Christ is Risen

In celebration of the proof that God has delivered us from the guilt of our sins, and from this place of sorrow and pain, I invite you to take a look at a little experiment I’ve begun on Blogger. It’s called Cross Ventilation. I’m not necessarily the only author there.

Psalm 16: Meditation for Holy Saturday

A Michtam of David.
Preserve me, O God, for in You I put my trust.
O my soul, you have said to the LORD,
“You are my Lord, My goodness is nothing apart from You.”
As for the saints who are on the earth,
“They are the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight.”

Their sorrows shall be multiplied who hasten after another god;
Their drink offerings of blood I will not offer,
Nor take up their names on my lips.

O LORD,You are the portion of my inheritance and my cup;
You maintain my lot.
The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places;
Yes, I have a good inheritance.
I will bless the LORD who has given me counsel;
My heart also instructs me in the night seasons.

I have set the LORD always before me;
Because He is at my right hand I shall not be moved.
Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices;
My flesh also will rest in hope.
For You will not leave my soul in Sheol,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
You will show me the path of life;
In Your presence is fullness of joy;
At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

(New King James Version)

Theological Issues

What does it mean to call something “theological?” What does it mean to call it “doctrinal?” I’ll give a short answer below, and in good post-modern fashion, you can feel free to give yours in a comment.

People in the church are like everyone else. We compartmentalize our lives and we make distinctions between words and ideas. Sometimes these behaviors are part of the same action. In the Church, we make a somewhat artificial distinction between clergy and laity. It’s artificial because we’re all just people. It’s somewhat artificial because there are real differences between vocations. God brings men and women together in marriage. He makes us fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters. He sets rulers on their thrones and gives free citizens their responsibilities. Besides all of that, He chooses and sends His ministers to be His instruments for the work of the Gospel.

But which parts of all that are “theological?” Which are “doctrinal?” That depends what we mean by those words. In my book, “theological” comes from two words: “θεος” and “λογικος,” the first meaning “God” and the second something like “of reason” or “of speech.” It’s in the same word family as “λογος,” commonly translated “word,” but also “thought” or even “thing.” So theology is reasoning in words that involves God. You could limit that to a definitive involvement on God’s part, or you could think of it more broadly. That’s what I prefer, because theology is not really the domain of man, but of God Himself. We are His guests here, both physically and cognitively. We were created in His image. Questions about morals and ethics are theological, because they relate to God’s will. Questions about the past can easily be theological, if we recognize that history is God’s work. Questions about the future are certainly in God’s domain. Some questions are merely issues of fact. “Did Neil Armstrong really step onto the moon?” That’s not theological. “What does this mean?” That usually is, on some level.

Does such a broad application of theology limit the contributions of the laity? Some may think that I’m reserving too much here for the exclusive participation of clergy. That’s not my intention at all. On the contrary, theology belongs to God, and is His gift to all mankind. If you are human, then you can think and speak about things relating to God. That doesn’t mean all our thoughts will be right, but rather that we each have a place at the theological table.

“Doctrine” on the other hand is both easier and harder to define. Literally, it simply means “teaching.” However, it implies different things to different people. To some, it means “unreasoned, inflexible, compulsory, formulaic truth claims.” I wish I could psychoanalyze that, because it would probably be entertaining. While some may treat their doctrine that way, I do not. My understanding of doctrine as a concept follows from my understanding of theology. A doctrine is the way we summarize a particular theological proposition or point. So we come up with statements of doctrine, theses of doctrine and we have controversies over doctrine. Yet a singular “doctrine” can also encompass all the teaching of scripture.

It’s been said that doctrine divides. I don’t think that’s the best way to put it. It’s not doctrine in the singular that divides, but doctrines (plural) that divide when they conflict with each other. That’s not a very post-modern thing to say, but it’s true. (There I go again.) This is not a bad thing. If God says “up” and someone on earth says “down,” isn’t it best to notice the difference? Doctrine is an essential part of theology, and doctrines are inevitable, even conflicting ones, in a fallen world. That doesn’t mean we should avoid doctrine altogether, but that we should do our best to pick it out from the impostors.

