Lutherans in Search of a Church
May 27, 2010
Robert Benne
In its August 2009 Churchwide Assembly, the Evangelical Lutheran Church decided formally to leave the Great Tradition of orthodox Christianity for a declining and desiccated liberal Protestantism. The decisions it made—accepting a weak and confused social statement on sexuality, allowing blessings of gay unions, ordaining gays and lesbians in partnered relationships, and requiring Lutherans to respect each other’s “bound conscience” on these issues—crossed the “line in the sand” that separates revisionist Christians from orthodox.
That result was a foregone conclusion for critical observers who had been watching the ELCA carefully since its inception in the late eighties. (Among them, of course, was Richard John Neuhaus, who saw clearly the trajectory yet to unfold.) What had been the promise of a renewed and robust Lutheranism in the merger of the American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America was aborted before its birth, in 1988. The planners of the new Lutheran church saw to it that those who provided theological guidance to predecessor churches—then almost exclusively white and male—were marginalized from the real decision-making centers of church life.
One of their instruments was a quota system that insured that the more “progressive” elements of the church would be overrepresented. Every committee, task force, and voting body must be comprised of 60 percent laypeople of whom half must be female and 40 percent of clergy of whom half must be female. 10 percent must be people of color or people whose first language is other than English, of whom half must be female. This scheme dramatically reduced the role of white, male pastors in the church.
Other instruments were: making the Bishops merely advisory; categorizing theologians as only one interest group among others; and locating final authority in lay-dominated, semiannual assemblies that could vote even on doctrinal matters, as one fatefully did in August 2009. These bodies made sure there would be “many voices” in the life of the ELCA, and we now have “many voices,” but no authoritative ones. What is left of classical Lutheranism in the ELCA is a mere “aroma in the bottle.”
But church organizations abhor a vacuum. In the absence of a genuine confessional teaching authority, the ELCA has followed liberal Protestantism in adopting a working theology sharply different from its classical confessions. It has substituted the “Gospel of inclusion” for the classic “Gospel of redemption” that emphasizes repentance, forgiveness, and amendment of life. The former diminishes the importance of the Law as the source of both repentance and guidance for Christians. The god of self-esteem promises everyone acceptance just the way they are.
But the ELCA is far more interested in pressing forward the liberationist themes issuing from feminism, multiculturalism, anti-imperialism, and environmentalism. These themes constitute the non-negotiables in ELCA church life. The ELCA bishops recently participated in a workshop that featured a presentation titled “Power, Privilege, and Difference.” Being therefore educated about their propensities to be oppressive, the worthy bishops resolved to have “observers” at all their meetings to monitor for “PP&D” thinking. One might note that they employed no monitors for confessional theology, perhaps because there was nothing of significance to monitor.
The decision to allow the blessing and ordination of gays and lesbians in partnered relationships was the flash point for those who had observed these deep-running liberationalist trends operating in the church for many years. That flash point, however, illuminated the deeper problem of authority in the church. Scripture and its Lutheran confessional interpretation seemed to have been cast aside for the voting process of a Churchwide Assembly that was shaped more by contemporary experience, highly-organized interest groups, and the scarcely veiled agenda of ELCA headquarters.
The ELCA’s proclamation that it held no clear teachings on homosexual conduct, yet allowed the blessing and ordination of partnered homosexuals, individualized and congregationalized the church in one fell swoop. Each individual and congregation has to exercise their own “bound conscience” on these matters. Some individuals may simply leave for other churches or press their congregations to leave the ELCA, while some divert their offerings to purely local causes or participate in organized efforts to renew the church. Most members, however, try to act as if nothing has happened.
Some congregations have left the ELCA for other Lutheran bodies, while others have publicly proclaimed orthodox beliefs and practices and allowed their members to divert their offerings into “bound conscience” funds that cannot be sent on to the ELCA. Most try to avoid these controversies like the plague. Pastors know the tension will cost them membership and support no matter what direction they go.
The national church has a budget far less than the one it began with in 1988, even if one does not account for inflation. Sixty-four of the sixty-five synods have diminished their giving to the national church. All the synods have less to work with.
However, the most interesting fall-out is the organizational changes. The two organizations formed to resist the direction of the ELCA—the Word Alone Network and Lutheran CORE—have redefined themselves. Neither desires to continue organized resistance within the ELCA, which they regard as futile. Both have turned their attention to building new organizations independent of the ELCA, as they seek to provide harbors for those in search of a church beyond their congregations.
The Word Alone Network has become Word Alone Ministries, which provides educational and worship materials, mission opportunities, and theological education for the church that it founded earlier. That church, or better, that “association of congregations,” is the Lutheran Congregations in Ministry for Christ. The LCMC was formed during the fracas over an agreement, between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church, Called to Common Mission, which required ordination to the historic episcopacy for Lutheran pastors and bishops. That requirement was anathema to the mostly Midwestern, low church Lutherans. The LCMC now lists 410 member congregations, with 191 having joined since last August. Among them are some of the largest Lutheran churches in America.
Representing the “evangelical catholic” or high church wing of the church, Lutheran CORE redefined itself after the fiasco of August 2009 as a coalition for the renewal and reconfiguration of Lutheranism in North America. Though it had no initial desire to start yet another Lutheran church, CORE responded to the wave of churches wanting to leave the ELCA for a more “churchly” organization than Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ, and hopes to facilitate the birth of the new North American Lutheran Church next August. It is uncertain just how many congregations will be on board at its founding.
Both CORE and the NALC see themselves as instruments of a reconfiguration of Lutheranism in North America—CORE as an ongoing convocation of Lutheran teaching theologians, and the NALC as an ecclesia embodying those teachings.
Whatever comes of these ventures remains to be seen. If the Holy Spirit blesses them they will flourish and provide new beginnings for Lutheranism in America. For many they are the last, great efforts to live out the promise of Lutheranism as a church on this continent. If they fail, the only remaining option may be a bracing swim across the Tiber.
Robert Benne is Director of the Center for Religion and Society and Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion Emeritus at Roanoke College. His Good and Bad Ways to Think About Religion and Politics will appear this summer.
Resources
Word Alone Ministries
Lutheran Congregations in Ministry for Christ
Lutheran CORE
Lutheran Forum
American Lutheran Publicity Bureau
Comments:
5.27.2010 | 1:05pm
Bill Mickey says:
I grew up as a Lutheran, intellectualized my way into atheism and, after many years, have become a very happy pentecostal..My slant on the situation with the Lutheran church is that the church is trying to be what people want rather than leading people to what they should be--the extended arms of Jesus Christ ; trying to live by His Word.
5.27.2010 | 2:56pm
Pr. Brad says:
I would echo the great observations of Rev. McCain above. In addition, I would offer just a coulple complimentary thoughts.
First, the crossing of that line in the sand Dr. Benne speaks of, did not occur with the August 2009 assembly. It happened, when the ELCA decided that the Holy Scriptures were not the reliable, infallible Word of God, but rather some human construct sprinkled here and there with marks of divinity (which they were free to sift and determine according to their own discretion.) When they stopped trusting the Scriptures, they had to stop trusting the Confessions-- the two are inseperable. Severed from the catholic witness of Holy Scripture, they could not hope to remain a catholic church. That was the line in the sand which was crossed, and we would be well counselled to watch for the same potential in our own communions. It is a danger for every Christian, every association of Christians, and every generation.
I, too, wish L-CORE and the emerging NALC well. I also caution them not to be distracted by what may be only a symptom and not the root issue with the ELCA. There are a couple million of us LCMS Lutherans who are rooting them on, and at the same time cautioning them not to make the same mistakes that lead to the ELCA disaster. Besides us, there are literally thousands upon thousands of Lutherans in the smaller synods, who have not bowed their knees to Baal, either. I'll wager they want to see L-CORE and the NALC succeed, too. I'm not so sure that a failure of either of these organizations, though, would leave the contenders with only the option of submission to Rome (who, incidentally, is having her own problems with accepting the Holy Scriptures, aside from our other historic and confessional disagreements with her.)
Being a Lutheran today is the same as it has been since the Reformation. It's a position of confession-- what we believe, teach, and confess. That confession gives rise to the life of the Church, as it is lived out by those who cling to Christ according to them. I just can't conclude with Dr. Benne, as fine a scholar as he is, that the failure of yet another humanly constructed ecclesiastical ediface will be capable of destroying the great gift God gave to His Church through the Lutheran Reformation. I suppose we shall see who is right in due time.
First, the crossing of that line in the sand Dr. Benne speaks of, did not occur with the August 2009 assembly. It happened, when the ELCA decided that the Holy Scriptures were not the reliable, infallible Word of God, but rather some human construct sprinkled here and there with marks of divinity (which they were free to sift and determine according to their own discretion.) When they stopped trusting the Scriptures, they had to stop trusting the Confessions-- the two are inseperable. Severed from the catholic witness of Holy Scripture, they could not hope to remain a catholic church. That was the line in the sand which was crossed, and we would be well counselled to watch for the same potential in our own communions. It is a danger for every Christian, every association of Christians, and every generation.
I, too, wish L-CORE and the emerging NALC well. I also caution them not to be distracted by what may be only a symptom and not the root issue with the ELCA. There are a couple million of us LCMS Lutherans who are rooting them on, and at the same time cautioning them not to make the same mistakes that lead to the ELCA disaster. Besides us, there are literally thousands upon thousands of Lutherans in the smaller synods, who have not bowed their knees to Baal, either. I'll wager they want to see L-CORE and the NALC succeed, too. I'm not so sure that a failure of either of these organizations, though, would leave the contenders with only the option of submission to Rome (who, incidentally, is having her own problems with accepting the Holy Scriptures, aside from our other historic and confessional disagreements with her.)
Being a Lutheran today is the same as it has been since the Reformation. It's a position of confession-- what we believe, teach, and confess. That confession gives rise to the life of the Church, as it is lived out by those who cling to Christ according to them. I just can't conclude with Dr. Benne, as fine a scholar as he is, that the failure of yet another humanly constructed ecclesiastical ediface will be capable of destroying the great gift God gave to His Church through the Lutheran Reformation. I suppose we shall see who is right in due time.
5.27.2010 | 5:02pm
Lancelot Lamar says:
Although Benne's take on the ELCA is spot on--the ELCA has decided to follow the Episcopal Church to extinction--his vision is too narrow with regard to Lutheranism om the US.
My son has attended a Missouri Synod school. I can tell you that besides it being an excellent school, the LCMS church that sponsors it is as orthodox, vital, and growing as any congregation in the US, even planting new churches. I know of many such LCMS churches as well as Wisconsin Synod churches.
Beyond being charitable, to be honest, Benne needs to include these churches in his discussion of the future prospects of confessional Lutheranism in America. Even if NALC and LCMC fail, that doesn't mean you have to swim the Tiber to remain a faithful, confessional Christian.
My son has attended a Missouri Synod school. I can tell you that besides it being an excellent school, the LCMS church that sponsors it is as orthodox, vital, and growing as any congregation in the US, even planting new churches. I know of many such LCMS churches as well as Wisconsin Synod churches.
Beyond being charitable, to be honest, Benne needs to include these churches in his discussion of the future prospects of confessional Lutheranism in America. Even if NALC and LCMC fail, that doesn't mean you have to swim the Tiber to remain a faithful, confessional Christian.
5.27.2010 | 6:12pm
James B. Bittner says:
Robert Benne is quite well aware of the LCMS. It would interesting to hear his reasons for omitting it as a "last, great effort to live out the promise of Lutheranism as a church on this continent." Has the LCMS received large masses exiting the ELCA? If not, are the reasons similar to those which Benne might provide?
5.27.2010 | 6:24pm
Matt Hummel says:
As always, Pr. Benne’s words are insightful, and I have also enjoyed Pr. McCain’s words in other fora.
The question that needs investigation is this- are the problems that eventuated the ELCA’s lurch into spiritual insanity accidental to or of the essence of Lutheranism? While the clergy and laity of the LCMS may, with good cause, swing between the poles self congratulation that they have not made a dog’s breakfast of the Reformation patrimony and heart aching sympathy to those who have gone so far astray, they need to look at that question. As do the people of CORE and other groups that are playing LOST with the crash of the ELCA.
As someone who made that bracing swim, I can tell you part of the decision was R.C. Sproul, Jr.’s comments on homeschooling and education. He said that too many people act like if they hit the snooze button and bring American education back to the 1950’s, then all would be right. He rightly pointed out that it was the schools of the 1950s that gave us the moral morass of the 1960s. To what point shall Lutherans reset the clock? Early 20th Century? 19th Century? 31 October 1517? Will an effort to repristinate Lutheranism always lead to the ELCA? I think the answer is, “Yes.” When people asked me why I chose to swim the Tiber and not the Mississippi, I said two things. One, Tiber is easier to spell and two, I fear that while Missouri is on the side of the angels on so many things, including, Deo gratias, abortion, that it does not have the gift of the Magisterium. Within a generation or two, she too will probably slip over the edge as well. As for the churches arising phoenix-like from the ashes of the ELCA, the same issues apply. Do the cracks in the wall run down to the foundation? I am afraid the answer is yes.
The question that needs investigation is this- are the problems that eventuated the ELCA’s lurch into spiritual insanity accidental to or of the essence of Lutheranism? While the clergy and laity of the LCMS may, with good cause, swing between the poles self congratulation that they have not made a dog’s breakfast of the Reformation patrimony and heart aching sympathy to those who have gone so far astray, they need to look at that question. As do the people of CORE and other groups that are playing LOST with the crash of the ELCA.
As someone who made that bracing swim, I can tell you part of the decision was R.C. Sproul, Jr.’s comments on homeschooling and education. He said that too many people act like if they hit the snooze button and bring American education back to the 1950’s, then all would be right. He rightly pointed out that it was the schools of the 1950s that gave us the moral morass of the 1960s. To what point shall Lutherans reset the clock? Early 20th Century? 19th Century? 31 October 1517? Will an effort to repristinate Lutheranism always lead to the ELCA? I think the answer is, “Yes.” When people asked me why I chose to swim the Tiber and not the Mississippi, I said two things. One, Tiber is easier to spell and two, I fear that while Missouri is on the side of the angels on so many things, including, Deo gratias, abortion, that it does not have the gift of the Magisterium. Within a generation or two, she too will probably slip over the edge as well. As for the churches arising phoenix-like from the ashes of the ELCA, the same issues apply. Do the cracks in the wall run down to the foundation? I am afraid the answer is yes.
5.27.2010 | 6:43pm
Pastor Spomer says:
It is curious that Benne writes as if he is oblivious to the LC-MS. One can speculate about his thinking as an individual, but let us for the moment set that aside. The existence of a Lutheran Church body in the United States that is sincerely, and not without success championing orthodoxy, is the elephant in the room of many discussions concerning ELCA.
Perhaps they fear being told, “We told you so back in the Seventies.” Perhaps they think that the LC-MS is too in bed with the Fundamentalists (an objection with merit, but only fragmentary merit).
What ever the reasons, they are not nearly as formidable as swimming the Tiber. Or would one rather affirm purgatory than be associated with the folks from Missouri? Is it class consciousness? That may explain the fact that some find the Episcopalian Church less objectionable. Their sophistication may trump theological unpleasantries. I don’t know, but I’d like to.
What ever the reasons, they should be set aside, at least conceptually, and at least for a moment of impassive consideration. Perhaps the faults of Missouri (more of personalities and practice than of doctrine, surely) can be addressed and corrected by the sensitivities of people who, with the rest of us, seek orthodoxy but also are aware that there are dangers to the Church aside from liberalism.
I believe that those who were protective of the Bible back in the Seventies were mainly in the right, however they were far from perfect and there is blame to go around. (the treatment of Professor Piepkorn for example.)
But we dare not let our father’s sins prevent us from doing what is right and God pleasing right now. Do we really want to lift high the Cross in this generation? If so, we will have to come together with people of like confession, and bind our Church with the mortar of love and forgiveness.
If you are a ELCA member who finds crossing the Tiber more acceptable that crossing the Mississippi, please post and say why, in a serious and constructive way. As an LC-MS Pastor for about 25 years, I, within my human frailty, have strove to be true to the Word and the Confessions in every sermon and Bible class I have ever given, and have always been supported by my peers.
God bless,
Pastor Philip Spomer, Edgewood, NM
Perhaps they fear being told, “We told you so back in the Seventies.” Perhaps they think that the LC-MS is too in bed with the Fundamentalists (an objection with merit, but only fragmentary merit).
What ever the reasons, they are not nearly as formidable as swimming the Tiber. Or would one rather affirm purgatory than be associated with the folks from Missouri? Is it class consciousness? That may explain the fact that some find the Episcopalian Church less objectionable. Their sophistication may trump theological unpleasantries. I don’t know, but I’d like to.
What ever the reasons, they should be set aside, at least conceptually, and at least for a moment of impassive consideration. Perhaps the faults of Missouri (more of personalities and practice than of doctrine, surely) can be addressed and corrected by the sensitivities of people who, with the rest of us, seek orthodoxy but also are aware that there are dangers to the Church aside from liberalism.
I believe that those who were protective of the Bible back in the Seventies were mainly in the right, however they were far from perfect and there is blame to go around. (the treatment of Professor Piepkorn for example.)
But we dare not let our father’s sins prevent us from doing what is right and God pleasing right now. Do we really want to lift high the Cross in this generation? If so, we will have to come together with people of like confession, and bind our Church with the mortar of love and forgiveness.
If you are a ELCA member who finds crossing the Tiber more acceptable that crossing the Mississippi, please post and say why, in a serious and constructive way. As an LC-MS Pastor for about 25 years, I, within my human frailty, have strove to be true to the Word and the Confessions in every sermon and Bible class I have ever given, and have always been supported by my peers.
God bless,
Pastor Philip Spomer, Edgewood, NM
5.27.2010 | 7:00pm
Randall Rottman says:
Benne never disappoints. I've always been proud to say that he was a professor of mine at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago in the tumultuous early 1970s. He was reasoned, thorough and fair then, as he is still in this present summary of a very sad situation.
The late Fr. John Meyendorf stated in a lecture given at LSTC in 1983 (!) and then published in dialog, spring of 1983: "From an Orthodox viewpoint, there is also a danger that in reaction to the somewhat sectarian confessionalism of those Lutherans who stay outside of the union the new church will, on the contrary, evolve toward relativistic denominationalism." (This essay is more recently published in Tradition Alive, M. Plekon, Rowman & Littlefield Publs, 2003). Fr. Meyendorf saw what was coming for Lutherans.
The only point I would add to Prof. Benne's essay is that some of us have swum the Bosporus and have found it not bracing, but invigorating.
