Tag: Confessions

Blogs and Allegiances

JesseLeave a comment

The Church is not a business, though some aspects of business experience are helpful when managing earthly aspects of the Church.

Because of that, a Christian congregation is also not a business. Likewise, a synod or larger church body is not a business.

The business world is a bit like the military world. Decisions are made by a few, and everyone else has to follow them. Dissent is not tolerated. The leader(s) determine the principles of the organization, and anyone who contradicts them is terminated or disciplined.

This has been extended to publications. If an employee writes a book or blog that somehow comes against the principles or interests of his company, then he is in trouble. His allegiance, even in his privately published writings, is to his company. Personally, I think some companies have taken this way too far, but it’s a free country. They have the right to be wrong, just like the rest of us.

In the Church, our primary allegiance is not to our own congregation, nor to our synod, per se. That would be a kind of idolatry. It would be denominationalism, like backing the Red Sox only because you live near Boston, rather than because they have any particular virtue or skill. Applied to baseball, that approach is fine. Applied to churches, it’s wrong. Some churches and synods are more virtuous than others, because they hold to the Word of God in doctrine and practice better than others.

Continue reading “Blogs and Allegiances” →

Copyrights on Church-related Works

JesseLeave a comment

While I was on vacation, there was a lively little comment discussion at Cyberbrethren about copyright laws. Since the comment period is ended, and since I have my own blog, I’ll add my two cents here.

Pastor McCain and those who left comments expressed one important purpose for copyright laws, and the reason we ought to abide by them. That is, the people who produce works under copyright should be certain that they will receive fair compensation for their efforts. Our society benefits as a whole by their work, so it is in our collective interest to assure creative people that their time and energies will support them and their families.

However, there is another, equally important element in the concept of copyrights. This element was largely left out of the discussion at Cyberbrethren, possibly because it does not apply to the immediate issue of contemporary works from CPH. Yet I think it does apply. The other important element is this: copyrights expire.

The expiration of copyrights is not an afterthought, but an essential part of the way they benefit society. You see, if they did not expire, then society would forever have to pay a premium to benefit from the copywritten works. How would you like to pay $35 today for every copy of Hamlet you might need to use? Or how about $3 per individual license of the lyrics to A Mighty Fortress? But thankfully, Hamlet is now in the public domain, like the Triglotta. Some day, Concordia will also be in the public domain. At that time, its benefits to our society will continue, possibly even increasing due to its expanded availability.

A copyright may be used by those who hold it for more than producing a monetary income. It may also be used to ensure that the copywritten work and its derivative works continue to be available for use by the public as long as the copyright remains in effect. For example, see Copyleft. This is a good thing, which is not to say that the traditional use of copyrights is necessarily a bad thing.

Why Libronix isn’t there… yet.

Jesse7 Comments

If you’re the sort of person who looks for the most efficient and satisfying ways to get the job done, regardless of the conventional wisdom, then read on. If you’re the sort of person who conforms to the expectations of others, and believes that the most popular or the most widely adopted way of doing something is always the best way to do it, then you may as well stop reading now.

I am not one of the latter types. Your way of doing things might work fine, but it won’t necessarily work best for me. I want the freedom to work my way.

That’s why I like the Unix environment, and why I use Linux for just about everything. It fits me. I have the freedom to do things in the ways that work best.

For about ten years now, give or take, I’ve been using a collection of utilities and systems that provide the following important features:

  • High quality desktop publishing with a high degree of automation. I’m not talking word processors here.

  • An extremely efficient and powerful editing environment in which I rarely have to move my hands away from the home row of the keyboard, even when executing complex procedures using multiple programs, like importing some extracted Bible verses, or search results.

  • Independent programs where each does a specific task in a predictable and efficient manner, which can be interconnected easily to perform complex functions, even from the comfort of my editing environment.

  • Efficient archival of important changes to my work, so that mistakes can be reversed, old versions found, etc.

  • Network access to all of this work, so that I can use the system equally well here at my primary computing location, or anywhere I have connectivity.

  • Freedom and access to adjust the way I work in any way that I might see fit. (This may be the most important feature.)

  • The ability to expand and augment the system with tools of my own creation.

I enjoy these and other important features in my daily work, because I use Linux (Debian GNU/Linux, to be precise), Vim, LaTeX, Python, Git, SSH, Mutt, Gimp, and a many other programs and projects, representing many thousands of programmer’s hours. I also use programs I’ve written too, though they’re not so famous.

