Tag: Doctrine

The Use of Reason and the Use of Aristotle

Jesse1 Comment

In giving Chemnitz’s stance with regard to the Scriptures and his hermeneutical principles, it is necessary to consider his view of reason and the use of Aristotelian terms and conceptual usages. Chemnitz is a sharp thinker who recognizes the necessity of precise definitions and nice distinctions. He will draw valid conclusions from clear propositions of Scripture. But he follows Luther in holding that there is no place in theology for reason corrupted by natural man. In spiritual matters reason must take its premises from the Word. While at times it may be harmless to borrow Aristotelian terminology (such as causa efficiens, causa instrumentalis, causa finalis, rem sacramenti, etc.), it can become dangerous and limit the Word of God because these terms of Aristotle are designed for the secular world. There is a vast difference between the earthly kingdom and the spiritual or heavenly kingdom, where we deal with things which eye has not seen nor ear heard nor entered into the mind of man.

— Bjarne Wollan Teigen, The Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz p. 21.

It is worth noting that Chemnitz avoids the use of Aristotelian terms and concepts, yet still uses reason and logic in presenting theology. In particular, Teigen wrote “In spiritual matters reason must take its premises from the Word.” He does not say that in spiritual matters, the whole deductive system of premises and conclusions is useless. No, he says that the premises must come from the Word. It follows (if I may), that scriptural premises will render scriptural conclusions.

Sometimes we have too much distrust of reason. A certain kind of distrust is healthy, as described above. But if we reject something simply because it was arrived at by the use of reason — a glorious gift of God and a servant in the house of theology — then we have gone too far, and thrown down an important tool or weapon that our Lord has given His Church.

Absolution may be spoken by any Christian

JesseLeave a comment

Over at Cyberbrethren and apparently elsewhere, there has been some blogging about the nature of the Gospel. I mention Cyberbrethren in particular, because Pastor McCain seems to have a good handle on the matter, and Pastor Cwirla’s comments included an important observation.

When we use the word “absolution,” we use it in more than one sense. What we can say about “absolution” varies depending upon the sense in which the word is used.

Pastor McCain’s main point is that every Christian can absolve (in a wide sense) his neighbors by speaking the Gospel to them. This can take various forms, including a statement like “I absolve you of your sins.” Whenever the Gospel is spoken, it is effective and true. Hence, such an absolution is a real absolution and bestows God’s forgiveness. See the article and especially the comments at Cyberbrethren.

Some have claimed that the Circuit 8 Revision of the ELS’ doctrinal statement on the ministry denies the authority of individual lay Christians to speak God’s forgiveness to their neighbors. A cursory reading of the Circuit 8 Revision shows that such a claim is either monumentally ignorant and careless, or slanderous. To wit, this is what the Circuit 8 Revision says:

Individual Christians also speak the Gospel of forgiveness to others, forgive the sins of those who sin against them, confront in a brotherly way those who need to repent of their sins, and in “the mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren” comfort one another with the words of the Gospel. This may be called the private or unofficial use of the keys. (1 Peter 2:9, Matthew 18:15-18, Matthew 6:12 — The 5th Petition of the Lord’s Prayer, SA Part III, Art. IV).

and

  1. We reject any teaching that denies individual Christians the authority to speak both the law and the gospel privately in their calling as the Universal Priesthood of all Believers.

I realize that the Circuit 8 Revision has only a historical status in the synod at this point, but the inaccurate claims about its content have endured to the present. In fact, those claims have unfortunately and unjustly harmed the reputation of its authors.

It seems to me that the Circuit 8 Revision agrees with the points Pastor McCain has made in these blog posts. In fact, it comes closer than the PMW to recognizing that we use the word “absolution” in more than one sense.

Elert on Fellowship

JesseLeave a comment

The popular idea that fellowship is simply sharing breakfast with another person in a friendly atmosphere, implies human initiative and creativity. Such a definition cuts the very heart and source out of the meaning of the word by merely externalizing the concept.

