"Correcting a Misperception" by Rev. Weedon

Rev. Weedon has a post on is blog entitled “Correcting a Misperception” where he addresses some of the issues discussed in “Does Lutheran Theology Destroy Souls?”.

Rev. Weedon states:

“Some former Lutherans persist in slandering our faith by saying that it is spiritually damaging - pointing especially to the teaching that we are simultaneously just and sinner. Thus, to their way of thinking, Lutherans teach that one may intentionally and willfully persist in sin and rejoice in forgiveness. But this is a complete falsification of our teaching.”

"Does Lutheran Theology Destroy Souls?" is not arguing that Lutherans teach that one “may intentionally and willfully persist in sin and rejoice in forgiveness”. Here is Drew’s criticism of Lutheran theology:

• The Lutheran ‘Gospel” left him powerless to fight against his sin.

• The psychological benefit of ‘extra nos’ was “spiritually deceptive”, especially in regards to living in a culture “saturated by carnal sensuality”.


• When he fell into sin, the message of ‘extra nos’ did calm his “troubled conscience”. However, this was the danger for him – the “satanic delusion” he calls it. As he states, “the extra nos leaves one thinking they are 'right with God' when in fact, they may not be -- as in my case.”


• He knew that he was “sowing in the flesh, and therefore reaping corruption”. Yet, he was led to believe that he was “justified before God, righteous in His eyes” because he received the Sacrament of the Altar trusting that it was “for him”.


• He believed that God would see him “through to the end no matter what” he did in his life. However, he had a terrible prayer and thought life. His life was really no different from a non-Christian.


• His life was “centered around the passive reception of Christ’s forgiveness through Word and Sacrament”. He points out that “passive” is the key.


• Hearing sermons that Christians are really no different from non-Christians (he used sermons about the Corinthians as an example) “only pampers the flesh, and definitely does not lead to true repentance.”


• “The boogeyman of 'works righteousness' will always haunt the Confessional Lutheran. Anything that looks even remotely close to 'works righteousness' is shunned. Just bring up fasting around Lutherans and witness the debate that ensues. In fact, exhorting the Christian to do anything (besides the passive reception of Word and Sacrament) often leads to debate as well. Just go read about the Lutheran debates centered around the so-called 'third use of the Law'.”
  

I think Drew’s main point is that Lutheranism did not give him the tools to fight sin effectively. The emphasis on the "passive" reception of Word and Sacrament does not necessarily lead to significant behavior change or an increased desire/motivation to fight sin.

For example, Rev. Weedon states:

“What simul justus et peccator is rather seeking to confess is that to be a Christian is to be in a life-long struggle against the flesh and its lusts. You will never advance to a point where the struggle is ended. It goes on to the very end. The fact of the struggle doesn't mean one isn't a Christian (the absence of the struggle does!). As St. Paul wrote of himself to the Romans: "I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh, for I have the desire to do what it right, but not the ability to carry it out." (7:18)

Drew’s criticism of Lutheranism is that it failed to give him the tools for the “life-long struggle against the flesh and its lusts”. Further, some of the tools can actually “backfire” – produce short-term relief from a troubled conscience but pamper the flesh in such a way that true repentance and effort to resist sin does not occur.

I think Rev. Weedon would agree that the “tools” for fighting sin are often hard to find in many LCMS churches. How many LCMS churches have weekly Communion? How many offer private Confession and Absolution? How many spend time during sermons and study classes discussing ways to resist temptation and fight sin?

Where is the Church today?

This is the seventh post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

What did the early fathers mean when they used the word “Church”? Where is the Church today?

Lutherans say that the Church is wherever the Gospel is preached and the Sacraments are properly administered.

Of course, what is really meant is that the Church is wherever the Lutheran take on the Gospel is preached and where the two Lutheran Sacraments are administered according to Lutheran tradition.

Rev. Palke discusses these issues when he states:

“Ultimately, for me the key issue was the Church. How did the fathers and Creed understand “one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?”

I felt that the Protestants had, to varying degrees, “gnosticized” the church. In other words, since they had broken from Rome, which claimed to be the true visible church, Protestants, in reaction, tended to spiritualize the church, emphasizing its invisible character through “faith alone.” Hence, there was no need for anything “human”--bishops, fasting, monks, liturgy, iconography, councils, etc.

Yet, few of our Protestant friends realized that the Church determined the canon of Holy Scripture in the late 4th century. It did so through application of holy tradition (rule of faith) which preceded even the writing of the New Testament. The Church formulated the Creed. The Church established canons that regulated its life (The Orthodox Church still observes these canons. For example, the canons do not permit divorced men to become clergy. This stands in sharp contrast to Protestantism, which finds itself with increasing percentages of divorced clergy.). Those who confessed and taught the faith and were in doctrinal and sacramental fellowship with other bishops (who were commemorated in the worship of Orthodox churches) and their respective flocks comprised the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” (many Church Fathers refer to the Church simply as the “Catholic Church”). Virtually every Father testifies as to those who were in the Church and those, who, due to false teaching or noncanonical practice, put themselves outside of the church.

