I really enjoyed the article by Fr. John Berg in the latest print issue. He brings up a topic that has been bandied about here before: the nature and function of the Word.
I think Fr. Berg's WELS colleagues were right that a sermon doesn't do an infant (whether in or ex utero) any good. Or rather, I should say, I think that it does an infant as much good as a sermon spoken in Polish does for me. Maybe it does some hidden good I'm not aware of and can't see evidence for - but I'd just be guessing at that. It would be pious speculation to say that a sermon does do an infant any good: take it or leave it, but don't hang your hat there.
But they would be wrong to say that since a sermon doesn't do an infant any good that therefore the Word doesn't do an infant any good. "Sermon" does not exhaust the category of "the Word." If a sermon, a rational discourse, cannot pierce the uteran walls, then some other Word can - and even the Word, in the narrow sense, is not the only thing that has God's promise.
This is where I agree vociferously with Fr. Berg that God has not left us in the dark concerning the unbaptized children of Christians - as the unfortunate wording of the WELS Q&A indicated (I propose starting an ecumenical alliance that would discourage denominational websites from offering Q&A. I'm sure Lutherans of all stripes as well as Baptists, Romanists, etc. would all join up.).
A blessing spoken from God's Word delivers - it pierces the uteran walls in Fr. Berg's memorable image. A blessing spoken by the pastor over the child in the womb at the communion rail is effective and has God's promise. "The Lord bless you and keep" can be spoken to me in Polish and be effective. I don't have to understand, or even know, that someone is speaking God's blessing on me to be blessed. It is truly the external Word. And that external Word has the promise of God. So Mary's greeting - undoubtedly the Herbrew blessing "Shalom" - pierces the uteran wall and blesses the infant.
Further, there is the promise of God's Word to hear our prayers - so even if we can't exactly place prayer in the narrow category of "the Word" we must admit that God's Word attaches promises to it. Interestingly, when he wishes to offer comfort to women who have miscarried, this is where Luther points. He doesn't talk about the child in the womb hearing sermons, or even receiving blessings - he talks about Christians praying for the child and God's desire and promise to hear those prayers favorably.
+HRC
PS: The other piece of pious speculation from Fr. Berg I was taken with the first time I heard him speak of it last year at Octoberfest: Why do we assume that Lazarus, having been raised by the Lord, died again? Why not assume that he walks still among us - waiting for the day when the rest of us will catch up to him. I like that pious speculation quite a lot.
Thank you, Fr. Curtis, for your very kind words. Some random, rambling thoughts (as is my nature). Here’s what I can’t get past, “Faith comes by hearing.” Hearing what? The word, of course. The word does not act magically, i.e. exposure to some sort of Word, but it strikes the heart. As you rightly note, the Word is external, and, it works through the ear. That Polish sermon does neither of us any good because we aren’t Polish (though my grandfather was). Language comes from God (Genesis 11) and we are wired English (though there might be a little Pollack – I can use that word, granddad and all – in that infant wanting to get out).
ReplyDeleteAs far as comprehension goes, I believe we would agree, leave that to the Spirit, for if He can interpret our groans, I suspect He interprets for the infant the Word spoken from the pulpit or from the front seat of dad’s Buick Skylark on the way home from the hospital. Faith comes by hearing. (Note the WELS Q/A discounts “the Word” as having any salutary effect on the infant.) And as far as comprehension goes, what part of “Little girl, I say to you, get up” did the dead tweener comprehend? (I’m guessing if our Lord said it in Polish she still would have gotten up.)
Fr. John W. Berg
I'm with Fr. Berg on this one. And I'm scratching my chin a little about the suggestion often made that even an unbaptized child may be saved without faith. Which, of course, is why the idea of the word piercing the uterine wall is an attractive one.
ReplyDeleteAs long as we're speculating, why can't we speculate that the Word spoken to the expectant mother is received by her in the language she understands, and translated somehow through her nurturing "joy" to the child within her? The word 'pondered in the heart' is sacramental, after all, but we don't know exactly what it does to us.
Meanwhile, as an aside, I don't believe the greeting of Mary was shalom. I believe we know exacty what it was: the magnificat. That is, when the evangelist says, "and Mary said . . ." I take that to mean, "and this is what Mary said when she greeted Elizabeth . . ." The content of the magnificat is the sum and substance of the Gospel.
And finally, on Lazarus: I'd like to believe that he never died again, or perhaps that he walked with God and was not, for God took him, but somewhere I read that his grave is marked, somewhere.
"Faith comes by hearing" is not an exhaustive statement. What of the deaf? They don't hear at all - and yet surely they come to faith.
ReplyDeleteFaith can come by sight (sign language), reading, Baptism, viewing the art of stained glass windows - and, Luther would contend in his comfort to women who have miscarried: by the prayer of parents for their infants.
It is good and pious speculation to suppose that children in the womb benefit by sermons: but it is pious also to pray for them, that the Lord would save them - as I do each time I hear a friend or family member is expecting. Let us employ all the gifts God has given us and commend all into his hands.
+HRC
Good Father Curtis, "'Faith comes by hearing" is not an exhaustive statement." Sez who? Are not the signs of American Sign Language interpreted into words in the mind of the deaf? (I used to say that the deaf hear through their eyes.) But, indeed, is the dead heart any more receptive than the deaf ear? Does not the Word bring into existence that which is not? The Word, by the way, that I recall in my mind is still the external Word that came to me. That stained glass window converts no one. A pious believer’s faith, however, may be strengthened by that depiction of what he has previously heard was FOR HIM. You cite Baptism as an example of faith coming other than by hearing?! Eek! “For both those who believe prior to baptism and those who become believers in baptism have everything through the external Word that comes first (SA III, VIII, 7). The account of the leaping forerunner being cited by our confessions raises the contention about the child in the womb responding to the Word far above “pious speculation.”
