Tag: Doctrine

The way language changes right under your feet is a source of both frustration and pleasure at the same time. The pleasure of it is similar to that of irony: proof that there really is something wrong with the world, and it’s not just me.

So the term “Ministry” in our time has such a proliferation of uses that the word itself has become fairly useless without a lot of context. Don’t you just love it?

Martin Luther often wrote about the Carthusians (a monastic order) and how they like to invent ways to serve God better than regular folk could. Read the Large Catechism on the Ten Commandments, and count how many times Luther challenges the Carthusians to come up with a good work that pleases God as thoroughly as obedience to one of His commandments.

We don’t run into Carthusians every day, at least in the Northwest. But we do run into a lot of people who are trying to please God in ways of their own invention. Christians are no exception. Among Christians, it seems that a lot of people really want to please God. I suppose that’s good. But instead of learning and living by His Commandments, many of them are trying to discover or develop their particular “gifts of ministry” so that they can really serve God in their lives. Did I say that we don’t run into Carthusians every day? Maybe I was wrong.

Continue reading “A Delightful Little Book on Ministry” →

In confirmation class, our students learn that God’s moral Law is like a mirror. When we look into it in view of our own lives, we see reflected an accurate moral understanding of our own lives. The conclusion for every human on earth is that we are morally guilty, and in need of rescue from the punishment we deserve.

Recently, I’ve noticed how some people consider Lutheran theology to be “hateful” or “hate-filled.” It seems that these words are used in the same vein as the recently-coined concept of a “hate crime.” That alone should make Christians uncomfortable with this trend in the legal system of our states and nation. But that’s beside the point.

Continue reading “The Mirror of God’s Law” →

I’ve just had a complex thought, but I’m not sure I can express it in words. BTW, that’s one of the great values of writing those thoughts down. When you try to express them, as happens on a blog, they tend either to crystallize or evaporate. Please be patient, and we’ll see what happens this time.

A key part of the context of my thoughts on fellowship is the Werner Elert book Eucharist and Fellowship in the First Four Centuries. It shows how Holy Communion as an expression of fellowship was practiced so differently in the early church than it is practiced today — even in the ELS — and yet there are so many parallels and similarities. Read it if you have the chance.

Is there any such thing as Fellowship? What an odd question to ask. But I ask it anyway, for the sake of discussion, because our doctrine and practice of fellowship seems to be self-contradictory.

Continue reading “Is there any such thing as Fellowship?” →

[ Updated 2/25 to reflect a correction to the original source of this quotation. ]

Julie Martinez of The Fireside quotes from an essay by Rev. Richard Bolland (Kansas City, MO), about a problem in the LCMS in which the material principle of Christian theology (see her post) is replaced with missions.

Like all Confessional pastors I know, I am passionate about the Great Commission! I love to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with those in the faith and those outside the faith as the Lord gives me opportunity. I simply do not know of a single Confessional pastor who would claim or act otherwise. However, what began with Resolution 1-02 at the 2001 synodical convention has initiated a process which is beginning to elevate Christian outreach into the status of a new Material Principle. Instead of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone being the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls, it is now become vogue to say that Christian outreach is the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. That is simply unbiblical!

I realize/hope that this problem is not as prevalent in the ELS and WELS at the moment, but it would be foolish and possibly dishonest to claim that it doesn’t exist. The fact is, I’ve been troubled at times by the reckless ways in which missions and evangelism have sometimes been promoted and urged upon our pastors and congregations as activities, over against the activity of securing and defending a biblically-accurate, confessional Lutheran expression of our doctrine. As noted at The Fireside, the very substance of evangelism is our expression of doctrine, making evangelism meaningless unless we first know what we will teach.

The objection might be raised that our present controversy over the doctrine of the ministry, or even the recent controversy about the efficacy of the words of institution in the Lord’s Supper don’t really change the message of our mission, and are not the message of evangelism. I would reply: Do you really mean that? Eventually, we hope that our evangelism prospects would enter the adult confirmation program at our churches. Do we really want to omit certain articles of faith from that instruction? I grant that we may not teach them all from the outset with systematic thoroughness, but we will certainly teach even the doctrine of the ministry when the opportunity comes! Beside that, if the doctrine of the ministry is not pertinent to the work of missions and evangelism, then why have we pretended that it’s divisive of fellowship in the last year? That’s either sectarian, hypocritical, or both.