(14.) Werner Elert in his study of Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries traces this popular understanding of fellowship back to the days of 19th century theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher. Schleiermacher writes, “The church at all events is a fellowship created by the voluntary actions of men and only through these does it continue to exist.” Dr. Elert criticizes that remark when he says, “The concept of fellowship which is here said to characterize the Church does not derive from the nature of the Church, but the nature of the Church is derived from the concept of fellowship.” The consequence of such a view results in a view of fellowship as “a matter about which men are free to make their own arrangements depending on the good or ill will of those concerned.” Elert spells out how Luther insisted that fellowship means “using, enjoying, or having part in a common thing.” Fellowship is not a matter of human arrangement, nor do people have fellowship with each other simply because they want to. Fellowship is a gift of God and comes into existence solely as a result of His initiative and activity through the Means of Grace. Those people who are brought into the fellowship of the Triune God also become partners with all the other saints, as the letter to Ephesians so aptly states, “This mystery is that through the Gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers togethir in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 3:6 NIV). While fellowship or partnership is primarily a vertical relationship created and nourished by God Himself, nevertheless those united with Christ will manifest the unity which has already been given them by the Spirit and join hands in proclaiming and preserving the Gospel. Ralph P. Martin in the Tyndale Commentary Series, quoting J. Muller, says that the “Philippians indicated the reality of their partnership in the Gospel not by ‘a quiet enjoyment of it, but (by) a keen activity in the interest of it.’ These words share the twofold meaning of koinonia. There is the unity which Christians have with Jesus Christ by faith in Him. There is also a desire from these same people to express this unity with others and to join their hands in work “before the night comes when no man can work” (John 9:4).

1986 ELS Synod Report, p. 44-45

Continue reading “Elert on Fellowship” →

Of the Church and its peripheral activities

Jesse3 Comments

Here are a couple of useful distinctions to make in discussing church and ministry.

First, we have raised, heard, and addressed questions about the churchly character of the synod over against congregations, over against schools, etc. It would be benefical to distinguish the Church from its peripheral activities, which have a churchly character because they are activities of the Church. Up to now, we have often heard people say things like, “Is the synod church?” With this distinction in mind, we can answer such questions more exactly.

Continue reading “Of the Church and its peripheral activities” →

Confession “with great consensus”

JesseLeave a comment

I’ve written about the topic here before. But now, I’d just like to call your attention to a remarkable post on Cyberbrethren containing or excerpting a private letter of Hermann Sasse. I’ve been told that in some areas, Sasse is theologically unreliable. Fair enough. (Let’s discuss it.) I’ve been told the same about Luther. It shouldn’t be surprising. These were sinful human theologians. I am no better. But they also spoke and wrote God’s Word, so it’s worth keeping them around.

Here’s a juicy quote:

“A confession is for the Lutheran Church never simply a set of propositions in which the church, or several churches, agree. This is the great misunderstanding of modern Protestantism that has crept also into the Lutheran Church. The idea of such modern “confession” is that some Christians, or whole churches, try to find out what their common convictions are, how each of them understands the Scriptures, and whether they can agree on a common understanding. This leads always to “confessions of a minimum,” to the discovery and expression of the least common denominator. The careless interpretation of the Latin text of Augsburg Confession, Article 7 has lead even Lutherans to this view of the Confession of the Church. Many individuals agree in a certain common doctrine whatever that may be and ascribe the discovery of this common possession to the “guidance of the Spirit.” But the consensus of which AC 7 speaks is the consensus in the maximum, in the true Gospel, as the German text shows: “dass da eintraechtiglich nach reinem Verstand das Evangelium predigt und die Sakrament laut der Einsetzung Christi gereicht werden.” The word “eintraechtiglich” appears already in the first sentence of CA I and is rendered by the Latin “magno consensu.”

Union and Schism

JesseLeave a comment

There is a way of speaking that expresses things that are not necessarily true at the time, but are nevertheless, at least plausible. It’s called the subjunctive mood. This post is in the subjunctive mood. It helps us to discuss the substance of emotionally or politically-charged issues without descending into flame, both literally and figuratively.

A while back, I received an email from a reader about this update from the 2007 synod convention, written after the very first full day of the convention. The reader raises an important question. For the answer, I would refer all readers to an excellent ELS treatment of this subject called Unity, Union, and Unionism. After that, I invite your comments, either here or via email.

It may seem strange to think of unionism at a time when schism may also be taking place. One might wonder if they are opposites, and if so, how could they be happening simultaneously? The short answer is that they are not opposites. They are two different branches from the same trunk. The trunk is any doctrine that is not found in holy scripture, whether it be positive (We teach…) or negative (We do not teach…). Unionism is the outward joining of an orthodox church with an unorthodox church on an unscriptural basis. Schism is the separation of two orthodox churches on an unscriptural basis. They both proceed from the same sort of trunk. Therefore, it wouldn’t be so surprising to find both in the same place at the same time. That was a subjunctive statement.

Here is the reader’s question.

You said

we will be basing our unity upon the mutual acceptance of a human document that apparently allows for a variety of interpretations.

I would like to know how that is different from what the ELCA and Roman Catholics did with that Joint Declaration thing they passed several years ago. Isn’t it fairly well understood that they agreed to not bind each other to any specific meaning of certain terms, like justification, for instance; but they used terminology that would, in the name of unity, allow for multiple interpretations of the document.

Now I don’t think that the PMW was intentionally done that way. At least I trust it was not. But by continuing to demand subscription to it even after it is well established that the differences exist, are we not guilty of the same thing we accuse the ELCA of with regard to the JDDJ?

