and clearly proclaim God’s word of judgment on this sin and, at the same time, offer God’s promise of forgiveness to those who repent and strive to follow His will regarding human sexuality. He also calls attention to some of society’s vague concep- tions of romantic love and the foundations on which marriage can be built.

214 “Marriage,” he says, “is not about loving relationships or about the union of soul mates. Marriage is about faithfulness to God’s creative design for marriage, a design woven into the creation itself and explicitly confirmed in the Creator’s verbal revelation.” The fourth article was not a presentation at the Theological Sympo- sium, but it is included here because it clearly speaks to the issue of what constitutes a God-pleasing marriage. In “Where Is the Holy Family To- day?: Mariage a Holy Covenant before God—The Biblical Role of Man and Woman,” Dr. Louis A. Brighton says that marriage between a man and woman is of divine origin and that it is the basis for all earthly life. It exists for the rearing of children and is necessary for all earthly life of the human race. He sees the perfect model for every Christian family in the “holy family”—Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. A correct understanding of Christian marriage requires a Biblical understanding of the role and relationship that God established for men and women at creation. In publishing these articles, it is our hope that they will assist pastors and lay Christians in understanding the seriousness of the current social challenges to Biblical teaching and the Christian lifestyle and in seeking ways not only to confront the challenge but also to find effective means for ministering to people caught up in or tempted to embrace homosexuality. While God clearly does not condone the sins being perpetrated as normalcy today, He does call the sinners to repentance and to faith in Jesus Christ. Quentin F. Wesselschmidt

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 215 Theological Observers

Have a Nice Day

Christian Conservatives See an Ally in Ratzinger (UNDATED) In Pope Benedict XVI, religious conservatives in the United States will have a staunch ally in the battle against abortion, gay rights, human cloning, physician-assisted suicide and other issues. Hours before the conclave that elevated him, Cardinal Ratzinger decried “a dicta- torship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one’s own ego and one’s own desires.” That quote could have been spoken by James Dobson, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. By Adelle M. Banks. About 750 words.

New Pope’s First Job May Be a Charm Offensive (UNDATED) Pope Benedict XVI is, depending on whom you talk to, the “Panzerkardinal,” “God’s Rotweiller” or simply severely misunderstood. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the new pope gained a public reputation as a conservative hard-liner, a sort of ecclesiastic “Dr. No.” Yet those who have worked with him say he is a quiet, approachable, even likeable guy whose public image is a caricature of the real man. As pope, one of Benedict’s first jobs may be mounting a charm offensive to chip away at his negative public image. By Kevin Eckstrom. About 900 words.

The Religious News Service summary press releases (received April 21, 2005) highlight at least two theological assumptions embedded in Ameri- can culture. The first is that allies in social and moral “conservative” causes must be brothers, or at least step-brothers, in the faith. The causes cited in the first release are, as we know, grounded in Natural Law—the Law written in man’s heart from the time of creation. It does not require a “conservative Christian,” or even a nominal Christian for that matter, to espouse marriage as a solemn vow only between a man and a woman or to campaign actively against abortion on demand. As Christians, to be sure, we value any behavior or conviction that has its origin in God’s Law as written in our hearts and in His Word. But it is the Law we are talking about, not Gospel; and our deep, historical differences with the Roman Catholic Church, as found in the Confessions, have to do with the Gospel— salvation through faith by grace, without the works of the Law. Indeed,

The “Theological Observer” serves as a forum for comment on, assessment of, and reactions to developments and events in the church at large, as well as in the world of theology generally. Since areas of expertise, interest, and perceptions often vary, the views presented in this section will not always reflect the opinion of the editorial committee.

216 the papacy itself stands in contradistinction to the Gospel. And so, even as we recognize our common cause in issues, e.g., having to do with human life, we also acknowledge that (at least in terms of our respective public doctrinal positions) our motivation to participate in such causes may be quite different. In our pluralistic culture, it is tempting to see common causes, or even common human predicaments, as trumping differences in faith or doctrine. Actions speak louder than words. Is not what we value (and practice) in common, not only with Roman Catholics, but with Jews and Mus- lims and Mormons, more important? Indeed, the Law is written on their hearts, as it is on ours. But the differences are more important yet (cf. Articles IV & VI of the Augsburg Confession & Apology). Even as we recognize our common human heritage of the Law, we know that it is the Gos- pel that saves. And it is only the Gospel that provides the proper motivation for the sanctified life. Acting in any common cause with members of religious groups motivated by the Law provides an obligatory opportunity for a clear, unmistakable, and winsome proclamation of the Gospel. Lack- ing that, our participation is misleading at best, hazardous to spiritual health (ours and theirs) at worst. While we may whole-heartedly agree with then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s words as quoted in the first press release, are we just as ready to witness to him of the truth of the Gospel as it is so eloquently summarized and Scripturally elucidated in AC IV & VI? We do no one any favor by making pious pronouncements and overtures that place exclusive emphasis on likenesses and points of agreement in social and moral causes, while ignoring the critical differences that relate to eternal salvation. Our faith relationships are guided not by principles of political correctness or public relations, or even by good intentions, but by the light of truth. That brings us to the second press release and assumption number two. If we can’t agree in our theology, it’s tempting to gloss over differences with a veneer of niceness. It’s easier to “agree to disagree.” Ours is a PR culture. Accentuate the positive. Emphasize what we have in common, not what divides us. Have a nice day. The hazards of glossing over are many, not the least of which is a tacit renunciation of convictions— even truth. We are told that Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, is one of those “conservative hard-liners” (do manuals of media orthodoxy require pairing those two words?) who must now atone for past sins by mounting a “charm offensive.” An astute and experienced Vatican bureau- crat, the new pope surely knows that no amount of charm will satisfy the media as long as he publicly promotes those unpopular moral convictions. A pleasant personality may grease the wheels of commerce and social relations; but in matters of faith, charm takes a back seat. Love and truth take precedence; and truth, by its very nature in a sinful world, will always be divisive—unpopular, at the very least. Believing something has a corollary: not believing something else, even calling that other thing false—

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 217 a cardinal offense against the fundamental doctrines of public relations, neither nice nor charming. Then again, neither is the cross (blood sacrifice) or its cause (sin). Finally, quite evident in both press releases is that the term “conservative” has lost any vestige of meaning in the contemporary cultural and theological context. One can “conserve” bad, or false, theology just as one can “conserve” orthodox theology. What matters is the substance. For Lutherans, that means Scripture and the Confessions— no more, no less. David O. Berger

“Living with the Laments”

The Old Testament is chock-full of national and individual laments. The Book of Lamentations is arguably the principle example of the lament genre. It is a deeply emotional book and openly acknowledges the presence of weeping (1:7), groaning (1:8), and grief (2:11). Community laments in the Psalter include Psalms 44, 60, 74, 79, 80, 83, and 80. Prophets employ this genre in, for example, Isaiah 63, Jeremiah 14, and Habakkuk 1. Of course, far more extensive in the Old Testament are the individual laments. Some texts that are representative of this genre are Psalms 22, 31, 42-43, 73, 77, 88, 109, and 130. Other examples of individual laments include most of the book of Job and Jeremiah 11, 15, 17-18, and 20. These laments demonstrate that Israel eschewed—with a passion—a plastic and pretentious faith. The nation resisted safe categories and instead affirmed that suffering is real and significant. Although their language of lament can be shocking and sometimes even offensive to us (cf. Jer. 13:22-17; Psalm 137), it nonetheless pulsates with authenticity and transparency. By means of these laments Israel’s public worship provided people with a venue to grieve their losses. As a direct consequence, the nation was empowered to face displacement and national humiliation and eventually move on. First Israel and then the church has placed these texts into our hands in order to correct any euphoric and celebratory notions of faith which we may harbor that romantically portray the Christian life as consisting only of sweetness and light. The texts are in our canon so that we avoid a one- sided, happiness-only view that fails to deal forthrightly with the harsh realities of life. If we lose these laments—either by neglect or ignorance— we will in turn lose Yahweh’s gracious gifts of comfort, guidance, and healing. But the sad fact is that Israel’s language of lament is largely absent from life in the middle-class church in the United States. That is to say, worship often construes the Christian faith in the “major key” with melo- dies that are symmetrical, congruent, and primarily geared toward peace and equilibrium. In fact, in some corners of the church liturgies and homi-

218 lies do everything they can to avoid texts of lament. Broken people who attend such churches arrive at this unavoidable conclusion: sorrow and lament belong somewhere else, anywhere else, but not in the church. By removing Israel’s “off-centered” texts of lament we are in danger of creating an exclusive rather than inclusive church. We may be nurturing a church for mainstream people who are content and well positioned in the dominant culture of American capitalism. But what about people who live on the economic fringes of society or who are living in emotional chaos? Their cries of pain and loss are not wanted. Their presence is unwelcome. Why? Because their lament does not fit into our pleasant and comfortable idea of “church.” By divorcing ourselves from Israel’s texts of lament, ironically our worship services may become geared for the well and not the sick, for the whole and not the broken (cf. Matt. 9:12-13). This is strikingly anti-evangelical. It not only misses opportunities for healing and compassion, but also refuses a hand of solidarity toward those experiencing divorce, unem- ployment, poverty, racism, or death. This disparity—between Israel’s texts of lament and our ecclesiastical culture—could be driving people away from our churches. Many are crying out for an expression of the Christian faith that is honest, transparent, and real. Whether they know it or not, these people are longing for texts of lament. Human emotions are like a river that flows out of the heart. This river needs a “bank” so that our feelings take on depth and direction. Apart from Israel’s laments we are left only with our culture’s shallow expressions of loss and are then stuck in meandering sorrow. But with these texts we have categories and expressions that allow our brokenness to come before Yahweh’s healing throne of grace. Through a renewed appreciation and use of Israel’s laments we will become communities where weeping is allowed to endure for the long nights of life, while also affirming that joy will come in the morning–all because of the first Easter morning when our Lord’s own lament was turned into a song of everlasting deliverance (cf. Ps. 22:1, 24). Reed Lessing

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 219 Articles

The Challenge of Homosexuality: What Is at Stake?

David L. Adams

Introduction

On the 15th of May, 1996, I was sitting in the hearing room of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, listening to the testimony being given both for and against a bill before the Congress. The bill was H.R. 3396, popularly called the De- fense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. DOMA defined marriage, for the purposes of federal law, but not for the states, as the legal union of one man and one woman. It was later passed by Congress and eventually signed into law by President Clinton exactly eight years ago today, on the 21st of September 1996. That today is the eighth anniversary of DOMA is not especially significant for us apart from the fact that it points out that we in the church should have been having this discussion a decade ago when the legal challenge to the institution of marriage and the cultural normalization of homosexuality were beginning to emerge as issues that would soon replace abortion as the central focus of conflict in the culture wars that characterize Western society at the beginning of the twenty-first century. A decade further on, what matters for us is a question asked during the debate held in the Subcommittee on the Constitution’s hearing room that day in May by Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Frank, then the most openly gay member of the U.S. Congress, challenged a witness with the question whose essence was something like this, “Suppose that I and my male companion were to get married. How would that hurt you and your marriage?” That neither the witness before the committee at the moment nor any of the other witnesses that day could offer a coherent response to Frank’s challenge was telling, and what it told is that those who believe that upholding the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman had not done their homework. They assumed that the self-evident rightness of their cause was sufficient to win the day and were not prepared to give a thoughtful and reasoned reply to the hard questions that those who

Dr. David L. Adams is Associate Professor of Exegetical Theology and Di- rector of Educational Technology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO. This paper was presented at the Theological Symposium on Culture’s Nor- malization of Homosexuality, Concordia Seminary, September 21-22, 2004.

220 wish to redefine marriage, and for that matter the cultural understanding of the nature of human sexuality, are prepared to ask. And so we have come here on the eighth anniversary of the DOMA, still needing to find an answer to the question posed by Barney Frank. What is at stake in the debate over homosexuality? How important, to the society at large and to the church, is the definition of the institution of marriage? How should...how will the church respond?

Undoing the Constantinian Revolution

That we should be here at all asking these questions is a sign that Western culture, specifically for us American culture, has undergone a revolution so large that we cannot yet measure its scope. You recall the old adage that, “So–and–so can’t see the forest for the trees.” The truth is that there is one place from which you can never see the forest for the trees, and that is when you are in the middle of the forest. In the middle of a vast and dark tropical forest there are trees everywhere you look, and you cannot tell if the edge of the forest is a hundred yards, or a thousand miles, away. That is our situation. The hurricane that has for the last several hundred years been sweeping away the old intellectual order and blowing down the social house built by it continues to huff and puff and we do not know how long it will continue, which way it will blow next, or what the detritus that is left behind will look like. When in the fourth century Emperor Constantine first legalized Chris- tianity and then began giving it the status of official religion of the Roman Empire he did not merely change a few Roman laws. He introduced into the yet nascent Western civilization a completely new and radically different way of thinking. Christianity changed the way that Western civilization thought about God, about the nature of the cosmos, about man, and about the social order that man has created in the cosmos. This change was not merely a new set of ideas, but a new and different framework for thinking. This framework for thinking persisted, for better and for worse, for over a thousand years until the results of the Renaissance and the En- lightenment began to deconstruct the framework. The last four hundred years, and especially the last 150 years, have witnessed the increasingly rapid disintegration of the social house built upon the intellectual foundation of the Constantinian order, so that today we have not merely to deal with a new set of ideas about what society should look like, but a new way of thinking about the question. And perhaps the most troubling thing of all is that for the last one hundred years we have been rapidly knocking down the house and deconstructing the foundation without any clear idea of what kind of foundation and what kind of house should replace them. The immediate significance of this is that our answer to Barney Frank’s question, our understanding of what is at stake in social revolution that

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 221 seeks to normalize homosexual practice, and ultimately the church’s response to the challenge of homosexuality must recognize that these developments are trees in a larger forest. Individually they are quite imposing. Collectively they require clear thinking if we are to avoid wandering lost in the woods. To strike out haphazardly in just any direction solely for the sake of doing something is no guarantee that we will find our way.

The Scope of this Symposium

The purpose of this gathering is to help the church, and to help you, begin to find an answer to these questions and to prepare a response to what is likely to be the dominant social conflict of the next thirty years. There is, of course, no easy answer and no simple response because the scope of the questions is too broad to admit of a single easy answer. There are at the very least four major areas that require our consideration. Be- fore turning to those, we should perhaps establish some boundaries for our discussions.

The Position of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

One thing that we are not doing here is establishing, or calling into question the position of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Over the last thirty years the Synod has addressed the issues of homosexuality and, most recently, same-sex marriage in a variety of ways.

In Resolution 2–04 of its 1973 Synodical Convention, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod stated that “...the Synod recognizes homophile behavior as intrinsically sinful (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24-27)....” A statement that has been reaffirmed by the actions of subsequent conventions.

In 1981 the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations released a study document titled “Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective” that addresses homosexuality in the context of a broader discussion of human sexuality, marriage, and procreation. In that document the commission notes that

…[M]utual consent or even genuine affection is not enough to justify a homosexual relationship.... There are acts or relationships to which we cannot consent without stepping beyond the limitations our Creator has set for His creatures (Rom. 1:26ff.). Sexuality provides an excellent example of this truth. Mutual consent alone between partners does not, in the Christian understanding, make het-

222 erosexual intercourse permissible.... Similarly, mutual consent alone, even when joined with affection, cannot justify a homosexual union. An unwillingness to make such affirmations is part of a “flight from creation” which besets the contemporary world and contemporary Christendom. It ought to be resisted in the name of the Redeemer who is also our Creator.1

The same CTCR document further states that

It must be said that a predisposition toward homosexuality is the result of the disordering, corrupting effect of the fall into sin, just as also the predisposition toward any sin is symptomatic of original sin. Furthermore, whatever the causes of such a condition may be—e.g., environmental or genetic—homosexual orientation is profoundly “unnatural” without implying that such a person’s sexual orientation is a matter of conscious, deliberate choice. However, this fact cannot be used by the homosexual as an excuse to justify homosexual behavior. As a sinful human being the homosexual is held accountable to God for homosexual thoughts, words, and deeds. Such a person should be coun- seled to heed the church’s call to repentance, trust in God’s promise of deliverance (Ps. 50:15), and order his/her life in accord with the Creator’s intent.2

In Resolution 3–12a of its 1992 Synodical Convention, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod recognized the need for resources for preaching the Gospel’s forgiveness of sins to those who engage in the sin of homosexual acts, and therefore called for the development of “a plan for ministry usable by congregations, campus ministries, institutions, and agencies of the Synod, for the purposes of providing biblical and Gospel-oriented ministry to persons troubled by being homophile in their sexual orientations and to their families....” Several years work by a special task force appointed by then Synodical President Barry led to the completion of this ministry plan in 1999.

1 The Commission of Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod, “Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective” (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1981), 37–38. As of 13 April 2005 this document was accessible in PDF format online at: http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/ Human_Sexuality1.pdf. 2 Ibid., 38-39.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 223 In Resolution 2–08a of its 2001 Synodical Convention the Synod commended that ministry plan to Synod’s congregations, encouraging its congregations “to minister to homosexuals and their families in a spirit of compassion and humility” (1034–1052).

In Resolution 3–05a of its recently completed 2004 Synodical Con- vention, the Synod reaffirmed its previous statements on the sinful nature of homosexual behavior, the need of forgiveness for such acts, and the mission of the church to call for repentance and reach out with the grace of God to those engaged in such acts. It further resolved that “...the LCMS in convention affirm, on the basis of Scripture, marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman (Gen. 2:2-4; Matt. 19:5-6),” and that, “the Synod urge its members to give a public witness from Scripture against the social acceptance and legal recognition of homosexual ‘marriage’...” (1163– 1222).

Taken together, these convention actions and theological statements present a coherent presentation of Synod’s teaching on these matters:

1. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically sinful. 2. Whether the tendency to commit homosexual acts is genetically conditioned or is a free choice of the individual makes no difference to the question of the sinfulness of the act, as all sins arise ultimately from the fallen condition of mankind regardless of their intermediate causes or mo- tivations. 3. Neither love nor mutual consent justify sexual activity outside of marriage, for the heterosexual or the homosexual. 4. Homosexual acts, like heterosexual acts outside the bonds of marriage, are sins for which repentance is necessary, the grace of God is offered freely in Christ, deliverance is possible, comfort is assured, and the emendation of life through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit is expected. 5. It is the mission of the church to call for this repentance, offer this grace, mediate this deliverance, proclaim this comfort, and support this sanctifying work. 6. God has created marriage for three reasons: (1) to meet the need of mankind not to be alone (Gen. 2:18); (2) to provide through procreation for the continuing life of humankind (Gen. 1:28); and (3) to curb the incli- nation to sinfulness in a fallen world (1 Cor. 7:2). As homosexual relationships by their essential nature violate two of these three reasons for which God created marriage, they do not constitute that expression of human relationship that God calls marriage, and Christians may not endorse them as such.

224 The Changed Social Context and Its Impact

This, then, is where we stand, without reservation and without apology. Yet we recognize that this faithful confession of the teaching of God’s Word is certain to place us in conflict with strong elements in our society that are aggressively asserting the view that homosexuality is a normal, even positive, lifestyle choice that should not merely be tolerated, but promoted, encouraged, and supported by the social order. To oppose this normalization of homosexuality is to be publicly branded as hateful and bigoted, to be placed in the same category as racists and Nazis. The expectation that one would be publicly branded in such a way for upholding the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality was inconceivable when the Synod adopted its first convention resolution on this subject in 1973. The last thirty years, and especially the last ten years have seen an aggressive campaign on the part of leading voices in entertainment and jour- nalistic and academic circles to change the public perception of, and attitude toward, homosexuality. The holy grail in this quest has been the goal of granting the legal status of marriage to same-sex couples. Marriage is the prize, not (as is sometimes asserted) because of the legal benefits that marriage entails— these legal benefits are already attainable in other ways—but because of the symbolic value of marriage. Despite the widespread prevalence of divorce and the social toleration of couples living together apart from the bonds of marriage, the divinely established state of marriage remains the most powerful and desirable symbol of all that is good and healthy in human relationships. For same-sex couples to be awarded the right to marry is to receive society’s highest blessing and strongest encouragement. Those who wish to promote the social acceptance of homosexuality recognize the teaching function of the law. They understand that what the law tolerates, the law encourages. These efforts at social engineering have had their effect. In 1993 the Supreme Court of the state of Hawaii3 (following inter alia a misreading of the logic of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling in Loving vs. Virginia4 ) declared that the state could not deny same-sex couples the right to marry unless it found “a compelling reason” to do so. The court system in the State of Alaska followed suit.5 Amendments to the state constitutions in

3 Baebhr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993). 4 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Note: as of 13 April 2005 the text of this decision was available online at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1. 5 In 1996 the legislature of the State of Alaska passed a law that specifically banned same-sex marriages. Subsequently Jay Brause and Gene Dugan petitioned the state courts to declare the 1996 law unconstitutional, and to force the state to recognize their relationship. On February 27, 1998, Superior Court Judge Peter A. Michalski ruled that the choice of a spouse is a fundamental human right for all persons. He ordered the state to allow same-sex marriages if it could not demonstrate a “compelling interest” that

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 225 both those states in 1998 ultimately blocked plans to grant to same-sex unions the status of marriage. The passage of the federal DOMA in 1996 further blocked efforts on the part of gay activists to use the “full faith and credit clause” of the United States Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) to force states to grant the status of marriage to same-sex unions performed in other states, but left it to the states to pass their own legislation to define their policy. While many states (thirty-seven at present count) have adopted legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, such legislation can be overturned by state supreme courts intent upon legislat- ing social change on their own terms, as illustrated above. Only seven states (as of this writing) have protected themselves against state court activism by enacting constitutional amendments defining their policy. In December of 1999 the state Supreme Court of Vermont (in Baker vs. Ver- mont6 ) ordered the state legislature to pass a law instituting civil unions that granted to same sex couples all the legal rights of marriage without the name, an order that was obeyed the following year. In February of this year, the Supreme Court of the state of Massachusetts held (in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health7 ) that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry, and the first legal marriages of same-sex couples in the United States were conducted in Massachusetts in May of this year. Major battles on the issue are currently underway in New Jersey, New York, Washington, and California, and lesser struggles are being fought in most other states that do not have a constitutional amendment in place. None of these developments were taken into account in shaping the Synod’s articulation of its teaching even so recently as a decade ago, yet they have a profound effect on what the church says and how it speaks to these issues today, both at the national level and at the level of the local congregation. A year and a half ago I was speaking to a conference of pastors out west, and a pastor from the Denver area recounted how an eighth-grade confirmand accused him of being a bigot and stormed out of his confirmation class after he said that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful. The campaign to vilify, to publicly humiliate, and to intimidate into silence and conformity any who would speak in opposition to the effort to normalize homosexuality raises new questions for the church. Resolution justified prohibiting them. On November 3, 1998, the voters of Alaska approved Measure 2, an amendment to the Alaskan state constitution that prohibited same-sex marriages. Consequently the case of Brause and Dugan was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Alaska in 1999. 6 Stan Baker vs. State of Vermont, Vermont Supreme Court Docket No. 98–032 (November 1998). As of April 13, 2005, the text of this decision was available online at: http://vermont-archives.org/governance/Judicial/BakervState1999.html. 7 Hillary Goodridge et al. vs. Department of Public Health et al. SJC-08860. As of April 13, 2005, the text of this decision was available online at: http://www.mass.gov/ courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html.

226 3–05a from this summer’s synodical convention notes that

For our Synod to be silent, especially in the present context, could be viewed as acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle....8

This is a gentle understatement. For the Synod to be silent in the present context is to do nothing less than to surrender the public confession of the Word of God to the pressure of social thuggery. To recognize this is important, but it is, by itself, insufficient. The question is not merely whether we should speak or be silent, but what and when and how we should speak; not whether we should stand up or stand by, but how and what we should stand for. The question before us is how shall we present ourselves and our ministry: how we shall preach, teach, and confess the Word of God in our homes, in our congregations, in our schools, and in public in such a way as to be faithful to the Word of God and yet avoid giving the impression that we are the bigoted hate-mongers that some would depict us as being. It is this—the public teaching of the Word of God: the preaching of repentance from sin, the forgiveness of sins, the comfort of the Gospel, and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit—that is our concern. It is not the place of the church to determine the political or social agenda for the nation. Yet as citizens of a democracy, whose obligation under our form of government is to help shape the policy of our nation for the welfare of the whole, Christians do have a voice (individually and collectively) in formu- lating the laws that govern our life together in this land. God expects that we will work for the welfare of our neighbor, and that our understanding of what constitutes the welfare of our neighbor will be shaped by the teachings of His Word. All of these considerations suggest that the church must reengage the question of how to disciple Christians to live and witness to Christ and the teachings of His Word in this changed social context. It is our hope that this symposium will be a step toward the fulfillment of that goal.

What Is at Stake?

I mentioned at the outset that there were four major areas of the church’s teaching that are at stake in this debate. The first of these is the value of the Bible for the establishment of Christian teaching and practice.

8 Resolution 3-05A, “To Affirm Marriage as Union of One Man and One Woman,” Proceedings of the 2004 Convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (St. Louis, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2004), 130. Note: as of 13 April 2005 the text of this resolution was available in PDF format online at http://www.lcms.org/graphics/ assets/media/2004%20Convention/Theology.pdf.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 227 Interpreting the Bible

Those within Christian churches who support the movement for the social normalization of homosexuality (including in some churches the ordination of homosexual clergy) do so by challenging what has been understood to be, for the entirety of the church’s existence, the clear teaching of Scripture on this matter. This challenge comes in one of two forms: (1) in the form of a debate over the exegesis of specific verses in both the Old and New Testaments; and (2) an attempt to undercut the hermeneutical principles that make these verses applicable to the life of the church today. While the focus of their efforts is to deny that the Bible can be used to oppose homosexuality, the ultimate effect of these efforts will not be limited to this issue alone. If successful in their effort to undercut the authority of the biblical witness on this subject, the proponents of homosexuality in the church will have effectively deprived the church of the means to apply what the Bible says about virtually any moral issue to the life of the church today.

Sexuality and Human Existence

The second major area of the church’s teaching that is affected by this debate is the church’s understanding of the role of sexuality in human existence. In order to promote its position, the pro-homosexual movement must disconnect personhood from sexuality. That is, it must argue that an individual’s biological sex is not a central feature of one’s existence as a person. This is essentially a neo-Gnostic position, in which the sexual identity of the person is distinct from the sexual identity of the body in which the person, understood to be essentially a spirit, soul, or consciousness, is imprisoned. Thus the sexual identity of the body may be ignored, denied, or altered to conform to the individual’s higher self-understanding. This is a direct challenge to the biblical and historic Christian understanding of the human person as a unity in which body and soul are inex- tricably joined by the divine creative act, and inseparable both in time and eternity. We are embodied creatures: male or female. All that we do, we do as men or as women. At no point in our existence, from conception to eternity in heaven or hell are we anything less or anything more than male or female. The fact of our sexuality conditions the whole of our existence in the world. It shapes both our relationship to one another and our role in the biological and social orders. To attempt to escape the fact of our sexuality is to attempt exactly the “flight from creation” which the 1981 CTCR document noted, “besets the contemporary world and contemporary Christendom,” and which it reminds us, “...ought to be resisted in the name of the Redeemer who is also our Creator.”9 9 CTCR, “Human Sexuality,” 38–39.

228 Marriage

The third, and most immediately obvious, area of the church’s teaching impacted by these issues is the doctrine of marriage. Since the end of World War II, American society has been gradually redefining marriage. In law this has taken the form of a shift from interpreting marriage as an especially privileged covenant to interpreting it as just another form of legal contract. In the popular mind this redefinition has taken the form of a shift from understanding marriage as a binding commitment to understanding it as a matter of personal convenience. As a consequence the integrity and validity of a marriage are no longer determined by the binding web of social obligations it creates, but are subject to the whim of individual emotional or economic interests. In this the church must confess its failure before God and man. We have not upheld marriage as we ought to have done. We have failed to disciple the people of God to withstand the social forces that work against marriage and to equip them to think and act differently from the world in the matter of personal sexual integrity and marital fidelity. The high per- centage of failed marriages among professing Christians, and even among the clergy, bear mute witness to our failure. The question before us now is whether we will continue to fail, or whether, in the face of yet another challenge to our understanding of marriage, we will turn from our sin of omission and more fully prepare Christian men and women to face the temptations and challenges that society presents them.

The Preaching of Law and Gospel

The fourth major area of the church’s teaching that is impacted by these debates is the preaching of Law and Gospel. If, because of social pressure or legal intimidation, we are inhibited from preaching that homosexuality is sinful, how will those who are guilty of such acts be called to repentance? If they are not called to repentance, how shall they receive the forgiveness of sins? If they do not receive the forgiveness of sins shall they not be damned for eternity? As crucial as this question is, it is not the only area in which the preaching of Law and Gospel are threatened in this debate. Some within the church maintain that the Gospel overrides and does away with the Law in such a way and to such an extent that the sole responsibility of the church is to preach the Gospel. These, in practice if not in theory, would have us refrain from proclaiming the Law at all, either to call sinners to repentance or as a guide for the Christian to understand how God would have us live in His image. But the mission of the church in the world is the making of disciples of Christ by proclaiming the Gospel, administering the Sacraments, and teaching Christians to keep all that God has taught in the divine Word. It is

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 229 incumbent on us to provide answers to the practical questions of how we preach and teach, admonish and offer forgiveness, counsel, and confess, in the many circumstances that arise in the local ministries of our congregations.

Conclusion

For the church to faithfully maintain its witness to the teachings of God’s Word in the face of the social pressure to compromise we must do two things. First, we must think through these difficult issues in order to have an answer to give to the kind of hard questions that Rep. Barney Frank and the other supporters of the social normalization of homosexuality will ask.10 We dare not assume that the self-evident rightness of our cause will ensure our success. Second, we must be willing to stand firmly, but kindly, in the truth in the face of social and even perhaps legal intimidation. In these things we do well to heed the Word of God spoken to us through the apostle Peter (1 Pet. 3:14–16, ESV):

...[E]ven if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

10 It is not the purpose of this paper to offer a response to the question of Rep. Frank cited earlier in this discussion. However, it should perhaps be noted that the most straightforward response (from the perspective of civil law) would address the individual reductionism that his question presupposes. One might, for example, offer a parallel case as an example: How would the murder of a person unrelated and unknown to me in a distant state affect my life? The fact that it would not affect my life does not mean that murder should be permissible. It is the function of the law to ensure the collective good, as well as the individual good. For that reason it remains illegal in most jurisdictions to run a stoplight even if there is no one coming from the cross street. The fact that no one would be injured by an individual act does not justify approving a collective act that is in conflict with the good of the community as a whole.

230 Christian Responses to the Culture’s Normalization of Homosexuality

Robert W. Weise

Introduction

Next to, but not excluding, abortion-on-demand, I am convinced by the current culture of tolerance and relativism that homosexuality and gay marriage are the social, ethical, legal and religious issues of this century. The homosexual lifestyle is taking center stage in almost every facet of American life in its quest to be accepted as a normal part of our contemporary culture. Normalization is the moral theory that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally normal, equivalent, and healthy for human beings. The Christian response is to pull this issue back into our churches for civil debate and discourse within the framework of our concern for all sinners and their eternal rest in the Lord. We need intelligent arguments that are broad and consistent since “rationality” remains the “bench mark” of society and culture’s normalization of homosexuality. Christian responses to the culture’s normalization of homosexuality are being guided by the printed and electronic media biases. Yet, to be “fair and balanced,” we need to know what all persons are saying. We need to absorb as much background information as possible to help structure our sanctified thinking in order that we may listen to and know those persons who are homosexuals: their struggles and concerns. Therefore, I will give a brief review of how the media (including printed and electronic), science (including genetics and neurological studies), and the Christian gay community view homosexuality as we “tune in” to form Christian responses to the culture’s normalization of homosexuality.

Homosexuality and the Media

Many Christians in the pew are influenced either positively or nega- tively by the gatekeepers of society—Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, U.S. News and World Report, Discover magazine, Scientific American, and

Dr. Robert W. Weise is Professor of Practical Theology and occupies the Lutheran Charities Chair of Pastoral Ministry and the Life Sciences at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO. This article was presented at the Theo- logical Symposium on Culture’s Normalization of Homosexuality, Concordia Seminary, September 21-22, 2004. Professor Weise can be reached at [email protected].

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 231 many more as the framework around which they form their moral belief system or establish what the norm is for homosexuality and gay marriage. A few examples to demonstrate the news media’s approach and their “positive spin” on the homosexual lifestyle to this topic are as follows: “Reform Rabbis Vote to Back Gay Marriages”;1 “Lesbian Partner Can Share Cus- tody—Judge Rules Lover ‘Equitable Parent’”;2 “Legislature Acts to Widen Gay Rights in Canada”;3 “Church of England ordaining more practicing homosexuals”;4 “City demands benefits for ‘partners’”;5 “Pressing a ‘right’ to clone humans”;6 “Psychologists are told to tell gays they don’t need

1 D. W. “Dunlap, Reform Rabbis Vote to Back Gay Marriages,” New York Times National, Friday, 29 March 1996, Vol. CXLV, No. 50,381, Section A, 9. These rabbis represent 1750 rabbis of the liberal reform movement amongst Judaism. Same-sex unions, Rabbi Davidson said, provided “an opportunity—other than loneliness and living a lie— for people who number in the hundreds of thousands in the Jewish community.” 2 M. Shirk, “Lesbian partner can share custody—Judge rules lover ‘equitable parent,’” Washington Times, Friday, 10 May 1996, Vol. 15 No. 131, Section A, 2. St. Louis—A lesbian who has taken care of her former lover’s two-year-old child from birth is an “equitable parent” and should help raise him, a judge has ruled. This is apparently the first custody case in Missouri in which it has been cited to justify continuing contact between a child and an unrelated adult. 3 C. H. Farnsworth, “Legislature Acts to Widen Gay Rights in Canada,” The New York Times International, Friday, 10 May 1996, Vol. CXLV No. 50,423, Section A, 7. Toronto, May 9—Fulfilling promises by governments over the past decade, the House of Commons today overwhelmingly passed landmark legislation banning discrimination against homosexuals. An amendment to the Human Rights Act of nineteen years ago would add the words “sexual orientation” to the list that may not be used to discriminate in hiring or promoting the one million people employed by the federal civil service, or those working in regulated businesses. To become law, the amendment also needs the formality of a royal assent. The Government stressed the limited nature of the change, and said explicitly that it was not intended to give legal status to same-sex marriages. 4 M. Wroe, “Church of England ordaining more practicing homosexuals,” The Wash- ington Times, Religion, Saturday, 25 May 1996, Section C, 10. London—An increasing number of Church of England bishops are ordaining practicing homosexuals to the priesthood as rifts appear in the fragile unity of the House of Bishops. Archbishop of Canter- bury George Carey, who has never knowingly ordained a practicing homosexual, remains adamant that gay clergy must be celibate. “All priests are expected to exhibit exemplary behavior, but there are no psychometric tests, and we do not employ private detectives,” an unnamed bishop said. 5 “City demands benefits for ‘partners,’” The Washington Times, Monday, 30 Dec. 1996, Vol. 15, No. 365, Section A, 3, San Francisco (AP)—San Francisco is about to make a unique demand on thousands of companies: Either extend health insurance and other benefits to employees’ same-sex partners, or forget about doing business with the city. Supporters say it’s a basic antidiscrimination measure aimed at granting all unmarried domestic partners—although most of them in San Francisco are same-sex couples—the same rights enjoyed by wedded couples. The Gap, Levi Strauss & Co. and the Walt Disney Co. already have started domestic-partner policies. Mayor Willie Brown and city Supervi- sor Tom Ammiano said it is the first such city ordinance in the nation. 6 A. Manning, “Pressing a ‘right’ to clone humans,” USA Today, Life Section, Thurs- day, 6 March 1997, Section D, 1, Some gays foresee reproduction option—A group of gay activists, seeing breakthroughs in animal cloning technology as a path toward same-sex reproduction, is pressing for more research on human cloning.