There has been some confusion lately about “communion fellowship.” What is meant by that term? Generally speaking, it means that people are willing to commune (that is, receive the Lord’s Supper) with each other. Churches in communion fellowship are willing to encourage their members to receive the Lord’s Supper at the other church.

Communing together is an expression of doctrinal unity, because it’s a joint act of confessing the death of Jesus Christ, with all that it means.

However, there are times when a pastor might ask a member of his church to refrain from communing, and if the member disregards the request, the pastor might not give the body and blood of Christ to that person to eat and drink. Why ever might this happen? Because the pastor is especially charged by God with the care of that person’s soul, and when someone is impenitent about a particular sin, then receiving the Lord’s Supper is an act of harmful hypocrisy, which can only contribute to the person’s judgment and eventual damnation. That’s serious.

When a pastor takes that route, does it mean he’s breaking church fellowship with the individual? No. Rather, he’s looking out for the person’s spiritual welfare, though it’s seldom taken that way.

What if the person is in the flock (congregation) of another pastor? In that case, the other pastor has the responsibility. Pastors only have responsibility for their own flocks. For them to take this responsibility for a different flock would be contrary to their call and the call of the other flock’s pastor.

What about the synod? I don’t have all the answers in that case, because synod is not “church” to the same qualitative degree as the local congregations, since synod, unlike congregations, does not exist for the regular, full administration of God’s Word and sacraments. Yet synod does have a somewhat churchly character due to the fact that it is composed of certain joint churchly activities of its congregations, which they accomplish in coordination with each other. Therefore some have stated (perhaps too strongly and simplisticly) that synod is church, just as congregations are church. Presently, there is much confusion and disagreement about this, in spite of our synod having a (somewhat controversial) adopted statement on the church.

It remains certain that pastors only have authority to refuse the Lord’s Supper at the altars of their own congregations. It also remains certain that pastors and Christians in general are free not to commune at altars outside their own congregations. That much is still certain.

It’s also certain from the Lutheran Confessions that the synod, like individual congregations and pastors, does not have authority to interfere with the ministry in one of its congregations by bypassing the pastor whom God called to serve there. However, when no pastor exists in a certain congregation, it must take the recommendation of the synod into account when it extends a call to a new pastor.

Can one pastor or congregation of the synod declare itself to be outside the church fellowship of the synod? Yes. That automatically means that they also leave the synod. But can he or his congregation declare itself to be outside the church fellowship of part of the synod, while remaining in the church fellowship of the rest? No. Fellowship is based upon God’s Word, and it does not allow contrary interpretations. So much for church fellowship, which is one of the reasons people might choose not to commune with each other.

How about the other reason, mentioned earlier: unrepentant sin? Can one pastor or congregation refuse communion to another pastor, a synod official, or church members of the synod, for the reason that they are obviously impenitent about some well-known, public sin? I ask: why not? In fact, it would seem that in such a case, communing (with) the impenitent person would be the height of unloving hypocrisy and a great offense against Christ. Yet that decision is only pertinent if and when the impenitent person tries to receive the Lord’s Supper at the church that would refuse it. If he communes at a different church, then the matter must be left with the pastor of that flock, because of his call.

Likewise, is it wrong for a pastor or the members of one church to abstain from communing at the altar of another church in the same synod, for the reason that a well-known, impenitent sinner is communing at the same altar, at the same time? Again, I ask: why not? Especially in the case that some of the fellow communicants would interpret the act of communing together as validation for the individual’s impenitence!

So you see, there can be a valid distinction between the term “communion fellowship” and the term “church fellowship.” Sometimes communion fellowship is church fellowship, or an expression thereof, but other times it is not. Instead of church fellowship, it can be an expression of the binding key. “The Keys” is not synonymous with “church fellowship,” but either one can have an influence on “communion fellowship.”

I’d love to have readers’ thoughts on this topic. Do you see things the way I do? If not, please explain. I realize that those who disagree with me may be more inclined to post their comments, so let me encourage everyone to comment.

