Xαρις και Eιρηνη is a blog written from the perspective of a Lutheran student studying for the pastoral ministry. It's title means Grace and Peace, a common greeting in St. Paul's letters and I think, a two-word summary of what Jesus Christ has won for me.
Ephesians 2:4-5
Because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
Romans 5:1-3
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.
Colossians 4:5-6
Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art.XV, 21
The Fathers had these reasons for maintaining the rites, and for these reasons we also judge it to be right that traditions [good customs] be maintained. And we [Lutherans] are greatly surprised that our adversaries, contrary to the entire Scriptures of the Apostles, contrary to the Old and New Testaments contend for another design of traditions, namely, that they may merit the remission of sins, grace, or justification.
1.28.2008
Paul to Corinth, on Faithful Ministers
Some of the verses that we translated for our 1 Corinthians class today relate directly to what I posted about yesterday. But for the sake of clarity, permit to offer some doctrinal context.
In this text (1 Corinthians 3:10-17), Paul is using the analogy of ministers being builders. So to start, he compares Christian preachers to other Christian preachers. (Notice how he says that no one can lay a foundation other than the one that has already been laid, namely Christ. If the foundation of your church is not Christ, then it is not a Christian church.) The Bible tells us that the true, invisible, universal Christian church is found wherever the Word is preached and the sacraments are administered. Yes! Praise God! There is saving faith in Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Calvinism, Methodism, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, Congregationalism, Puritanism, etc. As long as the message of vicarious atonement, that is the message of forgiveness with Christ as our substitute, is understood by some in these churches, there is the gift of salvation. But as you see in Paul's inspired letter below, there is also greater and lesser degrees of quality to preaching.
If your church promotes good works and obedience to the Law as a thing which assists in salvation, it has blurred or obscured Christ. If your church denies the presence of the Lord in the sacrament in any real sense, it has blurred or obscured Christ. If your church promotes worship materials, icons, sermon analogies, social programs, etc., that detract from the preaching of Christ crucified, you have blurred or obscured him. It's not that your pastor or priest is necessarily a willful and obstinate false prophet. If he is building on Christ, then he is part of Christ's body, the church. But he may be building with straw or wood instead of precious gold and stones. Of course, in the last part of the excerpt below, Paul also offers stern warning for those who are obstinate false prophets, which he calls "anyone who destroys God's temple."
"By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple."
When I was at my great-grandmother's funeral a few years ago, the Episcopal priest who gave the sermon felt the need or opportunity to declare that he thinks the Holy Spirit is feminine (For rebuttal, see 2 Peter 1:20-21, John 15:26 etc.), and that "she" carried my great-grandmother up to heaven. He could tell that my great-grandma went to heaven because of how nice her family is, and because of all the good things he heard about her. (For rebuttal, see THE BIBLE, John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:21 etc.) All I could do was privately thank God that my great-grandma had been old, and that this was not her priest. I clung to the hope that she was old enough to have remembered a more conservative Episcopal Church, one which taught more clearly the doctrine of vicarious atonement.
This morning in church we watched the latest episode of the WELS Connection. It was about the system of ministerial education that our Synod maintains. Sometimes I wonder, to the people in the pews who are less familiar with the schools, if this comes off as shameless self-promotion. If only I could find the right words to change their minds.
The short clip made what might seem to be a mighty lofty claim: That our little Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod has possibly the best ministerial education program of any church. Of course, some people would scoff, but they don't really know what they're talking about.
Best does not mean that we're "trendy." It doesn't mean that we're the most charismatic. Best, in how I would interpret it, means most faithful. Best means both students and faculty. Best means sanctified and disciplined.
I've heard the sentiment from many an MLC professor. As they occasionally visit events and academic gatherings attended by other private and public colleges and talk to people there, they become convinced that we've got something special here. My Hebrew professor noted how few (if any) priests or pastors in other denominations graduate with six years of Hebrew study, something which is a requirement (except in special cases) in the WELS. (One semester is typical for other denoms, I'm told.)
My Spanish teacher has noted how professors at public universities gawked at him when he explained how much work he gives his classes. They would love to do the same, he said, but none of their students would actually do it.
The list goes on. Why? Because simply, it's in our heritage. Our predecessors valued the Word, and so they set up a system to protect it. They knew history, and they knew that untrained and undisciplined preachers could destroy the message of the Gospel for the whole church. They could see how it had been corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church, by Pietist movement, by the Prussian Union. Commendably, they set up a strong system in which the Spirit could do his work - starting with grade schools, then high schools and prep schools, college and seminary.
