Glosses From An Old Manse

Chrysostom: The Just Shall Live By Faith

2012-02-02T16:49:00.002+10:00

"For all have sinned, and are under the curse. However he does not say this yet, lest he should seem to lay it down of himself, but here again establishes his point by a text which concisely states both points; that no man has fulfilled the Law, (wherefore they are under the curse,) and, that Faith justifies. What then is the text? It is in the book of the prophet Habakkuk, "The just shall live by faith," (Hab. ii: 4) which not only establishes the righteousness that is of Faith, but also that there is no salvation through the Law. As no one, he says, kept the Law, but all were under the curse, on account of transgression, an easy way was provided, that from Faith, which is in itself a strong proof that no man can be justified by the Law. For the prophet says not, "The just shall live by the Law," but, "by faith".

John Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians 3

Chrysostom on Righteousness as a Gift by Faith, Not Works

2012-02-01T11:17:00.006+10:00

"And he well said, "a righteousness of mine own," not that which I gained by labor and toil, but that which I found from grace. If then he who was so excellent is saved by grace, much more are you. For since it was likely they would say that the righteousness which comes from toil is the greater, he shows that it is dung in comparison with the other. For otherwise I, who was so excellent in it, would not have cast it away, and run to the other. But what is that other? That which is from the faith of God, i.e. it too is given by God. This is the righteousness of God; this is altogether a gift. And the gifts of God far exceed those worthless good deeds, which are due to our own diligence."

John Chrysostom, Homily on Philippians 3

Chrysostom does not always get his exposition of the Word of God right (cf. Walther's comments in Law & Gospel, ch 7), but when he does get it right, as here, imo he exceeds all the other Fathers in the clarity of his preaching of the Gospel.

It is salutary to contemplate what might have been if Chrysostom's grasp of the meaning of the righteousness of God had survived through the Middle Ages. As it was, scholasticism distorted the meaning of the term to mean the retributive righteousness of God by which he condemns and punishes sinners. Thus when Luther, meditating on Romans 1:17 in his monastic cell at Wittenberg, was led to realize that "the righteousness of God" was a gift that came through faith, it was as though the Gospel had been rediscovered and the gates of Heaven opened, as he himself tells us: "I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates . . . that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise."

Two Cheers for the Roman Catholic Church

2012-01-31T16:07:00.010+10:00

Yes, that's right, I want to offer two cheers for the Roman Catholic Church! You see, I'm not anti-Catholic per se, I'm just against what's wrong with the Catholic Church. That happens to be a lot, but when they get something right I'm more than willing to praise them. Particularly, in this case, Pope Paul VI, who, with much moral courage, promulgated the encyclical Humanae Vitae in the northern summer of 1968, just when the "sexual revolution" was getting underway in the West.

Recently, in an on-line discussion concerning the issue of the instability of marriage in contemporary times, prompted by some statistics on virginity and divorce (i.e. people who are virgins at marriage have a much lower divorce rate as compared with their less chaste peers) obtained by colleague LCA pastor Michael Lockwood, I stated that we need to factor in the changing social context over the last two generations in order to understand the issue more completely.

The advent of the birth control pill and the wider availability of abortion - factors which came into play in the 1960s & '70s - made both pre-marital and extra-marital sex (and presumably adultery is still a contributing factor in a lot of divorces, even if "no fault" is recorded) much less "risky" behaviours than they had hitherto been. This no doubt helped facilitate the so-called "sexual revolution", which has been disastrous in its consequences for Western societies.

This raises an interesting question for Protestants, whose churches generally approve of artificial birth control: To what extent is artificial birth control responsible for the increased instability of marriage as an institution? Not to mention the decline in the birth rate over this period, which in turn has contributed to the declining population and social instability of the West in general (and contributed to the decline of Protestant churches in particular). Is artificial birth control, particularly in the form of "the pill", simply a "neutral" technology which can be used for immoral purposes, or is it inherently immoral, as the Catholics argue?

The more I have considered this question over the last ten years or so, the more I have come to think that the Catholics may have had a valid point all along. Of course, it may be a moot point, since from what I gather very few Catholics adhere to their church's position on the matter. Nevertheless, it may be something Lutherans might wish to reconsider given what we know now about the long-term social effects of "the pill".

Slightly tangential, but if I'm not mistaken, Pr Matt Harrison, President of the Missouri Synod, recently urged families in that church to have more children. Indeed, increased fertility is these days an oft overlooked means of church growth! :0)

Aquinas on Law and Gospel

2012-01-26T11:55:00.010+10:00

"Of the Law of the Gospel, Called the New Law, Considered in Itself

Article 1:
Whether the New Law is a written law?

Objection 1. It would seem that the New Law is a written law. For the New Law is just the same as the Gospel. But the Gospel is set forth in writing, according to Jn. 20:31: "But these are written that you may believe." Therefore the New Law is a written law.

Objection 2. Further, the law that is instilled in the heart is the natural law, according to Rm. 2:14,15: "(The Gentiles) do by nature those things that are of the law . . . who have [Vulg.: 'show'] the work of the law written in their hearts." If therefore the law of the Gospel were instilled in our hearts, it would not be distinct from the law of nature.

Objection 3. Further, the law of the Gospel is proper to those who are in the state of the New Testament. But the law that is instilled in the heart is common to those who are in the New Testament and to those who are in the Old Testament: for it is written (Wis. 7:27) that Divine Wisdom "through nations conveyeth herself into holy souls, she maketh the friends of God and prophets." Therefore the New Law is not instilled in our hearts.

On the contrary, The New Law is the law of the New Testament. But the law of the New Testament is instilled in our hearts. For the Apostle, quoting the authority of Jeremias 31:31,33: "Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord; and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Judah, a new testament," says, explaining what this statement is (Heb. 8:8,10): "For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel . . . by giving [Vulg.: 'I will give'] My laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them." Therefore the New Law is instilled in our hearts.

I answer that, "Each thing appears to be that which preponderates in it," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ix, 8). Now that which is preponderant in the law of the New Testament, and whereon all its efficacy is based, is the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is given through faith in Christ. Consequently the New Law is chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe in Christ. This is manifestly stated by the Apostle who says (Rm. 3:27): "Where is . . . thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith": for he calls the grace itself of faith "a law." And still more clearly it is written (Rm. 8:2): "The law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death." Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xxiv) that "as the law of deeds was written on tables of stone, so is the law of faith inscribed on the hearts of the faithful": and elsewhere, in the same book (xxi): "What else are the Divine laws written by God Himself on our hearts, but the very presence of His Holy Spirit?"

Nevertheless the New Law contains certain things that dispose us to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost, and pertaining to the use of that grace: such things are of secondary importance, so to speak, in the New Law; and the faithful need to be instructed concerning them, both by word and writing, both as to what they should believe and as to what they should do. Consequently we must say that the New Law is in the first place a law that is inscribed on our hearts, but that secondarily it is a written law.

Reply to Objection 1. The Gospel writings contain only such things as pertain to the grace of the Holy Ghost, either by disposing us thereto, or by directing us to the use thereof. Thus with regard to the intellect, the Gospel contains certain matters pertaining to the manifestation of Christ's Godhead or humanity, which dispose us by means of faith through which we receive the grace of the Holy Ghost: and with regard to the affections, it contains matters touching the contempt of the world, whereby man is rendered fit to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost: for "the world," i.e. worldly men, "cannot receive" the Holy Ghost (Jn. 14:17). As to the use of spiritual grace, this consists in works of virtue to which the writings of the New Testament exhort men in divers ways.

Reply to Objection 2. There are two ways in which a thing may be instilled into man. First, through being part of his nature, and thus the natural law is instilled into man. Secondly, a thing is instilled into man by being, as it were, added on to his nature by a gift of grace. In this way the New Law is instilled into man, not only by indicating to him what he should do, but also by helping him to accomplish it.

Reply to Objection 3. No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament.

Article 2:
Whether the New Law justifies?

Objection 1. It would seem that the New Law does not justify. For no man is justified unless he obeys God's law, according to Heb. 5:9: "He," i.e. Christ, "became to all that obey Him the cause of eternal salvation." But the Gospel does not always cause men to believe in it: for it is written (Rm. 10:16): "All do not obey the Gospel." Therefore the New Law does not justify.

Objection 2. Further, the Apostle proves in his epistle to the Romans that the Old Law did not justify, because transgression increased at its advent: for it is stated (Rm. 4:15): "The Law worketh wrath: for where there is no law, neither is there transgression." But much more did the New Law increase transgression: since he who sins after the giving of the New Law deserves greater punishment, according to Heb. 10:28,29: "A man making void the Law of Moses dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses. How much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God," etc.? Therefore the New Law, like the Old Law, does not justify.

Objection 3. Further, justification is an effect proper to God, according to Rm. 8:33: "God that justifieth." But the Old Law was from God just as the New Law. Therefore the New Law does not justify any more than the Old Law.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 1:16): "I am not ashamed of the Gospel: for it is in the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth." But there is no salvation but to those who are justified. Therefore the Law of the Gospel justifies.

I answer that, As stated above (1), there is a twofold element in the Law of the Gospel. There is the chief element, viz. the grace of the Holy Ghost bestowed inwardly. And as to this, the New Law justifies. Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xvii): "There," i.e. in the Old Testament, "the Law was set forth in an outward fashion, that the ungodly might be afraid"; "here," i.e. in the New Testament, "it is given in an inward manner, that they may be justified." The other element of the Evangelical Law is secondary: namely, the teachings of faith, and those commandments which direct human affections and human actions. And as to this, the New Law does not justify. Hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:6) "The letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth": and Augustine explains this (De Spir. et Lit. xiv, xvii) by saying that the letter denotes any writing external to man, even that of the moral precepts such as are contained in the Gospel. Wherefore the letter, even of the Gospel would kill, unless there were the inward presence of the healing grace of faith.

Reply to Objection 1. This argument holds true of the New Law, not as to its principal, but as to its secondary element: i.e. as to the dogmas and precepts outwardly put before man either in words or in writing.

Reply to Objection 2. Although the grace of the New Testament helps man to avoid sin, yet it does not so confirm man in good that he cannot sin: for this belongs to the state of glory. Hence if a man sin after receiving the grace of the New Testament, he deserves greater punishment, as being ungrateful for greater benefits, and as not using the help given to him. And this is why the New Law is not said to "work wrath": because as far as it is concerned it gives man sufficient help to avoid sin.

Reply to Objection 3. The same God gave both the New and the Old Law, but in different ways. For He gave the Old Law written on tables of stone: whereas He gave the New Law written "in the fleshly tables of the heart," as the Apostle expresses it (2 Cor. 3:3). Wherefore, as Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xviii), "the Apostle calls this letter which is written outside man, a ministration of death and a ministration of condemnation: whereas he calls the other letter, i.e. the Law of the New Testament, the ministration of the spirit and the ministration of justice: because through the gift of the Spirit we work justice, and are delivered from the condemnation due to transgression." Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Summa Theologica, found here courtesy the English Dominicans

While on holidays recently I happened across an old post from 2010 on David Schutz's blog (link in blogroll) wherein he declared that the Lutheran distinction between Law and Gospel was not part of the catholic tradition but was an innovation. In a way, David is correct: there was not enough understanding or practice of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel in the early and medieval church. That deficit led directly to the Reformation. But that there were no precedents for the Lutheran distinction between Law and Gospel in the catholic tradition prior to the Reformation is not true. The Lutheran doctrine is a deepening of a discussion on Law and Gospel which can be traced through the catholic tradition back to its roots in the New Testament writings, where it was occasioned by the conflict in the apostolic church with the Judaizers. This conflict brought about the inspired reflections on the relation between the Old and New covenants and the relation of Law and the Gospel under the New covenant, a theme which, when it is not being discussed openly, is never far beneath the surface of the New Testament (witness Jesus' encounters with sinners in the Gospels, which teach the distinction between Law and Gospel in a most practical manner).

On to Aquinas: while Aquinas's terminology above is not Lutheran (we would not normally refer to the Gospel as "the new Law" for fear of misunderstanding, although such terminology can be used and understood in a correct manner, hence the apostle Paul's "law of faith" language) his content here, I maintain, is consistent with later Luther expositions of the relation between Law and Gospel. For that reason, this passage serves as a good example of the necessity of carefully examining what a theologian actually says, even if his terminology is appears unfamiliar or even erroneous, rather than being content to do theology by slogans.

Having said that, what does Aquinas actually say here? There are three chief things I am interested in and draw your attention to. the first thing is that the "law" of the Gospel is the principle of grace, which is given by the Holy Spirit who justifies the ungodly through faith. In Lutheran theology we would naturally agree, and we would therefore say that the Gospel - the good news that we are saved by grace through faith alone in Christ alone - must predominate on the preaching and teaching of the church.

The second thing is that God's Law, as given in the Old Testament on tablets of stone, did not have the power to justify but only to terrify. Lutherans would again agree. In Lutheran terms this is called the theological use of the law, i.e. the Law accuses the sinner and leads to a knowledge of his sins, and it is still operative in the lives of believers in as much as we remain sinners after justification (the "old Adam").

The third thing is that such aspects of the "new law" or Gospel as doctrines and commandments or precepts do not justify - since justification comes by faith and not the law. So, we are not justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith alone, rather, we are justified by believing in Christ. By the same token, neither are we justified by believing in the infallibility of the Pope, the immaculate conception and assumption of the virgin Mary, or any of the other doctrines which Rome has declared to be de fide (of the faith) and therefore necessary for salvation. That's not to say that doctrine is not important! Doctrine (specifically the doctrine of the Gospel; see the doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession) is essential, but as a means to an end, not the end itself.

To note all of this is not to say that Aquinas was a proto-Lutheran. Not only would that be anachronistic, but Aquinas's soteriological notions, conceived under the influence of Aristotle, whereby grace is a substance infused into man's soul which, with the consent of the subject's free will, moves the soul towards God as its highest good through the cultivation of the virtues (hence Aquinas's statement that "we work justice") are not just questionable but unBiblical. The Lutheran can at least take consolation from the fact that Aquinas taught that the justification of the ungodly was greater miracle than sanctification - this is why Lutheran insist on the primacy of the article of justification in the hierarchy of doctrines.

In Aquinas's defense, it could be said that he was attempting to show that the then newly re-discovered thought of Aristotle (whom Aquinas simply refers to as "the Philosopher"), which presented quite a challenge to the church, was not antithetic to the Christian faith. Unfortunately Aquinas went beyond merely apologetic concerns and allowed the thought categories of Aristotle to shape his theology in a way which finally distorted Christian doctrine (a similar path was trodden by those theologians of the 20th century who used Existentialism for apologetic and explanatory purposes).

Thus the tragedy of modern Roman Catholicism, which has made Aquinas its official theologian for all time (which is why Lutherans should study him; the informed reader can see his influence everywhere in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church for e.g.). By doing so, the Roman church has canonised not only the truths which Aquinas sets forth, but also his errors.

Luther Invented Justification by Faith Alone, Right?

2012-01-17T13:35:00.020+10:00

Luther invented justification by faith alone, right? Sitting in his dark room at the Wartburg, an isolated and wanted man, for reasons found not in the Biblical text but deep within his own tortured psyche, he wantonly inserted "allein" (alone) into his German translation of Romans 3:28 without justification (sic!) and thus a heresy was born.

Wrong, as we shall see. That's certainly the picture that is painted by many Eastern Orthodox and some Roman Catholic apologists. But it's telling that professional RC theologians at least tend to be much more circumspect about making such claims these days. This is a direct result of the quantity and quality of Luther and Patristics studies that Roman Catholics engaged in during the 20th C., which revealed to them a somewhat different picture to the caricature contained in my opening paragraph.

But some myths are a long time dying, particularly when first order doctrines of salvation are concerned - as has often been said, truth is the the first victim of polemics. Some of Luther's critics inclined to the ad hominem method of debate have explained the genesis of Luther's heresy as residing in his alleged shortcomings as a monk, variously supposed to be a struggle with lust, drunkenness, or depression. For whatever reason, it is conjectured, Luther couldn't cut it as a monk - contrary to the reports of his superior, Staupitz, btw - and the psychological pressure of this realization caused him to interpolate "alone" into Romans, thus providing the "escape valve" of psychological assurance of salvation apart from a life of Christian piety and obedience lived in the fellowship of the church.