The Creed affirms that the Holy Spirit is the Lord and giver of life. He forms a body and unites it to Christ, the head of the church. Because it is united to Christ, it is described in the book of Ephesians (1:23) as the fullness of him who fills all things. It is one. It is complete (this is primarily what the word "catholic" means). It lacks nothing. It is universal. It transcends any one culture. And it transcends any period of history. It is both divine and human at the same time. It is local and also universal. It has one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. Thus, it will exist from Pentecost until our Lord’s parousia.

Protestants will be surprised that, while the Scriptures affirm the Word of God as reliable and true, the same Scriptures declare that the Church itself is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Without this pillar, everything comes crashing down. To this body the Word of God was revealed. And only this body, instructed in the apostles’ doctrine, could decide which Gospels and epistles belonged in the canon of Scripture. And this body alone, through its ecumenical councils and right-teaching fathers, is equipped to interpret the contents of Scripture. “

The Lutheran Confessions and Sola Scriptura

This is the sixth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

LCMS Lutherans teach Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). However, we also have the Book of Concord. I was taught that our Confessions are the correct interpretation of Scripture. This led me to have several questions. For example:

• If Scripture is all I need, why do I need the Book of Concord?

• If the Book of Concord is the correct interpretation of Scripture, should I read Scripture through the "lens" of the BoC?
  

• If I can determine the correct interpretation of Scripture without the BoC, then why do I need it?

• How do I know if the Book of Concord is the correct interpretation of Scripture?
  

Here are the answers I have received from LCMS pastors:

• Read Scripture and see for yourself that the Book of Concord accurately interprets Scripture.
  

• Scripture is clear and don't use the BoC as a "lens".
  

• Use the clear passages of Scripture to interpret the unclear parts (i.e. use Scripture to interpret Scripture).
  

• Use the BoC to make sure that all personal interpretations are correct.

Let you head go down these rabbit holes for a few hours and you will need more than an aspirin.

Rev. Palke discusses the Scripture/Confessions issue when he states:

“Lutherans, in contrast to other Protestants, seem to be inconsistent in their approach to sola scriptura. On the one hand, they support the concept of sola scriptura, yet, on the other hand, rely heavily on their confessional writings as a form of tradition. In order to explain away this inconsistency, Lutherans admit that the Scriptures are the “norms that norm” and that the confessional writings are “norms that are normed.”

The Lutherans who corresponded with Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople indicated that the Scriptures were self-sufficient and clear “so that even the most simple person can understand them.” Yet, a cursory reading of the Lutheran Confessions will reveal appeals to patristic sources. It finally occurred to me that the Confessions employed patristic sources on a selective basis. For example, they utilized the Orthodox objections to the primacy of the pope. When they espoused unique teaching, the teachings of the Fathers were silenced in favor of the opinions of the theologian(s).

In Luther’s forensic understanding of justification, a lack of patristic evidence is strangely apparent. In reacting to Roman abuses of Holy Tradition, Luther may have forgotten to ask whether his teaching had been taught “everywhere, always, and by all (see the rule of St. Vincent of Lerins)” This selective use of the Fathers has also given rise to the priority of human reason. Luther, at the Diet of Worms, stood by his own teachings, unless persuaded otherwise by Scripture and reason. The use of reason has been elevated to such an extent that it has led countless numbers of Lutheran scholars of the past century to reject many of the essential doctrines of Scripture, and even to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures themselves. Thus, for much of Lutheranism today, the very foundation of its faith has been questioned and even rejected. Without the Church and its holy tradition, Lutheranism, in varying degrees, will continue to flounder in the wake of mainstream Protestantism.”

Infant Communion and the LCMS

This is the fifth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

As a father of two children, I am responsible for making sure my children are fed. My children were Baptized and are now God’s children. Why does my LCMS church deny my children the Body and Blood of Jesus every other Sunday (we don’t have Communion every week)? Why do my children have to wait until some arbitrary day when they are older to be fed by God?

Rev. Palke addresses this issue when he states:

“I had always wondered why we baptized infants, bringing them to spiritual life in God's Kingdom, but withheld spiritual food from them until they reached some mythical “age of accountability.” It's a lot like watching the birth of a baby with the intention of withholding food from the child until it is able to distinguish between peas and carrots. It had occurred to me that children had participated fully in the life of the Old Covenant, including circumcision and partaking of the Passover meal. And from a liturgical point of view, I knew that the early Church baptized, chrismated, and communed the catechumens in a discernible, inter-connected sequence of sacramental actions.

If John 3:5 indicates the necessity of the new birth by water and the Spirit (baptism and chrismation), then John 6:53 (“unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood he has no live abiding in him”) is equally clear in asserting the necessity of the Eucharist. And if children belong to the Kingdom, should they be denied the banquet table of the Kingdom? I'm not ignoring Paul's exhortation to examine oneself, which the Orthodox fulfill in sacramental confession. But shall we withhold the Sacrament from those who are not capable of self-examination, such as the retarded or the senile?