The late Fr. John Meyendorf stated in a lecture given at LSTC in 1983 (!) and then published in dialog, spring of 1983: "From an Orthodox viewpoint, there is also a danger that in reaction to the somewhat sectarian confessionalism of those Lutherans who stay outside of the union the new church will, on the contrary, evolve toward relativistic denominationalism." (This essay is more recently published in Tradition Alive, M. Plekon, Rowman & Littlefield Publs, 2003). Fr. Meyendorf saw what was coming for Lutherans.
The only point I would add to Prof. Benne's essay is that some of us have swum the Bosporus and have found it not bracing, but invigorating.
5.27.2010 | 7:01pm
jm says:
Rev. McCain,
I miss your posts on First Things and Evangel.
Are you still writing or posting anywhere?
I miss your posts on First Things and Evangel.
Are you still writing or posting anywhere?
5.27.2010 | 8:36pm
Karen says:
As a former ELCA member, I think I echo the sentiments of many people I know who have left the ELCA. The LCMC is a very attractive alternative, except for one small detail - I cannot go where my ordained sisters cannot. But for those of us not fortunate enough to live in an area where CORE or LCMC is a realistic alternative, what options are there? There are none that look attractive. Although I may eventually join an LCMS church, I will never be able to give it my support, as I once did the ELCA. I think my only alternatives lie in smaller, congregational based mission. That is no bad thing, although it is certainly decried by church leaders. The days of contributing to any synod are over for me.
5.27.2010 | 8:58pm
vem says:
Prof. Benne's insightful observations about Lutheranism parallel the tragic movement of the Episcopal Church. Our parish, a breakaway traditional Anglican group in which George Herbert and John Donne would feel rather comfortable, has struggled for years with the continual effacement of ecclesiastical hierarchy and faithfulness to God's Word; consequently, holy worship and ministry for us have become possible only outside of the Episcopal body. Is the Lutheran church headed this way? Will the Lutheran leaders like the Episcopal ones eventually prosecute orthodox parishes and take their property? To be sure, the power of God's transforming love never fails, but the future for orthodox Anglicans looks quite dim within its modern configuration. Let's hope the Lutherans can learn from our errors!
5.27.2010 | 10:18pm
Tony Allen Metze says:
Pastor Spomer, I find much in LCMS refreshing. I am an ELCA pastor wondering how in the world I can stay in ELCA. I believe, however, that requirements for me to switch are perhaps more involved than I can endure at this point. But I want you to know that I believe LCMS does represent Lutheranism in a solidly biblical and confessional way. I am thankful for LCMS and sadly, ashamed of the ELCA.
5.27.2010 | 10:24pm
Joseph Swanson says:
Once, again, Bob Benne gets the ELCA's demise correct.
I would offer this detail on the demise of respected Lutheran theologians counsel from the foundation [wrong word, me thinks] of the ELCA. These need naming, and I offer a partial list: George Forell, William Lazareth, Richard Jenson, and Carl Bratten. None of these would have blessed the design of the ELCA.
A sad story this.
I would offer this detail on the demise of respected Lutheran theologians counsel from the foundation [wrong word, me thinks] of the ELCA. These need naming, and I offer a partial list: George Forell, William Lazareth, Richard Jenson, and Carl Bratten. None of these would have blessed the design of the ELCA.
A sad story this.
5.27.2010 | 11:40pm
GhaleonQ says:
jm, Cyberbrethren has always been his main website. It's very Lutheran inside baseball, though, for you non-LCMS folk
5.28.2010 | 6:27am
Will says:
THE NEW COVENANT FAMILY OF GOD
Calling all to come home to The Kingdom of God, The Kingdom of David. Come home to the ancient faith, the Church that the Lord Jesus established on earth! Cross the Tiber and become one with the people of God!
The new and everlasting Israel is calling you home!
Calling all to come home to The Kingdom of God, The Kingdom of David. Come home to the ancient faith, the Church that the Lord Jesus established on earth! Cross the Tiber and become one with the people of God!
The new and everlasting Israel is calling you home!
5.28.2010 | 7:34am
Rev. Paul T. McCain says:
What I see in Dr. Benne's words, frankly, is an admission that he himself is looking to swim the Tiber, but has given CORE and NALC "one more chance," a kind of mental reservation before he takes the plunge. We've seen this kind of rhetoric before from Lutherans looking fondly toward Rome. But taking the swim is the wrong choice.
Arthur Carl Piepkorn said something years ago that is still true today:
"Because of the confessional position of the Lutheran Church, there is no reason why Lutherans should not still be Lutheran. Espousing the catholic and apostolic faith with Christ as center and Scripture as source, Lutherans are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Therefore, they do not have to ask whether they should be part of a church body with a name other than Lutheran. They do, of course, need to be concerned about the barriers that divide Christians from each other and must listen to other Christians for what the Holy Spirit may have to say through them. But they do not need to be concerned, as some other Christians have insisted they should be concerned, that they are somehow not the true church of Christ."
— A. C. Piepkorn, The Sacred Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, pp. 195, 196.
Arthur Carl Piepkorn said something years ago that is still true today:
"Because of the confessional position of the Lutheran Church, there is no reason why Lutherans should not still be Lutheran. Espousing the catholic and apostolic faith with Christ as center and Scripture as source, Lutherans are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Therefore, they do not have to ask whether they should be part of a church body with a name other than Lutheran. They do, of course, need to be concerned about the barriers that divide Christians from each other and must listen to other Christians for what the Holy Spirit may have to say through them. But they do not need to be concerned, as some other Christians have insisted they should be concerned, that they are somehow not the true church of Christ."
— A. C. Piepkorn, The Sacred Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, pp. 195, 196.
5.28.2010 | 8:23am
Debbie says:
I think one of the basic problems with all major religions is that they are moving away from scripture based teachings. We are all sinful creatures and, in issues of sexuality and all other sins, God may hate the sin but he loves the sinner. Our world is on a fast track to insanity. We need to get back to basics in religion and not worry so much about what is politicaly correct. In every single question we should be asking what does the Bible teach us? The answers to so many questions of life can be found between those covers.
5.28.2010 | 8:49am
Paula says:
It seems to all come down to which words of Scripture on listens to and consider closer to God than others. Are the words of God through Moses saving words, are the words of Paul more important than those of Jesus as told us by the evangelists? The ELCA does base its life on the Word of God, the Gospel of the love of God in Christ Jesus who came to save all while we were yet sinner. No law will save us, and to want law and order over "They will know you are my disciples by your love for one another" No traditional interpretation is good enough, as Luther showed us. Go to Rome - the theology of Greco/Roman philosophy, or where ever, but know that it is what matches your needs, and is not some expression of right versus wrong. To say we know what is ultimately Right is to say we know the mind of God. As the Rev. Dr. Edgar Krentz taught me at LSTC, the Bible is the Word of God, so come to it humbly and be prepared to be changed.
5.28.2010 | 9:00am
William Weinrich says:
I too find the silence concerning the LCMS in Benne's article to be strange to the point of offensive. If conscience dictates the Tiber rather than the Mississippi, I can respect that, although I will not acknowledge its necessity. At the same time I think the question raised by Matt Hummel is interesting. He asks whether "the problems that eventuated the ELCA’s lurch into spiritual insanity [are] accidental to or of the essence of Lutheranism." I think the answer to that is "accidental", the accident being the way major Lutheran thinkers came to abstract the "gospel" from the actual text of the Scriptures and from the very concrete and fleshly realities of God's creation. The "gospel" became a lutheran variant of gnostic truth, detached from the realities of the body. One writer does not want to come to the LCMS because her "ordained sisters" cannot come. The ordination of women too was claimed to be an "imperative of the gospel". This was based upon a way of thinking that gradually, and now all too openly, could not make sense of the natural fact that the humanity was distinguished by two modes of being human, male and female. The insanity of the ELCA, and of the Swedish church, and of the Episcopalians, and of other German, Scandanavian Lutheran communions has roots in modern biblical hermeneutics which allowed (demanded) the wholesale exclusion of biblical statement concerning human sexuality as culturally determined together with an ideological commitment to an egalitarianism that at every turn trumped meaning distinctions. This is not a new analysis: the ELCA is gnostic, as is much of western spirituality, and this is a problem not absent in the LCMS although it is tempered by its general social conservatism.
5.28.2010 | 9:35am
ELCA Pastor says:
It is refreshing for Benne to so clearly articulate his andro- and euro-centric prejudices regarding church leadership. Even for him, doctrine seems to take a back seat to culture.
I, for one, would be happy to chip in to help Bob purchase the necessary wet suit and floaties for his journey. Of course, if he makes the decision in these summer months, the traditional Speedo will do.
I, for one, would be happy to chip in to help Bob purchase the necessary wet suit and floaties for his journey. Of course, if he makes the decision in these summer months, the traditional Speedo will do.
5.28.2010 | 10:59am
Didaskalos says:
I left the ELCA more than a decade ago when it decided against clear Biblical teaching to fund abortion for any reason in its health care program.
**ELCA Churchwide Assembly Minutes 1997 (p. 774-784)
Yes–271; No–651
DEFEATED: To amend the recommendation of the Memorials Committee by
substituting the following for paragraph five:
To express to the Church Council that the spirit of this
Churchwide Assembly is that the ELCA Health Plan should pay
for induced abortion of pregnancy only in cases that involve
pregnancy that results from the violence of rape or incest, or
serious threats to the physical health of the mother, or
abnormalities of the embryo or fetus that are incompatible with
life.
**ELCA Churchwide Assembly Minutes 2001 (p. 360-366)
Three ELCA Synods asked the ELCA "to direct the Board of Pensions
to enact regulations that would limit payment for abortions to those exceptional cases where the life of the mother is threatened, where the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or where the embryo or fetus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life."
But the Memorials Committee made a recommendation that was moved and seconded. It said ". . .To decline to direct the Church Council of the ELCA to undertake at this time alteration of the terms of the medical plan for church workers that is administered through the Board of Pensions."
The Assembly voted on the Memorials Committee recommendation. It passed, Yes–815; No–125
**ELCA Churchwide Assembly Minutes 1997 (p. 774-784)
Yes–271; No–651
DEFEATED: To amend the recommendation of the Memorials Committee by
substituting the following for paragraph five:
To express to the Church Council that the spirit of this
Churchwide Assembly is that the ELCA Health Plan should pay
for induced abortion of pregnancy only in cases that involve
pregnancy that results from the violence of rape or incest, or
serious threats to the physical health of the mother, or
abnormalities of the embryo or fetus that are incompatible with
life.
**ELCA Churchwide Assembly Minutes 2001 (p. 360-366)
Three ELCA Synods asked the ELCA "to direct the Board of Pensions
to enact regulations that would limit payment for abortions to those exceptional cases where the life of the mother is threatened, where the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or where the embryo or fetus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life."
But the Memorials Committee made a recommendation that was moved and seconded. It said ". . .To decline to direct the Church Council of the ELCA to undertake at this time alteration of the terms of the medical plan for church workers that is administered through the Board of Pensions."
The Assembly voted on the Memorials Committee recommendation. It passed, Yes–815; No–125
5.28.2010 | 11:17am
Rich Layman says:
It is interesting to me (an LCMS layman) that some would prefer to accept the errors of another denomination as a remedy to the errors of their own. How does one convince himself of the "rightness" of such an action? It is easier to divorce one's family and find a new one than to confess one's adultery and seek forgiveness. "These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me," Matt. 15:8 I expect those unwilling to swim the Mississippi will eventually need another river to cross.
5.28.2010 | 12:03pm
Pr. Erma Wolf says:
As a member of the steering committee of Lutheran CORE, I want to say that Bob Benne is a solid supporter of Lutheran CORE, and I am glad for his partnership and participation in this work. But his article makes a few errors of fact. For one, Lutheran CORE does not represent only the "'evangelical catholic' or high church wing of the church." It is a coalition that from its inception has covered the whole waterfront of confessional Lutheran resistence to what is happening in the ELCA (and which is happening across Christianity in North America). Word Alone Network was a founding member of Lutheran CORE, and without Word Alone I doubt Lutheran CORE could have made it off the ground, much less have lasted for five years and counting. Lutheran CORE has perplexed many in the ELCA with its working model of cooperation in essentials among those who have been bitterly at odds with each other over previous political battles in that denomination, the most famous being the fight over ratification of Call to Common Mission, the ecumenical agreement with The Episcopal Church in the late 1990's.
Secondly, many in Lutheran CORE (including some of its EC members, some of whom are members of the non-LCORE pan-Lutheran ministerium the Society of the Holy Trinity) would disagree that if Lutheran CORE and the proposed North American Lutheran Church fail, then the last chance for Lutheranism has sunk and the only remedy is to "swim the Tiber." To mention the obvious, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is a large, confessional, Bible-rooted and very Lutheran denomination. The LC-MS has its own issues and problems, to be sure; but this three million plus church body should never be discounted. At the very least, they have been in existence for over 150 years, which in American terms is an eternity! (They could teach the ELCA some things about surviving bitter and rancorous church battles; if, that is, the ELCA leadership was willing to learn anything at all from anyone at all, much less from Missouri.)
Finally, Lutheran CORE is going forward and will continue to support those resisting the votes of last August and the revisionist theological agenda among some in the ELCA, both inside the ELCA and outside of it. Lutheran CORE’s main reason for existence is not to set up yet another Lutheran denomination, though it has taken up that work through this August in response to the demand of many laypeople that life in the ELCA was no longer possible for them. Nor will it become only an "ongoing convocation of Lutheran teaching theologians," though it does hope to cultivate theological discussion and education, especially from those young Lutheran theologians who see no future in the ELCA or in ELCA educational institutions. Rather, it’s raison d’etre remains what it has always been: to be a confessing movement within the Lutheran portion of the Church catholic, uniting those attempting (or needing) to “stay differently” in the ELCA with those in other Lutheran bodies also witnessing for the faith that has been handed down to us, what has always been believed by the Church everywhere, in every age.
Secondly, many in Lutheran CORE (including some of its EC members, some of whom are members of the non-LCORE pan-Lutheran ministerium the Society of the Holy Trinity) would disagree that if Lutheran CORE and the proposed North American Lutheran Church fail, then the last chance for Lutheranism has sunk and the only remedy is to "swim the Tiber." To mention the obvious, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is a large, confessional, Bible-rooted and very Lutheran denomination. The LC-MS has its own issues and problems, to be sure; but this three million plus church body should never be discounted. At the very least, they have been in existence for over 150 years, which in American terms is an eternity! (They could teach the ELCA some things about surviving bitter and rancorous church battles; if, that is, the ELCA leadership was willing to learn anything at all from anyone at all, much less from Missouri.)
Finally, Lutheran CORE is going forward and will continue to support those resisting the votes of last August and the revisionist theological agenda among some in the ELCA, both inside the ELCA and outside of it. Lutheran CORE’s main reason for existence is not to set up yet another Lutheran denomination, though it has taken up that work through this August in response to the demand of many laypeople that life in the ELCA was no longer possible for them. Nor will it become only an "ongoing convocation of Lutheran teaching theologians," though it does hope to cultivate theological discussion and education, especially from those young Lutheran theologians who see no future in the ELCA or in ELCA educational institutions. Rather, it’s raison d’etre remains what it has always been: to be a confessing movement within the Lutheran portion of the Church catholic, uniting those attempting (or needing) to “stay differently” in the ELCA with those in other Lutheran bodies also witnessing for the faith that has been handed down to us, what has always been believed by the Church everywhere, in every age.
5.28.2010 | 2:15pm
Joe DeVet says:
In terms of classical Lutheranism, one measure would be very Luther-an rejection of contraception as a grave evil.
5.28.2010 | 4:09pm
patricksarsfield says:
I am a Catholic and just don't understand the Protestant theory of church founding that is being discussed here. If the ELCA is not the true church of Christ, then what, if any, lutheran church could be the true church? How is the LCMS, which was a mid-19th Century fabrication of some emigrant German ministers who decided they no longer belonged to the German lutheran church in which they had been ordained, any more the true church of Christ than any other lutherazn church? In fact, how was even that German lutheran church the true Church of Christ when it wsa not even the original Church of Luther, but itself a breakaway from the main German lutheran church?
How many churches did Jesus found? (Answer: one). And where in the Bible is there any reference to Luther being authorized to substitute his church for the Church Jesus founded? (Answer: nowhere). Put another way: where is there "scriptural" proof that Luther's church is the church Jesus founded. I did a word search in a protestant bible text but found no use of the term Luther. The fact is that Jesus founded HIS Church in the First Century AD and it was vsible and had a central authority and structure from the start, as Acts 15:1-16:5 proves beyond question.
How many churches did Jesus found? (Answer: one). And where in the Bible is there any reference to Luther being authorized to substitute his church for the Church Jesus founded? (Answer: nowhere). Put another way: where is there "scriptural" proof that Luther's church is the church Jesus founded. I did a word search in a protestant bible text but found no use of the term Luther. The fact is that Jesus founded HIS Church in the First Century AD and it was vsible and had a central authority and structure from the start, as Acts 15:1-16:5 proves beyond question.
5.28.2010 | 7:17pm
Pastor Spomer says:
Dear patricksarsfield,
Martin Luther is catholic. He is very catholic. I, as a Lutheran, am catholic, very catholic. I hold the same faith as Peter and Paul. They, and Luther, and I are part of the one same church. We all have faith in our One Lord and Savior, a faith described well in the Apostle’s, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. Whomever holds this faith (as I trust you do) is part of the One True Church. Lutherans, and Greek Orthodox, and faithful Protestants (In today’s use of the word, Lutherans are not Protestants), are not splinter churches any more than Roman Catholicism is a splinter church.
It is a misconception to think, “There are so many Protestant churches! It would be presumptuous for any of them to claim to be the One True Church. That must indicate that they’re all wrong.” Because Rome also is but of the many churches. “She is bigger. She is older. She has continuity.” Well, these attributes are debatable, but they are also irrelevant. The Church Christ founded is defined by belief, by confession of that belief. That’s why Our Lord said to Peter, “and on this Rock I shall build my Church…” It was because Peter made a Lutheran confession. Of course, back then, they didn’t call it Lutheran, they had not yet called it Christian either.
Luther never left the Church, I have never left the Church. Some members of the Church think that it should have a certain polity, that the Bishop of Rome has an authority over other Pastors. The rest of us think that those brothers of ours, like yourself, are mistaken. That does not mean that we have left the Church, or have ever wanted to do so.