Here's an example, sans ad hominem, from a book by a Serbian Orthodox theologian:

“As a matter of fact, Luther argued, and other Protestants also affirmed, that a man is justified before God only through faith in Christ and the redemption that Christ brought to suffering humanity. This is called a material principle of the Reformation. Good works are not necessary for salvation... It is interesting to study the process how Luther translated the Holy Scriptures into the German language. In Romans 3:28, the verse reads: ‘We believe, namely, that a man is justified by faith independent of the works of the Law.’ Luther added to the translation an extra word: ‘alone.’ That word corrupted the Holy Scriptures to say what Luther declared as a material principle of the Reformation: ‘Man is saved by faith alone.’ Regardless of the fact that such teaching is illogical and contrary to the Bible, it has infiltrated the entirety of Protestantism in all its forms.” Lazar Milin, A Systematic Apologetic of Religions, Cults, and Sects, 52

The Eastern Orthodox critique usually continues to opine that Luther was but the inevitable result of the overly juridical (i.e. law based) Western soteriology which ultimately derives from Augustine - as if the Bible itself knows nothing of forensic/juridical language for salvation! But being at the end of the line doesn't absolve Luther from responsibility - as we see from the quote above, Luther is regarded as the father of the Protestant heresy (Luther himself would surely "protest" against being labelled the father of anything but the church which bears his name, and even then...but that's another issue) and the arch corrupter of Holy Scripture with his illogical and unBiblical teaching of justification by faith alone.

Quite a charge! The problem is that it doesn't stand up to the historical evidence. Books have been written on this subject, so a mere blog post can't possibly hope to cover the evidence adequately, but a helpful quote from an eminent Roman Catholic authority on Pauls' Letter to the Romans goes some way towards suggesting the folly of labelling Luther's discovery of justification by faith alone in Romans an ahistorical and untraditional novum:

"At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223."

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, 1993, 360-361.

Readers may find some more patristic quotes germane to this subject here
I will be adding to these as time permits over the coming year.

Pic: Luther's room in the Wartburg Castle where he translated the New Testament.

Listen to the Epitome of the Formula of Concord!

2012-01-12T16:23:00.016+10:00

Yes, be like the happy family pictured and enrich your otherwise dull evenings by listening to an exposition of sound Christian doctrine (seriously, this is good stuff!). Let me explain further: while on holidays I had some leisure time to further explore this "interweb" thing. Amongst a lot of rubbish, one uncommonly useful site I came across is LibriVox, which, as the name suggests, publishes "spoken books" in something called "mp3 format". The great thing about these files is that they are free! This astonishing feat can be accomplished because they are recordings of volunteer readings of texts in the public domain and thus free of copyright.

So far I have only listened to Augustine's 'Confessions'; for an amateur production the quality was quite good, which hopefully augurs well for the other titles in the catalogue. One of these happens to be the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, one of the Lutheran confessions of faith, which I think will be my next download (yes, theological geeks like me get excited by this). You can download the Epitome here and while you're there you might like to bookmark the site and check out the catalogue yourself, which covers everything from mystery novels to poetry, theology and philosophy.

Clearly LibriVox is a work in progress - their ambitious goal is to record all books currently in the public domain - may God bless the efforts of those involved that they may bring pleasure and wisdom to many!

The Baptism of Jesus

2012-01-09T16:17:00.012+10:00

Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me? But Jesus answered him, Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness. Then he consented. And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were
opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting
on him. And a voice from heaven said, This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I
am well pleased. (Matthew 3:13-17)

"the most important thing about this festival is Christ’s baptism. I wish the day were called “The Baptism of Christ”.* At the Jordan, in his thirtieth year, Christ reveals himself fully for the first time. John is shocked by [his desire to be baptized] and says, “Shall I baptize you? I am not worthy.” But Jesus responds, “Be content; this is the way it should be.” The Son, who is without sin, allows himself to be baptized for our example and our comfort. He does something here that is not required of him, whereas we do nothing that is not required of us. More, we do what is evil. How will we ever get to the point of doing something not required? Christ is holier even than baptism, yet still allows himself to be baptized. Thereby he institutes baptism. So those accursed people who despise or ridicule baptism are banished to the depths of hell. May God blight them and blind them, since they don’t have the ears and eyes to see what is going on here. Although they do not choose baptism, God’s Son does! Are we so arrogant that we should despise baptism? Even if it offered us nothing at all, we should honor baptism simply for Christ’s name’s sake, and be baptized to honor him. But [something is offered]: God in heaven poured himself out when Christ was baptized." Martin Luther, Sermon on the Baptism of Jesus (January 6, 1534)

* At this time in the Christian West the baptism of Jesus was celebrated on Epiphany, as it still is in the Christian East to this day.

The original text of this sermon (partly in German, partly in Latin) is in WA37:249-253. The English translation is by Frederick J. Gaiser and is available in full here. A contemporary German version is available in Martin Luther, Ausgewählte Werke, vol. 3, Ausgewählte Predigten (Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1935) 63-70.

Pic: 'The Baptism of Jesus', stained glass panel by William Morris, in the parish hurch, Troutbeck, Cumbria, England (courtesy stainedglassphotography.com).

Is Christmas Vulgar? Yes!

2012-01-07T09:01:00.022+10:00

Christ Jesus...though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:6-11 (ESV Anglicised text)

It's still Eastern Orthodox Christmas somewhere in the world as I post this, so 'Merry Christmas' to my Orthodox friends following the Julian calendar.

I hope that's not too vulgar a greeting, 'Merry Christmas'...I know the more traditional greeting in the Orthodox world for this feast is 'Christ is Born! Glorify Him!', but it seems to me that there is something inherently vulgar about Christmas that we should not play down and which all the solemnly pious warnings one hears from church leaders at this time of year about the dangers of the 'commercialisation' and 'secularisation' of the season miss (my only gripe with commercial Christmas is that it begins too soon).

For, at its heart, the Incarnation itself is vulgar, isn't it? Just think about it: God becoming man...in a manger of all things...in a stable of all settings...not in storied Rome but in obscure Bethelehem of all places and among such common, vulgar people too! Who would ever have thought it possible that God would enter our world on such terms?

Ah, the 'happy exchange' begins: God becomes man, the eternally begotten Son takes on human flesh in order to take upon Himself our sin and raise man from the dust of eternal death.

Yes, 'Christ is born: glorify Him!' or, 'Merry Christmas!' So, turn on the flashing lights on the tree and pass me another cup of the brandy-laced egg nog and a bowl of kutya, for the fast is over and we have something to celebrate (indeed, it is worth celebrating twice)!

--+--

Something my Eastern Orthodox readers (all two of them?!) may not know: among the theological reforms initiated by Luther was the restoration to the West of the Christology of the Greek Fathers as a necessary and healthy counter-balance to the more typically Western Christology of Pope Leo. Following Luther, the Lutheran orthodox theologian, confessor and patristics scholar Martin Chemnitz produced the exhaustive Lutheran treatment of Christology in his 'The Two Natures of Christ' (1561), which is available in English translation from Concordia Publishing House (see link). After Holy Scripture and the Councils of the early church, Chemnitz's most cited authorities are Cyril of Alexandria and John of Damascus.

--+--

As of 13.01.12 no comments! Lucian, you usually have so much to say(?)

What is the Gospel?

2012-01-04T12:54:00.029+10:00

Over at his blog Sentire Cum Ecclesia, our erstwhile Lutheran brother David Schutz has written:

‘I have asked before (and will keep asking) the question “What is the Gospel?” because I firmly believe that unless we grasp what the Gospel – the Good News – actually is, we will not be able to proclaim it. ‘

My first reaction was sadness that David, a former Lutheran pastor who became Roman Catholic ten years ago (after which event he still claimed to be in some sense 'a Lutheran') would have to ask this question of his fellow Roman Catholics and himself. But those of us who have closely studied the doctrine and life of the Roman Catholic Church would certainly not be surprised at the confusion David has found (and evidently experienced within himself) in his adopted ecclesial community as to this most basic and urgent of questions: what is the Gospel?

The Gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes it (Rom 1:16) and David is profoundly correct in stating that unless the Gospel is clearly defined it cannot be proclaimed. I would add that without such proclamation sinners are not being saved, no matter how many of them fill the pews at each Mass (indeed, I can't tell you how many ex-Roman Catholics, my dear wife included, who I have heard say 'I never heard the Gospel in the x number of years I spent in the Roman church').

So, in the interest of furthering the cause of the Gospel among our Roman friends, I have humbly offered a definition in the comments section of David's post; this definition is basically a paraphrase of what is written in the Lutheran confession of faith known as the Formula of Concord [@ SD V, 20]. I hope this might go some way towards answering David's question in his own mind and that of his co-religionists:

The Gospel [the Good News] is the proclamation that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, has taken upon Himself and borne the curse of the Law and has expiated and paid for all our sins by his suffering and death on the Cross. Through faith in him we enter into favour with God, our sins are forgiven and we are delivered from death and all the just punishments our sins deserved, and are eternally saved.

Bible references, I added, could be supplied if needed, or, I suggested, one might simply want to read Paul’s Letter to the Romans for the definitive, inspired theological exposition of the Gospel.

More could be said on the subject of the Gospel, of course, but in my estimation that is exactly how Rome has fallen into error - with what it has illegitimately added to the divinely revealed Gospel - a damnable tendency I like to call 'the Roman and': faith and works, Jesus and Mary and the saints, God's will and man's, and so on (just read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) to be disabused of the notion that Vatican II changed any Roman doctrine concerning soteriology). So, I will leave it at that for the present - after all we are seeking clarity, looking to sweep the Roman church clean, so to speak, of the accumulated doctrinal dust of centuries which has obscured the pristine beauty of the foundational Gospel God gave it at the brilliant dawn of the Christian era. It was, after all, to the Roman Christians that Paul wrote his seminal letter, which still shines incandescently with the grace of God almost two millenia later.

--+--

It will be interesting to see what comments this elicits from those who 'think with the [papal] church' on David's blog. If interested, you can follow the discussion here. Caveat lector: false doctrine abounds, so venture abroad (i.e. follow the link) armed with the sword of the Spirit:

'But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.'
Romans 3:21-25 (NIV)

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Walking Is Man's Best Medicine

2012-01-01T13:57:00.006+10:00

Most of my life I've been a great one for walking. As a kid my friends and I would think nothing of walking the 10 kilometres home from a day watching the cricket at "the Gabba" (for overseas readers, Brisbane's main cricket stadium and the venue for international matches); of course, we'd discuss the day's play as we made our way back through the suburbs, so it hardly seemed like any effort at all. Later, as a young adult I'd regularly walk 5 kilometres home from work everyday (Brisbane is a very hilly city, btw); I found it helped me to clear my head after a day sitting at a desk in an artificial environment. Even later, in seminary, a friend and I would often walk to and from the Adelaide CBD in less than an hour.
But entering pastoral ministry changed all that. As the patterns of daily life became more erratic the walks decreased in frequency and eventually ceased altogether. Not surprisingly, health problems have ensued in the years since. So, I've resolved to work on things this year and get back into the habit of regular walking. I hope and pray the health benefits will follow - I'll let you know how I go, but let me just say that I was surprised after a recent half hour walk to find my blood pressure significantly lower than its usual (high) reading. As the saying goes, 'walking is man's best medicine'. If you're thinking along the same lines, this is worth checking out if you need motivation:

Oh, thanks for your comments about my review - I'll get to moderating them when I get back from my walk ;0)

Review

2011-12-27T10:45:00.004+10:00

Yes, I know, there's nothing more boring than blogging about blogging, but around about this time of year, when I'm on holidays, I usually find myself asking whether I should continue with this blog. It's not that it takes a lot of effort but there are other things I could do with my spare time - like more reading, research and walking. So, a review is in order.

Looking back at four years of blogging I've had 48 000 page hits and 1600 comments from all continents with the 'hot spots' appearing to be Brisbane and Sydney in Australia, San Francisco, Chicago, St Louis, Atlanta and Philadelphia in the US, London, Paris and Arad, Romania of all places (whence hails my indefatigable Romanian Orthodox correspondent Lucian!). Last time I checked, about three years ago, average daily visitors numbered about 30, but as of today I note they are about 100, which is encouraging. Not that numbers were ever a goal (honestly!), as I enjoy blogging as a hobby, but it's nice to be read! So, we'll continue for another year and see how it goes. Meantime I'll be tidying up the virtual old manse, which means getting my links into order and eliminating any redundancies in them.

One thing I must add is that while I always endeavour to personally reply to all comments and off-blog correspondence and enjoy receiving it, especially from overseas visitors, with a family and a real space and time ministry to attend to (in a parish which measures 100 kilometres from north to south as the crow flies) I don't have the time to offer pastoral counsel by e-mail (nor would it be ethical to do so in most cases). My advice to all who seek such is to contact your nearest confessional Lutheran pastor. I'm always happy to advise where he may be found.

A peaceful and prosperous New Year, my friends!

A Saviour is Born To You

2011-12-25T17:46:00.006+10:00

'Behold here what the Gospel is, namely, a joyful sermon concerning Christ, our Saviour. Whoever preaches him rightly, preaches the Gospel of pure joy. How is it possible for man to hear with greater joy than that Christ has been given to him as his own? He (the angel) does not only say Christ is born, but he makes his birth our own by saying to you a Saviour is born. Therefore the Gospel not only teaches the history concerning Christ, but it enables all who believe it to receive it as their own, which is the way the Gospel operates, as has just been set forth. Of what benefit would it be to me if Christ had been born a thousand times, and it would daily be sung into my ears in a most lovely manner, if I were never to hear that he was born for me and was to be my very own? If the voice gives forth this pleasant sound, even if it be in homely phrase, my heart listens with joy for it is a lovely sound which penetrates the soul. If now there were any thing else to be preached, the evangelical angel and the angelic evangelist would certainly have touched upon it.'

Sermons of Martin Luther - The Church Postils
Volume 1, Sermon for Christmas Day (revised)

A blessed Christmas to all who visit the virtual old manse!

Christmas Was Originally a Pagan Festival, Right?

2011-12-21T09:09:00.006+10:00

Wrong. 'Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism [and many neo-atheists - MH], who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals.'

Read it all by clicking here.

The Sordid Dregs of Sin

2011-12-18T18:51:00.014+10:00

Well, there I was leading Divine Service at St Peter's, Warwick, announcing the first hymn - 'Our first hymn is No. 1 in the hymnal, 'Hark a Herald Voice is Calling'. I sat down and opened my hymnal only to realise 'Ah, we have Powerpoint now' (old habits die hard!). I looked up to notice that this wasn't Caswell's familiar version of the hymn but a modern translation.

Soon we were into the second verse, singing:

'Now our sluggish minds are rising
from the sordid dregs of sin;
now above, the New Star shining
puts to flight all harmful dreams.'

Sordid dregs of sin... 'What a striking line', I thought. Come the last verse (I for one find it disconcerting that you never really know what's coming next with Powerpoint) I took note of the translator: it was none other than our erstwhile Lutheran brother David Schutz. Now, I think David's version is more of a paraphrase than a strict rendering (the allusion to John the Baptist has disappeared, I note), but then translating from the Latin is, as I understand it, more of an art than a science, an exercise in 'dynamic' rather than 'formal' equivalence, especially with poetry and hymnody, where rhyme and metre are necessary considerations. But I do think that, by any measure, this is a fine modern version of the 6th C. Latin original which is simple enough to be singable by modern congregations and which therefore deserves to be widely used. Here 'tis:

1 Listen to the sound of thunder,
see the dark clouds rumbling near:
Christ will rouse us from our sleeping
when, from heaven, he appears.

2 Now our sluggish minds are rising
from the sordid dregs of sin;
now above, the New Star shining
puts to flight all harmful dreams.

3 Christ the Lamb is sent from heaven,
God as human here to live;
comes to hear repentant voices,
full of kindness, to forgive.

4 When he comes again like lightning,
and the world is gripped by fear,
safe from guilt and retribution,
we will gladly greet him here.

Vox clara ecce intonat
Latin hymn, 6th century
Tr David Schütz, alt. 2001

'Sordid dregs of sin' - nice turn of phrase, David; let us indeed rise above them!

Luther on the Virgin Mary

2011-12-17T12:07:00.003+10:00

'For thus Isaiah announced, in his eleventh chapter: “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root, and the Holy Spirit shall rest upon him.” The stem and root is the generation of Jesse or David, in particular the Virgin Mary; the rod and flower is Christ. Now, just as unlikely, nay incredible, a thing it is that a fair branch and flower should spring from a dry and withered stem and root, just so unlikely was it that Mary the Virgin should become the mother of such a child. For, I take it, she is called a stem and root, not only because she became a mother in a supernatural manner and without violation of her virginity, even as it is above nature to make a branch grow out of a dead tree-stump, — but also for the following reason: Of yore, in the days of David and Solomon, the royal stem and line of David had been green and flourishing, fortunate in its great glory, might and riches, and famous in the eyes of the world. But in the latter days, when Christ was to come, the priests had usurped this honor and were the sole rulers, while the royal line of David had become so impoverished and despised it was like unto a dead stem, so that there was no hope nor likelihood that a king descended therefrom would ever attain to any great glory. But when all seemed most unlikely-comes Christ, and is born of the despised stem, of the poor and lowly maiden! The rod and flower springs from her whom Sir Annas’ or Caiaphas’ daughter would not have deigned to have for her humblest lady’s maid. Thus God’s work and His eyes are in the depths, but man’s only in the height.

Luther's Works, American Edition, vol. 21, 'The Magnificat' (Concordia, St Louis, 1956), pp299-300.

What Should Christians Think About the Death of an Outspoken Atheist?