ReplyDeleteAnd I would not wrest Luther’s faith in the power of prayer from his belief that is so clearly articulated in the Smalcald articles (and the Large Catechism) from which I quoted. I contend that his faith in the power of prayer is faith in the prayer that the Spirit will bring to faith through the external Word. In the article you cite Luther cites the 7 days and under Israelite boys who died sans circumcision and says “God has not limited his power to the sacraments, but has made a covenant with us through his word.” (The footnote in the AE on that notwithstanding.) Luther also in that article cites as example of the power of prayer the prayers of the widow of Nain “apart from the faith of the son” and we know what raised the lad, the Word “Young man, I say to you, arise.” Christ’s Words are Spirit and Life. No Word, no Spirit, no life, no faith. Indeed we both confess that “whatever is praised as from the Spirit – without the Word and Sacraments – is from the devil himself.”
Fr. John W. Berg
I didn't say that those things - stained glass included - are not the Word. I said that they didn't come "by hearing." That's all. A deaf man can't hear - but the Word can come to him, via sign language, words on a page, and yes, pictures. So also an infant in the womb - they don't have faculties for hearing until the third month.
ReplyDeleteWords have meaning: hearing means hearing. Some folks can't hear. That's just not an arguable statement.
But that doesn't mean they are without the Word, as you mention along with Luther. We are in complete agreement there.
So let's be clear in how we speak. The Word does he trick - but not all Word comes by hearing. Some folks just can't hear. That's how I know "faith comes by hearing" is not an exhaustive statement. That's all. This really isn't controversial...
+HRC
“Words have meaning: hearing means hearing. Some folks can't hear. That's just not an arguable statement.”
ReplyDeleteBut I’ll give it a last shot. Yes, words have meaning, what means then this word “hearing” which you have limited to communication via a certain decibel level? The Psalmist cries out to the ear-less Lord, “hear.” The mountains, heavens and earth "hear." Some "hear," our Lord says, but they don’t "hear." Yes, even if I were deaf physically (and not just intellectually) I could sign “I hear you, brother.”
“Then they made signs to his father, to find out what he would like to name the child. He asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone's astonishment he wrote, ‘His name is John.’" Zechariah heard and responded. But the Word must be spoken (communicated, signed). Words are for speaking (signing).
You say some folks can’t hear. Who? The deaf? “In that day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll (Is 29.18).” “He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, "Ephphatha!" (which means, "Be opened!"). At this, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly.”
The dead, can they hear? How are their “faculties” for hearing? Those ears are decayed and dead, and yet, strangely, Our Lord says those in the grave will hear. The spiritually dead, hear. John the Baptist was safely ensconced in the womb and he heard. And here is where I think this is more than a matter of semantics over the word “hearing”, you insist that a sermon, the spoken Word of God, does not do even a born infant any good. What Word, then, does them any good if not the spoken, Spirit breathed out Word of God? (And why do we ask them if they renounce the devil and believe in the Triune God?)
“How can they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?” I’ll answer, they can’t.
Fr. John W. Berg
(Are we on the same page? Am I missing something? I don’t know.)
FWIW - We learn a language best by immersion - that is surrounded by speakers of that language and in that culture. Infants are no different, they learn by immersion, and just like their vision what they hear becomes clearer and clearer Words come to have meaning that were just sounds and later when the tongue is finally loosed they learn to speak, to confess as it were (same say)., those sounds, some with meaning, some only sounds they hear that they will learn meanings to later.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way our babies, indeed all ages, are best served by immersion (ha!), that is the Word hitting them from all angles - in church, in the home. The Lord's Prayer, the Creed, they hear it again and again they know the sounds, they learn the "culture", and as time goes by we fill those sounds with meaning unti the tongue is loosed to confess what they have heard.
Does an infant benefit from a sermon? Not immediately, but certain words repeat, seasons repeat, they watch (so let them see, and they watch Moms and Dads too), they listen (so let them hear), they grow.
As a third party, it seems as if Frs. Curtis and Berg are in agreement in all things except how broadly they define "hearing." But both agree that the work of the Spirit through the WOrd is what delivers faith. Whether you call any receiving of the Word "hearing," which is what I hear from Berg (with perhaps the exception of the discussion of faith coming by stained glass), or whether you limit the definition of "hearing" to the vibrating ear drums and rattling inner ear bones and so conclude that faith also comes through seeing the Word, which is what I hear from Curtis, the Word is the thing. There you are in clear agreement.
ReplyDeleteNow to fetch my new copy of Gottesdienst from its envelope...
The point of "faith cometh by hearing" is that faith is passive. It is not action. It is reception. We were created to be the recipients of God's love, to be His beloved, and to listen to Him.
ReplyDeleteIt is not pious speculation to say that the sheep know their Shepherd's voice. Nor is it speculation to say that infants are born knowing thier mother's and (if the father should happen to live with the mother, a rarity, it seems, these days) their father's as well. Why then would the preached Word, which is not the Word of the man in the Office but the Word of the Lord, not be known to the infant as his Shepherd's Voice? If you will not say that of the preached Word, certainly you would say it of the Benediction. No?
And, on a side note, I think too highly of the Spartans to find it ever proper to use their name as an adjective connected to anything made up by the WELS.
"And, on a side note, I think too highly of the Spartans..."
ReplyDeleteSorry, how about "mingy?"
JWB
Of course, the Word of God read to the unborn child by his mother or father would bring about the same results being advocated in this thread, correct?
ReplyDeletePM,
ReplyDeleteSo is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
JWB