The Faith and Life of the Body vs. Missional "Lutheran" Gnosticism

Sound doctrine is fundamental and foundational to the Christian faith and life, and the right distinction of the Law and the Gospel is the particularly bright light by which the Holy Scriptures are correctly understood.

To have the mind of Christ, however, is not merely a matter of the intellect, but of humility in body and soul, of obedience unto death, and of living self-sacrifice to the glory of God and for the good of the neighbor.  To live by the Spirit of Christ is to live by faith in His Word, and so also to live in the body on earth, in love for God and man.  For the Spirit descends in bodily form, and rests and remains upon the Body of Christ.

Real Wisdom belongs, not to the raw intellectual mastery of data, facts and information, but to the fear of the Lord.  It is not academic, nor clinical, but is possessed by the solemn awe of the great Mystery of godliness.  This true Wisdom is known in her children, who bend their hearts and knees, along with their minds, before the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and at the great and holy Name above all others, which has been given to Him, who alone was crucified for our transgressions and is raised for our justification.

When faith and life are reduced to the formulations and clichés of dogmatic propositions and jingled slogans — asserted and assented to, repeated ad nauseam, and given lip-service while "anything else goes," in the great free-for-all, the banner over which is "adiaphora" — it is no longer Christianity that we are dealing with, but the latest non-incarnation of gnosticism.  Whether the list of facts is long or short, intricate or simplistic, if that is all there is to it, then that is not the faith which is reckoned as righteousness for the sake of Christ; it is a farce and a fiction, which relies upon itself and on the self-righteousness of its own mental mastery.

Twenty years ago, when I was a seminary student, the powers that be and their clever speech-writers suggested that several of my favorite professors were guilty of a "confessional Lutheran gnosticism," because, it was claimed, those men insisted on right doctrine, supposedly to the detriment of missions and evangelism.  The politicos who made such claims knew not the good people they accused, nor the things concerning which they made such confident assertions, but I find it particularly ironic in retrospect.

In the decades that have followed, I have frequently heard the arguments that the actual practice of worship is utterly neutral and of no real significance to the heart and soul of what we are about.  The Lutheran Confessions are thumped as loudly as ever they were in defense of right doctrine, in promotion of the popular theory, that rites and ceremonies are adiaphora, and are therefore up for grabs.

Over and over, I hear tell that, so long as we all agree on the same "doctrine," the differences in practice don't matter.  And, on the surface of such words, what can I possibly do but agree?  I recognize and affirm, as boldly and confidently as anyone, that the unity of the Church does not depend on uniformity in man-made rites and ceremonies; and that differences in adiaphorous traditions are not divisive to the Body of Christ.

The premise I cannot accept, but which I fear will bring great harm upon the fellowship of the Church on earth, is that her doctrine can be hermetically self-contained, inviolate and vital, in well-worn sound bites and in the hallowed pages of CPH publications.  Such a great treasure the Small Catechism is, Christ be praised for His mercy in preserving it among us these many years, and for granting us a renaissance in its actual use!  But the Catechism, and all doctrine, is to be prayed and practiced, not simply memorized and repeated.  The practice won't look quite the same in every place, but the practice actually matters, and it can be externally measured and evaluated because it is practiced in and with the body.

It is the body, first of all, that receives Holy Baptism for the cleansing of the conscience by faith.  It is the body that eats and drinks the Body and Blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.  It is the body that kneels at the Altar, where the penitent asks, "Dear pastor, please hear my confession, and grant me forgiveness in order to fulfill God's will."  It is the body also that rests in the Sabbath of Christ, in order to hear and receive the Word and work of the Lord in the external preaching and administration of the Gospel.  So, too, it is the body that gives voice to the Name of the Lord in prayer, praise, thanksgiving, and intercession.  And it is the body that loves the neighbor in his body and life with genuinely good works.

What I long for is not a lock-step uniformity in every jot and tittle of practice.  I don't believe that such a thing is either possible or desirable.  But it is a dangerous gnostic cancer to suppose that our Christian faith and life and fellowship can be summed up in slogans and dogmatic affirmations, while practice is meanwhile treated as a matter of strategy and style, of personal taste and creativity, of no account or consequence to our present confession or posterity.

When everything is left to depend on a word that hasn't become flesh, no matter whether it is a long or short word, demanding or lax, then we have let go of Christ and lost Him.