2011-12-16T23:52:00.005+10:00

Tonight on the car radio I heard the report that Christopher Hitchens had died of complications brought about by his throat cancer. What should Christians think about the death of this outspoken atheist? Douglas Wilson, a Christian intellectual and Presbyterian minister who debated Hitchens several times, has this to say, and I doubt anyone could put it better (click on the post title).

Krauth on the Rights and Limitations of Conscience in Matters of Religion

2011-12-12T15:52:00.008+10:00

'We concede to every man the absolute right of private judgment as to the faith of the Lutheran Church, but if he has abandoned the faith of that Church, he may not use her name as his shelter in attacking the thing she cherishes, and in maintaining which she obtained her being and her name. It is not enough that you say to me that such a thing is clear to your private judgment. You must show to my private judgment that God's Word teaches it, before I dare recognise you as in the unity of the faith. ..In other words your private judgment is not to be my interpreter, nor is mine to be yours. ..You have the civil right and the moral right to form your impressions in regard to truth, but there the right stops. You have not the right to enter or remain in any Christian communion except as its terms of membership give you that right.'

Charles Porterfield Krauth (1823-1882; Professor of Systematic Theology at Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia from 1867 and Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Pennsylvania from 1868), The Conservative Reformation and its Theology (3rd ed., United Lutheran Publishing House, Philadelphia, 1913, p172)

Note - Not all legal jurisdictions recognise the civil right of freedom of conscience in matters of religion, and some today do not even acknowledge the moral right to such freedom. Such liberties are features of societies influenced by the Reformation's conception of the importance of conscience, beginning with Luther's symbolic stand at the Diet of Worms in 1521, when he declared:'Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.'

Yahweh or My Way?

2011-12-12T09:18:00.010+10:00

“Christianity, and nothing else [is] the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights and democracy, the benchmarks of western civilization. To this day we have no other options. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.”

Jürgen Habermas (1929- ) German sociologist and philosopher, A Time of Transitions (2006)

Sign of the Times

2011-12-05T17:59:00.014+10:00

Being school holiday time, one of my two teenage sons and his best friend met up at the main shopping mall here in Toowoomba (context: a conservative regional city, pop. 100 000, which serves mainly as a service centre for a large and productive rural hinterland) today to pass some time and see a movie. He returned home to report that while sitting in the Food Court having lunch they had a conversation with some Buddhist monks who my son described as 'missionaries'. It seems likely they are connected with the 'Pure Land Buddhist Learning College' located not far from the city centre in what was once a Presbyterian church which they've extended into a campus by buying several neighbouring properties. The brown robed monks and nuns are a common site around the city and I've seen them at the university too - they seem to come here from Taiwan for a short stay, much like the American Mormon missionaries of a previous era. A sign of the times, no doubt.

I've heard many an expert on 'world religions' state that Christianity and Islam are the only 'missionary religions' (usually said with a sneer and a warning about how dangerous missionary zeal is), but if 'Pure Land Buddhists' are truly 'missionary' it gives the lie to that statement. It would be worthwhile looking into the soteriology of this group to see what makes them different from other Buddhist sects. What could be gleaned from a study of their religion that might serve as a contact point for proclamation of the Christian Gospel, a la Paul in Athens? 'Men and women of Pure Land Buddhism, I perceive that you are very religious...'

What's Really Behind the Euro Crisis?

2011-11-28T21:28:00.009+10:00

What's really behind the Euro crisis? Why, it's about whether hard-working, frugal Lutherans will bail out profligate Latins, of course. The Reformation may be written off in some quarters as ancient history, but old habits born of religious sanction die hard, even in secular Europe. One financial journalist sees the crisis as essentially a religio-cultural one revolving around whether countries whose ethos was shaped by the Protestant work ethic will assume responsibility for the debts of societies who are historically less constrained by religious taboos on excessive consumption and spending. Read her opinion here. There's no detailed sociological analysis here, nor would we expect it in such a forum, and Ms Francis is painting with a broad brush (in what sense has the Netherlands been formed by a Lutheran ethos?) but it's heartening to see at least one journalist taking religion seriously as a significant motivator of human actions and shaper of cultural mores, even long after the vitality of those religious traditions has been weakened by decades of attack from both within and without.

Orthodoxy in the West: The Eastern-Rite Mainline?

2011-11-22T09:16:00.022+10:00

According to Fr Gregory Jensen, an academic and priest of the 'Orthodox Church in America' (the denomination with Russian immigrant origins that former Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan joined) Eastern Orthodoxy in North America on the ground - as opposed to how it appears from behind the rose-coloured spectacles of prospective Protestant converts - is rapidly becoming as liberal as the Protestant mainline churches many of those converts are fleeing. So much so that he says the Orthodox Church in all its ethnic branches in the US looks increasingly like 'the Eastern-Rite Mainline'.*

How so? Support for abortion and gay marriage runs disturbingly high among the laity, politicians of Orthodox background publicly support positions which stand in stark contradiction to the Church's moral teaching and priests are 'not effectively communicating the [Christian] moral tradition', thus surrendering the laity to the forces of secularisation and cultural barbarism. Not to mention, and Fr Gregory doesn't, but anyone who keeps a 'weather eye' on the Orthodox Church will know, that the various sexual and financial scandals among the Orthodox hierarchy in the US have clearly demoralised many of the devout clergy and laity.**

Part of the solution, Fr Gregory avers, is for the Orthodox in the West to draw upon the riches of the Western Christian tradition, specifically the Catholic tradition's 'partnership of faith and reason, natural law, and the objective and universal character of Christian morality'. I think he's an insightful and brave man for saying this, because most articulate Orthodox - especially Western converts - that I have come across have a strong animus against the Christian West, with Augustine being their favourite whipping boy. In their eyes the great North African Father is to blame not only for Roman Catholicism but also, by way of reaction, for Luther and hence 'Protestantism' (and in speaking about 'Protestantism' the Orthodox tend to make no distinction between a snake-handling Pentecostal and a confessional Lutheran, thereby only displaying their ignorance of the heritage of the Christian West after the Reformation). But, surely, without a sympathetic Orthodox engagement with Augustine - and indeed with Luther - there is unlikely to be any significant rapprochement between Orthodoxy and the Christian West beyond the usual glad-handing at ecumenical gatherings.

I would also respectfully suggest to Fr Gregory that he not overlook what can be learned from the experience of those confessional churches of the Reformation which have taken a different path from their liberal Protestant cousins. A big part of Orthodoxy's problems, in my view, stem from the reality that it is not actually a 'confessional' church, but a 'big tent' church. The question for Orthodoxy now is just how big is its tent, given that they now have their own vocal and prominent proponents for recognition of the right to abortion, women's ordination and even revision of the church's teaching on homosexuality?

Finally, I think we are witnessing yet another confirmation of Dr Sasse's prescient observation of 50 or so years ago that in the modern world all the great Christian communions will face the same theological problems, without exception. The obvious moral for small 'o' orthodox Western Christians in all of this - especially Lutherans - who might think that Constantinople offers a safe haven from the destructive winds of modernism that have wrought such havoc in our own churches, is to look before you leap into the Bosphorus.

--+--

Fr Jensen's reflection can be found here

* For Australian readers, the Americans refer to the major historical Protestant denominations collectively as 'the Protestant Mainline' denominations, because they were once the numerically and culturally dominant forms of American Protestantism. Since succumbing to theological liberalism in the 20th C., the membership and influence of these denominations has declined significantly.

** While it's beyond our purview here, it should be noted that there have also been astonishing sexual and financial scandals involving Orthodox clergy and bishops in Greece, where the Church seems to have totally abdicated its moral authority (does this explain the present parlous state of Greek society or is it symptomatic of it?), and financial corruption has also been uncovered in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in matters pertaining to the unauthorised sale of church land to the state of Israel and the disappearance of the funds from these sales.

I tread carefully here, because there will always be 'bad apples' and hypocrites among the clergy, and no church body is immune from them, but when persistent patterns of aberrant behaviour become evident in a particular church culture, one is surely entitled to ask whether it is not just 'occasional sin' on the part of individuals but the 'systemic sin' of the institution that has been uncovered? Is there something about the administrative systems of such a church body itself, systems which inevitably reflect its official theology/ecclesiology, that fosters these particular sins?

--+--

And if the astute reader is wondering 'Is there a connection between this post and the last one on Edwin Muir's poem 'The Castle', the answer is yes - the enemy most to be feared is the one within the castle walls!

'Our Only Enemy Was Gold'

2011-11-21T09:28:00.011+10:00

The Castle

All through that summer at ease we lay,
And daily from the turret wall
We watched the mowers in the hay
And the enemy half a mile away
They seemed no threat to us at all.

For what, we thought, had we to fear
With our arms and provender, load on load,
Our towering battlements, tier on tier,
And friendly allies drawing near
On every leafy summer road.

Our gates were strong, our walls were thick,
So smooth and high, no man could win
A foothold there, no clever trick
Could take us, have us dead or quick.
Only a bird could have got in.

What could they offer us for bait?
Our captain was brave and we were true....
There was a little private gate,
A little wicked wicket gate.
The wizened warder let them through.

Oh then our maze of tunneled stone
Grew thin and treacherous as air.
The cause was lost without a groan,
The famous citadel overthrown,
And all its secret galleries bare.

How can this shameful tale be told?
I will maintain until my death
We could do nothing, being sold;
Our only enemy was gold,
And we had no arms to fight it with.

Edwin Muir (1887-1959)

I haven't posted any poetry for a while, and since I'm quite busy at the moment, this seems a good time. 'The Castle' by Edwin Muir is one of my favourites - I always think of it as summer comes on. Muir was a much under-rated Scottish poet of the 20th century (although not a Scottish nationalist). His simplicity is artful. As a young man (14 y.o. actually; boys became men much younger in previous generations - even my own father, born two generations after Muir, was working full time by 15) Muir emigrated from one of the most primitive rural societies in the Western world - the Orkney Islands - to one of its most industrialised cities - Glasgow, in search of employment, a move which profoundly shaped his life and poetry:

"I was born before the Industrial Revolution, and am now about two hundred years old. But I have skipped a hundred and fifty of them. I was really born in 1737, and till I was fourteen no time-accidents happened to me. Then in 1751 I set out from Orkney for Glasgow. When I arrived I found that it was not 1751, but 1901, and that a hundred and fifty years had been burned up in my two day's journey. But I myself was still in 1751, and remained there for a long time. All my life since I have been trying to overhaul that invisible leeway. No wonder I am obsessed with Time." (Extract from Diary 1937-39.)

Muir, an autodidact, did many of the first translations of Kafka into English with the assistance of his wife Willa; they were so good some of them are still in print. He also wrote fiction and non-fiction, managing to eke out an existence as a writer, which, however insecure it might have been, must have been infinitely preferable to the brutal existence of a factory worker in 20th C. Glasgow. Muir's contemporary, T.S. Eliot, thought highly enough of his work to edit a volume of his poems for Faber & Faber; if you can track down a copy it will repay your effort many times over.

Lutherans Can Be Funny

2011-11-18T21:11:00.009+10:00

I know, your typical German or Scandinavian Lutherans aren't known for their sense of humour; just think of all those ponderous Bergman movies for instance. But Lutherans can be funny...even if in a characteristically understated way:

More scintillating 'Lutheran Satire' here

News Roundup 14.11.11

2011-11-14T14:55:00.025+10:00

I just learned how to embed links in a post (fast learner, eh?!). Taking advantage of my new skill, here's a roundup of news items that have come across the wires to the old manse this past week (on this blog, I am my own sub-editor, i.e. I write the headlines, which may sometimes reflect my take on the item, ironic or otherwise; if you hover over the headline the real title of the story will be displayed, or at least it is on my screen, click to view the report [am I the only one who needs these instructions?]):

Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν ('Physician, heal thyself!')

Why Can't They All Just Get Along?

'May the God of Hope Fill You with All Joy'

'Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal Benefits Other Denominations' (duh!)

Let's Hope They Don't Mess Up

A Gem From Luther

2011-11-10T18:16:00.006+10:00

OK - on to something altogether more wholesome and edifying. Here's a gem of a quote from Luther which a colleague pastor, Vernon Kleinig, alerted me to:

'The Word of God comes, whenever it comes, in a form that is contrary to our own thinking. ... Unless one becomes acquainted with it through practical experience, he will never understand it. And certainly, if practical experience is necessary in law which teaches a shadowy righteousness, how much more necessary it is in theology.' From Luther: Lectures on Romans (Library of Christian Classics), ed. Wilhelm Pauck (Westminster Press, 1961), 327-8.

Much depth to plumb there!

The Catholic Church One of Germany's Largest Purveyors of Pornography

2011-11-08T13:37:00.033+10:00

OK - with that post title you're probably thinking my anti-Roman Catholicism has strayed from the territory of principled doctrinal objection into the shadowy world of conspiracy theory fueled religious bigotry, right? Read on...

Germany's largest book publisher, 'Weltbild Verlag' (annual turnover US$1.7 billion), carries 2500 porn titles in its inventory, including the usual pictorial magazines featuring explicit nudity and 'erotic' novels. No surprises there, as pornography has become increasingly 'mainstream' over the last 20 or so years, poisoning millions of hearts and souls in the process. This news is a surprise, though: 'Weltbild' is owned in toto by the Catholic Church in Germany, with ownership divided between the German Bishops’ Conference (24%), the Archdiocese of Munchen and Freising (13%), the diocese of Augsburg (13%) and 11 other dioceses with percentage ownerships ranging from two to seven percent.

Not surprisingly, the German Catholic faithful, alerted to this sordid trade by the cover story of the current issue of a leading, lay-published Catholic magazine named 'PUR Magazin' (subsequently picked up by the secular press) are scandalised. 'PUR' titled its cover article for the November issue (pictured) 'Bischoefe als Porno-Produzenten?' ('Bishops as Porn Producers?'), and asks 'Was zählt mehr: Geld oder Moral?' (What is more important: Money or Morality?). You'd think the Catholic bishops would act swiftly on the 'Weltbild' scandal, yes? Perhaps order their company to withdraw all offending books and magazines from sale? Er...not quite; actually, to add insult to injury, 'Weltbild Verlag' has threatened to sue 'PUR' because, under German law, its publications are not legally categorised as 'Pornography' but as the less objectionable 'Erotica' (the infamous 'Jesuitical casuistry' lives!).

'But surely', you may ask, 'the bishops - the moral arbiters for the Catholic faithful- were ignorant of this aspect of their company's business?' Not so, I'm afraid - the owner of 'PUR' and other lay activists have, by their own account, privately been trying to get action from the bishops on this matter for ten years, and the diocesan bishops concerned were all sent a 70 page dossier outlining the objectionable material published by 'Weltbild', which also publishes books promoting Satanism, the occult and atheism. It was only when they received no response from the bishops after ten years of persistence - no response apart from arrogant dismissal of their concerns, that is - that they felt they had no option left to them but to go public. It will be interesting to see if the Catholic Church in Germany, already reeling from the priestly paedophilia scandal, will survive this public disgrace foisted upon it by its own bishops, the 'successors to the holy Apostles'.

Even more disturbing is the report by American Catholic journalist Steve Jalsevac, in an op-ed piece at 'Life Site News' linking the latest German revelations with his own long-standing observations of a deep vein of sexual perversion that runs through the ostensibly celibate Roman Catholic priesthood: 'the German porn situation, from all the evidence I have seen over the years, was likely allowed to continue because a fair number of influential German clergy at all levels...have no problem with this kind of porn and may use it themselves. Such is the degree of moral corruption that appears to exist in some parts of the Church, especially in the affluent, very comfortable and increasingly faithless West' (http://www.lifesitenews.com/home/print_article/news/32189/).

Click on the post title to go to the 'PUR Magazin' website (the usual disclaimer applies - caveat lector).

Will the Last Priest to Leave Please Blow Out the Sanctuary Lamp

2011-11-07T13:54:00.012+10:00

Speaking of Episcopalians (see recent post on 'Sydney Anglicans'; for Australian readers 'Episcopalians' are American Anglicans), this report recently appeared in the 'Church of England Newspaper', further chronicling the numerical decline of the denomination as it has embraced liberal theology:

'The US Episcopal Church reports that attendance has fallen 16 per cent over the past five years with the number of Episcopalians dropping below two million.

According to statistics released last week, the number of Episcopalians fell from 2,006,343 in 2009 to 1,951,907 in 2010. Over the last 10 years the Church lost 16 per cent of its members, while the rate of decline for the past five years was 11 per cent.

After holding steady in the 1990s membership and attendance began to drop in the wake of the controversies surrounding the consecration of the Church’s first gay bishop. Over the last 10 years attendance has fallen by 23 per cent to 657,831.

Declines are reported across the whole church. Fifty-four per cent of all congregations suffered a decline in attendance last year, while only 24 per cent saw a rise.

The national Church’s statistical office also reported a sharp disconnect between the leadership of the Church and people in the pews. While the national leadership is overwhelmingly very liberal in its views, the denomination’s members are equally divided between liberals and conservatives.

