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” →

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.

Protection from Discrimination

Jesse1 Comment

In the place where I live, the county court has decided to enact an ordinance against discrimination. In particular, this ordinance protects people who seek jobs or housing from discrimination based upon “sexual orientation,” whether or not the applicants are homosexuals.

One of the commissioners commented that there had been a lot of testimony and debate about whether or not homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Some say it is, while others seem to think it’s genetic. This commissioner noted that the county court is in no position to decide whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, nor should it do so.

The court passed this ordinance, but that commissioner raised an important question: Did the Wasco county court decide whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, or not? This question has application to other legal jurisdictions, as well.

So, did they? Yes, they did, even if it was unintentionally.

Protection from discrimination based upon race and gender recognizes that these are human traits, not choices of individuals. Discrimination based upon such traits is wrong, unless the traits demonstrably disqualify the individual in question. (For example, no man can be a wet-nurse, strictly speaking, no matter how much anyone may wish otherwise.)

So every time goverment seeks to protect a special group from discrimination, it strongly implies the assumption that the protected group is not distinguished by a lifestyle choice, but by traits beyond the control of the protected group.

There may also be ordinances protecting the disabled from discrimination in various ways. Disabilities are not essential to humanity like race or gender, but they are beyond the control of the protected group. Nobody wants to become more disabled.

You may believe that homosexuality is not a choice, and deserves protection from discrimination. Do you believe the same thing about alcoholism? Or a lifestyle of stealing, gambling, or smoking? Some people find these destructive behaviors impossible to stop. But so far, our government has not chosen to make special protections for such people.

The debate about whether homosexuality is a choice may continue, though it will not continue past the Last Day. My point is that the Wasco county commissioners have now weighed in on the debate. They assume that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, and based upon this (perhaps overlooked) assumption, they have passed their non-discrimination ordinance.

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!

P. Kretzmann and Visual Aids

Jesse1 Comment

Paul E. Kretzmann was on the faculty of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. He contributed the following book review for the Concordia Theological Monthly, which was published in the January, 1933 issue. He was reviewing Screen and Projector in Christian Education by Paul H. Janes. I include the review as a reflection upon how times have changed, yet good judgment does not.

The scope of this book is more exactly shown by its subtitle: How to use Motion Pictures and Projected Still Pictures in Worship, Study, and Recreation. The author rightly says: “With the addition of motion-pictures, projected still pictures, prints, photographs, models, maps, school journeys and reproduced sound, the educator has set out to stimulate a wealth of experiences to be used in the classroom to facilitate the understanding of the verbal symbols in books.” (P. 14) We should like to emphasize the words “in the classroom” and add “in the church hall,” because visual education has proved an invaluable aid in the work of our parish-school, Sunday-schools, young people’s societies, and the various auxiliary organizations of the congregation. Every pastor who desires to have accurate information concerning the use of visual education helps will be glad to use the information contained in this book. We cannot endorse the larger part of Chapter V, on “The Use of Visual Aids in Worship,” because the doctrinal and expository sermons of the Lutheran Church will rarely require, in most cases not even permit, the use of pictures. There are other dangers connected with the indiscriminate use of visual aids, especially if the emotional element is stressed. To such as will make use of the proper discrimination this book offers fine suggestions.

Full disclosure: two weeks ago (on July 8) I delivered a sermon explaining Lucas Cranach’s altar piece in Weimar. The altar piece itself provides the Biblical basis for both painting and sermon. It was the first time I’ve tried such a thing, and I would consider it a success. You can find the sermon over at the congregations’ web site.

How is this different from other uses of motion or still pictures you have observed in a worship setting?

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.

Magnatune

Jesse2 Comments

I enjoy music, but several years ago I promised myself that I wouldn’t buy any more albums. They were — and are — ridiculously expensive, and the rules for sharing, borrowing, and such were so restrictive that “buying” CDs no longer made any sense. Beside that, I have plenty of CDs already, but usually find myself out of range of a CD player.

(I don’t spend lots of money on portable gadgets like music players. My only one now is a Palm Tungsten E2, which I use constantly and appreciate for its long battery life.)

Recently I’ve been listening to my music collection in digital form. I’ve ripped nearly all my CDs to Ogg Vorbis format, a flexible, high-quality, royalty- and patent-free encoding. Most recently I’ve been ripping to FLAC, a lossless encoding. One reason for my reluctance to buy a portable music player is the paucity of players supporting the Ogg Vorbis encoding and useful with a Linux desktop. There are some, however, and I think some day I’ll take the plunge. Meanwhile, it’s been nearly alarming to see the intrusion of the wma (Windows Media) format into the arena of digital recordings, and also the various drm (Digital Rights Management) -encumbered systems.

But now, there’s an alternative that will have me buying new music recordings again: Magnatune! Get on over there and check it out. Apple enthusiasts will tell me “We already have this with iTunes!” Not so. Magnatune is an online recording label with a growing collection of quality artists from a broad spectrum of genres. According to a current Linux Journal article, fifty percent of the purchase price of Magnatune music goes directly to the artists. You can sample full albums before buying them. At this moment, I’m sampling a delightful album from American Baroque called Mozart, 4 Quartets for Strings and Wind. It’s wonderful music to work by, and I’m only on the fourth track. I may actually buy this album, not only for the music but to support the great work that American Baroque are doing.