I’d mentioned the problem we have with compartmentalization. I think that Christians are prone to compartmentalize part of our lives as “doctrinal” or “theological,” while compartmentalizing other parts as not. That’s completely understandable, because we would like to justify our wrong desires and destructive habits. It doesn’t help if we admit that God might have something to say about them. But that kind of mental discipline helps neither the virtue of our theology, nor the well-being of our faith. It’s another reason why I consider it advantageous to keep a wide understanding of theology and a wide applicability of doctrine. That works against our pride, and helps us to remember that God is interested in every part of our lives.

God’s Son was born and lived a complete human life on purpose, so that our lives could be redeemed. The exchange is His whole life for ours. He also suffered and died for every single wrong we have ever done. There’s no distinction between doctrinal sins and non-doctrinal sins. They all required the blood of Jesus, and He shed that blood for them all. Every part of your life now belongs to God, and has a spiritual significance in His sight. It should have a spiritual significance in your sight too, whether you belong to the clergy or to the laity, whether you think your life relates to doctrine or not.

The Doctrine of the Church

Lutherans expressed the clear biblical teaching about the Church of our Lord in a time when most people were rather unclear in that area. Our doctrine is confessed in the Augsburg Confession, articles 7 and 8, and Article 12 of part 3 in the Smalcald Articles.

The Evangelical Lutheran Synod has also produced a doctrinal statement on the Church, which tends to follow the simplicity of the Augsburg Confession in some ways, but adds a focus on church fellowship and the matter of “the local congregation.” The focus on church fellowship is to be expected because of the sturm und drang following the dissolution of the synodical conference. We want to be clear about our reasons for associating publicly, or not, with other Christians. The focus on “the local congregation” seems to be a holdover from a controversy between members of the Synodical Conference. Missouri Synod theologians like Francis Pieper recognized that a local congregation possesses the essential qualities of an outward manifestation of the Church, while Wisconsin Synod theologians wanted to confess that the particular details of congregational organization manifested among us are not divine requirements. For some reason, these two emphases were considered to be in opposition to one another, and some of that controversy crept into the ELS statement on the Church.

The language used in the ELS statement to describe “the local congregation” speaks of “external forms.” That sounds like jargon if I’ve ever heard it. As far as I can tell, an external form is a specific institutional arrangement with all of its organizational details. Apparently it was not obvious to all in 1980 that God has not commanded any particular “external form” of the Church, though I suspect that those allegedly espousing such a view were misunderstood by those who condemned it. That language was picked up again in the 2005 ELS doctrinal statement “The Public Ministry of the Word,” only there referring to a specific position of responsibility with all of its organizational details, such as the office of pastor. There, the ELS wishes to confess that God has not limited the concept of “public ministry” to any particular position of responsibility. Notice how the use of “form” in 1980 and in 2005 have a similar intent: to say that the Church (on the one hand) and the Ministry (on the other hand) are not limited to the examples we see before us today. Yet they are also different, not least in the fact that contrary examples of “church” were not available in 1980, while contrary examples of “ministry” were prevalent in 2005.

I wonder, then, why there has been such a desire to insulate ourselves from “forms.” Do some really believe that there has only ever been one outward arrangement for the institution of the Church, with all of its organizational details? Such a narrow view is a bit ridiculous, given the variety of arrangements that have existed through history. Or is this the product of a bogeyman? Has there been too much emphasis upon the principle of Christian liberty over against the essential marks found in a Christian congregation, so that in order to protect that liberty, we don’t even wish to define an external congregation essentially according to those marks? Is it reasonable to think of an “external congregation” exactly in terms of God’s Word and Sacraments, and if so, will Christian liberty allow us to consider such an external congregation as a divine model for every Christian to seek? Is there any reason to define “external congregation” in any other way, in this context?

