Tag: reason

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

Appeal Commission 2 Report is Out

Jesse1 Comment

I’m not going to repeat the findings here, yet. I can see how the conclusion makes sense, but I deeply lament that it brings our synod no closer to a peaceful resolution of the divisive spirit that began working in earnest at the 2005 synod convention. We have not figured out what is the proper course of action when a congregation perceives that an influential synod official has committed some grave error or public sin. Certainly, any impenitent sinner should not be communed. But how can this be applied when the person in question is a member of a sister congregation, and his own pastor disagrees that he has committed public sin? This is a poorly defined area of casuistry, which we have unwisely been expecting appeals commissions to deal with. I understand why the appeals commissions prefer not to do so, yet the door is open for the schismatic spirit in our midst to wreak further havoc.

You can see what I have written before on these matters in other posts.

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.