Only five per cent of congregations categorised themselves as very liberal, 24 per cent as somewhat liberal, 41 per cent as moderate, 23 per cent as somewhat conservative, and seven per cent as very conservative.

The ordination of gay and lesbian clergy had led to internal conflict amongst almost two-thirds of congregations (62 per cent), while financial worries afflicted 54 per cent.

The denomination, which once claimed over 3.5 million members as recently as the mid-1960s, has lost over 40 per cent of membership over the last 40 years while the US population grew by over 50 per cent during the same period.'

Commentary - There's nothing surprising in the continuing downward trend of Episcopalian membership, which, as the report says, has been going on for decades. What is interesting is the self-identification of Episcopalians as '41 per cent...moderate, 23 per cent ...somewhat conservative, and seven per cent ...very conservative.' Admittedly, 'one man's moderate can be another man's liberal', but these figures do imply that 71% of Episcopalians probably have serious concerns about the 'very liberal' direction of the church leadership, which would seem to be reflected in the report that ordination of gay and lesbian clergy caused conflict in 62% of congregations.

What the report doesn't mention is how many congregations - and in at least one case an entire diocese - have left the Episcopal Church altogether, often at the cost of the loss of their church property after the denominational leadership have fought aggressively in the secular courts to retain title to it (even when there is no continuing congregation to use it, often resulting in the sale of the property).

If present trends continue, how long can the Episcopal Church in the USA survive?

Will the last priest to leave please blow out the sanctuary lamp...

Ireland Closes Vatican Embassy as GFC and Priestly Paedophilia Crises Collide

2011-11-05T11:38:00.011+10:00

It strikes me that this, from the UK's Guardian newspaper, is a story that deserves more coverage than it is getting:

'The leader of Ireland's Catholics has criticised the republic's government for closing its embassy to Vatican City. Cardinal Sean Brady expressed his "profound disappointment" over the move, which comes after diplomatic clashes this year between the Fine Gael-Labour coalition and the Holy See over the Vatican's handling of the clerical child sex abuse scandals in Ireland.'

[click on post title to go to the full article in 'The Guardian'.]

The official explanation is that Ireland's acceptance of an IMF funded rescue package in the wake of the GFC of 2008 has necessitated cuts including the closure of several embassies which provided 'no financial return', for a saving of c. AUS$2 million. However the 'background' to the story includes a parliamentary speech in which the Irish Prime Minister (the Taoiseach) Enda Kenny strongly criticised the Vatican for 'downplaying the rape of children in order to protect its power and reputation'. At the time, Kenny received strong support for his statement from the Irish people, and even the Archbishop of Dublin called his comments a 'wake-up call for the church'. The Vatican's response, however, was to recall its ambassador (the papal nuncio) to Rome.

Kenny's party, the Fine Gael, has traditionally been an upholder of the traditional role of the Roman Catholic church in Irish life, and the Irish embassy in the Vatican (pictured) is one of Ireland's oldest diplomatic missions. Given this history, and the highly symbolic value attached to the closing of an embassy for whatever reason, particularly in these circumstances, and it's difficult not to see a sub-text here to the effect that the Roman Catholic church will no longer have the central role in Irish life that it once did. Anyone who understands what that role has traditionally been will also understand how astounding this shift is.

Note - 30% of Australians claim Irish ancestry and the Roman Catholic church is the largest church body in this country. In 2008 Australia appointed its first resident ambassador to the Vatican.

'Out of Love for the Truth and Desire to Bring it to Light'

2011-11-03T09:20:00.018+10:00

To mark Reformation Day, Dr Michael Jensen, a lecturer in theology at Moore College, the theological college of the Sydney Archdiocese of the Anglican Church of Australia and the largest theological college in Australia (note for American readers - these are not your typical liberal, high church Episcopalians; Sydney Anglicans take their Reformation heritage seriously and have led the response in the Anglican Communion to the recent heretical innovations of The Episcopal Church in the USA)) has posted 20 Theses on the subject 'Why the Reformation Is Not Over' (my post title links to his post at the Sydney Anglican website - if you click on it, the usual disclaimer applies: you are leaving this site, etc).

20 These on Why the Reformation is Not Over by Dr Michael Jensen
Whereas: -
1. Continued division between Christians who hold to the orthodox faith is deplorable and regrettable and we should work to heal it;
2. Insisting on division based on mere prejudice against Roman Catholics, or cultural snobbery, or ethnicity, or sectarianism is deplorable and should be repented of;
3. Hyped-up and largely loveless Protestant rhetoric and sabre-rattling for the love of mere aggression must be eschewed;
4. It is a matter of great rejoicing that Roman Catholic priests and lay people have discovered the Scriptures anew in recent years;
5. A person is not saved by assenting to justification by grace through faith alone;
6. Evangelical Christians have much to learn from the tradition of the Christian church over two millennia (as the Reformers themselves taught);
7. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are in many respects admirable, even extraordinary men;
8. We are increasingly needing to stand together with Roman Catholics on issues of social justice and religious freedom;
9. We have common cause with Roman Catholics against the New Atheism and the other forms of intellectual secularism;
10. I rejoice in a number of Christian friendships with Roman Catholics whom I happy to call brothers in Christ and from whom I have learnt much;

it is still the case that: -
11. The Roman Catholic Church still insists that the authority of Scripture is subject to the interpretation of the Church, and indeed is a creation of the Church;
12. The Roman Catholic Church still asserts the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the Church – however carefully this is nuanced – and his infallibility in matters of faith;
13. The Roman Catholic Church, despite lengthy and peaceful deliberations with Lutherans and Anglicans on the matter, still holds a semi-Pelagian view on the doctrine of justification – that is, the believer in whatever small way, still is able to co-operate with the grace of God and earn the rewards of heaven;
14. Roman Catholics still determine to define faith as ‘assenting to doctrines’ rather than ‘personal trust’, and therefore put the emphasis on love;
15. Justification by grace alone is in practice denied by a view of the sacraments as the operative vehicles of God’s grace;
16. Despite modifications to Roman Catholic teaching on the afterlife in recent years, purgatory is still an official teaching of the Church;
17. The Roman Catholic Church still affirms as dogmas several non-Scriptural (and I would argue, contra-Scriptural) teachings: namely, the perpetual virginity of the Mary, her immaculate conception and her assumption;
18. Devotion to and prayer to the saints is still very much part of Roman Catholic spirituality and teaching;
19. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that Christians who are not members of the Church of Rome are at best ‘separated brethren’ and are not admitted to the Lord’s Table;

And thus:
20. There is still need to maintain a separation between the Church of Rome and the churches of the Reformation.

What do you think, readers?

I post my own '5 Theses' in response to Michael:

5 Theses on Evangelical Lutheran-Evangelical Anglican Relations

Whereas
1. Evangelical Anglicans are orthodox Christians who confess the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds
2. Evangelical Anglicans believe and teach that we are justified on account of Christ through faith ('propter Christum per fidem') to the exclusion of works
3. Evangelical Anglicans believe and teach that scripture alone is the rule and norm according to which doctrine and teachers must be judged
4. The English Reformation, to which Evangelical Anglicans are heirs, advanced in its early years through constructive dialogue with the Lutheran Reformers in Wittenberg

This Evangelical Lutheran rejoices in our common Reformation heritage and wishes that the mutual conversation which existed in the days of Dr Sasse and Sir Marcus Loane could be restored.

However, as
4. Evangelical Anglicans deny that grace is truly offered trough Holy Baptism and also deny that in the Lord's Supper communicants receive the true body and blood of Christ given and shed for the forgiveness of our sins, and continue to teach against these wholesome scriptural doctrines which are full of evangelical comfort for repentant sinners

This Evangelical Lutheran, out of love for the truth and desire to bring it to light, declares
5. There is still a need to maintain a separation at altar and pulpit between Evangelical Lutherans and Evangelical Anglicans.

Just for the record, my paternal grandfather (who died when I was only two) was chairman of a Sydney Anglican congregation in the early 1960s and I am grateful for having first learned the evangelical doctrines of grace and scripture through the Anglican '39 Articles of Faith' and Evangelical Anglican authors - foreign readers should note that the Lutheran Church does not have a high profile in Australia outside of a few rural enclaves where Lutherans first settled; 1 in 4 Australians is Anglican, barely 2 in a 100 are Lutheran.

Reform, Not Revolt

2011-11-01T11:18:00.015+10:00

I was somewhat taken aback to read this on Wikipedia, in the entry on ‘The Protestant Reformation’: ‘The Protestant Reformation, also known as the Protestant Revolt, was a 16th century split within Western Christianity, and was initiated by Martin Luther’ [italics mine].

The Protestant Revolt? I have to say I’ve never seen the Reformation referred to as a ‘Revolt’ in modern scholarly literature, certainly not the Lutheran Reformation, which was marked by its conservatism (the best defences of the conservative nature of the Lutheran Reformation is Charles Porterfield Krauth's 'The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology' (1871), available in reprint through Concordia Publishing House). I suspect what we have here is an attempt by a zealous Roman Catholic editor to revive the tone of the anti-Luther Roman polemics of a previous era (imagine that, polemics on the internet!). Given that Wiki is probably the most consulted reference work on this or any topic today (especially by lazy students and bloggers!) the sympathetic reader will understand my consternation at this grievous misrepresentation.

It was the leading 20th century Roman Catholic historian on Luther and the Reformation, Joseph Lortz, who largely overcame the completely negative (and slanderous) view of Luther that had pertained under the papacy since the Reformation. While critical in his overall judgment of Luther, Lortz acknowledged that Luther was a devout Christian and that many of his concerns were valid even from a Roman Catholic viewpoint. Lortz also pointed out how many of Luther’s major exegetical and theological insights were consistent with the medieval tradition. We’ll come back to Lortz in a moment; before we do, here are some modern Roman Catholic appraisals of Luther:

‘The Roman Catholic Church today accepts that there was the need of reform most obvious in the exaggerated practice of indulgences [which] by the Middle Ages ... had been vulgarized to include remission of punishment in purgatory and even remission of sins themselves.’ Michael Glazier and Monika K. Hellwig, eds. The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2004), p. 506.

‘We have much to learn from Luther beginning with the importance he attached to the word of God…In the light of Christ the Catholic will no longer wish to regard Luther as an apostate monk who broke faith with his Church. He will recognize the many lights in his character....the holy defiance with which, as God's warrior, he faced abuse and simony; the heroism with which he risked his life for Christ's cause; and not least the natural simplicity and child-like quality of his whole manner of life and personal piety.’ Cardinal Walter Kasper

‘It is widely recognized that Luther was justified in attempting to reform the theology and abuses in the Church of his time and that his fundamental belief - justification given to us by Christ without any merit on our part - does not in any way contradict genuine Catholic tradition, such as is found for example, in St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.’ Karl Adam

‘Today many Catholic scholars think Luther was right in his central doctrine of justification by faith and the [sixteenth century Catholic] church was blind to the point he was making...Both Lutherans and Catholics agree that good works by Christian believers are the result of their faith and the working of divine grace in them, not their personal contributions to their own salvation. Christ is the only Savior. One does not save oneself... Luther's doctrine of justification by faith needs to be recognized and endorsed as an expression of the perennial Catholic tradition.’ George Tavard

‘Although the Reformation ended up causing a tragic split in Western Christendom, such a development was neither intended nor desired by Luther. His emphasis on justification by faith alone, the total dependence of each human being on the grace of God in order to attain salvation, and the central role of the Bible in Christian belief and practice, all had a transforming impact on Protestant -- and ultimately on Catholic -- orthodoxy and orthopraxy.’ Rev. Robert Scully, SJ, assistant professor of history at Le Moyne College in Syracuse, New York

‘Oddly enough, Luther was a Roman Catholic when the Reformation began and he had every intention of staying one. He wanted to reform the church to which he belonged….Luther insisted upon the importance of Scripture and its central place in Christian life, a point not recognized by the Council of Trent but accepted by Vatican II…Luther encouraged Bible reading by the laity, as did Vatican II. He also insisted that Protestant clergy be educated, and the Council of Trent recognized the importance of this by establishing the seminary system in 1563, only after educated Western Europeans noticed how well-trained the Protestants were.’ Joseph F. Kelly, professor of religious studies at John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio.

But it’s not quite Roman bouquets all round for Luther; the present Pope is on the record as saying - when he was Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and thus responsible for disciplining erring theologians - that Luther’s ecclesiology in particular would be cause for investigation by his office today. Bear in mind that Luther’s ecclesiology is intimately related to the doctrines of justification and scripture and we realise that, despite the advances made in the 20th century towards a more sympathetic understanding of Luther and the Reformation on the part of Roman Catholic scholars, officially Luther is still very much ‘outside the camp’. Which is where he is likely to remain, given the problematic state of world Lutheranism and the shift of Rome’s ecumenical focus towards dialogue with the Eastern churches. As this shift is consolidated, I expect we'll see a decreased openness on the part of Rome to Luther's evangelical critique and a consequent winding back of some of the better reforms of Vatican II, which could arguably be traced to an attentive listening to Luther's voice. Personally, I've never been overly optimistic about the possibilities of ecumenical rapprochement with Rome, but for anyone who considered that at least some of what happened in Rome during and after Vatican II was the result of the impact of the Gospel via Luther, this is not a happy development. But it is not all bad - I expect it will also strengthen the witness of confessional Lutheranism and disabuse some on the ecumenical wing of Lutheranism of the notion that Rome can fundamentally change.

Before concluding this reflection, I can’t avoid addressing the oft-repeated claim that Luther destroyed the unity of the Western church, which is still heaped with opprobrium upon Lutheran heads today. That charge is based on two assumptions: 1) a historical assumption that the church was unified prior to the Reformation, and 2) a theological assumption that the church’s unity can in fact be broken. We’ll leave the latter assumption for another post, but here’s one point of objection to the first assumption from the above-mentioned Roman Catholic scholar Joseph Lortz, who wrote this about the state of the church in the centuries prior to Luther:

‘The real significance of the Western Schism [i.e. a period of c. 40 years in the late 14th and early 15th centuries when there were two rival claimants to the papal throne - MH) rests in the fact that for decades there was an almost universal uncertainty about where the true pope and the true Church were to be found. For several decades, both popes had excommunicated each other and his followers; thus all Christendom found itself under sentence of excommunication by at least one of the contenders. Both popes referred to their rival claimant as the Antichrist, and to the Masses celebrated by them as idolatry. It seemed impossible to do anything about this scandalous situation, despite sharp protests from all sides, and despite the radical impossibility of having two valid popes at the same time. Time and time again, the petty selfishness of the contenders blocked any solution.
The split caused by the Western Schism was far from being merely the concern of theologians; no area of public or private life remained untouched; even the economic sphere was affected, mainly because of disputes in regard to the possession of benefices. Provinces of the Church, religious orders, universities, even individual monasteries and parish houses were divided. For decades, all experienced this profound division in all sectors of daily life. Good people on both sides, even saints, were not only unable to bring about unity, but in their allegiance to one or the other of the contenders they themselves were in sharp opposition. We find, for example, St. Catherine of Siena on the Roman side and St. Vincent Ferrer on that of Avignon. Furthermore, the settlement of the Schism at the Council of Constance did not really solve the problem. The triumph of the Conciliar Theory at Constance, and even more at Basel, extended the life span of the Schism from 1378 to 1448, when it finally came to an end in the person of the Antipope Felix V. The confusion and uncertainty about the valid pope and the true Church is manifest in the amazing twists in the allegiance of Nicolaus of Cusa and Aeneas Silvio dei Piccolomini, later to become Pius II, both of whom had begun by defending the Conciliar Theory in its most radical form.
This was an experience shared by the entire West — one which would leave its imprint in Western consciousness for a long time to come. The memory of this experience was still fresh a century later. It is not too difficult to see the effects of the Western Schism in preparing the way for the doctrines of the Reformation. When Luther asserted that the pope of Rome was not the true successor of Saint Peter and that the Church could do without the Papacy, in his mind and in their essence these were new doctrines, but the distinctive element in them was not new and thus they struck a sympathetic resonance in the minds of many. Long before the Reformation itself, the unity of the Christian Church in the West had been severely undermined.’

Joseph Lortz, The Reformation, A Problem for Today (The Newman Press, Maryland, 1964) pp. 35-37.

The Eastern schism of 1054 surely also had a deep effect on the psyche of Western Christendom. It's noteworthy that the Lutheran confessors make several references to the practices of the 'Greek Church' to bolster their own criticisms of the Roman Mass.