God bless,
Martin Luther is catholic. He is very catholic. I, as a Lutheran, am catholic, very catholic. I hold the same faith as Peter and Paul. They, and Luther, and I are part of the one same church. We all have faith in our One Lord and Savior, a faith described well in the Apostle’s, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. Whomever holds this faith (as I trust you do) is part of the One True Church. Lutherans, and Greek Orthodox, and faithful Protestants (In today’s use of the word, Lutherans are not Protestants), are not splinter churches any more than Roman Catholicism is a splinter church.
It is a misconception to think, “There are so many Protestant churches! It would be presumptuous for any of them to claim to be the One True Church. That must indicate that they’re all wrong.” Because Rome also is but of the many churches. “She is bigger. She is older. She has continuity.” Well, these attributes are debatable, but they are also irrelevant. The Church Christ founded is defined by belief, by confession of that belief. That’s why Our Lord said to Peter, “and on this Rock I shall build my Church…” It was because Peter made a Lutheran confession. Of course, back then, they didn’t call it Lutheran, they had not yet called it Christian either.
Luther never left the Church, I have never left the Church. Some members of the Church think that it should have a certain polity, that the Bishop of Rome has an authority over other Pastors. The rest of us think that those brothers of ours, like yourself, are mistaken. That does not mean that we have left the Church, or have ever wanted to do so.
God bless,
5.28.2010 | 11:36pm
patricksarsfield says:
Pastor Spomer responds to me:
"Luther never left the Church, I have never left the Church. Some members of the Church think that it should have a certain polity, that the Bishop of Rome has an authority over other Pastors. The rest of us think that those brothers of ours, like yourself, are mistaken. That does not mean that we have left the Church, or have ever wanted to do so."
Much too solipsistic, Pastor. The polity of the church is not, as you would suggest, every man for himself. To the contrary, the Church of Christ has always had "a certain polity" involving central authority as the scriptural reference previously given shows.
Acts 15:1-16:5 establishes that when a doctrinal dispute came up in the church of Antioch, that local church realized it was not free to decide the issue on its own and therefore referred the matter to the central church authority, convened at Jerusalem even though Peter was on the lam from Herod's jail (see Acts 12:3-18). The decree of that Council, which followed Peter's ruling, was then promulgated in an encyclical letter which was circulated among the local churches and was deemed binding on them ("As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. " Acts 16:4).
And to say that Rome is just another church like all the Protestant churches ignores the fact that, historically speaking as established by Scripture, the Roman Church had a different founder than the Protestant churches. The Catholic Church that Martin Luther broke away from and all the kings of Scandinavia then followed suit in plundering was founded in the First Century AD by the Man-God, Jesus Christ. Protestantism was founded by mere men many centuries later. Why is it that protestants never look through Scripture when it comes to the truth claims of their churches? They can claim that they belong to the Catholic Church, but every one knows that they don't belong to the Church that Martin Luther broke away from. Where was the biblical warrant for him to break away from the bishops appointed by the Church as overseers, in accordance with the process that was in place in 2 Timothy 1 (involving the laying on of hands)?
All those visible indicia of authority in the Church were ignored by Luther who ceded to the North German princelings (and avaricious monks such as Hohenzollern) the right to make off with control over any portion of the Catholic Church that they could lay their hands on. Only by concocting a supposedly "invisible" church can Protestants claim that the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church that they broke away from.
"Luther never left the Church, I have never left the Church. Some members of the Church think that it should have a certain polity, that the Bishop of Rome has an authority over other Pastors. The rest of us think that those brothers of ours, like yourself, are mistaken. That does not mean that we have left the Church, or have ever wanted to do so."
Much too solipsistic, Pastor. The polity of the church is not, as you would suggest, every man for himself. To the contrary, the Church of Christ has always had "a certain polity" involving central authority as the scriptural reference previously given shows.
Acts 15:1-16:5 establishes that when a doctrinal dispute came up in the church of Antioch, that local church realized it was not free to decide the issue on its own and therefore referred the matter to the central church authority, convened at Jerusalem even though Peter was on the lam from Herod's jail (see Acts 12:3-18). The decree of that Council, which followed Peter's ruling, was then promulgated in an encyclical letter which was circulated among the local churches and was deemed binding on them ("As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. " Acts 16:4).
And to say that Rome is just another church like all the Protestant churches ignores the fact that, historically speaking as established by Scripture, the Roman Church had a different founder than the Protestant churches. The Catholic Church that Martin Luther broke away from and all the kings of Scandinavia then followed suit in plundering was founded in the First Century AD by the Man-God, Jesus Christ. Protestantism was founded by mere men many centuries later. Why is it that protestants never look through Scripture when it comes to the truth claims of their churches? They can claim that they belong to the Catholic Church, but every one knows that they don't belong to the Church that Martin Luther broke away from. Where was the biblical warrant for him to break away from the bishops appointed by the Church as overseers, in accordance with the process that was in place in 2 Timothy 1 (involving the laying on of hands)?
All those visible indicia of authority in the Church were ignored by Luther who ceded to the North German princelings (and avaricious monks such as Hohenzollern) the right to make off with control over any portion of the Catholic Church that they could lay their hands on. Only by concocting a supposedly "invisible" church can Protestants claim that the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church that they broke away from.
5.29.2010 | 9:32am
Tim says:
Dear Pastor Spomer
What a nice summary of the protestant world view. I'm part of the "Church" because I say I am.
What a nice summary of the protestant world view. I'm part of the "Church" because I say I am.
5.29.2010 | 1:56pm
Pastor Spomer says:
Gentlemen,
Give me credit for some sense. No one would say, and I certainly did not write, “I'm part of the "Church" because I say I am.” On the contrary, I affirmed that the Church is defined by its belief and confession, which are not man made. I am completely without prerogative as to what I choose to believe, assuming that I wish to be part of the Church. I can not rewrite the Bible, nor can I even reinterpret it.
Patrick, You are right in referring to the first church council. The question at hand was not dispensed by who was write but by what was right. Peter, James, Paul and Barnabas, come to their decision by referring to the Bible, and their experiences of the Acts of the Holy Spirit. This process is significant in that were someone (say, Peter or Paul) to suggest an unrighteous belief or course of action, the recourse would be to test the proposal against God’s previously revealed will (the Scriptures). If, on the other hand, the Church were defined by what human being is in charge (say the Bishop of Rome as oppose to the Bishop of Alexandria) then the question would first be, “Who’s in charge?” then, “What does he say?”. And that would be it.
As an aside, I am NOT saying that this is what Rome does in the vulgar sense described above, even speaking ex cathedra, the Pope never decrees by personal fiat. But this I believe supports my point, that the form of the Church is doctrine, not polity. Also, it indeed does have a polity, but the polity serves and is given form by its purpose, namely the distribution of the Word and Sacraments.
You asked about a Biblical Warrant-
The Church being defined by belief is applied clearly in Paul’s letter to the Church at Galatia. Consider Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” This statement presupposes that belief trumps the authority of clergy, even Paul and the angels. And belief is not subjective. Though some protestants may believe that, as I wrote before, Orthodox Lutherans aren’t protestants. But back to Paul’s statement in Galatians. This is the position in which Luther was placed. He found that the Gospel, that we are saved by grace through faith, was being supplanted by some by a contradictory gospel of works. He could not say, “Well the Church hierarchy has exercised its authority to change the Gospel, so be it.” The issue was not, and should not have been, “Who is in charge?” but “What does the Bible say?” Rome to some degree agreed with these underlying truths by engaging in the dialogue of which the Augsburg Confession is a part.
I realize that we disagree, but we can understand each other without implying agreement. Luther did not brake away from the Church. He called, and still calls, the Church back to Her original confession, from which many had drifted. The Church of which I am a clergyman (See? I do believe in polity.) Was founded by Christ. The belief is in Him and all of His teaching. Luther himself is not important. No one defends Luther the person, especially Luther. The distribution of salvation by Grace in Christ through His Word and Sacraments is what the Church is for. Its form serves this function. There is nothing arbitrary about it, or man made, subjective or optional for an individual.
Give me credit for some sense. No one would say, and I certainly did not write, “I'm part of the "Church" because I say I am.” On the contrary, I affirmed that the Church is defined by its belief and confession, which are not man made. I am completely without prerogative as to what I choose to believe, assuming that I wish to be part of the Church. I can not rewrite the Bible, nor can I even reinterpret it.
Patrick, You are right in referring to the first church council. The question at hand was not dispensed by who was write but by what was right. Peter, James, Paul and Barnabas, come to their decision by referring to the Bible, and their experiences of the Acts of the Holy Spirit. This process is significant in that were someone (say, Peter or Paul) to suggest an unrighteous belief or course of action, the recourse would be to test the proposal against God’s previously revealed will (the Scriptures). If, on the other hand, the Church were defined by what human being is in charge (say the Bishop of Rome as oppose to the Bishop of Alexandria) then the question would first be, “Who’s in charge?” then, “What does he say?”. And that would be it.
As an aside, I am NOT saying that this is what Rome does in the vulgar sense described above, even speaking ex cathedra, the Pope never decrees by personal fiat. But this I believe supports my point, that the form of the Church is doctrine, not polity. Also, it indeed does have a polity, but the polity serves and is given form by its purpose, namely the distribution of the Word and Sacraments.
You asked about a Biblical Warrant-
The Church being defined by belief is applied clearly in Paul’s letter to the Church at Galatia. Consider Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” This statement presupposes that belief trumps the authority of clergy, even Paul and the angels. And belief is not subjective. Though some protestants may believe that, as I wrote before, Orthodox Lutherans aren’t protestants. But back to Paul’s statement in Galatians. This is the position in which Luther was placed. He found that the Gospel, that we are saved by grace through faith, was being supplanted by some by a contradictory gospel of works. He could not say, “Well the Church hierarchy has exercised its authority to change the Gospel, so be it.” The issue was not, and should not have been, “Who is in charge?” but “What does the Bible say?” Rome to some degree agreed with these underlying truths by engaging in the dialogue of which the Augsburg Confession is a part.
I realize that we disagree, but we can understand each other without implying agreement. Luther did not brake away from the Church. He called, and still calls, the Church back to Her original confession, from which many had drifted. The Church of which I am a clergyman (See? I do believe in polity.) Was founded by Christ. The belief is in Him and all of His teaching. Luther himself is not important. No one defends Luther the person, especially Luther. The distribution of salvation by Grace in Christ through His Word and Sacraments is what the Church is for. Its form serves this function. There is nothing arbitrary about it, or man made, subjective or optional for an individual.
5.29.2010 | 2:37pm
patricksarsfield says:
Pastor Spomer writes (among other things):
"The Church being defined by belief is applied clearly in Paul’s letter to the Church at Galatia. Consider Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” This statement presupposes that belief trumps the authority of clergy, even Paul and the angels. "
No, it does not. the word "belief" is not even mentioned. What is being discussed is authoritative teaching. That passage clearly states that the gospel preached by those with apostolic authority and passed on by them (that is: the Traditio) trumps either a gospel preached by someone not in apostolic authority or a different gospel preached by someone ordained with apostolic authority who chooses to ignore the Traditio.
Paul elsewhere tells us how apostolic authority is passed on: " For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands....What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you--guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us....And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. "(2 tim. 1: 6, 13-14, 2:2)
IOW, it is the laying on of hands together with sound teaching passed on from the apostle (Paul) to the bishop (Timothy) to those trained by the bishop that defines the "deposit" of faith that needs to be "guarded" and not discarded in favor of the solipsistic interpretation of Scripture.
For the first several hundred years of the Church, when there was not even a defined canon of Scripture, the authority of the Church was recognized precisely in the succession of bishops from the apostles. That is why Eusebius was so careful to pass on lists of the bishops of the various patriarchal churches. As his Ecclesiastical History indicated, as of 337 AD, there was no accepted list of the Canon of Scripture (the final list was not resolved until Eusebius composed his list in 365 AD and the North African Councils of the 390s accepted it). Instead, a supposedly Christian message was to be measured against the teaching of the bishops who were shown by History to be in apostolic succession from the Twelve.
"The Church being defined by belief is applied clearly in Paul’s letter to the Church at Galatia. Consider Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” This statement presupposes that belief trumps the authority of clergy, even Paul and the angels. "
No, it does not. the word "belief" is not even mentioned. What is being discussed is authoritative teaching. That passage clearly states that the gospel preached by those with apostolic authority and passed on by them (that is: the Traditio) trumps either a gospel preached by someone not in apostolic authority or a different gospel preached by someone ordained with apostolic authority who chooses to ignore the Traditio.
Paul elsewhere tells us how apostolic authority is passed on: " For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands....What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you--guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us....And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. "(2 tim. 1: 6, 13-14, 2:2)
IOW, it is the laying on of hands together with sound teaching passed on from the apostle (Paul) to the bishop (Timothy) to those trained by the bishop that defines the "deposit" of faith that needs to be "guarded" and not discarded in favor of the solipsistic interpretation of Scripture.
For the first several hundred years of the Church, when there was not even a defined canon of Scripture, the authority of the Church was recognized precisely in the succession of bishops from the apostles. That is why Eusebius was so careful to pass on lists of the bishops of the various patriarchal churches. As his Ecclesiastical History indicated, as of 337 AD, there was no accepted list of the Canon of Scripture (the final list was not resolved until Eusebius composed his list in 365 AD and the North African Councils of the 390s accepted it). Instead, a supposedly Christian message was to be measured against the teaching of the bishops who were shown by History to be in apostolic succession from the Twelve.
5.29.2010 | 2:43pm
patricksarsfield says:
Pastor Spomer writes:
"The Church of which I am a clergyman (See? I do believe in polity.) Was founded by Christ. "
Not if it is the LCMS. That was a 19th Century fabrication of some emigrant German ministers who broke away from one of the Lutheran churches in Germany that broke away from Luther's original German lutheran church. Even if one assumes (as you do, contrary to fact) that "Luther did not break away from the Church," the predecessors of the LCMS had broken away from at leas two predecessor lutheran churches. So, they clearly did not belong to Luther's church, much less the Church founded by Christ 1440 years before Luther was even born.
"The Church of which I am a clergyman (See? I do believe in polity.) Was founded by Christ. "
Not if it is the LCMS. That was a 19th Century fabrication of some emigrant German ministers who broke away from one of the Lutheran churches in Germany that broke away from Luther's original German lutheran church. Even if one assumes (as you do, contrary to fact) that "Luther did not break away from the Church," the predecessors of the LCMS had broken away from at leas two predecessor lutheran churches. So, they clearly did not belong to Luther's church, much less the Church founded by Christ 1440 years before Luther was even born.
5.29.2010 | 4:20pm
Pastor Spomer says:
Dear Patrick,
You wrote, “What is being discussed is authoritative teaching. That passage clearly states that the gospel preached by those with apostolic authority and passed on by them (that is: the Traditio) trumps either a gospel preached by someone not in apostolic authority or a different gospel preached by someone ordained with apostolic authority who chooses to ignore the Traditio.”
I agree. And what is that Gospel? You are saved by Grace, not by works. Luther was the defender of the Traditio.
Please don’t misunderstand, I am not denying Biblically mandated Ecclesiastical structure. I am ordained myself. The Church and the Scripture are always together, interdependent. But that very interdependence gives definition to both. We see this through the composition of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. When the priests drifted from orthodoxy, it was the Word that provided the plumb line of correction. Remember when Paul corrected Peter when Peter would alter his behavior depending on whether he was with Jews or gentiles? Paul was not breaking away from the Church.
If the members of the ELCA see that they must break fellowship with that denomination because it has ceased to confess the true doctrine of Jesus, they will be breaking away from the ELCA but by doing so, they will be refraining from a break with the One Church. The Church has to have the Gospel. It doesn’t matter what country your came from, or who did or didn’t affirm the Truth with you. Once there were only 8 thousand who had not bowed their knees to Baal.
What would you do if say, everyone else in the Church became polytheistic? Would you not have to say, “You have all left the True Church, your numbers not withstanding.” Or would you say, “The Church has spoken, I guess I’ll have to become a polytheist now.”? Would you not choose the former? And you could, because the Church itself is constrained and defined by God’s Word. If it weren’t it would be, well, it would be Solipsistic.
God bless.
You wrote, “What is being discussed is authoritative teaching. That passage clearly states that the gospel preached by those with apostolic authority and passed on by them (that is: the Traditio) trumps either a gospel preached by someone not in apostolic authority or a different gospel preached by someone ordained with apostolic authority who chooses to ignore the Traditio.”
I agree. And what is that Gospel? You are saved by Grace, not by works. Luther was the defender of the Traditio.
Please don’t misunderstand, I am not denying Biblically mandated Ecclesiastical structure. I am ordained myself. The Church and the Scripture are always together, interdependent. But that very interdependence gives definition to both. We see this through the composition of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. When the priests drifted from orthodoxy, it was the Word that provided the plumb line of correction. Remember when Paul corrected Peter when Peter would alter his behavior depending on whether he was with Jews or gentiles? Paul was not breaking away from the Church.
If the members of the ELCA see that they must break fellowship with that denomination because it has ceased to confess the true doctrine of Jesus, they will be breaking away from the ELCA but by doing so, they will be refraining from a break with the One Church. The Church has to have the Gospel. It doesn’t matter what country your came from, or who did or didn’t affirm the Truth with you. Once there were only 8 thousand who had not bowed their knees to Baal.
What would you do if say, everyone else in the Church became polytheistic? Would you not have to say, “You have all left the True Church, your numbers not withstanding.” Or would you say, “The Church has spoken, I guess I’ll have to become a polytheist now.”? Would you not choose the former? And you could, because the Church itself is constrained and defined by God’s Word. If it weren’t it would be, well, it would be Solipsistic.
God bless.
5.29.2010 | 4:22pm
Robert Benne says:
Thanks to you--most of you--for the engaging remarks about my assessment of where we are in American Lutheranism. I think I do owe a couple of clarifications to my article. First, Erma Wolf is right that CORE does not represent the evangelical Catholic wing in any exclusive sense. We want to able to appeal to a broad range of Lutherans. Nor will the new NALC represent only evangelical catholics, for that matter. But both CORE and the NALC will more consciously try to appeal to evangelical catholics than either Word Alone or LCMC. But we certainly need support from as many Lutherans and Lutheran organizations as possible. Indeed, we hope Missouri Synod Lutherans will be attracted to the theological conferences that CORE will hold.