Thanks for letting me vent-it is so incredibly obvious to me!

One difference is that none of the adherents to the JDDJ have objected to it. I suppose that’s a tautology, but from our point of view, it makes a difference. The differences of understanding of the PMW may have allowed divergent points of view to overlook substantive disagreements between them, and that would (subjunctive) be bad. Yet the same set of differences has also produced a small but conscientious resistance to the PMW. This is what has absorbed many ELS resources this last couple of years. I don’t see the same thing happening in the ELCA about the JDDJ.

If we were (subjunctive) to seriously examine our disagreements on a sound hermeneutical basis (on the Bible), then I would say we’d still be on the right track. If we were (subjunctive) to sweep our disagreements under the rug, attempt to eliminate them by a misuse of authority, or try for a political/rhetorical resolution via any number of logical fallacies, then we would become the pot who called the kettle black.

Open Source Religion

Jesse2 Comments

Bruce, at Pagans and Lutherans, has expressed some necessary thoughts about something called “open source religion.”

As an avid Open Source Software user, I have to add my own two cents. “Open Source” refers to the way software source code is treated. Source code is the human-readable programming code that is somehow translated into instructions that a computer is able to follow. Microsoft products have source code, but if someone like me wants to see it, I have to pay scads of money (as though they need more) and sign my life away first. Open Source (or “Free”) software is different. Anyone can obtain the source code at nominal cost. What’s more, anyone can use that source code to make new software, with only one major requirement: new programs that incorporate existing Free Software source code must themselves be Open Source. This guarantees that others can improve on Free Software that I write, and also that the source code of those improvements will always be available to me, in turn. For more information, check out the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative.

The Free Software movement has spawned an industry in competition with the likes of Microsoft, and in my opinion, destined to outlive Microsoft. All of the programs involved in my writing of this post, for example, are Free/Open Source Software (sometimes abbreviated FOSS). That includes the operating system, the desktop environment, the text editor, the email client, the email servers, the web server, the programming extensions of the web server, and probably much more. I’m using it all right now, and it’s all Open Source. What’s more, some open source programs have proven so reliable and useful that they have become a major part of the Internet’s foundation, and key elements of the Macintosh and other operating systems.

But what about “Open Source Religion?” Here’s a brief criticism of the notion.

Religion has no source code, in the same sense as software. That’s not to say religion is not based upon something. The Christian Science cult, for example, is based upon the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. But are they not available for anyone to read? If that’s the source code, then it’s already open for reading!

The same is true of the Bible. We don’t have the original manuscripts, but we have many ancient and reliable copies. Anyone interested can obtain the text of the Bible. It’s already open for any to read. But it’s not source code, to be altered, extended, or built into something bigger. The Bible is God’s unchanging, proclamatory Word. That means it’s not available for tinkering. If you don’t agree, check out Galatians 1:8-9, or Revelation 22:18-19.

A prevalent thought through the ages is that religion is simply an accretion of mankind’s beliefs and superstitions, as they might apply in any given context of place and time. In other words, religion is man-made. There are some calling themselves “Christians” who believe the same thing about the Bible. But how would the term “open source” even apply in that case? It comes from a different semantic context, and could therefore only apply by analogy or metaphor. Even then, it only applies to a small degree.

The source of religion can only be one of two things: human or divine. The term “Open Source Religion” assumes that it’s human, and that people are trying to hide the basis for their religious beliefs. I don’t see that happening, except in the case of certain cults where the leaders just make things up as they go along.

True religion must have its source in that which is divine. Otherwise, it’s only a game, a guess, a hoax, or a means to influence others. That’s why confessional Lutherans believe exactly what the Bible says; no more and no less. Some might argue that we have added the Lutheran Confessions to the Bible, but not anyone who has read the Lutheran Confessions. And yes, you can read the source, though if you want it in the original languages, you’ll have to buy it.

The term “Open Source Religion” makes no sense. It’s a clumsy label for the desire to invent one’s own religion, and that’s nothing new. So many people have always wanted to treat the religious landscape of the world as a smorgasbord, taking in only a bit here and a bit there. Nobody can really stop them, but it’s stupid anyway, and will prove to be self-destructive. Again, it assumes that all religion is man-made, which a false assumption. The truth is so much greater than that, because God has only revealed what we need to know in His Word. Isn’t it about time to wise up and understand that God must be greater than we are, not lesser? Isn’t it about time to recognize our human limitations and seek wisdom while it may be found?

I’ll continue using Open Source Software, and I’ll keep opening the source of my faith too, the Bible. I’ll open it for myself and for those for whom I’m called to teach it. It stands open of its own accord. I thank God that He has revealed His Word to us, and that Jesus of Nazareth truly lived, died, and lives again: true God and true Man, to redeem us from the blindness and guilt of our sin and unite us again with our Creator!