Chrysostom on Justification by Faith Alone

2011-10-24T09:36:00.025+10:00

More wholesome teaching from John Chrysostom, here expounding Acts ch. 15:

“But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that of old days God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe.” (v. 5–7.) Observe Peter from the first standing aloof (κεχωρισμένον) from the affair, and even to this time Judaizing. And yet (says he) “ye know.” (ch. x. 45; xi. 2.) Perhaps those were present who of old found fault with him in the matter of Cornelius, and went in with him (on that occasion): for this reason he brings them forward as witnesses. “From old days,” he says, “did choose among you.” What means, “Among you?” Either, in Palestine, or, you being present. “By my mouth.” Observe how he shows that it was God speaking by him, and no human utterance. “And God, that knoweth the hearts, gave testimony unto them:” he refers them to the spiritual testimony: “by giving them the Holy Ghost even as unto us.” (v. 8.) Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. “And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith.” (v. 9.) From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those (objectors); this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision. For indeed they do not say all this only by way of apology for the Gentiles, but to teach (the Jewish believers) also to abandon the Law. However, at present this is not said. “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples?” (v. 10.) What means, “Tempt ye God?” As if He had not power to save by faith. Consequently, it proceeds from a want of faith, this bringing in the Law. Then he shows that they themselves were nothing benefited by it, and he turns the whole (stress of his speech) against the Law, not against them, and (so) cuts short the accusation of them: “which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved, even as they.” (v. 11.) How full of power these words! The same that Paul says at large in the Epistle to the Romans, the same says Peter here. “For if Abraham,” says (Paul), “was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.”
John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, NPNF1: Vol. XIII, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 32 on Acts 15:1 [italics mine]

--+--

This is evidently the sort of teaching Pelikan was thinking of when he wrote the words in our previous post about justification by faith alone having 'considerable support' in the ancient, catholic tradition. And yet I just read on an Eastern Orthodox apologetics site that justification by faith alone is a 'Protestant heresy'. That may well be a justifiable (sic!) Orthodox view if one is guided solely by post-Reformation Eastern Orthodox polemics on the subject...but then, what to do with clear statements like this from one of the Fathers whom Orthodoxy most reveres? The only solution would appear to be a doctrine of 'double justification', initially by faith and subsequently by works (not unknown in the West, either!). Among the Orthodox, this position is usually accompanied by a polemic against the 'overly juridical' bent of Western theology since Augustine, which Luther subsequently inherited without question (a curious view, since Augustine certainly did not hold to a juridical/forensic doctrine of justification and Luther actually had to go around his monumental legacy to learn the doctrine from the apostle Paul). Here's an example from a modern Orthodox theologian:

'In summary, it is not an antagonistic attitude that causes the eastern Christian and patristic scholar to recoil at some notions of western and Protestant theology, it is simply that the approach employed by many western scholars (inherited from the likes of Augustine, Anselm and Luther) seems at odds with what eastern Christians believe has been safeguarded since the foundation of the Church at Pentecost. The traditional Orthodox mind is immediately suspicious of biblical interpretations that have little or no root in the early life and theology of the Church; this is true in spades of particularly the forensic notion of justification, and of its consequent bifurcation of faith and works... Because of its less juridical exegesis of Pauline soteriological statements, Eastern Christianity has never had anything approaching the kind of faith v. works controversies that have enveloped and (for both good and ill) theologically shaped the Christian West... Rather, the East has maintained a somewhat distant and even puzzled attitude toward the theological polemics which have raged over justification in terms of faith or works.'
Valerie Karras, in Justification and the Future of the Ecumenical Movement (Liturgical Press – Collegeville, MN)

It is certainly true, as Dr Karras maintains, that Orthodox theology and doctrine followed quite a different trajectory from that of the Western church - to the extent, that is, that the latter has been guided by Augustine's anti-Pelagianism. To my mind Orthodox theology represents a development of the theology of the early semi-Pelagian ascetics, some of whom brought monasticism from the East to southern Gaul (see the life and influence of John Cassian, seminal to the development of monasticism in both East and West). The West officially rejected the theology of this movement at the 2nd Council of Orange (529AD), although its influence was never expunged, principally due to the rise and rise of monasticism into the Middle Ages courtesy the Benedictine movement and its offshoots.

Tellingly, the Christian East has never rejected semi-Pelagianism; from that perspective the centrality of disputes about justification and works in Western theology over the last 500 years must indeed seem inexplicable. But can it really be said that justification by faith alone 'has little or no root in the early life and theology of the Church'!? Granted, the full exposition of the Biblical doctrine had to await the Lutheran Reformation, but there is ample evidence that the Fathers who closely expounded the New Testament in their homilies knew the doctrine. In my view, the reason why the presence of the doctrine in the Fathers is so easily overlooked is that they never succeeded in integrating it into their theology of the Christian life as a whole, a lacuna which Eastern Orthodoxy has perpetuated. That task was God-given to Blessed Martin Luther, Master Philipp Melanchthon, the Confessor Martin Chemnitz and other luminaries of the Lutheran Reformation. SDG!

Jaroslav Pelikan on the Catholicity of the Reformation

2011-10-11T19:34:00.017+10:00

'Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition. That was eminently true of the central Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone…That the ground of our salvation is the unearned favor of God in Christ, and that all we need do to obtain it is to trust that favor – this was the confession of great catholic saints and teachers…Rome’s reactions [to the Protestant reformers] were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone – a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers – Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted(justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition.'

Jaroslav Pelikan (1923-2006) The Riddle Of Roman Catholicism (Abingdon Press, 1959)[italics mine]

--+--

Not many who read the books of this erudite scholar today are aware that Pelikan was a son of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Slovak synod of that august church body to be precise. He graduated from Concordia Seminary in St Louis in 1946 and was ordained into the Lutheran ministry before going on to his stellar career in academe. Sadly, Pelikan did not remain in the LCMS, but walked a path followed by others since to liberal Lutheranism and thence out of the Lutheran fold altogether. However, in Pelikan's case he ended up not in Rome but in Constantinople (i.e. Eastern Orthodoxy). Evidently Pelikan never quite solved the 'riddle of Roman Catholicism', but just how, we wonder, did he reconcile himself to the 'faith plus works' of Orthodoxy?

Chrysostom Preaches Law & Gospel

2011-10-11T13:34:00.005+10:00

'Suppose someone should be caught in the act of adultery and the foulest crimes and then be thrown into prison. Suppose, next, that judgment was going to be passed against him and that he would be condemned. Suppose that just at that moment a letter should come from the Emperor setting free from any accounting or examination all those detained in prison. If the prisoner should refuse to take advantage of the pardon, remain obstinate and choose to be brought to trial, to give an account, and to undergo punishment, he will not be able thereafter to avail himself of the Emperor's favor. For when he made himself accountable to the court, examination, and sentence, he chose of his own accord to deprive himself of the imperial gift. This is what happened in the case of the Jews. Look how it is. All human nature was taken in the foulest evils. "All have sinned," says Paul. They were locked, as it were, in a prison by the curse of their transgression of the Law. The sentence of the judge was going to be passed against them. A letter from the King came down from heaven. Rather, the King himself came. Without examination, without exacting an account, he set all men free from the chains of their sins. All, then, who run to Christ are saved by his grace and profit from his gift. But those who wish to find justification from the Law will also fall from grace. They will not be able to enjoy the King's loving-kindness because they are striving to gain salvation by their own efforts; they will draw down on themselves the curse of the Law because by the works of the Law no flesh will find justification.'

From 'Discourses Against Judaizing Christians' I:6-II:1.

Chrysostom on Grace Alone Through Faith in Jesus Christ

2011-10-07T10:11:00.005+10:00

'What does he mean when he says: “I have declared your justice?” He did not simply say: “I have given,” but “I have declared.” What does this mean? That he has justified our race not by right actions, not by toils, not by barter and exchange, but by grace alone (ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ χάριτος μόνης). Paul, too, made this clear when he said: “But now the justice of God has been made manifest independently of the Law.” But the justice of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ (δικαιοσύνη δὲ Θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) and not through any labor and suffering.'

John Chrysostom (349-407), from 'Adversus Judaeos', VII, §3, PG 48:919; translation in Fathers of the Church, Vol. 68, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, Disc. 7.3.2 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1979), pp. 186-187.

See 'Lutheran Catholicity' for more patristic quotes (click on post title to view).

Florovsky: 'Dogmas Do Not Develop'

2011-09-24T10:12:00.003+10:00

Fr George Florovsky (1893-1979) is my favourite Orthodox theologian, mostly because he was not afraid to challenge the shibboleths of Western philosophy and theology and call his church to a more thoroughly Christian outlook (not unlike Luther!), while yet avoiding the speculative tendencies that mar the work of some of his Orthodox contemporaries (e.g. Florensky and Bulgakov's 'Sophiology'). One of those shibboleths was the notion of the development of dogma/doctrine, which became a fashionable idea in the theological world in the mid-19th century and has never lost its axiomatic status since, despite its contradictions (see recent posts here on John Henry Newman's lamentable legacy in this regard). Here's Florovsky on why the notion of 'development of dogma' is a 'total misunderstanding' of revelation:

'Dogma is by no means a new Revelation. Dogma is only a witness. The whole meaning of dogmatic definition consists of testifying to unchanging truth, truth which was revealed and has been preserved from the beginning. Thus it is a total misunderstanding to speak of 'the development of dogma.' Dogmas do not develop; they are unchanging and inviolable, even in their external aspect — their wording. Least of all is it possible to change dogmatic language or terminology. As strange as it may appear, one can indeed say: dogmas arise, dogmas are established, but they do not develop. And once established, a dogma is perennial and already an immutable 'rule of faith' ('regula fidei'; o kanon tis pisteos, ο κανων της πιστεως). Dogma is an intuitive truth, not a discursive axiom which is accessible to logical development. The whole meaning of dogma lies in the fact that it is expressed truth. Revelation discloses itself and is received in the silence of faith...'

From 'Revelation, Philosophy and Theology' (this article originally appeared as 'Offenbarung, Philosophic und Theologie' in Zwischen den Zeiten, Heft 6, München, 1931. Translated from the German by Richard Haugh.)

--+--

Speaking of speculative theology and Pavel Florensky in particular, this Russian polymath turned priest, who was executed during one of the Stalinist anti-Christian purges of the 1930s, had the interesting idea that the geometry of imaginary numbers predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity for a body moving faster than light would actually be the geometry of the kingdom of God. Intriguing in light of the claims by CERN scientists that the have forced the sub-atomic particles known as neutrinos to exceed the speed of light!

C S Lewis To A Prospective Roman Convert: Rome As Much A Variation From Tradition As Any Protestant Sect

2011-09-02T14:08:00.009+10:00

Most theologians and pastors who read C. S. Lewis do so because he was a great communicator, not a great theologian. Lewis certainly drops some theological clangers in his writings, but when he does get it right he really 'hits the nail on the head'. There is a well known Lewis quote to the effect that he could never become a Roman Catholic because it meant agreeing in principle to accept any new doctrine Rome might define. That is a very profound insight to which many prospective converts to Rome give too little attention; conversion to Rome means not just acceptance of Rome's dogmatic past but also its future (there's a Newman quote on this that I'll try to dig up soon). That was clearly a hurdle Lewis baulked at. But Lewis also took a diachronic (looking back through time/history) approach to evaluating Rome's claims negatively, as the following letter to an Anglican considering conversion to Rome shows:

May 9, 1945
Dear Mr. Stebbins,

My position about the Churches can best be made plain by an imaginary example. Suppose I want to find out the correct interpretation of Plato’s teaching. What I am most confident in accepting is that interpretation which is common to all the Platonists down all the centuries: What Aristotle and the Renaissance scholars and Paul Elmer More agree on I take to be true Platonism. Any purely modern views which claim to have discovered for the first time what Plato meant, and say that everyone from Aristotle down has misunderstood him, I reject out of hand. But there is something else I would also reject. If there were an ancient Platonic Society still existing at Athens and claiming to be the exclusive trustees of Plato’s meaning, I should approach them with great respect. But if I found that their teaching was in many ways curiously unlike his actual text and unlike what ancient interpreters said, and in some cases could not be traced back to within 1,000 years of his time, I should reject their exclusive claims—while ready, of course, to take any particular thing they taught on its merits.

I do the same with Christianity. What is most certain is the vast mass of doctrine which I find agreed on by Scripture, the Fathers, the Middle Ages, modern Roman Catholics, modern Protestants. That is true “catholic” doctrine. Mere “modernism” I reject at once. The Roman Church where it differs from this universal tradition and specially from apostolic Christianity I reject. Thus their theology about the Blessed Virgin Mary I reject because it seems utterly foreign to the New Testament; where indeed the words “Blessed is the womb that bore thee” receive a rejoinder pointing in exactly the opposite direction. Their papalism seems equally foreign to the attitude of St. Paul toward St. Peter in the epistles. The doctrine of Transubstantiation insists on defining in a way which the New Testament seems to me not to countenance. In a word, the whole set-up of modern Romanism seems to me to be as much a provincial or local variation from the central, ancient tradition as any particular Protestant sect is. I must therefore reject their claim: though this, of course, does not mean rejecting particular things they say...

Yours sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

From 'The Boldness of a Stranger:
Correspondence Between C.S. Lewis and H. Lyman Stebbins'

I've omitted the last sentences of the letter as they concern Anglicanism, which is not my focus here; however, for those wondering about Lewis's apparent ascription of authority to 'universal tradition' they do contain a forthright statement of 'scripture alone': 'What we are committed to believing is whatever can be proved from Scripture'. This is probably what Lewis meant by 'apostolic Christianity', which he then saw reflected down the centuries in 'universal tradition'. Note also Lewis's dismissal of 'modernism'.

--+--

As a personal aside, I once expressed a view similar to Lewis's in a dogmatics lecture at seminary, namely that Rome's particular and peculiar doctrines made it a sect, albeit one with a lot of adherents! The lecturer didn't take too kindly to the remark, perhaps because he was deeply involved in official Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue, but I feel somewhat vindicated now that I have uncovered Lewis's letter.

The Crisis of the Christian Ministry

2011-09-01T14:54:00.008+10:00

'The deepest nature of this crisis lies in the fact that God always demands from his servants something which is, humanly speaking, impossible. One may look at the wrestling between God and Moses in the first chapters of Exodus. Why does Moses refuse to go on his errand? Why does he think up all sorts of excuses including the not very convincing argument: "Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue"? He refused to go because what God demands is “impossible”. Even if he succeeded in breaking through all the barriers of the police who were searching after him for manslaughter, of the courtiers and body-guards, and appear before his majesty the mighty ruler of Upper and Lower Egypt, was there any likelihood that the Pharoah, who enjoyed divine honours and worshipped in his temples the great gods of heaven and earth, would accede to the alleged request of an unknown god who was worshipped by some of his slaves: ”Let my people go” (Ex 5:1)? It was impossible, but Moses went simply on the promise that the Lord would be with him.'

From Hermann Sasse, The Crisis of the Christian Ministry in ‘Lutheran Theological Journal’ (Adelaide), 2.1 (May 1968), pp 34-46 [Sasse quotes from the RSV, which I have updated to the ESV].

I've begun posting again at 'What Sasse Said' after a hiatus of a couple of months. I'll be starting with extracts from this essay, which appeared in the theological journal of my church, known colloquially as 'the LTJ', in 1968. At the beginning of this essay, Sasse notes that there is the 'eternal crisis' of the ministry which arises from its very nature, and there is also the crisis of the ministry in a particular time and place. Sasse begins with the eternal crisis before examining the particular crisis of the Lutheran ministry in the late 20th century, hence the reference to Moses (later Sasse makes the interesting comment that the Ministry of the Word in the Old and New Testaments is essentially one, although the offices instituted to carry out have differed according to their place in salvation history).
I originally read this essay back in seminary days, although I can't remember much of it. I'm re-reading it now in quite a different context, trying to negotiate my way through my own particular 'crisis' in ministry, probably an early stage of 'burnout' (I'm due for 'long service leave' in one year, so I'm hanging in there). Well, as they say, 'every crisis is an opportunity to effect change'. I hope this essay will help in getting the 'big picture' to hang straight before I go trying to rearrange the other 'furniture' in the room; so far, so good - Moses is a good place to start!

The Preacher's Decalogue

2011-08-31T09:06:00.010+10:00

The following suggested 'preacher's decalogue' comes from a seasoned pastor-theologian. Click on the post title to read the author's explication of his 'commandments'; the author, Sinclair Ferguson, is of British Reformed background, so some of the references and background he cites may not be familiar to Lutherans (but there is some Luther in there too). Nevertheless, I think it's a helpful list:

1. Know Your Bible Better

2. Be a Man of Prayer

3. Don’t Lose Sight of Christ

4. Be Deeply Trinitarian

5. Use Your Imagination (i.e. Think Outside Yourself)

6. Speak Much of Sin and Grace

7. Use “the Plain Style”(i.e. direct language)

8. Find Your Own Voice

9. Learn How to Transition (i.e. from the Gospel indicative to the sanctification imperative)

10. Love Your People

--+--

Would a Lutheran decalogue for preachers be any different? We'd probably rearrange the order; we'd certainly bump #6 up the list and call it 'Preach Law & Gospel'. We might prefer to call #3 'Preach Christ Crucified' or 'Keep Christ at the Centre' ('don't lose sight of Christ' is a bit weak). And Lutherans would have a different take from most of the Reformed on just how #9 is properly done. But otherwise? And yes, I'm aware that any list called a 'decalogue' can be taken as 'Law'...so, what Gospel do preachers need to cling to?