When I’m finished sampling this album, I’m going to check out at least one album from American Bach Soloists. They have a recording of Bach’s Mass in B Minor. I already have an outstanding recording of that, but I’m curious to hear the differences of interpretation. I’m already tempted to buy their recording of Bach’s Cantatas Volume V, and I’m excited to sample an album of Heinrich Schutz music: Musicalische Exequien.

Later, I’d like to hear the music of The Seldon Plan, just because the band’s name caught my eye. (Since first writing this post, I’ve taken a listen. The Seldon Plan is pretty good, but I liked the bluesy guitar of John Williams even better. I’m tempted to buy one or more of his albums.)

So, how much will I pay for the albums I buy? According to the same Linux Journal article, there is a minimum cost of $5 per album, and there is also a maximum. Within those limits, I’ll pay what the music is worth to me. What a system! I hope Magnatune’s business thrives. Understood in a non-theological sense, their motto seems to be right on the mark: “We are not evil.”

Oh, and apparently, Magnatune also provides recordings in the Ogg Vorbis and FLAC encodings, among others.

Luther on the Limits of Temporal Authority

JesseLeave a comment

Martin Luther granted and even upheld the legitimacy of earthly government as an institution of God for the control of wickedness on the earth and the establishment of outward peace. He also wrote this:

The temporal government has laws which extend no further than to life and property and external affairs on earth, for God cannot and will not permit anyone but himself to rule over the soul. Therefore, where temporal authority presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God’s government and only misleads souls and destroys them. We want to make this so clear that everyone will grasp it, and that our fine gentlemen, the princes and bishops, will see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with their laws and commandments into believing this or that. (LW AE 45, p. 105)

First, I thank God for what protections exist in the United States (and elsewhere for that matter) against a government establishing a religion for its people. This is a key provision in the American Bill of Rights for which all American Christians ought to be thankful.

Continue reading “Luther on the Limits of Temporal Authority” →

Can a Christian defend home and family with force?

Jesse10 Comments

This question is especially pertinent in the United States, where the Second Amendment to our nation’s constitution speaks directly to the matter, prohibiting the government from infringing upon the right of individual Americans to own and maintain (“keep”), and carry (“bear”) weapons (“arms”):

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Such a constitutional provision seems rare in the world, creating a possibly unique situation in the United States. How should Christians view this, in light of Jesus’ teaching from Matthew 5:38-41? (This is the second-series Gospel lesson for tomorrow in the Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary.)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.”

I was doing a little reading in a treatise Luther wrote on a closely-related subject called Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed. It’s actually quite helpful. Luther highlights some important biblical distinctions, one being the distinction between the two kingdoms we find on earth. The spiritual kingdom is ruled through the Gospel and faith, and will last longer than this world. Temporal authority, on the other hand, rules through Law and the sword. The United States government is an example of the latter.

Hopefully, that’s enough context for you to read one of Luther’s points quite salient to our question. It’s quoted from LW-AE 45:95. (Please excuse any typos. I don’t have an electronic copy of Luther’s Works yet, because the Logos library software is confined to run in a Windows environment, which I stubbornly refuse to use. I’ve successfully run Logos under Wine, but would prefer to have full and native functionality in Linux.)

Sixth. You ask whether a Christian too may bear the temproal sword and punish the wicked, since Christ’s words, “Do not resist evil,” are so clear and definite that the sophists have had to make of them a “counsel.” Answer: You have now heard two propositions. One is that the sword can have no place among Christians; therefore you cannot bear it among Christians or hold it over them, for they do not need it. The question, therefore, must be referred to the other group, the non-Christians, whether you may bear it there in a Christian manner. Here the other proposition applies, that you are under obligation to serve and assist the sword by whatever means you can, with body, goods, honor, and soul. For it is something which you do not need, but which is very beneficial and essential for the whole world and for your neighbor. Therefore, if you see that there is a lack of hangmen, constables, judges, lords or princes, and you find that you are qualified, you should offer your services and seek the position, that the essential governmental authority may not be despised and become enfeebled or perish. The world cannot and dare not dispense with it.

So it seems that Luther would advise American Christians to make use of the Second Amendment as they are able. If an armed Christian finds himself in a place where he can hinder or prevent an evil and unlawful deed, and the authorities cannot do so themselves (perhaps because it takes 10 or 15 minutes for them to respond to a 911 call), then the armed Christian is free to do what is necessary for the benefit of his neighbors. This would also apply in the home, where a Christian might have to defend his family and their well-being. But what if you are the only one whose life, health, property, or honor is at risk? Luther continues, referring to the previous quotation above:

Here is the reason why you should do this: In such a case you would be entering entirely into the service and work of others, which would be of advantage neither to yourself nor your property or honor, but only to your neighbor and to others. You would be doing it not with the purpose of avenging yourself or returning evil for evil, but for the good of your neighbor and for the maintenance of the safety and peace of others. For yourself, you would abide by the gospel and govern yourself according to Christ’s word [Matt. 5:39-40], gladly turning the other cheek and letting the cloak go with the coat when the matter concerned you and your cause.

Fair enough. Thanks, Dr. Luther. There is still room for us to discuss whether a Christian parent ought to defend his own life for the sake of his young children, when only his own life is threatened. I think he should, because it’s a tragic evil when young children are deprived of their father or mother.

If you have any differing thoughts on this subject, fire away.