232 fixing”;7 “Geneticist says lesbianism is cultural, ‘not inherited’”;8 “New York public school set to open for homosexual teens”;9 “Homosexuality seen as accepted by media”;10 “Gay strategy: turning up the heat”;11 “Advocates Hail a Triumph for Civil Rights.”12 While these references to the media do not convey the entire picture, all one has to do is to turn on the television or visit the internet or stop by a secular bookstore to see or read the media’s bias for the homosexual lifestyle and same-sex marriage. For example, on television there is Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, The ‘L’ Word, It’s All Relative (his dads are gay and her parents are straight), and Will and Grace. The so-called politically correct (Tony Snow, radio and talk show news analyst for Fox News defined political correctness as criminalizing common sense) phrase: “signifi-

7 J. Duin, “Psychologists are told to tell gays they don’t need fixing,” The Washington Times, Friday 15 August 1997, Vol 16, No. 227, Section A, 3. The American Psychological Association yesterday passed a resolution mandating psychologists to tell gay patients that homosexuality is normal and restrict therapies aimed at converting them into het- erosexuals. 8 J. H. Price, “Geneticist says lesbianism is cultural, ‘not inherited,’” The Washington Times, Vol. 16, No. 360, Friday, 26 December 1997, Section A, 3. The federal scientist who claimed a genetic link for male homosexuality says his research indicates lesbianism is “culturally transmitted, not inherited.” “If these results hold up under further testing, it would appear that whatever is being transmitted to lesbians is fundamentally different than what is transmitted to gay men. It’s more environmental than genetic, more nurture than nature,” Dean Hamer, chief of gene structure and regulation in the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Biochemistry. 9 L. Trotta, “New York public school set to open for homosexual teens,” The Wash- ington Times, Tuesday, 7 July 2003, Vol. 22, No. 209, Section A, 11. New York—The nation’s first public high school for homosexuals will open here in September with the blessing of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. Harvey Milk High School, actually an extension of an experimental homosexual program that has existed since 1984, will be located in the East Village. Officials said about 170 students are expected to enroll. The genesis of the homosexual high school was in the Hetrik-Martin Institute, a homosexual-rights advocacy group financed by private funds. 10 J. Duin, “Homosexuality seen as accepted by media,” The Washington Times, Wednesday, 7 July 2003, Vol. 22, No. 211, A1 & A9. A month after the Supreme Court decision legalizing sodomy and Canada’s recognition of same-sex “marriage,” analysts say an almost casual acceptance of homosexuality pervades the media. Broadcasters and publishers appear to be sympathetic to homosexual causes, judging from the guest list at the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, a 1,100-member group having its annual convention in September at a Hollywood hotel. 11 B. Kalellis, “Gay strategy: turning up the heat,” The Washington Times, Sunday, 10 August 2003, Vol. 22, No. 222, Section B, 5. When you want to cook a frog, they say, don’t throw it into boiling water; it will only jump out. Instead, place froggie in a pot with tepid water and, even so slowly, continue increasing the heat. When the poor fellow finally realizes he is being cooked, he’ll have no more strength to resist. Radical gay activists must have taken a cue from this tale, because it seems to be the tactic of choice for advancing their cause: the normalization of homosexuality [emphasis added] in Western culture. 12 P. Belluck, “Advocates Hail a Triumph for Civil Rights,” The New York Times, Tuesday, 18 May 2004, Vol. CLIII, No. 52,853, Section A, 1. Boston, May 17—Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples streamed into city halls from Boston to the Berkshires on Mon- day as Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex marriages.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 233 cant other” has replaced “husband and wife” or “my boy-friend” or “my girl- friend.” The media’s bias in this area that does not want to give offense, but maintain a sense of “all for one and one for all” is best stated by Bernard Goldberg in his latest book titled: Arrogance, Rescuing America from the Media Elite. He writes:

Quite simply, when it comes to gay issues, once again ideological journalism routinely fails the public—tilting the news of highly complex issues mainly to one side almost as a matter of course. Once again, as with stories involving race or gender, narrow-interest pressure groups both inside and outside the newsroom are ac- corded special deference and respect. And, yes, once again it is liberal sympathizers, in this case straight one, who help enforce the code, branding those who dissent from the approved liberal position as morally flawed…. More to the point, as it pertains to journalism, I think those people deserve a full, fair, and equal hearing. The fact is the gay agenda demands a fundamental shift in the way we’ve thought about sex and morals for a very, very long time. It literally seeks to wipe away several thousand years of social and religious tradition. So it would be crazy for us not to have a free and open debate about its consequences. Yet what we most often see instead in the media is the sort of name-calling that wouldn’t be tolerated on a playground. Even traditionalist religious leaders and respected conservative social commentators regularly get called bigots for doing nothing more than upholding the tenets of their faith.13

Christians’ Response to the Media Elite

1. Know and understand the breadth and the depth of this issue, especially how it is presented as a normal part of the fabric of the USA by much of the printed and electronic media. Suzanne Fields calls it the “homosexualization of culture”—the gaying of America.14 Know what’s driving the mainstream media’s bias that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. 2. Terminology: euphemistically changing from gay to homosexual. Know how terms are used in this issue as well as how they are defined and used in their context. Differentiate between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. These phrases tend to confuse people.

13 B. Goldberg, Arrogance, Rescuing America from the Media Elite (Warner Books, Inc., 2003), 167-169. 14 S. Fields, “The Gaying of America,” The Washington Times, Thursday, 23 March 2000, Vol. 19, No. 83, Section A, 21.

234 3. Media tends to play the “emotive and positive” card: i.e., How can any reasonable person say that the normalization of homosexuality is going to “hurt families and societies”? Be discerning in this area, for the gay community continues to use this argument to justify their lifestyle and same-sex marriage. United States Representative Barney Frank from Massachusetts said, “…allowing this [gay marriage] will have no affect on anyone else…. It will enhance the quality of the lives of a few thousand people who enter into these marriages, with no negative affect on anyone else.”15 As Christians, we listen and care, but do not compromise God’s teaching on creation and marriage. 4. Write letters-to-the-editor expressing your concerns. Find a concept, word, or phrase that you either agree or disagree with. Be brief and to the point. Be humble but not compromising in your writing. Your Chris- tian witness to the Gospel is always at the forefront of these letters.

Science and Homosexuality

Advocates of homosexuality and gay marriage are increasingly playing the science card to support the normalization of homosexuality. Many Chris- tians remain convinced that scientific evidence exists to support the genetic origin of homosexuality. Hence, for many Christians, they can excuse such behavior and feel more comfortable around a homosexual person if all believe that they are born with a genetic predisposition. What exactly has science concluded about the genetic or neurological predisposition to homosexuality?

Genetics and the “Gay Gene”

To date, scientific evidence is lacking to support the “gene myth” that homosexuality is inherited. Dr. Dean Hamer initially said that he found the so-called “gay gene” on the Xq 2816 ,17 position of the X-chromosome (see footnote 17 for further explanation on the maternal transmission of

15 “Interview with Barney Frank,” in Same-Sex Marriage, Christian Networks Jour- nal, Summer 2004, 9. 16 A chromosome (colored body) is a “cigar-shaped” body that resides in the nucleus of a body or germ cell. A body cell contains twenty-three pairs or forty-six chromosome, including either XX (female gender) or XY (male gender). A female germ sex-cell (oocyte or egg) contains eleven pairs of chromosomes plus the sex-chromosome or X chromosome (twenty-three chromosomes in all). A male sex-cell called a spermatozoon (sperm cell) also contains eleven pairs of chromosomes plus either an X or Y sex-chromosome (twenty-three chromosomes in all). The upper half-portion is labeled “p,” while the lower half-portion of a chromosome is labeled “q.” Hence, Hamer believed that he found the “gay gene” on the lower portion of the female X chromosome, q at the twenty-eight position since this is the only chromosome inherited exclusively from the mother. One explanation for the maternal transmission of a male-limited trait is X chromosome linkage. Since males receive their X chromosome exclusively from their mothers, any trait that is influenced by an X-linked gene will be preferentially passed through the mother’s

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 235 suspected “gay gene”). In actuality, he only identified an area on the chromosome where he believed that the gene or genes for male homosexuality would be found. To date, the gene (or genes) has (have) not been located. In 1999, a research team in Canada led by Dr. George Rice failed to confirm Hamer’s 1993 work.18 Rice concluded: “…our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28.”19 This doesn’t mean that a gene, more likely genes couldn’t be involved, but the data is lacking that definitively proves a genetic component. His research and others is taking place in the political and social vor- tex of the gay community who seeks health care rights, marriage, and social recognition. Even if a gene (or genes) is discovered, Christians know that all of the 1.8 meters (six feet) of nuclear DNA that contains the genetic code is corrupted by original sin.

The American Psychiatric Association

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) which removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973 declaring it a “normal life-style” has stated that “to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”20 In addition, the APA supports the legal recognition of same sex unions and their associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities.21

Neurological Studies and Homosexuality

Hypothalamus Studies

In 1991, Dr. LeVay suggested that there is a structural size difference in the nuclei of cells comprising the hypothalamus (a gland located near the frontal base of the brain which is responsible for emotions and sexual activity) between heterosexual and homosexual men. Using cadavers LeVay examined the hypothalamus of several heterosexual and homosexual men. He concluded that homosexual men have smaller nuclei in their hypotha- side of the family. If the X chromosome contains a gene that increases the probability of an individual’s being homosexual, then genetically related gay men should share X chromosome markers close to that gene. 17 D. Hamer, S. Hu, V. L. Magnuson, N. Hu, & A. M. L. Pattatuci, “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science 1993, 262(5119): 321-327. 18 G. Rice, C. Anderson, N. Risch, & G. Ebers, “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28,” Science 1999, 284(5414): 665-667. 19 Ibid., 667. 20 “Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues in Fact Sheet,” American Psychiatric Associa- tion, revised May 2000, accessed February 10, 2005, www.psych.org/public_info/ gaylesbianbisexualissues22701.pdf. 21 Ibid.

236 lamic cells than heterosexual men.22 LeVay emphasized that his study was speculative.23 LeVay’s conclusion remains unproved.24

Auditory Responses

McFadden and Pasanen report that the Click-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions (CEOAEs) are weaker in lesbians than in non-lesbians. They found no differences in the CEOAEs between gay and straight men.25 Out- side of being interesting, this type of auditory research demonstrates the length that some will go to cement the relationship of brain development with sexual orientation. Unfortunately, their results remain only interesting and unsubstantiated.

Eye Blinking in Response to Auditory Stimulation as an Indicator of Homosexuality

Rahman attempted to find a correlation between “prepulse inhibition (PPI) of the human startle response” and sexual orientation.26 First, PPI is not learned. Ear phones are placed within the external ear canal of each experimental subject, both homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Next, they placed very small electrodes beneath the right eye and connected them to an electromyography machine. Without warning, a sound startle stimulus was generated through the ear phones. The resulting eye- blink startle response was recorded on the electromyography machine. This machine measured the nerve conduction of the eye muscle reflex. They concluded, “Our results show, for the first time that PPI relates to sexual orientation and that homosexual women show a robust cross-sex shift.”27 They found no differences between gay and straight men. They add “…that the differences reported here are for groups and do not mean

22 LeVay, S, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science 1991, 253(5023): 1034-1037. 23 Ibid., 1036. 24 R. C. Friedman & J. I. Downey, “Homosexuality,” New England Journal of Medi- cine 1994, 331(4): 923-930. 25 D. McFadden & E. G. Pasanen, “Comparison of the auditory systems of hetero- sexuals and homosexuals: Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions,” Proceedings of National Academy of Science USA, 1998, 95(5): 2709-2713. Otoacoustic emissions are weak sounds produced by elements in the inner ear. They are measurable via the external ear. Click- evoked otoacoustic emissions (CEOEs) are echo-like waveforms that are emitted in response to a brief transient sound. A click was sound generated through a small micro- phone inserted into the external ear. As the homosexual and heterosexual men and women received these clicks their auditory response was recorded via an oscilloscope. The collection of the wave-lengths or “echos” by McFadden provided them with their results and conclusions. 26 Q. Rahman, V. Kumari, and G. D. Wilson, “Sexual Orientation-Related Differ- ences in Prepulse Inhibition of the Human Startle Response,” Behavioral Neuroscience 2003, 117(5): 1096-1102. 27 Ibid., 1098-1099.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 237 that PPI can be used as a reliable indicator of sexual orientation in individuals.28

Identical Twin Studies and Homosexuality

There seems to be an understanding amongst the public that twin studies have corroborated that genetic factors are involved in persons who are homosexual. To carry the homosexual banner of “the gene made me this way” or “the gene made me do,” several scientists have studied monozygotic/identical twins (one sperm, one fertilized egg that divides and forms genetically identical twins). Their genetic profiles are identical. Hence, if a gene (or genes) is (are) foundational to male homosexuality then identical twins with the Xq28 marker should both be homosexual or concordant for this chromosomal location. They would never be a discordant pair. Studies of the literature on identical twins within the last thirteen years do not confirm that genetic factors are directly involved in homosexuality. For example, Bailey and Pillard concluded: “…52% (29/56) of monozygotic co-twins…” were homosexual.29 King and McDonald arrived at the same conclusion. They evaluated forty-six identical twins. Only 43% identified themselves as homosexual. They concluded: “Our finding thus gives little support to theories of ‘intense identification’ leading to raised concordance for homosexuality in twins…. It is clear that our current genetic and psychological theories are untenable.”30 Byne and Parsons proposed an alternative to those persons who support a strict genetic or neurological explanation to sexual orientation. They proposed an interactionist model.31 They write: “Conspicuously absent from most theorizing on the origins of sexual orientation is an active role of the individual in constructing his or her identity.”32 In simple terms, their interactionist model relies on the interaction of personality traits, which may or may not be influenced by genes or hormones, as well as various environmental factors. They summarize their model as follows: “…sexual orientation is assumed to be shaped and reshaped by a cascade of choices made in the context of changing circumstances in one’s life and enormous social and cultural pressures.”33

28 Ibid., 1101. 29 J. M. Bailey and R. C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives General Psychiatry, (1991), 48(12): 1089-1096. 30 M. King and E. McDonald, “Homosexuals Who Are Twins: A Study of 46 Probands,” British Journal of Psychiatry, (1992), 160: 407-409. 31 W. Byne & B. Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reap- praised,” Archives General Psychiatry (1993), 50(3): 228-239. 32 Ibid., 236. 33 Ibid., 237.

238 A Christian Response to Science and the Normalization of Homosexuality

The scientific information presented in this paper does not comport with biological theories in favor of homosexuality. While there may be biological factors influencing sexual orientation, they do not appear deter- minative or causative. When the aforementioned articles are studied in depth, especially the twin studies, the issue of “choice” surfaces. However, “choice” of a person to the homosexual lifestyle appears to be based on a complex set of factors. It isn’t as straightforward as someone saying, “I decided to be a homosexual last night.” The conclusions of Byne and Parsons appear to give the most complete and authentic compilation of both biological and environmental issues underlining sexual orientation. They emphasize that when behavioral characteristics or traits are examined, as in homosexuality, genetic or biological factors tend to act indirectly. Biological factors appear to contribute to making homosexuality more of an option (choice) guided by environmental factors.34 Dr. Satinover writes about Byen’s observation in that “biologic influence doesn’t mean cause.” He uses the example of a basketball player. “No genes exist that code for becoming a basketball player. But some genes code for height and the elements of athleticism…. Someone born with favorable (for basketball) combination of height and athleticism is in no way genetically programmed or forced to become a basketball player.”35 Much of the scientific data published degrades the purpose of the scientific method to present an honest hypothesis and conclusion through controlled experimentation. Some scientists have been caught up in their bias and not the integrity of the scientific method. They are looking for the “missing link” in sexual orientation that will turn biological theories into biological fact, whether it is genetic, hormonal, or neurological. Their bias has become the bias of the media and vise versa. The mantra, albeit invalid and unsubstantiated, is: “There has to be a direct correlation between biology and homosexuality.” Christians need to understand that the scientific biases to prove biological theories to support homosexuality are vague and inconclusive. A more fair and balanced story about homosexuality centers on a very complex journey by persons who find themselves becoming homosexual for a variety of issues or reasons. It doesn’t happen with an overnight awaken- ing or by a “smorgasbord choice” or by any scientific discovery. It appears to be multifaceted in its occurrence. While “choice” is involved, the choice is also influenced by environmental factors such as family, peers, political correctness, childhood trauma,36 and an incorrect understanding of sin 34 Ibid., 228. 35 J. Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 94. 36 Ibid., 93-108.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 239 and grace, i.e., God created me this way, therefore, homosexuality is okay. As stated earlier, biological factors may be influential but not determina- tive. God may have given a person over to their homosexual lifestyle, but He did not create this immoral sexual activity. The nature and nurture debate briefly outlined above will assist Chris- tians in their thinking when they engage in left-hand kingdom discussion, debate, and segue into the doctrine of original sin—the total corruption of the body and soul. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid is the genetic material located in the nucleus and cytoplasm of every body and germ cell) is corrupted by original sin. Therefore, any scientific issues surrounding the nature versus nurture debate of homosexuality are viewed in light of the Scriptures and its Author, the triune God. If scientific data conflicts with the Word of God, then that data should not become a banner for approval of any lifestyle. You cannot serve two masters. If scientists succeed in finding biological factors that can be determina- tive for homosexuality, practicing homosexuals need to know that God in Christ did not create the sin of homosexuality. It is the product of original sin. A so-called “gay gene” or any other biological factor that favors homosexuality would never legitimize the homosexual lifestyle before God and His church. Regardless of the influence or cause of homosexuality, the Christian serves the practicing homosexual and his family from the point of the cross of Jesus Christ who took on the sins of the world, suffered, died, and rose for our justification. The context of any sin is the cross of Christ and the attendant confession and absolution.

The “Gay Christian” and the Christian Witness

The “Gay Christian”

Gay Christians are those persons who believe that homosexuality is compatible with the Biblical Word of God. Therefore, those who practice the homosexual lifestyle ought to be afforded the same rights, privileges, and protections as “straight” Christians. This includes the right to marry and the reception of all marriage benefits. How do practicing homosexuals, who believe that they are Christian, view the clear Word of God and His authority as compatible with their lifestyle? Reverend Janie Spahr said in an interview published in the Christian Networks Journal:

A dear Rabbi friend of mine told me years ago that he does not take the Bible literally, he takes it seriously. That is exactly what I do, I don’t slough off the Bible. I take it seriously. What is very

240 important to me, when looking at any text, is to understand the contextual lens through which it was written…. So with that said, I don’t believe that there was an understanding of homosexuality then, in biblical times, as we know it now…. The context that the biblical texts were written in reflects a power dynamic. That is, a domination system that valued male over female.37

Herein, she calls into question the Authority of the Bible and turns it into a “make shift” theological Betty Crocker Cook Book to mix and match her own ingredients to get what she wants. As a member of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), she does not see the homosexual lifestyle as a sin against God. She says:

I believe one’s sexuality is a gift, whatever that sexual orientation may be. It is how we live out that gift that is important to me…. I don’t care what your sexual orientation is, I just care that the relationships we have are loving, responsible, and respectful. The far more important question to ask…is how can we have healthy relationships in a fractured culture, rather than to label some types of sexual orientation as sinful?38

She lacks a Biblical understanding of creation and the doctrine of sin because her exegesis and hermeneutic is self-validating. Our culture is corrupted by sin. Sin is not a fracturing of our relationship with God; it is a complete break, a separation. Herein, she perverts God’s Word to justify the normalization of homosexuality with heterosexuality. Denying the sin of homosexuality, and thereby blaming God is nothing new. Spahr is typical of the “gay Christian” community and their muddled hermeneutics. She adds,

People tell me all the time that they are praying for me “to change.” That is very arrogant and hurtful. I can’t change my very being. I can’t change the way God made me…. Until there is an equal playing field—it is not possible to really have a dialogue.39

Her approach to sin, creation, etc. has profound implications for anyone seeking to excuse their sordid, sinful behavior. God does not “make” sin or the homosexual. Yes, God made me and all creatures, but we humans are the ones who are responsible for our sinful lives. In addition, her comments create a door of opportunity to justify gay

37 G. McClellan, ed., “Perspective: An Interview with Reverend Janie Spahr,” Chris- tian Networks Journal, Summer 2004, 6. 38 Ibid., 7. 39 Ibid., 8.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 241 marriage by blaming God and Bible-believing Christians for their insensi- tivity to the desires of homosexuals who want to marry and be like everyone else. Spahr says: “I really wish that we could get back to the question of what constitutes a healthy intimate relationship and simply call them all holy unions, regardless of sexual orientation.”40 As stated earlier, a healthy relationship to Spahr is one that is loving, respectful, and responsible.41 Sin is only a concept and not transgressing God and His Word. Pastor Fitzgerald adds to Spahr’s self-validating hermeneutic by writing: “By [many Christian churches] refusing to marry gay men and lesbian women the Church all but forces them to live in sin.”42 According to their writings, the gay community is the victim and the holy Christian church on earth is the perpetrator of injustice and inequality. Have they forgotten the original sin of Adam and Eve, and the “rest of the story”? The statements by Spahr and Fitzgerald are typical of the homosexual community that professes to be Christians, followers and believers in the one true God and true Man, Jesus Christ. Variations exist, yet one issue remains constant: “a hermeneutic of self-validation.”

A Christian Response to the “Gay Christian”

Taking Them Where They Are At

When Christians are confronted with this aspect of the gay community hermeneutic of self-validating and self-fulfilling statements, Chris- tians, by the power of the Holy Spirit, return to the basics of the Scrip- tures, the Confessions, confession/absolution, and liturgy. Returning to the Scriptures and its authority, we read, learn, and inwardly digest what the Lord God says about creation, marriage, procreation, Christian identity, and living the life of Christ in the world. This is the most basic starting point for dealing with Christian responses to the culture’s normalization of homosexuality. Regardless of where you begin, the Word of the Lord does not return empty, but accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent (Is. 55:11). God’s Word connects the disconnected. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. It brings the homosexual sinner and his or her family, from their past, to their present, and finally, to their future hope of their heavenly home. There is no compromise of the Law that convicts the sinner of sin. There is no compromise of the Gospel that saves the sinner from his or her sin. The Holy Spirit has called us by the Gospel in the one true faith and keeps us there. There are many passages in the Old Testament and

40 Ibid., 7. 41 Ibid. 42 M. Fitzgerald, Essay, in Same-Sex Marriage, Christian Networks Journal, Summer 2004, 55.

242 New Testament that convey the Law and Gospel message. Regardless of where you begin, my parish experience teaches me that God’s Gospel re- connects the disconnected homosexual and brings hope to those homosexuals who are captive and downtrodden to their lifestyle. Therefore, keeping this in your mind and heart when you speak with your tongue, Christian responses come from the authority of Scriptures and its Author who takes all people, regardless of their lifestyle, where they are in their homosexual or heterosexual lifestyle. For example, Jesus took the woman at the well where she was in her sinful lifestyle as an adulteress. St. Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus took the men of Athens where they were in their pagan worship and lifestyle. Herein, Jesus and St. Paul took them where they were, observing what they were all about, the context of their lifestyle—and then, tapped into a part of that lifestyle or phrase. Eternal hope rests in the Gospel of Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Unfortunately, Janie Spahr and many of her homosexual colleagues remain caught up in Jesus as “liberator” of the outcast, and not the Savior who will save His people from their sins. She says, “It is all wrapped up in the fabric of how we treat those who are labeled outcast in a power-over domination system that is still very much a part of what is going on in our world right now.”43 For Spahr, a power-based feminist, it’s an issue of “equal rights restoration” and not being restored in Christ. Obviously, Jesus’ and St. Paul’s approach is far more helpful than Spahr’s hermeneutic of power- based feministic self-validation. When I work with homosexuals who struggle with their lifestyle and Christian identity, I take them where they are at in that lifestyle. If they say: “God made me this way” I would talk about the First Article of the Apostles’ Creed—creation. During these discussions, I prefer to use a less threatening method of “burying”a question in a statement. This assists me in finding out where they are in their lifestyle and God’s Word without asking “threatening questions.” For example, if they say: “God made me this way,” I may say, “Since you believe that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, I can see that you also believe that God made homosexuals at the beginning of creation before Adam and Eve sinned and that it has nothing to do with the corruption of the body and soul wrought by their original sin.” Their answer will speak volumes about their perspective on sin and grace. I am not there to convince them. I trust God. My faith holds to the Christ and His Spirit. God is the one that is important, not me. Only God gives the growth. This approach is exemplified when a Lutheran pastor asked me a few years ago how I would counsel a married man, with children, who has “come out of the closet” from his homosexual lifestyle. He said to me,

43 Sparh, 8.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 243 “What do I do? Where do I begin? What do I say?” I replied, “Listen, listen, and listen. They have a story. Be honest and take on their burden. Take him where he is at in his Christian life. He will be concerned about God’s judgment, family forgiveness, his wife divorcing him, his children forsak- ing him, depression, and the list goes on. Most importantly, confession and absolution are your pastoral care and focus. Be patient and long-suffering. Talk about other Bible stories where people thought that all things were lost. He will relate with that. Do not compromise the Gospel. If you have to get in his face with the Law, do it gently with a kind and sincere voice. You are his pastor. The salvation of his soul is at stake. Would you deal with any other person differently who is struggling with a sinful lifestyle?” Following my initial comments, he said, “Not really, even though the context is different. Confession and absolution is the bottom line. The assurance of the forgiveness of sins is paramount. You know from the catechism, ‘where there is the forgiveness of sins, there is salvation and eternal life.’” I replied, “Well, that sounds like a good pastoral start. Be patient and study the Biblical text with him. Do not abandon him. Take him to the cross of Jesus Christ—hope (Rom. 5).” Later, the pastor told me that this man and his family’s brokenness were being healed by the Word of God and His Spirit. He continues to care for the entire family. Next to unbelief, there is nothing worse than a sin-sick soul. Only God is the Great Physician of body and soul. Only God’s grace can change a person who is a practicing homosexual. Pastor Bryan, as seen below, was changed by God’s grace. And now, what he received by faith alone, he passes on to others.

A Former Homosexual Speaks Up44

Pastor Bryan is an ordained clergyman in the General Baptist Church and a recovered homosexual for more than a decade. He is the youth di- rector at his church. His call from the Lord is to work with homosexuals in his community with the goal of their exodus from the sin of homosexuality to their entrance into the kingdom of God as His child. Pastor Bryan says that the majority of Christian denominations, including The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, does not know how to equip their church professionals in working with the homosexual lifestyle. He believes that all denominations need more workshops led by those who work with homosexuals as well as those who are recovering homosexuals. He said that all denominations need Christian resources that educate and help church professionals structure their thinking regarding the sin of

44 Pastor Bryan gave me permission to share some of his thoughts regarding the homosexual lifestyle and the significance in remaining steadfast in the Word of God. His comments are paraphrased within their context.

244 homosexuality and the Gospel of forgiveness [see footnote for a few resources].45 Initially, he told me that we must not only be willing to befriend homosexuals, but also walk with them to the empty cross and tomb, no matter how long it takes or how difficult the journey may become. Jesus is the answer to their healing. Get them to the cross of Christ; share God’s Word and plan for marriage between a man and woman, and, if it is God’s will, for the procreation of a child. Talk about their identity in Christ and not their homosexual identity. In addition, Pastor Bryan is convinced that most pastors and other church professionals are oblivious to the anger that the homosexual community has towards many Christian churches. It is real and not fake. We have to be willing to embrace them but not affirm their sinful life. Their eternity is at stake. He said that we need to understand that they are not gay. That’s their term and identity. God does not make gay people. Bryan’s experiences teach him that the use of the term “gay” or “lesbian” is a coping mecha- nism for a deeper brokenness. There is a problem under the problem. He is convinced that the homosexual’s lifestyle is due to a dysfunctional relationship with a father or mother, or perhaps, peers. Pastor Bryan believes that homosexuals need a Christian friend who is not homophobic, homosexual, or patronizing, but one who is willing to talk about the Gospel, forgiveness of sins, and salvation. He told me that if the Law has not convicted them of their sin, you will have “to get into their face.” Since their salvation is at stake, there comes a time when you have to tell them that their lifestyle places their soul’s salvation in jeopardy. He emphasized that the culture’s normalization of homosexuality is bleeding into the church and the local schools. Churches will not talk about it, and young people are being taught that it is an acceptable behavior in their public schools. We have to be more proactive. He encourages all parents to find out what their local school is teaching about same-sex rela-

45 Websites: www.desertstream.org; www.exodus-international.org; www.regenbooks. org; www.narth.com (Jeffery Satinover, M.D. is a board member. He is the author of “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”—an excellent book); www.lcms.org/ca/search (good paper on homosexuality and the Christian witness); www.imapp.org (institute for marriage and public policy); www.lutheransforlife.org; www.exodusyouth.net/youth (youth are being told that homosexuality is “normal behavior”—good resource); www.cultureandfamily.org (How Can Christians Talk to Homosexuals). Books and Jour- nals: Satinover’s book; Robert A. J. Gagnon—“The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics” and “Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views”; F. LaGard Smith— “Sodom’s Second Coming: What You Need to Know About the Deadly Homosexual As- sault”; Christian Networks Journal, Summer 2004— “Same Sex Marriage”—excellent resource; First Things; Richard Cohen—“Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Heal- ing Homosexuality”; Joe Dallas—“Desires in Conflict: Hope For Men Who Struggle with Sexual Identity” and “A Strong Delusion: Confronting the ‘Gay Christian’ Movement.”

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 245 tionships as well as any school discipline codes and conduct relating to it. In general, Pastor Bryan says that we need to be patient, honest and educated in the ways of the homosexual. It is not a “special sin.” It is a sin that needs to be dealt with through confession and absolution.

Conclusion: Getting It Straight

American individualism and autonomy, independence from God and His Word, wherein self is god and is one of, if not the main cause of the ongoing dissolutions of marriage, family, parenting, and procreation as seen in persons who either support or live the homosexual lifestyle. While some gays and lesbians would not prefer marriage because it would “spoil their lives with multiple partners,” many seek to perpetuate their lifestyle as “natural and normal behavior” in spite of its unnaturalness. From same-sex domesticated partners, to same-sex civil unions to same- sex marital unions; from polygamy to polyamory (group-marriage); from antisodomy laws to approved sodomy to “hate crime” legislation in Canada; from heterosexual marriage and one flesh union procreation to men with men and women with women reproducing using opposite sex partners called friends as well as sperm and egg donation, and surrogate wombs; from traditional parenting magazines viewing the social structure of a family through the lens of a man and woman to And Baby (the latest GLBT magazine promoting “where there is love, there is family,” regardless of sexual behavior), the flood of homosexual issues and literature is omnipresent. In addition, during my latest visit to Illinois State University in Nor- mal, Illinois, I learned that this campus and others have designated safe zones for persons who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender. All of these areas and issues are the tip of the iceberg of the homosexual mantra that continues to seek ways to trump traditional marriage values and the clear Word of God. We are not in a vocation of permitting people to sin. Healing begins with confession and absolution.46 We preach the Word and administer the Sacraments, forgive and retain sins. We are responsible for the souls of those whom we are given the gift and privilege to serve as slaves and foot washers for the Christ who makes all things possible. In addition, the pastor needs to know that the healing Word of God is for all family members, relatives, and friends of the homosexual. Recovery is a long and arduous struggle for all those involved. A homosexual brother, sister, spouse, cousin, niece, or nephew impacts everyone. The healing, the communication, and especially the forgiveness of sins involve all members of the family surrounding the homosexual. This is neither patroniz-

46 “A Plan for Ministry to Homosexuals and Their Families”, The Task Force for Ministry to Homosexuals and Their Families, (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1999), 19-23. This is an excellent resource. It may be downloaded from www.lcms.org/president/minhomfam.html.

246 ing nor attempting to be nice so that some can look the other way. If possible include, at least, the immediate family in the healing process of forgiveness. As I have worked with homosexuals and listened to others who have more experience than I, I use the following method to help structure my thinking and give me an ordered approach: (1) Pray constantly; (2) Gather background information to help you clarify and be informed about their lifestyle; (3) From your listening and the background information that you know, what theological issues is this person struggling with, questioning, or ignoring? This would include the world view over against the Biblical- view of his/her issues; (4) Identify the presenting theological issue and focus on pastoral discernment on the use of the Law and Gospel as you continue your patient counseling and spiritual direction for healing that will extend to the homosexual and those around him or her. Pastors are theologians—not scientists or “shrinks.” When I am working with a baptized homosexual who is struggling with his lifestyle, I would probably begin with his baptismal identity over against his homosexual self-identity.47 If he is an obdurate sinner, I would begin with creation and human sexuality as recorded in Genesis and Romans. The goal is confession and absolution. Always assure him that your door is open anytime that he or she wants to return; (5) Lastly, I always pray constantly for the Holy Spirit’s guidance and discernment. Pastoral care for the homosexual is a long-time commitment that will require ongoing contact and perhaps, an additional referral to a professional counselor who is familiar with the homosexual lifestyle. This counseling may involve family members. If you refer, ask your parishioner to sign a “release of information form” so that you can remain updated on any progress. Of course, the information that a counselor can share will be somewhat restricted. Homosexual lifestyle and same-sex marriage are part of the fabric of the twenty-first-century culture. Pastors will be challenged to speak God’s truth in love knowing that they will be persecuted by some and praised by others. If the word “homosexual” makes it into “hate crime legislation” in the USA as it did in Canada, greater steadfastness will be needed to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments. When a person’s soul is in grave peril of eternal damnation, we return to the basics of God’s Word—confession and absolution. Where there is the forgiveness of sins, there is salvation and eternal life.

47 Ibid., 23-24.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 247 The Local Congregation Approaches the Issues: Lutheran Responses, “Sin, Sex, and Civil Silence”

Joel D. Biermann

It is a privilege and a delight to be given the opportunity to address this gathering today. I am honored and humbled to be in the midst of such learning and hope that my contribution, aimed at the immediately practical task of addressing congregational concerns, enhances and advances, if only in some small degree, our mutual conversation. Happy as I am to be reading a paper today, I would be less than honest to suggest that I am excited about the topic at hand. I am of the opinion that the church has far more interesting, and frankly edifying, topics that could be occupying our attention these days. I think it would be fair to say that, given the chance to choose any topic for my symposium debut, the subject of homosexuality would have been near the bottom of the list—somewhere in the same vicinity as topics like leprosy in the context of other Biblical afflictions of the skin, and a comparison of ancient religious phallic symbols. Some subjects are better left unexplored. For my part, I admit the wish that homosexuality was still on the list of topics best left unexplored, and I was making a presentation this morning that my eleven- year-old son could attend without embarrassment. Nevertheless, the topic is what it is, and by no accident. And, penitently confessing my own role as a member of the symposium committee, I recognize that my complaints this morning are in fact self-recriminations. Whether you or I like it or not, and I for one definitely don’t like it, the truth is that we can’t shy away from a discussion of the challenge of homosexuality. Like so many other issues down through the history of the church, the conversation has been chosen for us—forced on us by the surrounding culture. It was suggested, during one of our committee meetings in preparation for this symposium, that it would be better if we could find some way to title this gathering that would put the church on the leading edge of setting the agenda rather than following our typical pattern of responding. The words eluded us, however, and we ended up with, “The Challenge of Homosexuality—The Church Responds.” Indeed, it does…and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Emergency crews can’t respond until the

Dr. Joel D. Biermann is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO. This article was presented at the Theo- logical Symposium on Culture’s Normalization of Homosexuality, Concordia Seminary, September 21-22, 2004.

248 emergency has occurred, and parents can’t intervene until the siblings have actually begun to a squabble. As much as we might like to choose our topics and be proactive, and there are certainly times for such activity, there are also occasions when the church needs to pay attention to the world around her, speak to the crises, and respond with emergency inter- vention. So today, we respond to the challenge of homosexuality. And, it seems to me, that at least on a congregational level simply to manage that much is no small feat. Today, we deal with what we’ve got. And what we’ve got is a culture making gods of tolerance and acceptance, a church ever anxious to be nice and reluctant to offend, a Scripture that speaks un- equivocally to the topic, and Christian people thoroughly bewildered about what to think much less what to say. We need to respond. A decent response needs to be directed by decent criteria for sorting out the issues and the ideas that swirl in and through a congregation. Good Christian people know many good things: they are to show kindness to everyone, stand on God’s truth against the evil of the world, demonstrate unconditional acceptance of the unlovely, rebuke error, love sinners, hate sin, express the love of Jesus to the outcast, announce the judgment of God, and do all of this all at once. So why are they confused? Most of you won’t be surprised by my suggestion that the best way to cut through the confusion is to apply the criterion or the paradigm of the two kinds of righteousness. God has a clear, unchanging will for His creation, including the crown of His creation. In the world of human interaction (coram hominibus), this will guides, protects, rewards, and yes even de- lights us. But, in the other realm, when we consider the presence of God the Creator, that same divine will looms over us with its unflinching exac- titude and threats. Before God (coram deo), His will always crushes, destroys, and kills us. All of this, of course is the necessary prelude to the glorious last word—the Jesus-word of forgiveness, promise, and eternal acceptance. Proclaiming righteousness coram deo is task number one for the church. It is not, however, the only task. As a number of observant scholars have pointed out, the church, at least the Protestant church and Lutherans in particular, have a tendency to be so awed by the coram deo good news of justification and grace that the necessary reality of maintaining God’s will, that is the Law, in coram hominibus relationships is at times neglected or altogether rejected.1 With regard to the homosexual question, then, it is imperative that we in the church remember that God has a clear word on

1 Cf. Robert Benne in Karen L. Bloomquist and John R. Stumme, eds. The Promise of Lutheran Ethics (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998); Reinhard Hütter, “(Re-)Forming Free- dom: Reflections ‘After Veritatis Splendor’ on Freedom’s Fate in Modernity and Protestantism’s Antinomian Captivity,” Modern Theology 17 (April 2001): 117-161. Gil- bert Meilaender, “Reclaiming the Quest for Holiness,” Lutheran Quarterly 13 (Winter 1999): 483-492; and David S. Yeago, “Gnosticism, Antinomianism, and Reformation The- ology: Reflections on the Costs of a Construal,” Pro Ecclesia 2 (Winter 1993): 37-49.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 249 this issue. And, it needs to be emphasized, this is not some arbitrary, pe- ripheral, or provisional word. God’s will on this topic stands at the heart of the universe itself. And before you dismiss that claim as grossly exaggerated, remember that God’s will is built into the very design of the creation. As Richard Hays has carefully and convincingly demonstrated, Paul singles out the sin of homosexuality in his letter to the Romans specifically because it is powerfully and perfectly representative of man’s determined rebellion against the Creator’s design and will.2 The acceptance and the practice of homosexual behavior is Paul’s poster child for man’s inability and outright refusal to follow God’s Law. It is neither accidental nor arbitrary that, in Romans, homosexuality is portrayed as the sin par excellence. As Hays puts it,

Paul singles out homosexual intercourse for special attention because he regards it as providing a particularly graphic image of the way in which human falleness distorts God’s created order. God the creator made man and woman for each other, to cleave together, to be fruitful and multiply. When human beings engage in homosexual activity, they enact an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality: the rejection of the Creator’s design. They embody the spiritual condition of those who have “exchanged the truth about God for a lie.”3

It is an issue of God’s eternal design for His creation, and man’s rejection of that design. It is an issue of sin. Sin, though, is not an especially popular topic—not even in the church. Many of the same forces of Law/Gospel reductionism that lead Christian people into muddled confusion, lead them also into silence.4 In truth, the enthronement of the Law and Gospel paradigm as normative for all of doctrine and practice, and the attendant denigration of the place and value of coram hominibus righteousness has led to a host of congregational myths and half-truths that show no sign of waning in popularity. A brief consideration of a few of the more common is in order. “Love the sinner and hate the sin.” Half-truth. While it is true that people are precious creations of God and profoundly loved by Him in spite of their wickedness and sin, it is also true that in God’s eyes there is, finally, little distinction between sinners and the sin that make them sin-

2 Richard Hays, “Awaiting the Redemption of Our Bodies,” in Nancey Murphy, Brad J. Kallenberg, and Mark Thiessen Nation, eds., Virtues & Practice in the Christian Tra- dition: Christian Ethics after MacIntyre (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997), 206-214. 3 Ibid., 210 (emphasis in original). 4 For a helpful review of the rise and persistence of Law/Gospel reductionism, see Scott Murray, Law, Life, and the Living God: The Third Use of Law in Modern American Lutheranism (St. Louis: Concordia, 2002).

