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.