Here are some pictures from the last long-distance visit we enjoyed here in Oregon. I was looking for one with the Abrahamsons too, but the best one I have includes underwear. I won’t say whose. I may yet find a better one from another time.
Thanks for coming out to visit. This is a bit late, but I hope you all had a good time. We should go camping together again.
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.
As long as the cure holds, that headline is big news. Very big news for anyone who lived through the HIV fears of the 1980s, and who has seen this disease as “incurable” ever since.
That the cure seems to have happened as a side effect of a painful leukemia treatment should not make the cure for HIV any less significant. Yet it strikes me that in this article, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, seems to downplay the importance of this first-ever cure for HIV. Why could that be? Other than heading off unrealistic hopes for those currently suffering with HIV, I have no idea.
On the other hand, I think it’s also significant that this treatment, which has apparently cured both the leukemia and the HIV infection, involved the use of adult stem cells. Those are the type of stem cells that do not require the death of a human being for their use. I have no moral objection to this kind of medicine, which is apparently capable of amazingly effective treatments. However, I do object on moral grounds to the use of embryonic stem cells, because in order for them to be “harvested,” the living human embryo to whom they belong must be put to death.
Since the value of human life has sadly become a political issue in the United States, I would expect advocates of the so-called “culture of death” (proponents of legal abortion, embryonic stem cell research, physician-assisted suicide, etc.) to be somewhat conflicted by this news. I’m sure everyone’s glad to hear about a cure for HIV, but the fact that the first cure has come through adult stem cells tends to vindicate the moral objection to embryonic stem cell research. Not only does it intentionally destroy innocent human life, treating it with far less regard than the U.S. military treats collateral damage, but embryonic stem cell medicine may be no more effective than adult stem cell medicine. Now that pluripotent adult stem cells can be produced, there is no longer even a weak justification for the destruction of innocent human life necessary to obtain embryonic stem cells.
Just finished a book from 1983 by Massad Ayoob, called The Truth about Self Protection. Mr. Ayoob, besides being a writer, is a well-respected expert in the field of combat and self protection. Already in 1983, he was a well-known instructor in several martial disciplines and weapons. He has been an expert witness in this area, which is one of the first things I heard about him in detail. Having served as a police officer for 14 years (and now part-time for 36 years), he is well respected by many in both law enforcement and the legal system. He was the director of Lethal Force Institute for 28 years, and now heads the Massad Ayoob Group. Both organizations provide expert training in the legal use of force.
Though there are several areas where the book is dated, there is a lot of good advice too. From a confessional Lutheran point of view, Mr. Ayoob (in 1983) has an unscriptural perspective on the spiritual side of the decision to defend oneself. That’s not unsurprising, since only a small minority of Americans really understands what the Bible says about salvation. However, Mr. Ayoob’s perspective only affects a particular course of reasoning behind a Christian’s decision to use deadly force. There are better reasons to reach the conclusion that a Christian may defend himself and others from the immediate threat of death or grave injury by using deadly force. Since Mr. Ayoob does not claim to be an expert in theology (Christian or otherwise), I think we can still appreciate his expertise in the area of self-protection.
There is an essential spiritual element left out of any approach to self protection, because of its limitation to the self. Naturally, it falls outside the scope of Mr. Ayoob’s book. This essential spiritual element is faith in the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Without Jesus, I could see why non-Christians might scoff at a reliance upon God’s protection. But since God’s only-begotten Son became a man for the express purpose of redeeming us and granting us eternal life, we can be sure that God always has our best interest at heart, and will influence the world accordingly. But notice that this does not mean we know our best interest. Sometimes it is in our best interest to suffer, at least until we reach our true home in heaven. Furthermore, our Creator and Savior has also provided us with hands, feet, and a mind capable of defending ourselves and our loved ones from unlawful violence. (Unfortunately, there is also lawful violence and injustice exercised by every earthly government, and we are only allowed to resist it when it would force us to disobey God’s law.) Especially in the United States, where the law-abiding citizens’ right to own and carry arms is constitutionally protected, the Christian citizen in the face of immediate threat to life and limb becomes part of God’s temporal plan to curb that violence, in a way comparable to Melanchthon’s case of necessity in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, paragraph 67.