Unlike some other posts, this one is short, because I’m inviting your responses. Pastor Rolf Preus, in his paper The Word of God and the Church, states, “Fellowship does not come from agreeing with each other, but from agreeing with God.”

True? False? It seems like a “watershed” sort of statement. (For the record, I believe it’s true.)

But… but… but how do you know what God teaches? Again, I invite your responses. Be forewarned: email responses to this will be considered fair game for posting here.

---

Added February 9

Have a look at the quote over at διαθηκη from Walther’s Law and Gospel. I think it relates closely to the present question about the source of fellowship. Do you agree? Here’s an excerpt:

When a theologian is asked to yield and make concessions in order that peace may at last be established in the Church, but refuses to do so even in a single point of doctrine, such an action looks to human reason like intolerable stubbornness, yea, like downright malice. That is the reason why such theologians are loved and praised by few men during their lifetime. Most men rather revile them as disturbers of the peace, yea, as destroyers of the kingdom of God . They are regarded as men worthy of contempt. But in the end it becomes manifest that this very determined, inexorable tenacity in clinging to the pure teaching of the divine Word by no means tears down the Church; on the contrary, it is just this which, in the midst of greatest dissension, builds up the Church and ultimately brings about genuine peace. Therefore, woe to the Church which has no men of this stripe, men who stand as watchmen on the walls of Zion, sound the alarm whenever a foe threatens to rush the walls, and rally to the banner of Jesus Christ for a holy war!

I love the way you can read parts of the Bible where you don’t expect to find anything new, and yet there it appears. It truly brings forth treasures both new and old.

Jesus verbally spanked the scribes and pharisees, saying something really instructive for us: “you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.” Matthew 23:23.

Justice, Mercy and Faith. Ponder that for a while, without leaving the rest undone. It’s good stuff.

Paul McCain has announced a new blog, the “Blog of Concord”. The newest post this evening calls attention to the Lutheran conception of Church. We have tried to say the same as the Confessions in our local doctrinal expressions, but with varying success. It seems to me that if we can hit this one square on the head, we’ll have a much healthier confession and conception of church fellowship. Nicht wahr?

Yeah, I suppose that was a sly allusion to the ELS. If anyone can hit it square on the head, it should be us.

Fifth, the church is recognized externally by the fact that it consecrates or calls ministers, or has offices that it is to administer. There must be bishops, pastors, or preachers, who publicly and privately give, administer, and use the aforementioned four things or holy possessions [the Word, the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and the public exercise of the keys] in behalf of and in the name of the church, or rather by reason of their institution by Christ, as St. Paul states in Ephesians 4, “He received gifts among men, …” — his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some teachers and governors, etc. The people as a whole cannot do these things, but must entrust or have them entrusted to one person. … Wherever you see this done, be assured that God’s people, the holy Christian people, are present.

It is, however, true that the Holy Spirit has excepted women, children, and incompetent people from this function, but chooses (except in emergencies) only competent males to fill this office, as one reads here and there in the epistles of St. Paul that a bishop must be pious, able to teach, and the husband of one wife — and in 1 Corinthians 14 he says, “The women should keep silence in the churches.” In summary, it must be a competent and chosen man. …

Here the pope will object through his loudmouths and brawlers of the devil, saying, “St. Paul does not speak only of pastors and preachers [in Ephesians 4:11], but also of apostles, evangelists, prophets, and other high spiritual vocations; that is why there must be higher vocations in the church than those of pastors and preachers. What, Sir Luther, do you have to say now?” …

Now, if the apostles, evangelists, and prophets are no longer living, others must have replaced them and will replace them until the end of the world, for the church shall last until the end of the world [Mat. 28:20]. Apostles, evangelists, and prophets must therefore remain, no matter what their name, to promote God’s word and work. The pope and his followers, who persecute God’s word while admitting that it is true, must be very poor apostles, evangelists, and prophets, just like the devil and his angels. …

Just as was said earlier about the other four parts of the great, divine, holy possession by which the holy church is sanctified, that you need not care who or how those from whom you receive it are, so again you should not ask who and how he is who gives it to you or [who] has the office. For all of it is given, not to him who has the office, but to him who is to recieve it through this office, except that he can receive it together with you if he so desires. …

From Luther’s Works American Edition vol. 41, p. 154 ff, “On the Councils and the Church”

In AC article I, who is consenting together? Is it individuals? Ministers? Congregations? Whole associations of congregations, acting collectively? The wording provides the answer: individual congregations. Perhaps they were represented by their ministers, or severally by some designated representative, but those commonly consenting to the Lutheran doctrine were essentially congregations of varying size: churches, identified by the marks of the Church.