What I long for is reverence and awe in the presence of the Word who has become flesh, and a confession of His Gospel with both mind and spirit, with hearts and souls and voices, and with bodies of flesh and blood.  So that the God-given freedom of adiaphora will be understood and exercised as a freedom to worship the Father in the Holy Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the one true faith of His Body, crucified and risen, given and received.  Then, whether we bend the knee, or stand, or sit, and whatever it is our neighbor does with his or her body, we will not condemn or cast aspersions, but neither will we naively suppose that it doesn't matter.

Let each of us possess his own vessel in purity and honor, and worship the Lord in the splendor of His holiness, and the whole earth tremble before Him, who alone does wondrous things and saves us by the great glory of His grace.

Once Again, the Anglicans Do it Better

By Larry Beane

English speaking Lutheranism, including the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, has an interesting relationship with Anglicanism.

Much of our English liturgy is rooted in the translations from the Book of Common Prayer.  The publishing house affiliated with the LCMS, CPH, owns the copyright to many of Healy Willan's musical arrangements.  The familiar Common Service (LSB DS3) tune for the Gloria in Excelsis is a Scottish chant shared with historical Anglicanism.  Along with historic Anglicanism, traditional Lutheranism shares a Western Catholic liturgical tradition while being heirs of the Reformation - thus having a tradition of Evangelical theology seated comfortably alongside a Catholic view of liturgy and church history.  Historically speaking, Lutherans and Anglicans are "one step from Rome."

Traditional Anglicans generally conduct the Mass with reverence and dignity, even if perhaps an aristocratic British stiff-upper-lip fussiness that might be a little over the top for many democratically-minded Americans.  And perhaps in a nod to 007 (who, after all, is in the service of the head of the Anglican Communion that includes most Anglicans), we may well give homage to our Anglican cousins with a round of Nobody Does it Better.  And I would be shocked (shocked!) if no LCMS congregations have used this theme as some kind of "worship song."

But even in matters of heresy, it seems like the Anglicans do it better.

They do the whole Montanist thing with an elan and showmanship that puts our own pathetic-by-comparison tiny remnant of elderly RIM tongue-speakers to shame.  Our Anglican cousins also go whole hog in the Wiccan-goddess thing with priestesses in full fig, by far exceeding the almost staid-by-comparison LCMS's forays into women in ministry with albs and stoles.  And when it comes to turning the Divine Service into farcical and frivolous entertainment, why, the above Big Dance Show beats the LCMS's amateurish twiddling around with flutes and snare drums and and acoustic guitars and "Shine, Jesus Shine" - hands down.

Or should I say, "hands up"?

You have to say this for the Anglicans: they swing for the fence - whether they are highly traditionalist bodies like the ACC that believe in liturgical dignity and catholic tradition; or worshipers of the false gods of feminism, homosexuality, and postmodernism like the ECUSA; or enthusiasts of the charismatic River Dance style, like this group above: the ACNA - with whom the LCMS has been in dialogue.

In fact, "The ACNA is the first non-Lutheran denomination to enter into any sort of dialogue with LCMS."

Why would the LCMS be in dialogue with this body?  Well, they oppose gay "marriage."  Coming out against "teh ghey" covers a multitude of sins, it seems, and this issue appears to have become the gold standard of ecumenical cooperation and dialogue, and for many denominations, the single issue by which the church stands or falls, shares or breaks communion.  All else is treated as adiaphora.

Whether good, bad, or ugly, the Anglicans don't seem to go for halfway measures.  They seem even capable of extremism in their moderation - as evidenced by the militantly middling "neither high church, nor low church" wing!  But then again, so as not to be perceived as throwing stones, you can see some genuinely outrageous things masquerading as Lutheranism as well.  The LCMS is not exempt.  You can find rock music, dancing girls, cup holders, clown eucharists, and pastors running around in street clothes with little microphones stuck to their heads within driving distance from just about everyone wishing to attend such things in LCMS congregations.

I guess the one saving grace is that we in the LCMS are typically pretty lame in our attempts to be hipsters.  Hopefully this dialogue with the ACNA isn't going to help us do their things better!

Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

A Trinity 17 Sermon by Fr. Joshua Hayes

[Ed note: Gottesdienst (the print journal) readers were treated to four top-notch sermons in the current issue, including one by Fr. Joshua J. Hayes of St. John Lutheran Church in Kramer, Nebraska.  He had actually sent me two sermons, and I went with his Trinity 18 offering.  But I also really liked his Trinity 17 sermon as well, and so I asked his permission to publish it here at GO.  If you're not a subscriber, you missed three other sermons by Frs. William Weedon, Dave Juhl, and Jay Watson - along with columns by Frs. Burnell Eckardt, David Petersen, Mark Braden, and Karl Fabrizius; essays by Fr. Peter Berg and myself, as well as a hymn by Fr. Eckardt and Mrs. Kathryn Hill. +LB]

Trinity 17, October 16, 2011

Joshua J. Hayes, St. John Lutheran Church, Kramer, NE

St. Luke 19.41-48

Grace, Mercy, and Peace to you from God our Father, and from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

X In the name of Jesus. X

It was a setup from the beginning. Jesus was invited to a dinner party at the house of a leading Pharisee, but not to be their guest, but to be framed. What better way to get rid of a nuisance than to have him framed? And what better way to get rid of a religious nuisance than to trap him in his own religion. The trap was set, the bait carefully positioned, and our Lord walked right into it. The Pharisees were watching Jesus carefully, just waiting for him to spring their trap.

And what was this trap? In their cleverness and religiosity the Pharisees thought they had a good plan: Seat Jesus right in front of a poor guy suffering from dropsy—a nasty disease where your body holds too much water. Jesus, so they thought, would be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either Jesus would heal the man and have compassion on him and thus do work on the Sabbath, or Jesus would keep the Sabbath but appear to be unmerciful and weak.

The Pharisees here are doubly despicable. It is as if they knew that Jesus would have compassion. They had come to know that that’s who Jesus is; that’s how he behaves. He is full of mercy and compassion. Knowing this, the Pharisees preyed upon Jesus’ mercy. Unlike the parable of the unjust steward who risks everything on his master’s mercy to improve not only his own situation, but also that of his neighbors and the reputation of his master, these Pharisees only seek to use our Lord’s mercy to trap and destroy him.

But not so fast. Before you start condemning these despicable Pharisees for the way they use Christ’s mercy against him, point your Pharisaic finger at yourself. You do the same thing. These Pharisees were always in the habit of setting Jesus up for failure. But we do the same thing. Only how much more despicable are we who bear the name not Pharisee but Christian!

We pit Christ against his word and seek to use his mercy as the excuse for our sin. “Since Christ is all merciful,” we think, “there’s no real harm in lusting after women on the internet or TV.” “Since Christ will always forgive me, there’s no real problem in neglecting his word. Going to church isn’t a good work that earns my salvation, so why worry about making it there every Sunday? My Jesus is loving and forgiving; I don’t need to actually try to amend my life and love my neighbor, spouse, and children more than myself.”

Repent. Pharisees don’t care about what Christ says or does. They only want to catch him so as to have an excuse not to listen to him; to get rid of him.

But Jesus will not be gotten rid of; not by you, and not by these Pharisees. He loves you too much to let your brush him off. He walks straight into the Pharisees’ pathetic trap and springs it on purpose. He says, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?” The Pharisees are silent. Now Christ has put them in their own trap and they know not what to say. They cannot but condemn themselves. We cannot but condiment ourselves. But though it will cost him his life, Christ will not leave you sick in the dropsy of your sins, but will heal you even if it means letting the devil have his way with him.

This is what Jesus does. He does not run from danger, but meets it head on. He does not run from the cross, but goes willingly to his death. The cross was the trap which the death and the devil had laid, and Christ sprung it to set you free. He lays down his life when he wants, and he goes free when he wants. On Calvary Christ laid down his life to save yours. Here at this Pharisaic dinner party, Christ walks straight into their trap and right out on the other side. At the cross, Christ walked into the devil’s trap and let him win, but came out on the other side that first Easter morning. 

Beloved, we have not been called to bear the name Pharisee, but rather Christian. And Christians you are, for you have been put into Christ. He, the one whom heaven and earth cannot contain was willing to be contained in the Virgin’s womb for you. He, the one who knows all things and sees all things was willing to grow and be taught the word of his Father for you. He, the one who humbled himself to death, even the death of a cross to raise you back up to the Father. Jesus has humbled himself and exalted you.

And see how high, dear Christian, your Jesus has exalted you! Your status is higher than any celebrity, any movie star, president, prince, or politician. For you have been called be a regular diner at the table of the King of kings.

There was once a man who had a funny name. His name was Mephibosheth. But worse than the awkwardness of his name was its meaning: “disgrace comes from my mouth.” He was disgraced because he was the only survivor from the family of a deposed king named Saul. And worse, yet, he was lame in both feet.