So I don’t recommend that Christians rely only upon temporal resources for their self-protection, but I also don’t recommend that we neglect them. Perhaps you have heard the old joke about the Christian caught in a flood who remained praying in his house despite several visits from helpful neighbors in cars, boats, and finally helicopters. After he died, he angrily asked God why He didn’t answer his fervent prayer to save his life. God’s reply: “I sent you cars, boats, and helicopters. What more do you want?” So God’s protection may be closer than we thought, even in our own mind and limbs. But whatever may happen to us, a Christian need not be anxious, because we have a reliable promise stronger than any temporal threat or power.
I’m sure that Mr. Ayoob would add many other things to his presentation today, now that technology has given us cell phones, and the legal system has been adjusting to the age of terrorism. Judging from this book, it is probably well worth the cost to receive his classroom and range training, where the student would receive all of the latest he has to offer.
In his book The Case for Civility, Os Guinness describes two ways the independence of our faith is strategically compromised when churches try to advance their interest politically. He also describes why this must fail to address the deterioration of our culture, and I think his argument is compelling. This is from p. 101.
Faith’s loss of independence through politicization is more damaging than it might appear, for the cultural captivity of the Christian Right represents a double loss of independence. Rather obviously, Christians lose their independence when they engage in politics in a way that allows their faith to become subservient to politics and its priorities and procedures. But less obviously and equally important, Christians have already lost their independence when they attempt to find political solutions for problems that are essentially cultural and prepolitical — in other words, when they ask politics to do what politics cannot do.
When there has been a profound sea change in culture, as the United States has experienced since the 1960s, it is both foolish and futile to think that it can be reversed and restored by politics alone. That approach will always fail, and can only fail. Politics is downstream from the deep and important changes in American culture, and what lies upstream is mostly beyond the reach of political action. Thus overreaching political activism is bound not only to fail, but to leave the cultural changes more deeply entrenched than ever and those fighting them weaker than ever.
So instead of using political methods, like mobilizing church members to support or oppose certain political candidates or ballot measures, churches should simply teach the Word as it applies to the moral, ethical, or social questions implicit in the political debate. Then the members can act individually, based upon their informed conciences. That action would certainly not be limited to voting. The more powerful actions would be things like speaking the truth in love to those with whom our lives intertwine, and reflecting the mercy of Christ in our deeds.
Sometimes individual Christians (even ministers) may have opportunity to speak out publicly, but we should distinguish between speaking as individuals and speaking as the Church. When conducting a service, teaching a Bible class or counseling, I speak for Christ at the behest of His Church. When writing a blog post or speaking in a hearing before the town council, I voluntarily speak only for myself, a member of a particular community. Every member of a church has a similar private voice, which can collectively have a powerful influence upon our culture. However, this voice is not a tool to be manipulated directly by churches, because that would turn a prepolitical influence into a political one, simultaneously weakening it and compromising the independence of our faith from the political winds.
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.
It’s been quite a while now since my last post. Sorry about that. Over the last three to four months, I’ve had a higher-than-usual online workload as I worked to upgrade a pretty serious web site. The upgrade is now officially finished, but as always, there are aftershocks of work to do. In the meantime, the vicar at my parish has received a call to his own church. I’m thankful for that, because he’s been ready for a while, but had to mark time here for a few months. So my parish duties are now adjusting back to something like they were in the pre-vicar era.
By the way, the web site upgrade brought us into Plone 3, which is in many ways a great improvement over Plone 2. The experience has been pretty good overall. There are times when I’m sick of doing things on a computer. That has the benefit of driving be back to my ginormous backlog of “to-read” materials. On the other hand, the creative digital juices have also been stimulated from time to time, and I’ve been able to take a few minutes here and there to advance the state of some of my selfish software projects. (Selfish because I am the chief beneficiary of my efforts.)
Here’s something spiritual to think about, a theological nugget to chew. Check out Deuteronomy 29:29.
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
That’s a distinction between things that God has chosen not to reveal, and those things that He has revealed in His law (aka His word). It means that it’s fruitless, foolish, and probably against our best interests to pry into the things God has kept secret, but it’s fruitful, wise, and very profitable to give our attention to what He has revealed.