Here’s another quotation from an ELS father on the topic, distinguishing between the right and authority of a congregation, and the right or authority of a different kind of body.

We take it for granted that the joining together of congregations ought only take place by orthodox – we do not say those of identical belief – congregations. A merger like that American-Lutheran General Synod is a babel, just another organization of many disunited churches. But orthodox congregations also have to watch with the most extreme diligence that through their joining together and through their adopting a constitution for it, that while they do relinquish a portion of their freedom and independence voluntarily in love and with concern for their own as well as the common good, that they do not, however, transfer to the synod or to the joint-church such rights or such power which the Lord has not only entrusted to the congregations themselves, but whose exercise by themselves is the best guarantee for the preservation of the pure faith, for example, installing and removing pastors, practicing church discipline, and adopting hymnbooks and school books. But even less must congregations give to the joint-church or its officers such a power and authority that their decisions should be binding law for the congregations by virtue of a divine authority which should be due them as those who are over them according to the Fourth Commandment – even if their decisions do not conflict with the Word of God. Such a concession on the part of the congregations would make the synod a papacy which would be just as unchristian as the one which reigns in Rome. It would make the congregations slaves of men and would place a yoke upon them which would be heavier to bear and more difficult to remove than that which imprisons and oppresses them in the state churches.

The history of the church past and present shouts its warning! There is the papacy where the congregations, as is well known, are as good as deprived of all their rights. The church, as it is called, that is, the clergy, with the pope at the head, possesses them. As a worldly authority it demands unconditional obedience according to the Fourth Commandment.

The yoke of bondage which laid upon the congregations under the papacy, the Lord lifted through Luther, when as an angel of God this man brought the pure Gospel to light and taught believers to know the Christian liberty which Christ earned for them with his death, and the church learned to know the rights which the Lord of the church had given it in the power of the keys. And even where he agreed that certain of these rights were exercised by the worldly princes because of the congregations’ plight, there, with all the rest of the reformers, Luther is untiring in reminding both them and the congregations of the fact that they did not exercise this power as rulers but only because it was transferred to them by the congregations who possessed it as they who were looked upon as the congregations’ first and leading members because of their power and position. The power which they possessed as rulers only gave them occasion and right to serve the congregations so much more as members of the congregation.

Note. In an opinion from the year 1536 which was also signed by Bugenhagen, Melanchthon, Jonas and Myconius Luther says:

The calling and electing of orthodox servants of the church is properly and primarily not the business of the civil authorities but of the church. When the civil authority is a believer and a member of the church, then he calls not because he is a civil authority but because he is a member of the church; because “my kingdom is not of this world” (Jo. 18:36).

In 1530 Luther writes to Melanchthon:

As sovereign a bishop may impose even less on the church since this would mean fundamentally to mix these two jurisdictions. Should he do it anyway, then he would really be a pseudo-bishop, and we, were we to give in to this, would likewise be guilty of this sacrilege. Against this godlessness and iniquity one must fight and die rather than give in. Of course I speak of the church as a church which has been separated from the political commonwealth. As sovereign, a bishop may impose upon subjects as subjects whatever seems appropriate to him as long as it is godly and permissible; the subjects are required to obey, since under these circumstances they obey not as members of the church but as citizens. For the church is a twofold person in one and the same man . … It is the same as if Pomer forces his Wittenberg parish to abide by his house rule … It is the same as if the emperor ordered all people everywhere to fast, then the members of the church would obey him too, since according to the flesh, the church is under the emperor, but the church does not obey as church. Luther’s Works, American Edition, 49, 385, 386.

The whole address is online.