Mephibosheth should have been killed on the spot. That’s what you do with pesky relatives of former kings. You don’t want them coming after your crown, so you dispose of them. But it just so happens that Mephibosheth, disgraced as he was, lived under the rule of a gracious king: king David. David wanted to have compassion and mercy on his enemy, and so he exalted lowly Mephibosheth and restored all Saul’s lands to him. And more than that—David invited Mephibosheth to eat always at his table. And when you eat at the king’s table, your status is secure.

And so we read in 2 Sam. 9 that Mephibosheth ate at the king’s table, just like one of the king’s sons.

Beloved, today the Son of David, Jesus Christ, king of all creation, invites you to eat as his table, like one of the king’s sons. For this is what you are: Sons and daughters of the king.

Don’t you see? It was a setup from the beginning. All that Christ has done he has done to bring you’re here—to be a guest at his table; that you may dine with the everlasting king and know that your status with him is secure.

                                                                                                                       

In the Name of the Father, and of the X Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The peace of God, which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.

Out of the Barn!

The horse has been out of the barn for a couple of weeks already, but actually, it's more like a team of horses.  Most of the copies of the Michaelmas issue of Gottesdienst were released in late August; and today, the rest went out. Our new printers take the spreadsheet we send them and then they send the issues out to individual subscribers.  Any subscriptions that have more than one copy in them, or that are out-of-country, went out today, from here.  It's still a bit of a horse race, however, because the individual issues get sent via media mail, which can be slower. What's odd is that some of our readers actually get  to see the finished product before some of the editors do.

And what's really odd, and sad, is that some people will never see the finished product because, well, they're not subscribers.  Yet.

Subscribe today.  $15 for a year; $25 for two years (domestic rates).  Click here.  Wanna see what's inside?  Have a look:

The Brady Bunch, the Book of Concord, and a Paternal Postscript

By Larry Beane

As addressed definitively by Father Curtis in a previous post, our Lord's words in Matt 23:9-10 are often used by Protestants to decry the "Roman Catholic" custom of calling their pastors "Father."  Fr. Curtis addressed the biblical passages that conflict with that peculiar minority view found in modern American Protestant Christianity that vociferously attacks the "Father" custom.

I offer the following as a sort of PS, as the issue keeps popping up like the proverbial Whack-A-Mole carnival game.  The argument hinges on the question of our Lord's context.  Is this passage to be interpreted literally ("this is my body") or figuratively ("if your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out")?  An episode of The Brady Bunch revolved around this kind of thing when Greg, seeking to work around being grounded, parsed his parents' decree by invoking "exact words" - knowing full well what the intent was.  Let's just say that Greg's hermeneutic did not get him closer to truth and the dishonesty rather complicated matters.

Regarding the assumption that the "father" custom is "Roman Catholic, there is a gap between perception and reality.  For the ancient custom is not only practiced by Roman Catholics, but also by Eastern Orthodox Christians, many Anglicans worldwide, and numerous Lutherans in diverse countries around the world, and to a lesser extent, in the United States.  Moreover, it is also practiced by Protestants and Lutherans when they refer to Roman Catholic clergymen by the title "Father."  If our Lord's words are intended to be taken literally, a Protestant Christian should never refer to a Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, or Lutheran pastor as "Father" - for the Lord's "exact words" (thank you, Greg Brady!) are "call no man father."

The "calling" is contrary to our Lord's words as well as the "being called."

And the Lord says "call no man," which would include our earthly fathers, church fathers, founding fathers, step-fathers, city fathers, grandfathers, etc.  If the Lord is being literal here, we must come up with a different name for "Father's Day."  Or, to invoke Greg Brady yet again in another episode, maybe teenagers, in order to be consistent with the Lord's command, should amble to the breakfast table in their shades and address their parents as "Mike" and "Carol."  Let's just say the Brady parents did not approve of this innovative custom of protest, disrespectful of tradition and authority.

Some objectors to pastors being called "father" argue that the Lord's words "call no man father" does not apply to our bio-dads - only to our fathers in the spiritual sense, such as pastors.  In so doing, such people are arguing that the Lord's words are literal in some cases, but figurative in other cases; that "call" is literal while "no man" is figurative - at very least, in some cases, but not others.  They parse the metaphor to not include some fathers, but to include other fathers.  It's all very confusing.