250 ners. Ultimately, not sin, but sinners are consigned to hell. The Gospel does not trump the reality and the application of the Law. Even in this realm, sinners bear the burden of the consequences of their sins. Yes, we love people while we hate sin, but the distinction between sin and sinner is perhaps more subtle or artificial than we realize. “All sin is the same.” Half-truth. Certainly, no sinner, and indeed no sin, lies beyond the pale of God’s grace of forgiveness, and coram deo the tiniest peccadillo and the most heinous of crimes against humanity all amount to the same thing—all are disobedience, all are equally sins, all equally condemn and damn. Nevertheless, in the coram hominibus realm, it is a different matter altogether. Adolf Köberle, as well as any wife, will tell you that there is a world of difference between a lustful look and an adulterous affair.5 In the realm of human relations, we know that some sins come with higher price tags than others do. “Who am I to judge?” Myth. This lie enjoys such widespread popularity, I suspect, because it allows human fear to cower behind a Gospel façade. Unwilling to confront what is against the will of the Creator, Christian people excuse their intentional inattention by appealing to their own personal failings, and the need to extend the Gospel to all. But, no sinner has ever been well served by a Christian who looked the other way. And the obligation to warn another before he walks into destruction is a task that falls to every one of us.6 Like it or not, the Law does still apply, and our work in the created realm must amount to more than merely “reaching out to people who feel bad,” as David Yeago puts it.7 Of course, there are many other pious half-truths and myths including, “You can’t legislate morality,” “It’s none of my business,” and “The church should stay out of people’s bedrooms.” Time constraints prevent detailed rebuttals for each of these misguided axioms, so here’s the bottom line response to each: “Yes, you can,” “Wrong, it is,” and “No, it shouldn’t,” in that order. You get the idea. A short-circuited view of the Law and a disregard for good old-fashioned human righteousness tempt too many Christians to adopt these notions as their directing truth. Couple this antinomian reality with the relentless mantra of the “autonomous self” which drones in the surrounding culture, and one can begin to understand why it is that the church and the church’s people have so often lost nerve and failed to speak about God’s will for His creation. People don’t like to be told that they are accountable to a standard imposed from outside, a standard that was established without their consultation or input. Nevertheless, the reality is that no person can ever begin to achieve genuine humanity—that is, conformity to the will of the Creator of humanity—

5 Adolf Köberle, The Quest for Holiness: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Investigation, trans. John C. Mattes (Harper & Brothers, 1938. Reprint, Evansville, IN: Ballast Press, 1998). 6 Ezek. 3:18-21; Gal. 6:1-2. 7 Yeago, 42.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 251 until that person is living the “truthful enactment of created existence.”8 Civil righteousness, righteousness within this created realm, demands that creatures live according to the will of the Creator. Conformity to God’s design is required. None of this is anything dramatically new or radically different, I suppose. Though many don’t, every Christian should know these things. Still, I can’t help noticing that in the last half dozen years or so, it seems that many of the Christians who should know better are having a harder time speaking up about such basic truths. Granted, I lack hard evidence, but I believe that an argument could be made that the social mood has shifted significantly in the last six years. Two events mark this period. In 1998, Ellen DeGeneres caused what was then reported as a stir by “coming out” on her sitcom. Since then, the entertainment industry appears to be head bent on normalizing the homosexual lifestyle. Actively homosexual char- acters now abound in prime time, many playing leading roles, and some even happily offering their universally acclaimed and revered fashion sense to the uncouth slobs of heterosexuality who lack their peculiar gift. The other significant event also played out in prime time—the oval office liaisons of the nation’s previous chief executive. When all was said and done and that sorry debacle was consigned to the vagaries of the histo- rians and social commentators, the conclusion of most ordinary citizens was that an individual’s sexual activities should never be subjected to public scrutiny or judgment. Sex had no public significance. What a person does with whomever he does it wherever and whenever he chooses to do it makes no difference so long as it’s all kept private. Do what you like, just keep it to yourself—the ultimate vindication of “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” So, if homosexuality is just a lifestyle choice, or better yet, if it’s just the way that a person is wired, and if sex is no one else’s business, then why in the world would any decent, reasonable, self-respecting individual stick his nose into someone else’s life and judge it? It’s un-American, it’s unloving, and it’s almost voyeuristic—small wonder that the church has lost its voice on the issue of homosexuality. Those committed to advancing the normalcy of a homosexual lifestyle have conducted a remarkably successful campaign—one that has been well documented in numerous surveys and studies. In the fall of 2003, the poll- ster, George Barna reported results of a survey on what behaviors people considered morally acceptable. For the sake of context, contemplate these statistics: 61% of all those surveyed considered gambling to be morally acceptable and 60% agreed that living with someone of the opposite sex without being married was morally acceptable. From the same sampling, 30% believed that having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex was morally acceptable. For those in the 18-38 age bracket, the number climbs to 40%. The most remarkable statistic, however, is noted in

8 Hütter, 119.

252 Barna’s commentary: “Compared to surveys we conducted just two years ago, significantly more adults are depicting such behaviors as morally acceptable.” Specifically, Barna notes “a 20% jump in people’s acceptance of ‘gay sex.’”9 It is important to remember that this survey was seeking to gauge people’s opinion on the moral acceptability of behaviors. In the previous survey when 25% of respondents agreed that a “sexual relationship with someone of the same gender is morally acceptable,” the number of those from the same survey sample who believed that “sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender should be legal,” jumped up to 48%.10 This seems to support the notion that whether it is moral or not, it’s no one else’s business. Statistics have their limits, of course. And Barna’s work does indicate that the church does still lag behind the surrounding culture in the acceptance of homosexual behavior. But, in a sense, that is beside the point, my concern is the increasing lack of response from the church on this issue. While the North American culture boldly marches forward into the dazzling bright and hopeful future of tolerance, understanding, and mutual acceptance, gleefully embracing the one truth that each person is free to be whatever they believe they were born to be, or want to be; the church stands by and watches with nary a murmur. In 1999, the LCMS Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals and Their Families released a study document with a title that mirrored their own moniker: “A Plan for Ministry to Homosexuals and Their Families.”11 The paper has many fine aspects and offers solid counsel for pastors and people in dealing with homosexuals. The document is particularly helpful in rightly distinguishing between individuals who identify themselves as homosexuals and the sexual behavior or activity described as homosexual. In other words, there is a difference between orientation and behavior. With homosexual individuals, then, we must address the first concern: their standing before God. Thus, killing Law and life-giving Gospel are the name of the game. That is the focus of the document, and it is fine—as far as it goes. What is lacking, or perhaps assumed in the document, however, is an explicit articulation of the need for the church to speak to the world and to its own membership a clear word on God’s will for the sexuality of human beings. Indeed, the document seems almost at pains to quiet the church’s reaction against homosexual behavior. After a detailed consideration of the oft-repeated and well-worn charge that Christians are homophobic, the document concludes, “The fact is that ‘homophobia’ is present in the

9 Cf. www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152 downloaded on August 25, 2004. 10 Ibid. 11 The Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals and Their Families, “A Plan for Min- istry to Homosexuals and Their Families.” St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1999.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 253 church. The concern is that we not be like the Pharisee who said, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men’ (Luke 18:11).”12 Fully acknowl- edging the perpetual temptation to self-righteousness that hounds us all, I am, nevertheless not persuaded that this is the real problem any more. The paper’s admission of homophobia within the church is based on the stated assumption that “Many Christian people will probably react strongly against homosexuals and/or their ‘acceptance’ in a congregation.”13 I’m unconvinced. Even if people may recoil at the perversity of homosexual activity and chafe at the imposition of the homosexual agenda, they have learned well in the last few years, indeed they have been forced to learn, that it is not their place to judge, much less speak up about the Law’s prohibition. And as the laity go, so go many of the clergy. Though the context is slightly different, Gilbert Meilaender offers an apt warning: “In our eagerness to be compassionate and evangelical, we cannot abdicate the prophetic task of witnessing to God’s creation and ordinance.”14 Yes, we must learn to receive all penitent sinners into the warm and genuine embrace of the church that celebrates real grace for real sinners.15 And those whose peculiar temptation for twisting God’s will is an attraction for the same sex should not be singled out for special disgust or lukewarm acceptance. True as that is, the church also must not neglect its obligation to the rest of the created realm. The church, and that means the local congregation, must stand for God’s design and His clearly revealed will. The church needs to declare to the world that homosexuality is against the will of the Creator. It is not the way God intended it to be. And, I would be so bold as to insist that this message needs first to be reiterated within the church itself. The church’s people, especially its young people, are enduring intentional and systematic indoctrination by an ar- ray of powerful forces in the world around them. Those they respect and admire on film, on TV, in their music, and in their classrooms, are teaching them that homosexuality is simply another option, another reality of how people are, and therefore a lifestyle to be accepted, considered, ex- plored, and for 10% happily adopted. Citing research that, as usual, con- firms what many of us already know, Marva Dawn observes, “many persons in our culture become convinced that they are homosexual because the sociological category is so prevalent and openly affirmed.”16 “Lifestyle option” is the doctrine of the culture and it is being pressed on every one of

12 Ibid., 13. 13 Ibid., 12. 14 Gilbert Meilaender, “The Venture of Marriage,” in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, The Two Cities of God: The Church’s Responsibility for the Earthly City (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 128. 15 Cf. Luther’s admonition to Melanchthon in Luther’s Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. American Edition, 56 vols. (St. Louis and Philadelphia: Concordia and Fortress, 1958-1986), 48:277-282. 16 Marva Dawn, Sexual Character: Beyond Technique to Intimacy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 106.

254 us with a vengeance. The church needs to be as aggressive about teaching God’s will and direction for human living. A church that demurs in polite silence is offering its tacit approval of the activist homosexual agenda, regardless of what the Synod’s “Little Blue” commentary on the Small Catechism might have to say about it. We are not here to help people discover the way they feel they would like to live. We are not here to help people to get in touch with the person they want to be. We are not here to affirm a plethora of alternate lifestyles. We are here to proclaim and to practice God’s lifestyle. Stanley Hauerwas has said, “I want to be part of a community with the habits and practices that will make me do what I would otherwise not choose to do and then to learn to like what I have been forced to do.”17 The church needs to be that kind of community. And the church needs to begin by finding its voice—a voice that will speak God’s will clearly and end the civil silence of misguided civility while also renouncing unlawful and un- christian censure and persecution of any person, including those who gleefully flaunt God’s design. People in the pews need to hear at least one voice that declares the will of God for His creatures, a voice that continues to call sin, sin. If the church should begin again to articulate the will of God for His creation and the absolute impossibility of a homosexual lifestyle ever finding a place within God’s design for His creation, it could then take up an even more pressing, albeit widely unrecognized problem: the demise of a truly Christian understanding of sex and marriage. With keen, though perhaps understated, insight, Robert Benne has raised the alarm:

It is time for the church to clarify its teachings on the meaning of Christian marriage and to educate its members in such a practice. The culture will certainly no longer do the church’s work. It seems to be going in the opposite direction. The church needs to wake up to the fact that its vision and practice of marriage are increasingly at odds with much of contemporary culture. Christians who want to marry within the Christian tradition will need far more teaching and training than those of an earlier era.18

But, does the church itself even know, any more, what its distinctive teaching about marriage is? Do Christian people actually understand that the Christian view of marriage is supposed to be at odds with the culture’s view? How can we, the church, educate our people if we are unclear about our own “vision and practice of marriage?” We assuredly cannot assume

17 Stanley Hauerwas, In Good Company: The Church as Polis (Notre Dame: Univer- sity of Notre Dame Press, 1995), 75. 18 Robert Benne, Ordinary Saints: An Introduction to the Christian Life. 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 134.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 255 that God’s intentions for marriage are safe and secure in the current practice of the church. The truth is that the church has enthusiastically welcomed the culture’s ideas about marriage—witness our virtual noncha- lance toward divorce, acceptance and tacit legitimating of cohabitation, and our enthusiastic endorsement of the notion that marriage is the union of two “soul mates.” Even a reputed Christian marriage counselor and author like Neil Clark Warren pedals his eharmony.com wares on the radio and television by promising to deliver his clients their ideal “soul mate.” The church’s people have hungrily devoured the romantic ideal that marriage is all about finding the perfect soul mate and the corresponding notion that marriage is at its core just two people who love each other. Confirmed by the jury of their hearts and the authority of their subjective experiences, Christians have decided that marriage is all about love and all about finding the one soul mate who can fulfill every dream. The insidious and virulent cancer at the core of this idea may not be readily apparent, but it doesn’t take much imagination to see the wonderful applications available to those intent on dismantling the Biblical account of marriage. If marriage is the union of two soul mates grounded in their mutual love, what is one to do when the soul mate changes, fails to change, or otherwise disappoints? If love is no longer experienced, the solution is obvious: get out of the marriage and try again. Your soul mate must still be out there somewhere, waiting to be found by you…waiting, most likely, at the other end of an eharmony.com personality profile. There is much to be lost with the adoption of the culture’s definitions and ideals of marriage. Gilbert Meilaender has served the church courageously as a faithful champion of the Creator’s account of marriage. He reminds us that according to Scripture, marriage has three purposes:

Marriage unites a man and a woman in a union of love. That uni- tive purpose is, by God’s grace, ordered also toward a procreative good—the begetting and rearing of children. But now we must add a third purpose: the institution of marriage exists to restrain sin.19

The vow of marriage, Meilaender goes on to explain, serves to “discipline and control our desires…. It sets us free from the wayward desires of the moment to keep the promise we once made from the very heart of our being. It frees us to be what we are truly meant to be—faithful lovers— even if at the moment that is not what we want to be.”20 Faithfulness, begetting children, restraining sin: these are the purposes of marriage, and the people of our churches, married and single alike, would profit profoundly if the church would again remember and declare this account of marriage.

19 Meilaender, “The Venture of Marriage,” 122. 20 Ibid.

256 As relevant and important as this point may be to the faithful walk of singles and the health and longevity of marriages in our churches, those are not the topics immediately at hand. Alas, we are assigned the dreary duty of dealing with a topic less pleasant than the narrative and ethos of marriage given us by the Creator. But, of course, the Biblical account of marriage and sexuality does have a great deal of relevance for our subject of meeting the challenge of homosexuality in our parishes. If the church forsakes the ancient story of marriage, and yields to the culture’s siren song about soul mates and relationships built on love, the church will inevitably find itself unable to offer any significant reason why homosexual relationships should not be welcomed and celebrated. Benne captures well the zeitgeist and its implications:

The gist of the revisionist argument contends that there really is no persisting, discernible, sexual identity tied to the obvious differences in biological form…. Thus, they counsel that love between persons be the sole criterion governing sexual relations. “All you need is love.” The “appropriate to form” qualification should be dropped, at least as it pertains to homosexual relations. Those relations are not disordered or imperfect, they are just different. There is less interest in dropping the qualification with regard to incest, pedophilia, and bestiality, although it is difficult to see why those barriers should not also fall, given the revisionist argument.21

If all you need is love, and if finding a soul mate is the key to getting marriage right, then what could possibly be wrong if the soul mate happens to be of the same sex…just so long as all involved really love each other. We in the church have much to lose if we allow the popular culture’s version to replace the Biblical account of marriage. Marriage is not about loving relationships or about the union of soul mates. Marriage is about faithfulness to God’s creative design for marriage, a design woven into the creation itself and explicitly confirmed in the Creator’s verbal revelation. Still, the culture’s portrait of committed, loving relationships of soul mates is tempting and harmonizes quite readily with the antinomianism so characteristic of our churches. In what has become something of a landmark essay pointedly and accurately diagnosing significant, crippling mala- dies of today’s church, Yeago lamented the “contemporary tender-minded rhetoric about all those ‘hurting people’ who need more than anything else to be liberated from all order and absolved of all expectations by the redemptive ‘inclusivity’ of the antinomian church.”22 It’s not nice to make people feel bad. It might drive them away from the church. Besides, isn’t the church supposed to be a Gospel place? What could be more indicative

21 Benne, Ordinary Saints, 153. 22 Yeago, 42.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 257 of the Gospel than the encouragement and blessing of relationships founded on love? Sadly, neither time nor my assigned topic allows me to pursue this antinomian dilemma more thoroughly. It’s sufficient for today, to point out the persistence with which our antinomian tendencies harass us and sub- due our faithful witness. Hauerwas lodges a similar complaint, though in a different context. In a 1991 interview he was asked, “As a Catholic growing up after Vatican II, I was under the impression that we should be more ecumenical and see the good in all faiths. What would you say about that?” Hauerwas:

I would say you were being corrupted. I’m absolutely serious about that. You were corrupted because what that did was put compassion in the place of the crucified Savior. The great enemy of the church today is not atheism but sentimentality; and there’s no deeper sentimentality than the presumption by Christians and nonbelievers alike that they should be able to have children without their children suffering for their convictions.23

Replacing the crucified Savior with compassion—it is a temptation, it is a practice, not unheard of even in good, solid, LCMS congregations. Senti- mentality has got to go, even the sentimentality of finding a soul mate, or affirming loving relationships. The church has been given its message. It must find the courage to remain faithful to that message. Please understand this is not a call for callous indifference. Nor is it an endorsement of a posture of stoic or dismissive judgment against what is sin. Certainly, people need to hear the Gospel, and people need to know that the crucified Savior was crucified for them. But, let’s not forget that He was indeed crucified. And let’s not forget that sin is never cheap. God’s design, wired into the creation itself, is a good and wonderful design. And it is normative until the eschaton. We cannot forget to proclaim that as well. To stand on the Creator’s design for His people, and boldly to teach that design to believers and nonbelievers alike, is part of the task of the church; and that task must be practiced above all in the parish. Such faithfulness to the Creator’s intentions for His people does not negate the attendant proclamation of the Gospel. Indeed, it enhances it. In the dazzling light of the Creator’s design, we are all revealed to be hopelessly less than we should be, and in desperate need of the Gospel—the Gospel that God is eager to deliver. To shun the declaration of the design and to surrender to the hyperglycemic stupor of sentimentality is to blunt the very Gospel we crave. I believe that Marva Dawn offers a compelling example of the powerful message the church can have when it stands on God’s design and

23 Stanley Hauerwas, The Hauerwas Reader. Ed. John Berkman and Michael Cartwright. (Durham: Duke University Press, 2001), 526.

258 from that stance declares the Gospel. She writes:

Most of our suffering comes to us against our will, and then it is up to us to decide how to respond to it. I can wallow in my physical limitations and throw pity parties, or I can “seize the day” and use whatever is left to serve God’s purposes. Those who are homosexual suffer greatly because their desires do not match God’s design for sexuality. They have the choice to rebel against their Cre- ator (who is not to blame for their orientation—his creation design is clearly for male/female unions) or to submit to his will for their sexual celibacy. It is not too great a suffering to ask of homosexuals that they remain celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of God. All of us have to bear certain sufferings in this broken and sinful world. And the grace of God makes them all bearable, whether they are physical, sexual, or other…. All of us are sinners worthy of God’s judgment and yet receiving grace instead through Jesus Christ.24

A church that can declare a message like that is faithful both to the design of the Creator and to His Gospel. A church like that can make a difference in the lives of people. Whether we like it or not, we’ve got to deal with what we’ve got. What we’ve got is a horrifically perverse world deluded into thinking itself won- derfully bright, sophisticated, and accepting. What we’ve got is a challenge. Still, what we’ve got is not all bad. We’ve also got a clear word of direction from the Creator, a word that is as relevant today as it has ever been. What we’ve got is a Gospel that confounds every human imagination and reaches every broken sinner. What we’ve got is a God who is eager, always, to deliver that Gospel today in His church. The only question that remains is about the churches themselves. Do we have churches ready to be faithful witnesses to the Creator’s will? God hasten the day.

24 Dawn, 109.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 259 Where Is the Holy Family Today?: Marriage a Holy Covenant before God— The Biblical Role of Man and Woman

Louis A. Brighton

Introduction

According to Genesis 2:16-24, the Biblical definition and view of the relationship and role of man and woman began with the ordinance of marriage. And, since marriage was of divine origin and not an evolutionary discovery of man, the estate of marriage, then, is the basic parameter by which the Bible describes the relationship between a man and a woman. As is stated in Genesis 2:18-23, man (Adam) was created first and then the woman (Eve) for the purpose of being a suitable helpmate for him (cf. 1 Tim. 2:13; 1 Cor. 11:8). And as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11:9, man was not created on account of woman, but woman on account of man. Never- theless, both man and woman were to be mutual companions, each cling- ing to the other since each was a specific creation of God for a stated purpose. As they were thus united in marriage by God, they were so inti- mately joined together they became “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; cf. Mark 10:9). The godly creation of marriage was not only for their mutual benefit in this relationship, but also for the purpose under God’s creative power and blessing to have children, and thus populate the earth (Gen. 1:27-28). Marriage is thus the basis for all earthly life of the human race. In particular, it is necessary for the well-being of human life, the rearing of children, as well as being caretakers of the earth itself—animal and plant life (Gen. 1:28-31). But especially now in the present human condition, marriage is a godly and important institution and experience by which God in His grace illustrates for the benefit of all people His enduring love and care of His church on earth (cf. Eph. 5:21-33). The importance of marriage for the stability and care of the human race cannot be stressed enough. All other institutions as they are engaged within human society are such for the purpose of upholding and defending the estate of marriage (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). For the enduring well-being of mankind, it is of the greatest importance that marriage be encouraged and protected against all adversi- ties. Since the entrance of sin (Gen. 3:1-19), marriage has been terribly polluted by the sinful nature of mankind. As a result, this holy estate is in turmoil, so much so that it is in danger of being relegated to the sinful whim of the desires of the selfish nature of human decadence. Not only is

Dr. Louis A. Brighton is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO.

260 this evident in the high rate of divorce, but also in the increasing condition of no longer recognizing marriage between a man and a woman as the norm for public life. To the extent that this is happening, the role of man and woman is being distorted so that what is commanded by God in the Bible, and by nature itself and its natural law,1 is no longer being upheld and honored. The result of not recognizing marriage as a divine ordinance and gift of God, and the attending prescribed role of man and woman as outlined in the Bible, not only has dire consequences for the well-being of secular human life, but it also impacts the Christian view and practice of this holy estate. Does the world’s idea of marriage influence the Christian norm of marriage? And if it is in danger of doing so, and thus changes the Christian ideal of marriage, how does the worldly temptation of the secular view of marriage as it influences the Biblical teaching concerning it as practiced by Christians relate to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Does the Biblical role of man and woman as it is honored or denied have an intimate relationship to the true faith and sanctified life motivated by the Gospel?

The Holy Family: The Model for Every Christian Marriage

Of all the families mentioned in the Bible which can be presented as models to be emulated,2 perhaps the one that could best be held up as such a model and example for a Christian marriage today is that of the holy family—Joseph and Mary and the Christ Child. Perhaps Paul had this example in mind, without actually mentioning Joseph and Mary, when he encourages Christian wives to be submissive to their husbands. Then Paul makes a rather interesting statement, “And she (the wife who subjects herself to her husband) will be saved through childbearing, if she should remain in the faith and love and holiness of life” (1 Tim. 2:12-15). Certainly Mary would be a supreme example and model of such a believing wife, for she by obedience to the angel Gabriel’s message exhibited a faith which received and participated in the birth of the Christ Child, and thus by such a “faith and love and holiness of life” pointed to the saving work of her Son (Luke 1:26-38). Is Paul then saying that a Christian wife who gives birth to a child exhibits a similar faith when she trusts that God will bless both her and her child and thus, by such a trust, shows forth her faith in the Christ

1 In Romans 1:18-32 Paul describes the terrifying results when people neglect and deny the natural law and knowledge of God. One of the results is the shameful reversal of the proper relationship between the male and female genders (vv. 24-27). 2 Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 11:27-31; 18:10-14; 21:1-7; Heb. 11:11-12; 1 Pet. 3:5-6); Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 24:1-66); Jacob and Leah and Rachel (Gen. 29:14-30); Boaz and Ruth (Ruth 4:1-13); Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:5-25, 39-45, 57-66) are examples.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 261 as her Savior? Does the birth of a child of a Christian wife remind her, and her husband, of the birth of the Christ Child; and by such a remembrance does she dedicate her newborn child to the Christ, her Savior? By such a faith does she and her child become a picture that points others to the Christ Child as the only Savior of the world? All this may be, however, Mary could be held forth as a godly model for a Christian wife and mother today. And Joseph, under whom Mary was sheltered for protection and care, can also be held forth as a model for all godly husbands and fathers. For, as recorded in Matthew 1:18-25, he did not hesitate to take unto himself Mary as his wife when instructed to do so by an angel of the Lord. Joseph, acting contrary to all human standards and selfishness, even against his own sense of righteousness, obeyed the word of God and in faith became the husband of Mary and the godly and legal protector of the Christ Child. Certainly Joseph can be displayed as a model for all Christian husbands and fathers as they also, in faith, act not according to godless human aspi- rations, but according to God’s Word. And thus unselfishly and out of godly love they protect and care for their wives and children. In Revelation chapter twelve, we have a beautiful pictorial vision of how much God honors the woman in her role as the mother of a child. “With the exception of Jesus Christ, no human being in the entire Bible is so clothed and glorified as this woman”3 —clothed with the sun and with the moon under her feet and bearing a crown of twelve stars (v. 1).4 Be- cause the child of the woman is the Christ Child, Mary is the model after which the woman of Revelation 12 is patterned.5 The woman herself is a symbol and picture of God’s people here on earth and thus represents the church as the bride of Christ.6 Thus Mary in a representative fashion can be held forth as a model and example for all Christian wives and mothers. As they follow her example, they are encouraged to recognize the responsibility and honor that God in Christ places upon them as they fulfill their roles as wives and mothers. While there is no picture in the Bible that illustrates how Joseph is

3 Brighton, Revelation (St. Louis: Concordia, 1999), 327. 4 The sun symbolizes the glory and brilliance of Christ by which the woman is clothed and thus points out how much God honors her (cf. Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:16). The moon under her feet suggests that in her godly appointed role as the mother of the child she domi- nates earthly life “as she carries out her mission given by God” (Brighton, Revelation, 326). The crown of twelve stars illustrates that she represents the people of God on earth (ct. Brighton, 326-327). 5 “The ‘male Child’ is clearly identified as the One who would ‘shepherd all the nations with an iron rod.’ In Psalm 2 the ‘Anointed One’…who is declared to be his (God’s) ‘Son’ (vv. 2 and 7), will rule over all other kings and over all the peoples of the earth (vv. 1-2, 8, 10). He will reign with an ‘iron rod’…” (Brighton, 330). 6 The woman represents both the Old Testament faithful people of God, and then, after the birth of the child and His ascension to the throne of God in heaven (Rev. 12:5), she represents the New Testament people, the church. See Brighton, 327-328.

262 held forth as a model for Christian husbands and fathers, nevertheless, by association such a picture may possibly be sketched. In John 10:11-14, Jesus speaks of Himself as the Good Shepherd who tends His sheep and cares for them by laying down His life for them. In John 21:15-17, the risen Lord Christ instructs Peter to feed and care for His sheep. Peter was very conscious of this obligation and calling as he encourages other men in the ministry to shepherd the flock of God (1 Pet. 5:1-2). He was also well aware of his own stewardship under the chief Shepherd as he, Peter, fed the sheep of Christ with the Word of God, even unto death (2 Pet. 1:12-15; cf. John 21:18-19). In a very personal way, John, the beloved disciple, took care of the Mother of our Lord, a commission he received from Jesus as He was dying on the cross (John 19:26-27). This commission to John suggests that Joseph, who would have cared for Mary, was no longer alive on earth to do so. From all this mentioned above, one may be able to sketch and depict how Joseph, while he was alive, shepherded Mary and the Christ Child, caring for her so that she could carry out the holy function of bearing and nursing the holy Child. Thus Joseph can be held forth as a model and example for all Christian husbands as they care for and protect and honor their wives. For Joseph, under God’s gracious motivation, certainly would have shepherded Mary and the Child as Peter and John were so commissioned by their Lord to care for God’s sheep. As we thus look to the holy family for guidance and inspiration for Christian marriage today and if we were permitted to ask the question, “Who was the more important, Joseph or Mary,” how would we answer? Perhaps the question would better be phrased, “Whom would Joseph have said was more important, himself or Mary?” Or whom would Mary have said? Before God, of course, both were important but with different roles that complemented each other. Roles not of their own choosing, but of God’s gracious love and ordinance towards them. But whose role was more important, if it is even proper to ask this question?

Marriage: A Covenant and a Mystery

The holy ordinance of marriage is a covenant created by God in which the man and woman are pledged to live in faithfulness to each other under God’s gracious care and blessing. Though man, Adam, was created first, and the woman, Eve, afterwards as a suitable helpmate (Gen. 2:18-24; 1 Tim. 2:13), both were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). As a beautiful part of this covenant, they were to have children and thus populate the earth (Gen. 1:28). Before God, marriage is a covenant in which the man and the woman become one flesh and thus are united, and in such a union they pledge before God to remain in this oneness (Gen. 2:27-28; Mark 10:6-9). God Himself, through the prophet Malachi (2:14-15), calls marriage a covenant because He made man and woman to be one, and in this blessed union in both spirit and flesh they belong to Him.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 263 In Ephesians 5:31-32, Paul, in referring to man and woman being one flesh, calls this oneness a great mystery. But immediately he says that he is speaking about Christ and the church. Paul seems to see the mystery of the oneness of man and woman in marriage as a living picture of the greater mystery of the oneness of Christ and the church. This thought of the oneness between Christ and the church is in keeping with the fact that oftentimes in the Bible God’s people are referred to as His bride. In Isaiah 54:1-8, the prophet declares that God their creator is their husband (v. 5). In Jeremiah 3:14-15, God urges His people to come back to Him because He is their husband. In Hosea 2:16-20, God declares that He will betroth His people to Himself in righteousness, love, and compassion. And in Rev- elation 19:5-10, in a vision of the coming of Christ at the End, we have a beautiful picture of the Lord Christ receiving His people as His bride in the marriage feast of the Lamb (cf. Matt. 22:1-14). Thus, the oneness of husbands and wives which God created in the holy covenant of marriage is a mystery which God uses to illustrate His saving covenant in Christ with His people. This covenant is one that God in His grace in Christ makes with His people and thus makes them to be one with His Son Jesus Christ. A Christian marriage is then to illustrate this oneness between Christ and the church. But how are we to understand that this mystery of the husband and wife in marriage is used by God as an icon of the mystery of the oneness between Christ and the church His bride? And how does it come about in the daily lives of a husband and wife? In Ephesians 5:21-33, Paul presents a beautiful description as to how husbands and wives in the estate of marriage are to be a picture of the relationship between Christ and His people, the church. Husbands are to be icons of Christ and His love for the church. To be such, they are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. In this love of Christ by which He gave Himself to the church in order to sanctify it, so husbands as icons and living examples of Christ’s love for the church are to give themselves to their wives in order to care for them and nourish them in the giving and sacrificial love of Christ (vv. 25-26). And the wives are to be icons of the church as she subjects herself to Christ and takes shelter under His love. Wives become such icons and living examples of the church’s subjection to the Lord Christ as they place themselves under the loving care and protection of their husbands, and thus exhibit a godly response to the love of Christ, and by such a witness encourage others to subject themselves to Christ as their Savior.7 This ideal of a Christian marriage as an experiential picture of the oneness of Christ and His church points to the important roles that God in

7 In 1 Peter 3:6-7 wives are instructed to obey (u`pakou,w) their husbands and to respond to their love and care as Sarah did to Abraham, which subjection she demonstrated by calling Abraham, her husband, her lord (cf. Titus 2:13-15).

264 His grace would give to the husband and the wife. It certainly suggests that a Christian marriage is to be not only an earthly blessing of God for the well-being of the human race—as even a non-Christian marriage can be—but also to be an illustration of God’s covenant in Christ which could attract people to come to the love of God held out to them in the Gospel of His Son Jesus Christ.

The Holy Family

In the Bible, the marriage of Joseph and Mary is certainly the supreme example of such a holy marriage by which God demonstrated His love for the human race through the Christ Child. It was of course through the Christ alone that God earned salvation for all people. But God motivated and used the faith and obedience of Joseph and Mary, which they had in the promises of God, to bring about the promised salvation in the Mes- siah (Is. 7:14; Micah 5:2; Matt.1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38; 2:1-7). God used as well their love and care for each other by which they demonstrated what it meant to have the Christ in the bosom of their relationship with each other and towards God Himself (cf. Matt. 2:13-15,19-23; Luke 2:41-52; John 2:1-5). Christian husbands today can find no better role model than Joseph as an example of how to love and care for their wives as they, under God’s blessing, bear a child. The husband, as Joseph was to Mary, is to be an icon of God’s care and protection, and then, especially, an icon and reminder of Christ in His service as husband to His beloved bride. As Christ is the loving head of His church, so the husband is to be the loving head of his wife (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3) for the purpose of always caring for her and protecting her as Christ does the church (cf. Eph. 5:21-33). And while in this headship the husband is the earthly lord of his wife (cf. 1 Peter 3:6), it is a lordship by which he serves his wife for the benefit of her well-being as well as that of her child. For as the Lord Christ in His earthly life and ministry exer- cised His lordship over His followers not for the purpose of their serving Him, but that He should serve them “by giving His life as a redemptive price” (lu,tron) for their salvation and eternal well-being (Mark 10:45; cf. 1 Tim. 2:5-6), so husbands are thus to give their lives in service to their wives for their nourishment, care and safety, and well-being in the love of Christ. To carry out this serving headship and lordship as Joseph did, the husband is to be a spiritual head and shepherd of his wife and family as Christ is to the church (cf. 1 Pet. 3:7; Eph. 5:25; Col. 3:18-21). In exercising their serving headship Christian husbands are to be role models of sacrificial love towards their wives, a love which would even move them to die for their wives and their families (cf. John 15:12-13; 1 John 3:16). And as such the husband will be a picture to his wife of Christ giving His life as the good shepherd (John 10:11). Finally, the husband, as he emulates Christ and His cross in loving and protecting care for his wife, will be a role model

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 265 for all as he, in the attitude of humbleness, denies himself for the sake of his wife and thus carries his cross after Jesus his Lord. Christian wives will also discover no better role model than Mary as they strive to be that type of a woman that God instructs them to be. As the husband cares for his wife and thus is an icon of Christ caring for the church, so the wife, as she nestles under the protective love and care of her husband, becomes an icon as to how the church shelters her members under the love and care of Christ. Joseph’s attention was centered on Mary as she cared for the Christ Child. And thus Mary could give her own attention to the child, for she knew that her husband would protect her and care for her so that in firm confidence of such love of Joseph she could nourish the child. With this in mind, Paul could urge all Christian wives to be subject to their husbands’ love and care as the church is subject to Christ so that the wives could care for the children of their own bosom, devoting themselves to such care, because they knew in firm trust that their husbands would never remove from them their sheltering love and care—as also the church cares for people as she serves them in the Gospel in the confidence that Christ will never leave her (Eph. 5:24-28; 1 Tim. 2:9- 15). The Christian wife then becomes a role model of motherhood after the example of Mary the mother of Jesus (cf. Titus 2:3-5). As she carries out this godly motherhood under the protective love and care of her husband, she becomes an example for all women to share the Gospel of Christ with others as Mary did (Luke 1:39-55; John 2:5; cf. Luke 24:1-12). The wife then also becomes a model of Christian piety and guidance of others (2 Tim. 1:5), an example of a counselor to her husband and to other men in authority (Prov. 31:10-31; Rom. 16:1-3),8 and a guiding example to be emulated by young women and mothers (Titus 2:4-5). Last to mention but not the least, such a godly woman and wife becomes a loving and touching picture of Jesus shedding tears, before Lazarus’ grave (John 1:28-37) and over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44), as she weeps over her own children and over the children of others (Jer. 31:15; Luke 23:27-31). In the shedding of such tears she does so in the firm confidence of God’s love in Christ that all such tears will be wiped away in the glory of God’s promise of eternal life (Jer. 31:15-17; Rev. 7:13-17; 21:3-4; cf. Is. 25:6-8). Marriage as defined in the Bible, and the respective roles of man and woman, is then a holy covenant created by God. Man and woman enter into this holy estate when, as they kneel before God, they promise fidelity to each other and thus ratify this covenant given to them by their Lord. Such a marriage is for the benefit and blessing of the entire human race (Gen. 1:26-31; 2:19-24; cf. Mal. 2:14-15). When this Biblical prescription of marriage is ignored and at times even refuted, all manner of suffering and

8 In Romans 16:1-3 Paul thankfully commends to all the wonderful example of Phoebe of such a godly helper—cf. Romans 16:3-5 where Paul also commends Priscilla the wife of Aquila.