Now to a difficult topic...why not the Missour Synod as "one of the last best hopes for Lutheranism in North America." Missouri certainly hasn't gone off the tracks like the ELCA has and perhaps can become that vital expression of Lutheranism in America we had hoped for in the ELCA. I hope it does precisely that and wish it well. I should have spoken more personally about hopes for such a Lutheran renewal. While I have great respect and even fondness for many expressions of Missouri and would join some of its parishes in a hearbeat, I could probably not find a home there for two reasons. One is women's ordination. I know of too many fine ELCA women pastors to deny the validity of their ordination. One of my own pastors is a fine woman pastor. Second, the quasi-fundamentalism of some of the Missouri guiding documents would probably guarantee that I would not last long as a theological ethicist in the Missouri Synod. Some suspicious someone could ask me if I believed in the seven-day creation and with my answer I would be meshed in a controversy that I certainly would not want at this stage of my life. I need more intellectual freedom than would be available, I fear.
Finally, I have no plans to swim the Tiber. These new ventures need some time to flourish, if indeed they will. I will devote a good deal of time and effort to them and hope and pray for the best.
Now to a difficult topic...why not the Missour Synod as "one of the last best hopes for Lutheranism in North America." Missouri certainly hasn't gone off the tracks like the ELCA has and perhaps can become that vital expression of Lutheranism in America we had hoped for in the ELCA. I hope it does precisely that and wish it well. I should have spoken more personally about hopes for such a Lutheran renewal. While I have great respect and even fondness for many expressions of Missouri and would join some of its parishes in a hearbeat, I could probably not find a home there for two reasons. One is women's ordination. I know of too many fine ELCA women pastors to deny the validity of their ordination. One of my own pastors is a fine woman pastor. Second, the quasi-fundamentalism of some of the Missouri guiding documents would probably guarantee that I would not last long as a theological ethicist in the Missouri Synod. Some suspicious someone could ask me if I believed in the seven-day creation and with my answer I would be meshed in a controversy that I certainly would not want at this stage of my life. I need more intellectual freedom than would be available, I fear.
Finally, I have no plans to swim the Tiber. These new ventures need some time to flourish, if indeed they will. I will devote a good deal of time and effort to them and hope and pray for the best.
5.29.2010 | 4:39pm
Pastor Spomer says:
Dr. Benne,
“Some suspicious someone could ask me if I believed in the seven-day creation”
Coincidentally, I presented a paper at our Pastors Conference a few months ago putting for the case for a 4 billion year old Earth. (I'm LC-MS) Two of my fellow pastors vigorously offered counter arguments, a few showed openness, others yawned. We all remain friends. What one hears publicly about any denomination is often the squeaky wheels. Most labor quietly in love and faith.
God bless.
“Some suspicious someone could ask me if I believed in the seven-day creation”
Coincidentally, I presented a paper at our Pastors Conference a few months ago putting for the case for a 4 billion year old Earth. (I'm LC-MS) Two of my fellow pastors vigorously offered counter arguments, a few showed openness, others yawned. We all remain friends. What one hears publicly about any denomination is often the squeaky wheels. Most labor quietly in love and faith.
God bless.
5.29.2010 | 7:12pm
Blaise Pascal says:
@patricksarsfield
Thank you, for your very enlightening and informative posts!
Thank you, for your very enlightening and informative posts!
5.29.2010 | 7:29pm
patricksarsfield says:
Pastor Spomer writes:
"You wrote, “What is being discussed is authoritative teaching. That passage clearly states that the gospel preached by those with apostolic authority and passed on by them (that is: the Traditio) trumps either a gospel preached by someone not in apostolic authority or a different gospel preached by someone ordained with apostolic authority who chooses to ignore the Traditio.”
I agree. And what is that Gospel? You are saved by Grace, not by works. Luther was the defender of the Traditio. "
Luther was the defender of Tradition? Hardly. Rather, he rejected Tradition and insisted on "Sola Scriptura." In fact, he formulated Scripture Alone as a reason to reject the Tradition that Eck, Cajetan and his other interlocutors were bringing up in their dialogues with him.
What is more, the Catholic Church has always taught Sola Gratia. Luther did not go wrong by echoing the Catholic Church in that regard. Where he went heretical was in challenging the Tradition with his second heretical "sola": Sola Fide. That is not Tradition; nor is it scriptural. As Brother James wrote: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. " (James 2:24). That is the Catholic Faith and Luther broke from it so badly that he even tried to drum James out of the Canon of the New Testament with his silly gambit of "an epistle of straw."
This is why Jesus conferred the Teaching Commission on the Church, rather than on each individual christian and why the true Catholic Church regulates itself by Tradition, and not by scripture alone. The truth is that Luther rejected that Tradition on the grounds of "Scripture Alone" based on his own solipsistic say-so. In fact, he formulated Scripture Alone as a reason to reject the Tradition that Cajetan and his other interlocutors were bringing up in their dialouges with him.
Pastor Spomer also writes:
"Please don’t misunderstand, I am not denying Biblically mandated Ecclesiastical structure. I am ordained myself. "
With all due respect, anyone can claim to be ordaining. Does an ordination confer spiritual power, though, if done by someone not in apostolic succession from those who received the Holy Spirit as recorded in John 20:21-23?
"You wrote, “What is being discussed is authoritative teaching. That passage clearly states that the gospel preached by those with apostolic authority and passed on by them (that is: the Traditio) trumps either a gospel preached by someone not in apostolic authority or a different gospel preached by someone ordained with apostolic authority who chooses to ignore the Traditio.”
I agree. And what is that Gospel? You are saved by Grace, not by works. Luther was the defender of the Traditio. "
Luther was the defender of Tradition? Hardly. Rather, he rejected Tradition and insisted on "Sola Scriptura." In fact, he formulated Scripture Alone as a reason to reject the Tradition that Eck, Cajetan and his other interlocutors were bringing up in their dialogues with him.
What is more, the Catholic Church has always taught Sola Gratia. Luther did not go wrong by echoing the Catholic Church in that regard. Where he went heretical was in challenging the Tradition with his second heretical "sola": Sola Fide. That is not Tradition; nor is it scriptural. As Brother James wrote: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. " (James 2:24). That is the Catholic Faith and Luther broke from it so badly that he even tried to drum James out of the Canon of the New Testament with his silly gambit of "an epistle of straw."
This is why Jesus conferred the Teaching Commission on the Church, rather than on each individual christian and why the true Catholic Church regulates itself by Tradition, and not by scripture alone. The truth is that Luther rejected that Tradition on the grounds of "Scripture Alone" based on his own solipsistic say-so. In fact, he formulated Scripture Alone as a reason to reject the Tradition that Cajetan and his other interlocutors were bringing up in their dialouges with him.
Pastor Spomer also writes:
"Please don’t misunderstand, I am not denying Biblically mandated Ecclesiastical structure. I am ordained myself. "
With all due respect, anyone can claim to be ordaining. Does an ordination confer spiritual power, though, if done by someone not in apostolic succession from those who received the Holy Spirit as recorded in John 20:21-23?
5.29.2010 | 9:14pm
Pastor Spomer says:
Dear Patrick,
Perhaps we agree with each other more than it originally appears. Many Protestants misconstrue the concept of Sola Scriptura. Remember Robinson Caruso? He’s alone on an island, has only a Bible and more or less reconstruct Christianity from scratch. Some Protestants approach the Bible in a similar way. And you and I know that's not how it works. As I mentioned above, the Church (with her tradition) and the Bible must always be together.
God bless
Perhaps we agree with each other more than it originally appears. Many Protestants misconstrue the concept of Sola Scriptura. Remember Robinson Caruso? He’s alone on an island, has only a Bible and more or less reconstruct Christianity from scratch. Some Protestants approach the Bible in a similar way. And you and I know that's not how it works. As I mentioned above, the Church (with her tradition) and the Bible must always be together.
God bless
5.29.2010 | 9:47pm
patricksarsfield says:
I think my exchange with Pastor Spomer stands where it stands. In reviewing my responses, I should first apologize for my typos. The window given for a comment is rather small and I just missed some of those typos as I scrolled through.
On to substance. I see that I miswrote substantively when I wrote:
"As his Ecclesiastical History indicated, as of 337 AD, there was no accepted list of the Canon of Scripture (the final list was not resolved until Eusebius composed his list in 365 AD and the North African Councils of the 390s accepted it)"
In fact, it was not Eusebius but St. Athanasius who construed the final NT canon in 365 AD.
On to substance. I see that I miswrote substantively when I wrote:
"As his Ecclesiastical History indicated, as of 337 AD, there was no accepted list of the Canon of Scripture (the final list was not resolved until Eusebius composed his list in 365 AD and the North African Councils of the 390s accepted it)"
In fact, it was not Eusebius but St. Athanasius who construed the final NT canon in 365 AD.
5.30.2010 | 5:45pm
Greg M. Johnson says:
Benne repeatedly disses the "isms" of "liberationist themes." The problem is that the ELCA's conservatives have taken it to the point of Antinomianism, Gospel Reductionism, and justifying the sin when it comes to anything you do to your employee or planet. Luther pushed social justice an liberationist issues, like how we treat the sick (Whether One May Flee from a Deadly Plague), oppression of peasants by the landed classes (Admonition to Peace), exploitation in the marketplace (Sermon on Trade and Usury), unjust wars (Whether Soldiers, Too, May be Saved), and warnings not to "skin, pinch, and hoard" (Explanation to the Seventh Commandment). That the ELCA's conservatives cannot see the social justice abuses that Luther (and John Paul II) wrote about is my own measurement of how sad Lutheranism is today.
But then again, this is the magazine that took John Paul II's "No to war" and turned it into a "Yes".
But then again, this is the magazine that took John Paul II's "No to war" and turned it into a "Yes".
5.30.2010 | 8:10pm
Rev. Paul T. McCain says:
A friend pointed out to me today that Robert Benne has offered a brief response to some of the comments on this thread. It is a shame he did not apologize for the sweeping statements he makes about the "last best hope" for Lutheranism being in those splinter organizations from the ELCA he is now involved in, statements that seemed to go out of their way to ignore and snub The LCMS.
The friend who pointed me to Benne's most recent comments noted the following:
I see that Robert Benne has "replied" to his responders. Frankly, the disappointment of his remarks are only superseded by their sheer inanity. Could not go to the LCMS because of his fear that the literal interpretation of the Scriptures would cause him controversy, and, of course, we do not ordain women. He knows too many good women pastors not to recognize the validity of their ordinations.
It remains too true that for these people the mark of the church is an enthusiasm from the 60's. "True" Lutheranism ordains women. Well, so much for "evangelical catholicism." Why the deconstruction of Trinitarian language was not sufficient for them to leave ELCA is a mystery. It took the deviance of sexual ethics to move them off the block. And they don't get it.
When everything is said and done, the LCMS remains closer to Rome and the rest of the catholic tradtion than these self-styled "catholics."
The friend who pointed me to Benne's most recent comments noted the following:
I see that Robert Benne has "replied" to his responders. Frankly, the disappointment of his remarks are only superseded by their sheer inanity. Could not go to the LCMS because of his fear that the literal interpretation of the Scriptures would cause him controversy, and, of course, we do not ordain women. He knows too many good women pastors not to recognize the validity of their ordinations.
It remains too true that for these people the mark of the church is an enthusiasm from the 60's. "True" Lutheranism ordains women. Well, so much for "evangelical catholicism." Why the deconstruction of Trinitarian language was not sufficient for them to leave ELCA is a mystery. It took the deviance of sexual ethics to move them off the block. And they don't get it.
When everything is said and done, the LCMS remains closer to Rome and the rest of the catholic tradtion than these self-styled "catholics."
5.30.2010 | 11:40pm
Boaz says:
Why would an ELCA Lutheran be willing to accept the Roman church's rejection of female priests and its pro-life position, but not accept the LCMS's rejection of female pastors? It makes no sense to me.
And for all the blind catholics here, there are as many denominations of catholics as there are lutherans. The liberal congregations, the charismatic congregations, the orthodox congregations, the megachurch congregations.. Or does every Roman priest agree with male, celibate priesthood, that gay sex is a sin, and that abortion is always wrong? Wait, I went to Catholic school, I know the answer...
Lutherans are just honest about division, and accept it when agreement cannot be had. Lutherans are organized around doctrine: the true church exists where the true Word is correctly preached and the sacrament properly administered. The church is not the group of folks who agree to listen to the Roman bishop.
And for all the blind catholics here, there are as many denominations of catholics as there are lutherans. The liberal congregations, the charismatic congregations, the orthodox congregations, the megachurch congregations.. Or does every Roman priest agree with male, celibate priesthood, that gay sex is a sin, and that abortion is always wrong? Wait, I went to Catholic school, I know the answer...
Lutherans are just honest about division, and accept it when agreement cannot be had. Lutherans are organized around doctrine: the true church exists where the true Word is correctly preached and the sacrament properly administered. The church is not the group of folks who agree to listen to the Roman bishop.
5.31.2010 | 2:45am
Former ELCA says:
Boaz:
"..but not accept the LCMS's rejection of female pastors? It makes no sense to me."
Primarily because the LCMS people I encountered when I swam in 2007 with my family exhibited an anti-Catholicism which I never had (the whole 'anti-Christ' thing, the only Lutherans I saw holding to this were LCMS). I realized that although I was baptized into the One Holy Catholic Church as a Lutheran (pre-ELCA), and it was there I learned the creeds, I was not really a protest-ant. In fact I rejoiced when the JDDJ came out (although I had little understanding of it) because I thought it was a true move toward unity with my Catholic friends, which it was, but not nearly the "full communion" that I ultimately sought. I am a joyfully assenting Tiber swimmer (2007, ELCA Synod voting member in 2005).
"Lutherans are just honest about division, and accept it when agreement cannot .."
This is not the visible unity Christ called us to. He prayed to the Father for this unity for us not so that we might just 'get along' and love each other, but so because of this the world would see this and believe in Him and his Father who sent him.
"blind catholics here, .."
See my first point
"Or does every Roman priest agree with {X}.."
No, of course not, and no Bishop is going to drag them in and beat them into submission for falling short of their calling to be faithful sons of the Church. I encounter priests almost daily who I suspect do not "joyfully assent" to every Magisterial teaching. I also encounter priests who are remarkably faithful and teach and live as such. As Catholics, we pray in every single Mass to be kept in unity with "Benedict our Pope, ____ our Bishop, and all the clergy", but we are sinful humans and divisions exist (sadly). However, this division does not result in full blown rupture until a priest teaches publicly in opposition to the Magisterium. The vast majority of times it is division by a lack of public teaching or focus on an issue (such as abortion, of contraception, the importance of the complementarity of the sexes in marriage and family, etc..) to avoid conflict and to maintain peace. I may not agree with a Priest's 'pastoral' approach, but I am to strive to love him as my Brother in Christ, put the best construction on it, and pray for him and examine my own conscience. At times it may be appropriate to directly talk to him.
"The church is not the group of folks who agree to listen to the Roman bishop."
Actually, the early church (and the RCC today) is just that, only I would not put it in your somewhat negative terms. I would say it as:
The Church is precisely those who are voluntarily united in heart and mind with the Bishop or Rome and his Brother Bishops, and with those who have gone before them. The have the grave responsibility for safeguarding and transmitting the deposit of faith to those who will receive it in all ages. In cases when dispute or confusion exists, they have the responsibility to definitively discern truth and proclaim it, as they did in Nicaea when they definitively clarified the triune nature of God which we celebrate today, they did it when they met in Jerusalem as described in the Acts of the Apostles, they did it at Vatican II, and they defended and clarified the Truth at Trent. I see no evidence for Dr. Luther being divinely inspired by God to reject all this, even though he was brilliant and was right on with highlighting some of the abuses of the time. I believe he wanted to reform the church (as did those who actually did reform it, like St. Theresa of Avila and others), not reject it, but that is where it ended up, sadly.
"..but not accept the LCMS's rejection of female pastors? It makes no sense to me."
Primarily because the LCMS people I encountered when I swam in 2007 with my family exhibited an anti-Catholicism which I never had (the whole 'anti-Christ' thing, the only Lutherans I saw holding to this were LCMS). I realized that although I was baptized into the One Holy Catholic Church as a Lutheran (pre-ELCA), and it was there I learned the creeds, I was not really a protest-ant. In fact I rejoiced when the JDDJ came out (although I had little understanding of it) because I thought it was a true move toward unity with my Catholic friends, which it was, but not nearly the "full communion" that I ultimately sought. I am a joyfully assenting Tiber swimmer (2007, ELCA Synod voting member in 2005).
"Lutherans are just honest about division, and accept it when agreement cannot .."
This is not the visible unity Christ called us to. He prayed to the Father for this unity for us not so that we might just 'get along' and love each other, but so because of this the world would see this and believe in Him and his Father who sent him.
"blind catholics here, .."
See my first point
"Or does every Roman priest agree with {X}.."
No, of course not, and no Bishop is going to drag them in and beat them into submission for falling short of their calling to be faithful sons of the Church. I encounter priests almost daily who I suspect do not "joyfully assent" to every Magisterial teaching. I also encounter priests who are remarkably faithful and teach and live as such. As Catholics, we pray in every single Mass to be kept in unity with "Benedict our Pope, ____ our Bishop, and all the clergy", but we are sinful humans and divisions exist (sadly). However, this division does not result in full blown rupture until a priest teaches publicly in opposition to the Magisterium. The vast majority of times it is division by a lack of public teaching or focus on an issue (such as abortion, of contraception, the importance of the complementarity of the sexes in marriage and family, etc..) to avoid conflict and to maintain peace. I may not agree with a Priest's 'pastoral' approach, but I am to strive to love him as my Brother in Christ, put the best construction on it, and pray for him and examine my own conscience. At times it may be appropriate to directly talk to him.
"The church is not the group of folks who agree to listen to the Roman bishop."
Actually, the early church (and the RCC today) is just that, only I would not put it in your somewhat negative terms. I would say it as:
The Church is precisely those who are voluntarily united in heart and mind with the Bishop or Rome and his Brother Bishops, and with those who have gone before them. The have the grave responsibility for safeguarding and transmitting the deposit of faith to those who will receive it in all ages. In cases when dispute or confusion exists, they have the responsibility to definitively discern truth and proclaim it, as they did in Nicaea when they definitively clarified the triune nature of God which we celebrate today, they did it when they met in Jerusalem as described in the Acts of the Apostles, they did it at Vatican II, and they defended and clarified the Truth at Trent. I see no evidence for Dr. Luther being divinely inspired by God to reject all this, even though he was brilliant and was right on with highlighting some of the abuses of the time. I believe he wanted to reform the church (as did those who actually did reform it, like St. Theresa of Avila and others), not reject it, but that is where it ended up, sadly.