I finally came to the realization that we had been turning faith into a rational act of the mind rather than trust. And I then realized that if we were consistent in our interpretation of Scripture, we would end up denying infant baptism for the same reasons that we deny infant communion. There is only one class of Christian in the Church--those who are baptized (the Easter experience), sealed with the Holy Spirit (Pentecost experience), and partake of the Sacrament of the Kingdom. As a Lutheran pastor, I had to keep track of “baptized members” and “communicant members.” Orthodoxy makes no such distinction, recognizing the need of the “medicine of immortality” for all its members."

Avoiding the “Protestant Grid”

This is the fourth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

In a previous post I explored how a Christian in 2009 can determine Truth and the correct interpretation of Scripture by using the criteria of St. Vincent of Lerins.

However, I think it is fair to say that the overwhelming majority of Christians, at least in the United States, don’t use St. Vincent’s criteria. People seem to have a list, either mental or written, of what they are looking for in a church. The content of the list varies, but can contain things like the personality and preaching style of the pastor, the look of the actual church building, the quality of the praise band, the number of events, the number of groups and ministries and the quality of the coffee offered on Sunday mornings.

The “evangelical” churches in America seem to have blended into a single “pop-Christianity” singing the same songs and using the same programs. There is now little difference between most evangelical churches. Denominational distinctiveness is gone. It is also apparent that theology and doctrine play little (if any) role in choosing a church today in America. Style is important not substance.

Unfortunately, Christians who do take theology seriously use a similar strategy for finding a church. They simply list all the doctrines they believe are important and try to find a church that teaches those doctrines. While a theological criterion is more sophisticated than the guitar riffs of the praise band, using a list to find a church is a bad strategy.

Confessional Lutherans upset with the direction of the LCMS try to find a LCMS congregation that meets a certain criteria. If the church uses the liturgy, has weekly Communion, practices closed Communion and is free from a praise band, it usually passes the “test”.

However, Rev. Palke argues that the use of such lists, either for the quality of music or the practice of Closed Communion, is all the same thing. He calls it using the “Protestant Grid”. The danger of such a “grid” is that it puts the person up as the “arbiter of truth”.

Rev. Palke states:

“As I had done prior to becoming Lutheran, I prayed that God would lead me into all truth. But now I had come to realize that my choice of Lutheranism in the past was based on criteria, such as infant baptism, the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion, and the truthfulness of the Bible, that I felt were important. Though these were weighty criteria, I now realize that I was doing what many do in searching for a church. They set up what I call “the Protestant grid.” Across the top of the page they list the particular doctrines they wish to consider. Going down the page, they list all the denominations they wish to consider. Then they get their Bibles, use their concordances, and footnotes, and place check marks in the appropriate squares for every denomination that teaches according to that individual's understanding of the doctrine in question. At the end of the exercise, the individual simply tallies up the check marks, and the denomination with the most check marks becomes the “preferred denomination.” If one chooses not to bother with this process, he can always opt for a “nondenominational church.” I have come to see the flaws in this process. The individual becomes the arbiter of truth. While Protestants so frequently lambaste the pope, they fail to see that they are simply replacing the pope with themselves, claiming that “all rights exist in the shrine of their hearts.”

Underlying this issue is the whole matter of biblical interpretation. We know from Scripture itself that “Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation,” yet this goes on all too often on the western side of the street. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, comes as a complete package. There's no picking and choosing. You either accept the teaching, worship, spirituality, iconography, canons, etc. as a complete package (this is one of the essential definitions of the word “catholic”--completeness!) or you reject it. I choose to accept it all. And now I know what possessed the Evangelical Orthodox to become Orthodox: the Holy Spirit! I am not bitter about my stay in the Lutheran Church. On the contrary, I thank God that he brought me to a church located right across the street from the Orthodox fortress. Frankly, I'm much more impressed by these former Campus Crusaders, who had a lot further to go to get to Orthodoxy than Lutherans do. The Lord had already led me to an understanding of infant baptism, the real presence of Christ in the Sacraments, confession, a liturgical form of worship, and acceptance of Orthodox Christology, among other things, during my Lutheran residency. I finally said to myself: “if a para-church group can find the Orthodox Church and enter it, then anyone can!”

What's a conscientious Lutheran to do?

This is the third post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

Considering all the problems in the LCMS, what's a conscientious Lutheran to do?

Rev. Palke has an answer. He states:

"What's a conscientious Lutheran to do, given these circumstances? Some say, stay and fight. But I'm convinced politics in the church is not the solution. I personally had to come to the realization that Lutheranism no longer chooses to consciously be what it was intended to be--a movement for reform in the West. And I still think that Lutheranism, as it is portrayed in its confessional portfolio is the best of the houses on the western side of the street.

