7/28/09

"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?

2 comments:

Future Church said...

Ironically, I'm reminded of a comment I once read from a Lutheran pastor to a Calvinist. The Calvinist mentioned that Calvin wasn't really all that hard line. The pastor responded, "Perhaps, but Calvin is dead and now we have Calvinists." The thing is, most people don't live their faith through a book of Confessions. Their faith is instead informed by the way they worship and by the piety of their spiritual father. If a person's worship and spiritual care reflect the need for constant self examination, then he is less likely to become antinomian. If, however, he has been raised to believe in a faith alone in which God is just cool, then you might as well go once saved, always saved. The way we worship has far more impact on how we view law and gospel than a Book of Confessions. So, Pastor Weedon might be right, but if worship and spiritual care don't reflect such realities, then the Confessions don't carry much weight. Like the Scriptures, if not applied they're just words on a page.

Dixie said...

I struggled for several years to understand how sanctification was supposed to work in a way that either didn’t leave me in works righteousness or leave me to my own desires. The debate just between Lutherans was sufficient for me to see that it wasn’t so clear even to seminary graduates!

As a Lutheran I was taught that if I am “in Christ” the Holy Spirit would give me everything I needed to do the good works that I needed to do. But in practice what I discovered was that on Saturday morning my neighbor may have needed my help but I wanted sleep in and the just relax around the house. If I really was supposed to help my neighbor, wouldn’t I have been given the grace to do so? But since I didn’t want to help my neighbor, that must have meant it was OK to do nothing because if I forced myself to wake up early and leave the house to help…then I would have been guilty of works righteousness. Drowning that old Adam required very real work but how much work was too much work? And maybe it was OK to just sleep in because as I heard more times than I care to quote “it wouldn’t affect my salvation” since we were saved by grace but clearly works righteousness could. AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

And I never missed a communion (we had it at least twice a week), always attended a bible study, usually two each week, and I took advantage of private confession on average about every two months—although my pastor wasn’t a fan.

So admittedly, I never “got” it. Call me stupid. Call me improperly catechized. Call me unsanctified. Whatever. At this point it is inconsequential. I guess I am just one of those former Lutherans guilty of misperception.