5.31.2010 | 10:10am
grandfather says:
The story is about another or the latest division or separation occuring within the phenomenon of denominationalism which is the inevitable result of the Lutheran doctrine, sola scriptura. This is unavoidable as proven by history, not theology. The Lutherans do it. The Anglicans do it. The Methodists do it. The Baptists are many denominations strong, they say. Division is the mark of Protestantism, even though scripture, Protestantism's sole claimed authority, tells us Jesus commands unity of His Church.
Reverend Spooner, your claim to be Catholic, or catholic, is ludicrous. You do not believe what Catholics believe. You believe some version of what Luther taught about the sacraments, saints, Church authority, etc. It is a different novel religion, separated from the faith of his fathers, and yours, one that has spawned and continues to spawn division, endless division in direct disobedience to Christ's command.
The Holy Spirit unites. You have no power to unite within your religion. It only divides. This is not an attack. It is a plea. Come home.
Reverend Spooner, your claim to be Catholic, or catholic, is ludicrous. You do not believe what Catholics believe. You believe some version of what Luther taught about the sacraments, saints, Church authority, etc. It is a different novel religion, separated from the faith of his fathers, and yours, one that has spawned and continues to spawn division, endless division in direct disobedience to Christ's command.
The Holy Spirit unites. You have no power to unite within your religion. It only divides. This is not an attack. It is a plea. Come home.
5.31.2010 | 10:10am
Garold says:
For those who really do have questions about the Catholic Church and would like some solid answers, I recommend Marcus Grodi's site, the Coming Home Network.
5.31.2010 | 3:44pm
Pastor Spomer says:
If you really want to be a catholic, read the Book of Concord. It is the best description of the catholic faith. For instance-
“Article IV: Of Justification.
Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.
Article VII: Of the Church.
Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.”
This is no novelty. It doesn’t depend on an individual named Luther. It depends on Christ.
Placing polity over doctrine makes apostasy inevitable, because one loses the corrective power of the Bible. I agree that proper understanding of Solo Scriptura dose not mean, “I have the Bible so I don’t need the church.” But the other extreme, is just as wrong, “If the church hierarchy contradicts what the Bible plainly says, then goodbye Bible.”
Answer me this: hypothetically, if the Roman Church were to begin to teach something contradictory to God’s Word, how should a faithful member of the church respond?
Does, one assert that this is apriori impossible? (making one more Fundamentalist than Jerry Falwell)
Does one assert, as some here seem to be saying, that one abandons the Word and goes with the organization?
Or does one cling to the Bible, and seek to persuade your brothers that they have drifted away from Orthodoxy?
“Article IV: Of Justification.
Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.
Article VII: Of the Church.
Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.”
This is no novelty. It doesn’t depend on an individual named Luther. It depends on Christ.
Placing polity over doctrine makes apostasy inevitable, because one loses the corrective power of the Bible. I agree that proper understanding of Solo Scriptura dose not mean, “I have the Bible so I don’t need the church.” But the other extreme, is just as wrong, “If the church hierarchy contradicts what the Bible plainly says, then goodbye Bible.”
Answer me this: hypothetically, if the Roman Church were to begin to teach something contradictory to God’s Word, how should a faithful member of the church respond?
Does, one assert that this is apriori impossible? (making one more Fundamentalist than Jerry Falwell)
Does one assert, as some here seem to be saying, that one abandons the Word and goes with the organization?
Or does one cling to the Bible, and seek to persuade your brothers that they have drifted away from Orthodoxy?
6.1.2010 | 12:09pm
patricksarsfield says:
Pastor Spomer writes (quite unbiblically):
"If you really want to be a catholic, read the Book of Concord. It is the best description of the catholic faith. For instance-
“Article IV: Of Justification.
Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4. "
WRONG. If you really want to be Catholic read the Holy Bible on the subject of justification, not some Book of Concord written a millennium and a half later. Scripture says: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. " (James 2:24). Therefore, Luther was wrong in 1517 and the composition of a later "Book of Concord" that is at most the tradition of a heretical church doesn't change the specific language of the Bible any more than Luther's dismissal of James as an epistle of straw.
The fact remains that James was written some 1400 years before Luther was even born and it was an accepted part of the Canon of the New Testament for 1100 years or so before Luther was even a gleam in his father's eye, so nothing written by Luther or lutherans can dictate the faith once given to the Church by the apostles in the first Century AD.
And as to the idea that "putting polity over doctrine makes apostasy inevitable" sounds good but it ignores the reality that people like Luther ignored the Tradition of the pre-existing Church polity (i.e., the Tradition of the Catholic Church), insisted that they would pay attention to Scripture Alone and then made such a hash of things that they ended up coming up with the heretical dogma of Sola Fide which James 2:24 establishes is unbiblical for the reasons previously noted.
And as to the individual teaching the Church as Pastor Spomer insists ("one [should] cling to the Bible and seek to persuade your brothers that they have drifted away from Orthodoxy"), the Babel that is Protestantism is proof of the speciousness of this approach. Again, the Bible teaches us that it is the Church that should be teaching the individual, not the individual teaching the Church (Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 10:18). What Church? The only one Jesus founded. The one from the First Century AD (Hint: Catholic). It speaks with one voice. Those that teach contrary to that historical Church are NOT the Church.
"If you really want to be a catholic, read the Book of Concord. It is the best description of the catholic faith. For instance-
“Article IV: Of Justification.
Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4. "
WRONG. If you really want to be Catholic read the Holy Bible on the subject of justification, not some Book of Concord written a millennium and a half later. Scripture says: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. " (James 2:24). Therefore, Luther was wrong in 1517 and the composition of a later "Book of Concord" that is at most the tradition of a heretical church doesn't change the specific language of the Bible any more than Luther's dismissal of James as an epistle of straw.
The fact remains that James was written some 1400 years before Luther was even born and it was an accepted part of the Canon of the New Testament for 1100 years or so before Luther was even a gleam in his father's eye, so nothing written by Luther or lutherans can dictate the faith once given to the Church by the apostles in the first Century AD.
And as to the idea that "putting polity over doctrine makes apostasy inevitable" sounds good but it ignores the reality that people like Luther ignored the Tradition of the pre-existing Church polity (i.e., the Tradition of the Catholic Church), insisted that they would pay attention to Scripture Alone and then made such a hash of things that they ended up coming up with the heretical dogma of Sola Fide which James 2:24 establishes is unbiblical for the reasons previously noted.
And as to the individual teaching the Church as Pastor Spomer insists ("one [should] cling to the Bible and seek to persuade your brothers that they have drifted away from Orthodoxy"), the Babel that is Protestantism is proof of the speciousness of this approach. Again, the Bible teaches us that it is the Church that should be teaching the individual, not the individual teaching the Church (Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 10:18). What Church? The only one Jesus founded. The one from the First Century AD (Hint: Catholic). It speaks with one voice. Those that teach contrary to that historical Church are NOT the Church.
6.1.2010 | 1:39pm
JB says:
As a Lay person I sure consider myself a part of the "orthodox resistance" - with nowhere to go for clear answers . Our church recently joined LCMC - Do I go there for clarity on issues concerning Biblical Truth? or is it Crossalone or is it wordalone or maybe CORE. I sure can't go to Luther Seminary. Crossalone lists 80 plus "Major Theological Issues". I recently read the ELCA position on universal salvation. I don't know that the crossalone article on this subject helped me very much.
You talk about renewal and tradition - just what does that mean in todays church. We are asked to read the Bible but little effort to help to understand it. What does it mean to be a Lutheran?- it it important? Some remove the name Lutheran from the church name. Is Lutheran Heritage of any value?
Many questions but few answers.
respectfully
J B
“William Wilberforce -" When religion is handed down among us by heredity succession, it is not surprising to find youth of sense and spirit beginning to question the truth of the system in which they were brought up. And it is not surprising to see them abandon a position which they are unable to defend.” Unfortunately, his warning increasingly went unheeded as the English Evangelicals began to abandon the life of the mind and to retreat instead into an agenda which prioritized personal piety over a scholarly engagement with ideas that opposed a biblical view of the world. As author Jonathan Rice observes, they claimed “God had called them to a purely practical faith: to send forth missionaries, to help the poor and downtrodden, to better peoples’ manners. These were the things pleasing to God; not intellectual debate or true apologetics.”
Sadly, the result was that many of their children and grandchildren abandoned the faith once they were confronted with arguments to which they had no answers.
You talk about renewal and tradition - just what does that mean in todays church. We are asked to read the Bible but little effort to help to understand it. What does it mean to be a Lutheran?- it it important? Some remove the name Lutheran from the church name. Is Lutheran Heritage of any value?
Many questions but few answers.
respectfully
J B
“William Wilberforce -" When religion is handed down among us by heredity succession, it is not surprising to find youth of sense and spirit beginning to question the truth of the system in which they were brought up. And it is not surprising to see them abandon a position which they are unable to defend.” Unfortunately, his warning increasingly went unheeded as the English Evangelicals began to abandon the life of the mind and to retreat instead into an agenda which prioritized personal piety over a scholarly engagement with ideas that opposed a biblical view of the world. As author Jonathan Rice observes, they claimed “God had called them to a purely practical faith: to send forth missionaries, to help the poor and downtrodden, to better peoples’ manners. These were the things pleasing to God; not intellectual debate or true apologetics.”
Sadly, the result was that many of their children and grandchildren abandoned the faith once they were confronted with arguments to which they had no answers.
6.1.2010 | 1:56pm
Adam Koontz says:
Since better educated LCMS men such as Dr. Weinrich and Pastor McCain have already defended our Synod on various fronts, I just want to make a brief confessional assertion. What "former ELCA" calls "that whole 'anti-Christ' thing" is explicitly confessed in the Book of Concord's Smalcald Articles, "the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God." This teaching of the Antichrist is simply Lutheran. The doctrines contained in the Book of Concord are held to by LCMS pastors and congregations because they are simply "the doctrinal decisions of Holy Scripture itself," whether or not any of us likes those decisions. So the teaching on the Antichrist and the rejection of women's ordination are both confessions of what God's Word tells us, which cannot be reduced simply to the amorphous "gospel" plaguing the ELCA today. The rock on which the Church is founded, Jesus Christ, does not falter but the confessions of men, when they found themselves and their church bodies on other foundations, will be blown away. The one who knows the truth is set free, not the one with the right historic organization or ordaining enough people of both sexes or with the nicest wireless mics.
6.1.2010 | 3:49pm
Daniel says:
I'm sorry, if this is not ecumenical or in line with the new "theology of niceness," but I feel I must point out something extremely hypocritical in the speech of the "swim the Tiber" folks.
Don't Roman churches ordain KNOWN actively homosexual ministers?
Answer: Yes, at a rate over the past 30 years that makes the ELCA envious.
The only difference is that Rome "decrees" that they stand against such practices. Not to mention that they have consistently ordained KNOWN paedophiles.
I believe the ELCA is more honorable compared to Rome. At least, they're honest, and their teaching is consistent with their actions. I whole-heartedly disagree with them, but the hypocrisies and lies of the Roman Church are overwhelming.
It's very similar to the way they meet with the WCC and LWF and say, Oh! We love you so much. You are our Christian Brothers. While at the same time still believing the old statement of Unam Sanctam,
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
(as they must, it's "infallible." My Gosh, what blasphemy)
Matthew Chapter 20:
"25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
The Catholic Truth of the Scriptures trumps any man-made doctrine. In fact, the doctrine of the Papacy is not a man-made doctrine. It is a doctrine of demons.
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth." --1 Tim 4:1-
It pl aces a man on the throne of God in the sanctuary where he acclaims himself to be God. The Pope is very Antichrist.
-Daniel (A catholic Christian within the LCMS)
Don't Roman churches ordain KNOWN actively homosexual ministers?
Answer: Yes, at a rate over the past 30 years that makes the ELCA envious.
The only difference is that Rome "decrees" that they stand against such practices. Not to mention that they have consistently ordained KNOWN paedophiles.
I believe the ELCA is more honorable compared to Rome. At least, they're honest, and their teaching is consistent with their actions. I whole-heartedly disagree with them, but the hypocrisies and lies of the Roman Church are overwhelming.
It's very similar to the way they meet with the WCC and LWF and say, Oh! We love you so much. You are our Christian Brothers. While at the same time still believing the old statement of Unam Sanctam,
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
(as they must, it's "infallible." My Gosh, what blasphemy)
Matthew Chapter 20:
"25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
The Catholic Truth of the Scriptures trumps any man-made doctrine. In fact, the doctrine of the Papacy is not a man-made doctrine. It is a doctrine of demons.
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth." --1 Tim 4:1-
It pl aces a man on the throne of God in the sanctuary where he acclaims himself to be God. The Pope is very Antichrist.
-Daniel (A catholic Christian within the LCMS)
6.2.2010 | 7:46am
Pastor Larry Peters says:
I have long been appreciative of Robert Benne and his stand against the current direction of the ELCA. I appreciate his honesty and his candor with respect to his hopes for the ELCA and his disappointment and disillusionment with it. That said, I know many within the ELCA who insist that their opposition is not just about sex yet they could not give honest consideration to Missouri because of sex -- in particular the ordination of women. In addition, while they bemoan the hijacking of Scripture as an authority within the ELCA (much less THE authority), neither are they ready to let Scripture speak without the use of reason and science as equal authorities or, better, the determining authorities for what Scripture says.
Missouri, if she is Lutheranism's last great hope in the USA, and I think she might be, has her own set of problems and conflicts. What distinguishes Missouri from the ELCA is that the areas of conflict and disagreement are more related to issues of practice than issues of faith (examples include flirtation with evangelical practices with respect to worship, music in worship, and evangelism).
Missouri has no conflict, however, with respect to the Symbols of the Lutheran Church and the doctrinal standard of faith to which each ordinand promises and each congregation pledges (in its constitution). For this reason Missouri will remain more capable of returning to the catholic and evangelical identity and practice that is the hallmark of the Lutheran Confessions and the noble goal of her practice from the failure of the move to reform Rome even down to the present day. We are the Church that has maintained a robust identity with respect to these Confessions and the faith and practice of the early Church in a way that the ELCA has never done. It is this that keeps me Lutheran and prevents me from jumping ship to swim in either direction (Rome or Constantinople). I might add for those who swim the Tiber, the same conflict you have with Missouri you will find in Rome -- the Church of B16 may not look anything like St. Jehoshaphat's by the Sea down the block with its mass said in 491/2 minutes communing 1344 people all the while strumming some banal little ditty that no one will remember in 5 years only to get back to the business of bingo...
Missouri, if she is Lutheranism's last great hope in the USA, and I think she might be, has her own set of problems and conflicts. What distinguishes Missouri from the ELCA is that the areas of conflict and disagreement are more related to issues of practice than issues of faith (examples include flirtation with evangelical practices with respect to worship, music in worship, and evangelism).
Missouri has no conflict, however, with respect to the Symbols of the Lutheran Church and the doctrinal standard of faith to which each ordinand promises and each congregation pledges (in its constitution). For this reason Missouri will remain more capable of returning to the catholic and evangelical identity and practice that is the hallmark of the Lutheran Confessions and the noble goal of her practice from the failure of the move to reform Rome even down to the present day. We are the Church that has maintained a robust identity with respect to these Confessions and the faith and practice of the early Church in a way that the ELCA has never done. It is this that keeps me Lutheran and prevents me from jumping ship to swim in either direction (Rome or Constantinople). I might add for those who swim the Tiber, the same conflict you have with Missouri you will find in Rome -- the Church of B16 may not look anything like St. Jehoshaphat's by the Sea down the block with its mass said in 491/2 minutes communing 1344 people all the while strumming some banal little ditty that no one will remember in 5 years only to get back to the business of bingo...
6.2.2010 | 10:32am
patricksarsfield says:
Pastor Larry Peeters writes:
"the Church of B16 may not look anything like St. Jehoshaphat's by the Sea down the block with its mass said in 491/2 minutes communing 1344 people all the while strumming some banal little ditty that no one will remember in 5 years only to get back to the business of bingo"
The best response to this effrontery is equally plain talking. The reason we commune 1344 people at a Mass is because the majority of christians recognize the silliness of 10,000 protestant sects all claiming to be right and therefore insist on the Church that Jesus founded (i.e., the one that was founded in the First Century AD, not in the 1500s or later). Put another way, the reason there are so few people in most protestant churches is because one minister can always find a way to set up his own little church where what he says goes, and the collection comes to him. There are always a few people who will follow him...but not too many.
Mega-church services often seat as many people as Catholic masses, btw, and pay a lot more attention to their music. they may take longer for their worship service, but that's entertainment. The reason most Catholic services are over in less than an hour is because there are more than one Mass each Sunday morning and the pews have to be emptied, and the parking lots restocked. That is the consequence of the Church's being literally the People of God.
Did you know that per the most recent Yearbook, the US Catholic Church with 68.115 Million members is as large as the next fourteen denominations put together (which included both of the bigger Lutheran sects plus a few Baptist sects, the UMC, the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians and several other entities)? Put another way, the LCMS and the ELCA together (6.881 Million) are smaller than the Los Angeles Archdiocese and the New York Archdiocese together (7.5 Million). And there are another 189 US Catholic dioceses with over 60 Million members.
Then as to the music: the reason most Catholics are so unconcerned about the music is because we are not there to be entertained as the mega-churches evidently think. Rather, we are there to worship God. Participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the best way I have found to worship the Man-God Jesus Christ, Who came down from Heaven to sacrifice Himself for us. By participating in the re-presentation of that sacrifice, I join myself to the only act necessary for my salvation.
In the Catholic Mass, we confess our sins, glorify and praise God, listen to the Word of God, affirm our belief in the Doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church, offer prayers of intercession and gifts to the community, attend at the transubstantiation of the communion elements into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (the high point of the Mass and the REAL reason to go), partake in Communion and go forth into the World to love ansd serve the Lord. Sometimes the accompanying music is good, sometimes it isn't, but I find the excess song beyond the elements of the old Missa Cantata to be at best of secondary importance.
"the Church of B16 may not look anything like St. Jehoshaphat's by the Sea down the block with its mass said in 491/2 minutes communing 1344 people all the while strumming some banal little ditty that no one will remember in 5 years only to get back to the business of bingo"
The best response to this effrontery is equally plain talking. The reason we commune 1344 people at a Mass is because the majority of christians recognize the silliness of 10,000 protestant sects all claiming to be right and therefore insist on the Church that Jesus founded (i.e., the one that was founded in the First Century AD, not in the 1500s or later). Put another way, the reason there are so few people in most protestant churches is because one minister can always find a way to set up his own little church where what he says goes, and the collection comes to him. There are always a few people who will follow him...but not too many.