But Lutheranism has no sense of “holy tradition” that can keep its house intact. In five hundred years Lutheranism has changed. Some Lutheran townhouses are barely recognizable as “Lutheran” when compared to the blueprint of the Confessions. In fact Lutheranism changed radically shortly after Luther's death, with unchurchly, non-sacramental Pietism and the anti- supernatural Rationalism “gutting out” the structure. And so, given these changes, even in the conservative Missouri Synod, I had to ask myself--what sort of spiritual legacy would I leave to my children? Could I be sure they would find a conservative, confessional, liturgical church somewhere? Should I leave the Missouri Synod and join a more conservative group, such as the Wisconsin Synod? If Missouri's doctrine of the ministry is shaky, the Wisconsin Synod has an even lower view of the ministry! Romophobia still afflicts Wisconsin, which recently has also become enamored with the “church growth” movement. And, believe it or not, a recent news report indicated that Wisconsin has come out with a new, contemporary hymnal that contains “inclusive language.” It appears to me that Wisconsin is copying some of Missouri's rebuilding techniques.

Or, I could join a new church body that may or may not be created when Missouri experiences another “walkout” by disaffected conservatives. This I can no longer do. This is because my experience with such “conservatives,” be they Baptist or Lutheran, is that they will later find another issue upon which to split. Their shibboleth is always “come out from among them and be ye separate.” Meanwhile, Christianity is fractured even more, in total disregard to our Lord's high priestly prayer that we be one in Him as He is in the Father (John 17). And, frankly, I no longer wish to belong to a church named after one man or one doctrine. My study of church history showed me that the church was larger than one person. If Lutherans were honest, they would have to admit that they have granted to Luther, in significant measure, what they refused to grant to the pope."

Distinguishing Truth from Error

How does a Christian in 2009 determine what is Truth? There are so many denominations and so many different interpretations of the Bible.

A method of distinguishing truth was articulated by St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th Century. It is amazing how this work speaks to the current situation in Christianity today.

For example, St. Vincent of Lerins states:

“But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason, because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.”

St. Vincent of Lerins proposes a way to distinguish Truth. Here is his proposal:

“Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally.

This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.”

A Lutheran may argue that Popes, councils and church fathers have erred in the past. Therefore, we can’t trust antiquity or consent. Even if “almost all priests and doctors” held a teaching, Lutherans would argue that we must only trust the Scriptures. The difficult part is which interpretation of Scripture do we use to determine the Truth? For Lutherans, the "true" interpretation ends up being the Lutheran one. This is nice and circular.

St. Vincent of Lerins has a proposal for dealing with error in antiquity. He states:

“What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation.”

So, the ancient General Councils and the consensus of the teachings of the majority of priests and doctors can be used to determine what is Truth.

How does a Christian in 2009 determine what is Truth and the correct interpretation of Scripture? St. Vincent’s answer is universality, antiquity and consent.

The Rule of Prayer is the Rule of Faith

This is the second post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

Many LCMS Lutherans claim that we just need to agree on the main articles of faith. Some say that the belief in justification by faith alone is sufficient for unity. How we worship (i.e. liturgy or contemporary praise) does not matter.

However, as many have pointed out, Baptists worship like Baptists because of their theology. What happens when Lutherans begin to worship like Baptists? My observation is that Lutherans start thinking and acting like Baptists. It is then just a matter of time before Baptist books and education materials are introduced into the congregation.

As Dr. Jaraslov Pelikan, a former Lutheran and one of the world’s leading church historians, stated:

"When the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod became Baptist, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America became Methodist, I became Orthodox."

Rev. Palke makes similar comments about the Rule of Prayer and the Rule of Faith.

"There are a small number of faithful, confessional pastors who believe in the principle lex orandi lex credendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of faith) and lead their congregations in a substantive ministry of Word and Sacrament. However, since Lutheranism regards liturgy as an adiaphoron, something neither commanded nor forbidden by God, many regard this as a license to do what is expedient and has mass-marketing appeal. Others castrate the liturgy under the pretext that the liturgy is a hindrance to first-time visitors in church and to evangelism in general.

The confessional writings of Lutheranism generally grant freedom to churches in matters liturgical, so long as they agree in all the articles of faith (Formula of Concord, Article X). And herein lies the problem: worship appears to be disconnected from the faith. Instead of seeing worship as the faith of the church in action, Lutherans, like most Western Christians, tend to reduce the faith to mere intellectual assent. Instead of seeing music,liturgy, and art as bearers of the faith, Lutherans tend to view these things as aesthetic embellishments that establish the proper atmosphere for hearing the sermon, which itself is usually filled with many comedic and illustrative embellishments that are intended to enhance the Gospel!"

The identity crisis in Lutheranism

I am starting a series of posts looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. I will be spending several posts looking at an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

Anyone who reads the Lutheran Confessions will quickly realize that there is a large gap between the Confessions and the actual practice in local Lutheran Churches. The word “Lutheran” is practically meaningless today. It can mean anything from promoting women’s ordination to promoting a Purpose Driven Life.

Rev. Palke, 10 years ago, makes an observation that is still true today. He states:

“On the one hand, the Confessions portray an evangelical, catholic church. On the other hand, the life of the church appears to be broadly Protestant. Private confession and absolution, highly prized in the Confessions, would be the demise of any pastor foolhardy enough to institute it in his parish. The weekly Eucharist, a confessional norm in the Augsburg Confession (Article 24), is something that a few pastors have taken seriously and have been willing to take their lumps to establish. “That's too catholic” is the cry that is heard when the pastor elevates the host, chants the liturgy, wears a chasuble, makes the sign of the cross, has a Gospel Procession, uses incense, calls Mary the “ever-virgin, Mother of God”(things that Luther himself defended).