It's interesting to note that the WELS has more grade schools than the LC-MS, despite being much smaller. It's interesting to note that the LC-MS has more grade schools than the ELCA, despite being much smaller. Now think about the doctrinal stance of each church, the degree of faithfulness to the Word, and the centrality of Christ in each one respectively. I'm no statistician, but I think there's a direct correlation.
Schools are the roots of society. What is taught in schools today will be the lens through which your children see the world tomorrow. The Psalm-writer knew that when he said, "Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." Luther could see that when he said, "I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth."
Don't undervalue our Synod schools, at any level. Support them like you support the Word they teach. Pray for them, if nothing else... You can use the hymn below:
Lord, keep us steadfast in your Word; Curb those who by deceit or sword Would seek to overthrow your Son And to destroy what he has done.
Lord Jesus Christ, your power make known, For you are Lord of lords alone; Defend your Christendom that we May sing your praise eternally.
O Comforter of priceless worth, Send peace and unity on earth; Support us in our final strife And lead us out of death to life.
As usually happens, life grabs hold of you and despite all your best efforts, things fall behind. This past week was an especially busy one for me, including several quizzes and tests (2nd week back!), a few papers, a great Senior/Control Board banquet with the ladies and pastoral advisors of the Lutheran Women's Missionary Society, and the annual MLC Evangelism Day, among other things. I also fell really sick for several hours on Thursday, and the jury is still out on what exactly that was. The shortness and intensity of it made me think food poisoning, and there were several others down that day around the same time, but not half the student body. Also, it turns out that there were a few problems when I upgraded my video card and expanded my computer memory with some parts from a friend's scrapped machine. Anyway, I'm still alive, everything is back to normal and I'll be posting again shortly. This past week marked the anniversary of the court decision to legalize abortion - a decision that has cost the lives of some 48 million Americans so far. My next post will be quotes and citations from Scripture and early church fathers concerning the matter of abortion. In the meantime, here's a funny one from the newspaper today.
It seems as though the technology bug has got the best of me. Either that, or my friend George is wearing off on me. As I am typing this post, I'm running in Mozilla Firefox, a browser that I have used for a long time now and like it because (1) it has many cool features that are practical and useful, many of which Microsoft imitated for Internet Explorer 7 and (2) it offers WAY better security against adware and spyware than anything Microsoft has ever put forward. Best part, it's free. But now I've also been bitten by the "Linux" bug. Linux is a free software distribution company that uses volunteer hours of techies and financial backing from larger companies to produce awesome, free software. You name it - free media playing programs, photo editing programs, word-processing and design programs, etc. Right now, my computer is running wholly free, and more importantly, Microsoft free. (Even my mp3 player is acknowledged by the operating system, something I've been trying for a week and a half to get Windows XP to do!) For anyone not interested in paying through the nose to pick up Windows Vista, check out UBUNTU, Linux's free operating system. Completely re-released every six months with regular updates once every week or two, this system rocks.
Can you tell that I'm working on a Spanish paper right now? Eventually, I promise, I will again post something with some substance behind it. But in the meantime, there's this. If you've ever lived in Wisconsin and not been a football fan, it can occasionally seem like this is the case:
In a moment of beaming pride, I privately thanked the Lord last Thursday when I walked into the campus bookstore and saw the 2008 synod directory. Sola Dei gloria, of course, in all things. But every once in a while, it does a person good to see that his work is approved of and/or appreciated. What am I talking about? Well, it seems that a graphic I made (back when I was an underclassman) and submitted to the WELS website has become the cover of this year's directory. Cool, eh?
Excerpt from "A New Look at the Lutheran Confessions," by Holsten Fagerberg. Accessed at Pastor David Jay Webber's (ELS) Lutheran Theology Website.
"When the Confessions assert that they are based on the Bible and have grown up on its ground, they are following one of the basic Reformation principles, which can be traced straight through the theological writings of both Luther and Melanchthon. But alongside of the Bible, and also occupying a major place in the Confessions, is ecclesiastical tradition – as this can be seen above all in the church’s oldest doctrinal formulations. This appears both in programmatic expressions and in actual procedures. Von Loewenich, who is by no means inclined to overemphasize the “catholic” element in Luther’s works, reminds us of the reformers’ efforts to preserve a genuine continuity with the ancient church. Luther reveals the same tendency in his attitude toward the iconoclasts, the liturgy, and the dogmas of the early church. In his rejection of the early Christian heretics, his acceptance of infant baptism, and his defense of private confession we see a clear indication of the Reformation tendency to preserve and restore. The aim of the Reformation was not to launch a radical new beginning but to link up with the heritage of the ancient church. Luther had a feeling for continuity."