If you know what Libronix is and does, you probably already know where it falls short in my view. The problem is not that I want to rip off lots of copyright holders and distribute their work indiscriminately by means of the Internet. The problem is that I want to use those copywritten works fairly, yet without being hamstrung by a computing environment that (a) doesn’t give me the freedom and power I need, and (b) charges me a lot of money for my loss of freedom, power, and stability, too.

Unfortunately, the Windows environment is automatically disqualified. (Case in point: DRM is supposed to be a step forward for Vista. It’s actually a big step backward for someone like me.) The constant upgrade cycle alone is too expensive, though I’m sure MS shareholders think it’s great. I’m probably one of them, come to think of it.

I’ve enjoyed using the Macintosh environment, mostly because I can use the same Unix tools that work together so efficiently. The next time I have $2k I don’t know what else to do with, I might just drop it on a Mac. Macs are just priced out of my league, and they have an expensive upgrade cycle of their own.

As for Libronix, I understand the philosophy: control. It’s like the Matrix. All those snazzy features: searches, hyperlinks, notes, etc. — it’s all about control. The software is written that way in the hope that you never want to leave it. The proof of this is that you can’t export works from the digital library. Oh, you can export tiny bits and pieces, but not whole works. So just leave Libronix running all the time, and you’ll always have access to your digital library. Do you need to search? Just enter the Libronix application. Do you need to extract something? Switch over to the mighty Libronix app. It’s your go-to guy for everything related to your digital library.

I’m sure the approach works. It’s one way to do it. But sometimes it doesn’t work. (It locked up on me more than once when running it in Windows 98 under VMWare.) It also takes a while to load and run. It also interfaces only with whatever editing environments the Libronix designers anticipate, and that their marketing model will support. In case you haven’t guessed, that doesn’t include Vim. It also can’t be used remotely over SSH. And so on and so forth. Meanwhile, I’d like to grep through a UTF-8 file of Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions and get the results in my text editor, for possible use in my next Bible study. Something wrong with that?

Libronix probably works great as a money-maker for Logos, though I’m sure that’s not their (only) purpose in producing it. Libronix probably does a good job of protecting the interests of copyright holders. It probably seems great to the great herds of computer users who don’t care to look for “a better way to do it.” But Libronix doesn’t work for me.

So if you are a copyright holder wishing to publish your work digitally, consider those of us who don’t appreciate being locked in to one vendor, even a vendor with good intentions. Frankly, I value freedom. I’ll respect your copyright, but if you won’t publish your work in a way that I can use it, then your hands are tied. Wouldn’t you prefer that your work gets used?

And if you work for Logos, please consider a release for Linux that includes quick access to the digital library from the shell. I’d be happy to work with you on it.

Justification and the Condemnation of the Lost

JesseLeave a comment

There have been rumblings out and about among Lutherans concerning the chief article (and material principle) of the Christian faith: the biblical teaching we call “justification.”

While we never complete the process of sanctification in this life, justification is what computer programmers might call an “atomic operation.” That is, it begins and ends in an unmeasured instant, being completely received to the benefit of a penitent sinner when he believes that for Christ’s sake, his sins are forgiven.

Notice also that sanctification is done with human cooperation, but justification is entirely a divine gift, without any human cooperation. If there were any human cooperation, then not only was the entire Lutheran Reformation woefully and tragically misguided, but we also are left without the certainty that we are actually justified before God.

So say the scriptures. So says the Augsburg Confession. So say we all. The somewhat insular controversy, however, centers upon another aspect of justification. It may be framed in several ways. Here’s how I choose to frame it, at the moment.

What is the condemnation of the lost? In other words, what does God say actually condemns those who are finally damned? Let’s look at John 3, verse 18, following close on the heels of the more well-known 3:16 and 17.
It refers to the Son of God.

He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

There are two things to notice here. First, faith in the Son of God is required to be saved. Second, the condemnation for those who do not believe is their lack of faith, not the guilt of their accumulated sinfulness. This should be surprising for some. What happened to all that guilt? Why doesn’t it condemn them? Answer: because someone else was destined to be condemned for it (and now has been), who paid the full propitiation. The proof of that payment was His resurrection.

Someone may ask if this is the only passage of scripture that teaches that the condemnation of the lost is precisely their lack of faith. First, I answer: who cares? There is no doubt that this passage teaches it, because it’s such a clear passage. To teach otherwise would contradict this clear passage of scripture.

But yes, there are other passages that teach the same thing. One of them also appears in the historic lectionary: John 16:8-11. There, Jesus refers to the promised Holy Spirit.