Instead of returning to the historic episcopacy, Lutherans, who view the episcopacy as of human origin, have chosen, in general, a form of church government that is, at best presbyterial, and at worst, patterned after democratic, free-church congregationalism. Lutherans are very suspicious of human authority. After all, “synods, councils, and popes have erred,” as Luther asserted. Unfortunately, Lutherans cannot see the possibility of applying that aphorism to Luther and the other Reformers. The trends in worship over the past few years in the LCMS seem to be following the pattern of “less liturgy; more rousing choruses.” People cannot do without “patriotic icons,” such as American flags, but try putting a religious icon in the sanctuary and watch the sparks fly! Flowers in church are a necessity, but try using incense and you'll get the coals dumped on your head, regardless of what Malachi 1:11 says or what goes on in heaven (Revelation 8:3)!”

“After all, “synods, councils, and popes have erred,” as Luther asserted. Unfortunately, Lutherans cannot see the possibility of applying that aphorism to Luther and the other Reformers.” This quote sums up what I am thinking about Lutheranism today. I am becoming more and more convinced that Luther and the early Lutheran reformers did “err”. Exploring this conviction will be the topic of future blog posts.

Trouble in the Antiochian Church

Cyberbrethren, a blog I read on a regular basis, had a post today entitled "Trouble in the Antiochian Orthodox Chruch".

Pastor McCain provides some commentary and a link to an article about a current issue involving the role of the American Bishops in the Antiochian church. However, he uses his blog post to attack the Antiochians on several issues unrelated to the current Bishop problem. He attacks the Antiochians on their process for making Priests out of former Lutheran pastors and their “aggressive” recruiting strategies.

Pastor McCain then attacks the Lutheran pastors who left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. He accuses them of having “starry-eyed naiveté” and believing they were entering an “ecclesiastical promised land.” He even goes so far as to offer prayer for these poor souls that they do not “leave the church” over the current affairs– as if they are so weak in their convictions and the current problems in the Antiochian Church so great that they are bound to leave.

What is most interesting is that Pastor McCain never once addresses the issues involved in the article he links to.

Here is a link to the story: "What’s going on in Antioch?"

After reading the article, here are my thoughts:

As an LMCS Lutheran, I have been taught that the office of the presbyter and bishop are the same.


So, how does the LCMS treat our presbyters/bishops?

• In 2006, an LMCS presbyter/bishop was arrested in the middle of his sermon and led out of the church by the police. This happened because of a dispute inside his congregation. He was arrested for “trespassing on church property”. Apparently, one of the “factions” in the dispute “fired” him. However, the pastor and the other “faction” dispute the firing and claim that the official process was not followed.

• We know that LCMS presbyters/bishops have been fired or removed from a church, sometimes because of their Confessional stance on an issue.

• We know that churches and entire LCMS districts resist or refuse to call presbyter/bishops who are “Confessional”.
  

What are some of the current actions of our LCMS presbyters/bishops?

• We know that there are LCMS presbyters/bishops who have alcohol or drug problems. I would also guess that there have been some who have been arrested and convicted of crimes.

• We know of LMCS presbyters/bishops teaching heresies in their church. We have LMCS presbyters/bishops teaching and practicing open communion, contemporary praise worship, speaking in tongues and “baptism in the Holy Spirit” and Arminian doctrines.
  

One just has to spend an hour or so reading the back posts on the Steadfast Lutheran website to see all the problems in the LCMS, especially with our presbyters/bishops.

The issue for the Antiochians is the same for all American Orthodox – the role of the Bishop (especially the role of “overlapping” Bishops) in the U.S. This is a complicated issue due to the history of America and the unplanned immigration of Orthodox from many different countries. This is an issue that is being addressed and is a focus of SCOBA.

So, the issue for me is not conflict or even that “problems exist” in Orthodoxy. The issue is HOW the problems are addressed. We have seen how the LMCS “handles” their problems. It will be interesting to see how the Antiochians address their issues here in America.

Where is the original church today? Part III

Where is the original church today? Part II

Where is the original church today?

What happened to the original Christian Church and where do we find it today?

When were you saved?

The Internet Monk has a regular series called the “Liturgical Gangstas”. One segment focused on the question of salvation. Each participant was asked the following question:

“Someone comes to your office and asks you, “When were you saved?” What do you say?”

Here is Father Ernesto giving an Eastern Orthodox answer to the question:

"When someone asks when I was saved, I respond in a pastoral fashion. I know that if they are using that language, they want to know whether I have an active relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ. So, I do not respond theologically; I let them know that I do know Our Lord in an active fashion, and I use their language. So, I say that I am saved, and I mention how at 19 the Lord became an regularly active presence in my life. My answer is theologically wrong, but I am more interested in beginning a conversation. I can always explain better later.