--+--

The article comes from Themelios, which used to be a journal of theology and ministry for British evangelicals but which has now, I see, been taken over by the trans-Atlantic 'Gospel Coalition', led by Don Carson. There are even a couple of Australians involved (one, Mark D. Thompson, is a good Luther scholar). The GC have made Themelios freely available for download, which is nice of them, as it looks to have some decent material. Since this journal comes from outside the orbit of confessional Lutheranism, the usual caution applies: caveat lector.

--+--

Oh yes, the pic, in case you're wondering, is of Pulpit Rock, off the coast of Dorset, England.

Those Dangerous Christians

2011-08-29T14:21:00.008+10:00

Apparently, the powers that be in Malaysia have determined that the influence of those dangerous Christians must be curtailed at every opportunity:

'KUALA LUMPUR — A raid by state Islamic enforcers on a church function in predominantly Muslim Malaysia has stirred religious tensions and revived fears of growing Islamisation in the multi-ethnic country.

Officials swooped on a dinner at a Methodist church hall outside the capital Kuala Lumpur on August 3, saying they had information that a group of Muslims were being converted, which is prohibited in much of the country.

The relatively tame incident has unnerved some in one of Southeast Asia's most prosperous nations, where religion and race are intertwined and the various ethnic groups have generally co-existed peacefully.

The Damansara Utama Methodist Church denied the event was held to convert Muslims, but Islamic officials and pro-government media pounced on the case to allege a widespread Christian proselytising campaign.'

Click on the post title to read the full report.

What I find most disturbing about this is the suggestion that the Malaysian government is ~~persecuting~~ policing Christians more strictly in a cynical attempt to curry favour with conservative Muslims, who are otherwise likely to vote for the Islamic opposition party in an upcoming election.

Lutheran readers may be interested to know that there are four Lutheran synods in Malaysia. When at seminary I had the opportunity to meet Bishop Julius Paul, the former primate of the ELCM (a primarily Tamil church resulting from Indian migration to Malaysia in the 19th century) who was in several of my classes. The current bishop of the ELCM, Solomon Rajah, is also, if I remember correctly, a graduate of Luther Seminary/Australian Lutheran College, which has played an important role in promoting confessional Lutheranism in the SE Asian region, where many of the synods have unionist or pietist roots.

'Culture War' Skirmishes Begin on the Outskirts of Constantinople

2011-08-23T10:43:00.016+10:00

The German-Australian Lutheran theologian Dr Hermann Sasse (1895-1976), who through correspondence and keen observation was able to keep his finger on the pulse of 20th century Christianity like few others, often noted in his writings that in the modern world all churches face the same problems. None of them can regard themselves as living in splendid isolation from each other or from the forces of radical change in modern society.

If that was so when Sasse was active in the mid-20th century, it is even more evident in the early 21st century. It is no longer possible for churches to imagine themselves as islands somehow safe from the often violent impact of the waves of cultural change which, since the Enlightenment, have surged through Western societies (and now Eastern societies and increasingly the Third World) washing away the last vestiges of Christendom.

Case in point: the movement to bless homosexuality has swept at least one church body, namely 'The Episcopalian Church' (the American representative of Anglicanism), before it and is swamping others as I write. Many individual Christians in these church bodies have understandably fled to other, more traditional communions. For various historical and theological reasons in the case of Episcopalians/Anglicans they have gone mostly to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy. But if Sasse's observation holds true, and clearly I think it does, those bodies will only provide a safe haven for so long. 'Strategic retreats' are thus not a long term option for creedally and morally orthodox Christians; sooner or later 'pitched' battles will have to be fought on this issue in every church body which has not already succumbed, even in Rome and Constantinople (the highly symbolic primatial sees of Catholicism and Orthodoxy respectively). True, the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, but they will do their best, the battle will be fierce and there will be no refuges.

There are reports that skirmishes in this particular 'culture war' have already begun on the outskirts of Constantinople, so to speak, namely in Orthodoxy in the US, whence comes a dispatch from the 'front line' by Fr Johannes Jacobse, who I take to be an Episcopalian convert to Orthodoxy (click on the post title to read). Fr Jacobse writes after his on-line skirmish with a group within Orthodoxy ('The Listening Group') calling for review of that church's traditional position on homosexual acts, 'The Listening group has to stop dragging the culture wars into the Church. The prohibition against homosexual behavior is a closed question. The moral tradition does not need to be retooled and there is no need for 'dialogue'.'

Sounds like a rallying cry for a pitched battle to me. Cue 'A Mighty Fortress'.

--+--

Note: A debate on homosexuality has been ongoing in the Orthodox Church of Finland since the early 1990s. See http://www.kosmas.fi/PDF-files-veljeston%20paasivu/Finn_Ort_Probl_2009_Autumn.pdf

Why Aren't We All Rioting and Looting?

2011-08-15T14:13:00.015+10:00

'When I was a student, I took a course in the sociology of deviance. After weeks reviewing theories about the causes of law-breaking, the lecturer announced that we were asking the wrong question. "The real question," he said, "is not why some break the law. It is why we don't all break the law." Following last week's riots in Britain, politicians and commentators have similarly been asking the wrong question. What caused thousands of (mainly) young males to torch buildings where they live, loot local shops and attack fellow citizens is a no-brainer. Kicking against authority is exciting. Being in the thick of the action when the television cameras are rolling makes you feel important. And the chance to grab some designer clothing and a widescreen plasma TV is too good to pass up. Yet many people did not riot, and they are the interesting ones. Why didn't everyone cash in on the anarchy? The answer lies in external and internal constraints.'

So writes Peter Saunders, an honorary senior fellow in the social foundations program at the Centre for Independent Studies, a conservative 'think tank' in Australia, in an op-ed piece in 'The Australian' newspaper concerning the causes of the riots in England last week. There are, no doubt, plenty of things wrong with English society which have contributed to the recent descent into anarchy in some parts of her great cities - poverty, materialism, the anonymity and disconnectedness of urban life, fatherless sons and ethnic tensions with the police have all been cited by the pundits. Among those contributing factors we should not neglect what the recent parliamentary expenses scandal revealed about the venality of many of the British governing class; a society which is rotten at the top should perhaps not be surprised to find it cannot command the allegiance of those at the bottom.

But I think Saunders has identified the heart of the matter - which is not economic or racial or sociological but moral, and therefore ultimately religious, namely the loss of external and internal constraints, the outer and inner laws if you like, which restrain people from committing sinful and criminal acts, even when they think they'll probably get away with it (and if you think you're above the need for such constraints, when was the last time you exceeded the speed limit when no police were likely to be about?). Beginning in the 1960s, there has been a 'cultural revolution' in English society which, like most revolutions, has only made conditions for 'ordinary people' worse, in this case by attacking and destroying the previously accepted fundamental assumption that, in as much as we are fallen and sinful creatures, we need to be bound by external and internal constraints for the sake of the preservation and flourishing of our common life. If not for these constraints, the old Adam in all of us would be out there rioting and looting with the worst of them.

It's All About You

2011-08-12T06:54:00.022+10:00

I don't like to be gratuitously critical of other Christians at the old manse, but something just crossed my desk yesterday that almost caused me apoplexy and just cries out for comment. In the last post I tangentially mentioned the growth of 'Pentecostals' in Australia. I have to confess I've never found Pentecostalism remotely attractive or interesting; in fact I find it downright strange. So, never having had much to do with it, never having even visited a Pentecostal worship service, I was always mystified by its growth in popularity through the 1980s and 90s as groups that were once fringe dwellers on the Australian scene built up empires and courted - and won - political influence. All this happened, mind you, just as the 'mainline' churches began to lose numbers and influence (I'm convinced the growth of Pentecostalism has been largely at the expense of the 'mainstream' churches - that raises a lot of questions for both sides).

Now, just when I think I can explain the rise of Pentecostalism (that's for another post), it has morphed into an entirely new creature. Sociologists of religion apparently call it 'neo-Pentecostalism', but I call it the 'religion of narcissism', because it's all about you! Of course, such a religion is tailor made to flourish in a self-obsessed culture like ours. For example, just check out the spiel that headed a flyer that landed in my mailbox yesterday, sent out by a 'neo-Pentecostal' church in Brisbane advertising a worship conference 'experience' they have planned, 'The Ultimate Worshiper':

'The Ultimate Worshiper has been birthed to raise up, equip, encourage and resource an army of worshipers to become the ultimate of who God has called them to be.'

If I had the technology I'd scan it for you, but underneath the headline is a picture of the husband and wife pastors of the church and several guest speakers, who, with their designer stubble and blow-dried hair, look for all the world like post-modern, trying too hard to be hip versions of Barbie and Ken...the upwardly mobile types who drive BMWs too fast down the narrow leafy streets of the once sedate inner-city suburbs of my home town, which has become the boom town of contemporary Australia and thus full of the perfect fodder for this new religious movement to feed on (Btw, does anyone know: is it somehow mandatory for these churches to have husband and wife pastor teams? And whatever happened to the unworldly pastors/priests who had regulation haircuts, wore off the rack dark suits and horn-rimmed glasses? Their appearance at least conveyed gravitas - what does a blow-dried coiffure say?).

Now, if the tortured syntax and jargonese ('birthed'?) aren't enough to irk you (memo to whoever's responsible for this: in Australia we spell it 'worshippers'), doesn't the thought of spending a weekend with people who aspire to be the 'ultimate of who God has called them to be' just make your head spin and your stomach queasy? Yet a lot of people seem to 'buy' this stuff, for the flyer informs me the church has grown to 5000 members in ten years. In the Australian context, that's quite amazing. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that a majority of these folk are former Catholics, Anglicans, Reformed, Orthodox and Lutherans. It just goes to show that it's really not very hard to 'grow' a church, even in the late-modern, post-Christian, religious wasteland of Australia - the secret is just to tell people what they want to hear.

Losing Our Religion

2011-08-09T16:54:00.011+10:00

Tonight is 'census night' in Australia, when all households are meant to complete a form which provides basic population data to the government. Q19 on the census form is 'What is the person's religion?'. I noticed that 'Lutheran' is still listed as an independent category in response to this question, although it is ninth in a list of ten which concludes with the catch-all category 'Other'*. Given that the number of nominal Lutherans over the last generation or so has shown only minimal growth, I wonder how much longer before 'Lutheran' is overtaken by some faster growing religious group and disappears into the 'Other' category? If 'present trends' continue, and barring an influx of Norwegian boat people to swell our numbers, I wouldn't be surprised if this happens by the time the next census comes around in five years. Who knows, maybe the Jedi will replace us on the list?

The next largest Christian denomination would surely be the 'Assemblies of God', with c. 225 000 adherents and growing, although curiously they are not listed separately in the Australian Bureau of Statistics data, but are presumably included in the category 'Pentecostal'. Come to think of it, there must be considerably more than 250 000 Pentecostals in Australia (which would put them ahead of Lutherans numerically); I can only speculate that many of them either don't answer the question or use their independent church name instead of the category 'Pentecostal'.

Be that as may, I've been wondering what impact losing the 'Lutheran' option from the census form might have on our church, given that so much that has driven the Lutheran Church of Australia in recent times seems (to this Anglo observer anyway) to stem from the desire of Australian Lutherans of German descent to be recognised by the Anglo-Australian majority as 'mainstream'?

Maybe 'losing our religion' from the census form could be a good thing for the LCA? It might symbolically free us from the need to seek recognition and approval from the majority and allow us to be unapologetically 'Lutheran' again?

--+--

* The possible responses listed are:
'Catholic
Anglican (Church of England)
Uniting Church
Presbyterian
Buddhism
Greek Orthodox
Islam
Baptist
Lutheran
Other - please specify'

There are c. 250 000 Lutherans in Australia out of a total of 22.5 million, so we are a little over 1% of the population nationally, although in some areas the proportion would be much higher - the original Lutheran migrants, being shrewd German peasant farmers, tended to settle closely in good agricultural areas, of which there are few in Australia, which means there are some pockets of the country (e.g. the 'Barossa Valley' in South Australia, the 'Darling Downs' in Queensland, the 'western district' of Victoria, the 'Riverina' of New South Wales) where Lutherans probably outnumber the Anglicans, Uniting and Presbyterians, the three largest historically Protestant church bodies in Australia (of these, only the Presbyterians hold unequivocally to their Reformation heritage). The Roman Catholics are the largest single church body, due to Irish migration in the 19th century and post-WWII southern European migration (and, I suppose, their high birth rates). The Greek Orthodox became more numerous than Lutherans here some time in the 1980s, again due to post-war migration, and most of the other autocephalous Orthodox churches are present here in lesser numbers too, along with various 'non-canonical' groups. The Buddhists and Muslims overtook Lutherans sometime in the 2000s as a result of South-East Asian and Middle Eastern immigration.

The Lutherans first settled in Australia in 1838, one group establishing a small colony at Moreton Bay (now Brisbane) under the auspices of 'Father' Gossner in Germany, with the aim of evangelising the local indigenous people, while a second group fled to South Australia from Prussia, where their Lutheranism was increasingly under pressure from a state sponsored church union with the Reformed.

--+--

Q43 asks 'What are the main goods or services provided by your employer's business?'
I've answered 'Salvation.'
That will give them something to think about!

Theology and Science

2011-08-03T14:25:00.019+10:00

'...nam error circa creaturas redundat in falsam de Deo sententiam'
(...wrong thinking about creation will lead to wrong thinking about God)
Thomas Aquinas

'As the science of divine and eternal things, theology must be patient until the science that contradicts it has made a deeper and broader study of its field and, as happens in most cases, corrects itself. In that matter theology upholds its dignity and honour more effectively than by constantly yielding and adapting itself to the opinions of the day.'

So wrote the erudite late 19th century Dutch theologian Hermann Bavinck, in his Reformed Dogmatics, volume 2 'God and Creation' (p. 507). Bavinck was prescient (yes Virginia, even the Reformed get some things right); over a hundred years after he made that statement, developments in science have only served to confirm its truth. In a post-Einstein, post-Popper, post-Polanyi, post-Kuhn world, it really is untenable to hold to a naive late 19th C/early 20th C positivism when it comes to the claims of science (and it is somewhat ironic that evangelical Christians are among those who do).

In a dialogue on the biblical account of creation with a colleague pastor recently, I ventured to suggest that since Holy Scripture claims to be true in what it says about events transpiring in space and time, we should accord it 'epistemological primacy' over other purported authorities (i.e. human authorities) when these events are in view. In simple terms, that means that when these events are in view we should assess the claims of science from a Biblical standpoint rather than assessing the claims of the Bible from a scientific standpoint. But isn't this 'Biblicism' or, even worse, 'Fundamentalism'? Well, I may come back to that in the near future; all I'll say in response for the present is that name calling is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument.

Now, on to my main point: I don't think that theologians who accord science epistemological primacy in matters of creation, to the extent that in order to accomodate the claims of science they reduce the creation narrative to a poem (this is a very weak argument since the Genesis one narrative bears neither of the two characteristic marks of Hebrew poetry i.e. syllabic rhythm and paralellism), a saga (a highly stylized piece of literature with perhaps some historical kernel of truth that is in any case no longer accessible to us, but which yet communicates theological truth) or a polemical myth (in the sense of a completely fictional story that yet confesses the truth that Yahweh is creator in the face of the errors of the Babylonian cosmology), actually realize how much of the Christian revelation they open up to question once science is admitted to be an arbiter of the truth (i.e. the 'factual-historical' nature) of what the Bible unequivocally presents as happening in space and time. The fact that otherwise competent theologians and Old Testament scholars have advanced theories such as those bracketed above concerning the origins and purpose of Genesis 1 is testimony to both the parlous state of theology in modern times and the awe in which science is held by quite sophisticated people who really ought to know better.

Once the historicity (factual-historical nature) of the first chapter of Genesis is questioned on the assumption that science has disproved it, inevitably it seems that the process continues into the second and third chapters, and the historicity of the figure of Adam is brought into question, since 'the scientific consensus' presently holds that there was no such single progenitor of the human race. With that, the whole redemptive tapestry of the Biblical narrative, and indeed the Christian revelation, begins to unravel into innumerable disconnected threads. I'm yet to see a church body which goes down this path in its official theology manage to weave the tapestry together again. More often, they seem to go about weaving a different sort of religious tapestry all together (c.f J. Gresham Machen's seminal study, Christianity and Liberalism).

If you're interested in questions of science and theology, the blog of Dr John Byl (bylogos.blogspot.com), a Canadian professor emeritus of mathematics (PhD in Astronomy) is worth a look. I don't vouch for Dr Byl's Reformed theology, but his reflections on the intersection of theology and science are quite stimulating. He is also the author of two books on the subject which are available from the usual outlets.