And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

This passage is a bit more obscure than the last, because of Jesus’ unusual use of the word “convict.” We usually apply it only to those whose evil deeds have resulted in the public proclamation of their guilt. However, it is possible to have other forensic or legal proclamations, as Jesus says here. Of interest to us are the first two.

Jesus says first that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin. Why is that? Not because of the guilt of their accumulated sinfulness, but “because they do not believe in Me [i.e. Jesus].” Suprised? You shouldn’t be, because it’s the same thing Jesus said in John 3:18. The condemnation of the lost is precisely their lack of faith. (The evidence of that is their lack of genuine good works, as we see in Matthew 25.)

Jesus also says that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of righteousness. It’s an unusual way of speaking, but it means simply that the Holy Spirit will make the forensic or legal declaration that someone is righteous. Why is that? Jesus surprises us again. This declaration does not come because someone believes in the Son of God, but “because I go to the Father and you see Me no more.” That does not omit the necessity of faith, but it does show that there is a different reason for the announcement of justification.

Some time when I was working on this as a sermon text, I think I was reading some of Luther’s sermons. This sermon had the best explanation I could find of the words “because I go to the Father.” It’s a way of saying “because My assigned task on earth as the Lamb of God will be completed, so the proper thing will be to ascend to heaven.” If you want to know what the task of the Lamb of God is, just ask John the Baptizer: to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). So the reason the Holy Spirit convicts the world of righteousness (i.e. proclaims justification) is because the Lamb of God has made complete atonement for the sins of the world.

It shouldn’t surprise us, but those two points harmonize and reinforce each other rather well:

  1. The lost are condemned not because of the guilt of their accumulated sin, but because they do not believe in Christ.

  2. The Holy Spirit proclaims righteousness upon the world because the Lamb of God has made atonement for all of its guilt.

Someone may object to this terminology for some reason, but at this point I see no problem with calling the unlimited atonement made by Christ “objective justification,” especially because His resurrection proves that it was accepted by the Father.

As always, I am open to criticism, though God’s Word really isn’t.

Sacerdotalism and the Keys

Jesse2 Comments

In an article printed in the latest Lutheran Synod Quarterly, one of the ELS Doctrine Committee members provides a perspective on sacerdotalism. Classically defined, sacerdotalism occurs when we teach that an individual cannot freely and directly approach God (as in prayer), but requires the intervention of a third party — a priest of some kind. It also occurs when we teach that God’s spiritual gifts must always be received through an intermediary — again, through some kind of priest.

Thus defined, sacerdotalism contradicts scripture’s teaching that every Christian is a priest in his own right (1 Peter 2:9). Scripture teaches that every Christian has full access to God in prayer (1 Thessalonians 5:17), and may receive His spiritual gifts through Word and Sacrament with no intercessor but Christ himself.

There is, however, a useful distinction that the author may have overlooked.

Continue reading “Sacerdotalism and the Keys” →

What defines? What divides?

Jesse1 Comment

Norman Teigen highlights an address from ELCA bishop Mark Hanson. Bishop Hansen notes that the issue of (homo)sexuality might be seen as the defining issue for the ELCA, but instead, he wants “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” to define the ELCA.

My first thought is to wonder what he means by “the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” For Hansen, does this include Christ as an historical person, as described historically throughout the second article of the Nicene Creed? Does it include His virgin birth and bodily resurrection as historical facts? I only ask because numerous teachers in the ELCA deny these things. See this book for a well-documented, 15-year old snapshot of those teachings in the ELCA. News reports since that book was published have not shown that things are any better.

But Hansen raises two important questions about fellowship. What does define a body like the ELCA? What does divide it?

In the ELS, we hold that the unity of a church body is (ideally) defined by its unity in doctrine. God-pleasing unity occurs when different people believe, teach, and confess what the Bible says. It’s up to us to figure out who they are by comparing their teaching and their practice to the teaching of the Bible. For us, the teaching of the Bible is critically important, since we apply Proverbs 4:13 in all seriousness: “Take firm hold of instruction, do not let go; Keep her, for she is your life.” For us, doctrine is life. (I make bold to speak for the entire ELS. If its members disagree, they may do so publicly.)

However, a church body like the ELS and the ELCA is really established by articles of incorporation, not found in holy scripture. That means that the body can exist without regard for God-pleasing unity. (In the case of the ELCA, I see many points where its members disagree about fundamental points of Christian doctrine — like the historic points listed in the Nicene Creed.)