But, when was I saved? Well, the answer is not as simple as the “once saved always saved” folk would like to make it. That is a stance that requires people to not only ignore a significant number of Scriptures, but to even ignore Martin Luther and John Calvin in their writings. In one sense, I was saved when I was baptized as a baby. St. Peter says in Acts 2 to repent and be baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. It then says that he pleaded with the people to “save themselves from this perverse generation.” In other words, he equated repentance and baptism and the Holy Spirit with being saved. But, a baby receives baptism and the Holy Spirit before he/she can even repent. So is that baby saved? Yes! I realize the contrary arguments, but St. Paul’s equating baptism and circumcision, as well as the lack of argument over infant baptism in the Bible point to infant baptism having the same place in God’s economy as circumcision. I say that lack of argument because of the serious arguments by Jewish-Christians that all believers must be circumcised. Yet, no Scripture records arguments about children not being baptized. Do you think that Judaizers, who were so keen to keep the Old Testament Law that they argued for adult circumcision, would stand idly by and say nothing if children of believers were not included in the covenant within 8 days as the Law required? No, precisely because of the Judaizers, and the lack of argument over infant baptism [and other Scriptures having to do with families in the New Testament], it appears that children were included in the New Covenant in the same way as children were included in the Old Covenant. Not baptizing/circumcising infants would have been an incredibly major change in practice. Yet, there is not one argument about it while there are serious arguments about replacing circumcision with baptism. So, I was saved when I was baptized.

But, we are also being saved. St. Paul says to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. That clearly implies that the failure to do so could be lethal. In fact, it pictures a dynamic view of salvation as something that is a process. In fact, for the Eastern Orthodox, that process is called theosis, or becoming like God. Our aim in life is to be united with God, to be “God-like.” St. Paul also says, “Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.” So, I am in the process of salvation. I am being saved. The process is not finished, but I am clearly in the running living stream of salvation. But, I cannot use the past tense, as it is yet an ongoing process.

But, salvation is something that we shall receive at our Lord’s glorious appearing. St. Peter says, “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.” According to this verse by St. Peter, our salvation has yet to be revealed and it is something that we will finally receive at His glorious appearing. It is our inheritance, if we remain faithful, but it is an inheritance that awaits its final execution until His glorious appearing. So, I am yet to be saved; it is my hope and future. It is my faith in what is not yet seen.

An Orthodox article that I like says, “Salvation is past tense in that, through the death and Resurrection of Christ, we have been saved. It is present tense, for we are “being saved” by our active participation through faith in our union with Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is also future, for we must yet be saved at His glorious Second Coming.”

So, am I saved? Yes, I was saved through the death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ when I was baptized as an infant. So, am I saved? I am in the process of being renewed day by day, of growing from glory to glory, by the power of the Holy Spirit, but the process of salvation is not yet finished. So, I must use the present perfect tense. I am being saved. So, am I saved? Not yet, I await the day when our Lord will gloriously reveal His salvation and I shall truly be saved, and God shall be all and in all."

The LCMS Neglects the Office of Love

Compare the current state of affairs in the LCMS with Rev. Weedon’s comments about the ancient church:

"In the ancient Church the fullness of the office resided in the Bishop. He was responsible within the community for both the office of faith and the office of love. To assist him in the office of faith, there were the presbyters, his fellow pastors. With his blessing, they could preach, teach, and even celebrate the Eucharist. To assist him in the office of love, there were the deacons. They were charged with the care of the poor, those in prison, the needy, and providing for the clergy. Through both the office of faith and the office of love, the hope that is in Christ was imparted, strengthened, and manifested."

As a Lutheran, I am taught that church government is adiaphora. I have been taught that Jesus and the Apostle’s DID NOT institute any specific form of government for the church and that we in the LCMS are free to have the form we currently use.

However, it is interesting to read Rev. Weedon’s final comments on his blog post:

"The diaconate is waiting for recovery among us. It is a fair question whether it CAN be recovered without the recovery of the bishop - the man who embodies the fullness of both offices - as well; I honestly don't know. But that we Reformation Christians have been guilty of neglecting the office of love is, I would think, beyond dispute. And I find it highly significant that in its liturgical expression the deacon in his office of love is the one who both gathers, presents and administers the offerings of the people and who bids their prayers. Love in action: in giving and in praying very visibly in the Sunday assembly, and out from the altar goes the service of love. We Reformation Christians need this office to return to its own place among us. Our communities suffer for its lack."

Are Lutherans trying to recapture an "experience"? A response to Issues Etc.

Energetic Procession offers a response to the Issues Etc. three-part series on Eastern Orthodoxy. In response to the 'Strengths & Weaknesses' segment, Perry C. Robinson states:

"Furthermore, he speaks of the purpose of worship to be slain by the law and resurrected by the gospel. And here seems to me to a case of the pot calling the kettle black. For all the disparagement of a therapeutic approach and a desire for “experience” the Lutheran approach is no less therapeutic and motivated by a recapturing of that “experience” of condemnation and liberation as fostered by their schema. Good Lutheran preaching should use the law to re-create the existential crisis of absolute condemnation by the law that demands all and gives nothing and then supplying the existential release with a gospel that gives all and demands nothing. The value of the gospel lies specifically in its cathartic nature. Here Reformation preaching is no different than what its advocates despise. It is there to create an experience and is evaluated on its ability to do so. It is no small wonder then that the kind of experientialism that we see in say the First Great Awakening with Whitfield and Edwards is manifested in the second, even though it decoupled itself from its theological skeleton."