266 chaos results. For this reason God forbids adultery and divorce (Matt. 5:31- 32; Mark 10:9; Rom. 7:2; cf. Jer. 3:1). A Christian marriage, in addition to being a blessing and a picture of such a Biblically prescribed relationship as an example for others to emulate, is also an icon that illustrates and points to the love of God through Christ for all mankind. For God uses it as a picture of the Lord Christ and His bride, the church, as she responds to that love of her Lord, her Hus- band (Is. 5:1-8; Hos. 2:16-20; Matt. 22:1-14; Rev. 19:6-8). In particular, as the husband and wife relate to each other, they are to encourage one another in the love of Christ as each helps the other in faithfulness and forgiveness to remain faithful to Christ their Lord. Today, such a holy family is needed in our decadent society! The holy family of Joseph and Mary and the Christ Child was for the salvation of the entire human race. So today Christian families emulate the holy family of Joseph and Mary as they collectively and individually proclaim the blessed Gospel of Christ’s salvation within the manner in which the husband loves his wife as Christ loves the church and as the wife submits herself to the husband as the church does to Christ. As the holy family of Joseph and Mary were persecuted because of the Christ Child (Matt. 2:13-23; cf. Luke 2:33-35), so also today holy Christian families will be held up as objects of ridicule and at times even persecuted because of their adherence to the Lord Christ. However, just as God res- cued and protected the holy family so that it could carry out its God-given task, so today Christian families will be blessed and protected by God’s holy ordinance for the sake of their witness to and their illustrative example of Christ’s love for all people, all for the glory of God’s grace. In the structure of a holy family, who is the more important, the man or the woman? Is it even legitimate to ask such a question? It is, but only if we relate it to Jesus Christ and His bride, the church. The fact that the Lord Jesus in His earthly life had come not to be served but to serve by giving His life for His bride certainly suggests that He put His followers first before Himself, even at the expense of His own life. Does this suggest that Joseph and every godly husband put their wives first even before their own well-being if necessary to defend their beloved wives as they both serve their Lord in their particular roles within marriage? And Mary, whom did she put first in her daily life? Would it not be the Christ Child, knowing that she could not do this unless she put Joseph first as her earthly Lord and protector and guardian under the gracious love and providence of God? So also should this not be the attitude of all Christian wives and mothers today? Having said this, who is going to suggest who is the more important, the man or the woman, in the holy estate of marriage? For both have God-given complementary roles to act out according to God’s gracious desire and plan. And each is important before the heavenly Fa- ther as He in the Lord Christ enfolds each holy family in His grace and love. Where is the holy family today? It is wherever the Good Shepherd,

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 267 the Lord Christ, blesses each Christian family in the common faith through His word and Sacraments and in the striving toward God’s ideal of the holy estate of marriage.

268 Theological Potpourri

On Preaching Theology

John Frederick Johnson

What relationship exists between theology and preaching? Are they really correlative terms? Or are they best left disparate? To achieve its intended goal theology must be explicated. And preaching will never be truly Christian if divorced from sound Biblical theology. In a sense, preaching theology is tautological. Yet a cleavage between the two is perennially apparent. Some contend that if they are conjoined the pulpit will atrophy. Proclamation will inevitably turn into unctuous oratory droned sonorously over the heads of droop- ing and fast emptying congregations. There is, of course, some truth to that. When preaching reflects theology which is no longer Biblically dog- matic, it becomes stratospheric. The preacher who attempts to explicate it ends up somewhere on cloud nine. Preaching becomes blanched and evis- cerated. It fails to quicken the heart and stir the spirit. The two-edged sword is too dull to cut through pride and indifference. Its pierce cannot awaken the slumbering. It can spread the butter, but cannot cut the meat. Theology which centers in cultic folderol, psychological popularity, senti- mental moralism, or bourgeoisie respectability, with a few Biblical senti- ments and maxims thrown in, can hardly produce serious proclamation. One’s definition of theology often determines one’s concept of preaching. Strong, vertebrate theology produces strong, vigorous proclamation. For the note of authority is there. Much preaching, to cite Bultmann, is an interpretation of nothing. Gustav Aulen reminds us that systematic theology has as its object analytical clarification. Its purpose is not to furnish proofs, but to provide the speech of faith. Most agree that Paul would have received A’s in both homiletics and dogmatics. His theology and preaching centered in one core affirmation: We preach Christ Jesus the Lord (2 Cor. 4:5). Sound preaching is always Christological in character and essence. The kerygma, the message of the redemptive invasion of time and history by the Theanthropos, gave the church its existence and power. This kind of theology is not a collection of doctrines, one of which happens to be redemption. Ours must ever be theologia crucis. Any other kind of proclamatory witness might be an exhibit of polished oratory and moving rhetoric. It will not be Christian preaching.

Dr. John Frederick Johnson is a consultant of continuing education in Gulfport, FL.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 269 I.

Christian proclamation is a witness to incarnational theology. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:18ff.). The eternal Logos assumed our human nature in the womb of the Virgin. The core of Christian theology and preaching is not mythology or a set of timeless ideas. It is the recounting of events which occurred in our history. Preach- ing Christ, moreover, does not mean selecting certain principles, policies, and precepts for which He stands and then asking people to try desper- ately hard to follow them. Paul preached Christ—not about Christ. God became incarnate in Jesus in order to redeem a humanly estranged and irreconcilable humanity. The ministry of reconciliation is the ministry of the cross. Theology goes beyond the manger to Calvary (and the open tomb). Preaching theology is to present God in saving action. In his commentary on Romans the Neo-orthodox Karl Barth reminds us that Jesus moves to the cross and to death on that cross. He is not primarily hero, leader, poet, or thinker. He stands as sinner among all sinners. The cross became the symbol of our redemption. In its brightly shining light we see human infamy, cruelty, obstinance. We see humanity as ingrate, nailing to the beams its healer and helper. We behold humanity as incorrigible. But in the cross we see God in His holiness and compassion. We catch a glimpse of the wisdom of God who did not stop the sad spectacle of crucifixion, but allowed His Son to touch the very brink of despair. In His hands the cross breaks down enmity, strikes loose spiritual chains, sets hopeless captives free. The cross declares that God-incarnate became divine substitute to offer forgiveness, peace, and life. Neither the wood nor the nails which affixed Jesus to it are important. It is the event. We say that Christ was put to death, not that nails were driven through His hands! Again, that is theologia crucis, the theology that quickens the dead spirit, creates, and nourishes faith, and in- spires to God-pleasing sanctification of life. Apart from this kind of theology preaching becomes nothing but tinkling cymbals and brass horns. In words bequeathed by Luther in that curious mix of Latin and German found in the Tischreden: Remissio peccatorum soll dich froehlich machen. Hoc est caput doctrinae christianae, et tamen periculosissima praedictio. (Forgiveness of sins should make you joyous. It is the head of Christian doctrine, yet most difficult to preach). This is the power and ministry of reconciliation committed to us by Christ. We used to build cruciform churches. We must build out of reconciled sinners spiritual temples of the Holy Spirit which glorify the God of redemption. This is accomplished by a truly cruciform ministry.

270 II.

Preaching theology correctly understood is to proclaim the victory and triumph of resurrection. Christus Victor! The Lamb of eternal sacrifice is the ever-living Priest. Resurrection makes the church what it is. It offers hope to a dying world and victory beyond death. It validates the Gospel of redemption and reconciliation. Easter means that we do not linger at the foot of the cross. It propels faithful witnesses to reecho the words of Dorothy Sayers: There is only one event that has ever really happened, and that is the resurrection of Christ. Everything else is secondary! Paul told the philosophers of Athens, that cradle of ancient wisdom and learning, that he preached Jesus and the resurrection. That is always the decisive word of faith. God raised Jesus from the grave! God did not redeem human nature simply by assuming it. Jesus was put to death for sins and raised for our justification. It has been aptly stated that because of the resurrection Christ is a living reality, saving faith is a living reality, forgiveness of sins is a living reality, the new life in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit is a living reality, our triumph over the grave is a living reality! With regard to the resurrection Adolph Harnack once commented: “Something happened. I do not know what, but it happened.” We know what happened. Resurrection is confirmation of faith, justification before God, sealing of hope, new existence, and pledge of life eternal. The ascension furthermore assures that the Theanthropos exercises sovereignty over all. Christ is present to His people as prophet, priest, king, and mediator. He confers upon preaching both strength and authority. The exalted Lord bestows gifts, foremost among which are believers endowed with His words and mission. The Christian herald preaches theology not as a voice crying out in the wilderness, but as one who knows the Lamb of victorious sacrifice. The church is a home in which the Word of God is heard (Luther). Christian preaching is republication of the message of Christ and His apostles. It comforts, equips, and builds up in faith, knowledge, and love.

III.

Preaching Christ Jesus the Lord calls for clear witness to the parousia, the ultimate consummation of triumph. “D-day has taken place; V-day is inevitable,” wrote Oscar Cullmann to an earlier generation. Some tainted brands of theology were never able to take parousia seriously. Boated and buoyed up by the overoptimistic tenor of their age they could not conceive of a world subjected to a Matthean or Petrine finale. Biblical eschatology was labeled a remnant of unenlightened Biblicism, disowned by the fact that the world is irrepressibly progressing toward ever higher vistas of human dignity, brotherhood, and sanctity.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 271 Other theologies chose to speak of eschaton on their own terms, convinced that parousia is merely a symbol for that which transcends the limits of the conceivable. The truly Christian theologian preaches a robust eschatology which witnesses the ultimate destiny of Christ’s redeeming work (1 Cor. 15:24). The end of the age is perceived neither in political maneuvering, nuclear fission, nor interplanetary flight, but in Christ’s sure and ultimate return to judge the living and the dead. A sense of urgency and mission claims the theology-preacher when speaking of any hour of cosmic history which could well be, to use Adolph Keller’s striking title, five minutes to twelve. Close to the time of death Luther exclaimed: God forbid that this world continue fifty years longer. Lord, cut matters short with your final judgment! John Calvin’s motto reflects it: Domine, quousque?

IV.

Positive, powerful preaching is always the pulpit’s pressing need. The lordship of Christ is too often obscured or couched in negative, even apolo- getic, contexts. The theology-centered pulpit points to the exalted Lord with whom this earthly colony known as the church moves to inevitable glory. One may retain all the propositions and analytical machinery of conceptual theology. If life in and through Christ is absent from it, those who preach are no more theologians than a corpse is a vital human being! (so J. Maritain). Be like Paul. Preach Christ Jesus the Lord!

272 Homiletical Helps on LW Series A —Gospels

Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost Matthew 14:22-33 August 7, 2005

Background information: This pericope and the one to follow both deal with faith in Jesus Christ, but from very different perspectives. In this week’s lesson, Peter, the disciple one would expect to respond with strong faith in Jesus Christ, exhibits doubt, begins to sink in the water, and is reprimanded by Jesus, “You of little faith…why did you doubt?” (v. 31). In contrast, next week’s pericope features an incredible demonstration of faith in Jesus Christ from an unlikely source, a Canaanite woman. In contrast to Peter’s reprimand from Jesus, the Canaanite woman is praised by Jesus: “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted” (Matt. 15:28). There is a temptation for the preacher to allegorize this text, ignoring its context and its meaning for the disciples and Matthew’s readers. In so doing, the preacher immediately jumps to the application of “keeping our eyes on Jesus in the midst of life’s storms,” or proclaims that this text demonstrates how “Jesus comes to us in the hour of trouble.” Jesus then becomes nothing more than a great cosmic helper who “calms the storms of life” if the hearer just has enough faith and stays focused on Jesus rather than life’s problems. Yet, there are plenty of times in life when the storms continue to rage and all is not well in the end (the job is still lost, the cancer is not eradicated). It is not a “theology of glory” that falsely presents Jesus Christ as the power to triumph over all difficulties in life that Lutheran pastors are called to proclaim. Instead, Lutheran pastors proclaim a theology of the cross that recognizes the ultimate purpose of Christ’s Incarnation and holds that in the midst of life’s most devastating storms, God accomplishes some of His greatest works of faith, resulting in eternal life. The preacher would do well to “keep his eyes on Jesus” in the midst of the sermon. As he does, he will preach a message that is consistent with Matthew’s emphasis in recording this miracle. Matthew writes to Greek-speaking Jews and wants to convince them that this Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and the long- awaited Messiah. Note well verse thirty-three, “Then those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’ ” This confession occurs only in Matthew’s account (not in Mark 6:45-51 nor John 6:15-21). It is the purpose behind this event in Matthew’s Gospel and should guide the preacher in his approach to the text. The Old Testament lesson assigned for this day, 1 Kings 19:9-18, contains the account of Yahweh’s sustaining of Elijah during a time of great despair. The Introit for the day contains the affirmation, “I sought the Lord, and he answered me; He delivered me from all my fears” (Ps. 34:4). In the same way, Jesus “compelled” His disciples onto the water (v. 22) where they were delivered from all of their fears, leading them to the ultimate confession of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. This “compelling” by Jesus, the storm that ensued, the invitation to Peter to “come” (v. 29), the reaching-out and catching of Peter (v. 31), the calming of the storm and the immediate transfer of the boat to its destination (John 6:21) are all intended to encourage and strengthen faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God—for Peter, for the

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 273 others in the boat, and for all who read this account. The “compelling” of the disciples into the boat by Jesus (Kai. euvqe,wj hvna,gkasen tou.j maqhta.j evmbh/nai eivj to. ploi/on) is further explained by John in that the people who had experienced the feeding of the five thousand men “intended to come and make him (Jesus) king by force (John 6:15). Jesus did not come to be a “bread king” for the people (another point against preaching this as “theology of glory”), and desired to leave the immediate area in order to pray. One can only wonder if His prayers included the disciples and what was about to take place on the water. The preacher would do well to set the scene for this miracle in order to depict how alone the disciples must have felt and how fear would be a natural reaction to what occurred. The “fourth watch” (v. 25) was roughly 3:00-6:00 a.m. The disciples were “in the middle of the lake” (Mark 6:47), or three to three and a half miles (John 6:19) away from the shore. The wind was blowing and buffeting the boat. Then, the disciples see of all things, a person walking on the water! They were terrified (notice only after they saw the person they mistook for a ghost). Yet, even after the assurance Jesus gives (“Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid!” [v. 27]), there is still doubt until the sustaining of Peter, which together with the calming of the winds finally brings the disciples to an obvious conclusion and confession. Suggested homiletical approach:

Goal: That the hearer may always live in faith that recognizes and confesses Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Malady: Doubt (wavering) concerning the true identity of Jesus produces fear. Means: God restores His doubting disciples and calms their fears.

From Wavering to Worshiping

I. Text. A. The disciples were “on the waves.” B. Peter’s (and the disciples’) faith “wavered.” C. Peter and the disciples “confessed.” D. Peter and the disciples “worshiped.” II. Application. A. Our faith “wavers” at times. B. Our recognition of Jesus is clarified by God. C. Our confession is the disciples’ confession. D. Our reaction is the disciples reaction (worship—daily). Glen D. Thomas

Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost Matthew 15:21-28 August 14, 2005

Background information: The pericope features faith in Jesus Christ that refuses to accept “no” for an answer. In contrast to the reprimand for lack of faith that Peter received from Jesus in last week’s pericope, the Canaanite woman’s faith is the subject of praise from Jesus: “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted” (v. 28).

274 This text exemplifies Matthew’s emphasis of Jesus as not only the Messiah for the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” but also as the universal Savior. Only Matthew records Gentiles coming to worship the newborn Savior and only Mat- thew records that Jesus’ parents took Him to a Gentile land for safekeeping in light of Herod’s wicked intent. In Matthew, Jesus marvels at the faith present in Gentiles and contrasts it with that which is absent in the house of Israel (i.e., 8:10- 12; 21:33-41) and proclaims His kingdom as one to include all nations (12:18-21; 28:16-20). One has to be careful not to emphasize the woman’s faith as if it were something she innately possessed and presented to Jesus as a means of securing assistance. This faith was a gift from God. This faith addressed Jesus as “Lord, son of David” (v. 22) and moved the woman to prostrate herself before Him (v. 25). It moved her to ask from Jesus both “mercy” (v. 22) and “help” (v. 25). Rather than emphasize the woman and her faith, it is a compassionate Jesus Christ who should be emphasized in preaching on this text. In the face of the norms and expectations for conduct in His day, Jesus made the exception of responding to a woman, and a Canaanite woman at that, in receiving her request. While enter- taining her request, He reminded her of the original focus for His mission, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (v. 24). Yet, in the face of her exceptional faith, one that recognized Jesus as the “Lord” and the “Son of David,” one that agreed with His mission and didn’t argue with Him concerning its scope, one that recognized her own place relative to this mission (even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master’s table” (v. 27), He granted her request. What a contrast to what Jesus had just encountered. Earlier in Matthew 15, Jesus had a discussion with some Pharisees and teachers of the law who ques- tioned Him concerning why His disciples did not wash their hands before they ate. The discussion regarding rules and regulations included Jesus quoting Isaiah 29:3, “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men” (Matt. 15:8-9). In contrast to the “religious correctness” of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, the Canaanite woman has a heart that is anything but “far from Jesus.” As with the centurion in Matthew 8, (“I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith,” v. 10), Jesus commends the faith that resides in this Canaanite woman’s heart. How ironic that these Gentiles (a Roman soldier and a Canaanite woman of all people) are commended for their faith by Jesus. Yet, not so ironic when Matthew’s emphasis upon the universality of the kingdom is remembered. This universality of the kingdom is emphasized in the Old Testament lesson assigned for the day as well, Isaiah 56:1, 6-8. Here, Yahweh states that “foreigners who bind themselves unto the Lord to serve him, to love the name of the Lord and to worship him…” (v. 6). The baptized people of God are tempted not to see themselves as “exceptions,” people who have been the recipients of exceptional grace, and want to think of themselves as deserving of God’s favor through some sort of special status they believe they possess. In this sense, they are tempted to have an attitude similar to the Pharisees and teachers of the Law. Like the disciples, it is easy for those who feel they are deserving to acquire a condescending attitude toward those who are thought to be undeserving (“Send her away”). Here we see a compassionate Savior who comes to the assistance of all people who cry out to Him in faith. Every Sunday, His people issue the cry of the Canaanite woman, “Lord, have mercy” (Kyrie, eleison). In the same way, this gracious God

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 275 exercises exceptional compassion in granting His people’s request. As the Introit for the day proclaims, “The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their cry” (Ps. 34:15). Much has been written concerning the drawing-out of this exchange. At first, Jesus does not respond to the woman. Then, at the disciples’ suggestion to send her away, He does engage her in conversation, but only to dissuade her. Finally, Jesus grants her request. What was Jesus’ intention in what appears to be an intention- ally lengthened and highly emotional encounter? Some have suggested that Jesus’ purpose was to “test” the faith (in the sense of refine, purify) of the woman. Others have said it was Jesus’ way of making certain that the disciples themselves experienced a dramatic clarification of their understanding concerning the universality of Christ’s mission. Whatever His intention in the way He handled the encounter, there is no mistaking two things in the text: (1) The identification of Jesus as the “Lord, son of David,” and (2) The understanding that the kingdom extends beyond the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The word dogs (kunari,oj) denotes a small house dog, not the wild dogs that would roam the streets (the description Jews used for Gentiles). The house dog would not be treated on par with the children of the house, nor should it be. Every- one would understand this, even the Canaanite woman, who readily accepts this identity, readily accepts Jesus’ mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and does not argue with Him. Suggested homiletical approach:

Goal: That God’s people would comprehend and appreciate His “exceptional grace.” Malady: God’s people, like the disciples in the text, often want “no exceptions” in God’s dealing with others and fail to realize that God’s dealing with them has been “exceptional.” Means: God provides exceptional forgiveness on a daily basis to those who receive exceptional grace.

Exceptional Grace

I. No exceptions policy A. Was operative for the disciples (text). 1. Woman. 2. Canaanite. 3. “Send her away.” B. Is sometimes operative for the baptized people of God. II. Exceptional faith A. Was a gift from God. B. Was evident in her encounter with Jesus. 1. Her recognition of Jesus. 2. Her acceptance of her “place.” 3. Her acceptance of His mission. 4. Her persistence. III. Exceptional grace A. Was demonstrated by Jesus (text). B. Was demonstrated on the cross. 1. Jesus cried out. 2. No mercy was granted Him.

276 C. Is operative for us. 1. We are born under the Law. 2. We are guilty under the Law. 3. We are “not guilty” through Christ. IV. Exceptional response. A. Worship. 1. Formal (Sundays). 2. Informal (daily). B. Praise. C. Exercising “exceptional grace” toward others. Glen D. Thomas

Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost Matthew 16:13-20 August 21, 2005

Faith as commitment: Over the past several Sundays the Gospel lessons have pointed us to some of the miracles of Jesus. These are miracles that show who He is by pointing us to what He has done by feeding the masses with a word, walking on water to comfort His disciples, and healing the Canaanite woman’s daughter. They are also miracles that show Jesus in a loving relationship with others— relationships which He initiated and which He established. He fed the crowds because they were hungry; went to the disciples in the storm because they were afraid; and healed the woman’s daughter, who was not an Israelite, because of the faith she had been given. It is instructive to note that all of these acts were done over the objections of the disciples who said, “We have no bread,” “Lord, if it is you…,” and, “Send her away, she is bothering us.” In other words, their faith was challenged. Today, however, in our text they are able to confess their faith in answer to His question, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (v. 13). “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” is their reply through Peter. And Jesus calls him, “Blessed.” What has happened? Nothing has happened, at least not anything new—certainly not anything that the disciples themselves have done. And yet, God has acted. Jesus says it this way to Peter, “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (v. 17). That’s what this Sunday, and this text, is all about. The Collect reads, “Grant us without all doubt to know your Son Jesus Christ to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” “Praise the Lord,” says the Introit, “for great is his love toward us,…the faithfulness of the Lord endures forever.” In Egypt (Old Testament lesson) the Lord says to Israel through Moses, “I will deliver you from slavery…I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment. I will take you to be my people…and you will know that I am the Lord your God.” To this St. Paul, writing to the Romans responds (in both the Epistle for this day and the Gradual for this season), “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways…for from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (ESV). Too often we miss the point of this text in an attempt to understand Jesus’

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 277 playing with the name He has given Peter. Or we get “hung-up” trying to explain how the keys of the kingdom work. That’s not Matthew’s point. His point, the truth the Holy Spirit wants us to know from this text, is this: “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God—the Lord (yours and mine).” This is a faith that is given; the Father gives us what flesh and blood cannot— “for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Phil. 2:13). Martin Franzmann notes, “Jesus calls Peter ‘blessed’ for his confession—and that word here signifies, as in the Beatitudes, that God is acting to enrich beggars, to comfort the mourners, and to fill the hungry with good things” (Follow Me: Discipleship According to Saint Matthew [St. Louis: Concordia, 1961, 1982], 169). It is a faith that puts us into relationship with Christ and with one another. It is the answer to Peter’s prayer on the high seas, “Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you” (14:18). This faith compels us to tell others even though the disciples—who had not yet witnessed either the transfiguration (just around the corner in Matthew’s Gospel) or the resurrection—were “strictly charged…to tell no one that he was the Christ.” They knew, but hadn’t seen; we have seen and heard, and so we tell. Most of all this is a faith of commitment. For all its objectivity as a gift and a relationship into which we have been called, faith is personal commitment—it involves our person and that means assent, committal, submission, and obedience. When Christ, whom the father has revealed to us says, “Come,” we come. “Go,” and we go. And so here at Caesarea Philippi we, along with the disciples, find ourselves bound to Jesus, who, as we will hear next week, announces that He is about to die. The disciples had long ago recognized Jesus as the Messiah. That was the nature of His relationship to them: “The imperious grace of His call, the unheard- of authority of His word, the unlimited power of His deeds, the terms on which He commissioned them and sent them out into Israel, the fearful judgment implicit in the parables—all bear witness to that” (Franzmann, 143). But now they are bound to Jesus as the Christ who is about to die. Once an individual has said, “Christ,” he has bound himself to follow the Christ, no matter where that following may lead. “When God has revealed His Christ to man, He has bound (that person) to live by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God in and through that Christ, including the word He will speak in the Cross—the word which is the assertion of mankind’s guilt, the condemnation of sin, and the unlooked-for miracle of the divine acquittal all in one” (Franzmann, 144). And so we have come into possession of the “keys of the kingdom.” These keys enable us to announce to others the good news that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. That’s our call, and that’s our rock. May God grant it for Jesus’ sake. Amen. David Wollenburg

278 Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost Matthew 16:21-26 August 28, 2005

Faith as commitment 2: In response to Jesus’ question, “Who do men say that I am?” Peter, as we heard last week, spoke for the disciples and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Wow, what a faith. And what a bold confession: Even enabled as it was by the Holy Spirit and revealed to Peter by God the Father Himself, it is still a bold personal step. Truly this was a commitment to Jesus as the Messiah, the one who was to come had come and was present in Jesus. We wish we had such a faith. We wish that we could have such insight, and so today, in our Collect, we pray: “Lord of all power and might…graft in our hearts the love of your name…and bring forth in us the fruit of good works.” And we too mean it, just as Peter meant it there in Jesus’ presence. In our Introit we prayed with the psalmist in Psalm 26, “I love the house where you live, O Lord.” And with Jeremiah we confessed, “Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart, for I am called by your name” (Jer. 15:16). And we mean that too—at least for now. Such commitment is hard; it means giving up on other things. Such commitment is difficult; it pulls us away from other “fun” things. Such commitment is confusing; we do not always know what God wants of us. Such commitment is…well it’s…such a commitment! St. Paul, in our Epistle (Rom. 12:1-8) says, “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” And our hearts cry out, “Amen.” But then he says, “I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think,” and we wonder what that means. The story of the Gospel lesson for today tells us what that means. Remember the disciples, and especially Peter, have made the great confession. Jesus has responded with words not only of praise, but also of commissioning. And then Jesus’ ministry took a different turn. Up until now it has been about miracles and parables with the occasional confrontation with the leaders of the people thrown in for good measure. These are actions and words that enabled Peter’s confession, and called forth the commitment the disciples felt at that moment. But then Jesus drops the bomb: Matthew reports (as do Mark and Luke ) that “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer…and be killed, and on the third day rise.” Now wait a minute, this is getting personal. If such things could happen to Jesus they could also happen to His followers, and that was not what they had “signed up for.” So “Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.” And in so doing Peter demonstrates that he, like us, has a problem with complete commitment to Jesus and all that that means. Martin Franzmann writes about it so well:

Peter objected to the thought that the Christ should die and sought to turn Jesus from the way that led Him to His death. Jesus in His reply to Peter made it terrifyingly plain to him how far and how deeply he had committed himself with his confession to the Christ. He was to cherish no illusion that he might influence or control the Christ. The Christ con-

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 279 trolled him and judged any will which opposed Him on His divinely marked course as a satanic will…. Peter had by his confession consented to the cross, to the Messiah as God wills to give Him to His people. Faith meant the surrender of any attempt at mastering Christ or at mastering God.… It meant, thinking the thoughts and willing the will of God, being “on the side of God,” being God’s partisan in every decision and in every act (Fol- low Me: Discipleship According to Saint Matthew [St. Louis: Concordia 1961, 1982], 144).

“Thinking the thoughts and willing the will of God.” That is the call to us today as well. The denial to which our text calls us is a denial of self-will, but not of life. The cross to which we are called is a theology of the cross that knows the sin that so controls this world and its people but also knows that the cross of Christ has redeemed us from the curse and now puts us into the service of others. St. Paul (in today’s Epistle) continues: “Having gifts that differ according to the grace given unto us, let us use them!” Use them for the good of the kingdom, for the good of the King. And when we do we will have given up on self and will begin to understand what is means to confess, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” A final note: What follows in the text, but not in the pericopes for the coming Sundays, is the transfiguration. The call to commitment issued by the Gospel for the last two weeks is confirmed, and strengthened, by the transfiguration. And we with St. Peter can say, “We ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain” (1 Pet. 2:18). That’s what enables our commitment and moves us forward as His disciples. David Wollenburg

Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost Matthew 18:15-20 September 4, 2005

Preliminary considerations: This text will provide pastors with an excellent opportunity to review the fifth chief part of Luther’s Small Catechism on the Office of the Keys and Confession. Verse 18 of the text is the equivalent of John 20:22-23, which Luther quotes in his answer to the first question, “What is the Office of the Keys?” Of course, the church’s application of the Office of the Keys involves church discipline and possibly excommunication of unrepentant sinners. It is the process of excommunication that may come to many people’s minds when they read or hear this text. Matthew 18:15-20 has always been the locus classicus for the process of church discipline and excommunication. While I have no statistics to support me, my hunch is that church discipline and excommunication are seldom practiced today in our circles. It may at times have been misused and may often have led to hard feelings and misunderstandings about the motivation of the process. Conse- quently it has become easier for many congregations simply to deal with public sins privately and never invoke the steps prescribed in verses 16 and 17 and to simply remove from the church’s membership list the names of unrepentant sinners, inactive members, and others who would fall under the rubrics of church discipline. This text prescribes the correct, God-pleasing process of calling sinners to

280 repentance and of preserving unity within the church. Church discipline is not something that can be taken lightly or simply disregarded since the situations to be dealt with are extremely serious. The outcome of the process may be a matter of heaven and hell, depending on whether or not the sinner heeds the church’s call to repentance. The process is not only about the person who has sinned against another Christian, but it is also about the person who has been sinned against. If these two are not reconciled, the unity of the communion of saints is in jeopardy. Textual considerations: Verses 15-17 clearly describes the seriousness of sins committed against brothers or sisters in the faith. Public sin or sin committed against another person cannot be overlooked or swept under the carpet. If the situation is not resolved privately, it necessarily involves more people—first two or three and then the entire church/congregation. Any unrepentant sinners must be considered outside the pale of the church or until such time as they repent and become reconciled. Verse 18 is obviously Law and Gospel. It is not one or the other; it is both. If the sinner does not repent, he is to hear the condemning words of the Law, namely, that his sin is not forgiven before God. If, however, he repents, then he is to hear the wonderful words of absolution—the blessed words of the Gospel that his sin has been forgiven through the merits of Jesus Christ. The whole point of what Jesus instructs the church to do in this text is to call sinners to repentance so that they may be saved through His redemptive work and to have offending and offended member of His church become reconciled with one another for their spiritual welfare. This process is not an option. St. Augustine says in Sermon 82.7:

If you fail to do so [i.e., Matt. 18:15], you are worse than he is. He has done someone harm, and by doing harm he has stricken himself with a grievous wound. Will you then completely disregard your brother’s wound? Will you simply watch him stumble and fall down? Will you disregard his predica- ment? If so, you are worse in your silence than he is in his abuse (Manlio Simonetti, ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), Ib:77).

The sermon should not be a call to the excommunication process, but an opportunity to speak about the love we should have for other people and especially for their eternal salvation. The text also calls attention to the unity that should exist among God’s people and their need to live in the same kind of loving and forgiving relationship with one another that we all have with God. The text is also provides an opportunity to speak about the seriousness of sin, especially the sins which destroy the fellowship that should exist in the communion of saints and that can lead to eternal condemnation. Suggested outline:

Concern for Sinners

I. Love for sinners and for their salvation. A. God loved sinners so much that He sent His only begotten Son for their eternal salvation (John 3:16). B. The second table of the Law commands us to love our neighbors, all of whom are sinners just as we are.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 281 II. Unity in the church. A. In His longest recorded prayer, Jesus prayed that His church might be one (John 17). B. Unity among members is one of the primary goals of the church as is suggested by alternate names for the church, such as, communion of saints, congregation, body of Christ, etc. III. Eternal salvation of souls. A. This is why Jesus became incarnate and why He calls all sinners to repentance. B. This is the church’s primary mission, the main reason of her existence.

In the conclusion the pastor may want to emphasize once again that the church’s dealing with public sin and the people who commit them is motivated by a love for them and by a sincere and deep-felt desire for their salvation. The urgency of the church’s concern is motivated by the harsh reality that souls that remain wilfully in sin are not saved. Quentin F. Wesselschmidt

Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost Matthew 18:21-35 September 11, 2005

Rocky Re-made

Our Lord took on a formidable challenge when He called Simon Peter into the ranks of His disciples, indeed into what appears to be a kind of inner circle (Peter, James, and John). That the Lord realized that is shown when He highlighted the name Peter (= Rocky). And the Gospel accounts are sprinkled with stories of how the Lord sought to soften and to mold what seems to have been a brash, impulsive salt of the earth who bore well (and likely with pride) all that the name Rocky conveys. (Not, perhaps, much different from the Rocky or Rambo image of Holly- wood lore of a decade or two ago.) Think of Rocky’s mix of faith and realism which took him from the boat during the storm (the other disciples seemingly stayed in the safety of the boat!) and sent Rocky off walking on the water to the Lord, but then sent him plummeting the way rocks do on the water, only to be saved by the Lord that called him. Think again of how the Lord sought to replace the Rocky with the drawn sword with the Rocky of the draped towel. Today’s lesson is one more step in the molding process. The one who leaps over the side of the boat, the one who steps ahead sword in hand blinks uncomprehendingly when the Lord talks about forgiveness. Again, the Lord is moving Peter from his own frame of realism learned likely from the school of hard knocks. Salts of the earth (the Rocky Jesus had called, and the Rocky in all of us) don’t like to be patsies, don’t like to be taken advantage of, don’t like to be walked on. “Forgiveness is fine, but is it fair to let the person who’s already taking advantage get off free, while the Christian is in effect penalized for being Christian? Isn’t there a limit somewhere? Isn’t there a need to let people know, in a way they can understand, that sinning against another person has consequences, now and into eternity? Can sin be allowed to continue unchallenged, and a person continue unchanged?”

282 Peter may also be reflecting a rabbinic rule of thumb current in his day, namely, that if a person sins against you once, you forgive, and again a second time, and even a third. However, if that person had not changed by then, the burden passes from you to him/her, and there is neither compulsion to reach out again, nor guilt for not forgiving a person who seemingly is not helped by further forgiveness. In his generosity, however, Peter was willing to do twice over what was prescribed, plus once more for good measure, seven times! It must have come as a shock, and likely a rebuke, when the Lord rejected Peter’s generosity, and told him not seven times, but seventy-seven (or seventy times seven—more recent translations, including the NIV, seem to prefer the former). What the Lord was really teaching Peter is that forgiveness doesn’t keep track, forgiveness is not quantifiable, forgiveness comes from the heart of the forgiving person, and is not contingent on the person who may still not understand forgiveness or even his/her offense that prompts it. So comes the parable (worth recounting with some imaginative detail!) of the one forgiven a debt impossible for an ordinary person to repay (multi-millions of dollars), of the pitiful plea for just another few months or years, and of the un- prompted, undeserved largesse of the king, who, in wiping out the debt, gave much more than those few months or years, but gave future joy, a whole new beginning to a new life of freedom. Incredibly, however, the person whose life had been given back met a servant of his, whose debt was pay-back-able (one-hundred-days labor). He scroogily demanded not just repayment, but consignment to prison which made repayment all the more unlikely. Where he had been given life, he robbed his counterpart of life. Where he had been given freedom, he imprisoned. Where he had been given a future, he consigned his counterpart to a past of debt and shame. Incredibly, the grace beyond measure this servant had received made no impact on his grubby heart. What the king did, on hearing this, was basically to restore that first servant to the status he was continuing to live under (and seemed to prefer), namely, a close and closed system of accounts, of insistence on rights, of living by debts and demands. Bottom-line message: No child of God, not even or especially a Rocky, lives on the basis of rights. We are who we are, not because of what we have made of ourselves, or can make of ourselves, but because of what God has made of us: washing our feet, hearts, and lives; forgiving sins that incur eternal death; forgiving the Rocky-ness of our lives and making us into His children. These are pure gifts, gifts that cannot be earned or demanded, no matter how impressive we may work to make our lives. God has released us into our world to be walking expressions of the gifts, the giving, and the Giver we have experienced. Forgiveness is no longer measured by how many times, beyond which we are no longer obligated. Forgiveness is not something we can get ourselves out from under…so that we can get on with “normal” life, back to keeping accounts, demanding rights. Forgiveness is not a debt that we endure or pay off, in order to get back to life as we prefer it. Nor is forgiveness just something between us and God. The forgiven heart is not something we try on for a while, and then set aside when we are rebuffed, even belittled. Indeed, the forgiveness we receive from God is not something that is a once-and-done transaction, but the ongoing and daily grace from God for our lives, for our stum- bling, halting efforts to live under Him. Forgiveness is life! Forgiveness is the life our Lord died to give! Forgiveness is our life! Forgiveness is the Spirit of Christ living in us and through us! Forgiveness

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 283 is not just what we do, but who we are! How far away from keeping track or settling accounts forgiveness is, is apparent from our Lord’s way of arithmetic. If you want to keep track, seventy-seven (or 490) is where you start, but that’s for each individual sin of each individual around us. Who’s going to keep that kind of accounting system? Who can live under forgiveness with that kind of accounting system? If there’s a spreadsheet, let it be the blood of Christ which spreads itself over all of us, melting sin and melting the accounting and the ranking of sin. After all, when a person seeks to get even for sin, isn’t that person still living in the grasp of the debt-world of sin? Isn’t this precisely what destroys marriages and families, friend- ships and relationships? Actually, as our Lord says in the prayer He taught us, forgiveness is the form of our continuing relationship with God. When Paul talks about debts, he speaks of our never-to-be-paid-up debt to share the Gospel (Rom. 1:14-15) in love (Rom. 13:8), which may often be expressed most clearly in suffering (Rom. 8:12-17), which in turn ties us precisely to Him who suffered for us. What may seem not in touch with the realities of the world is in fact what redeems the realities of the world, forgiveness rooted in and expressive of the forgiving love of Him who gave Himself for the world. As tough a disciple as Peter was, the Lord did touch him, so that the final word we have about Peter in the Gospels is Jesus’ call to follow Him to death (tradition specifies by crucifixion)—no swords, no demands for rights or vindication, only the surrender of his life as a pointer to the Lord. Suggested outline:

Life without Debt?