Many pastors (as well as ordained men not serving as pastors) are also "instuctors" ("neither be called instructors" v. 10) - whether they are teachers at parochial schools, universities, or seminaries.  The title "instructor" (as the ESV renders καθηγητής) must include the many titles we have for instructors, such as "Professor" and "Doctor."  Yet I have yet to hear anyone offended by this common practice, refer to it as sinful, or interpret the Lord's words to be a literal prohibition against calling men, ordained or lay, "Doctor" or "Professor."

Thus the argument, hacked at haphazardly by Occam's razor, runs like this:

• Calling your biological, well, um, father, by the names "Father," "Dad," Pop," "Papa," etc. is okay.  
• Calling your doctor "Doctor" is okay.  
• Calling your ordained professor "Reverend Doctor" is okay.  
• Referring to the Bishop of Rome as "the Pope" (which is an Anglicized form of the Latin/Italian title "Papa") is okay.  
• But calling your spiritual, um, father, "Father" is one of the few linguistic prohibitions ever given us by our blessed Lord.

Moreover, if it is sinful to apply the title "father" to religious leaders, then St. Stephen committed this sin against our Lord just before being stoned to death by the men he called "fathers" by means as spiritual address, not to mention the Holy Spirit's ill-conceived judgment in allowing this in the inspired Scriptures (Acts 7:2).

But what of our Lutheran confessions?  Surely, calling clergymen "Father," from the parish priest to the Pope (which again means "Father"), was a common practice at the time of the Reformation.  Lutherans based their doctrine and practice on scripture - which certainly includes Matt 23.  Luther did not shy away from making reforms in doctrine and practice that were contrary to our Lord's words.  In fact, he was himself referred to as "Father Martin" as an ordained priest in a monastic order.  One would expect that after the Reformation, his title suddenly became "Pastor Luther."  Even "Doctor" would have been discarded if Luther interpreted Matt 23:9-10 in such as way as to gainsay the use of the honorific "Reverend Father" among Christian clergy.

Well, let's see what the Lutheran Confessions say.

Matt 23:9-10 never appears in the Book of Concord.  Not once.

In fact, the Lutheran confessions do not accept this supposed dominical prohibition of the title "Father," but they actually make use of it.

• In the subscriptions to the Smalcald Articles, one of the signatories, Brixius Northanus, refers to the Smalcald Articles as "the Articles of the Reverend Father Martin Luther" ("articulis reverendi Patris M. Lutheri") - SA 3:15:27.
• In the subscriptions to the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (the title of the treatise itself violates Matt 23:9-10 if our Lord is speaking literally), we find the signature of John Brentz, who makes a statement of assent to the articles with a reference to "Dr. John Bugenhgen, most revered Father in Christ" ("D. Iohannes Bugenhagi, Pater in Christo observandi") - Tr - Subscriptions.  In this case, the "offense" is doubled by using both "Father" and "Doctor" as titles of address.  "Doctor" as a title is spread liberally throughout the subscriptions.  If these were seen as inappropriate usages, one could not find a hint of support from the Book of Concord.
• The Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration) includes this reference: "Therefore also our dear fathers and predecessors, as Lutheran and other pure teachers of the Augsburg Confession..." ("Derhalben auch unsere lieben Väter und Vorfahren, als Lutherus und andere reine Lehrer Augsburglicher Konfession..." / "Quare patres et pii maiores nostri, D. Lutherus et alii sinceri doctores Augustanae Confessionibus...") FC SD 7:58.  This passage uses both "fathers" and "teachers" in a way that those citing Matt 23:9-10 in a literal way ought to disapprove of.
• Martin Luther is also referred to as "doctor" and "teacher" in the Solid Declaration: "Dr. Luther as the leading teacher of the Augsburg Confession..." ("D. Luthers, as die vornehmsten Lehrers der Augsburgischen Konfession" / "D. Lutheri ut primarii doctoris Augustanae Confessionis") FC SD 7:34.
• And it goes without saying that the bishop of Rome is referred to as "the Pope" in the Book of Concord: more than 120 times!

So either the literal interpretation of Matt 23:9-10 is wrong or the Book of Concord is in error.

We are all - spiritual fathers and spiritual children alike - guilty of quite enough real sins that we really don't need to be condemned further, accused of sinning against made-made rules under the guise of innovative Protestant customs rooted in bad hermeneutics and in ignorance of what the Book of Concord contains and of what the Lutheran fathers confessed and practiced.

In the end, Greg Brady learned the foolishness of playing the "exact words" hermeneutical game when it suited his selfish ends to reinterpret an obvious meaning within an obvious context.  Some of our Lutheran brethren have not learned this lesson.