CONCORDIA JOURNAL Volume 29 July 2003 Number 3 CONTENTS EDITORIALS Theological Observers ................................................................ 226 Theological Potpourri ................................................................ 235 ARTICLES Syncretism and Unionism Samuel H. Nafzger.................................................................. 240 Hofmann as Ich-theologe? Matthew L. Becker....................................................................... 265 The LORD Is One Norman Nagel ............................................................................ 294 HOMILETICAL HELPS ..................................................................... 302 BOOK REVIEWS ............................................................................... 327 BOOKS RECEIVED .......................................................................... 351 CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2003 225 Theological Observer What Kinds of Prayers for America? Now that the Yankee Stadium controversy is out of the judicatory process it is appropriate to have public and open discussion and debate regarding the relevant theological questions. One such question is this: What kinds of prayers for America should the church offer? The question merits careful theological reflection. America is not a church. Often in its history America has thought of itself as church-like, as the covenant people of God, and as the new Israel whom the Almighty favors over other nations. But in reality the United States is a nation, before God, no different from any other nation. America fits into the Biblical category of goy, not the covenant people of God like ancient Israel but just another nation-state like ancient Moab or Persia. Consequently we should not treat America as church nor pray for America as if it were church. Our prayers for America should be left-hand kingdom prayers, prayers appropriate to the left-hand kingdom. What would such prayers look like? It should go without saying that the church’s prayers are always Trinitarian as we beseech God the Father through His Son Jesus Christ in His Spirit (Eph. 2:18). The church can only pray Trinitarian prayers because we are Christians and not Deists. We have been baptized into the Trinitarian name. The Spirit has called us to Jesus Christ who, as the one and only Mediator, has brought us into fellowship with God the Father. Whenever we approach God in prayer we approach Him through Christ. What petitions are appropriate for America? Paul urges us to offer prayers and intercessions for all people including “kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim. 2:1-2, ESV). We pray that the Creator preserve civil order and promote civil righteousness, punish those doing evil and reward those enhancing the common good, thwart the plans of terrorists, and hinder the purposes of wrongdoers. What petitions does the church offer when a city or America as a nation suffers from a murderous attack or great tragedy? Again, we need to think through the question carefully. The only comfort that the church can give or seek from God is the comfort promised by God, and that comfort is the Good News of Jesus Christ and Him crucified for sinners. It is the consolation of the forgiveness of sins and eternal life with God based on 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. 226 the work of Christ. This consolation of the Gospel is not to be given simply to those who sorrow and mourn but to those who sorrow and mourn over their sins. It is for those experiencing what Walther calls “godly sorrow,” sorrow before God (The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, under thesis XI). It is directed to those whom the Lutheran Confessions describe as stricken with terrors of conscience, those who lament their sins and fear God’s wrath. Jesus’ beatitude, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted,” in the context refers to the comfort of God’s favor and kingdom to come to those who lament the absence of His favor and kingdom. It is the divine favor and kingly rule that comes only through the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. What would be wrong with praying that God comfort and console Americans as they grieve over the results of a national tragedy? Such a prayer would be misleading. It would be interpreted through American lens—that the Creator will strengthen and protect American citizens because He favors America as His special people. This is precisely the danger facing the church in every nation—the Gospel ends up refashioned in nationalistic terms. There is no uniquely American version of the Gospel; there is only the one Gospel of the one Creator. The Gospel does not correspond to America as a nation or to Americans as citizens. It correlates with sin and God’s wrath, not national security. There is an important difference between viewing people as fellow contrite sinners and viewing them as fellow Americans. The comfort of the Gospel speaks to the former. It does not address any corporate entity of the left-hand kingdom, such as a government, a city or town, a civic group, or a business. The Law of God speaks to all such groups but not the Gospel. During times of national tragedy the church grieves with those who grieve and offers them our help and assistance in every way. We pray for civil righteousness and external tranquility. And we invite all those who despair over their sins to the comfort and peace that only Jesus Christ has won and can give (John 14:27). Paul R. Raabe Is There A Nuance in the House? “Is there a nuance in the house?” As the months have gone by in which the (now formally settled) matter of the “Prayer for America” was the subject of conversation and debate in the Synod, I found myself repeatedly wondering why many people seemed to find the matter a simple one. The group didn’t seem to make a difference: seminarians, pastors, people who spend a lot of time on the Internet, or lay members of my Bible class at my home congregation. In the first place, the majority of people who had an opinion about the event had not even watched it! But even more importantly, they framed the matter in simple, black and white terms. CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 2003 227 The two views that I heard most often might be stereotypically described as follows: (1) Rev. David Benke’s presence and actions at Yankee Stadium were clearly and completely wrong, and the Synod already had clear answers to deal with such situations; or (2) Rev. David Benke’s presence and actions at Yankee Stadium were clearly and completely right, and they constituted a bold proclamation of Gospel witness that the Synod would do well to emulate. I freely admit that I find myself more in sympathy with the stereotype that would find fault with Rev. Benke’s actions. But I would like to take each stereotype in turn and attempt to nuance it. To speak first against the stereotype that appeals to me more strongly: a case can be made that the event at Yankee Stadium was a complex and (perhaps) unique reality. Those who watched the event, either live or in recorded form, know that it was a truly bizarre combination of events. On the one hand, patriotism, national identity, and civic leaders figured prominently. On the other hand, there were overtly religious speaking and praying by representatives of both contradictory Christian confessions as well as of other world religions whose “faith” cannot save them, for it is not faith in the only Mediator, Jesus of Nazareth. The event was convened by the civil authorities...but for a religious purpose. The whole society was invited to gather...but as what? Citizens? Victims? Religious people? Patriots? One thing, at least, seems relatively clear (at least to me). The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, was a unique event, and the “Prayer for America” was not something that we have seen before. Is it even possible, in such a strange and complex event, to be present as a leader of our church body in a way that does not violate Biblical understandings but that would promote the cause of Christ Jesus and His only saving Gospel? I’m not sure—but in retrospect, I can think of things that might have been helpful and things that were not. In the context of so much “prayer” that invoked the names of false gods, it is genuinely difficult to see how merely offering an overtly Christian prayer was the best thing, or even a good thing, to do. The problem is not that the people present would think, “Oh, his prayer is just the same as the other prayers.” The problem is that people would think, “Oh, his prayer is different, but it doesn’t matter.” So, in that context it doesn’t seem OK to pray at all– unless we ask God for repentance and faith in Jesus. For how can we know the hidden will of God in an event as terrible as “Nine-Eleven”? How do we know that it was not God’s judgment, by the hand of a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar, upon a consumeristic, aborting, arrogant, sexually profligate society? We don’t know—that’s the point. But would it have been OK to show solidarity as compassionate members of a society? Could a representative of our church have been present to say something like the following summary: “I’m not really here today so much to offer spiritual comfort, because there are so many differences and contradictions among the people and religions here represented.