I. Peter, ever honest and ever the realist, raised a reasonable question: how often must a person go on forgiving, especially those who seem oblivious to problems they cause? A. Always happy to exceed the zeal of others (walking on water, taking the sword to defend Jesus, vowing never to deny Jesus), Peter offers to exceed the rabbinic rule of the day: three times. B. Does not forgiveness eventually lose its value, both in terms of rendering the Christian spineless and in terms of encouraging others to feel no need to change their lives (so marriages, families, relationships)? II. Jesus’ response catches Peter by surprise. A. Jesus rejects the rabbinic rule—not because it is rabbinic, but because it is a rule; it quantifies forgiveness. Jesus’ arithmetic makes life by keeping accounts impossible—seventy-seven (or 490) for each sin! B. Jesus tells the parable which rejects the quantification of what is forgiven (by the king, and by the King) and the forgiving life. C. Jesus illustrates the immensity of the gift of forgiveness given on the cross. III. Jesus calls Peter/Rocky and calls the Rocky in all of us to the life He gives, which includes: A. Freedom from our sin and its wages. B. Freedom from living in the debt-world of sin, including: 1. Keeping accounts with others and finding ways to settle those accounts. 2. Building our lives on what others owe us.

284 3. Separating ourselves from both God and others in the process. C. Freedom to live gratefully under the daily renewing of the Spirit of Christ. D. And therefore, freedom to bear the only debt that has value, namely, to share the Gospel of our Lord in all our life, beginning where we live life daily and menially, and extending around the world. IV. Such a disciple is no longer simply Rocky but part of the Rock on which the church is built. Henry Rowold

Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost Matthew 20:1-16 September 18, 2005

The Series A Gospel readings for the Pentecost season walk through Matthew, but do not cover the entire book. In some cases parts of Matthew’s narrative that help us understand the words and actions of Jesus are omitted from the lectionary. This is the case with the pericope for the Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost, and some consideration of the preceding context will be helpful as we read and preach this week’s Gospel. The “for” (Greek “gar”) with which 20:1 begins signals that we should look for connections in the following narrative with what has immediately gone before. The last few verses of chapter nineteen offer the best introduction to the parable of the workers in the vineyard, and may subtly change the way we read the parable. If we follow the clue of the “gar” backwards from 20:1, we read Jesus’ words in 19:28-30, which promise that everyone who has endured loss for the sake of His name will be compensated and rewarded. Then we see that this promise, in turn, is Jesus’ response to Peter’s statement that “we [Peter and the other disciples] have left everything and followed you,” along with his understandable but uncouth question about what might be in store for them by way of reward. Peter’s crass self-interest seems to be prompted by the exchange Jesus has had with the rich young man, who ultimately turned away from following Jesus because he was attached to his property (19:16-22). So in context Peter is saying in effect, “Lord, that fellow was unwilling to part with his possessions to become your disciple, but we have made real sacrifices for you. That makes us special, right?” This background in the immediately preceding context of chapter nineteen should be kept in mind as we read and hear the familiar story of the workers in the vineyard. Having just promised compensation to those who make sacrifices for Him, Jesus now tells a parable that seems to erase the advantage of those who work the hardest in the kingdom over those who arrive late and contribute very little. In this light, 20:1-16 contains a rebuke of the disciples who expect increased rewards from the Lord in exchange for their exemplary and sacrificial service. The essential story of the parable is very familiar. A landowner hires various groups of day-laborers at different times during a single day, some very early and others just before quitting time. He negotiates a specific contract only with the first group, telling the rest that he will simply give them what is fair or “right” (dikaion). No doubt the ones who worked only a few hours expected to receive proportionately less than those who had agreed to work a full day for a full denarius; exactly how much less was left to the employer’s sense of justice. When the day was over, the employer paid wages starting with the last men hired. When they were

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 285 paid more than they expected, the others (and especially those who worked all day) naturally assumed that the wage scale had been adjusted upward and their pay would also be proportionately higher. That turned out not to be the case: all the workers received a full day’s wage, regardless of how long they had actually worked. The hardest workers were the least satisfied with this arrangement, but the landowner pointed out that he had fulfilled his contract and was free to show generosity if he chose to do so. It is important to realize that some workers really did much more work than others. It is no small thing to put in a twelve-hour day of hard agricultural labor, and their complaint about the “burden and heat” is probably not an exaggeration. Our every instinct of fairness and rightness urges that the wages should somehow be in proportion to the work. The kind of arbitrary generosity and favoritism displayed by the employer toward his least productive workers would today be viewed as bad management, and might even be illegal in some way. We totally misunder- stand the parable if we try to work out some theory of economic justice by which we could defend equal pay for unequal work as a fair arrangement. In fact, the whole force of the parable demands that we see the treatment of the workers as unfair by normal, commonsense standards. And according to Jesus, this is what the reign of God is like (20:1). When God reestablishes His rule among men and women, His way of giving everyone “whatever is right” (20:4) is not restricted by our proportionate computations of earnings and wages and contracts. Those who want to insist on such calculated benefits will be the least satisfied; those who simply depend on the Lord to give them “whatever is right” will be surprised by His unreasonable generosity. Peter’s question back in 19:27 may be our question: “Lord, what will there be for us?” But the question of contracting for appropriate rewards in advance dis- tracts us from the call of discipleship. And our calculation of “return on invest- ment” in our service and sacrifice for Christ can easily prevent us from experiencing the joy of receiving from our generous Lord more than we could ask or think or deserve. The Gospel lesson’s connection with the day’s Old Testament reading (Isa. 55:6-9) is more apparent than with the Epistle. Isaiah sings of God’s abundant pardon and compassion and eagerness to forgive and restore sinners who call on Him. Yahweh’s thoughts are not our thoughts, His ways are incomparably higher than human ways. Although this may easily sound to some people as if God is capricious and unpredictable, Jesus’ parable points us to the prophet’s real meaning, namely, that God is mind-bogglingly merciful and generous in ways that make our little notions of what is “fair” look simply silly. William W. Schumacher

Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost Matthew 21:28-32 September 25, 2005

In Matthew’s Gospel we always do well to keep an eye on who is hearing Jesus, and to whom the Lord directs His words. For example, in last week’s pericope (Matt. 20:1-16, the Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost), the parable of the workers in the vineyard was directed to the disciples. The reading assigned for the Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost is spoken in the temple, as Jesus addresses

286 the chief priests and the elders of the people (21:23). It is part of a dispute between the religious leaders and Jesus which begins with their question about Jesus’ authority. They cannot (or will not) answer the Lord’s counter-question about the baptism of John, because any answer they could give would only expose their hypocrisy. If they say John’s baptism was from God, then they should have accepted it; but if they denounce it as merely human, then they run afoul of popular opinion. Jesus refuses to answer their question about His own authority, implying that He speaks and works with authority from the same source as John’s, namely, God. In the Gospel lesson under consideration here, Jesus tells a brief parable that draws out the implication of this conundrum about authority. After all, the authority question is not of ultimate importance by itself. Whose authority Jesus wields only matters because God’s authority demands the obedience of faith. If God is really speaking, then the appropriate response is not simply to say, “Yes, Lord, I know that you are speaking.” Rather, the response should be to listen to His word and do what He says. The man in Jesus’ story had two sons to whom he gave the same assignment. One son refused, but afterward changed his mind and went to the vineyard to work after all. The other son immediately said yes to his father, but then did not really go. Jesus then asked a simple question about the two sons: “Which one did the will of his father?” The answer is obvious, and echoes the words of Ezekiel from the day’s Old Testament lesson: a wicked man who turns away from his wickedness will live, but a righteous man who turns away from his righteousness will die (Ezek. 18:26-27). Jesus drives home the point of His words in the starkest possible way when He tells His hearers: “The tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of heaven before you!” Then he explicitly connects this to John’s call to repentance, a call that was ignored by the religious leaders but heeded by the most notorious sinners. The answers of the two sons in the parable seem to correlate to professed religious observance or public piety. The son who said “yes” is the analog of the chief priests and the elders of the people who were conspicuous in connecting themselves with God’s will. The son who said “no” conveys the kind of people whose behavior and words deny that God is their Lord. What is less obvious is how we are to interpret the subsequent actions of the two sons. Obviously, the son who said no but changed his mind can be understood as a sinner who repents, undergoes a change of heart, and (in Ezekiel’s vocabulary) turns from his wickedness and lives. But what about the son who said yes but didn’t go? It would reduce the parable to mere moralizing to say that this is a person who confesses faith but commits sins. It would be closer to the point to realize that one can “turn” from righteousness by a change of heart in somewhat the same way that true repentance “turns” from sin. In the parable both sons “turn”—one toward his father and the other away. Yet Jesus seems to imply that a turning or change is needed even in those religious people whose profession and outward behavior already acknowledge God. “The way of righteousness” in which John came (21:32) calls both the “righteous” and the “unrighteous” to something which transcends mere behavior: it calls to faith. The conspicuously wicked who heard John’s message responded with the kind of obedience God desires: they believed. The morally decent people (those to whom Jesus is speaking in the second person in this text) also hear, but they “turn” in the other direction and refuse to believe. Two considerations have to be kept in mind when preparing to preach on this text of the Gospel. The first is to be careful not to simply equate our hearers with

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 287 the hypocritical religious leaders to whom Jesus spoke these words. Are the members of our congregations really hardened sinners who have rejected God’s gracious call to repentance and life? Some may be, of course, but others may more closely resemble the penitent “tax collectors and prostitutes” whom Jesus said would have enter the kingdom ahead of the most religious people. Or, in the terms of the parable, which of the two sons do our people more closely resemble? Jesus did not condemn the second of the two sons because he answered “yes” to his father, but because he didn’t do what his father wanted, and he did not defend the first son because he said “no.” The crucial point is faith or the lack of faith. The second consideration which should inform our preaching on this text is that there are other possible combinations of initial answers and ultimate obedience. A different kind of son might say “yes” and then really follow through and do what his father asked him to do. And not every son who says “no” at first turns out to have a change of heart in the end. Some who say the “no” never turn and do the “yes,” and some who say the “yes” have not nullified it by doing the “no.” Jesus Himself is that Son who both says “yes” to His Father and then follows through and does what His Father asks Him to do. And that Son calls for both our outward “yes” and the obedience of faith in Him. William W. Schumacher

Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost Matthew 21:33-43 October 2, 2005

Context: The text’s setting is Tuesday before Good Friday. Jesus and the disciples just entered Jerusalem, receiving a messianic welcome. While the masses may have been content, the religious authorities were not and so ensues the deadly confrontation between Jesus and the Jewish religious authorities. This is the second of three hard-hitting parables that Jesus directed at these spiritual leaders. This and the third parable in this series highlight the sin of the religious leaders and the subsequent gracious transfer of the kingdom of God to another people. Law: There are several levels of Law in the text. At the level of the spiritual leaders, which was the audience to which the text was directed, the strongest Law message is that of their consistent abuse of God’s grace and patience. Starting with Moses, God patiently and lovingly sent His Word through the prophets to the Israelites, but just as persistently, many of the religious leaders led the masses to reject it. Rather than trusting in God, they trusted in themselves and the institutions around which they had surrounded themselves. The religious leaders were content to be “religious,” but only on their own terms. In verse 44, the Law comes to a crushing crescendo when the Word says that they will not only be broken into pieces when they fall onto the capstone, but even more graphically rich, they will be crushed when the stone falls on them. The result of this sin is that the kingdom of God would be transferred to another people, the New Testament church. At a secondary, indirect level, the Law of this text applies to the people of Israel. They were not diligent in searching the Scripture, thus allowing themselves to be led astray. Yes, they were deceived by their leaders, but just as Adam should have been more vigilant when tempted, the people of Israel should have been more vigilant.

288 Gospel: While the Law of this text is powerful, we don’t want its graphic power to throw the text’s rich and abundant Gospel into the shadow of obscurity. The first word of Gospel is seen in the landowner’s meticulous and abundant provisioning of the vineyard (v. 33). The vineyard lacked nothing. It was given all the provisions and care that were needed to be fruitful, and fruit it did bear. Providing great hope and assurance to the church, God has provided the church with all that is needed to be fruitful. God’s long-suffering, patience, and mercy are vividly seen in verse 36, “Again, he sent his own son to them….” The single word “again” communicates volumes about how God’s mercy patiently works with the sinful and hard hearts of humanity. The Gospel is also seen in the prophetic words that foresee the sacrificial offering of God’s Son. In verse 39 the landowner’s son is killed by the vineyard tenants. Through what outwardly was a crushing defeat, the Father created victory for all, forever, over all evil and all sin. Juxtaposed to the Law, in verses 41 and 43, is an image of God’s gracious giving of the vineyard, which is the kingdom of God, to the new tenants. These new tenants, the Gentiles, did nothing to deserve or merit the vineyard, but out of the good and gracious will of the landowner they became his trusted workers. Giving additional hope and life to the entire parable are verses 22 and 23, where Jesus leads us to the Old Testament messianic prophecy, “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, the Lord has done this, and it is mar- velous in our eyes.” Ignoring the mixing of metaphors, we see in these verses the foundation of the vineyard’s existence and eternal hope for a fruitful harvest. Application: For a congregation one could develop the malady of “consistent abuse of God’s grace and patience.” This is a frightful word of Law. Abuse of God’s grace occurs on an individual level as well as a congregational level. Individually, members can sit in the pew Sunday after Sunday, hearing God’s Word, receiving the Lord’s absolution and the forgiveness of sin through the Lord’s Supper and yet, Sunday after Sunday, they live and work with unchanged hearts, words, and actions. Perhaps through sloth, immaturity of faith, sinful desires, or hard heartedness, congregations can refuse to be God’s people doing God’s work. Despite this frightful condition, God’s will for there to be a people of God, bearing witness to God’s grace through Jesus Christ, is not and will never be thwarted. The slain Son, who was rejected by the workers, became the capstone of the new people of God, the New Testament church. We, who are members of the church, are so by God’s work and grace. As God’s workers we are sent into His vineyard, which is not barren, but rather ripe with fruit and ready for harvest. While this text’s Law reminds us of the dangers of abusing God’s grace, the message’s Gospel brings hope, comfort, and motivation to those who labor in the vineyard. By directing the audience’s attention to the work of the vineyard, you will be directing them to the church’s task of carrying the means of grace to all people of all nations. John Palka

Twenty-First Sunday after Pentecost Matthew 22: 1-14 October 9, 2005

Context: In Matthew 21:23 spiritual leaders of the Sanhedrin asked Jesus, “By what authority do you do these things.” This pericope is Jesus’ final answer to

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 289 their question. The text’s setting is Tuesday before Good Friday. Jesus and the disciples just entered Jerusalem, receiving a messianic welcome. While the masses may have been content with Jesus’ arrival, the religious authorities were not and so ensues the deadly confrontation between Jesus and the Jewish religious authorities. This is the third of three hard-hitting parables that Jesus directed at the leaders of the Sanhedrin. Law: The parable begins by setting the scene of a king preparing a banquet for his son. In verse 3, the king sends his servants to those who had already been invited to the banquet, but again, they refuse to attend. In verse 4, the king once again sends his servants to request the invitees presence. The invitation is refused in two manners. In verse 5 the invitees show apathy and disinterest in the invitation, which is apparently of little consequence to them. They have more important things to do, like going about their daily chores. In our busy world of three- or four- car families, this is a stark reminder to us of being too busy for God. The second and elevated response is in verse 5. The invitees are hostile, ruthlessly mistreating and killing the king’s servants. Jesus’ message of condemnation is clear and unmistakable. This parable is a stinging denunciation of people’s indifference toward the Gospel message. The Jewish leaders and people have consistently heard God’s saving message, but they have consistently blocked their ears and hardened their hearts to it. Almost without fail, the spiritual leaders rejected those servants of God who faithfully delivered His gracious invitation. Indifference toward the Word of God is a deadly sin that, as in the case of Israel, results in one’s being cut off from God’s mercy. This law provides the church with the opportunity to remind its audience that even though neglect of God’s saving grace may be inadvertent, its consequence is lethal. Verses 11-14 tell a frightening conclusion to the parable. When the king ar- rives at the banquet hall he notices someone who is not dressed in a wedding garment. Subsequently, the king has the uninvited “guest” bound by feet and hand and thrown out of the hall. This binding is a vivid picture of the utter helplessness and imprisonment that befalls the person who does not wear Christ’s robe of righteousness. The uninvited person’s presence among the invitees was not enough to earn him a place at the banquet table. The missing wedding garment gave the person away as one who does not belong. Self-invitation to God’s final banquet and outward participation in the church’s work is never enough. The only way to participate in the celestial banquet is to wear Christ’s robe of righteousness that God gives to us through His means of grace. Gospel: Verses 2-4 illustrate God’s longsuffering love and mercy toward sinful humanity. As in the previous week’s parable, God’s grace and mercy toward all humanity is vividly portrayed in His repeated and patient sending of His messen- ger to the hardhearted. Despite the people’s refusal to hear God’s message, God continues to send His servant into the darken world that is filled with indifference and hostility. God’s servant, the church, is His carrier of the Gospel message. This parable’s Gospel message is that God’s saving Word will continually go forth from the church into the world. While some will reject God’s saving grace, others will be ushered into the kingdom of God. Difficulty and hardship do not phase or disillu- sion God. This parable provides the church with great hope that God continued to send His invitation-laden servant until His banquet hall is filled with guests. The banquet hall will be filled; it will not remain empty and barren! The church is God’s instrument through which He calls the world to saving grace and to His eternal celestial banquet. This constant sending of the invitation-

290 laden church is the counterweight to the Law’s message of indifference. God’s will and ultimate purpose of filling the banquet hall will not be frustrated because the first people reject the invitation; but rather, God’s grace and mercy will prevail and the hall will be filled. Perhaps the strongest Gospel message in this text is that the king provides his guests with the key to their presence in the banquet hall: they are given the appropriate wedding garment. As verses 11-14 illustrate, they would have been thrown out if it were not for the wedding garment that they received from the king. Not only were the guests graciously invited to the banquet, but they were given all that was needed for their participation in the great celebration. The guests who end up in the hall are not in the hall because of some special quality that they possess. They are there out of the pure mercy and grace of the one who throws the banquet. Those in the banquet hall are there because of God’s grace and power that are brought to them through the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. Application: This parable sends us a message that speaks clearly to our situation today. God’s grace reigns supreme in our darkened and hardened world. Through the servant church, the Gospel message streams forth into the world, bringing light and life to a darkened and lifeless world. As this message enters our world it is met with a myriad of sinful responses: casual doubt, harsh opposition, and lackadaisical indifference. All of these meet with the same ultimate outcome, separation from God’s grace. Amidst this hardheartedness, the power of the Gos- pel bears fruit by giving forgiveness and eternal life. The mission of the church is by no means an easy task for us. We will be met with rejection and hard times, but the outcome is certain. God’s final banquet hall will be filled. John Palka

Twenty-Second Sunday after Pentecost Matthew 22:15-21 October 16, 2005

This is the text with the oft-quoted half saying of Jesus, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” which then has become one “proof text” for why Christians ought to pay taxes to the government (“because Jesus told us to”). This particular focus on Matthew 22:21, however, comes only when we let that half of a saying stand in isolation from its context in the Gospel. There are other texts that better speak to the issue of the Christian’s relationship to the government (e.g., Rom. 13:1ff.). What we really find in today’s lesson is another portrayal of the authority of Jesus as a teacher in His triumph over the hypocritical, unbelieving opponents who try to ensnare Him. The preacher then should be cautioned not to focus the message on “why we must pay taxes, obey the speed limit,” and the like. The sermon instead should focus upon the more climactic half of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:21. Today’s text is more about Jesus Christ than Caesar, and so should the sermon be. Literary context: This text falls in the section of Matthew’s Gospel where, following His entrance into Jerusalem and the cleansing of the Temple, Jesus en- gages in a battle of words and wits with the religious authorities. This conflict is initiated when the chief priests and the elders question Jesus’ authority (Matt. 21:23). Jesus evades a direct answer to their query by offering them a question they cannot answer. Then He tells a series of three parables that condemn them for

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 291 their unbelief (Matt. 21:24-22:14). Today’s text then begins a second section of this conflict (Matt. 22:15-46). Jesus is tested three times with three different questions, each of which is intended to test or trap Him in some way. Jesus effectively answers each of these tests, and then He responds to His opponents with His own question which, again, they cannot answer. In this conflict Jesus triumphs over His enemies and demonstrates both His wisdom and His authority as both teacher and Christ. This also leaves the authorities with no option now but to arrest Jesus secretly, for their efforts to trap Him in the open have failed. Matthew 22:15-21 comprises the first of the three tests that are brought to Jesus, the question about paying taxes to Caesar. Details: Verses 15-16. It is the plot of the Pharisees to entrap (pagideu,swsin) Jesus “in speech/word” (evn lo,gw|) by how He responds to their question. The author thus reveals their motivation before the test is brought to Jesus, and so the hypocrisy of Jesus’ opponents is evident in several ways: First, the Pharisees do not approach Jesus directly, but send “their disciples” to ask this question. Second, the Herodians, a group supportive of Roman rule, accompany the Pharisees’ disciples; one would think that these two groups have nothing in common, but here they are united to deal with a common enemy, namely, Jesus. Third, the complimentary way in which they address Jesus is obviously not sincere since we know already they intend to trap Him with their question; they call Him “teacher” and boast of His integrity, but this is meant to deceive Jesus into speaking directly so they can then accuse Him. And so they set their trap. Verse 17. “So tell us what it seems to you: Is it lawful to give tax to Caesar or not?” Perhaps it is meant to appear as if these two groups, the disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians, have been debating this legal matter, and now they are coming to Jesus as “teacher” for His decision. This appears the perfect question for their purpose because either answer could condemn Jesus. If He answers “yes,” then it would appear He supports the Roman occupation of Israel. If He answers “no,” then it would be a direct challenge to Roman rule and present cause for the Ro- mans to arrest Him. No matter how Jesus answers, either one of these two groups could find fault with Him. Verses 18-21a. Jesus, of course, is aware of their wickedness (ponhri,an): He knows that they are hypocrites (u`pokritai,) who are trying put him to the test (me peira,zete) and tells them so. Their flattery is ineffective. Then, in what might first appear to be a “stalling tactic,” Jesus asks to see a coin used to pay the tax and they give Him a denarius. When answering Jesus’ question of whose image and inscription are on the coin, this group of men have unwittingly played into His hands, and so He “turns the table on them.” Verses 21b-22. “Repay the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God.” The first part of this response makes perfect sense given what is on the denarius itself. It is Caesar’s image and Caesar’s inscription, so it is Caesar’s coin. No one should have any trouble giving it back to Caesar then. Some interpreters also suggest that the image (eivkw,n) on the coin should have been abhorrent to ) religious Jews, and so they all the more should have had no problem returning these abominable coins to their source. Jesus’ response could, in fact, also reveal another layer of hypocrisy among the Pharisees. These people may complain about Roman rule and condemn those who collaborate with the Romans, but even they themselves carry around and use Roman coins. Thus in their conduct they acknowledge the political reality of Ro- man rule. Why then should they not pay Roman taxes? They answer their question

292 themselves by what they carry around in their purses! Jesus, however, moves effectively beyond their question on paying taxes to the true heart of their problem: “Repay to God the things of God.” What is meant by this? What are we to give, render, or repay to God? The best answer would be that which makes sense in the context of Matthew’s Gospel. Both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ have called the people of Israel to repentance. The three parables that precede today’s Gospel reading condemn the religious elites for not responding to the message of the kingdom in this way: They have not believed and repented (Matt. 21:28-32). They have not received the Son, but instead plot His demise (Matt. 21:33-46). They have turned down God’s invitation and call (Matt. 22:1-14). Thus they have not heeded the call to discipleship that comes with repentance (Matt. 16:24-28). God is looking for true repentance and faith in His Son, but none of this is being offered by these elites. Thus, while trying to quibble with Jesus about paying taxes to Rome, Jesus returns them to that which is most important—and this is what they are failing to do. Indeed, they are now “straining a gnat and swallowing a camel” (Matt. 23:24). Considerations for preaching:

I. This text shows Jesus’ wisdom and authority as a teacher in that He over- comes the efforts of His enemies to trap Him. Thus when Jesus does go to the cross, it will not be for anything sinful or foolish that He has said. The sermon should proclaim our Lord’s greatness, wisdom, and authority as revealed in this event. Rightly do we confess this Sunday in our creeds and liturgy that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (Matt. 16:16), that He is the Son of David who has come in the name of the Lord (Matt. 21:9). He demonstrates that authority in today’s Gospel. II. One theme in Matthew’s Gospel is that Jesus gets tested, but He emerges from each test vindicated. This happened when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11). Thus it happens again in today’s Gospel. This foreshadows Jesus’ ultimate testing when He is upon the cross—a death He dies to save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21)—and His ultimate vindication in the resurrection. III. “Render to God the things that are God’s”: In response to the coming of the kingdom in connection with Jesus, our hearers today are called to repentance, faith, and discipleship. This is the response of faith to God’s grace. Jesus’ opponents did not give this worship to God, but Jesus’ people, those for whom He died, will. IV. Do not let the sermon devolve into a discussion primarily concerned with “obey- ing the government.” That is at best a derived application of this text. The focus of the sermon should be on Jesus’ authority and the application of the second part of Jesus’ response—“Render to God the things of God.” Jesus is not as interested in whether or not we pay taxes (we should do so) as He is in ) the response of repentance and faith to His ministry, death, and resurrection. David I. Lewis

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 293 Twenty-Third Sunday after Pentecost Matthew 22:34-40 (41-46) October 23, 2005

Today’s Gospel contains the question about “the greatest commandment.” If the reading includes the longer reading with verses 41-46, then the lesson also includes Jesus’ question to His opponents regarding the paradox of the Messiah being both David’s Son and David’s Lord. Perhaps these two pericopes can be integrated into one sermon. It might be better, however, to focus only on one of these two sections. The layout of the pericope itself would give priority to the first part, verses 34-40, and so it is on these verses that this present study will focus. Literary context: This section of Matthew’s Gospel comes toward the conclusion of Jesus’ confrontation with the religious authorities during Holy Week. This battle of words and wits includes a series of three tests that Jesus’ opponents bring in order to trap Him in some way. Matthew 22:34-40 relates the third of these tests. After passing all three of these tests brilliantly, Jesus then offers His opponents a question that they are unable to answer (Matt. 22:41-46). In this section of Mat- thew Jesus demonstrates His authority and wisdom over and against His opponents. Teaching authority no longer resides with those religious elites of Palestin- ian Judaism, but with Jesus Christ. Don’t listen to them. Do listen to Him! Details: Verses 34-26. Jesus has just silenced the Sadducees in their faithless understanding of the resurrection. The Pharisees are now behind this third and final test. This next test, though, comes through one man, “one of them.” Some textual critics are not convinced of the authenticity of nomiko.j (“an expert in the law”), but if you regard this as authentic this man would represent a higher rung of authority within this group. In the parallel passage of Mark 12:28 this man is identified as ei-j tw/n grammate,wn (“one of the scribes”). The idea is that the Phari- sees send one of the crème de la crème of their group to represent them in this final testing of Jesus. Note that in Matthew’s account it is clear that the purpose of this question is not simply to get information, but to test Jesus (peira,zw is the root behind the participle). “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Torah?” By no,mw| we should not consider merely the Decalogue, but the entire Torah of Moses. And so options for answering this question could vary extensively. How is this question a test? Perhaps the Pharisees and scribes had their own strong opinions about this and they want to see specifically how Jesus’ teachings measure up. Perhaps this is an effort to draw Jesus into some rabbinic debate and see which side He is on. It could be that this is another question they think Jesus cannot answer to satisfaction. No matter which command He chooses, it will leave out some other commands that are also central to understanding the Torah; this then could give someone cause to accuse Him. This is actually an important question though—and so Jesus answers it clearly and directly. But it is in the intentions and presuppositions that are behind this question where we find the problem. These Pharisees and scribes have not responded to the preaching of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ with repentance and faith. Since Jesus did not come to abolish the Torah and the Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17), faith in Jesus becomes essential for understanding those Scriptures. The Pharisees have not repented and do not have this faith, and so they cannot truly understand even the very Torah they are trying to master. Jesus’ answer (in Matthew’s Gospel) is bound to come in “way over their heads.” (Note

294 that in Matthew there is no response from them to Jesus’ answer.) Perhaps these men are thinking that the “great commandment in the Torah” deals with something that keeps them as Jews distinct from the nations, some matter like circumcision, the Sabbath, ceremonial cleanliness, and the like. John’s preaching of baptism and repentance has already shown that their status as Jews is not the basis anymore for a true faith relationship with the God of Israel (Matt. 3:9)—but they did not believe John. Jesus’ answer to this question will now push beyond their expectations as well—but how you receive Jesus’ answer will be based on what you believe about Jesus. Verses 37-40. Jesus’ twofold answer refers back to the Torah of Moses. “Love the Lord your God…” is from Deuteronomy 6:5, and “love your neighbor as yourself” from Leviticus 19:18b. Jesus calls the command to love God “the first and great commandment,” but then offers that “the second,” the command to love neighbor, “is like it.” Jesus really presents these as two commands that cannot be separated one from the other but that from this point on are to be seen together. “All of the Torah and the Prophets depend on these two commands.” This statement becomes significant when we consider the whole of Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus is the one who came “to fulfill the Torah and the Prophets” (Matt. 5:17). Part of this fulfillment is carried out in Jesus’ role as teacher. In Matthew 5, Jesus teaches His disciples the full extent of what it means to keep the Torah. In Matthew 7:12, Jesus explains what it means to love one’s neighbor, “do to others as you would want them to do to you,” and says “this sums up the Torah and the Prophets.” (Note that love here is expressed in positive action, not in feelings and emotions.) Jesus’ authority as teacher—especially over and against the religious authorities—is also a significant theme in Matthew 21-22. And so Jesus’ answer to the question of this Pharisee is quite significant as a statement of what God truly expects of His people. The people of God are called to love God completely and to love their neighbors as they love themselves, that is, to do the good to their neighbors that they would want to be done to themselves. It does not follow here that Jesus is “a second Moses,” laying down “a new Law.” Matthew does not talk this way about Jesus, and Jesus Himself here is quoting and interpreting the Torah. Matthew does establish, however, that Jesus is the authority to whom we are to listen, the one who fulfills the Old Testament Scrip- tures, the teacher of God par excellence—in addition to being the Messiah, the Son of God. And so we should not blow over His teaching in verses 37-40 with a simple “we can’t do this, but it is a good thing Jesus died for us, so don’t worry about it” kind of attitude. What Jesus teaches here continues to be what God expects of us, His people, and the true disciple is obliged to take this to heart. Considerations for preaching:

I. Jesus explains in today’s lesson the simple yet full extent of what God expects of His people, namely, that we love Him and love our neighbor. We ourselves will naturally acknowledge that we and our hearers have not done this to satisfaction. If this alone were the basis for our salvation, we would not be saved. Matthew, however, presents Jesus as the one who through His death and resurrection saved His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21) and gave His life as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28). So the point of Matthew 22:34-40 for the disciples is not “how are we saved?” II. We may ask this “Lutheran question” to clarify and think through Jesus’ teaching: Does this teaching of Jesus function as “second use of the Law” or as “third use

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 295 of the Law”? Well, it functions both ways depending on who is being addressed. For this Pharisee and his cohorts, this command cannot help but condemn and kill in the end: They do not believe in Jesus! For the disciples of Jesus, however, for those “poor in spirit to whom God has given the Kingdom,” this becomes a description of how we live before God and neighbor. Thus it can be understood as “third use of the Law” or “exhortation to the saved.” As preachers, then, we have to consider the impact on our hearers. III. Jesus is the fulfiller of the Torah and the Prophets not only in His teaching, but also in what He did and continues to do. Jesus is the faithful Son of God and Savior of His people who loved both God and neighbor to the point of dying on the cross. Again, Jesus did this for our salvation. It is on this basis that we His people may rejoice today in Jesus’ instruction regarding “the greatest commandment in the Torah.” David I. Lewis

Reformation Day John 8:31-36 October 30, 2005

Quack, Quack

Especially in this day when the Roman Catholic Church is dealing with so many problems, and is under such tight scrutiny and strong critique anyhow, both internal and external, we do well to avoid the temptation to direct God’s Word just to traditional Reformation Day foils, and instead to inquire about God’s continuing work of reformation among us, and the response He asks from us. The major concept that drives this sermonic study is “truth” (avlh,qeia). What may seem a hopelessly abstract concept, easily filled (or emptied) by a wide range of meanings, is perhaps best approached through the adjectival form of the word, “true.” When Scripture talks of “true” in contrast to what is “false,” it generally is speaking not of something abstract or passive and inert, but to something more active and insidious, closer to what we mean when we talk of “pseudo,” which implies an active attempt to deceive and to claim false authenticity. In terms of the title of this sermon, that would be a quack! As this is being written, the news is reporting a major controversy about a person posing as a doctor. What is dangerous about such a person (a quack) is not that s/he is unqualified, which describes most all of us, but that the person passes her/himself off as a real doctor. People who do not know any better, trust her/his medical judgments, place their lives in her/his hands, sometimes, as in the case just referred to, with tragic and fatal consequences. Quacks, of course, appear in all areas of life, whether medicine, education, business, and finance, even in the church. In a variation of that, Luther even ob- served that the best way to describe the devil is to call him The Quack. Actually, Luther didn’t say Quack, but rather God’s ape. As “monkey see, monkey do,” so the devil takes God’s good gifts to people and perverts them. He separates those gifts from the God who gives them, and turns them into ends in themselves, whether money, education, sex, health, or whatever. When that happens, those things become quacks, assuming an importance and offering a satisfaction that they cannot deliver on.

296 Such was Luther’s fundamental criticism of the church of his day. It had become quack-ified, by so overlaying the Gospel of God’s love in Christ with other requirements and traditions that the Gospel got hidden. The sad result was that— and he speaks from his own experience—the closer people came to the church, the farther they were from God. The more religious people were, the less Christian, in the sense of being centered in Christ. That is a terrible judgment to make on the church, but the reality is that it happens in every age and in a wide variety of quack-ified ways, from the false gospels of many of the televangelists, to abuses and scandals in the church. Beyond those, the church has always been tempted to smother Christ under layers of hypocrisy and self-righteousness, with the result that instead of pointing people to Christ, it points rather to itself, to our moral standards or social positions or warm fellowship (or lack thereof) or even our theological traditions. Whatever it is that’s ours, the devil can twist in ways that hide the Savior who stands behind them, who prompts them in the first place, and to whom those things are meant to point. These may sound like hard words, but to the extent that The Quack is still active and quackery is still reality, we need regularly to turn these words to ourselves. “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Here we need to move back from the adjective “true” to the noun, but capitalize it, “You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free.” Truth capitalized refers, of course, to Him who promised, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” It is His life and death that brings us to the real truth, His truth, the Truth. At the cross, He takes love to the point beyond pretense, beyond deception, beyond quackery. He was true to His Father, true to the road of the cross, true to salvation, true to us as He gave Himself for us. It is that Truth that He also gives to us. One deeply etched perception that has come from close to forty years of ministry in the Chinese world is that Christians there know the Truth. They’ve endured persecution, and in places are still dealing with it. In the process, though, they have become a re-formed church. In knowing the Truth, and being true to Him, they are genuinely free, even in prison. There’s a re-formation for you. No quackery. No games. No self-righteousness. In that sense, “reformation” is not a tainted word, overgrown with battles and bashing. It is the offer of God’s presence among us, within us, in order to live through us so His goal of reforming this whole world becomes also our goal. Suggested outline:

Introduction: Reformation Day does not need to be spent merely criticizing others. God’s work of reform is His gift for all His children.

I. Part of the meaning of the “truth” that sets people free is seen in its opposite, namely, what is “false, pseudo” or a quack. A. Quacks appear in virtually all aspects of life, often with sad or harmful consequences. B. Quackery serves also to appreciate Luther’s criticism of the church of his day. C. Quackery lives in the church then and now, because of the diabolical work of The Quack. II. Opposed to both quackery and The Quack stands the one who is The Truth. A. His truthfulness (=trustworthiness) is seen most clearly in the gift of His life on the cross for people.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 297 B. The Truth gives also His truth to His people, so that they can be free from self-deception (quackery). C. The Truth also gives His truth to His people, so that they can be free to live His truth. Christians under persecution perhaps understand this reality and the difference between Truth and Quack more clearly than others. III. This gift of Truth frees us also to be part of His goal of re-forming the entire world, using us as both examples and agents of His reformation. Henry Rowold

298 “On the reading of many books...”

INTERPRETING DISCONTINUITY: Isaiah’s Tyre Oracle. By R. Reed Lessing. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. 313 pages. Cloth. $37.95.