So neither the ELCA nor the ELS is really defined by biblical doctrine. They are both church bodies that exist by the will of mortal man. The difference is that the formation of the ELS has (theoretically) bound the synod to observe the biblical principles of church fellowship by requiring that its members and those formally “in fellowship” hold strictly to the biblical teachings. This is accomplished by means of the Lutheran Confessions, which agree completely with holy scripture. The Confessions serve as a means of comparing doctrine to discover whether God-pleasing unity exists.

What defines a synod or “church” like the ELS or ELCA? The answer can be anything, because they are organizations of human origin. Officially, they are defined by their incorporation. In my mind, the ELCA is defined by its sad history of mergers and compromises of biblical teaching. To Bishop Hansen, the ELCA is defined by “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” — whatever he means by that. To others, it is defined by its stance on homosexuality.

Despite the disagreement between these points of view, the ELCA and the ELS are both really defined to the world in general by the aggregate of their words and deeds. They are equally fallible and open to criticism for their faults. The responsibility remains with individuals like you and me to examine their words and deeds in the light of holy scripture. (1 John 4:1, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”) That is how God-pleasing unity is discovered.

Bishop Hansen is concerned that if homosexuality defines the ELCA, there will be corporate division. Yet outward division can occur for a multitude of reasons, both good and bad. If some wish to depart from the ELCA about the issue of homosexuality, it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Hansen’s “Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Lutherans in the ELS accept the Bible’s perspective on homosexuality: that such practices are sinful, so that homosexuality challenges and ultimately can destroy faith in Christ. For anyone who agrees with the ELS, it would make perfect sense to separate from the ELCA, which has contradicted what the Bible says about homosexuality. It would uphold the Gospel.

Love and the Fulfilling of the Law: Toward Unity and Peace

JesseLeave a comment

The adversaries, in the Confutation, have also quoted Colossians 3:14 against us, “love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.” From this they conclude that love justifies because it makes people perfect … This is far from Paul’s meaning, who never allows Christ to be excluded from the Atonement. Therefore, he speaks not about personal perfection, but about the integrity common to the Church. For this reason, he says that love is a bond or connection to show that he speaks about the binding and joining together of the many members of the Church. In all families and in all states unity should be nourished by mutual offices, and peace cannot be maintained unless people overlook and forgive certain mistakes among themselves. In a similar way, Paul commands that there should be love in the Church in order that it may preserve unity, bear with the harsher manners of brethren as there is need, and overlook certain less serious mistakes. This must happen or else the Church will fly apart into various schisms, and hostilities and factions and heresies will arise from the schisms.

…. On the other hand, perfection (i.e., the Church’s integrity) is preserved when the strong bear with the weak, when the people put up with some faults in the conduct of their teachers, and when the bishops make some allowances for the people’s weakness. … Furthermore, it is disgraceful for the adversaries to preach so much about love while they don’t show it anywhere. What are they doing now? They are tearing apart churches. They are writing laws in blood and asking the most merciful prince, the emperor, to enforce them. They are killing priests and other good men if any one of them has slightly indicated that he does not entirely approve of their clear abuses. What they are doing is not consistent with their claims of love, which if the adversaries would follow, the churches would be peaceful and the state would have peace. This turmoil would be lessened if the adversaries would stop being so bitter about certain traditions. … The adversaries easily forgive themselves, but do not likewise forgive others according to the passage in the poet, “‘I forgive myself,’ Maevius said.”

Concordia, p. 116-117

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” →

Concordia, Second Edition

Jesse1 Comment

Ah, they arrived today. I wondered if CPH would remember my order from some time last summer. They did.

Two copies of the second edition of Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions. They are wonderful. Now I have a copy to read at both churches and at home.

Now, I thought the first edition was good, and I hope CPH didn’t lose track of me as a purchaser. It’s possible my copy was part of a group order for members at Grace, so I may have to request that the “update” materials be sent to my new address. But at least I already have the second edition to enjoy.

I’ve read some of the introductory material. Two thumbs up so far. The timeline will be more fun to read than you might think. I noticed something about the first known batch of scotch made in Scotland. That was included only for reference and interest, I’m sure. It scores both ways.

What I’d really like to do is dive into the 52-week, daily reading schedule. It’s really just Monday through Friday, not daily. That leaves me with extra time to write blog posts about the week’s readings. I intend to do that on the church blog, Confession and Life so that the posts might be used in our printed newsletter too. I will welcome comments and cross-blog chatter on these topics. If anyone else would like to join in on the same reading schedule (beginning Monday), it could be the basis for some good doctrinal discussion.