My final observation about the ELS statement on the Church is that point number 3 stops short. It gives the impression that the definition of the “office of the keys” is exhausted in the phrase “the authority to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments,” and it says nothing about the divine command to perform these tasks. It ends with the adverbs “individually and collectively,” but only two references to explain them. In fact, the references are given in the order of “collectively” first, and “individually” second (a purposeful chiasm, perhaps?). What is lacking here is the connection between John 20:21-23 and the collective exercise of the Keys. Of course, this is a possible junction point with a statement on the doctrine of the Ministry. Some parts of the 2005 statement do serve to clarify this, but use different terminology.

Indifferent Things in Worship

In the mid-16th Century, Lutheran churches were pressured by force to reincorporate certain Papistic worship practices into their services. Those pastors who refused were deposed in many places. Others accepted the changes, saying those changes were really indifferent to the doctrine we teach and believe. The problem, as the Formula of Concord describes, was that these changes were commanded as an exercise in obedience to the special, divine authority of the Pope, and an admission that the papal doctrine is true. The Lutherans who objected were right to do so.

Today, Lutheranism is again split between those who want to change worship practices and those who do not. These days, the changes are innovations determined not by papal authority, but by the trends of worldly culture. They are not intended to be a form of submission, but a means of bringing the lost into contact with their Savior at church. The changes today might be characterized as a shift in focus from sacramental events (God coming to us, bringing His spiritual gifts) to sacrificial (We bringing our spiritual offerings to God), while also utilizing the entertainment emphasis in our culture to attract those who are drawn to such things.

The typical example of this shift is the incorporation of so-called “contemporary Christian music” into the liturgy. This category of music can be hard to define. Some try to define it by the instrumentation, but I think that’s really only one aspect of its character, and not essential. I would distinguish it by its entertainment-focused style, mimicking the various popular styles of music that play on the radio or that are downloaded from iTunes. This entertainment-focused style involves melody and harmonies, but especially rhythm and lyrics. It makes the musical experience into a performance for human consumption and appreciation. Spiritually, the music becomes a completely sacrificial event (see above) on the part of the performer, and very little — if any — sacramental value remains for the congregation. Instead, the congregants are asked to observe and enjoy the music as entertainment, the way they might enjoy a concert. Easily-felt emotional manipulation replaces sacramental significance, which can only be discerned by faith in God’s Word. Contrast this with traditional Lutheran hymnody and liturgy, in which everyone is a full participant (rather than being entertained), and where sacramental and sacrificial aspects exist in more or less equal proportions.

Thankfully, the same article in the Formula of Concord has something we can apply to these changes to our worship practices.

Likewise, when there are useless, foolish displays that are not profitable for good order, Christian discipline, or evangelical practice in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference. (Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, FC, SD X, 7.)

If you would like to defend the present-day innovations generally called “contemporary Christian worship,” then I invite you to show how they are profitable for good order, Christian discipline, or evangelical practice in the Church.

Certainty about Doctrine

Theologically liberal churches avoid on principle what they call “doctrines and creeds.” They seem to consider such things evil. Here’s something that the Lutheran Confessions have to say about that. (The Lutheran Confessions define what the name “Lutheran” means.)

This is the case: being instructed from the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, we are sure about our doctrine and Confession. … Besides, this matter is important also for another reason. There are troublesome and contentious people who do not allow themselves to be bound to any formula of the pure doctrine. They may not have the freedom to stir up controversies, according to their good pleasure, that cause grounds for offense, or to publish and fight for extreme opinions. For eventually the result of these things is that the pure doctrine is hidden and lost. Then nothing is passed on to future generations except academic opinions and delays of judgment.

Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, Second Edition, p. 10.