Just on a personal note, my own journey as been from atheistic evolution in my teens to theistic evolution to old earth/specially created Adam to a probably young earth/recently created Adam position. Which is to say I seem to be on an opposite trajectory to most of my colleagues and contemporaries - not that I'm a contrarian just for the sake of it, mind you...I simply like to think I'm a more consistent thinker than they ;0)

Beyond Politics: The End of Anglophone Dominance

2011-07-31T12:25:00.018+10:00

Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, for wisdom and might are His. He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. Daniel 2:20-21

I don't often comment on political matters here at the 'old manse', but this is beyond politics. Amidst all the commentary about the debacle presently unfolding in Washington, few people seem to have the historical awareness to point out what it presages: not just the beginning of the end of the economic and world-political power of the US, but the end of two centuries of Anglophone dominance on the world stage. Call me biased, but I'm of the view that, despite the dark chapters in that history, that dominance has been largely benign and beneficial to the world at large.

Mark Steyn is a popular Canadian conservative commentator based in the US who has a knack of boiling down the complexities of life in the late modern West to their absurd essence and dishing up the remains with sparkling prose full of wit and irony. Here's his take on the 'big picture' behind the current political shenannigans:

'If the IMF is correct (a big if), China will be the planet's No. 1 economy by 2016. That means whoever's elected in November next year will be the last president of the United States to preside over the world's dominant economic power. As I point out in my rollicking new book, which will be hitting what's left of the post-Borders bookstore business any day now, this will mark the end of two centuries of Anglophone dominance – first by London, then its greatest if prodigal son. The world's economic superpower not only will be a communist dictatorship with a largely peasant population and legal, political and cultural traditions as alien to its predecessors as possible, but, even more civilizationally startling, it will be, unlike the U.S., Britain and the Dutch and Italians before them, a country that doesn't even use the Roman alphabet.'

Welcome to the real 'New World Order'! How's your Mandarin?

--+--

Meanwhile, in my neck of the woods, home to some very rich soils in a country where such are comparatively rare, family farms are literally being swallowed up to feed the voracious appetite of the Chinese industrial maw for raw materials, especially coal. When the 'common lands' were enclosed in late medieval England and the landowners took to grazing sheep where the common folk had once grown their food (the wool boom had started), a famine ensued and it was said that 'sheep have eaten men'. Now, because of the peculiarities of Australian land tenure and the rights of the Crown to grant leases over free-hold land for purposes of mineral exploration and mining (a situation that pertains in no other common law jurisdiction), we are finding a similar process underway; history is repeating itself, farm land is being alienated and 'coal is eating men!'.

No, a famine has not ensued, but Australia recently became a net importer of food for the first time since the early days of its founding as a colony just over two centuries ago (which history exactly parallels Anglo hegemony in the world). In an increasingly unstable world where there will likely be no mighty US or British navy to protect our trade routes that's not a good position to be in. As I said initially, this is beyond 'politics', it's about what sort of country and society we want our children and grand-children and their successors to inherit and whether we want to be in control of our own destiny as a nation (as much as that is possible for a middling-size nation anyway). That seems to be the real question our American friends are facing too.

In the meantime, may God bless the hard-working and frugal Chinese people with the fruit of their labours, and for our sakes may He make their coming hegemony, against all expectations, as benign and beneficial to humankind as the one which preceded it.

Click on the post title to read Steyn's column from whence this quote was taken. (And just because I quote him doesn't necessarily mean I endorse Steyn's every political view - life is more complex than such simple caricatures will allow. In actual fact I'm a political centrist in Australian terms, a supporter of free markets moderated by government intervention for the sake of the 'common wealth' who deplores extremism whether of the Right or the Left. In other words I'm an average Australian who supports the non-doctrinaire, pragmatic approach to politics that has made us prosperous, free and liberal, which in my book is much better than being poor, bound and subject to the sway of demagogues.)

Thoughts on Breivik

2011-07-28T10:25:00.013+10:00

Social commentators are making a mistake by takings Breivik's 'manifesto' seriously as a reason for his appalling crimes. It's akin to treating 'Mein Kampf' as a reasoned political tract. Breivik's actions should not be dignified with such an approach. If the pundits wish to help people understand what has happened in Norway, let them point others to the more likely truth of the matter. Breivik's lawyer has, after interviewing his client, said that he believes Breivik to be quite mad. From this far-away vantage point I'm inclined to agree, not that his madness absolves him from his crimes I hasten to add. For we are not talking about 'ordinary' madness here (if I can put it like that) but something much more sinister and disturbing. This 'madness' is compatible with intricate planning to bring evil intent to fruition while all the time masquerading as a normal, even charismatic human being. With Breivik and those like him we cross over from the 'normal' pathology of original sin (sooner or later the category of original sin must be brought in here to make such actions understandable to us) into a purer form of evil.

What psychiatrists call 'personality disorders', which I prefer to regard as the 'pathology of original sin', are unfortunately much more common than we realize (fortunately not all are equally serious or dangerous, and most people with a disorder do more harm to themselves than others). Thankfully not every psychopath ('antisocial personality disorder') becomes a mass murderer; most wreak much more banal types of havoc upon those around them (ever wonder about the motivations for senseless cruelty to women, children and animals that the police and social services have to deal with every day?). But the psychopaths, together with the narcissists ('narcissistic personality disorder', not your average self absorbed modern), are actually responsible for much of the anguish that is inflicted upon people in this world through interpersonal conflict right on up to the international conflict of war (Hitler being the classic case of this).

We've probably all come across these types of personalities, even without realizing it. People who are more or less balanced and only 'ordinarily sinful' (if I can put it that way) often don't recognize incarnate evil when we meet it, precisely because it is beyond our ordinary experience of life - that's why 'ordinary people' can be easily drawn in and manipulated by psychopaths and narcissists, until one day they wake up and realize there is something terribly wrong with this other person. If anyone has seen the unforgettable German film 'Downfall', about Hitler's last days, there is a moment in the bunker when the assembled generals realize Hitler is completely deranged and driven not by love for 'the Fatherland' but by something else completely - the scene brilliantly portrays a moment of collective awakening. Alas, it was much too late, and this made the generals themselves culpable.

Breivik's self-proclaimed motivations should be treated with caution - they are those of a psychopath who will latch on to anything at hand as fuel for his evil intent. He is probably even lying to himself about them. His claim that his act of mass murder was 'terrible but necessary' in the service of his ideology reminds me very much of Stalin's (yes, another psychopath) rationalization of the forced starvation of 30 million or so Ukrainian peasants in the 1930s, not to mention the millions more poor innocent souls (including churchmen) sent to the Gulag or just plain murdered by his thugs. With these characters we cross the line from the normal, everyday pathology of sin to complete moral derangement. And yes, the 'madness' of these men does not mean they are not responsible for their actions or should not be held accountable. I'm afraid that a society or state that fails to confront such evil in its midst and punish it colludes in its own destruction.

--+--

It would be a fascinating if disturbing task to sort through the life of a Breivik and learn from it - could a skilled diagnostician of souls determine the crucial moment the surrender to evil took place? If indeed there is such a moment - perhaps it is just an incremental process, and if so, does it mean there is hope that intervention in cases which are still borderline might prevent the development of a full-blown psychopathology? Toxic relationships with fathers seem to figure strongly in the biographies of psychopaths. This is perhaps the element of truth behind the otherwise false 'generational sin' teaching of some Pentecostals. That is concerning given the breakdown of the family in our Western societies and the estrangement of so many fathers from their sons. What whirlwind shall we reap come harvest time?

--+--

Leaving the individual Breivik aside, another aspect of this event is that Norwegian society, which has become quite liberal in its penal system (through denial of the reality of sin and the need to restrain evil and satisfy justice, I wonder? A society is always underwritten by a theology, for good or ill), now faces the problem that its laws apparently do not envisage dealing with a perpetrator of such evil actions. If the Breivik case leads to collective self-reflection and reform, some good at least may come of all this.

--+--

Please continue to pray for the families of the victims and for the people of Norway in their hour of darkness. May the light of Christ give them hope and consolation, as He once did for their devout ancestors.

The Sacrament of Evangelism?

2011-07-27T11:11:00.014+10:00

The title of this book caught my attention when I was searching for something else on Amazon (this is not a review as such; I'm using the book as a springboard for the following reflections). When I was at seminary my New Testament Greek lecturer ('professor' in American terminology), Dr Greg Lockwood (a true scholar and gentleman), would pepper our study of the Greek NT text with anecdotes and excursions into dogmatics which served to highlight some point the Biblical text was making. One anecdote went back to the time when he was a missionary in Papua New Guinea in the 1970s; apparently the neighbouring Roman Catholic missionaries always made a point of explaining to the Lutherans that 'we did not bring Christ to these people, he was already here'. Now, that probably makes perfect sense in the context of a Roman Catholic understanding of theological anthropology (of which more in a minute), but a Lutheran could only offer a qualified assent to the proposition, if indeed he could assent at all. Unfortunately, that is the thesis of this book: evangelism does not bring Christ to unbelievers, for he is already there...in a mysterious, sacramental kind of way.

To be sure, God does not forsake pagans or non-Christians. In His general providence and kindness He 'makes the rain to fall on the just and unjust' and it is 'in Him that we live and move and have our being', such that only God's upholding of the world ensures our continued existence. Further, God earnestly desires the salvation of all people, and directs and blesses the preaching of the Gospel to that end. In fact, as far as I know, there are no more 'heathens' in Papua New Guinea today, they are all confessedly Christian, but that's thanks to the generations of missionaries who took Christ to the PNG people. Come to think of it, I think there are more heathens (or pagans or unbelievers or whatever you wish to call them) in Australia these days than there ever were in PNG. History, even very recent history, teaches us that the course of the Gospel through the world mysteriously ebbs and flows among various peoples, surging in glorious fullness in one place while receding with a 'melancholy, long, withdrawing roar' in another, leaving men stranded and exposed in their spiritual helplessness.

Anyway, back to the problem with saying that Christ is with non-Christians in an unqualified way. Lutheran doctrine, following the clear teaching of scripture, asserts that all human beings born since the fall of Adam are 'without fear of God, without trust in God and are 'concupiscent'', a technical theological term which is boldly defined by the confession as meaning humans are 'full of evil lust and inclinations from their mother's wombs'. This state, commonly called original sin, according to the confessions truly 'damns and brings eternal death'(Augsburg Confession, Art II, both Latin and German texts; the locus classicus for this teaching is Paul's argument in the first chapters of Romans).

It is because of their unforgiven sin - both actual sins and original sin - and most particularly because of their idolatry, that pagans/heathen/non-Christians are not in fellowship with God. They are not in some 'neutral' spiritual state either, rather they are in active rebellion against their Creator and desperately need to hear the good news of the redemption He has won and offers to them through and in Christ. But without missionaries or preachers, they do not have Christ, even if in some mysterious way he is there (given that according to classic theology wherever the Father is there the Son is also). Non-Christians may even express an intense desire for redemption from their current state of bondage to sin and evil (in my experience Hindus and Muslims often have a much greater desire for redemption than the average post-Christian Westerner), but they are themselves powerless to initiate or accomplish their redemption. Only Christ has done that by offering up his own body and his precious blood as an atonement for sin and only the Spirit working through the Word can bring the benefits of that atonement to them.

So, do you see what I mean about a Lutheran being only able to offer a qualified assent, if indeed any at all, to the proposition that Christ is already with pagans, heathens and unbelievers? But members of church bodies which operate with a less rigorous theological anthropology that leaves the door open for genuine human seeking after and co-operation with God apart from His revelation in Christ can be much more positive about the extent to which Christ may be present in the lives of pagans and unbelievers. They may even teach, as does Rome (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 1260 & http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20051130_en.html), that by following the tenets of their religion and abiding by their conscience the heathen may be saved (I'm sorry Roman friends, but what is that but rank Pelagianism?).

Which brings me to what intrigues me about this book. Evangelicals (non-Reformed ones anyway), Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are disparate groups, but they have at least one thing in common, namely a weak theological anthropology that tends towards semi-Pelagianism or the full blown variety thereof, i.e. the belief that fallen human beings have some innate spiritual capacity, a 'spark of indwelling divinity' as I once heard an Orthodox priest put it, that means they can genuinely contribute something to their salvation (synergism) even from the outset. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have also, at least for the last couple of generations, been cautiously open to Eastern religious experience as possibly providing an authentic knowledge of God. But until recently Evangelicals would have shied away from such openness. Now I wonder if this book signals a movement for change? Even if that's not where the authors think they're going, it's quite possibly where they'll end up if the history of their own more liberal Protestant brothers is anything to go by (it's no accident that historically missiology was the field upon which the 20th C. conflict between Protestant 'Fundamentalists' and 'Liberals' was fought most viciously - see J. Gresham Machen's life story for e.g.).

Then there's also the curious notion that evangelism is a sacrament. That needs unpacking. For Lutherans evangelism is a form of the ministry of the Word, of which sacraments are visible forms (cautiously following Augustine's suggestion that sacraments combine the Word with a visible element). Applying the term 'sacrament' to evangelism seems problematic then - what is the visible element? But then speaking of sacraments as a general category at all is more Roman Catholic than Lutheran or indeed Evangelical. Lutherans rightly prefer to speak simply of 'Holy Baptism' and 'the Lord's supper', although I suppose there is no in principle objection to the more general term as a form of shorthand, as in 'Word and sacrament ministry'. But I'm suspicious of the sort of imprecise language the authors of this book already engage in with their title; it is often the mark of lazy thinking which returns to haunt in unexpected ways (this raises the question of why the important subject of evangelism is so often the victim of lazy thinking?). How easily the bland statement that 'the world is a sacrament' can lead back to paganism, and indeed if anything can be a sacrament, or if everything already is a sacrament in the sense of a bearer of the presence of God (which forms the basis of the authors' argument), does that not make Baptism and the Supper superfluous?

I fear the authors have forgotten - or never learned - that without explicit knowledge of Christ the true nature of God is hidden from fallen man, and the encounter with Him in nature or conscience is much more likely to inspire terror and craven idolatry than the Biblical faith and worship that the knowledge of Christ and His benefits brings. That's why I contend that it is at best problematic, but at worst actually dangerous to evangelism, to suggest that Christ is already present with unbelievers.

Click on the post title to see the book's Amazon page. The co-authors, Jerry Root and Stan Guthrie, are respectively a professor of practical theology and an editor at 'Christianity Today' magazine. We at the old manse think they could have benefited from the input of a systematic theologian along the way.

Does Justification by Faith Alone Militate Against Good Works?

2011-07-21T12:15:00.016+10:00

Does the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone solely on the basis of the righteousness of Christ militate against good works? Isn't that the logical conclusion of the Lutheran doctrine - that in the mind of the ordinary believer the knowledge that faith alone saves would lead to a cooling of the desire to do good works if such are, after all, not strictly necessary to salvation? One is surprised how often this misrepresentation of the Lutheran doctrine is made even by the theologically literate. What is missed by the objectors is the scriptural and thus Lutheran teaching that the result of justification is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, Rom 8:13-14, 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5-6) and with Him comes the gift of sonship that leads the believer to desire to please God the Father in all that he does (Rom 8:15, Gal 3:26), drawing the believer into the life-long process of 'putting on the new man' (Eph 4:24, Col 3:10) which theologians call sanctification.

Here are some relevant quotes:

First, Luther discusses 'two kinds of righteousness', the 'alien righteousness' (a righteousness from outside us, i.e. from God) that 'swallows up our sin' by grace alone (justification), and the 'proper righteousness' of a life spent in good works which are the fruit of justification:

'Through faith in Christ, therefore, Christ’s righteousness becomes our righteousness and all that he has becomes ours; rather, he himself becomes ours. Therefore the Apostle calls it ‘the righteousness of God.’ in Rom. 1:17: For in the gospel ‘the righteousness of God is revealed...as it is written, “The righteousness man shall live by faith.” ’...This is an infinite righteousness, and one that swallows up all sin in a moment, for it is impossible that sin should exist in Christ. On the contrary, he who trusts in Christ exists in Christ; he is one with Christ, having the same righteousness as he...Therefore this alien righteousness, instilled in us without our works by grace alone—while the Father, to be sure, inwardly draws us to Christ—is set opposite original sin, likewise alien, which we acquire without our works by birth alone.
The second kind of righteousness is our proper righteousness, not because we alone work it, but because we work with that first and alien righteousness. This is the manner of life spent profitably in good works, in the first place, in slaying the flesh and crucifying the desires with respect to the self, of which we read in Gal. 5:24: ‘And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.’ In the second place, this righteousness consists in love to one’s neighbor, and in the third place, in meekness and fear toward God...This righteousness is the product of the righteousness of the first type, actually its fruit and consequence...This righteousness goes on to complete the first for it ever strives to do away with the old Adam and to destroy the body of sin. Therefore it hates itself and loves its neighbor; it does not seek its own good, but that of another, and this its whole way of living consists. For in that it hates itself and does not seek its own, it crucifies the flesh. Because it seeks the good of another, it works love. Thus in each sphere it does God’s will, living soberly with self, justly with neighbor, devoutly toward God.' Martin Luther, from Two Kinds of Righteousness in 'Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings' (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), pp. 156–158).