OK, everyone in the world is going to think that this is how I spend my weekends, but I don't care. I'm waiting to go out with some friends and in the meantime, discovered this website, comparing worldwide food consumption. Really interesting to see!
Well, I just scared myself a little. My posts are beginning to resemble novels, and pretty weighty ones at that. So here's something to lighten the mood. If you're looking for that personal touch to add to your funeral, here it is. Africa is apparently becoming a hub of the fantasy coffin industry. Take a look at these stellar examples of personalized, hand-crafted coffins:
In the last post, I discovered that I like a lot of the candidates that are up for election in 2008. But I still think that I like Huckabee the best. Check out this clip from the O'Reilly factor. While he doesn't want to put it in those terms, Huckabee essentially says that he believes the Bible when he says that Jesus Christ is the only Way to Heaven. For one example, Jesus says in John 14:6, "No one comes to the Father except through me." But Huckabee understands his role as a state leader, too, and he's unwilling to mingle church and state. That's a good thing. That's what we're looking for.
"Do you believe in evolution?... If you're asking me in the Macro sense, I would say no." "I believe that Jesus is the Way to Heaven. That's how I know to get there."
There's nothing more annoying than someone who gets preachy about politics. On the other hand, discussion is a good thing and helps everyone to learn a little, think a little, and weigh their options. I've decided to write a post about my political pondering in the light of all the pre-election hubbub. Not because it would be particularly interesting to anyone reading this, I'm doing this for my own benefit. Sometimes, I am amazed at the thoughts I never thought until I wrote them down.
For the sake of explanation, I have to say that I'm not really going to spend any time on the Democrats. Don't get me wrong. I fully believe that Democrats are people, too... kind of... And I don't really consider myself a Republican. That is to say, I have no particular allegiance to that party. But my conscience is particularly captive to one cause, a cause which leads me to eliminate all Democrats (and some Republicans) from my personal voting options. That cause is to end abortion - America's holocaust of convenience. Maybe sometime next week I'll prepare an argument that shows why abortion is against the will of God in the Bible. If you're lucky, I'll even use extra quotations from the Book of Concord, the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution.
So Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Giuliani are negated on account of their bad abortion stance. Of Candidates with a serious chance, that leaves Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul, and Fred Thompson.
First, Mitt Romney... I like that guy. I think he's charismatic and an effective, efficient communicator. He has a very good business record and I think that he's the most qualified of anyone to deal with the economy. But I do worry about his background. Not his Mormon background so much, because frankly, we're never going to have a Confessional Lutheran as president. As far as I'm concerned, a person with a Judeo-Christian set of ethics is the best we can hope for. And while I would begrudge the Mormons on virtually all theological issues, I cannot deny that they have a sense of morals, work-righteous and pietistic though they may be. I'm more worried about his liberal background and reputation for flip-flopping. I'm not in a position to begrudge anyone a vote because they've had a change of heart. As a matter of fact, part me thinks I ought to be more suspicious of a man who's been in politics for a long time and has never changed his mind on anything. But there are other things that make me wonder. I am concerned about his wealth. Sometimes I wonder about the ability of extraordinarily wealthy people to relate to middle-classers and even more so the poor. There's also the matter of those smear ads against his competitors. I know he has more than paid for them in Iowa and New Hampshire, but people can't help wondering about the first guy to start slinging mud. And frankly, I was surprised by it. The more video footage I see of Romney online, the more I am convinced that he is authentically patient and gentle. If it comes down to him, I wouldn't be disappointed.
Mike Huckabee... What is there to say about a guy who brings Chuck Norris with him to debates and rallies? I was interested in Huckabee early on, back when he was a joke candidate. I didn't think he had a chance, so I put Romney on my Facebook profile. But, with his surprising win in Iowa, I immediately switched back to Huckabee. This guy has a lot going for him. He's a Christian, a minister even, who believes in a six-day creation. He abhors abortion and, unlike Romney, has never supported it. He even gave away in a debate that he personally believes in the inerrancy of Scripture. In a more recent debate, Fred Thompson ridiculed Huckabee by calling him a Democrat. Thompson cited Huckabee's economic positions and his criticism of President Bush's foreign policy as reasons. For die-hard Republicans, that may seem like a bad thing. But like I said, I'm no die-hard Republican. I happen to believe that President Bush's foreign policy is flawed, but that's another post... or book...