Why We Insist Upon Faithfulness to the Bible

This is offensive (or perhaps ludicrous) to a great many people, who would have us doubt the words of holy Scripture and change what they say according to the fashion of the times. Nevertheless, it remains absolutely true, whether or not our freedom to believe and follow it is protected by constitution or law.

For our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is our only teacher; concerning him this weighty command was given from heaven to all human beings, “Hunc audite” (“Listent to him”) [Matt. 17:5]. He was not a mere human being or angel. He was not only truthful, wise, and powerful. He is the eternal truth and Wisdom itself, and almighty God. He knows very well what to say and how to say it, and he can accomplish through his power everything that he has said and promises, and can make it happen, as he says, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” [Luke 21:33], and, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” [Matt. 28:18].

Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article VII, paragraph 43 Quoted from Kolb and Wengert.

Some might call them “dangerous extremists” who believe something with such absolute conviction. Yet if God has indeed spoken, how can we deny the things that He has said? Would that not be the height of folly?

We can just as easily reverse the charge and say that those who reject the authority of God’s Word are “dangerous moderates” or “foolish skeptics,” who would incite the wrath of our Creator upon us all.

Christians are not distinguished from Muslims (or anyone else) by the presence or lack of sincere doctrinal zeal. The true distinction lies in the doctrine itself. Christianity is based upon a man who proved His teaching by rising bodily from death and ascending to heaven. His resurrection is a well-attested matter of historical fact. The doctrines of contrary religions have no such foundation in truth. Therefore, where God’s Word speaks, Christians listen.

The Means of Grace

Without an appearance of angels, and strengthened by the Word alone, the martyrs met death for the sake of the name of Christ. Why should we, too, not be satisfied with the same thing? Baptism is a sufficiently manifest and clear appearance. So are the Eucharist, the Keys, the ministry of the Word. They are equal to — yes, they even surpass — all the appearances of all angels, in comparison with which Abraham had only droplets and crumbs.

LW, AE vol. 4, p. 126

Luther on Living a Holy Life

But the holy orders and true religious institutions established by God are these three: the office of priest, the estate of marriage, the civil government. [See Large Catechism, 4th Commandment, 158, and the Augsburg Confession, Article XVI] All who are engaged in the clerical office or ministry of the Word are in a holy, proper, good, and God-pleasing order and estate, such as those who preach, administer sacraments, supervise the common chest, sextons and messengers or servants who serve such persons. These are engaged in works which are altogether holy in God’s sight.

Again, all fathers and mothers who regulate their household wisely and bring up their children to the service of God are engaged in pure holiness, in a holy work and a holy order. Similarly, when children and servants show obedience to their elders and masters, here too is pure holiness, and whoever is thus engaged is a living saint on earth.

Moreover, princes and lords, judges, civil officers, state officials, notaries, male and female servants and all who serve such persons, and further, all their obedient subjects — all are engaged in pure holiness and leading a holy life before God. For these three religious institutions or orders are found in God’s Word and commandment; and whatever is contained in God’s Word must be holy, for God’s Word is holy and sanctifies everything connected with it and involved in it.

Above these three institutions and orders is the common order of Christian love, in which one serves not only the three orders, but also serves every needy person in general with all kinds of benevolent deeds, such as feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, forgiving enemies, praying for all men on earth, suffering all kinds of evil on earth, etc. Behold, all of these are called good and holy works. However, none of these orders is a means of salvation. There remains only one way above them all, viz. faith in Jesus Christ.

For to be holy and to be saved are two entirely different things. We are saved through Christ alone; but we become holy both through this faith and through these divine foundations and orders. Even the godless may have much about them that is holy without being saved thereby. For God wishes us to perform such works to his praise and glory. And all who are saved in the faith of Christ surely do these works and maintain these orders.

(AE 37:364-365)

Note that neither the three broad categories (churchly, domestic, and civil) that Luther describes, nor the examples he gives, are meant to be mutually exclusive. Our church Treasurer supervises the common chest, but also holds other churchly responsibilities, as well as responsibilities in the other categories.