In this book, a revision of his 2001 dissertation from Concordia Seminary, Lessing takes us into the laboratories of two scholarly “schools,” redaction criticism and rhetorical criticism. Once inside each lab, Lessing describes “the tools” which each group uses for its work: their methodology, presuppositions, results of previous “experiments,” and even a brief history of each discipline. The highlight of the “tour” is the “experiment” performed on Isaiah 23, the Tyre Oracle. Here, we actually get to see different critics dissect a text, make observations on what they see, and draw conclusions. Lessing does a great job in guiding us through the intricacies of the experiment and the debate over the conclusions that are reached. No neutral observer, Lessing does the work of the rhetorical critic, switching hats from tour guide to lead participant in the examination of the oracle. In this move, he breaks new ground in the interpretation of this difficult chapter. By looking at the text through different lenses—different presuppositions—he comes to conclusions about its historical situation, its nature and its impact which differ substantially from those of the redaction critic. However, though Lessing disagrees with the conclusions of that “school” of scholarship, he is always respectful and fair in his critique. Lessing’s study contains ten chapters plus a conclusion. In chapter one, he lays the groundwork for the rest of the book. Here, he proposes that Isaiah 23 is a good choice for examining both the redaction and rhetorical methodology because it is filled with what he calls “discontinuity.” That is to say, it contains what appears to be inconsistencies, contradictions, tensions, and other difficulties which have caused much disagreement among scholars as to its meaning (7). Chapter two is an excellent overview of the history of redaction criticism and its connections to form criticism. In this chapter, Lessing touches on most of the major scholars who work within these disciplines, clarifying their methodology and goals. For example, on pages thirty and following, Lessing explains what “counts as” discontinuity for a redaction critic and what the significance of the phenomena is to him. This is a great chapter for pastors who need to understand major scholarly trends in Biblical interpretation because it is clearly written without unhelpful and opaque scholarly jargon. His chapter summary well summarizes the major presuppositions of the form/redaction critical “school”: (1) prophets were not writers but orators; (2) original prophetic utterances were short; (3) prophetic utterances were in pure forms; (4) discontinuity is an indication of later editions (36). Chapters three and four bring us to the “laboratory” of three redaction critics, Otto Kaiser, Hans Wildberger, and Marvin Sweeney. After discussing their reading strategies and foundational assumptions (chapter three), Lessing summarizes their work on Isaiah 23 specifically by means of a “redactional translation” and commentary (chapter four). Both of these chapters are extremely well done. His summary charts at the end of his discussions of each scholar (chapter four) are valuable for easy comparison and evaluation of the work of each. In chapter five, Lessing turns his attention to his true interest, rhetorical criticism. In addition to a brief history of the discipline, Lessing presents an extensive discussion of its methodology (104-132). Basically, rhetorical criticism views

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 299 “discontinuity” not as indications of different layers or sources, but as features that have stylistic and pragmatic functions. Thus, the text is understood as a unified, sequential, and coherent whole and not as a patchwork of smaller, ill- fitting texts. In this chapter, Lessing describes how the assumptions of rhetorical criticism will be applied to the Tyre Oracle: (1) Prophets played a role similar to that of the political orator of ancient Greece in that they sought to persuade their hearers, and they did not speak in short, self-contained sayings (109). (2) The text is a literary artistry, composed for oral delivery in a specific historical situation (112). (3) Isaiah 23 is a warning. Isaiah warns Judah not to emulate the pride of Tyre. The goal is to persuade Judah not to enter into alliance with Tyre against Assyria (115). (4) The genre of the oracle is a city-lament, used in a satirical manner (119). These assumptions are thoroughly and convincingly argued by Lessing in this chapter and in the rest of the book. In chapters six and seven, Lessing interprets Isaiah 23 from the perspective of rhetorical criticism. Chapter six is his translation and verse-by-verse commentary on the chapter. It is valuable because not only does he deal with text-critical issues, but because he explains the grammar and syntax of this difficult text. In this close- up look at how a rhetorical critic works, we begin to understand anew how the prophets spoke in order to affect their hearers. Thus, the chapter has implications for how one reads other prophetic oracles as well. Chapter seven is another chapter that will be especially valuable to parish pastors. Here Lessing gives a rhetorical-historical analysis of Isaiah 23. He inves- tigates the historical situation behind the oracle and concludes that it was delivered in the Jerusalem court to Hezekiah in 701 B.C. (at the height of the Assyrian crisis). This chapter will prove helpful to pastors because the time-period described by Lessing is important for many other Biblical texts in addition to Isaiah 23. His description of the Assyrian kingdom and its relationships with Judah and other countries in that region is a very clear and readable account of an extremely complex period. Lessing makes sense of all the data in an accessible way that pastors will appreciate for their own Bible classes and adult instruction. After a shorter chapter discussing the satire in Isaiah 23 (chapter eight), in chapter nine Lessing analyzes the rhetoric of Isaiah 23. Again, proceeding verse by verse through the chapter, he discusses features such as parallelism, repetition, irony, imagery, and other phenomena and how these are used by the prophet to persuade his audience (237-238). Chapter ten moves to a debate between the two methods. Here, Lessing “discusses” with Kaiser, Wildberger, and Sweeney the discontinuities in the text and suggests that many of the emendations and changes they make are unnecessary when the rhetoric and pragmatics of the text are taken into consideration. Chapter eleven is a short concluding chapter summarizing Lessing’s findings and the superiority of the rhetorical reading of the text. After “touring the laboratories” and examining the evidence, we can only judge Lessing’s “experiment” as a rousing success. He has given us an in-depth look at two reading strategies fundamentally opposed to each other and applied them to Isaiah 23. Lessing’s study beautifully illustrates that rhetorical critics can offer a richer, more multi-dimensional, convincing approach to the interpretation of a text than redaction and form critics can. Not only does the rhetorical critic take the final form of the text seriously as his object of study, but he also takes history seriously, being careful to situate the text into a specific historical situation which is all important for a correct interpretation of it. His approach to the pragmatics and the function of the text in a specific context is also to be appreciated. For the

300 parish pastor who wants to learn how a good, conservative Christian scholar (pastors included) can make a very convincing case to the scholarly world for the unity of the Biblical text, this book is the one to get. Timothy E. Saleska

BY DESIGN OR BY CHANCE?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe. By Denyse O’Leary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2004. 337 pages. Paper. $15.99.

Until the early 1980s, Darwinists, neo-Darwinists (the role of genetics in natural selection via survival of the fittest), Creationists, Scientific Creationists, and Theistic Evolutionists had been battling over not only the origin and nature of the cosmos, but also human beings. Added to this debate in the 1980s is the Intelli- gent Design (ID) Theory: design is detectable in nature, yet the Designer remains anonymous. This book summarizes the historical foundations of Darwin’s Theory of Evolu- tion, Theistic Evolution, Creation, and Intelligent Design Theory. Some of the chapter titles are: “By Design or Chance?”; “Who Was Darwin? What Did He Really Say?”; “Creationism: Morphing into a Modern Movement”; “Why Has Creationism Been Growing?”; “Intelligent Design: Why So Controversial; Is ID Good Theology? Is It Theology At All?” These and other chapters are set up to probe questions about the various cosmologies and cosmogonies she addresses. This is an excellent book. The book’s greatest contribution is the charts and summary statements that are set up throughout each chapter. There are charts comparing Darwin’s major tenets with ID, Theistic Evolution and Creation; charts showing the timelines of ID theory and its development in the last three decades; and charts that compare ID and the main tenets of scientific method. In addition, O’Leary includes “boxed-in” summaries of ID, Theistic and Darwinian Evolution and Creation. Some of these summary statements are titled: “Can Science Survive a Design Inference?”; “What Major ID Advocates Are Saying”; “Not All Creation- ists Are Christians”; “A Key Bible Passage on the Origin and Redemption of Evil in the Natural World”; “Do You Believe in ‘Evolution’? What Type?”; “What Definition of Faith Makes the Most Sense to You?”; and “Why Do Scientists Leave God Out of the Picture?” From her viewpoint, O’Leary believes that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is being accepted less and less by society, and that ID is being accepted more and more. She supports legislation that would include ID in academic biology books used in elementary schools, high schools, and colleges. She does not concur with Darwinists that ID is a ploy to seek a form of “scientific creationism” in the public classroom. I agree with this tenent because the ID Theory says that evolution occurred, but law and chance cannot do everything by themselves; nature consists of law, chance, and design; that Noah’s flood does not explain the geology that we see today; and that the earth may or may not have been created in six twenty-four- hour days. As O’Leary points out, ID is not Darwin, but does not exclude Darwin; it is not Theistic Evolution (TE) but agrees with the aspect of TE that supports a “god” as designer who uses billions of years to complete his design; is not a form of Scientific Creationism (SC) yet uses the same science that SC supporters use to refute Darwin and validate Genesis 1-3 without identifying Yahweh as the Designer.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 301 Many Missouri Synod Lutherans would like to see ID Theory included in elementary, high school, and college biology books because they believe that it forms a pattern that connects to the six day, twenty-four-hour Biblical creation story in Genesis. Unfortunately, ID Theory’s weakness, as O’Leary points out, is that it does not identify the Designer. It could be the triune God, Buddha, Gaia, etc. Re- member, it does not discount Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod needs to continue to encourage its pastors, teachers, DCEs, Dea- conesses, and all church workers to place Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Theistic Evolution, ID Theory, Panspermia Theory (the theory that we came from Extra- terrestrial DNA seeded in the universe by extra-terrestrials billions of years ago), or whatever other theories there are within the context of God’s Word. Hence, the Word of God is the norm and not theories of cosmology and cosmogony. Denyse O’Leary has composed an excellent historical and up-to-date review of the various theories of the origin of the universe and mankind. She is fair and balanced. The historical content of this book is well done. It is presented in easy fashion so that any biology teacher, Sunday school teacher, pastor, or other church professional could use her book to discuss these theories in light of Biblical creation. Lastly, I believe that parents will find this an excellent resource book to assist them in their catechetical instruction of their children who come home from a biology class on Darwin and the Big Bang Theory. This is a controversy that faces every child and parent. Christians need to be informed on how those who do not support Biblical creation are thinking and what their presuppositions are in light of these theories. Christians who believe in the doctrine of creation as given to us by God in Genesis remember: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Robert Weise

GOD AND THE EMBRYO: Religious Voices on Stem Cells and Cloning. Edited by Brent Waters and Ronald Cole-Turner. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univer- sity Press, 2003. 228 pages. Paper. $14.48 (A1 Books online).

Adult and embryonic stem cell research is receiving a great deal of attention in the printed and visual media. Currently, there is a political, scientific, and theological tug of war between those persons who support both, and those who support only the former. Intertwined in this debate is the cloning of human embryonic stem cells to avoid tissue and organ rejection. While these technologies have been parsed into therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning, the moral identity of the human embryo lies as the pivotal factor in the debate of cloning for stem cells. Is the embryo a human being or a mere “blob” of non-sentient somatic (body) cells? This book attempts to review this current debate in light of the moral status of the human embryo as well as the pros and cons of embryonic stem cell research. Embedded in this thesis is the editors’ desire to present a religious overview of this topic in such a way that religious disagreement should not keep interested parties, on both sides of this issue, from respecting each other, talking to each other, or hoping to persuade each other to “jump ship” to the other side. This book has three main sections: (1) Frameworks; (2) Embryos; (3) Research. Each section is subdivided into chapters relating to the corresponding main topic. These sections are followed by an extensive appendix that presents various reli-

302 gious statements regarding embryonic stem cell research and cloning. In addition, the editors have compiled a complete summary of the President’s Council on Bio- ethics report on cloning and stem cell research. The first section deals with religion and science as they come together regarding embryonic stem cell research and cloning. The second section deals with the scientific, philosophical and religious controversy over the moral status of the human embryo and its role in cloning for stem cells. The third section attempts to develop criteria for and against the destruction of four- to five-day-old embryos called blastocysts to retrieve the stem cell clusters. This book is comprised of eleven chapters, subdivided under each section. Only three guest authors, Robert Song, Kevin Fitzgerald and Sondra Wheeler favor adult stem research over against embryonic stem cell research. The other eight authors, Ted Peters, Gaymon Bennett, Gene Outka, Brent Waters, Ronald Cole- Turner, James Peterson, and Laurie Zoloth are advocates for embryo research and therapeutic cloning for stem cells. Those nine authors who favor the destruction of “spare, abandoned frozen embryos” as well as the cloning of human embryos for harvesting stem cells (therapeutic cloning) have presented the traditional scope of reasons for their positions. They are a combination of philosophy, science, and religion. Their explanations of support for embryonic stem cell research and cloning are as follows, i.e., the use of human embryos for research: (1) the embryo has less potential than a person; (2) one should use embryonic stem cells to treat the sick as opposed to leaving the sick untreated; (3) this research will result in highly beneficial therapies; (4) opposing embryonic stem cell research would be tantamount to resisting a progressive effort to relieve the suffering of literally thousands of afflicted individuals; (5) don’t create embryos for research but, since we have over 400,000 “excess frozen embryos,” “nothing is lost” by using them; (6) since the embryo has not “twined” or “individuated” prior to the fourteenth day of its development, its destruction for research is acceptable and permissible; (7) in a theological sense, embryos cannot be treated as our neighbors because we cannot interact with them, hence embryonic stem research and therapeutic cloning are acceptable; (8) the philosophical principle of beneficence should be given larger ethical argumentation in support of embryonic stem cell research and cloning for stem cells in the service of healing [this is summed up by Dr. Ted Peters as being safe rather than sorry, vis-à-vis the potential risk of failing to act decisively on behalf those suffering from degenera- tive diseases]; (9) embryonic stem cell research will help the world become more just, i.e., the benefits of embryonic stem cell research will be available to all people, especially the most vulnerable patients; (10) embryo is non-sentient. Those authors who support adult stem research but not embryonic stem research and therapeutic cloning for stem cells counter with the following summary statements: (1) the benefit of the doubt goes to the embryo because there is no definitive scientific or other evidence that the embryo is not a human being [no one can prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the embryo isn’t a human person]; (2) since there is the possibility of killing a person, the embryos should not be de- stroyed for experimental purposes regardless of the perceived benefit, either long or short term; (3) “we are discussing human embryos in the context of what we ourselves once were”; (4) if pro-embryonic stem researchers and supporters can say that there will be future medical benefits derived from this approach, then why not add that treatments and cures for many diseases will come more quickly through other research avenues, such as drug development; (5) if the justification for pro-

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 303 ceeding with the destruction of human embryos for research rests even in part on the claims of need and number, this justification is flawed and requires rethinking; (6) use animal embryos, not human embryos; (7) embryos should not be used as means to an end; (8) the use/abuse of human embryos must cause us to reflect on who we are. The lack of sound exegesis and hermeneutics is obvious in this book. There are occasional references to a few Biblical texts such as Jeremiah 1:5 and Exodus 21:22 as well as to a need for a more sound Biblical anthropology to assist Chris- tians and Jews in structuring their thinking on this subject. While one author talks about the need to focus our anthropology on Christ, there is no mention about the incarnation and its relation to the meaning of our humanity. My evaluation of this book’s religious input is only a form of “tokenism.” There is more emphasis on the philosophical underpinnings of the moral status of the human embryo than theology. In addition, much of the science presented in this book is unfounded and misleading. This is evidenced by the fact that none of the authors are trained in embryology or the basic science of developmental biology. While this book begins with the initial intent on being fair and balanced regarding science, philosophy, and religion, it does not fulfill this objective. It is not about God and the embryo, but a book on the philosophical theory of the ends justifies the means. Regardless, it is a book that should be inwardly digested by all interested parties because it gives a fairly good overview of the reasons presented by those who support embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. Are the philosophical and scientific presuppositions written in this book in service to God’s Word or, are they expressed in mankind’s desire to serve mankind by destroy- ing the weak and vulnerable embryonic human being? It is the latter. Robert Weise

THE GOD GENE: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes. By Dean Hamer. New York: Doubleday, 2004. 241 pages. Cloth. $24.95.

Have you ever noticed how some of your Christian friends seem to be more “spiritual” or more emotionally “into God” than you? Every thing that they say or do appears to be undergirded with immense feeling and emotion. Dr. Dean Hamer, in his latest book titled: The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes, believes that such spirituality has a genetic basis. Dr. Hamer is a behavior scientist that works at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. He was the first scientist to publish scientific evidence in 1993 of the so-called “gay gene.” In 1997, Hamer’s 1993 research was proven unreliable by a Canadian research team of scientists. Hamer writes: “The fact that spirituality has a genetic component implies that it evolved for a purpose…. Our genes can predispose us to believe. But they don’t tell us what to believe in.” This is one of many similar statements by Dr. Hamer that sums up the purpose of his research in search of the gene for a person’s spirituality. What is his definition of spirituality? “It is, in fact, an instinct…. Spirituality is based in consciousness, religion in cognition…we have a genetic predisposition for spiritual belief that is expressed in response to, and shaped by, personal experience and the cultural environment…feelings are what count when it comes down to the sort of private religiousness that we now call spirituality.”

304 After he defines spirituality, he uses a “self-transcendence” scale. Hamer writes: “Self-transcendence is, so far, the simplest way we have to measure spirituality.” Literally, it determines the degree to which you are “at-one-ness” (transcendent individuals tend to see everything, including themselves, as part of one great total- ity) with others and the environment around you. He believes that “self-transcendence” is a good yardstick for faith. Using self-transcendence as his standard, he evaluates three component parts of it as they are laid out by Robert Cloninger, the inventor of the self-transcendence scale. Cloninger developed his scale out of a system of personality classification called the biosocial model. Three main parts of this scale that are measurable are: (1) self-forgetfulness; (2) transpersonal identification; (3) mysticism (spiritual acceptance versus rational materialism)—in short, if you have a high score in Cloninger’s biosocial model about love of nature and feeling part of the universe then you are very spiritual. The thrust of Hamer’s research is to find the genes that influence spirituality. He focused on the part of the brain that dealt with altered states of consciousness which is at the heart of mysticism and self-transcendence. Hence, he narrowed his focus to the part of the brain that produced monoamines, such as serotonin and dopamine. Since genes initiate the structure of monoamines; therefore, genes are partially responsible for our emotions and hence, our spirituality. Since monoamines affect our emotions, such as sad, happy, anger, etc., they are primarily responsible for self-transcendence which is primarily responsible for our spirituality. If one has more of a certain genetic form of monoamines than another, they are more spiritual than others. Hence, Hamer writes the following conclusion at the end of the chapter titled “How the Brain Sees God”: “…feelings of spirituality are a matter of emotions rather than intellect…. It is our genetic makeup that helps to determine how spiritual we are. We do not know God; we feel him.” Hamer believes that this approach to spirituality will offer “common ground” between science and religion. Hence, spirituality is genetic, while religion is based on culture, traditions, beliefs, and ideas. According to Hamer our genes predispose us to believe. This later statement in The God Gene is wrapped up in Neo-Darwinism, i.e., the genetic component to our spirituality implies that it evolved with a specific purpose. This is the main thread that runs throughout Hamer’s book. In the chapter titled “Evolving Faith” Hamer writes: “Where did God genes come from?” He follows this opening question with the following statement: “I believe that our genetic predisposition for faith is no accident.” According to Hamer, faith is a universal facet of our lives. Hamer writes: “Such findings suggest that one possible evolutionary advantage of genes that promote our need to believe in something greater than ourselves—what I call “God genes”—is to improve health and longevity. If people with genes that promote faith and spirituality are less likely to become ill and die, they are more likely to pass on these genes to their offspring.” According to Hamer’s statement: only the strong in faith survive to be progenitors of God genes. Therefore, families that have a strong faith will live longer so that they can have more children and pass on their “God genes.” There is no doubt that some Christians that you meet are more emotional about their spirituality than you. Hamer says that this is predisposed in their genetic makeup and the culture of their home life. Yet, the former is more determi- native than the latter. In addition, this “God gene” is not exclusive. It is respon-

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 305 sible for the “spirituality” of all peoples of all religions. This gene does not discriminate. Since genetic essentialism remains a controversial issue within discussions regarding the essence of mankind, this book is a must read. While many theologians, especially Lutheran theologians, wouldn’t give this book a second glance, it is worth reading. With the emphasis on genetics as the main cause and effect for who we are and why we exist, this book presents the ongoing thinking of some Neo- Darwinists who use genetics to explain any and all of our behaviors from the standpoint of “the genes made me do it.” The God Gene should be renamed In Search of a Spiritual Gene. Perhaps, some day, Hamer will know that Christian faith isn’t hardwired into my body and soul by a corrupted human genome. But “that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). Robert W. Weise

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE: Two Views. By Dan O. Via and Robert A. J. Gagnon. Minneapolis: Fortress , 2003. 117 pages. Paper. $13.00.

This book addresses one of the most important and controverted topics now facing the Christian church and western society. It contains two opposite views of the Biblical teaching about homosexuality. Both authors recognize that all the Biblical passages that address this subject are unanimous and consistent in their condemnation of homosexuality as sin. However, Dan Via disagrees with the Bib- lical position whereas Robert Gagnon affirms it. Gagnon translates and explains 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which summarizes the Biblical position, as follows: “Stop deceiving yourselves. Neither the sexually immoral (the pornoi), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor soft men (malakoi, i.e., effeminate males who play the sexual role of females), nor men who lie with males (arsenokoitai)...will inherit the kingdom of God” (81). The first part of this book, by Via, attempts to persuade the reader that what 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and other Scripture passages say about homosexuality simply is not true. The second part, by Gagnon, is a scholarly exegetical affirmation of what the Scriptures say about homosexuality. In the brief third and fourth parts of this book, Via and Gagnon address the views of each other. The reader may wish to read the second part (by Dr. Gagnon) first, since it is the part that sets forth the Biblical view and is the section that makes this book worth acquiring, in this reviewer’s opinion. In it Gagnon includes bibliographic references to his other writings and his internet website address, www.robgagnon.net. In his other writings and at his website he discusses various aspects of the issue of homosexuality at greater length. His web site also includes incisive commentary on current events, other authors, and news relevant for the issue of homosexuality. In the first part of this book, Dan Via’s repudiation of Biblical passages that condemn homosexuality is a study in hermeneutical error. He asserts that Biblical “texts do not necessarily mean what they say” (3) and employs the method of Gospel reductionism: “some texts are simply disqualified by the whole meaning of the gospel” (3). According to this method the interpreter constructs a “gospel” that supposedly is based on some Biblical passages, and then uses that “gospel” to obviate other passages that do not agree with the interpreter’s “gospel.” The un-

306 derlying assumption is that God’s Word is not one harmonious unity; instead, the Scriptures contradict each other. The strategy is divide and conquer: “When there is theological or ethical conflict within the canon, conscientious Christians simply have to decide to which side they will give priority” (10). So Via can state, “I choose Paul and the Gospels over Leviticus [18:22; 20:13]” (10). But then when Via actually turns to Paul and the Gospels, he nullifies what they too say about homosexuality using gospel reductionism again interspersed with large doses of psychologiz- ing and experientialism. “If we look at a number of biblical themes in the light of contemporary knowledge and experience, we can justifiably override the unconditional biblical condemnations of homosexual practice” (38, italics added). Thus “contemporary knowledge and experience” trump the Word of God. In the end Via concedes that the unanimous and “unconditional” (38) testimony of all Scriptural passages that address homosexuality condemn it for one reason or another. So his final appeal, astonishingly, is to “my claim of a new ‘revelation’” (38). He believes in ongoing divine revelation through the church, and through himself in particular (38-39). That traditionally has been a Roman Catho- lic teaching; what strange hermeneutical bedfellows this makes! Via claims that the Spirit is now leading the church into “all truth” (John 16:12), which includes “a new posture toward homosexuality” (39). Via thus ascribes to the Holy Spirit a pernicious new teaching that is directly contrary to the teaching of Christ and His apostles who, inspired by the Spirit, wrote the New Testament. This is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In the book’s second part, Robert Gagnon begins with an appeal to “what matters in Scripture” and warns of “a heightened risk of the loss of salvation for those who actively engage in homosexual behavior” (41). His exegetical method is a huge and welcome improvement over that of Via. Nevertheless, this reviewer does consider it to have some weaknesses. He states, “When I come to Scripture, I use historical-critical methodology” (41). Gagnon also makes an implicit concession to the idea of progressive revelation (advocated by Via and others). He says, “I also believe that Scripture is the primary authority for faith and practice” (42, italics added), but Scripture is not his exclusive and absolute authority. He does not object that “the contemporary church has gone further [than Scripture and the apostolic church] in ordaining women pastors” (46). Gagnon argues that “the acceptance of women in ministry is also a bad analogy” for the acceptance of homosexuality (46). But he does not seem to realize that his acceptance of the ordination of women is a hermeneutical precedent for accepting the ordination of homosexuals. Both practices are contrary to the Scriptures and can only be done by church bodies who have abandoned God’s Word as the sole source and norm for the Christian faith and life. Both are done by denominations that claim to be more enlightened now than the apostles and the early church were—claiming, in essence, a progressive and new revelation or a liberation from the need to be normed by Scripture. Denominations that are now ordaining homosexuals are simply taking the next step along the downward path that began with a critical view of Scripture and then led to the ordination of women. Nevertheless, on pages 50-88 Gagnon has much salutary exegesis of key Scrip- ture passages. He rightly expounds Law and Gospel as he shows that Biblical love and grace cannot be perverted into acceptance of homosexuality (50-56). “Anyone who contends on the basis of a Pauline (or Lutheran) law/gospel distinction that attention to commandments, especially as regards sexual behavior, is a legalism that subverts the gospel of grace has not understood Paul (or Luther)” (56). Gagnon

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 307 demonstrates the pervasive stance against homosexuality in the Old Testament (56-68), in the witness of Jesus (68-74), and in the witness of Paul (75-88). Among the many passages he discusses are Genesis 1-3; references to Sodom (Gen. 19 and later OT and NT passages); Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17-18; Mark 7:6, 21-23; 10:1-12; John 4; 7:53-8:11; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:10; Revelation 21:8; 22:15. Gagnon gives additional attention to Ro- mans 1:24-27 (76-81) and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (81-88). This reviewer appreciated and agreed with almost all of Gagnon’s exegesis of almost all of the passages he addresses. These areas of agreement are too numerous to list here. Only in two cases did this reviewer disagree: that Genesis 9:20-27 is “a reference to incestuous, homosexual rape” (56-57) and that “in Genesis 2:18- 24 a binary or sexually undifferentiated human (the adam) is split into two sexually differentiated beings” (61). Dr. Gagnon is to be commended for his courageous advocacy of Scripture’s teaching on this topic. No doubt he is the target of much vociferous and acerbic criticism, yet he has stood his ground. He is an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA), yet this reviewer was impressed with his presentation of Lutheran theology at various points in this book (and also in an article currently available on his web site, www.robgagnon.net). A review of this book would not be complete without asking two additional questions. First, why would a publisher associated with a denomination that is historically Lutheran (the church of sola Scriptura) publish a book whose first part is a repudiation of Scripture? Second, why would a publisher combine in one volume “two views” (the subtitle) that are mutually exclusive and incompatible with each other? Apparently the (postmodern) presupposition of the publisher is that there is no “right” or “wrong” view—no absolute divine truth nor damning error. By juxtaposing error and truth (in that order), this book implies that the reader is free to pick either. Therefore this reviewer’s opinion is that it would be dangerous to put this whole book into the hands of readers who are not firmly grounded in exegetical and doctrinal theology. However, the discerning pastor will find much good Biblical theology in its second part, which could be used profitably as material for congregational Bible study and in the pastor’s counseling ministry. The faithful pastor may also benefit from reading the first part of the book so that he will better know what errors he should be fortifying his people to withstand. Christopher W. Mitchell St. Louis, MO

BIBLE: God’s Inspired, Inerrant Word. By Brian R. Keller. Milwaukee: Northwest- ern, 2003. 219 pages. Paper. $13.99.

This is a book I wish I had written! I have been looking for a good resource for introducing adult Christians to the finer points of Biblical hermeneutics without getting into a seminary-level textbook. Brian R. Keller has provided this resource for the people of WELS, but it is a tool readily adaptable for LCMS members as well. The People’s Bible Teachings series by Northwestern Publishing House continues to provide outstanding resources for parish pastors to enable congregational growth in faith and life. Introducing the Bible to another generation of Christian adults includes the

308 encouragement “to read the Bible for what it is: God’s verbally inspired and inerrant Word” (7), says Keller. The first five chapters deal with foundational questions from “What is the Bible?” to “Why did God give us the Bible?” Keller then provides a cursory overview of all sixty-six books, including their historical contexts. The last several chapters provide a history of how the Bible came down to us through translations, along with suggestions on how to read and understand it. Much of the book deals with establishing a clear view that Scripture is not only God’s Word from the past, but the Bible has continuing relevance for the contemporary Christian’s daily life and also for her or his eternity. As such, the Bible’s own self-affirmation is repeatedly underscored throughout this book. Similarly, numerous church fathers are cited in support, especially Martin Luther’s view of the power and purpose and pleasure of reading God’s very own Word as the place where we can find Christ. As Jerome said over a millennium and a half ago, “Ignorance of the Bible is ignorance of Christ.” One overarching theme throughout the book is its subtitle: God’s Inspired and Inerrant Word. The second chapter lays out clear arguments supporting the fact of Scripture’s inerrancy: “If the Bible were filled with falsehood, there could be no dependable certainty even of the fact that Jesus loves you” (25). Briefly drawing on objections to Scripture’s inerrancy, Keller shows that most Christians affirm this characteristic as a matter of faith. In chapter three, Keller leads the reader to Scripture’s authority as rule and norm for faith and life, its clarity and sufficiency in all things relating to salvation, and its ultimate effective power when received by faith. The powerfully destructive influence of the historical-critical method with its various aberrations is central to chapter four, “Modern Errors about the Bible.” As Keller notes, “Historical-critical methods always assume that the Bible has errors, otherwise why is the scholar picking things out and rejecting them? …Histori- cal-critical methods really cannot coexist with a firm conviction that Scripture is the verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God” (61). Addressing critical anthropocentric Rationalism, hierarchical Roman Catholic tradition, subjective Neo-orthodoxy, and the blasphemous Jesus Seminar, Keller returns again and again to the assurance of Scripture’s authority for faith and life. Hitting close to home were Keller’s comments on the LCMS’s synodical controversy over the Bible in the 1970s. “Satan knew that if he could inject this critical poison into the very source of Missouri’s pastors, it would not be long before that poison would spread throughout the church body,” declares Keller. While giving mild compliments to Concordia Seminary (St. Louis) for its return to faithful Scriptural study, he castigates the Missouri Synod nonetheless for its persistent toleration of liberal tendencies: “While Concordia seemed to beat back the historical-critical rebellion of Seminex, visible scars remain from the battle. Many LCMS pastors who supported the liberal professors and denied the inerrancy of the Bible remain in the Missouri Synod. Today’s LCMS still does not agree with the “old Missouri” Synod in the teaching and practice of church discipline and church fellowship. Consequently, those who do not regard the Bible as inerrant are allowed to stay, and liberals outside the synod still can influence the LCMS” (69). He concludes correctly, “Historical-critical methods cannot be reconciled with genuine evangelical Lutheranism” (69). “Yet God has revealed some of his secrets,” Keller asserts as he attempts to answer the question of chapter five, “Why Did God Give Us the Bible?” Scripture has several purposes: to reveal the way of salvation, to point to Christ in both

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 309 testaments, to be used “for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). Concluding that chapter, he delineates ten ways in which people misuse the Bible for their own or Satan’s purposes. Most conservative scholars would agree with the attribution of authorship and the general dates given for each Biblical book as noted in chapters six and seven. Without much commentary, Keller provides a brief paragraph on every book in the Bible. He then assigns approximate dates for the composition of each book of the Bible, although Job’s author is listed as “uncertain” and the approximate date written as “uncertain (before 2000 B.C. or perhaps much later)” which doesn’t help the general reader very much. He included Hebrews among “the 13 epistles of Paul” (107) as a fourteenth book, noting in the next chapter that “Luther guessed Apollos” as the author (118). Briefly explaining the discrepancies in various dating systems, Keller humorously describes the original calculations for dating Christ- mas by Dionysius Exiguus (“the Little”) as “the monk who was short in height was long in his counting of the years. He missed Christ’s birth by approximately five or six years…” (119). He also points out how Archbishop Ussher’s chronology, familiar to users of the King James Version, was also problematic in methodology and therefore conclusions. Asserting once again Scripture’s divine inspiration, Keller shows how the canon of the Bible was derived and as a result carries God’s authority as well as its own internal supporting testimony. Differing from Luther, Keller suggests that the canon is closed (133 and 141), noting only that Luther included the Apocrypha in his Bible. He then illustrates how Christ and the early Christians were familiar with all the Old Testament books, except Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. Scripture’s transmission down through the ages is succinctly explained in chapter nine. Keller describes the use of scrolls and scribal errors or “corrections” which crept into the texts, including an error of his own in dating the Dead Sea Scrolls as coming from “the first century A.D.” instead of “B.C.” (151). In three brief pages, Keller provides an overview of textual criticism showing how the process helps assure a reliable text of the Bible today. Communicating “the meanings of words from one language to another” is Keller’s simple definition of a translation as markedly distinct from a paraphrase, which only provides “the general sense of the original text by using a rather free equivalent or explanation of the original text” (161). Beginning with the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament translation), he quickly moves to Luther’s German Bible and then focuses on several significant English versions. Noting the change in the English language, particularly since the King James Version, Keller quips, “Many pastors today are privately glad that they no longer need to squirm when reading the Palm Sunday account from the KJV (see Matt. 21:2,5,7). It’s just easier today to read the word donkey instead” (169). Conforming to the WELS’s preference for the NIV, he places it between a literal translation and a paraphrase as he briefly comments on the Revised Standard Version (1952), the Living Bible, the New American Standard Bible, William Beck’s An American Translation (which he recommends over the Living Bible), New King James Version, New Revised Stan- dard Version, The New Living Translation (which he warns “obscures the doctrine of justification” (176). “How Do We Read and Understand the Bible?,” the title for the final chapter, is answered by Keller as he provides a seven-step outline for Biblical interpretation that is accessible to lay people without technical theological or linguistic expertise: “1. Pray for God’s help. 2. Understand what the individual words mean.

310 3. Study how those words fit together in the immediate and wider context. 4. Stay with the literal meaning, unless Scripture indicates otherwise. 5. Find the point of comparison in parables. 6. Let Scripture interpret Scripture. 7. Ask yourself questions about what you have read” (178-179). He offers some practical suggestions on reading the Bible, beginning with Genesis but then moving to the New Testa- ment Gospels and Acts, followed by Romans. Keller, in three and a half pages, discusses Bible study tools such as atlases, concordances, and Bible dictionaries. Giving some support for study Bibles, he warns “The Concordia Self-Study Bible is a little better than the NIV Study Bible because it has tried to ‘Lutheranize’ the notes. However, some incorrect ideas have slipped through. And some of the direct messianic prophecies are given improper partial fulfillments or might not even be mentioned in the notes. Psalm 16, Psalm 22, and Isaiah 7:14 are just three examples of this…. For that reason, we must say: Let the buyer or user beware” (194-195). He concludes the book, encouraging readers to pick up the Bible, by providing a selection of verses from Psalm 119. Endnotes, an extremely limited suggested reading list, Scripture index, and subject list are also included. Eleven excellent well-written chapters! Eleven exciting Bible study sessions! Pastors who are looking for a way to introduce their members to a deeper appreciation and use of Scripture will want to order several copies of this book for a series of classes in their congregation. Ending with his strong basic premise of the book that God’s Word is indeed reliable and authoritative, Keller bridges the gap between those who have harbored concerns for the historical critical approach and those who have neglected all study of Scripture. I wish I had written this book! Timothy Maschke Mequon, WI

DESIGNER UNIVERSE: Intelligent Design and the Existence of God. By Jimmy H. Davis and Harry L. Poe. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2002. 252 pages. Paper. $12.99.

The back cover of the book gives an apparent summary of its content. It states, “Scientific discoveries of the twentieth century have opened the door for a renewed look at Intelligent Design evidences concerning the existence of God, radically challenging the accepted wisdom of Darwinism, and showing the flaws in Darwin’s theories.” While the first part of the sentence is fact, the second part, to me, seems somewhat overstated. The authors do indeed cite information that puts one in awe of the macroscopic and especially the microscopic design of the universe, but it is not, so it seems to me, “radically challenging the accepted wisdom of Darwinism.” Materialistic scientists still insist that what they see “was not designed, but rather evolved.” In their foreword the authors confess that they “write from a perspective of faith” (xvi). Stating one’s presupposition is a necessity for honest communication, since it makes others aware of how the authors integrate the material which they present. The first three chapters provide a summary of the perspective on design for the last three thousand years. Chapters four to six focus on the scientific breakthroughs in three major realms of science: cosmology, math and physics, and chemistry and biology. In chapter seven the authors focus on the awe and wonder which

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 311 the design in nature produces. In the first chapter the authors discuss the perspective of different cultures on design. While people in these cultures may not define “design” in the same way, they nevertheless consider it to be a fact. The authors conclude, “We have seen that however design is conceived by different cultures, it appears as a basic assumption of the worldview from which it comes. People assume it as self-evident truth” (24). With his publication of The Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin challenged the design assumption. As a result the notion of design came to be viewed with great skepticism, especially in the West. The authors trace the development of this skepticism in chapters two and three. Prior to the Middle Ages design was not used as an argument for the existence of God but rather served to highlight the kind of God He was. The idea of design, however, changed from an assumption to an intellectual argument. This change in the mode of point of view played a central role in the secularization of the West. Having appropriated the philosophy of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas initiated the process of demonstrating the existence of God with his five proofs. While there were some philosophers who doubted that God’s existence could be proven from design, the movement persisted until, under the influence of rationalism and later empiricism, the argument collapsed. Philosophers and scientists came to the conclusion that what was attributable to design was actually due to natural selection or innate laws. In chapters four to six the authors present facts from the macrocosm to the microcosm to demonstrate design. In their discussion of the fine-tuned universe they cite Fred Hoyle, a British atheist:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question (88).

While some scientists claim that there could be as many as ten technical civiliza- tions in the Milky Way at any one time, the authors cite numerous data which lead to the conclusion that the “Earth now appears to be the uncommon Earth, the rare Earth.” Nevertheless they conclude with the following concession, “The response to evidence pointing to a created universe, a fine-tuned universe, and an uncommon earth depend upon one’s worldview” (109). In this connection they cite the astro- physicist George Greenstein:

As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or rather, Agency—must be involved…. Unfortu- nately I believe it to be illusory…. I believe that the discoveries of science are not capable of proving God’s existence not now, not ever. And more than that: I believe the reference to God will never suffice to explain a single one of these discoveries. God is not an explanation (109).