John McCain... Honestly, I don't know a lot about the man. I think his military history is a huge pro when it comes to being Commander-in-Chief. For the first half of our nation's history, it was unheard of to have a President who had not been in the military. The thing I worry about most with John McCain is his age. Perhaps that's being a little unfair and I should look at it again when I'm 65, but I really think he's just pushing the limits a little. If being a college student can wear me out so easily, I can hardly imagine what being president would do to a 70 year-old-man. Despite his win in New Hampshire, I have to admit that I'm not really looking into McCain as an option because he lacks gusto, and I think that will hurt him. I of all people should know that articulation often has no bearing on intelligence, but I still think that a president needs the skill. McCain is intelligent, qualified and capable, but neither charismatic nor eloquent. If you want to be president of the United States, you've gotta convince us that you want it.
Ron Paul... Interesting to listen to, but let's be serious. Much as I would like to return to the good old days of 1911, let's not and say we did. Ron Paul's outlook and philosophy are good, I think, but not serious. The biggest thing that I feel he should change is his isolationist viewpoint. Then we'll talk.
Fred Thompson. I feel sorry for the guy. The national media had him placing third for weeks or even months before he entered the race, and he went immediately downhill from there. I guess it's for that reason that I really didn't know what his positions were on anything when he entered the race. Now, they even say that he's having finance problems for his campaign. But the more I see of this man as well, I become convinced the he would also be good for the job. He is articulate, if not enthusiastic, and he's definitely contemplative. But Fred Thompson is not an outright Pro-Lifer. He is certainly a good option, and he believes that we should err on the "side of caution." But he is not willing to go all the way and make a federal law; he thinks it should go to the states. To me, that still leaves lives hanging in the balance, and I'm not a big fan of that. The thing that I like most about Thompson is that he's not a poser. He doesn't depict himself as anything - he lets us decide. Where Edwards beats to death that his father worked in a mill, where Huckabee loves to mention his former job as a minister, where Ron Paul loves to say that Washington hasn't changed him, Thompson says nothing. He speaks about the issues, and lets it rest there.
In a previous post, I casually remarked that an author I linked to taught at an Evangelical college - Evangelical, I said, in the American way as opposed to the Lutheran way. What did I mean by that? Today, I thought I’d show you by writing a short study on the word “Evangelical.” The word is everywhere. We see it regularly in the names of Lutheran churches and congregations. We see it occasionally in the names of other denominations as well. And if you believe the mainstream press, “Evangelicals” are a strange and looming force, hidden within the general population, just waiting to pounce unanimously on an election and superimpose their will. But each of these three examples, in my opinion, represents a very different group. Let’s start with Lutherans. At the start of the Reformation, there were basically two Christian churches – the one that we know as the Roman Catholic Church, headed by the pope, and what some would call the Greek Orthodox Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. Back then, they were probably better known as simply the Western and Eastern churches, or the Roman and Greek churches respectively. Germany, and therefore Dr. Luther, was part of the Roman church. We all know the story. Luther was plagued by personal guilt and the overwhelming desire, fostered by the church of his day, to earn his way into heaven. But his conscience spoke louder than his pride, and he knew that all his righteous acts were like filthy rags. “Who will rescue me from this body of death?” He probably asked himself, just like St. Paul (Romans 7:24). And eventually Dr. Luther found the answer. “Thanks be to God – through Jesus Christ our Lord!” Luther set out to let others know the good news that he had discovered. He realized early on that the church drastically needed to refocus its teachings, and he tried how he knew best to encourage those changes – by writing. But before you could say “Confessio Augustana,” Luther and his followers were excommunicated from the Roman church…Talk about ungrateful. Anyway, Luther and his followers had another problem. They now needed a name for themselves. The papists had ridiculed them with the name “Lutheran,” by which they tried to draw contrast to themselves as “Christians.” But Luther’s followers thought the name was a swell idea, so they adopted it as their own, and thus ruined a good Catholic obloquy. But Dr. Luther didn’t like the name “Lutheran” for his reform movement. He once said in his admonition to the German peasantry to stop rioting,
“I ask that my name be left silent and people not call themselves Lutheran, but rather Christians. Who is Luther? The doctrine is not mine. I have been crucified for no one. St. Paul in First Corinthians 3:4-5 would not suffer that the Christians should call themselves of Paul or of Peter, but Christian. How should I, a poor stinking bag of worms, become so that the children of Christ are named with my unholy name? It should not be dear friends. Let us extinguish all factious names and be called Christians whose doctrine we have. The pope's men rightly have a factious name because they are not satisfied with the doctrine and name of Christ and want to be with the pope, who is their master. I have not been and will not be a master. Along with the church I have the one general teaching of Christ who alone is our master.”