Mega-church services often seat as many people as Catholic masses, btw, and pay a lot more attention to their music. they may take longer for their worship service, but that's entertainment. The reason most Catholic services are over in less than an hour is because there are more than one Mass each Sunday morning and the pews have to be emptied, and the parking lots restocked. That is the consequence of the Church's being literally the People of God.
Did you know that per the most recent Yearbook, the US Catholic Church with 68.115 Million members is as large as the next fourteen denominations put together (which included both of the bigger Lutheran sects plus a few Baptist sects, the UMC, the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians and several other entities)? Put another way, the LCMS and the ELCA together (6.881 Million) are smaller than the Los Angeles Archdiocese and the New York Archdiocese together (7.5 Million). And there are another 189 US Catholic dioceses with over 60 Million members.
Then as to the music: the reason most Catholics are so unconcerned about the music is because we are not there to be entertained as the mega-churches evidently think. Rather, we are there to worship God. Participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the best way I have found to worship the Man-God Jesus Christ, Who came down from Heaven to sacrifice Himself for us. By participating in the re-presentation of that sacrifice, I join myself to the only act necessary for my salvation.
In the Catholic Mass, we confess our sins, glorify and praise God, listen to the Word of God, affirm our belief in the Doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church, offer prayers of intercession and gifts to the community, attend at the transubstantiation of the communion elements into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (the high point of the Mass and the REAL reason to go), partake in Communion and go forth into the World to love ansd serve the Lord. Sometimes the accompanying music is good, sometimes it isn't, but I find the excess song beyond the elements of the old Missa Cantata to be at best of secondary importance.
6.2.2010 | 8:58pm
JR Lawlor says:
I agree with Pastors McCain, Brad, Spomer and Peters regarding the LCMS. Baptized at 16 in a Roman Catholic church later I inadvertently picked up my Bible. Shortly I swam the Tiber in the other direction. In the LCMS I found true catholicism, historical continuity (all the way to the first century) and knowledge coupled with an absolute devotion to Scriptural truth.
Not to be too argumentative with Mr. Sarsfield who seems to be quite the amateur historian and theologian, but he has a rude (and to be honest, ignorant) disregard for Lutheranism. He writes "WRONG. If you really want to be Catholic read the Holy Bible on the subject of justification, not some Book of Concord written a millennium and a half later." Telling Lutherans to read the Bible. Touche. He then quotes from the book of James as proof that his position is right. Dismissing the Book of Concord so easily one wonders if Mr. Sarsfield has ever read it. It is a serious book. The authors of the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration (just some other book) write "By God's grace, with intrepid hearts, we are willing to appear before the judgement seat of Christ with this confession." These men were not blind or ignorant and they understood the magnitude of the Reformation and what they were doing.
I wonder if Mr. Sarsfield has read anything such as Chemnitz's Examen Concilii Tridentini, Examination of the Council of Trent. Probably not. Written in the wrong century no doubt.
Now for Mr. Sarsfield and the last word.
Not to be too argumentative with Mr. Sarsfield who seems to be quite the amateur historian and theologian, but he has a rude (and to be honest, ignorant) disregard for Lutheranism. He writes "WRONG. If you really want to be Catholic read the Holy Bible on the subject of justification, not some Book of Concord written a millennium and a half later." Telling Lutherans to read the Bible. Touche. He then quotes from the book of James as proof that his position is right. Dismissing the Book of Concord so easily one wonders if Mr. Sarsfield has ever read it. It is a serious book. The authors of the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration (just some other book) write "By God's grace, with intrepid hearts, we are willing to appear before the judgement seat of Christ with this confession." These men were not blind or ignorant and they understood the magnitude of the Reformation and what they were doing.
I wonder if Mr. Sarsfield has read anything such as Chemnitz's Examen Concilii Tridentini, Examination of the Council of Trent. Probably not. Written in the wrong century no doubt.
Now for Mr. Sarsfield and the last word.
6.2.2010 | 11:19pm
patricksarsfield says:
Although Mr. Lawlor claims he was baptized in the Catholic Church at Age 16 but then shortly thereafter backswam the Tiber when he chanced upon the Bible, he fails to address my point that the Bible disproves the heretical dogma of "Faith Alone." Instead, he ignores the cited bible passage and wonders whether I have read some lutheran tracts.
I see no value in reading those lutheran tracts. The question is a simple one: how can anyone credibly claim Justification by Faith Alone (as Pastor Spomer did) when Brother James's epistle clearly and authoritatively bars such an interpretation?
Put another way, the lutherans on this board presumably maintain the false principle of "Sola Scriptura." Yet, when we show that the other false dogma of "Sola Fide" is demonstrably false based upon Scriptura, the discussion shifts to some lutheran tracts that clearly were not part of the Tradition of the Church prior to the time that Luther made his break from Christ's Church since they weren't written until much later. Hmmm...that is not theological discourse, that is a shell game.
As to the claim that I am "rude" for writing "WRONG. If you really want to be Catholic read the Holy Bible on the subject of justification, not some Book of Concord written a millennium and a half later...." that is a mere naked ad hominem attack. I have quoted clear Scriptural proof that Sola Fide is false. Instead of addressing my showing, Mr. Lawlor chooses to take offense at my supposed state of mind. That is, of course, just a red herring. The real issue is that the Good Book could not be clearer that "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone...."
I see no value in reading those lutheran tracts. The question is a simple one: how can anyone credibly claim Justification by Faith Alone (as Pastor Spomer did) when Brother James's epistle clearly and authoritatively bars such an interpretation?
Put another way, the lutherans on this board presumably maintain the false principle of "Sola Scriptura." Yet, when we show that the other false dogma of "Sola Fide" is demonstrably false based upon Scriptura, the discussion shifts to some lutheran tracts that clearly were not part of the Tradition of the Church prior to the time that Luther made his break from Christ's Church since they weren't written until much later. Hmmm...that is not theological discourse, that is a shell game.
As to the claim that I am "rude" for writing "WRONG. If you really want to be Catholic read the Holy Bible on the subject of justification, not some Book of Concord written a millennium and a half later...." that is a mere naked ad hominem attack. I have quoted clear Scriptural proof that Sola Fide is false. Instead of addressing my showing, Mr. Lawlor chooses to take offense at my supposed state of mind. That is, of course, just a red herring. The real issue is that the Good Book could not be clearer that "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone...."
6.3.2010 | 7:41am
Pastor Larry A Peters says:
I wonder if Mr. Sarsfield has been to a Mass in a Lutheran Church. What he said, with a slight modification of transubstantiation which is a late explanation of the Real Presence, is equally true of the Mass in my parish:
In the Catholic Mass, we confess our sins, glorify and praise God, listen to the Word of God, affirm our belief in the Doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church, offer prayers of intercession and gifts to the community, attend at the CONSECRATION of the communion elements into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (the high point of the Mass and the REAL reason to go), partake in Communion and go forth into the World to love and serve the Lord.
And, by the way, George Wiegel agrees that Lutheran hymns are better than Roman because they are NOT entertainment but statements of faith and Scripture set to music -- sung dogma which hymns are supposed to be...
In the Catholic Mass, we confess our sins, glorify and praise God, listen to the Word of God, affirm our belief in the Doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church, offer prayers of intercession and gifts to the community, attend at the CONSECRATION of the communion elements into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (the high point of the Mass and the REAL reason to go), partake in Communion and go forth into the World to love and serve the Lord.
And, by the way, George Wiegel agrees that Lutheran hymns are better than Roman because they are NOT entertainment but statements of faith and Scripture set to music -- sung dogma which hymns are supposed to be...
6.3.2010 | 11:01am
patricksarsfield says:
Pastor Larry Peters writes:
"I wonder if Mr. Sarsfield has been to a Mass in a Lutheran Church. What he said, with a slight modification of transubstantiation which is a late explanation of the Real Presence, is equally true of the Mass in my parish."
This is symptomatic of the lutheran position on this board. "Late" apparently is bad when it comes to a Catholic explication of the Faith passed on by the Apostles that was clearly believed and taught authoritatively by the Catholic Church hundreds of years before Luther's birth. Yet, "late" is not a problem to lutherans when it comes to the important question: which church was founded in the First Century AD by Christ.
Lutherans know their church is a 16th Century substitute for the visible Church Christ founded, even if they try to dress up Luther's rejection on the ground that Luther knew better than those in the Apostolic Succession and was really continuing the invisible church of Christ even if it looked like a new one. Anybody can say that and most founders of Protestant sects have.
The reality is that, despite protestant claims to the contrary, Luther broke away from the Catholic Church and found his own a millennium and a half after Jesus founded His Church. There is NO authority in Scripture for a presbyter like Luther to break away from the teaching of the bishop on a question of faith and to turn over the bishop's job to a North German princeling (along with whatever wealth of the Church the princeling could convert to his own use).
As to whether I would split from the People of God and go to the imperfect copy of a Mass performed in lutheran churches instead of a Catholic Mass, the answer is I will stand in the Catholic Church because "I can do no other." Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but there are huge differences between a Catholic Mass and any protestant imitation. Putting aside the very important ecclesiology issues, a lutheran service has very clear shortcomings: Lutheran ministers need not have been ordained by bishops in the Apostolic Succession and do not purport to convert the communion elements into the Body and Blood of Jesus.
So, I have no desire for an ersatz mass. Christians need unity in the Catholic Church, not further division.
To the degree any lutheran takes offense at the straight-forwardness of my remarks, they should realize that Pastors Peters and Spomer were equally blunt (e.g., "St. Jehoshaphat's by the Sea down the block with its mass said in 49 1/2 minutes communing 1344 people all the while strumming some banal little ditty that no one will remember in 5 years only to get back to the business of bingo") first when it came to the Catholic Church.
"I wonder if Mr. Sarsfield has been to a Mass in a Lutheran Church. What he said, with a slight modification of transubstantiation which is a late explanation of the Real Presence, is equally true of the Mass in my parish."
This is symptomatic of the lutheran position on this board. "Late" apparently is bad when it comes to a Catholic explication of the Faith passed on by the Apostles that was clearly believed and taught authoritatively by the Catholic Church hundreds of years before Luther's birth. Yet, "late" is not a problem to lutherans when it comes to the important question: which church was founded in the First Century AD by Christ.
Lutherans know their church is a 16th Century substitute for the visible Church Christ founded, even if they try to dress up Luther's rejection on the ground that Luther knew better than those in the Apostolic Succession and was really continuing the invisible church of Christ even if it looked like a new one. Anybody can say that and most founders of Protestant sects have.
The reality is that, despite protestant claims to the contrary, Luther broke away from the Catholic Church and found his own a millennium and a half after Jesus founded His Church. There is NO authority in Scripture for a presbyter like Luther to break away from the teaching of the bishop on a question of faith and to turn over the bishop's job to a North German princeling (along with whatever wealth of the Church the princeling could convert to his own use).
As to whether I would split from the People of God and go to the imperfect copy of a Mass performed in lutheran churches instead of a Catholic Mass, the answer is I will stand in the Catholic Church because "I can do no other." Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but there are huge differences between a Catholic Mass and any protestant imitation. Putting aside the very important ecclesiology issues, a lutheran service has very clear shortcomings: Lutheran ministers need not have been ordained by bishops in the Apostolic Succession and do not purport to convert the communion elements into the Body and Blood of Jesus.
So, I have no desire for an ersatz mass. Christians need unity in the Catholic Church, not further division.
To the degree any lutheran takes offense at the straight-forwardness of my remarks, they should realize that Pastors Peters and Spomer were equally blunt (e.g., "St. Jehoshaphat's by the Sea down the block with its mass said in 49 1/2 minutes communing 1344 people all the while strumming some banal little ditty that no one will remember in 5 years only to get back to the business of bingo") first when it came to the Catholic Church.
6.3.2010 | 11:13am
patricksarsfield says:
Pastor Peters writes:
"And, by the way, George Wiegel agrees that Lutheran hymns are better than Roman because they are NOT entertainment but statements of faith and Scripture set to music -- sung dogma which hymns are supposed to be... "
As I said before, anything beyond the five standard elements of the Missa Cantata (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei) is more singing than I need in a Mass. The Credo alone gives me all the dogma I need sung at (or recited by) me.
In all events, I see no scriptural warrant for abandoning Christ's Church for another church with better music. Christ told us to listen to the Church and He stated that He would found that Church on the Rock of Peter. He never said anything about "but, of course, if you find a church that has better music, be My guest and leave My church for a better singing one." Instead of giving the individual christian such a "Consumer Commission," He instead gave His Church the Teaching Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). We are supposed to learn from Christ's Church not reject it based on our own tastes in ephemera like music.
"And, by the way, George Wiegel agrees that Lutheran hymns are better than Roman because they are NOT entertainment but statements of faith and Scripture set to music -- sung dogma which hymns are supposed to be... "
As I said before, anything beyond the five standard elements of the Missa Cantata (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei) is more singing than I need in a Mass. The Credo alone gives me all the dogma I need sung at (or recited by) me.
In all events, I see no scriptural warrant for abandoning Christ's Church for another church with better music. Christ told us to listen to the Church and He stated that He would found that Church on the Rock of Peter. He never said anything about "but, of course, if you find a church that has better music, be My guest and leave My church for a better singing one." Instead of giving the individual christian such a "Consumer Commission," He instead gave His Church the Teaching Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). We are supposed to learn from Christ's Church not reject it based on our own tastes in ephemera like music.
6.3.2010 | 12:19pm
KayLyn VanderVeen says:
Though Mr. Sarsfield has a phenomenal command of the English language, I would prefer comments that bring us back to the article at hand, to, or not to, stay with the ELCA. At the moment we are still members of a now struggling ELCA Church. We've lost many families, good giving and serving families. My husband and I have chosen to stay to see if we can make a difference and possibly lead our congregation to another Synod or become an independent Lutheran Church.
Could someone give us an idea of how difficult, or not, it would be to become an independent Church. We are a congregation of about 500 families now. We've lost about 100 families. When I ask about difficulty, I'm referring to ability to procure Pastors primarily. Thanks for any help you might give.
Could someone give us an idea of how difficult, or not, it would be to become an independent Church. We are a congregation of about 500 families now. We've lost about 100 families. When I ask about difficulty, I'm referring to ability to procure Pastors primarily. Thanks for any help you might give.
6.3.2010 | 3:34pm
Pr. Brad says:
KayLyn,
Becoming independent isn't nearly so hard as living independently. The Body of Christ really isn't designed to exist that way... though the marks of the Church are found in the local congregation. Finding a pastor may indeed be difficult, but so will any host of other things.
Christians gather in fellowship around Word and Sacrament, with a common confession, receiving the common gifts of Christ. Just as there is unity around the single altar, there should be a struggling toward unity of the altars of those who walk according to the same rule. This inter-connectedness will provide strength and encouragement to your congregation, as well as giving your congregation opportunity to serve others. The Church of Christ is a universal, global, timeless creation of the Blessed Trinity, and we are called to live together in faith, hope, and love.
If your congregation is leaving the ELCA, and still wants to cling to the Lutheran Confessions and the Holy Scriptures, there are larger associations of Lutherans out there who have similarly banded together. I recommend seeking them out.
Grace and peace to you-- and blessings for the journey.
Becoming independent isn't nearly so hard as living independently. The Body of Christ really isn't designed to exist that way... though the marks of the Church are found in the local congregation. Finding a pastor may indeed be difficult, but so will any host of other things.
Christians gather in fellowship around Word and Sacrament, with a common confession, receiving the common gifts of Christ. Just as there is unity around the single altar, there should be a struggling toward unity of the altars of those who walk according to the same rule. This inter-connectedness will provide strength and encouragement to your congregation, as well as giving your congregation opportunity to serve others. The Church of Christ is a universal, global, timeless creation of the Blessed Trinity, and we are called to live together in faith, hope, and love.
If your congregation is leaving the ELCA, and still wants to cling to the Lutheran Confessions and the Holy Scriptures, there are larger associations of Lutherans out there who have similarly banded together. I recommend seeking them out.
Grace and peace to you-- and blessings for the journey.
6.4.2010 | 3:16pm
caughtinthecrosshairs says:
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, (except for the sins of homosexuals?)
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, (except for the sins of homosexuals?)
have mercy on us. (except for homosexuals?)
I can declare no authority on matters of theology, as I came to Christ and to His church only within the last 7 years. Born into an atheistic and agnostic family, I have no tradition given me from my father to call my own. I do not understand all the infighting between different flavors of Lutheranism, and I do not understand the "Holier than thou" attitude of some here advocating the swim across the Tiber.
What I can understand, and what speaks to me however is Christ's demand of us to love one another as He has loved us. What speaks to me, is His example. He who walked with and cleansed lepers. He who washed the feet of His disciples---- the Son of Man, God in the flesh kneeling on the dirt floor, head bowed, to washes the soiled feet of mere, sinful men. He who gave his life so that a wretch like me may live. When I look upon His example as a guidepost to what I should do, I am moved not to hate, nor judge, nor condemn my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, but I am moved instead to wash and kiss their feet as Christ has done for me, and as I would suspect Christ would have done for "them".
What I see in this article and in the following comments is a hate and bigotry, a pride and prejudice. We would all do well to humble ourselves, and wash one another's feet. No exceptions for homosexuals....nor exceptions for members of the ELCA.
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, (except for the sins of homosexuals?)
have mercy on us. (except for homosexuals?)
I can declare no authority on matters of theology, as I came to Christ and to His church only within the last 7 years. Born into an atheistic and agnostic family, I have no tradition given me from my father to call my own. I do not understand all the infighting between different flavors of Lutheranism, and I do not understand the "Holier than thou" attitude of some here advocating the swim across the Tiber.
What I can understand, and what speaks to me however is Christ's demand of us to love one another as He has loved us. What speaks to me, is His example. He who walked with and cleansed lepers. He who washed the feet of His disciples---- the Son of Man, God in the flesh kneeling on the dirt floor, head bowed, to washes the soiled feet of mere, sinful men. He who gave his life so that a wretch like me may live. When I look upon His example as a guidepost to what I should do, I am moved not to hate, nor judge, nor condemn my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, but I am moved instead to wash and kiss their feet as Christ has done for me, and as I would suspect Christ would have done for "them".
What I see in this article and in the following comments is a hate and bigotry, a pride and prejudice. We would all do well to humble ourselves, and wash one another's feet. No exceptions for homosexuals....nor exceptions for members of the ELCA.
6.4.2010 | 3:45pm
patricksarsfield says:
Caught in the Cross Hairs argues that the ELCA position on homosexual conduct is somehow acceptable (despite Romans 1 and cognate provisions of Scripture) because God's sacrifice has taken away the sins of the world. This is where the false dogma of Sola Fide can end up.