Brainstorm: Synods and Churches

Jesse4 Comments

Christian organizations in the world, such as synods and churches, are subject to order in two different ways. One way we may call God’s Word, which is the expression of God’s will for us, for all time. The other we may call bureaucracy.

Likewise, two kingdoms exist in the world by the authority of God.

The Kingdom of the Right is the Holy Christian Church. It’s not to be seen upon the earth, except in its pure marks: the preaching of the Gospel and the right administration of the sacraments.

The Kingdom of the Left is civil governance and organization, which is found in every country, nation, state and province.

This division between Right and Left, authority Spiritual and authority Temporal, is carried into outward Christian organizations, notably congregations and synods. Why? Because the Holy Christian Church is ruled only by the Gospel, in which we have complete freedom. It’s not suitable to organize a group of sinners, which after all, describes every synod and congregation. Temporal authority is required.

So a congregation has articles of incorporation and bylaws. It elects officers and others to carry out its business. They do so with temporal or bureaucratic authority, not with the Gospel. The same is true for synods.

It has been asked what spiritual authority a synod has over its member congregations. There are two ways to err in answering this question. We would err by saying that the synod and its officers, as such, have been given spiritual authority over the member congregations, pastors and missionaries of the synod. Note this quotation brought up at the 2006 General Pastoral Conference, from Christian Anderson in 1927:

Much less ought the congregations assign to the general church body or its officers any power and authority by virtue of their resolutions — even when not in conflict with God’s Word — could be construed as laws binding upon the congregations by virtue of divine authority, vested in them as superiors according to the fourth commandment. Such concession on the part of the congregations would make of the synod a papacy which might become just as anti-Christian as that of Rome.

Unsurprisingly, Christian Anderson agrees with paragraph 8 of the Treatise and with holy scripture (John 13:3-17 and Luke 22:25-30).

Then what are we to make of synodical discipline? It is entirely bureaucratic in nature, proceeding only under temporal authority. The reasons for it, and the manner of its implementation may be rooted in the Gospel, but it is not to be construed or understood as Church discipline.

The other way to err in describing what spiritual authority a synod has over its member congregations is to say that it has none at all. If the Synod is a churchly organization; that is, if it is composed of and for Christians, then it has the same spiritual authority that every Christian has: it may speak and publish God’s Word.

If God’s Word rebukes a congregation or pastor, then the synod may speak that Word of God in rebuke — an element of church discipline.
If God’s Word commends, encourages or exhorts a church or pastor, then the synod may speak that Word in such a spirit. Every individual Christian, and every congregation may do exactly the same, with the same authority. The synod has no spiritual authority beyond the Word of God.

Ist klar?

Now allow me to shift the subject a bit.
What ought to happen when bureaucratic necessity conflicts with the Word of God? For example, suppose a member of my congregation notices that our mission statement contains something that seems to be false doctrine, but our bylaws require that all our members agree to the congregation’s teachings. It’s a conflict between bureaucratic necessity and the Word of God. Here are some choices:

  1. Release the member from the congregation and spend extra time on evangelism with the intent of forgetting that there could be a doctrinal problem with our mission statement. Under this option, the Word of God takes the brunt of abuse.

  2. Suspend the bureaucratic requirement for membership until the mission statement can be examined and fixed, or its doctrine explained to the satisfaction of all parties. Under this option, the human and temporal organization takes the brunt of abuse.

If such a hypothetical situation ever arose in church or synod, we can predict with some certainty that the first choice would be followed. That may surprise you. But if you read enough Luther, you’ll find that he often laments that it is God’s Word and God’s name that must suffer the worst abuse in the world. If you pay attention and live long enough, you just might see this theory tested.

Magic, Means, and Mystery

Jesse2 Comments

What is happening when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper? Is Jesus inviting us to His table, to dine upon food that He’s providing, or do we initiate the meal ourselves, retracing important events of that evening as a reminder to ourselves of what we intend to do? Are the powers involved in the Lord’s Supper comprehensible by the human mind, or are they beyond us? Who is really bringing the word to the element, and when does this happen?

A number of fellow ELS pastors and I have been troubled by certain practices and the underlying doctrine that we have observed among conservative Lutherans. Instead of arguing about what has been said or done, I’d like to have a discussion about the doctrine, as we find it originally in holy scripture and also in our Lutheran confessions.

Continue reading “Magic, Means, and Mystery” →

Risk of Theocracy

Jesse1 Comment

Last week I was on my way to Portland, and settled on a talk radio station where the dominating theme is liberal politics. At one point, someone was ranting against the usual things, like “corporate” interests and the death of mother earth. Amongst all that, she said something that interested me. She said that people need to wake up and smell the risk of theocracy.

Continue reading “Risk of Theocracy” →