Neat verse. It encapsulates an important theological distinction and expresses it rather clearly.
I’m a bit tired of reading about the prohibitive cost of tax cuts. The “cost” of a tax cut is a backwards and wrong expression. A tax cut doesn’t have an assignable cost, unless you can count your chickens before they hatch.
Taxes are by nature a forced confiscation of private property, though they are necessary to pay public bills. The nature of taxes means that their very existence is a drain upon the economy. Hence, for a better economy, and an economical benefit that could be enjoyed by all, taxes should be minimized.
When a politician speaks about the “cost” of a tax cut, he assumes the revenue of a particular tax to be already at his disposal, even before the tax has been collected. He also assumes that any negative economic influence of imposing the tax will be unworthy of consideration as a “cost.” On the first assumption, he is plain wrong. On the second, he is irresponsible.
The idea that uncollected, future taxes are already at the disposal of our legislature is exactly the same as the idea that a private citizen’s credit card limits are an asset just like his savings account.
Here in northern Oregon, our few ELS churches have had the pleasure of starting a “local” winkel (small pastor’s conference). So far, it has only taken a maximum of 2.5 hours to travel to the winkel, making it much easier for me to budget my time than when I was traveling to Tacoma. That was usually about 4 hours each way. We’ve also had the pleasure of several pastors from outside our synod attending with us. I consider this an important aspect of church activity: that we always seek others with whom we may agree in doctrine, and thus eventually might recognize the existence of outward fellowship.
Besides our ELS attendees, we have had one pastor from the Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches attending and two pastors in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Our ELS pastors have been encouraged (by the ACLC pastor) to attend the Wisconsin Synod winkels in Portland too, but as beneficial as it might be, I can’t justify taking another day every month away from my parish.
We recently rejoiced to hear that the ACLC has recognized fellowship with the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America. Both of those organizations are relatively young. The ACLC was formed mainly by congregations removed from the ELS over a matter tangential to the adoption of a doctrinal statement on the Office of the Ministry. (For those who want to know, they took issue with the way another ELS pastor was deposed from his congregation, attempting to treat the matter as a case of church discipline by invoking the “lesser ban” against a synod official. This was deemed to be “selective fellowship,” and thus contrary to the ELS doctrinal position on fellowship, notwithstanding that their action was not meant as a declaration of church fellowship.)
This winkel has been a blessing for those involved, though at times we have wondered how best to engage our fellow Christian brothers with whom we do not (yet) recognize outward fellowship. With the outward fellowship now recognized between ACLC and ELDoNA, the time has probably come to look more closely at ELDoNA’s doctrine. While our winkel discussions seem to show that fundamental agreement still exists between our pastors and the ACLC (and at least some LCMS pastors), the ELDoNA has an origin mostly separate from the ELS. It’s possible that even though the ELS has a much different background than the ELDoNA, we might be in agreement on the substance of our doctrine. Both subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions because (quia) they accurately confess the doctrine of Holy Scripture, so the possibility of finding further agreement is high. In addition, the exercise of examining the doctrine of another church body will force us to a better understanding of our own, and perhaps put a finer point on it.
Apparently, ELDoNA has existed since 2006. The most outstanding distinction between ELDoNA and the ELS is not in doctrine, but in the polity (outward organization) of the church body. There is much on their web site describing the reasons for organizing as a diocese, and explaining what that means. In our ELS seminary, I recall learning that polity is not something divisive of fellowship, and usually determined by the historical roots of the particular denomination in question.
The ELDoNA subscribes to two sets of theses, not intended wholly as doctrinal statements, but also statements of good practice and mutual understanding. They are meant to address various controverted issues among Lutherans in our day. There are many things to consider from these statements, but I’ll just mention one here as an example. In the “Malone Theses,” Thesis number 3, on the “Office of the Ministry,” says:
Laymen ought not preach or read sermons at the divine service. Laymen are not to administer the sacraments of the Church. Emergency baptism is the only exception to this rule. (AC 14)
In ELDoNA’s response to questions from the ACLC, this was expounded a bit. After citing several relevant passages from the Book of Concord, the response says:
“Necessity” must not be confused with “convenience.” In our age of technological conveniences (such as CDs and tape recorders) and relatively inexpensive, fast transportation, circumstances such as pastoral vacations and vacancies can be dealt with in a means which is consistent with our Lutheran Confessions.