Luther instead preferred his followers to be called “Evangelical Christians.” He brought the term out of the original New Testament Greek. The word ευαγγελιον (pronounced oy-an-gel-li-on) literally means “good news,” “good spiel,” or “gospel.” Luther wanted his followers to be defined by their doctrine, rather than their reluctant leader. As it happened, both names were eventually adopted. “Lutheran” became the dominant one, often qualified by the adjective “Evangelical.” Since that time, “Evangelical Lutheran Church” has been the formal name of the now disjointed movement. In the United States, different groups and credos have historically recognized their seperation while still honoring the larger movement by referring to themselves as synods, councils or associations. In more recent times, however, certain denominations have brazenly attempted to represent themselves as the real heirs of Luther by adopting a rendition of the more formal name. I won’t point fingers... **cough** ELCA **cough**
So, that explains the term “Evangelical Lutheran.” But what about the term “Evangelical” by itself? How did that come about? The answer to that question comes centuries later with a thing called the Prussian Union. Some astute historians out there will remember that the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod was founded by immigrants who were fleeing Germany in protest of the Prussian Union. All movements eventually lose their fervor. It’s true of political movements, cultural movements and spiritual movements alike. Sadly, the same was true of the Lutheran Reformation in Germany. Once all the fighting had died down, governments in Germany decided it was high time to get some religious conformity within their kingdoms. So in the early 1800s, they ordered a merger between the two major Protestant church bodies: the Reformed church (followers of Calvin, Zwingli and others) and the Lutheran church. Their orders were hotly contested by some, but unless they were willing to pick up and leave (as were C.F.W. Walther, Martin Stephan and other founders of the LC-MS), everyone had to conform. Thus, a generic protestant church was born in Germany and the distinctive Lutheran church essentially killed there. The new state church was neither Lutheran nor Reformed, so they took on the name that Luther had originally given his followers, “Evangelical.” American churches like the Evangelical Church, Evangelical Free Church, and several church bodies now merged into the United Church of Christ are representative of the post-Prussian Union immigration and German missionary efforts. But then again, we would be mistaken to say that the same sort of liberal ecumenism was not happening in the United States, because it did - albeit unofficially. The early history of the Wisconsin Synod attests to it, among others. Historically speaking, Reformed theology has been and continues to be the most dangerous threat to gospel in the Evangelical Lutheran Church as presented in the Book of Concord. (Click here for some excellent lectures on the dangers of Reformed Theology.) For a modern example, take a look at the ELCA. This church has progressively been abandoning her Lutheran faith for decades, even centuries, in favor of liberal theology and rationalism – largely (although not exclusively) the fruit of Reformed theology. Even now, she stands poised to merge with any number of liberal Reformed churches in America with which she is already in full communion: the Moravian Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Reformed Church in America, and the United Church of Christ.
Finally, we get to the demographic that most Americans know as “Evangelicals.” You know – the ones who ruin all the fun for liberals and atheists with their relentless harping on morals and responsibility. While I’m not exactly sure where the term in this context was coined, it’s safe to say that it’s the broadest of the three definitions which I am presenting here. Despite being part of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, I’ve never thought of myself as an Evangelical in the demographic sense. It could be because I've never wanted to be demeaned into becoming a demographic, or because I've been functioning with a more specialized definition of the word. Take a look at this site. You'll notice that there are several different definitions of the word "Evangelical." Depending on which ones we use, Confessional Lutherans would fit perfectly or not so easily. I'm proud to say that I rest firmly within all definitions that hinge on conservatism of faith and the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. I probably don't fit so well into definitions that require social activism or a personal conversion experience. But voting isn't fellowship, and chances are the more often than not I agree with other Christians and other denominations who value the same things that I do. Why? Because we have a common source that helps us decide our issues: The Bible.
Evangelical… Eυαγγελιον… Gospel-based… I think that works.