I had never thought about "Law and Gospel" preaching in this way before. However, I think Perry is on to something here. I do "like" and "look forward" to the feeling when my pastor gives me the Gospel after the Law. There is a distinct emotional and psychological reaction. There is also a distinct reaction/experience when the pastor forgets to give the Gospel and the sermon is all Law.

It would seem that this is very similar to the Pentecostals looking for an emotional high during worship. Perhaps Perry is right that the "pot is calling the kettle black" when we criticize the Pentecostals.

Rev. Webber on Eastern Orthodoxy Today

There are two things I hear often about the Eastern Orthodox, especially from my fellow Lutherans. The first is that the current Orthodox church is not the same as the ancient one. The comment is usually made that the current Orthodox liturgy is not the same as the original.

The second thing I hear is that the Orthodox in the home countries are not at all like the Orthodox (especially the converts) you meet in America.

Perry Robinson addresses both of these topics in his response to the Issues Etc. interview with Rev. Webber. In regards to the Orthodox liturgy, Perry states:

"Then Webber alleges that the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has been so altered as to not be recognizable by its author. In fact while it has been shorted in some places and some prayers and hymns for example were added under Justinian, its fundamental content and structure has remained the same. So much so that anyone familiar with the original would just find Webber’s laughable. And then of course he gives the parting shot that the liturgy is meant to evoke a “mystical feeling” and preaching is diminished."

In regards to the comments about the Orthodox in the home countries, Perry states:

"Then he charges that in the home countries most Orthodox are superstitious, ignorant, etc. This is probably true in many cases, but that says little about the truth of Orthodoxy any more than a similar situation in Germany or the US indicates the falsity of Lutheranism. Is this the standard he really wishes to be applied to Lutheranism as well? The spiritual health of Germany, which is nearing legalizing incest if it hasn’t already, isn’t exactly stellar. How many Germans are now to be taken seriously as professing Lutherans? Obviously not enough to repopulate the country. And when we look to the US, American Lutherans are by and large functionally Pelagian. Barna polls indicate that a majority of Lutherans think you get to heaven by good works and by “being a good person.” Only about 21% think that one is saved apart from good works. I can go through the average local LCMS parish and start asking basic questions about Trinitarianism and Christology and we all know what that will reveal. Besides, no one said that the Orthodox Church made every member into an academic theologian. But wasn’t putting the Bible into the hands of every Christian and making his conscience the judge applying the rule of Scripture supposed to have better results than that?"

Rev. Webber and the Iconostasis

Energetic Procession offers a response to the Issues Etc. three-part series on Eastern Orthodoxy.

In the "Orthodoxy Today" interview, Rev. Webber offers a typical Lutheran argument against the Iconostasis.

I focused a lot on the inconscreen during my first visit last year to an Orthodox church. I had read many Lutheran critiques, most similar to Pr. Webber’s in the “Orthodoxy Today” interview, and was curious about the history and reason behind such a structure.

Perry Robinson, in his response to Pr. Webber’s interview on Issues Etc., offers an explanation for the Inconscreen. He states:

"Next Webber takes a shot at the iconostasis as a kind of great wall or barrier between God and the people. But this is a mistake for many reasons. First, initially the iconscreens were much smaller. They served a variety of purposes historically. In some churches underground it served the practical purpose of a little fence to keeping dogs from urinating on the altar. More directly, it grew out of the practice of Christians placing relics and pictures of martyrs near and around the altar. This was eventually standardized to include prototypes of martyrdom and the faith, the chief martyr being Christ. The ecclesiastical use was in part as “looking out” at those approaching for the eucharist as a reminder of who they were facing, to take it in seriousness and to ward off those who had not prepared themselves or those who feigned belief. Furthermore, the iconostasis does not function in the same way that the barrier in the temple functioned in the Holy of Holies since there is a clear and open entry way through the royal doors indicating that the way to God has been opened in Christ. This is why the priest alone is permitted to pass through them while the deacons and attending servers enter through the deacon-doors. The iconostasis also represents the Trinitarian processions out into creation and the divine return. Hence it manifests the distinction between the theologia and the economia. Added to this is the fact that most Lutheran churches retain some form of barrier around the altar, in some cases, particularly in Europe a roodscreen."

Does Lutheran theology destroy souls?

A recent discussion on Fr. Gregory's blog focused on "why Lutherans go East". One participant named Drew shared his experience of being a Lutheran. Drew's main argument is that the Lutheran teaching of simul justus et peccator ("Righteous and at the same time a sinner") destroys souls.

Drew stated:

"I left Lutheranism for Orthodoxy because I was enslaved to some extremely serious sins -- the kind of sins that lead unto death -- and the Lutheran 'gospel' left me powerless. Harsh words, I know, but that was my experience -- and not only my experience, but the experience of my other Lutheran friends as well. We were all students of staunchly Confessional Lutheran teachers and pastors, so the blame cannot be laid on the fact that we received teaching that wasn't truly Lutheran.