A pastor being gone for a Sunday or two may be considered “inconvenient,” but it does not become a matter of “necessity.” It would certainly be the preferable practice that the pastor leave a recorded message, if no other orthodox Lutheran pastor is available on that occasion. The congregation could also consider gathering for singing hymns on such an occasion, without having a sermon on that particular Sunday.
While this seems not to be considered so much a doctrinal matter as a matter of good practice, it’s still interesting, because we have had the practice of an “elder” (a lay position assisting the pastor) or designee reading the sermon when the pastor cannot be present on Sunday. My only observation is that a message from the pastor might be recorded on tape or CD, or on paper. I don’t see a lot of difference between a layman pressing “play” and a layman reading the pastor’s words. Neither is ideal. What did our Lutheran fathers do in remote parishes?
The United States is not unique among nations, insofar as it is a sovereign country on the earth. Everyone can agree about that, I think. Yet the United States is at least somewhat unique among nations, insofar as its government is based upon, as our President has described it, a “charter of negative rights.” Other nations have copied the US to various degrees in that regard, but this country was really the first to go all the way with this idea.
What does our President mean by “a charter of negative rights?” He means that our constitution limits the powers of the federal government, protecting the liberties of states and citizens. It forbids any notion that the government has the right to, for example, prohibit the free exercise of religion. While this frustrates our current President and his associates, it should be a comfort for other Americans. It’s what makes the United States a free country.
I’ve had a busy start to the school year, and the busy-ness will continue for a while. We’re starting a series of classes for anyone 10 and older, called “Getting Into God’s Word,” as well as several confirmation classes. Together with other things, I’m left pretty wiped out at the end of many days, without much impetus for addressing other things on my list. Blogging comes about last. But today is my weekend, and I think these observations are rather important for us all to keep in mind as election day draws closer.
Notice how concerned I am about freedom, or liberty. A hundred or more years ago, that might easily earn me the label “liberal,” but today it most likely earns me the label “conservative.” Isn’t that odd? To be “liberal” these days (or at least during this presidential administration) is to oppose the kind of protections our Constitution affords for individual liberty. To put it bluntly: a “liberal” today opposes liberty, while a “conservative” seeks to protect it. Amazingly ironic.
I realize that there are issues, and there are issues. Some “liberals” or “conservatives” may seek to protect certain liberties, while neglecting the protection of others. The free “speech” of sacrilegious art comes to mind. Examples of neglect abound. This presidential administration’s approach to implementing the newly-adopted national health care regime is one of them. The President’s secretary for health and human services responded to an announcement from certain health companies in which they explained to their customers that the new law would increase their costs. Here’s how Michael Barone summarizes this “liberal” neglect of free speech:
“Congress shall make no law,” reads the First Amendment, “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Sebelius’ approach is different: “zero tolerance” for dissent.
I don’t mean this to be primarily a criticism of our current President’s administration. Instead, I want anyone reading this to realize that even though we may be exceedingly busy, it behooves us as citizens to pay attention to our government and its political process. Yes, it can be very boring, repetitious, and even depressing. Yes, the signal-to-noise ratio can be extremely low. But if nobody pays attention to these things, then whatever remains unique, special, or even comforting about the way the US is governed will surely disappear. Maybe we will enjoy some of those blessings, but we’ll have lost them for our children. The present administration only reminds us that this has always been true.
Labels like “conservative” and “liberal” don’t really matter. They are just labels, and their meanings change over time. Party loyalties only matter as far as your conscience permits you to affiliate with the whole platform of either party. That’s a personal political decision, though it should be based upon objective reality instead of hype or feelings. So if the labels and the parties don’t matter much, then what does matter?
The principles matter. The Christian worldview, based upon the Bible, matters, because it’s not only a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of faith, and a matter of fact. Truth matters. These things matter to Christians because we are Christians.
Don’t get so busy that you neglect the responsibility common to every American citizen: inform yourself, vote, and participate in the peaceful process of governing this republic. There is evil in the world. It’s in our neighbors, including those in public office, and it’s in us. Let’s not neglect to work against it. Especially in busy times.