It is not the evidence itself but a person’s worldview that determines how one perceives the cosmos. In the final chapter the authors make reference to the awe and wonder which the macrocosm and microcosm inspire in many people and how scientists tend to

312 drain the aesthetic out of the objects of their investigation by looking at things only in terms of utility. The authors go on to cite further evidence for design from the orderliness of the universe as comprehended through mathematics, the 118 elements that have so far been discovered, the interdependence of living organisms, and the biochemistry of life. Because of the impressive appearance of design, Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of the DNA double helix has to remind himself and other scientists, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved” (194). It seems that even materialistic scientists appear to fall prey to the notion that life was designed; therefore, they have to remind themselves constantly that everything really evolved. The Intelligent Design movement, to which the authors make repeated positive references, has indeed introduced the possibility of conversation with materialistic science, because it deals with scientific evidence without any reference to God. Yet science and the Christian faith are not much closer than they were before its appearance. While Christians, on the basis of the triune God’s own testimony in Scripture, firmly believe that He created all things and therefore there is design in the universe, materialistic scientists are just as certain that everything evolved, though they have to admit the appearance of design. This fact leads to the conclusion that the way one sees the world depends on one’s presupposition, be it philosophical or just ordinary. Jacob Heckert Ann Arbor, MI

A BIBLICAL TEXT AND ITS AFTERLIFE: The Survival of Jonah in Western Culture. By Yvonne Sherwood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 321 pages. Paper. $26.00.

Jonah is a book that people seem to “know.” Even if they have never con- sciously read the Bible they think of it as double act— “Jonah and the Whale,” like “Laurel and Hardy” or “Gilbert and Sullivan.” Jonah’s influence can be seen in such diverse literature as Pinocchio and Moby Dick. Since Jonah has made an indelible mark upon Western culture, Sherwood sets out to study what she calls the book’s “afterlife.” The book is divided into three sections. Sherwood labels the first part “The Mainstream” where she surveys the scholarly Jewish and Christian works on Jonah from the first through the twentieth century. The most substantial part of the book is then devoted to its second section—the “backwaters and underbellies.” In this section the author considers how poets, artists, novelists, and play writers have understood Jonah over the course of time. In devoting this part to readings of Jonah that don’t flow from mainstream scholarship, Sherwood considers the interpretations of the book from the eyes of Jewish and cultural studies. In the third section she offers her own interpretation of the book. The study is, therefore, a collage of different disciplines such as Biblical Studies, Literary and Cultural History, and English and American Literature. Striking insights abound, especially in Sherwood’s own treatment of the book. In her comments on Jonah 1:2 (“Arise, go to Nineveh…”) she notes that in the only other instance of a Hebrew prophet sent to a foreign king the experience was self- destructive; Elisha is commissioned by God to anoint Hazael king over Syria and

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 313 he does this weeping because he tells Hazael, “I know the evil that you will do to the people of Israel; you will set fire to their fortresses, and you will slay their young men with the sword, and dash in pieces their little ones and rip up their women with child” (2 Kings 8:12). If the reader of Jonah is aware of this narrative, he is prepared to expect that a similar experience is in store for the prophet Jonah and the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Therefore, from the very beginning of the book, Jonah is on a kamikaze course; a plot where he and his nation are moving toward self-annihilation. As Jonah 3 states, Nineveh is spared (ca. 760 B.C.), but then as one of the chief cities of the Assyrian juggernaut, the city is instrumental in Israel’s death (721 B.C.). Sherwood also notes that usually Yahweh’s word is the perfect performative, where to speak is to create. God says “Let there be light” and “it was so” (Gen. 1:3). He commands Elijah, “Arise go to Zarapheth” (1 Kings 17:9), and Elijah “arises and goes” (1 Kings 17:10). He tells Jeremiah, “Arise, go to the Euphrates and hide” (Jer. 13:6), and Jeremiah arises and hides (Jer. 13:7). But in Jonah 1:3 the prophet arises and flees. But there is more irony. Normally prophets protest their inability to speak—Moses protests that he is not a “man of words” (Ex. 4:10); Jeremiah fears that he “does not know how to speak” (Jer. 1:6); Isaiah insists that his words are unworthy, his lips unclean (Is. 6:5)—but Jonah in contrast, goes the opposite direction without saying a word! Sherwood is at her best when she deftly assimilates Biblical themes as they relate to the book of Jonah. For example, within the Old Testament Assyria is featured as (among other things) a swarm of killer bees that Yahweh whistles from across the river (Is. 7:18); the razor that He uses to shave the nation’s genitalia and expose in shame to the world (Is. 7:20); the rod of Yahweh’s anger and the staff of His fury (Is. 10:5); and the force that devours the surrounding countryside, leaving Jerusalem tottering like a pathetic hut (Is. 1:8). Assyrians can typically be found striding through the Biblical corpus, hands on hips, plaguing Judean kings with taunts like: “I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able to set riders on them” (Is. 36:8), and proclaiming to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in the Hebrew language that they are destined to “eat their own dung and drink their own urine” (Is. 36:12). All of this gives depth to the violence that Jonah 3:8 indicates is in the hands of the Ninevites. One more example will suffice. Ships going to Tarshish are well-known in the Old Testament. 1 Kings 22:2 and 2 Chronicles 20:35-37 report how Jehoshaphat made “ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold; but they did not go, for the ships were wrecked at Ezion-geber.” Psalm 48 praises the God who “by the east wind did shatter the ships of Tarshish,” and this is said in such a way as to indicate that the tradition is well known. In Isaiah 23:1, 14 the ships of Tarshish are exhorted to “howl because their stronghold has been devastated.” Finally, in Ezekiel 27:25-26 Tarshish ships “fall into the heart of the sea.” Hence, they function like a “banana- skin” tradition, for a “ship going to Tarshish” roughly translates as “the Titanic going out on her maiden voyage.” The analogy is almost exact, for Tarshish ships are proud, noble structures (cf. Is. 2:16 as a symbol of everything that is “high and lifted up” against Yahweh), carrying precious cargoes, and they are generically programmed to be “shattered by the east wind” and to promptly “sink into the heart of the sea.” Hence, in Jonah 1:3 when the prodigal prophet purchases a Tarshish ship, he is bound to fail in his plans. In all of this Sherwood successfully merges three different spheres of Jonah studies—past commentaries, non-academic readings, and her own insights—to

314 offer stimulating thoughts for all who still believe in the “afterlife” of Jonah, albeit finally through the one who is “greater than Jonah” (Matt. 12:41), Jesus our Lord. Reed Lessing

IMMANUEL IN OUR PLACE: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship. By Tremper Longman. Phillipsburg, N J: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2001. 228 pages. Paper. $15.00.

Even a cursory reading of the Gospels and Epistles reveals that the significance of Jesus’ death is painted in the colors of the tabernacle, temple, priesthood, festivals, and sacrifices of the Old Testament. But where can the busy pastor find material that conservatively and evangelically offers an exposition on these Old Testament themes? Tremper Longman—a well-known Biblical scholar—answers this need with his book, Immanuel in Our Place. The author uses solid exegesis, displays a grasp of Biblical theology and places Jesus Christ as his central focus, making this book like manna in the desert for pastors who long to relate the Levitical sections of the Old Testament to Christian life and worship. The outline of the book is as follows: sacred space, sacred actions, sacred people and finally sacred time, making it ideal for a parish Bible Study. Longman’s strongest section is on sacred space. He begins by noting that the Garden of Eden was the “garden of God” (Ezek. 31:8) and that Ezekiel also describes Eden as a mountain (28:14). The connection between garden and mountain is an important one for the development of the Biblical theme of sacred space because Yahweh appears on mountains such as Moriah, Sinai, and Zion throughout the Old Testament making these places “Eden restored.” The author also makes a connection between Eden when he notes that Abraham built altars at Shechem (Gen. 12:6), between Bethel and Ai (12:8; 13:4), in Hebron (13:18), on Mt. Moriah (22:9), and Jacob built an altar at Bethel (35:1-7). As altars were where Yahweh appeared to them, these places therefore became holy and were reminders that one day all the earth would be reclaimed as “Paradise Re- stored.” At Hebron Abraham built an altar next to the oak grove at Mamre (Gen. 13:18). The tree next to the place where God meets His servant is still another reminder of the Garden of Eden, as this garden was a grove of trees as well (cf. Gen. 2:9). Still another dimension of sacred space is the connection between Eden and the construction of the tabernacle. Longman observes that just as the Spirit hovers over the creation (Gen. 1:2), Bezalel and the other workers on the tabernacle are given the Spirit to complete their work (Ex. 31:20). Another connection between the creation of the world and the building of the tabernacle is that Yahweh commands to build the tabernacle in Exodus. 25-31 may be divided into seven speeches (thus echoing the seven days of creation) and the dedication takes place on New Year’s Day which is the commemoration of the first day of creation (Ex. 40:2, 17). Finally, the menorah has tree-like qualities, evoking the trees in the garden of Eden (Ex. 39:43), and the hem of the priestly robes (Ex. 28:31-35) was bordered by golden bells and pomegranates. The latter descriptions also fit into the garden imagery of the tabernacle. Further observations on sacred space made by Longman occur in his discussion on the levels of accessibility of the tabernacle (or so-called “grades of holiness”): outside the camp was the realm of the nations, the ritually unclean; inside

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 315 the camp was only for Israelites who were ritually clean; inside the courtyard was for laypeople with their sacrificial animals, but it was mostly dominated by priests and Levites; inside the tabernacle only priests and Levites could enter; and finally, inside the Holy of Holies only the high priest could enter, once a year (Lev. 16). All of this demonstrates that Yahweh dwells with Israel and invites them into His sacred space. The idea is that through the tabernacle, and especially by means of the Holy of Holies, Yahweh appears in “a little Eden” in a fallen world, a down payment of more to come, finally in Christ. Regarding sacred actions, an example of Longman’s insights may be demonstrated by means of his discussion on the minhah (the “grain offering” of Lev. 2 and Lev. 6:14-23). As a grain offering it was obviously not a sacrifice of blood, and for that reason no atonement language is connected with it. But what is perplexing is that Leviticus 2:13 states: “Season all your grain offerings with salt, to remind you of God’s covenant. Never forget to add salt to your grain offering.” Two other passages associate the covenant with salt. In Numbers 18:19, within the context of establishing Aaron’s family as the priestly family, God promises to sustain them by means of the offerings of Israel. This is a “covenant of salt between Yahweh and you and your descendants.” In 2 Chronicals 13:5, within the reference to the Davidic covenant, Abijah says, “Don’t you realize that Yahweh, the God of Israel, made a covenant of salt with David, giving him and his descendants the throne of Israel forever.” It is with the word “forever” that the idea of salt is connected to the grain offering. Salt, after all, does not burn. It doesn’t turn into gas; it survives fire intact. Nothing destroys salt, just as nothing will destroy Yahweh’s covenant love. Longman’s discussion on sacred people offers insights regarding the ordination, vestments, and services of the priests. For example, the priestly clothes (Ex. 28; cf. specifically 28:5 and 26:1) were similar to the innermost materials of the tabernacle itself. The idea is that the priests were “mini-tabernacles.” A Lutheran can almost hear the words, “In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ….” And this is where Longman’s work is so helpful. With very little work readers of this book are equipped to interpret major sections of the Old Testament to the teachings of incarnation, atonement, worship, substitution, sacrifice, sacraments, ordination, and ministry, just to name a few. Reed Lessing

AMERICA’S WORSHIP WARS. By Terry W. York. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. 138 pages. Paper. $16.95.

Music in worship is a hot topic that transcends denominational lines. Terry W. York, Associate Professor of Christian Ministry at Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, draws upon forty years of personal experience as a musician and theological reflection as a Baptist to consider a contemporary reality in most main- line denominations—worship wars! Growing out of the cultural upheaval of the 1960s and the unprecedented response among Protestants to the changes of Vatican II, York identifies the Jesus Movement and other para-church organizations as exemplifying the cultural and social and religious pressures that precipitated this war. The fountainhead for the strife is the rift between those who experimented with “worship-esque events” (28) and the Christian community which gathers around Word and Sacrament. Appropriately, war-imagery helps explain this ecclesial-cultural phenomenon.

316 York, who has a military background, distinguishes between “the fort” of traditional sanctuaries, denominations, and worship styles and “the front” with no safe places, effective labels, or set styles of worship. This polarity allows him to make sweeping generalities with deep insights; for example:

In the worship wars, tradition, theology, doctrine, innovation, evangelism, social justice, preference, identities, all of these may be perceived as being “under attack” at any one time. In that environment, to speak of one issue can be misinterpreted as devaluing the others. That adds to the fury. Yet, worship seems to rise above its worship war fury. Worship cannot be divorced from theology. That’s why worship wars are so intense (110-111).

Societal and historical background in part I is followed by practical concerns in part II. A “politicization of worship” in hymnals occurs because “denominational hymnals function as something of a doctrinal statement, galvanizing denominational identity” (38). The church growth movement contributes significantly to worship wars, York acknowledges in his chapter, “The Fastest Growing Churches— and Similar Reports.” He warns against “para-worship”; that is, taking “the mo- tions and emotions of worship without the context and responsibilities of community” (54), thereby drawing attention away from God to human actions. Inappro- priate mimicry destroys true Christian growth as churches try “to be mega-like rather than Christ-like” (57). In “The Language of Worship,” he highlights changes in hymn texts, spearheaded by the Lutheran Book of Worship: “Lutherans have taken great liberties with the language of hymns. Their bold steps had, perhaps, overstepped the boundaries of good taste and historical integrity” (81). Concluding with “Negotiated Peace” (part III), York provides a litany of “Cham- pions of Peace”: Graham Kendrick, Sally Morgenthaler, Donald Hustad, Harold M. Best, Marva J. Dawn, and Robert E. Webber. He then expresses concern for training Baptist church musicians—musicians (university graduates) were trained as theologians (seminary studies), yet are not respected for their expertise. Recently several large Baptist congregations, desirous of contemporary music leaders, resorted to training troop leaders in the trenches without expecting sufficient musical pro- ficiency. York fears a serious vacuum of competent composers. He concludes: “Church- related academia has a moral obligation, indeed, a spiritual obligation to lead in the search for a negotiated end to the worship wars and then, a productive peace” (109). How this war will end is still uncertain as York points to two trends heading in opposite directions—one continues to explore contemporary possibilities and another is a “return” to historic liturgical patterns (some Baptists have never been there, he reminds his readers). In light of the LCMS Hymnal Project, York offers this ominous insight: “The more diversified the worship styles, doctrinal verities, and political stances within the denomination, the more difficult it is to produce their hymnal.” Time will tell. Knowing that “a community’s theology and worship cannot be divorced” (xviii), York proposes that a negotiated peace lies in the humble gathering of God’s family, a family which needs to stay together because it is in a real conflict with the world. He concludes that “the power of music that has been allowed to contribute to worship’s wars can, and must, be put to the task of helping to facilitate worship’s peace” (127).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 317 Effective evangelism and God-centered worship are not incompatible, although they are distinct activities of the church. York ponders whether “the work of the front can only remain effective as it stays free of the institutionalization of the fort. To the extent that this is true, it has significant implications in the context of the primary work of the front (evangelism) taking place within the primary work of the fort (worship)” (16). In effect, York points out that these two activities cannot be made to do the same thing, worship can’t be evangelism and evangelism is not worship, in spite of the perceived successful mixture by Billy Graham (18). He warns that “worship and evangelism have overlapped and become entangled” (119) to the detriment of both. “Evangelism will be the result of brothers and sisters in Christ worshipping God and nothing or no one else” (125). The “bottom line” is the answer to a question he asks several times in his book: “Are we worshipping and trying to accomplish something else? If so, let us admit that the ‘something’ else is being treated as a god” (124). Thoughtful worship leaders and theologically sensitive pastors will appreciate the fact that worship wars are not merely a “Lutheran thing,” but cross denominational lines, even among non-liturgical churches. However, the solutions suggested by York are not as helpful as his observations, since he misses the Christo-centric focus of worship as our response to God’s initiating activities. Lutherans have much to cherish in our confessional and liturgical tradition and in our agreement to “walk together” as a synod, centered in a Word and Sacrament ministry. We also have a strong Law-Gospel hermeneutic which enables us to respond to manipulative techniques that crowd the message of salvation which comes through Christ alone. Nevertheless, York provides a valuable resource for pastoral consideration and congregational discussion. Timothy Maschke Mequon, WI

ESTHER: Interpretation Bible Commentary. By Carol M. Bechtel. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2002. 101 pages. Cloth. $18.95.

With this volume, the Interpretation commentary series is virtually complete, within a twenty-year time frame. What sets this series off from other commentaries is its intent to provide a resource for both the exegetical and the expository tasks, “faithful to the text and useful to the church.” This allows a much less technical presentation, with much more intentional theological reflection on topics driven by the text. Done well, as in the commentaries on Psalms or Ecclesiastes, this is a very helpful resource for sermonic or Bible class preparation. Not all volumes are equally helpful, however, though allowance must be made for the interests and expectations of the reviewer. The present volume provides comment on one of the least regularly used resources in the Scriptures. How often the Book of Esther appears in the worship life of the church is reflected in the fact that, of currently used pericopal systems, only the Revised Common Lectionary provides any opportunity (one!) to bring the Book of Esther into the worship life of the church. Perhaps that is due in part to the reality that never once in the entire Book of Esther is God mentioned or directly alluded to. Perhaps too, she suggests, Luther’s critique that the Book of Esther “Judaizes” too much and is full of “pagan naughtiness” may have lessened interest in the book. One advantage of a commentary series, therefore, is that parts of

318 Scripture not otherwise prominent in the church’s life are brought to the church’s attention. What Bechtel brings to the task is a sensitivity to the human and narrative richness of the book. This is apparent already in her introductory chapter as she discusses the form of the book, and as she identifies underlying themes (proportion and reversal, living a faithful life in an unfaithful culture, power of the written word). In the expository section, she maintains a regular conversation with the reader in highlighting points of theological or narrative significance. As much as this lively style allows an easy transition to the expository task, it strikes this reviewer that her narrative interests overshadow the exegetical vigor and insight that should undergird a discussion of how the story is told. As a result, her retelling seems at times more reflective of modern interests and agendas than insightful of an event and a scenario far removed from us by both time and culture. One bonus of this volume is Bechtel’s comments about the various apocryphal additions to the Book of Esther, not only their content but their seeming midrashic (?) interest in filling in gaps, particularly the role of God in the working out of the story. Henry Rowold

WHAT DOES GOD KNOW AND WHEN DOES HE KNOW IT?: The Current Con- troversy over Divine Foreknowledge. By Millard J. Erickson. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2003. 268 pages. Cloth. $24.99.

In recent years the new “open theism” movement has sparked a considerable debate concerning the doctrine of divine foreknowledge. These scholars have lik- ened their theology to a new reformation, the uncovering of a Biblical truth that had long been forgotten or obscured. They maintain that while God knows everything that can be known, the future is of a different nature and cannot be known, even by God. For open theists God has decided and determined certain future matters, those are settled, whereas other matters he has left to humans to decide and these are not settled. Open theists assert that this is not some lack in God. God knows everything that can be known. The future, however, is not something that has any reality; therefore, there is nothing there to be known. The difference between their view and the traditional view, they declare, is not over the nature of God at all, but over the nature of the future. Classic theists disagree. They insist that God has complete foreknowledge and is never required to improvise in his dealing with people. Who is right? The issues raised are far from being merely academic. Impor- tant matters of faith and practice are involved. For instance: When we pray, do our prayers make a difference or is everything that will happen already determined? Does God have a plan for our lives and is it based on His knowledge of what will happen? And perhaps even more pressing, does God knowingly allow or even cause events that He knows will lead to evil and suffering in the future, or is He unaware of such consequences? In several different ways these questions boil down to this— can we trust God? What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? weighs the arguments in this complex debate by considering hermeneutical issues, the historical development of the doctrine of divine knowledge, the philosophical suppositions of both sides, and the practical implications of the two competing views. In doing so, the book

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 319 covers much more than just God’s knowledge. It discusses His immutability, im- passibility, and relationship to time. The issue, then, is the question that was posed regarding President Richard Nixon during the Watergate investigation: What did he know, and when did he know it? Put another way, Does God know the future, and how much of it does He know? Open theists contend that the reason the church has held the traditional view of God’s exhaustive divine foreknowledge is that in its infancy it came under the influence of Greek philosophy. This system of thought locates the ultimate and the perfect in the realm of the immutable and absolutely transcendent. Among other things, this led to equating God’s faithfulness with the doctrine of His immutability. From that time until most recently, the church has read the Scriptures in light of a perfect being who is timeless, immutable, and impassible. A major difference between open theism and classical theism is how certain passages—such as God “repenting” (the Hebrew root is nhm)—are to be understood. The open theist understands that such texts are to be taken quite literally, or at face value. On the other hand, traditional theism has generally understood these as anthropomorphisms or something of the sort. Erickson ends up rejecting open theism in part because he rejects the idea that God’s repentance in the Old Testament should be a “controlling” metaphor in the debate. My critique of Erickson’s position begins by noting that, of course, not all metaphors have the same value when used to speak of God. In other words, one might speak of metaphors in terms of degrees of revelatory capacity. God as dry rot (Hos. 5:12) would have a low capacity compared to God as father (Hos. 11:1). That nhm has a rather high revelatory capacity is indicative of its pervasiveness, its use within numerous Old Testament traditions and its association within a wide variety of Old Testament genres. Divine repentance is in fact located within a variety of time periods and the metaphor appears at some of the key junctures in Israel’s history: the flood story, the Sinai revelation, the institution of the monarchy, the fall of the northern and southern kingdoms and throughout the prophets. This means that to confess God repents says something about our God who is ready to reverse Himself, who stands ready to back away from judgments announced (so Jonah) or judgments already in process (so Joel). The confession of divine repentance, therefore, announces the priority of grace in all of God’s dealings with the world. The idea reflects the extent to which this loving and gracious God will go in order to execute His uncompromising salvific intentions. It follows that in the debate as outlined by Erickson two extremes need to be avoided—either that God is immutable in any absolute sense, or that He is mercu- rial or capricious or unstable. To be affected and to interact genuinely does not mean some imperfection in God. In fact, it should be said that not to be able genuinely to respond or interact, not to be open and vulnerable, or refusing to change are in fact signs of imperfection. In light of the fuller revelation of God in the New Testament, it is finally propter Christum that God moves from anger and judgment to mercy and grace. This shift between His opus alienum and opus proprium is still part of one unchanging divine will. All of this is to say that the categories of divine sovereign foreknowledge and human freedom driving Erickson’s debate are misguided. The debate would be better served by the categories of Law and Gospel. In that light, I would say that the reality that God is open to change from wrath to love did indeed spark a reformation. But this movement began in 1517 and not in the 1990s. To conclude, the God of the Bible is a living, active person relentlessly opera-

320 tive through His Word and Sacraments. He is changeless in His attributes and purposes, but in His relationships with people He can—and often does—change from judgment to grace. Thus, divine immutability does not imply that God is unconcerned, inactive, or unrelated. And so there is no need to replace the God of theism with open theism’s finite, evolving Deity just in order to affirm His related- ness with people. Moreover, what we cannot understand about God’s relationship with the future is best placed in the category of Deus absconditus. Finally, Biblical faith affirms that God interacts with His changeless character and purposes ultimately and most completely in Jesus Christ. Reed Lessing

TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN BECOMING. By Philip Hefner. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. 97 pages. Paper. $6.00.

Philip Hefner was invited to serve as conference preacher for an annual conference of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science. Basing his talks upon the theme of technology and meaning, he subsequently turned these talks into a book, which is reviewed here. Philip Hefner is Professor of Systematic Theology Emeri- tus at the Lutheran School of Theology and former editor of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science. In his first talk, Hefner invites us to reflect on a jar as a symbol of what humans do with technology (what Hefner calls technologized sin) and a cyclotron as a symbol of hope and spiritual fulfillment. The jar comes from a poem by Wallace Stevens entitled “Anecdote of the Jar,” and the cyclotron (and the atomic bomb) is discussed in the writings of Teilhard de Chardin. How we relate to technology and what we do with it is a reflection of human nature, and Hefner invites the reader to think deeply about the implications of technology for our spirituality. In his second talk, Hefner grabs two more images—the beating of the robot boy David in Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg’s movie, A. I. Artificial Intelli- gence, and Lynn Randolph’s painting, Immeasurable Results. In the former, David is beaten for acting human, even while wanting to become human (a modern Pinocchio), while in the latter the body of a woman about to enter a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) device reflects Randolph’s point “that the boundary between technology and human self has been utterly erased in this experience with the MRI” (18). Has it, asks Hefner? Does the interaction between technology and the human spirit reflect our search for identity and for meaning in our lives? Does it portray a sense of alienation that many feel as a result of technology, even while depending upon technology for daily living (medicine, eyeglasses, e-mail, and auto- mobiles are examples Hefner cites)? And is the Christian message of alienation and reconciliation in Jesus changed as a result of the impact of technology? His assumption seems to be yes, but he does not say so. Talk three finds Hefner even more introspective. What does it mean to be human? Is it more a function of what we do or what we are? Turning away from Alan Turing’s conception that thinking is the essence of humanity (and that there is no God behind human thinking), Hefner argues, correctly, that loving is the critical mark of being human, not thinking. He goes on to offer four insights into humanity: (1) Technology exists in part to correct our defects, which are always apparent to us; (2) Technology shows us that we are finite, frail, and mortal; (3) Technology brings alternative worlds into being, Tolkien-style (though he does not

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 321 mention Tolkien, who wrote about The Lord of the Rings as the work of sub-creation); and (4) Technology forces us to ask why we do what we do. In chapter three Hefner raises more questions than he answers. Chapter four explores the relationship between humanity, spirituality, technology, and imagination. Part of humanity, he writes, is our ability to believe in what is not actual. Hefner seems to confuse spirituality, or believing, with imagination, for he says that imagination supplies what is not really present. He also says that the spiritual deals with what could be, but is not. And yet, Christ was incarnated, died, and rose in history. Those bedrock facts of history are not about what could be, but what is (and was). Those facts can affect us by changing us to be what is not, namely, what can be in Christ. But Hefner does not mention these facts in this chapter. Chapter five, “Is Story All There Is?,” brings story into the picture, not the Biblical story, but not excluding it either. Story uses dream and imagination to bring technology and human meaning together (65). Story helps us to find the way, but in this assertion Hefner is providing a humanistic (man-centered) reading of meaning rather than a revelatory (God-centered) solution to the problem of human existence and purpose. The reader will look in vain for some Biblical responses to the questions that Hefner raises. Chapter six asks two questions and gives one answer. “Where does religion take place?” “What shape does religion take?” Answer: “If we speak about technology at its deepest levels, we are at the same time speaking about its religious dimension, even if we do not use conventional religious technology” (73). For Hefner, technology, or “technological restlessness,” to use his term, is a means of grace. But let’s assume that Hefner is redefining the term “means of grace” to refer to a tool that God can use to shape human beings rather than a means by which God for- gives sin. I don’t like his redefinition of a familiar term, but at least he is telling us that technology can enable us to think whence and whither. Where did our motivation to use technology come from (whence)? That is, why do we use a computer or a cell phone or a fertility drug? And to what end or for what purpose do we use technology (whither)? Those questions can help us to put technology in perspective. Yes, technology is a product of human imagination, which is in itself a part of God’s creation. Yes, humans use other parts of God’s creation to create technology. But let’s keep technology in perspective. It is a tool, useful in a life of sanctification lived under the cross. And let’s remember that God provides answers to Hefner’s many questions in spite of Hefner’s hesitation to mention them. Joel D. Heck Austin, TX

THE LIFELINES OF LOVE: Holy Baptism, Absolution, Lord’s Supper, Gospel. By Peter M. Kurowski. California, MO, 65018, 2001. 207 pages. Paper. $9.99. Also available at Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, MO.

This book is carefully planned and very well developed, and demonstrates the author’s deep knowledge of marriage and how to reflect this in a very down-to-earth book for the readers. The word “lifelines” in the title sets the very helpful Gospel tone of this crucial subject-matter for a happy, God-pleasing marriage. The book includes a chapter on foundation, forgiveness, faith, fidelity, freedom, finances, and family. This book is written in down-to-earth language. In a very helpful manner, each chapter is broken down into sections, the topic provided for each section to-

322 gether with many very helpful illustrations. This book would be a very valuable addition for every congregation to have so that it may be read by its members for a deeper understanding of living their faith in Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit. Erich H. Kiehl

HARVESTING MARTIN LUTHER’S REFLECTIONS ON THEOLOGY, ETHICS, AND THE CHURCH. By Timothy J. Wengert, editor. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. 274 pages. Paper. $30.00.

One would think that after 120 years of producing, examining, and distilling the 127 big volumes of the so-called Weimar Ausgabe of Luther’s works, a project originally planned to take only twenty years, that interest in the Reformer’s thought might be on the wane. Even in the U.S.A., where Lutherans and others are observing the fiftieth anniversary of the inauguration of the fifty-five volume American Edition, one might wonder, “How much more in these texts is there to discover, evaluate, and present? Has not everything already been said that could be said?” Judging by this most recent piece of evidence, edited by Timothy J. Wengert, there is still much to glean and share and evaluate. Perhaps, too, each subsequent generation needs the benefit of a re-articulation of the key thoughts and issues that troubled and energized this classic theologian. His own judgment about himself and his writings is well-known:

Regarding [the plan] to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnalian hunger, I would rather see them all devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one on the Bondage of the Will and the Catechism (WA Br 8:99-100; LW 50:172-73).

Despite his view that he was mere “food for worms” and that the bulk of his writings deserved only his own stomach and then the sewer, he and his literary productions continue to provide food for thought, a decidedly non-Saturnalian kind of “devouring.” Surely his texts, if any, are proof positive for Paul Ricoeur’s notion that some writings have “a surplus of meaning,” that there’s always more to discover in them than multiple readings provide. More concretely, if also more experi- entially, reading Luther’s writings and digesting his insights lead one to make his struggles of faith one’s own and to receive again the precious Gospel promise that alone nourishes trust in God. “Harvesting,” “devouring,” “digesting” these texts is thus a perennial enterprise. Each of the critical essays in the Wengert edition initially appeared in Lutheran Quarterly between 1999 and 2002 in a series entitled “Luther on…,” and together, they provide the most recent smorgasbord of Luther scholarship for an English- speaking audience. As David Steinmetz notes in his foreword to the collection, “interpreting Luther is a corporate enterprise.” Here one encounters an apostolic number of well-known and lesser-known scholars from Europe and the Americas, whose inquiries are both accessible and engaging. Wengert, professor of Reforma- tion history at Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, and co-editor with Robert Kolb of the most recent edition of The Book of Concord, provides a succinct introduction to the twelve essays that follow. Part one, “The Catechetical Luther,”

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 323 examines Luther on Baptism (Mark Tranvik), the two kinds of righteousness (Rob- ert Kolb), his famous “rose seal” as a key to his theology (Dietrich Korsch), creation (Johannes Schwanke), and the resurrection (Gerhard Sauter). The second section, “Luther and God’s World,” contains essays on Luther’s views toward vocation (Karlfried Froehlich), poverty (Carter Lindberg), greed (Ricardo Willy Rieth), marriage (Scott Hendrix), and Islam (Gregory Miller). The final part, “Luther and Christ’s Church,” focuses on Luther’s liturgical reforms (Helmar Junghans), his understanding and use of the Psalter (Carl Axel Aurelius), and what final essayist Scott Hendrix calls Luther’s “reformation of spirituality.” (This last essay was not originally a part of the series, though it too previously appeared in LQ.) Naturally, in a collection of this size, the quality varies. Tranvik’s analysis of the development of Luther’s theology of Baptism as a contrast to both medieval and anabaptist alternatives is a helpful summary of the main emphases, though it is not as exhaustive as one might hope. While Kolb also treats a well-worn topic, his presentation is lively and insightful. Two kinds of righteousness are necessary for a true and accurate description of what it means to be human. Korsch provides an intriguing and persuasive interpretation of Luther’s seal, though sadly missing in the book is a color depiction of the seal itself. (To truly benefit from the commentary here one needs to see the seal. There is a good color depiction of it in Frederick Nohl, Luther [St. Louis: Corncordia, 2003], 211. Photo 161 in Hellmut Diwald’s and Karl-Heinz Juergens’ Lebensbilder Martin Luthers [Gondrom, n.d.], is of the seal as it appears on the Katharinenportal of the Lutherhaus.) Schwanke takes the reader through the decade-long, end-of-life Genesis lectures and divides his analysis into sections that treat human individuality (“I believe that God has made me and all creatures…”), creation as the ongoing work of the Creator in the present (“primordial history as present history”), God as “author” of the world through His Word, and the given living spaces in the world. Even though Sauter’s essay is ostensibly on the resurrection, its focus is on preaching the Gospel to elicit faith and hope:

The proclamation of the resurrection of the dead as the promise of life with God is the heart of every sermon; it is not one theme among others, which may be brought forth when the need arises. The evangelical sermon is not meant to teach a more successful way of life, or better management of one’s life, or mastery of responsibility for others. These things reasonable people can find of their own accord; for such things no preaching is needed. Preaching is needed because it leads us out of the “vale of tears” into the future life. If this does not happen, then preaching is wasted time and a useless or even damaging enterprise (100).

The second section is fairly straightforward, with Lindberg’s essay providing the most food for thought. More general if less insightful are the pieces by Froehlich, Rieth, and Hendrix. Froehlich succinctly moves through “vocation”: the vocation of every Christian, the vocation of the pastor, and finally the vocation of a seminary. Even though the latter is a distinctly American institution, he infers how Luther’s ideas on the topic apply here as well. Lindberg’s and Rieth’s essays complement one another as they explore respectively Luther’s views toward poverty and greed. Lindberg demonstrates that Luther’s theology liberated poor relief from its medieval strictures (e.g., almsgiving) and developed a critical perspective toward early capitalism (e.g., usury). Luther’s social ethic “called for public accountability of

324 large business through government regulation” and the remission of burdensome debts among the poor. His foundation for this theological critique of the ascetic flight from money and the acquisitive drive for it “was the great reversal of the gospel that a person’s worth is not determined by what he or she does or does not possess, but rather by God’s promise in Christ” (149). For Luther, faith is the opposite of ascetic practices and greed. Both Lindberg and Rieth uncover the main loci in Luther’s thought on these topics, though some of the authors’ applications of Luther’s insights to contemporary free-market practices are questionable. The Hendrix essay on marriage merely summarizes the benefits and duties of marriage as presented in the Babylonian Captivity (1520) and especially in The Estate of Marriage (1522) but also as implemented in the Reformer’s own marriage to Katharina von Bora. More interesting to this reviewer are the final four essays by Miller, Junghans, Aurelius, and Hendrix. Even when familiar ground is covered here, as is the case with Junghans on the liturgy, the presentation contains lesser-known Luther data and fresh analysis. Miller tells us that Luther knew much about Islam, that the Reformer had read the Qur’an in a Latin translation, and that he had supported its distribution “because he considered the public knowledge of the hideousness of the Qur’an to be the greatest weapon against Islam” (189), a religion that in his judgment was totally “works-based.” “According to Luther, Muslims worship a different God than Christians; they worship the devil himself” (188). (Miller does not refer to the ambiguous and, in our circles, recently controversial statement in the Large Catechism that “All who are outside this Christian people, whether heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites—even though they believe in and worship only the one, true God—nevertheless do not know what his attitude is toward them. They cannot be confident of his love and blessing, and therefore they remain in eternal wrath and condemnation” [Wengert/Kolb 440, 66; emphasis added]. Luther’s view toward Islam here seems more ambiguous, at least with respect to the object of Muslim worship.) Miller does describe well Luther’s attitudes toward Turkish society and the Turkish “threat.” In Luther’s thinking Turk- ish victories in Christian territories were a sign of God’s judgment against the internal failings of Christendom. For this reason Luther was absolutely opposed to a crusade as a legitimate response to Islam. Perhaps the most significant long- term consequence of his views toward this “world religion” is his eschatological interpretation of it, a view that is still found among Protestants today:

Because the end of the world is near, the devil rages with his two weapons: the antichrist (the pope) and the Turks. “The Turks are certainly the last and most furious raging of the devil against Christ…after the Turk comes the judgment and hell” (200).

Reproductions of several intriguing woodcuts accompany the essay to demonstrate this eschatological judgment about sixteenth-century Islam. Junghans concludes that Luther’s reforms of the liturgy, while giving the appearance of being provisional and arbitrary (“slapdash,” in the lingua of translator Wengert), actually grew out of his overall concept of worship that had been develop- ing in the early years of the Reformation. Replacement of church orders is

not up to the arbitrary choice of any old person; instead it has a substantive basis. “For orders must serve for the promotion of faith and

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 325 love and not be to the detriment of faith. As soon as they fail to do this, they are invalid, dead and gone.”…For this reason there can never be a “correct” worship service. Even when the concept of the worship is the proper one, there is not for that concept a single pattern of worship that alone is the correct one (224).

In Christian freedom and out of pastoral concern for his congregation, Luther introduced into a new form of liturgical order “what appeared to him would further faith and love” in his particular cultural context, sixteenth-century Wittenberg. The goal of furthering faith and love was more important than uniformity in liturgical forms, though the form had to be consistent with an evangelical understanding of worship. “In this way, Lutheran liturgy always remains faced with this never-ending task: to use the liturgical tradition so that in the worship service God himself can act upon and serve current congregations in an easily accessible, enlivening way” (225). In many respects Aurelius’s essay and Hendrix’s second essay complement one another. Aurelius shows how Luther lived in the Psalms from his time in the monastery onward. The Psalms are central to the Christian life and the life of the theologian because they provide the language of prayer for the believer in every situation before God:

Hence it is that the Psalter is the book of all the saints; and everyone, in whatever situation he may be, finds in that situation psalms and words that fit his case, that suit him as if they were put there just for his sake, so that he could not put it better himself, or find or wish for anything better (WA DB 10, 1:103, 22ff.; LW 35:256).