This is also where the Catholic Tradition on Confession and forgiveness is so clear and edifying. Our sins are forgiven by the Grace of God but we need to have a firm purpose of amendment: an honest intention not to sin again. That is not to say that we MUST not sin again, but we must be committed to living in the way that the Christian Gospel lays out.
That is why the Protestant position on Divorce/Remarriage (and in some churches on Homosexual Conduct) is so soul-destroying. Cohabiting involving sexual activity with someone other than one's original wife (as happens in Remarriage or homosexual conduct) is sinful objectively. Although the Catholic Church teaches that Baptism and later Confession will forgive any sinful adulterous or homosexual conduct, the person forgiven must resolve to conform his conduct with the Christian Message thereafter. That is what conversion entails.
This is also where the Catholic Tradition on Confession and forgiveness is so clear and edifying. Our sins are forgiven by the Grace of God but we need to have a firm purpose of amendment: an honest intention not to sin again. That is not to say that we MUST not sin again, but we must be committed to living in the way that the Christian Gospel lays out.
That is why the Protestant position on Divorce/Remarriage (and in some churches on Homosexual Conduct) is so soul-destroying. Cohabiting involving sexual activity with someone other than one's original wife (as happens in Remarriage or homosexual conduct) is sinful objectively. Although the Catholic Church teaches that Baptism and later Confession will forgive any sinful adulterous or homosexual conduct, the person forgiven must resolve to conform his conduct with the Christian Message thereafter. That is what conversion entails.
6.4.2010 | 4:14pm
caughtinthecrosshairs says:
Mr. Sarsfield,
Please be careful to respond to what I actually have written. I made no argument for or against the decision by the ELCA regarding homosexuality. And I made no argument condoning the "conduct" of homosexuals.
I did however offer a reminder, from my layperson's perspective, that regardless of one's personal views on the matter, one should, as Christ *commanded*, love one another as He has loved us.
I did also inject the words "except for homosexuals" into the traditional translation of the Agnus Dei to show the absurdity of bigotry. That isn't the same as condoning any sin.
I also pointed out that some here have a "Holier than thou" attitude, which you again demonstrate quite well, and which runs counter to the example of humility showed to us by Christ Jesus.
Please be careful to respond to what I actually have written. I made no argument for or against the decision by the ELCA regarding homosexuality. And I made no argument condoning the "conduct" of homosexuals.
I did however offer a reminder, from my layperson's perspective, that regardless of one's personal views on the matter, one should, as Christ *commanded*, love one another as He has loved us.
I did also inject the words "except for homosexuals" into the traditional translation of the Agnus Dei to show the absurdity of bigotry. That isn't the same as condoning any sin.
I also pointed out that some here have a "Holier than thou" attitude, which you again demonstrate quite well, and which runs counter to the example of humility showed to us by Christ Jesus.
6.4.2010 | 8:32pm
patricksarsfield says:
Caught in the Cross Hairs writes:
"Please be careful to respond to what I actually have written. I made no argument for or against the decision by the ELCA regarding homosexuality. And I made no argument condoning the "conduct" of homosexuals. I did however offer a reminder, from my layperson's perspective, that regardless of one's personal views on the matter, one should, as Christ *commanded*, love one another as He has loved us. I did also inject the words "except for homosexuals" into the traditional translation of the Agnus Dei to show the absurdity of bigotry. That isn't the same as condoning any sin. "
What caughtinthecrosshairs wrote was rather ambiguous. If he was not saying that homosexual conduct is not sinful, then I apologize for misinterpreting his somewhat cryptic message (cryptic-ness was why I used the term "somehow" in my first post).
Now, he can call me "holier than thou" and accuse me of a lack of humility, but on the issue of humility, it was not I who used the words of the Agnus Dei to make a statement seemingly contrary to what the Bible says on the issue of homosexual conduct.
This is what Christ , through Paul, said about homosexual conduct: "in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. "
Now, as to Caught's accusation that I am guilty of "bigotry" I plead not guilty. He needs to be more careful about what I have actually written. My original post on homosexuality said nothing about homosexuals as people. Rather, it addressed homosexual conduct (i.e., sin). "Bigotry" concerns an attitude toward people, not their conduct.
In truth, we should love the sinner but hate the sin. The merits of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross covers homosexual conduct as much as it covers any other adultery, fornication or other sin. Likewise, and for the reasons previously stated, the homosexual seeking forgiveness for prior homosexual conduct must have the same purpose of amendment as any other sinner seeking shriving for any other sin.
"Please be careful to respond to what I actually have written. I made no argument for or against the decision by the ELCA regarding homosexuality. And I made no argument condoning the "conduct" of homosexuals. I did however offer a reminder, from my layperson's perspective, that regardless of one's personal views on the matter, one should, as Christ *commanded*, love one another as He has loved us. I did also inject the words "except for homosexuals" into the traditional translation of the Agnus Dei to show the absurdity of bigotry. That isn't the same as condoning any sin. "
What caughtinthecrosshairs wrote was rather ambiguous. If he was not saying that homosexual conduct is not sinful, then I apologize for misinterpreting his somewhat cryptic message (cryptic-ness was why I used the term "somehow" in my first post).
Now, he can call me "holier than thou" and accuse me of a lack of humility, but on the issue of humility, it was not I who used the words of the Agnus Dei to make a statement seemingly contrary to what the Bible says on the issue of homosexual conduct.
This is what Christ , through Paul, said about homosexual conduct: "in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. "
Now, as to Caught's accusation that I am guilty of "bigotry" I plead not guilty. He needs to be more careful about what I have actually written. My original post on homosexuality said nothing about homosexuals as people. Rather, it addressed homosexual conduct (i.e., sin). "Bigotry" concerns an attitude toward people, not their conduct.
In truth, we should love the sinner but hate the sin. The merits of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross covers homosexual conduct as much as it covers any other adultery, fornication or other sin. Likewise, and for the reasons previously stated, the homosexual seeking forgiveness for prior homosexual conduct must have the same purpose of amendment as any other sinner seeking shriving for any other sin.
6.5.2010 | 2:55am
William Weinrich says:
I think it obvious that those of you who correspond with patricksarsfield are talking into a hollow can and receiving merely the to be expected echo. I have taught for over 35 years. I can see an "unteachable" when I read one.
6.5.2010 | 8:01pm
caughtinthecrosshairs says:
Mr. Sarsfield,
Again, you are careless with your reading and attribute things to me that I have not written. I did not accuse you of bigotry. I did however show the absurdity of bigotry (noun) in light of the Agnus Dei. I wonder why though the term caused you to feel accused.
Now, I did accuse you of pride and self-righteousness. Your posts throughout this thread have shown this. I imagine you would be less than proud of the tone you've set in your own posts if you read them through others' eyes. I'd imagine, being that you're a confessing and professing Christian that you would have preferred your tone to have been perceived, like Christ's example, to be humble and gracious. They were not perceived in this way Mr. Sarsfield, and in fact, I suspect you didn't intend them to be.
Now, allow me to correct any confusion in my earlier posts (thank you, Mr. Sarsfield for showing me that I was previously ambiguous. I accept the criticism.) As a member of an ELCA congregation and former council President, I am heartsick with what has happened. While I am in full disagreement with the decision of the Assembly, I am most sickened by how this singular issue has caused so much derision, disunity, and distrust. Instead of keeping our hearts and minds on Christ Jesus, we have turned against one another. Drawing lines in the sands, leaving for shores where people look, talk, and think more like "I" do, and so many of us here in this discussion puff out our chests, beating them full of pride and self-congratulation saying "theirs" is the best way. "We" hold the truth. "They" are wrong. "They" are sinners. "We" will save the Lutheran church.
We have lost our way. Not because of the Assembly's decision (which again I disagree with). But because through it, we have temporary forgotten Jesus' example of love, humility, graciousness and forgiveness.
We should all be reminded that *Christ* is the way (not "our" church). That the truth holds us. And that we are *all* sinners in need of God's mercy.
Again, you are careless with your reading and attribute things to me that I have not written. I did not accuse you of bigotry. I did however show the absurdity of bigotry (noun) in light of the Agnus Dei. I wonder why though the term caused you to feel accused.
Now, I did accuse you of pride and self-righteousness. Your posts throughout this thread have shown this. I imagine you would be less than proud of the tone you've set in your own posts if you read them through others' eyes. I'd imagine, being that you're a confessing and professing Christian that you would have preferred your tone to have been perceived, like Christ's example, to be humble and gracious. They were not perceived in this way Mr. Sarsfield, and in fact, I suspect you didn't intend them to be.
Now, allow me to correct any confusion in my earlier posts (thank you, Mr. Sarsfield for showing me that I was previously ambiguous. I accept the criticism.) As a member of an ELCA congregation and former council President, I am heartsick with what has happened. While I am in full disagreement with the decision of the Assembly, I am most sickened by how this singular issue has caused so much derision, disunity, and distrust. Instead of keeping our hearts and minds on Christ Jesus, we have turned against one another. Drawing lines in the sands, leaving for shores where people look, talk, and think more like "I" do, and so many of us here in this discussion puff out our chests, beating them full of pride and self-congratulation saying "theirs" is the best way. "We" hold the truth. "They" are wrong. "They" are sinners. "We" will save the Lutheran church.
We have lost our way. Not because of the Assembly's decision (which again I disagree with). But because through it, we have temporary forgotten Jesus' example of love, humility, graciousness and forgiveness.
We should all be reminded that *Christ* is the way (not "our" church). That the truth holds us. And that we are *all* sinners in need of God's mercy.
6.7.2010 | 10:12am
patricksarsfield says:
Caught in the crosshairs,
I won't try to divine what you were trying to say about me or about the dissolution of the ELCA Church in your prior posts any more and I won't take up your new attempt at psychoanalyzing my motives in writing. Instead I will just point out my original post which noted my surprise with the Protestant approach to ecclesiology (" I...just don't understand the Protestant theory of church founding that is being discussed here. If the ELCA is not the true church of Christ, then what, if any, lutheran church could be the true church?). That is the real reason I have been posting.
I think Lutherans worrying about which lutheran sect to join now that the largest American lutheran sect is breaking up are off on another wild goose chase if they restrict their search to Lutherandom. Christ didn't found a bunch of lutheran sects and ask lutherans to figure out amongst themselves which one is the right one. Christ founded only one church and did so long before Martin Luther was even a gleam in his father's eye. He promised to remain with that Church until the End of the Age (Matt. 28:20). Lutherandom came along 1500 years too late to be that true Church of Christ.
As to your admonition that no one can claim theirs is the best church or that " *Christ* is the way (not "our" church)," that just begs the question. Whose Christ? Is it the Christ Who permits "the blessing and ordination of gays and lesbians in partnered relationships " which was the "casus schismi" of the break with ELCA described in the Benne article or is it the Christ Who condemned such homosexual relationships in Romans 1? Or is your point that the Church of Christ can discharge its Teaching Commission by just ignoring the sin even though the candidate for ordination has no intention to give it up?
As to your valid point that we are all sinners in need of God's mercy, okay but we are also sinners in need of the Teaching of the Church (Matt. 28:20) and of the forgiveness that the Church can give us or withold from us (John 20:21-23). As I have been pointing out, forgiveness is a very important benison of the Church that should be given put when a sinner seeks forgiveness, but that doesn't mean that sin is not sin. Christ died for our sins, but He did NOT declare them now to be acceptable. It would be one thing for a homosexual who had been engaged in an open homosexual relationship to ask forgiveness for that sin just as an heterosexual adulterer needs to ask for forgiveness for that sin, but part of the request for forgiveness has to be a statement of intent to change one's sinful conduct going forward.
I won't try to divine what you were trying to say about me or about the dissolution of the ELCA Church in your prior posts any more and I won't take up your new attempt at psychoanalyzing my motives in writing. Instead I will just point out my original post which noted my surprise with the Protestant approach to ecclesiology (" I...just don't understand the Protestant theory of church founding that is being discussed here. If the ELCA is not the true church of Christ, then what, if any, lutheran church could be the true church?). That is the real reason I have been posting.
I think Lutherans worrying about which lutheran sect to join now that the largest American lutheran sect is breaking up are off on another wild goose chase if they restrict their search to Lutherandom. Christ didn't found a bunch of lutheran sects and ask lutherans to figure out amongst themselves which one is the right one. Christ founded only one church and did so long before Martin Luther was even a gleam in his father's eye. He promised to remain with that Church until the End of the Age (Matt. 28:20). Lutherandom came along 1500 years too late to be that true Church of Christ.
As to your admonition that no one can claim theirs is the best church or that " *Christ* is the way (not "our" church)," that just begs the question. Whose Christ? Is it the Christ Who permits "the blessing and ordination of gays and lesbians in partnered relationships " which was the "casus schismi" of the break with ELCA described in the Benne article or is it the Christ Who condemned such homosexual relationships in Romans 1? Or is your point that the Church of Christ can discharge its Teaching Commission by just ignoring the sin even though the candidate for ordination has no intention to give it up?
As to your valid point that we are all sinners in need of God's mercy, okay but we are also sinners in need of the Teaching of the Church (Matt. 28:20) and of the forgiveness that the Church can give us or withold from us (John 20:21-23). As I have been pointing out, forgiveness is a very important benison of the Church that should be given put when a sinner seeks forgiveness, but that doesn't mean that sin is not sin. Christ died for our sins, but He did NOT declare them now to be acceptable. It would be one thing for a homosexual who had been engaged in an open homosexual relationship to ask forgiveness for that sin just as an heterosexual adulterer needs to ask for forgiveness for that sin, but part of the request for forgiveness has to be a statement of intent to change one's sinful conduct going forward.
6.12.2010 | 12:20am
Shawn Kocher says:
The reason that Luther went on a rant was because the Roman Catholic Church became so steeped in corruption.
Luther caused a course correction in the Roman Catholic Church.
The NALC will be a church aligned with the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Christian Church, numbering close to 900 million people. That is why I am for the break up of the ELCA. I urge all ELCA folks to consider joining the NALC, and keeping close to the vast majority of the worlds Christians. What is left of the ELCA can join with the Episcopal Church and have homosexual Bishops who are sexually active.
Luther caused a course correction in the Roman Catholic Church.
The NALC will be a church aligned with the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Christian Church, numbering close to 900 million people. That is why I am for the break up of the ELCA. I urge all ELCA folks to consider joining the NALC, and keeping close to the vast majority of the worlds Christians. What is left of the ELCA can join with the Episcopal Church and have homosexual Bishops who are sexually active.
6.15.2010 | 7:08am
easyas123matt says:
Mr. Sarsfield,
How many good works does it take to be justified ?
How many good works does it take to be justified ?
6.16.2010 | 11:28pm
patricksarsfield says:
Easy as 123 asks the wrong person the wrong question:
"Mr. Sarsfield,
How many good works does it take to be justified ? "
God only knows.
We are all justified through the Grace of God, but not "by faith alone" as Luther tried to claim in his rewrite of the Bible. To the contrary, as Brother James teaches (James 2:24): ""You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. "
How many works? What do you want: a contract with God that you can seek to enforce in some lutheran ecclesiastical court in the sky?
God gives us His graces with a generous spirit and we ought to try our best to reciprocate in kind. Will it be enough? As I said: God only knows, but I can, as a Christian son of Abba God trust fully in His perfect justice and perfect mercy. That is the Good News of Jesus Christ, as taught by His Holy Catholic Church, and it is good enough for me.
"Mr. Sarsfield,
How many good works does it take to be justified ? "
God only knows.
We are all justified through the Grace of God, but not "by faith alone" as Luther tried to claim in his rewrite of the Bible. To the contrary, as Brother James teaches (James 2:24): ""You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. "
How many works? What do you want: a contract with God that you can seek to enforce in some lutheran ecclesiastical court in the sky?
God gives us His graces with a generous spirit and we ought to try our best to reciprocate in kind. Will it be enough? As I said: God only knows, but I can, as a Christian son of Abba God trust fully in His perfect justice and perfect mercy. That is the Good News of Jesus Christ, as taught by His Holy Catholic Church, and it is good enough for me.
6.22.2010 | 2:31pm
St Reformed says:
Dear Mr. Sarsfield:
Your spirited polemics, critiques and statistics in defense of "the One True Church" oddly are both thoroughly remarkable and thoroughly misguided.
I would refer you to the writings of this journal's founder, the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (1936-2009). In one of his last dispatches, Fr. Neuhaus commented that: “Tribalism has no place in this discussion. As John Paul II reminded Catholics in his 1990 encyclical ‘Redemptoris Missio’, being a Catholic is not reason for proprietorial pride but for profound gratitude for a grace received, all undeserved on our part. Moreover, a Catholic who does not earnestly want to recognize and rejoice in the gifts of grace to be found in other Christian communities will almost certainly be more hindrance than help in this discussion.” --excerpted from “The One True Church”, FIRST THINGS, April 2009.
Such overweening tribal pride could hardly be the subject of rejoicing by the angels in Heaven. Prof. Benne's insightful article used the term "aroma of an empty bottle" (a phrase I believe borrowed from Dr. Frank Senn) to describe the residue of orthodoxy left in the ELCA. May I suggest a militant Roman Catholic like yourself avoid that sad fate by striving to become MORE "catholic"? Pax tecum.
Your spirited polemics, critiques and statistics in defense of "the One True Church" oddly are both thoroughly remarkable and thoroughly misguided.
I would refer you to the writings of this journal's founder, the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (1936-2009). In one of his last dispatches, Fr. Neuhaus commented that: “Tribalism has no place in this discussion. As John Paul II reminded Catholics in his 1990 encyclical ‘Redemptoris Missio’, being a Catholic is not reason for proprietorial pride but for profound gratitude for a grace received, all undeserved on our part. Moreover, a Catholic who does not earnestly want to recognize and rejoice in the gifts of grace to be found in other Christian communities will almost certainly be more hindrance than help in this discussion.” --excerpted from “The One True Church”, FIRST THINGS, April 2009.
Such overweening tribal pride could hardly be the subject of rejoicing by the angels in Heaven. Prof. Benne's insightful article used the term "aroma of an empty bottle" (a phrase I believe borrowed from Dr. Frank Senn) to describe the residue of orthodoxy left in the ELCA. May I suggest a militant Roman Catholic like yourself avoid that sad fate by striving to become MORE "catholic"? Pax tecum.