The simul iustus et peccator notion as it is popularly taught is an insidious doctrine that destroys souls.

… The simul iustus et peccator doctrine is grounded in the extrinsic -- and that is the operative word here -- nature of the Lutheran understanding of salvation. I had it hammered into my thinking time and time again: 'The whole Gospel is extra nos; it is outside of you!' While this teaching might have some psychological benefits at times, it truly is spiritually destructive, especially in a culture such as ours that is saturated by carnal sensuality.

There were times, especially when I had spent the Saturday night before church the next morning engaging in serious sexual immorality, where this message, preached so eloquently from the pulpit, did in fact calm my troubled conscience. But that's exactly where the true danger, the satanic delusion operates, I think; the extra nos leaves one thinking they are 'right with God' when in fact, they may not be -- as in my case. 'Do not be deceived. God is not mocked.' See Galatians 6. I was sowing in the flesh, and therefore reaping corruption, but I was led to believe I was justified before God, righteous in His eyes, because I believed that Christ had died for my sins, and because I received the Sacrament of the Altar trusting that it was 'for me'.

…The extrinsic nature of the Lutheran gospel fits hand in glove with monergism, or monoenergism: we do not participate in anyway in our salvation. God had baptized me, he was forgiving my sins, and He would see me through to the end no matter what I did in my life, as long as I kept believing that Christ's work was 'for me'. So I could go on living a duplicitous life, a life characterized by anything but 'the Spirit', and I was 'justified' given my trust in Christ's atoning death on the cross. I had no continual or substantial life of prayer. I let my thoughts, my logismoi in Orthodox parlance, run the show. The only thing that set me apart from other non-Christians was the fact that I would give an intellectual defense of Christianity if needed, the fact that I would show up to church on Sundays, and that I read a bunch of theology. But my will and my heart were not Christian.

My understanding of the Christian life was that is largely centered around the passive reception of Christ's forgiveness through Word and Sacrament. And passive is really the key here. I cannot recall ever hearing a sermon preached on the dynamic change that life in the Spirit brings to the Christian. In fact, I specifically remember time and time again hearing that Christians were really no different that non-Christians in terms of how they lived their lives. The sins of the Corinthians was used as a proof text for this. Now maybe this was just for rhetorical purposes, you know, to drive home the point that Christians must not see themselves as 'superior' to non-Christians or something like that. Nonetheless, hearing this sort of thing from the pulpit only pampers the flesh, and definitely does not lead to true repentance.

The boogeyman of 'works righteousness' will always haunt the Confessional Lutheran. Anything that looks even remotely close to 'works righteousness' is shunned. Just bring up fasting around Lutherans and witness the debate that ensues. In fact, exhorting the Christian to do anything (besides the passive reception of Word and Sacrament) often leads to debate as well. Just go read about the Lutheran debates centered around the so-called 'third use of the Law'.” (emphasis mine)

Issues Etc. series on Eastern Orthodoxy

Rev. Wilken recently interviewed Rev. David Jay Webber on Issues Etc. Eastern Orthodoxy was the focus of the interviews.

Below are the three interviews. A future blog post will focus on an Eastern Orthodoxy response to the interviews.

Eastern Orthodoxy: Strengths & Weaknesses



Eastern Orthodoxy Today



The Pelagian Controversy

Insight, Catharsis & Sinful Behavior

I have been thinking about the critiques of Perry Robinson and Drew. Essentially, the arguments are:

• Lutheran theology may cause a person to seek out a cathartic experience each Sunday.

• This cathartic experience does not necessarily lead to behavior change.

• The “insight” of Lutheran theology (simul justus et peccator, extra nos, etc.) does not necessarily lead to behavior change.

• This “insight” can actually become a rationalization to continue to sin.

• The cathartic experience can be an “opiate” that lulls the person to accept his sinful behavior.

• The cathartic experience can also lead to a rationalization that keeps the person from making a behavior change.

• Both the cathartic experience and insight may have no impact on motivation or desire to change sinful behavior.

• Finally, this whole situation is compounded by the fact that most Lutheran preaching, at least Confessional Lutheran preaching, does not focus much on Sanctification.

It would seem that one could argue that Lutheran theology is a ‘set up’ for sinning. A situation is set up in which a sinner seeks an emotional catharsis each week, yet keeps sinning. The sin is rationalized and the guilt is medicated by the narcotic catharsis each Sunday.

We are all sinners. However, we all have areas where we can improve. We have habitual sinful behavior that can change. The anger can be reduced, the pride lessened and the lust resisted.

I have never thought about this until now, but perhaps Lutheran theology takes away the desire, motivation and interest in changing sinful behavior (at least in some people).

I am not forgetting the role of the Holy Spirit in all of this. However, I wonder how much am I supposed to “work with the Holy Spirit” to change my sinful ways. Or, do I wait for the Holy Spirit to give me all the desire, motivation, interest, power and ability to change. If so, how long do I wait for the Holy Spirit to work in my life?

Perhaps Lutheran theology needs a warning label.