Hendrix compares and contrasts Luther’s “spirituality” with that of Ignatius of Loyola and medieval mysticism in order to recapture “how radical Luther’s reformation of spirituality was” (245). “[F]or Luther spirituality is what makes life in the kingdom of Christ different from life in the world. That difference is the con- nectedness of Christians to Christ, which they have not chosen but instead received” (248). While Hendrix does not offer a full evaluation of the recent Finnish school of Luther research, he agrees with the Finn’s general criticism of that view which holds that Luther’s understanding of justification is purely forensic:

As long as the term theosis or divinization is not taken to mean that the baptized believer is unencumbered by sin or that no forensic language whatsoever is appropriate, then Finnish scholarship has performed a service by calling attention again to the new reality in Christ that constitutes the heart of Luther’s spirituality. Even though we remain human and continue to struggle with sin, Christ still speaks and acts through us, and this reality empowers the Christian life and makes Christians different, in Luther’s eyes, from the world (251).

Baptism, according to Luther, makes all the difference in the world. Through Bap- tism Christians have become “guests in this world” and have “begun to make a new home elsewhere” (260). The rootedness of Christians in Christ the vine “is a real, continuing, and permanent source of everlasting life” (260). While undoubtedly the Finns have provided an important corrective to an

326 exaggerated, and thereby inaccurate, reading of the historical Luther on justification, and Hendrix does a nice job of engaging this new interpretation, one still wonders, have the theological dangers of intra nos language in justification-talk been fully appreciated and set forth here? Many will think not. The extra nos and intra nos elements in Luther’s writings do not admit to an easy, synthetic theological solution, and so the devouring and digesting continue. This edition is not a comprehensive examination of Luther’s thought, as one finds especially in Lohse’s recent work but also in the classics of Ebeling and Althaus. These “introductions to Luther’s thought” remain essential for an overall contemporary understanding of the central ideas of the Great Reformer. Nonethe- less, the essays in the Wengert edition are the most up-to-date treatments of the topics they address. Matthew Becker Valparaiso, IN

LEVITICUS: Concordia Commentary. By John W. Kleinig. St. Louis: Concordia, 2003. 610 pages. Cloth. $42.99.

Concordia Commentary Series. Dr. Dean Wenthe, general editor of the Concordia Commentary Series, states that the series purpose is “...to assist pastors, missionaries, and teachers of the Scriptures to convey God’s Word with greater clarity, understanding, and faithfulness to the divine intent of the text” (x). The editor states the series’ basic hermeneutical and theological presuppositions as follows (x-xi):

a) The commentaries are Christ-centered and have a christological perspective throughout. b) They must expound Law and Gospel in the conservative Lutheran fashion. c) They understand the Scriptures as God’s vehicle for communicating the Gospel. Therefore, the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God. d) The expositions are expected to be incarnational and sacramental and fully related to Christian church life. e) And finally, the major and general aims of these commentaries are confessional, ecumenical, and catholic.

Generally, as set by the series editor, the commentaries follow the traditional, historical Lutheran conservative hermeneutics as established by Luther and those that came after him. The writers of the different commentaries are confessional Lutheran scholars from around the world. The author of Leviticus. Dr. John W. Kleinig is a native-born minister of the Australian Lutheran Church and theological professor at Luther Seminary, Adelaide, Australia. He brings his pastoral sensibility and teaching experience to his work. He pursued graduate studies in the United Kingdom and was awarded a Ph. D. degree by the University of Cambridge, England. He has also been working and publishing in the area of Old Testament legislation and worship. He is quali- fied to face a project like a Leviticus commentary. In the commentary preface, Kleinig defines the expected audience and the major targets of his work (xvi):

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 327 a) To help missionaries and evangelists, pastors and teachers working with people in animist cultures to use the Old Testament to evangelize their compatriots and to initiate converts from that spiritual world into the riches of the divine service. b) To open up the Old Testament for postmodern young people. c) It is also dedicated to all the orthodox Christians in the Lutheran church, and across all denominations, who love the Lord’s house.

Bibliography. Leviticus comprises a long and detailed 610-page, hardbound volume. Its bibliography is extensive (xxii-xliv, twenty-two pages altogether) and covers all kinds of theological lines and interpretations, with old and recent publications in English and German. The classical titles are not missing, with emphasis on the works by Mary Douglas and Jacob Milgrom, whose formative and powerful influence in this field cannot be ignored. If one looks more carefully, he/she may find a few missing titles in the bibliography. For instance, there are some more popular commentaries on Leviticus (by Mark Lenz—published by Concordia Pub- lishing House, George Knight, and Samuel Schultz) or also two recent works, one by Mary Douglas (Leviticus as Literature, 1999), and the other by Jacob Milgrom (Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 1983) that are not listed.1 The academic discussion of all kinds of trends is well represented in the bibliography. The writer’s basic assumptions. At the outset of his book (2), Kleinig states that Leviticus presents various kinds of ritual legislation and that “...the book of Leviticus develops its theology of holiness” (4). There is an emphasis on holiness and God’s sanctity motifs. It is said that the purpose of Leviticus is summarized in the recurring clause “you shall be holy” (11). It is the presence of God in the sanctuary that makes it holy, and one finds a concentric zone of growing (or decreasing, depending on the perspective) sanctity in the tabernacle. When he is making comments about this “state of holiness” of God’s people based on Leviticus 10:10, Kleinig finds a distinction among “clean,” “common,” and “clean/unclean” concepts and tries to explain it with the help of a diagram (6). He proposes two unique systems together (6): “We have here rather a startling juxtaposition of two completely different systems of classification: a theological system that distinguishes what is holy from what is common, and an anthropological system that distinguishes what is unclean from what is clean” (6). The anthropological system, in his understanding, is to be subordinated to the theological system. If we have a more critical reading of what Kleinig promises to do, sometimes we wonder if he is not overstating the case. One could make a case for the holiness (or sanctification) motif as a separated theme from our traditional understanding of justification-sanctification theology. The diagram on page six is hardly convincing and it is still to be explained from a traditional Lutheran perspective. But as the text evolves, and especially seen in the Christological perspective, this is well developed. We could also debate about the “theological system” and “anthropological system” as independent perspectives in the book. We know that such an identification is influenced by the Greek and modern Western influence, and cannot be read into Leviticus without running the risk of an artificial distinction. It seems that in the Old Testament they go together. The priest is both a religious and a public health officer at the same time. But it will not harm the considerations in

1 However, it does have Milgrom’s Studies in Levitical Terminology.

328 the book when it comes to the detailed study and commentary of the individual pericopes. All in all, Kleinig’s basic assumptions are quite sound and tuned in with the standards set by the commentary series editor. Origin of the book of Leviticus. This volume is conservative as for the divine origin of the book of Leviticus. Kleinig accepts the traditional and historical positions on inspiration and inerrancy as defended by the official documents of the LCMS. Therefore, the discussion about the historical critical approach to Leviticus as we have it today in critical circles (including the vigorous debate about the P and H documents) is not missing but it is brief and updated. This is not the concern of the writer. Kleinig has an interesting position. He states as follows:

“What’s more, the ritual statutes and instructions found in Leviticus do not truly reflect the actual practice of any particular period in Israelite history—whether the tradition in the desert before the settlement, the tradition of Shiloh before its destruction, or the sacrificial ritual at Jerusa- lem during the monarchy or in the Persian period. Instead, they institute and regulate the performance of the divine service, more or less completely, at all stages in the history of God’s people, for it is most unlikely that the law of Moses was ever fully implemented at any period in Israel’s history” (17-18).

This is a strong position. How should we react to this? Perhaps, we should say “yes” and “no” at the same time. “No” because some pericopes of Leviticus do reflect a nomad background. A number of regulations look to a wilderness wandering situation. Later, the temple replaced the tabernacle and there was some adap- tation of these regulations. But we also can say “yes” because some scholars indeed think that the levitical system was never fully implemented. It is hard to prove and could be nothing more than a plausible speculation. But the possibility is not out of consideration. Ritual analysis. Methodologically the ritual analysis proposed by Kleinig is the most important feature of the book and decides the subsequent discussions and conclusions. Kleinig states that “the book of Leviticus consists, by and large, of ritual legislation” (20). By ritual analysis and interpretation he understands that God has instituted and empowered the rituals in Leviticus so that they accomplished something by their enactment (23). Therefore these pericopes must be understood and interpreted from the ritual perspective. This is a major feature in the book. The commentary is built upon this foundation. If it can be proved, the book stands, otherwise it falls down with its conclusions. And how does it work when it comes to the actual text? Kleinig’s interpretation method follows consistently a set pattern. First, he offers a translation of the pericope under consideration followed by detailed and updated philological notes (text critical matters, possible alternative meanings, different positions by scholars, all extensively documented). After establishing the text and identifying the literary structure of the pericope, he applies the ritual analysis by focusing on the ritual agents, ritual substances and material, ritual location, ritual time, ritual enactment, ritual theological function. All this analysis is concluded by a discussion of its fulfillment by Christ. In reaction to this methodology, it is evident that the writer is trying to answer the basic questions an interpreter always asks the text (who, what, where, when,

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 329 why, how?). It seems simple and obvious. But in this case, it is new and seems to be an original contribution to the academic and Leviticus debate, namely, the ritual perspective of the text. To my knowledge, no scholar has tried to read Leviticus with such a hermeneutical key, even though it is quite common to find discussions about rituals in the book. In this sense, Kleinig is innovative and creative. Some- times he runs the risk of overstating the case and the method does not necessarily fit smoothly the text he is studying (as, for instance, Lev. 11). But the end result is generally productive and brings a consistent picture that fits in the book as a whole. We have to ask whether he is doing eisegesis and trying to force the text to fit in this scheme. Not necessarily. The final result supports his method. A typical case is his study of Leviticus 16, the institution and celebration of the Day of Atonement that, according to him, has a pivotal role in the book and is to be understood as the center chapter of the whole book. Out of the thirty-six speeches in the book, this is speech number eighteen (perhaps number nineteen, depending on how one counts the speeches). The ritual theological function of the Day of Atonement is to offer a comprehensive act of atonement for the sanctuary and congregation of Israel. The result of his analysis is good and fits his methodological assumptions without forcing the text. The application of the same method has similar good results when it is applied to the institution and inauguration of the priesthood (Lev. 8-10). Christology and ecclesiology. As the general editor has set for the whole series and Kleinig has promised at the start of his work, every pericope discussion ends up with Christological and ecclesiological connections. Like the ritual criticism, this is also a strong feature of Kleinig’s book. It provides a connection to the New Testament and Lutheran theology. The text is brought alive in relation to the Christian church and mission. It tries to make the text alive and relevant to contemporary readers. The major tool for these connections is the typological interpretation of the text. At this point Kleinig sometimes plays dangerously. When he tries to find Christological and church connections, quite frequently he runs the risk of slipping into allegory, which is quite easy in a document like Leviticus. In this case, the borderline between typology and allegory could be narrow. The connections do not need to be as detailed as he has proposed sometimes. A general Christological and ecclesiological reading will be enough to bring the book alive to our present age. Summa summarum. The icons used along the page borders of the commentary could be arbitrary. Sometimes we ask ourselves, “Why is this icon at this point?” The answer could be subjective. Generally the major consumer of this commentary will be conservative readers. The commentary tries hard to make Leviticus a relevant book that has a message to our church today. In this sense, Kleinig brings the book of Leviticus alive for and in the church. Critical circles will certainly oppose Kleinig’s efforts. But the commentary is a scholarly and well-informed piece of work. It faces all the tough questions of Leviticus and no stone was left unmoved in the discussion, even though one does not need to agree with the commentator about every proposal in the book. It is a book that should be featured in the libraries of students, pastors, teachers, and churches. Deomar Roos Westfield House, England

330 A TALE OF TWO SYNODS: Events That Led to the Split between Wisconsin and Missouri. By Mark E. Braun. Milwaukee: Northwestern, 2003. 436 pages. Pa- per. $16.99.

Broad treatments of the history of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod are relatively few and far between. Mark E. Braun has made an admirable and useful effort to bridge that gap. For pastors and other interested parties, this book provides insights into the theological principles that drive both denominations, as it informs many of the tensions that are present within the Missouri Synod today (such as prayer fellowship, and the definition and limits of fellowship to avoid unionism and syncretism). Braun traces the history of the early formation of the Wisconsin Synod and some of the events that led to the formation of Missouri. Here he describes the doctrinally looser spirit of the founders of Wisconsin and how they were mentored by the more rigorous Missouri brethren, particularly regarding the issue of confessional subscription. By 1900, both groups were in harmony regarding their theology and mission outreach, and a period of much cooperation ensued, particularly until World War II. Braun then demonstrates that the separation that eventually occurred was over the ideal of unchanging truth. While the Wisconsin Synod was in favor of an unalterable position not only on Scripture and the Confessions, but also in the conclusions that were drawn from them, Missouri moved more in the direction that so long as the presuppositions (Scripture and the Confessions) were maintained, other issues, such as the potential for unionism, could be more flexibly dealt with. Military chaplaincy, Boy Scouting, prayer fellowship, and concerns about Missouri’s drift toward the American Lutheran Church, were motivating factors in the breakup of the Synodical Conference. While Missouri was more comfortable with these issues and practices, Wisconsin was concerned with the potential for unionism and syncretism that these associations would entail. Braun rehearses in some detail the attitudes and hurt feelings that were present in the two synods at various stages of the collapse of the Synodical Conference. He asserts that while Wisconsin moved toward a unit principle of theology, Missouri drifted toward po- tentially contradictory practices and conclusions. Braun then draws a direct line from the increasingly broad point of view of Missouri to the issues surrounding the walkout and the formation of Seminex. One of the most useful aspects of the book is the presentation in some detail of the issues surrounding Martin Scharlemann’s more controverted statements from the late 1950s and early 1960s and their rebuttal by others who disapproved. In addition, certain of the issues between Herman Otten (as a student) and Arthur Carl Piepkorn (as a professor) are highlighted. While the penultimate chapter of the book features the descent of Missouri into what he considers a spiritual decadence, the final chapter justifies the response of Wisconsin, demonstrating the tranquility Braun believes is found there. The book is highly researched and has an extensive bibliography, but lacks an index. Braun’s effort is commendable and useful, but there are also some weaknesses to his approach. He tends to emphasize a history of goals and ends, that demonstrates a bias toward the intellectual and theological causes of church development and relations. Not all issues in the church are decided entirely or even largely by theology; much depends on the attitudes of the participants as well. In

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 331 some cases, for example, antipathy of people toward one another may affect the way they pursue theological goals. Moreover, theology can be used as a means of self-justification, or condemnation of those who hold differing philosophical, political, or social views. And of course there is the issue of being in the world, a world that brings pressure to bear on even theological and historical issues. Braun’s writing also exudes something of an air of triumphalism in his conclusions that the purity and smallness of Wisconsin is preferable to the breadth and scope of Mis- souri. Perhaps, what would be preferable is a recognition that there is no perfection in this world, and that such value judgments do not enhance, but rather diminish otherwise well-crafted history. In a sense, the title of the work itself betrays a bit of an historical bias for according to Braun’s own account, there never was any organic union between Wisconsin and Missouri. It is therefore more correct to speak of a severing of relations, than a split between the two groups. Overall, I recommend this book to pastors and other interested parties as it will, in one volume, provide information that will fill many of the gaps in Missouri Synod history, as well as inform them of the history of a close sister church, the Wisconsin Synod. Braun’s factual presentation marks a positive step in filling this broad historical gap. Timothy Dost

MALAY MUSLIMS: The History and Challenge of Resurgent Islam in Southeast Asia. By Robert Day McAmis. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. 173 pages. Paper. $20.00.

People who have grown up in the Christian church are familiar with its bewil- dering diversity of traditions, both denominational and cultural. Only people from outside the church, unaware of that diversity, view the church as a monolithic body. Similarly, people outside of Islam may be unaware of its diversity, and may view (and fear) it as a monolithic body. McAmis’ aim is to bring into clear view some of that diversity by focusing on one distinctive form of Islam, namely, that among the Malay peoples of Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines). This book grows from McAmis’ life-long involvement with Muslims of that region. He served as a LCMS missionary in the Philippines for twenty-five years (1962-1987), specifically among the Muslim peoples on the southern island of Mindanao. He devoted doctoral and post-doctoral studies to Malay Islam. Even in retirement, he keeps current by serving as consultant to the Lutheran Church of the Philippines. After introductory chapters on the history of Islam in the Malay world and on the history of the interaction between Islam and the Western church, McAmis presents an insightful overview of the traditions, beliefs, and practices of Malay Muslims, both their points of continuity with Middle Eastern Islam and also discontinuity. True to his subtitle above, McAmis also discusses the Islamic resur- gence in that region. His final chapter is directed to the role of the church and Islam in the Malayan world of the new century. This reviewer found several matters particularly intriguing. One is the diversity of impact of Islam and Christianity in the three countries. Whereas in Indone- sia, Islam is clearly the dominant religion and the Christian church much smaller, in Malaysia Islam forms slightly upwards of half the population (the Malay half), and the Christian church exists primarily among non-Malay people (Chinese, Indi-

332 ans). By contrast, the Christian church in the Philippines claims upwards of 90% of the population, and Islam is a somewhat separatist force in the southern is- lands. In terms of total numbers, 94% of the population of the three countries (300 million) is affiliated either with Islam (two-thirds of the total) or Christianity (one-third). Those are astounding numbers; in fact, the number of Muslims in this part of the world exceeds that of any other region. McAmis’ closing chapter on the role of the two religions addresses the importance of the relations between them, both for people in the region and for both communities around the world. The second point of particular interest is the points of discontinuity of Malay Islam within the larger Islamic world. In over-simplified terms, Malay Islam has interacted enough with the folk culture (and religions) of the Malay peoples that it tends to be a much gentler, more relaxed Islam—except for a few radical groups involved recently in terrorist activities. Perhaps, McAmis suggests, this gentler spirit can be traced to the fact that it was largely Indian Muslims who first brought Islam to the region, as well as to the softening influence of the mystical Sufi movement. Indeed, as McAmis describes Islam in the region, Islam seems often as much a matter of cultural (or political) identity than an informed, religious commitment. The focus of this book makes it a fine companion to Roland Miller’s recent work, Muslim Friends (St. Louis: Cconcordia, 1995), built on his life-time of (LCMS) mission work among Muslims in India. Miller provides the broader picture and the more incisive study of the teachings and ethos of Islam, whereas McAmis provides the closer glimpse of how Islam has adapted to a specific cultural context. Additional helps for the reader are an index and two reference indices, one providing pre-1990 references, and the other (updated, annotated) giving post- 1990 works. Strangely, most of the citations in the book were from the earlier bibliography, which leads one to wonder whether there was a gap between its composition and its eventual publication. The church owes thanks to McAmis, both for his lifetime of mission and ministry among the Muslim peoples and for this gift of measured reflection on the issues that have come to dominate the headlines and concerns of our day. With this book, McAmis brings his ministry among Malay Muslims back home, with a time- liness he could not have imagined when he began ministry some forty years ago. How marvelously the Lord continues to stretch and use His servants. Henry Rowold

YOUR WORD IS TRUTH: A Project of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. By Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. 168 pages. Paper. $20.00.

How do Evangelicals and Catholics view the relationship of Scripture and tradition? Do they have equal authority, or is one superior to the other? How divisive is this issue for them? These questions are examined by the joint statement, “Your Word Is Truth,” and its accompanying essays, the latest production of the “Evangelicals and Catho- lics Together” (ECT) project. This “unofficial” group has met since 1992 to bridge the theological gap between Evangelicals and Catholics. It previously issued a joint statement on the doctrine of justification.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 333 The joint statement on Scripture and tradition is the main document in this book. The supporting essays (written by Timothy George, Avery Dulles, J. I. Packer, Thomas Guarino, John Woodbridge, and Francis Martin) illustrate the differences as well as the beliefs about Scripture and tradition held jointly by those who wrote and signed it. This review will concentrate on the joint statement rather than its supporting essays. The joint statement notes that Scripture is “the word of God in written form,” that the phrase “‘Word of God’ refers preeminently to Jesus Christ,” and that “the gospel of Jesus Christ is the word of God, as is the faithful preaching of the gospel” (3). The joint statement says that the “divinely inspired writings of the New Tes- tament convey the apostolic teaching, which is the authoritative interpretation of God’s revelation in Christ” (3). The New Testament authoritatively interprets the Old Testament. The statement does not express agreement on the number of books in the Scriptural canon, but accepts all sixty-six books in the Protestant Bible as canonical. The supporting essays at times place revelation and Scripture in interesting relationships. The joint statement and the essays note that sola scriptura does not mean nuda scriptura. Protestants who accept sola scriptura also have certain “traditions” which are normed by Scripture. The Catholic participants attempt to dis- tance themselves from the perception that Rome has two sources of doctrine— Scripture and Tradition. Scripture is the church’s source of doctrine. Tradition is the Spirit-guided transmission of the Gospel in the church through the ages (5). The Evangelical participants believe that the tradition of Rome’s official teaching office “results in the Roman Catholic Church standing in judgment over Scrip- ture” instead of having Scripture judge the church. Rome believes that its teaching office in “continuity with the orthodox tradition” enables Rome to teach the truth of Scripture “obediently and accurately” (6). Evangelicals note that the recent Roman reinterpretation of “tradition” enables it to believe “extrascriptural” truths not “explicitly” taught in Scripture because they are “implicitly present in Scripture” (31). Due to the differing views of “tradition,” Evangelicals reject as unbiblical “the eucharistic sacrifice and transubstantiation…purgatory, the immaculate conception and bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the claimed authority of the magisterium, including papal infallibility.” The Roman participants believe that Evangelicals, lacking a Roman understanding of tradition, are “deficient in their understanding of…apostolically ordered ministry, the number and nature of the sacraments, the company and intercession of the saints, the Spirit-guided development of doctrine, and the continuing ministry of the Petrine office in the life of the church” (7). Not only are there differences over the Biblical foundation for these teachings, there is also disagreement as to how to view those differences. Since the “development of doctrine” is at times used (though not by ECT participants) to gain approval for ideas like homosexual marriage, the ordination of women, etc., this “tradition” bears diligent study. The supporting essays speak about the role of liturgy in Christian tradition. Those parts of the supportive essays have special relevance for the LCMS as we wrestle with the “tradition” of eucharistic prayers (surrounding the Words of Insti- tution with prayer, with the Lord’s Prayer after the Verba) in the new hymnal. How authoritative is this tradition? Does the authority of Scripture offset it or not? And

334 what is the relationship of this “tradition” to other “traditions” that Roman Catholics accept but Lutherans do not? Anyone interested in respectful theological dialogue across confessional boundaries will benefit from reading this book. The ECT project and our Synod would greatly benefit from having at least one LCMS participant involved. The ECT participants recognize their disagreements and the continued need to work together to resolve them. They also state that “in the face of a society marked by unbelieving ideologies and the culture of death, we deem it all the more important to affirm together those foundational truths of historic orthodoxy that we do share in common” (7). Thus by “God’s grace we will…work together to bring the love and light of Christ to all persons everywhere” (8). Armand J. Boehme Waseca, MN

LORD JESUS CHRIST: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. By Larry W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. 746 pages. Cloth. $55.00.

Larry Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity is a monumental book in several ways. First, the book’s purpose is large—to offer an historical description and analysis of “the indisputable centrality of the figure of Jesus in early Christian devotion.” For the purposes of his study, “Early Christian” begins with the first generations of Christians in Judea and moves through the end of the second century. In so doing, Hurtado is attempting to overturn something of a consensus in critical scholarship that has stood since the publication of Wilhelm Bousset’s 1913 work, Kyrios Christos. Second, the book itself is large—746 pages. But I have to say that this is one of the most remarkably readable books I have ever encountered. Hurtado’s prose carries the reader along, at times almost effort- lessly, as he pursues his goal. Third, the possible benefits of this book are large as well. Hurtado’s thesis is that from the earliest days of the post-resurrection Chris- tian movement, the strictly monotheistic Jews who made up both the teachers and the rank and file of the Christian churches insisted on offering to the man Jesus what Hurtado terms “devotion,” that is to say, true and full-blown worship to Jesus of Nazareth in such a way that did not violate the conviction that there was only one true God, the God of Israel, who should be worshiped. Though Hurtado’s purpose is not to “spin out” the doctrinal implications of his findings, orthodox Lutherans (and Christians of all traditions) can and should rejoice in his findings. In his introduction, Hurtado lays out the scholarly context in which his work is offered. He is writing in direct opposition to the view generally regarded as established by the work of Bousset. In Bousset’s analysis both the “emergence of the Christ cult” in the Christian movement and the Christian Scriptures that proved the basis for the development of all later Christology were second-stage, later historical developments and no part of the thinking and worship of Jesus’ earliest Palestinian followers. The apostle Paul, influenced by Hellenistic notions of “Lord” and “Christ,” was responsible for introducing this foreign “Christ cult” innovation among the Diaspora followers of Jesus (14). Hurtado’s thesis, by starkest contrast, is summed up in three points: (1) in the groups of Jesus’ followers, “a noteworthy devotion of Jesus emerges phenomenally early” and is no secondary development; (2) such worship of Jesus was manifested with “an unparalleled intensity and diversity of expression, for which we have no true analogy in the religious environ-

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 335 ment of the time”; and (3) this devotion offered to Jesus “was offered and articu- lated characteristically within a firm stance of exclusivist monotheism” (2-3). Chapter one, “Forces and Factors,” displays Hurtado’s historical explanation for how such devotion sprang up in the earliest Christian movement in the form that it did. Four contextual features are key. First is the context of “Jewish Mono- theism.” Hurtado shows that, unlike other religious movements in the context, Jews offered devotion, worship to their God alone and not in any way to other various figures, angels, mediators, etc. (48). Second, Hurtado insists that the origin of different views about Jesus and conflicts over him stem from Jesus Himself and His earthly ministry (55). For the average reader of this review, this is an earthshakingly obvious point. But Hurtado is writing in order to show how reasonable it is to reject the work of radical historical Jesus research, and to conclude that the Gospel’s general portrait of Jesus and the faith and conflicts that arose because of Him are historically reliable (57-64). Third, Hurtado insists that the historian must take into account the transforming power of religious experience, and specifically the religious experience of the earliest Christians which convinced them that Jesus of Nazareth had been raised to bodily, resurrection life (71-72). Fourth and finally, Hurtado notes that the historian seeking to understand Christ- devotion in earliest Christianity must compare the phenomenon with parallels in the contemporary religious context. Here the key point is that the worship of Jesus set the earliest Christians apart from their fellowship and even at times caused them to be persecuted. Yet they were compelled, by the forces and factors that Hurtado describes, to nevertheless worship Jesus (74-77). The next nine chapters, all of them of considerable length, give Hurtado’s reading of the literature, from earliest to latest. Lest this become a full-length review essay, I will only here summarize the contents of these chapters in the briefest possible way. Chapter two, “Early Pauline Christianity,” takes up the evidence regarding devotion to Jesus found in Paul’s epistles. In my opinion, this is one of the finest chapters in the book. Chapter three, “Judean Jewish Christian- ity,” culls the evidence about the earliest Judean churches from both Paul and the Book of Acts. Chapter four, “Q and Early Devotion to Jesus,” proves to be an interesting and helpful chapter, even for those who find the existence of the Q source in Matthew and Luke a matter of no little uncertainty. Along the way, Hurtado offers fine critique of some of the major conclusions offered by scholars of Q. Even though I doubt the existence of Q, I enjoyed this chapter! Chapter five examines the evidence from what Hurtado awkwardly names “Jesus Books”—in other words Synoptic Gospels. I found this chapter to be perhaps the least helpful, only because the Gospels do not readily yield much fruitful information for Hurtado’s stated purpose. Only by reading through a redaction- critical lens (a smudgy one, at best!) can one claim to find in the Gospels evidence for the worship practices of early Christian communities. Chapter six, “Crises and Christology in Johannine Christianity,” describes the issues that were characteristic of “Johannine Christology.” My reaction here was similar to that of the prior chapter; yet even here the discussion is interesting and relatively fruitful. In chapter seven, Hurtado examines the evidence from “Other Early Jesus Books,” namely, the apocryphal Infancy Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas. His views of these writings are solidly mainstream and helpful. Hurtado’s historical investigation extends into the second century in the final three major chapters: “The Second Century—Importance and Tributaries” (chapter eight), “Radical Diversity” (chapter nine, examining Gnostic and Marcionite writings), and “Proto-orthodox Devo-

336 tion” (chapter ten). A brief conclusion, an extensive bibliography, and the standard indices bring the work to an end. A work of this ambition and magnitude will necessary have many strengths and (even for the most sympathetic reader) noticeable weaknesses. One of this book’s strengths is the way that Hurtado interacts along the way with the views of other scholars, especially those with whom he is in disagreement. The result, even for a reader who is not familiar with the contours of the various debates, is an outstanding introduction to the issues involved, even if that introduction is colored by Hurtado’s own confident and vigorous defense of his own positions. Another happy strength (in a book this long!) is Hurtado’s engaging style. I’ve waded through my share of turgid academic prose. For this book, I didn’t even have to put my waders on! Not only is Hurtado’s prose clear and enjoyable—at times he approaches genuine humor, turning a phrase in order to communicate. For example, as he begins to present the arguments from another scholar’s work that help to make one of his points, Hurtado describes the effectiveness of that other author: “[He] shows that [the positions being refuted] rest upon rather sandy foundations” (211). In showing that, at times, arguments from silence can carry greater or lesser force, Hurtado explains, “But an argument from silence is only as strong as the alleged ‘silence’ can be shown to be conspicuous and difficult to account for except on the explanation one offers. That is, we have to show (as in the famous Sherlock Holmes story) that a dog that should have barked did not. If a cat does not bark, that is nothing remarkable” (239). I appreciated as well the way that Hurtado constantly reminds his reader of the task at hand—to grapple with the implications of early Christian devotion to Jesus. Although he necessarily strays at times into other matters of Christology and dogma, Hurtado is, in the main, successful in keeping his somewhat specific focus in mind. One of the weaknesses of this book—an odd one, to be sure—is the extent to which Hurtado supports the arguments in his text with references to his own earlier publications in the footnotes. One wonders why his editors did not point out the almost inevitable effect this has on the reader, leaving the impression of circu- larity and perhaps even the neglect of other scholars’ work. In sum, I highly recommend this book for serious students of the New Testa- ment, and not the least for such students who also rejoice in that same, whole- hearted devotion to Jesus that Hurtado the historian describes as so remarkably characteristic of Christian churches from the earliest times. Both scholarly and churchly communities should thank Larry Hurtado for his achievement. Jeff Gibbs

QOHELETH. By Norbert Lohfink. Translated by Sean McEvenue. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 158 pages. Cloth. $23.00.

Lohfink’s commentary on Qoheleth, translated by Sean McEvenue, is another addition to the fine Continental Commentary Series published by Fortress Press. In his preface to the commentary, Lohfink states that his work is not “…in the form of an academic commentary” (vii). This becomes evident when one begins to read it, and its strengths and weaknesses must be evaluated in the light of its intended purpose and audience. The great strength of Lohfink’s commentary is his observations concerning the

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 337 structure and the coherence of Qoheleth. Although it is an understatement to say that there is little general agreement among scholars concerning the book’s overall structure, Lohfink’s observations seem clear and helpful. On the macro-structural level, he structures the book according to the following chiasm:

Frame (1:2-1:3); Cosmology (poem) (1:4-1:11); Anthropology (1:12-3:15); Social critique I (3:16-4:16); Religious critique (4:17-5:6); Social critique II (5:7-6:10); Deconstruction (6:11-9:6); Ethic (concludes with a poem) (9:7-12:7); Frame (12:8).

As can be seen, Lohfink structures the book mainly according to content. Other scholars will structure it differently by formal characteristics, key words, etc. Within these major sections, Lohfink also takes care to describe the relationships between the smaller parts. Thus, each section of his commentary contains an “overview” of the particular part of the text under consideration and then notes on individual verses or smaller units. A good example of the insight his analysis sometimes brings to the interpretation of Qoheleth is found in his discussion of 3:1-3:15. Here he relates the poem in this chapter to the poem of similar content in chapter one and shows the interwoven themes and relationships which tie chapters one through three together. His analysis is very helpful in interpreting the famous chapter three in a way appropriate to the context (58-59). However, the “non-technical” approach that Lohfink takes also has its draw- backs. First of all, there are few textual, grammatical, or syntactical notes of any kind. One would think that the book is unproblematic in this regard, which is certainly not the case! Thus, certain cruxes of translation and interpretation (3:11 or 3:21, for example) receive scanty treatment. His notes, which can at times be insightful, are usually confined to literary interests and do not often probe the theological issues in a way that a pastor preparing a Bible study or sermon on this book would like. Another drawback is his introduction, in which he talks about the authorship, date, and provenance of the book as if there was no debate about these issues. A glance at a couple of other commentaries on Qoheleth, however, will disabuse anyone of this notion. Lohfink’s idea that Qoheleth (along with Proverbs) was used as a school book in the temple school in Jerusalem and also in synagogue schools is speculative (11-12). His assertions regarding the relationship between Qoheleth and Greek philosophy can be put in the same category. In fact, scholars have come to no consensus regarding the major influences on the book (which appear to be numerous and resist easy classification). The debate over these questions is also wrapped up in issues regarding Qoheleth’s date. Lohfink does not mention any of this in his introduction. In general then, while the commentary has some interesting things to say about the coherence of Qoheleth, a more comprehensive treatment of the book would be desireable. Tim Saleska

338 Books Received

Adams, David L. and Ken Schurb. THE ANONYMOUS GOD: The Church Con- fronts Civil Religion and American Society. St. Louis: Concordia, 2004. 287 pages. Paper. $16.99. Bakke, O. M. WHEN CHILDREN BECAME PEOPLE: The Birth of Childhood in Early Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. 348 pages. Paper. $18.00. Bliese, Richard H. and Craig Van Gelder, eds. THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH: A Lutheran Contribution. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005. 176 pages. Paper. $18.00. Brosend, William F. II, Deborah Krause, Daniel Schowalter, Mark Vitalis Hoffman. NEW PROCLAMATION: The Essential Pastoral Companion for Preaching, Year B, 2005-2006 Advent through Holy Week. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. 264 pages. Paper. $25.00. Campolo, Tony and Michael Battle. THE CHURCH ENSLAVED: A Spirituality of Racial Reconcilation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. 159 pages. Paper. $15.00. Dunn, James D. G. A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON JESUS: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. 136 pages. Paper. $12.99. Dunnam, Maxie and John David Walt, Jr. PRAYING THE STORY: Learning Prayer from the Psalms. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. 101 pages. Paper. $15.00. Forde, Gerhard O., Steven Paulson, ed. THE CAPTIVATION OF THE WILL: Luther vs. Erasmus on Freedom and Bondage. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. 136 pages. Paper. $20.00. Haynes, Stephen R. THE BONHOEFFER PHENOMENON: Portraits of a Protes- tant Saint. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. 280 pages. Paper. $22.00. Hess Richard S. SONG OF SONGS, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalm Series. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. 285 pages. Cloth. $29.99. Jensen, Richard A., ENVISIONING THE WORD: The Use of Visual Images in Preaching, with CD-ROM. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. 155 pages. Paper. $20.00. Keller, Catherine. GOD AND POWER: Counter-Apocalyptic Journeys. Minneapo- lis: Fortress, 2004. 184 pages. Paper. $22.00. Lanzetta, Beverly J. RADICAL WISDOM: A Feminist Mystical Theology. Minne- apolis: Fortress, 2005. 262 pages. Paper. $22.00. Long, Thomas G. BEYOND THE WORSHIP WARS: Building Vital and Faithful Worship. Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute, 2001. 119 pages. Paper. $16.00. Menuge, Angus J. L. READING GOD’S WORLD: The Scientific Vocation. St. Louis: Concordia, 2004. 336 pages. Paper. $14.99. Myers, Carol. HOUSEHOLDS AND HOLINESS: The Religious Culture of Israel- ite Women. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. 105 pages. Paper. $6.00. Partridge, Christopher, ed. INTRODUCTION TO WORLD RELIGIONS. Minne- apolis: Fortress, 2005. 495 pages. Cloth. $45.00. Pelikan, Jaroslav, David Flusser, and Justin Lang. MARY: Images of the Mother of Jesus in Jewish and Christian Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. 106 pages. Paper. $17.00.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2005 339 Petersen, David L. THE PROPHETIC LITEATURE. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2002. 260 pages. Paper. $29.95. PREACHING AND WORSHIPPING IN ADVENT, CHRISTMAS, AND EPIPHANY, Includes Years A, B, and C. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. 248 pages. Paper. $15.00. Preus, Klemet I. THE FIRE AND THE STAFF: Lutheran Theology in Practice. St. Louis: Concordia, 2004. 479 pages. Paper. $26.99. Rhoads, David, ed. FROM EVERY PEOPLE AND NATION: The Book of Revela- tion in Intercultural Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. 277 pages. Pa- per. $22.00. Scifres, Mary J. and B. J. Beu, eds. THE ABINGDON WORSHIP ANNUAL 2006: Contemporary and Traditional Resources for Worship Leaders. Nashville: Abingdon. 2005. 295 pages. Paper. $20.00. Simon, Art. REDISCOVERING THE LORD’S PRAYER. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005. 135 pages. Paper. $9.99. Van De Sandt, Huub. MATTHEW AND THE DIDACHE: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? Netherlands/Minneapolis: Royal Van Gorcum/ Fortress, 2005. 310 pages. Cloth. $49.00. Waltke, Bruce K., THE BOOK OF PROVERBS CHAPTERS 15-31. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. 589 pages. Cloth. $50.00. Ware, Bruce A. FATHER, SON, & HOLY SPIRIT: Relationships, Roles, & Rel- evance. Wheaton: Crossway, 2005. 176 pages. Paper. $14.99.

340