6.22.2010 | 4:09pm
St Reformed says:
Oops! I accredited the memorable line “aroma of an empty bottle” to the wrong source. Let me please quote the correct source in context:
“The Lutheran lingo reminded me of the phrase Erik Petersen coined to describe modern German Protestantism in its defection from the doctrinal theology of the Reformation; it’s ‘the aroma of an empty bottle.’ There’s not much left of the original Reformation. The Lutheran “solas” can be used as slogans to mean the opposite of what the Lutheran confessors intended. In the current circumstance they are the tell-tale clichés of ‘gospel reductionism.” --- by Carl Braaten and found on the website:http://lutheranspersisting.wordpress.com/carl-braaten-the-aroma-of-an-empty-bottle/ Mea culpa (but read anything you can by Frank Senn in any case!)
“The Lutheran lingo reminded me of the phrase Erik Petersen coined to describe modern German Protestantism in its defection from the doctrinal theology of the Reformation; it’s ‘the aroma of an empty bottle.’ There’s not much left of the original Reformation. The Lutheran “solas” can be used as slogans to mean the opposite of what the Lutheran confessors intended. In the current circumstance they are the tell-tale clichés of ‘gospel reductionism.” --- by Carl Braaten and found on the website:http://lutheranspersisting.wordpress.com/carl-braaten-the-aroma-of-an-empty-bottle/ Mea culpa (but read anything you can by Frank Senn in any case!)
6.22.2010 | 8:24pm
patricksarsfield says:
St. Reformed accuses me of "tribalism" for my "spirited polemics, critiques and statistics in defense of "the One True Church...."
Sorry, Saint Reformed, but this is a case where your lutheran church(es) is(are) the one(s) that needs a lot less tribalism, not the Catholic Church. As Joyce supposedly put it: the Catholic Church means "here comes everybody." Tribalism would be a better description for the divisions within Lutheranism where different American ethnic groups formed separate American Lutheran churches designed to keep alive European national divisions. However, tribalism is not a term that fits the One True Catholic Church. In America, the Church includes Irish, Italian, Polish, German, Czech, Hungarian, Slovenian, Slovakian, Croatian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Brazilian, Puerto Rican, Mexican, a whole bunch of other Hispanic origins plus Lebanese, (Indian)Indians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, other Asians as well as blacks and American Indians in a single church without the tribalistic divisions that so scar American Lutheranism.
As to Fr. Neuhaus's admonition that we not take pride in being Catholic: of course he is right. The gift of the Church clearly is the grace of God acting in my life. I don't take pride in being Catholic but it is a gift from God (and my parents and early mentors) that I want everyone to share in. I started commenting in this thread because I was amazed at the ecclesiology being espoused by the lutherans on this board. If you have anything to say on those comments (particularly my bottom line observation that Jesus founded only one church, which has always been highly "visible" (i.e., organized as in Acts 15:1-16:5) from the First Century until now), I'd be interested in your comments.
Sorry, Saint Reformed, but this is a case where your lutheran church(es) is(are) the one(s) that needs a lot less tribalism, not the Catholic Church. As Joyce supposedly put it: the Catholic Church means "here comes everybody." Tribalism would be a better description for the divisions within Lutheranism where different American ethnic groups formed separate American Lutheran churches designed to keep alive European national divisions. However, tribalism is not a term that fits the One True Catholic Church. In America, the Church includes Irish, Italian, Polish, German, Czech, Hungarian, Slovenian, Slovakian, Croatian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Brazilian, Puerto Rican, Mexican, a whole bunch of other Hispanic origins plus Lebanese, (Indian)Indians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, other Asians as well as blacks and American Indians in a single church without the tribalistic divisions that so scar American Lutheranism.
As to Fr. Neuhaus's admonition that we not take pride in being Catholic: of course he is right. The gift of the Church clearly is the grace of God acting in my life. I don't take pride in being Catholic but it is a gift from God (and my parents and early mentors) that I want everyone to share in. I started commenting in this thread because I was amazed at the ecclesiology being espoused by the lutherans on this board. If you have anything to say on those comments (particularly my bottom line observation that Jesus founded only one church, which has always been highly "visible" (i.e., organized as in Acts 15:1-16:5) from the First Century until now), I'd be interested in your comments.
6.24.2010 | 11:34pm
St Reformed says:
Dear Mr. Sarsfield:
I would not confuse “tribalism”, as used by the late Fr. Neuhaus, with ethnic groupings of people, even in the context of church communities. I doubt that he was being dismissive of, e.g, The Ancient Order of Hibernians (Irish Catholics) or the St. Lucia festival (Swedish Lutherans). I am certain he was perturbed at the”My church is better than your church.” cacophony that inhibits spiritual growth.
For the record, I would concur that Pastor Spomer’s definition of “catholicity” is worth a careful review. I believe that the church is the universal community of believers in Christ (“saints” in the NT sense) and is not limited by institutional, legalistic or temporal boundaries. Look up the term “invisible church” on the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod website (www.lcms.org).
In any case, I am weary of the Protestant/Catholic divide and the negative energy of triumphalism. The bottom line: Is your Christian community adhering to the commands of the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus and properly interpreted by the Scriptures? If so, may God bless your life in it. After than, I have no more questions to ask.
Whenever a church body has historically contributed to such spiritual growth, it was reflecting the “true church”. Whenever it has not, it was squelching the Spirit, and the Sprit will always find another way to speak. “We see in a glass, darkly,” wrote St. Paul. Our lives as well as our doctrines are always incomplete. We live in a dangerous and increasingly secular world and cannot afford to throw stones at one another.
“Go in peace; serve the Lord.”
I would not confuse “tribalism”, as used by the late Fr. Neuhaus, with ethnic groupings of people, even in the context of church communities. I doubt that he was being dismissive of, e.g, The Ancient Order of Hibernians (Irish Catholics) or the St. Lucia festival (Swedish Lutherans). I am certain he was perturbed at the”My church is better than your church.” cacophony that inhibits spiritual growth.
For the record, I would concur that Pastor Spomer’s definition of “catholicity” is worth a careful review. I believe that the church is the universal community of believers in Christ (“saints” in the NT sense) and is not limited by institutional, legalistic or temporal boundaries. Look up the term “invisible church” on the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod website (www.lcms.org).
In any case, I am weary of the Protestant/Catholic divide and the negative energy of triumphalism. The bottom line: Is your Christian community adhering to the commands of the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus and properly interpreted by the Scriptures? If so, may God bless your life in it. After than, I have no more questions to ask.
Whenever a church body has historically contributed to such spiritual growth, it was reflecting the “true church”. Whenever it has not, it was squelching the Spirit, and the Sprit will always find another way to speak. “We see in a glass, darkly,” wrote St. Paul. Our lives as well as our doctrines are always incomplete. We live in a dangerous and increasingly secular world and cannot afford to throw stones at one another.
“Go in peace; serve the Lord.”
6.25.2010 | 11:19am
patricksarsfield says:
StReformed,
You write:
"I would not confuse “tribalism”, as used by the late Fr. Neuhaus, with ethnic groupings of people, even in the context of church communities. I doubt that he was being dismissive of, e.g, The Ancient Order of Hibernians (Irish Catholics) or the St. Lucia festival (Swedish Lutherans). I am certain he was perturbed at the ”My church is better than your church” cacophony that inhibits spiritual growth.
For the record, I would concur that Pastor Spomer’s definition of “catholicity” is worth a careful review. I believe that the church is the universal community of believers in Christ (“saints” in the NT sense) and is not limited by institutional, legalistic or temporal boundaries. Look up the term “invisible church” on the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod website (www.lcms.org)."
It is not surprising that you, a protestant, do not want to talk about the truth claims of the various Christian churches, and instead fall back on a supposedly "invisible" church. If no church is truer than any other church then no church can teach authoritatively. Although that is not what Christ and the Apostles taught (see, Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 15:1-16:5), it is an easy out for someone raised in a religious milieu in which there are literally a dozen separate American Lutheran sects which represent a small sliver of the hundreds of sects into which Protestantism's "discipline" of private interpretation has led it.
Yet, the truth is that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was not an invisible church. Rather, it had a structure and an hierarchy right from the beginning. Besides the notable Petrine passages (often controverted by Protestants, of course) that show Peter was uniquely tapped to be the stone upon which the Church was built (Matt. 16:18-24) and the shepherd of Christ's lambs and sheep (John 21:15-18), there is the incontrovertible evidence of the functioning of the Church in the First Century AD as an ecclesiastical organization with defined powers and teaching hierarchy, as attested to by Scripture. For example, it is clear that the Visible Church embodied in the Apostles had the power that Christ conferred to forgive those sins that they chose to forgive and to retain those that they chose to retain (John 20:21-23). That was not a power conferred on christians as a whole. Another controvertible proof that the Church was a visible organization with an hierarchical structure is the episode that led to the calling of the Council of Jerusalem.
When Paul and Barnabas were confronted with the doctrinal controversy prompted by James's judaizers, they did not try to resolve the dispute within the local church of Antioch. Rather, they actually went back to Jerusalem where most of the apostles were still situated and asked for a ruling binding on the Church of Antioch. Peter was on the lam from Herod's jail, at the time, (Acts 12:3-18) but he came back to Jerusalem to take part in the council. After Paul and Barnabas laid out the issue, Peter spoke first and authoritatively. Even though Paul is known as the apostle to the Gentiles, it is noteworthy that he did not challenge Peter's claim that it was to himself that God had entrusted the mission to the Gentiles (Acts 15: 7-9 ("you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers")). After Peter spoke, the Judaizing James fell into line and the Council voted to issue a letter to be read not only in Jerusalem and Antioch but also to be circulated to numerous other towns to which Paul and Barnabas would go setting forth the Church's ruling (Acts 16:3-5). Significantly, Scripture records that that first circulating (i.e., "encyclical") letter was to be observed by all the towns they visited. And as a result of that observance, the towns were strengthened in the faith. (Id.)
This is the real Church of the First Century, a functioning visible church which proclaimed its authoritative teaching just as Christ commanded (Matt. 28:20). Not some "invisible" agglomeration of entities that couldn't speak with an authoritative voice because of the cacophony of competing voices to which Protestantism has been reduced. Who speaks authoritatively for the Invisible Church? Some invisible tongue? Or is it supposedly the Holy Spirit saying different things to different sects about the issues of the day?
You try to dismiss this showing as a bad case of ”My church is better than your church," but it is really a showing that Christ's (not my) Visible Church is better than any 16th Century or later visible replacement made by men....even if they claim that they remain part of Christ's Invisible Church despite their clear revolt from HIS Visible Church. In truth, Christ did not confect an invisible church to coexist apart from His Visible Church. You can show no Scripture that attests to such an invisible church counterposed against the Visible One that the Acts of the Apostles and the other scriptural citations I have given show existed in the Apostolic Age.
You write:
"I would not confuse “tribalism”, as used by the late Fr. Neuhaus, with ethnic groupings of people, even in the context of church communities. I doubt that he was being dismissive of, e.g, The Ancient Order of Hibernians (Irish Catholics) or the St. Lucia festival (Swedish Lutherans). I am certain he was perturbed at the ”My church is better than your church” cacophony that inhibits spiritual growth.
For the record, I would concur that Pastor Spomer’s definition of “catholicity” is worth a careful review. I believe that the church is the universal community of believers in Christ (“saints” in the NT sense) and is not limited by institutional, legalistic or temporal boundaries. Look up the term “invisible church” on the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod website (www.lcms.org)."
It is not surprising that you, a protestant, do not want to talk about the truth claims of the various Christian churches, and instead fall back on a supposedly "invisible" church. If no church is truer than any other church then no church can teach authoritatively. Although that is not what Christ and the Apostles taught (see, Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 15:1-16:5), it is an easy out for someone raised in a religious milieu in which there are literally a dozen separate American Lutheran sects which represent a small sliver of the hundreds of sects into which Protestantism's "discipline" of private interpretation has led it.
Yet, the truth is that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was not an invisible church. Rather, it had a structure and an hierarchy right from the beginning. Besides the notable Petrine passages (often controverted by Protestants, of course) that show Peter was uniquely tapped to be the stone upon which the Church was built (Matt. 16:18-24) and the shepherd of Christ's lambs and sheep (John 21:15-18), there is the incontrovertible evidence of the functioning of the Church in the First Century AD as an ecclesiastical organization with defined powers and teaching hierarchy, as attested to by Scripture. For example, it is clear that the Visible Church embodied in the Apostles had the power that Christ conferred to forgive those sins that they chose to forgive and to retain those that they chose to retain (John 20:21-23). That was not a power conferred on christians as a whole. Another controvertible proof that the Church was a visible organization with an hierarchical structure is the episode that led to the calling of the Council of Jerusalem.
When Paul and Barnabas were confronted with the doctrinal controversy prompted by James's judaizers, they did not try to resolve the dispute within the local church of Antioch. Rather, they actually went back to Jerusalem where most of the apostles were still situated and asked for a ruling binding on the Church of Antioch. Peter was on the lam from Herod's jail, at the time, (Acts 12:3-18) but he came back to Jerusalem to take part in the council. After Paul and Barnabas laid out the issue, Peter spoke first and authoritatively. Even though Paul is known as the apostle to the Gentiles, it is noteworthy that he did not challenge Peter's claim that it was to himself that God had entrusted the mission to the Gentiles (Acts 15: 7-9 ("you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers")). After Peter spoke, the Judaizing James fell into line and the Council voted to issue a letter to be read not only in Jerusalem and Antioch but also to be circulated to numerous other towns to which Paul and Barnabas would go setting forth the Church's ruling (Acts 16:3-5). Significantly, Scripture records that that first circulating (i.e., "encyclical") letter was to be observed by all the towns they visited. And as a result of that observance, the towns were strengthened in the faith. (Id.)
This is the real Church of the First Century, a functioning visible church which proclaimed its authoritative teaching just as Christ commanded (Matt. 28:20). Not some "invisible" agglomeration of entities that couldn't speak with an authoritative voice because of the cacophony of competing voices to which Protestantism has been reduced. Who speaks authoritatively for the Invisible Church? Some invisible tongue? Or is it supposedly the Holy Spirit saying different things to different sects about the issues of the day?
You try to dismiss this showing as a bad case of ”My church is better than your church," but it is really a showing that Christ's (not my) Visible Church is better than any 16th Century or later visible replacement made by men....even if they claim that they remain part of Christ's Invisible Church despite their clear revolt from HIS Visible Church. In truth, Christ did not confect an invisible church to coexist apart from His Visible Church. You can show no Scripture that attests to such an invisible church counterposed against the Visible One that the Acts of the Apostles and the other scriptural citations I have given show existed in the Apostolic Age.
1.28.2011 | 1:18pm
bible lessons says:
I've really enjoyed reading this article from Pr. Benne along with the discussion from Pr. McCain and others. This is a difficult topic to address and probably even more of a difficult subject to actually be a part of. I think Brother Mickey said it very well, and I agree with him. The Lutheran church seems to attempt to be more of what people want rather than what the Bible says a church should be. I do, however, think that rather than criticize each branch of the church that we don't belong to, we need to respect them for attempting to further their relationship with God in the best way that they know how. God knows our hearts. If we are making decisions in attempt to grow closer to our amazing Father, I think that's all He wants.
-Brenda Thompson
-Brenda Thompson
2.9.2011 | 11:20am
group vbs says:
It saddens me to see the body of Christ be so political. I agree with Brenda- I feel like we need to take a step back from criticizing every decision and belief that is different from our own. I am positive that when Jesus walked on this earth, his intent was not to have a branch that believes one thing, while a completely different branch takes a different stand on the same topic. I'm sure he didn't intend for separate branches at all, but that is beside the point.
I was teaching a vacation bible school for the kindergarteners of my church a few weeks ago. How great would it be to still have such a simple mind about Jesus just as these kids do? All they cared about was that God is alive in everyone and that we should all rejoice in it. This has been my prayer since then- to simplify my life and just BE in the presence of God.
God bless,
Jessica McMaster
I was teaching a vacation bible school for the kindergarteners of my church a few weeks ago. How great would it be to still have such a simple mind about Jesus just as these kids do? All they cared about was that God is alive in everyone and that we should all rejoice in it. This has been my prayer since then- to simplify my life and just BE in the presence of God.
God bless,
Jessica McMaster
8.13.2011 | 5:34pm
signals says:
I have been reading lately of the Lutherans who waffled on the matter of slavery in the 1860's. Many Pastors declared that slavery was not a sin beacuse it was not condemned in the Holy Bible.Thankfully, they did not win the day and the church, though disrupted, moved on.My view is that we face something very similar. The day when gays are fully accepted will come , despite the loud shouts of those who would not move forward. Jas. Russell Lowell (1819-1891)had it right when he declared, "New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth."
9.9.2011 | 11:12pm
Rob Benwell says:
Well explained. Thank you for sharing your views. But for me let's all respect everyone's belief.
9.10.2011 | 12:11am
Rob Benwell says:
Martin Luther took care of that in the 1500’s. We can talk directly to God.
I must however, with respect, take exception to the conclusions in his post here.
It is just a tad bit audacious and rather, in my view, arrogant for him to assert that if in fact CORE and NALC do not receive the blessing of the Holy Spirit and flourish this means that "Lutheranism in America" is over and these movements of former or outgoing ELCA Lutherans represent the "last, great effort" to "live out the promise of Lutheranism as a church on this continent" with the only option remaining to swim the Tiber.
Let me put forward some very serious challenges to these assertions.
First, CORE and NALC do *not* represent, yet, a faithful expression of historic, confessing Lutheranism. Let's take a look at but one issue: the ordination of women. This practice which is contrary to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church is not in keeping with the "the promise of Lutheranism."
Second, CORE and NALC, to my knowledge, have yet to repudiate publicly abortion on demand, the murder of unborn children. Will they? And if they do not, how can we consider either organization to be the "last, great effort" to "live out the promises of Lutheranism as a church on this continent."
Third, one reading Dr. Benne's article might be left with the impression that "the promise of Lutheranism" is only remaining with these groups. Well, with all our faults, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, is still alive and well and we are doing our level best to "live out the promise of Lutheranism" in this nation, and doing so with very specific intentionally to be and remain faithful to Lutheranism in its orthodox, historic, confessional identity!
I think a tad more humility here is called for by Dr. Benne.
CORE and NALC do represent a very good opportunity! But if all these organizations are willing to do is turn back the clock to the point before the ELCA went forward with the embrace of homosexuals in its clergy ranks, this will not provide for these organizations the opportunity to "live out the promise of Lutheranism."
There are many of us in The LCMS who have, and will continue to, be very strong supporters of CORE and NALC, doing all we can to support and strengthen there intention to embrace again the "full promise of Lutheranism as a church on this continent" but it would be appreciated if Dr. Benne would stop writing as if there were no other Lutherans around left to sustain this vision.