Now Melanchthon touches upon the apparent conflict between Paul and James (often cited by the objectors) while emphasing that a true, living faith never fails to bring forth good works:

'Paul is here (1 Corinthians 12–13)...demanding love in addition to faith. This is what he does elsewhere in all his letters, demanding good works from believers, i.e. the justified...And when he says that he who has all faith but no love is nothing, he is right. For although faith alone justifies, love is also demanded...But love does not justify because no one loves as he ought. Faith, however, justifies...There is also the passage in James 2:17: ‘So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.’ He did well to say this, for he was reprimanding those who thought that faith is merely a historical opinion about Christ. For just as Paul calls one type of faith ‘true,’ and the other ‘feigned,’ so James calls the one kind ‘living’ and the other ‘dead.’ A living faith is that efficacious, burning trust in the mercy of God which never fails to bring forth good fruits. That is what James says in ch. 2:22: ‘Faith was completed by works.’...Therefore, the whole point that James is making is that dead faith...does not justify, but a living faith justifies. But a living faith is that which pours itself out in works. For he speaks as follows (v. 18): ‘Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.’ But he does not say: ‘I will show you works without faith.’ My exposition squares most harmoniously with what we read in James: ‘So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.’ Therefore, it is obvious that he is teaching here merely that faith is dead in those who do not bring forth the fruit of faith, even though from external appearances they seem to believe.' Philipp Melanchthon, from Loci communes theologici, in The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), Volume XIX, p. 112.

And finally we offer the Augsburg confessors' succinct summary of the Lutheran teaching:

'[Our churches] teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God's will, but that we should not rely on those works to merit justification before God. For remission of sins and justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of Christ attests: When ye shall have done all these things, say: We are unprofitable servants. Luke 17:10. The same is also taught by the Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith alone. The Augsburg Confession, Article VI, 'Concerning the New Obedience'.

Alles klar, ja?!

If there are examples of individuals for whom the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone militates against a life of good works, the cause is certainly not the Reformers' doctrine, but, I suggest, the flesh of the old Adam who stubbornly resists the leading of the Spirit.

On the Importance of Acquiring Ballast for the Journey of Life

2011-07-03T17:43:00.006+10:00

For those not interested in Newman...

These days we seem to have an insatiable desire for the new. This is understandable, perhaps, in our incredibly inventive age, but as I grow older (and hopefully more mature) the more I appreciate returning to the wisdom of what is old. I was once told that, in days gone by (well before my time), students of my alma mater seminary were encouraged, when they became ministers, to make it a practice to re-read annually and make notes on several theological classics (one of these was Walther's 'Law and Gospel'). The classics are seminal; contemporary theology doesn't hold a candle to them. I think that really is the way to acquire theological wisdom, as opposed to mere knowledge or information, or having our ears tickled with the latest speculations. And if one day our books should be taken away from us, or we from them - no matter, for we will have educated ourselves inwardly.

Two or so years ago I heard the literary critic George Steiner on the wireless in the old manse (wireless radio, that is) lamenting the decline of memorisation in modern education, including memorisation of the Bible interesting given that Steiner is an agnostic Jew as far as I know. The memorised wisdom and culture of the past was, according to Steiner, like 'ballast for the journey of life'. Deprived of it, young people today are empty vessels tossed violently on the sea of life by the many winds of opinion which buffet them.

It doesn't take too much imagination to consider the impact of this 'cultural amnesia' on the church and the clergy of today. From sunday school through confirmation to seminary, memorisation is a practice increasingly difficult to inculcate in young people. As a result, compared to previous generations of Christians, we are today, in my opinion, impoverished in our intellectual and spiritual formation. It's not my purpose here to lay the blame for that at anyone in particular - sometimes swells in the general culture swamp the best of institutions and intentions. When the schools no longer require children to memorise poetry, or times tables, or even passages from the Bible, as previous generations once did, it requires a mighty and concerted effort from the church to actively resist the trend. Do we have the courage to attempt it? Do we have a choice?

The Development of Doctrine II: Adventures in Neology with John Henry Newman

2011-06-29T15:57:00.029+10:00

The Council of Trent (1545-1563), which defined Roman Catholicism as a discrete confession, distinct both from the medieval catholicism that preceded it and from the Lutheran and Reformed confessions which it responded to, for nearly four hundred years, until John Henry Newman's neology* prevailed at Vatican II (1962-65).
(*Neology: literally a new doctrine or theology; historically it usually refers to certain German philosophers and theologians of the 18th century Aufklärung (the German Enlightenment) who attempted to reconcile Christian revelation with the new historical and scientific knowledge of the time, so as to preserve the possibility of faith among the educated classes.)

"Now the chief truths which Christians ought to hold are those which the holy Apostles, the leaders and teachers of the faith, inspired by the Holy Ghost' have divided into the twelve Articles of the Creed. For having received a command from the Lord to go forth into the whole world, as His ambassadors, and preach the Gospel to every creature, they thought it advisable to draw up a formula of Christian faith, that all might think and speak the same thing, and that among those whom they should have called to the unity of the faith no schisms would exist, but that they should be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment." Catechism of the Council of Trent (aka 'The Roman Catechism,' 1566)

"The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent -lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein-keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand..." Decree of the Council of Trent on Holy Scripture (April, 1566)

"St. Mary is our pattern of Faith, both in the reception and in the study of Divine Truth. She does not think it enough to accept, she dwells upon it; not enough to possess, she uses it; not enough to assent, she develops it; not enough to submit the Reason, she reasons upon it..."John Henry Newman, Sermon on 'The Theory of Developments in Religious Doctrine'(1843)

"If Christianity is a fact, and impresses an idea of itself on our minds and is a subject-matter of exercises of the reason, that idea will in course of time expand into a multitude of ideas, and aspects of ideas, connected and harmonious with one another, and in themselves determinate and immutable, as is the objective fact itself which is thus represented...the more claim an idea has to be considered living, the more various will be its aspects...and the more complicated and subtle will be its issues, and the longer and more eventful will be its course...keeping pace with the ever-changing necessities of the world, multiform, prolific, and ever resourceful..." John Henry Newman, 'Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine' (1845)

The historic pulpit of St Mary's Church, Oxford, from which Newman first ventured to propound his novel thesis of doctrinal development before the world in the form of a long sermon ostensibly on Luke 2:19 (of one and a half hour's duration by his own account!) in 1843, in which he cited the Virgin Mary as the exemplar of how the church was to ponder the truths of the Christian faith in her heart and bring forth new things. Almost exactly a hundred years earlier John Wesley had inaugurated the Evangelical revival in the Church of England by preaching his famous sermons on 'Salvation by Faith' and 'Scriptural Christianity' from the same pulpit. In 1833 John Keble had preached a sermon on 'National Apostasy' at St Mary's, protesting parliamentary interference in the church's internal life, an event which Newman himself marked as inaugurating the 'Oxford Movement', which rejected the doctrinal heritage of the Reformation and would change the face of Anglicanism profoundly.

Newman’s now seminal ‘Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine’, published in 1845, was widely read in Britain and abroad, and drew reactions from theologians across the ecclesiastical spectrum: Roman Catholics, Anglicans of high and low churchmanship, Presbyterians and Baptists. The majority of these reactions were critical. A modern editor of a 1974 edition of Newman’s essay, writing under the influence of the post-Vatican II veneration of Newman, could refer Newman’s essay as the most important theological treatise by an Englishman since William of Occam, but Newman’s more sober contemporaries were less appreciative. Indeed, the affront that Newman’s essay caused led some to regard him as a fellow traveller with the German neologists, and perhaps even an infidel.

As outlandish as these accusations may seem today, when Newman is presented as an exemplar of Roman Catholic orthodoxy (and is, tellingly, a figure highly regarded by both liberal and conservative Roman Catholics) it serves us well to remember that for much of his life as a Catholic Newman was held in suspicion as one whose sympathies lay with the liberal wing of the church. Furthermore, outside his own circle of Anglo-Catholic converts, it was among Catholic modernists that his theory was to receive its most unabashedly positive reception. Not that Newman was a modernist; he was too conventionally devout to be such. But as the siren song of Rome dashed his idiosyncratic version of Anglicanism on the rocks at Littlemore, he was clearly struggling with the same question that would later lead to the rise of modernism in the Roman church, namely the difficulty a historically conscious modern person had defending, let alone submitting in good conscience to, Rome’s a-historical claims about herself as they were then presented (the decrees of Trent and the Roman Catechism still defined Roman Catholicism in the 19th century, and would do so for more than a hundred years to come, with the official addition of Papal Infallibility and the Marian dogmas). This struggle indeed led Newman to sail close to the winds of neology blowing from Continental theology - it cannot be gainsaid that Newman’s ‘Essay’ contains many thoughts which struck his contemporaries as very novel indeed. In fact, even seventy years later, some of the propositions Newman puts forward in the ‘Essay’, for example his opinion that revelation did not cease with the death of the last apostle, were condemned by the Papacy as belonging to the modernist heresy [Cf. Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907) & 'Lamentabile: Errors of the Modernists (1907)]. This reveals just how radical Newman's proposal of development was; in fact, it would be over a hundred years before Roman Catholicism caught up with the subtle mind of John Henry Newman, an interesting development in itself which we hope to explore in a further post.

But first, to the heart of Newman’s thesis, which begins with the curious contention that Christianity is essentially an Idea, which, like all ideas, admits of development, whereby various aspects of the original idea are “brought into consistency and form…being the germination and maturation of some truth or apparent truth on a large mental field”. The idea “not only modifies, but is modified, or at least influenced, by the state of things in which it is carried out, and is dependent in various ways on the circumstances which surround it”. What is the process, then, by which Christianity has developed? Newman, quoting himself, opines that “the mind which is habituated to the thought of God, of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, naturally turns with a devout curiosity to the contemplation of the object of its adoration, and begins to form statements concerning it, before it knows whither, or how far, it will be carried. One proposition necessarily leads to another, and a second to a third; then some limitation is required; and the combination of these opposites occasions some fresh evolutions from the original idea, which indeed can never be said to be entirely exhausted. This process is its development, and results in a series, or rather body, of dogmatic statements, till what was an impression on the Imagination has become a system or creed in the Reason.”

As examples, Newman suggests that the Roman Catholic doctrine and system of penance is a development from the doctrine of baptism which has led to a historically new doctrine, and furthermore elaborates that the historic episcopate is a political development, the doctrine of the Theotokos a logical development, the determination of the date of our Lord's birth date a historical development, the Eucharist a moral development, and the Athanasian Creed a metaphysical development of the simple, original ‘Idea’ of Christianity, which is the Incarnation. All of these Christian truths are evidence of the evolution – yes, as we saw above, Newman uses the word – and modification – he doesn’t shy away from that term either - of the simple, original Christian idea as the Christian mind has contemplated it in the light of new and challenging contexts (the parallels with Darwin’s soon to be published theory of biological evolution, whereby the morphology of species is modified through interaction with new environments, are obvious). Newman also suggests that Roman Catholic Marian piety is a legitimate development of the confession of the early church that Mary was the Theotokos. At the time of publication of Newman’s essay, the papal definition of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, a belief already widely held and observed as a holy day, was only 9 years away. We don’t know if the Pope was emboldened towards promulgating this dogma by Newman’s thesis...as convoluted and flawed as it is, we think probably not.

As mentioned above, publication of Newman’s essay caused considerable affront. Protestants were offended that a figure who was educated by and had so obviously benefited personally from the Protestant Anglican establishment had resorted to such obvious special pleading to defend the absolutist claims of Rome (remember, there were political as well as religious dimensions to the claims of Rome - every English child knew the story of Guy Fawkes and looked forward to burning his effigy every 5th November, even if only for the accompanying fireworks display!). Meanwhile, Roman Catholics were uneasy that Newman appeared to cede too much to traditional Protestant criticisms by apparently acknowledging that distinctive Roman doctrines could only be drawn indirectly from the apostolic deposit of faith. But, as unpromising as the reception of his published essay was to be, the exercise of writing down his notion of development, which he had first publicly outlined from the pulpit of St Mary’s, Oxford in 1843, had enabled Newman to reconcile, at least in his own mind, the obvious differences in doctrine and life between the Roman church of his time and the early church as he knew it from his historical research. To the Protestant charge that the early church knew nothing of penance, purgatory and the purity of Mary from original sin, Newman could respond that all these doctrines, along with other distinctive Roman doctrines and the practices which flowed from them, were developments of the original deposit of faith, which met Newman’s own proposed seven criteria for legitimacy. Hypothetically, Newman speculated, if St Ambrose of Milan were alive today he would certainly be a Roman Catholic!

A somewhat idealised portrait of Newman during the period of semi-monastic retreat at Littlemore which he largely devoted to composing his 'Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine'. Newman is pictured here with his close companion - even in death they shared a grave - and fellow convert to Romanism, Ambrose St. John. Newman tasked St. John and his other acolytes at Littlemore with composing lives of the English saints. Modern day homosexual activists within and without the Roman church have claimed that Newman's friendship with St. John is evidence that he was a homosexual. Personally I am not convinced, although undoubtedly this friendship compensated somewhat for Newman's lack of a marriage partner. However, I can't fail to note what a contrast Newman's effete personality, his dissembling ways (Tract 90!) and his various all-male domains present to Luther's stout-hearted, guileless character and his lively domestic household at Wittenberg!

By publishing his essay, Newman intended to provide not just an apologia for his looming conversion (which took place on October 9, 1845), but a persuasive towards conversion to Rome directed to others. Thousands since have been thus persuaded, and many more “cradle Catholics” have found in Newman’s theory a justification for remaining Catholic because it – and his theology as a whole – has enabled them to become “intellectually fulfilled modern Roman Catholics”. But, ironically, these gains have been made only at the cost of introducing the principles of subjectivism and rationalism into the heart of Catholic theology. I say this is ironic because, as anyone who has studied Newman’s own ‘development’ knows, it was his horror at how Protestantism had supposedly introduced first subjectivism and then rationalism into Christianity that set Newman on the path to Rome in the first place. Mutatis mutandis, with reference to Newman's Essay, we might well turn his own words, from his "Tract for the Times Number 73: On the Introduction of Rationalistic Principles into Revealed Religion’ back upon himself: “To Rationalise in matters of revelation is to make our reason the standard and measure of the doctrines revealed…to frame some gratuitous hypothesis about them and then to garble, gloss and colour them…and twist them… in order to bring them into conformity with the idea to which we have subjected them.”

Just how Newman was guilty of doing this I shall explore in an upcoming post, which will review contemporary responses to Newman from within Anglicanism and also offer a criticism of our own. Further, apropos Newman and the Oxford Movement's rejection of the Reformation, I will consider in yet another post how Newman misread and maligned Luther, re-writing Anglican theology and history in the process.

--+--

Many thanks to those who've contacted me on and off the blog to express their interest in this series. I apologise for the delay in publishing this second post - the southern hemisphere winter has brought influenza and asthma to the old manse, which, after catching-up with pastoral duties, has not left me with much energy for blogging.

The Development of Doctrine: Norm or Novum?

2011-06-12T13:45:00.031+10:00

The Council of Nicea (fresco in the Sistine Chapel, Rome)

Has the belief that doctrine develops always been the norm in the church's history, or is it in fact a novum (a new thing, an innovation...itself a development!)? Your answer to that question probably turns on whether you are a Roman Catholic or not, for modern Roman Catholicism is, as far as I am aware, the only church body to officially work with the notion that doctrine can be developed (true, theologians from other confessions may say "doctrine develops", but they most often mean something different from what Rome claims). For all churches apart from Rome, however, Christian doctrine has historically been regarded as a given; it is the doctrinal content of the apostolic deposit of faith (variously: "the faith", fides quae, de fide), set down once and for all in the holy scriptures under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Church may differ from traditional Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed and others in broadening the definition of the deposit of faith to include 'tradition' as the life of the Holy Spirit in the church (some avant garde Orthodox theologians have pushed this in the direction of an idea of development, but more traditional Orthodox theologians (e.g. Florovsky) have written against this), but all have traditionally been united in affirming that the apostolic deposit of faith is a given, not subject to development in any true sense, defined as growth in content.

This statement immediately calls for clarification. It is not denied that there has been growth in the church's subjective understanding of the apostolic deposit of faith. This growth in understanding has come about particularly as the church has had to confront various heresies, disputes occasioned by the erroneous public interpretation of aspects of the deposit of faith whose resolution called for more specific definitions of doctrine than had hitherto existed (the Christological definitions are the classic case). But that actual new doctrines not explicitly contained or logically implicit in the apostolic deposit of faith could develop or grow out of these confrontations, or even apart from doctrinal controversy as a normal process in the life of the church, is a view which, as far as I am aware, only developed [sic!] in the 19th century.

As we consider the advent of the theory of doctrinal development, it should be noted that the Western world of the 19th century was generally fascinated by ideas of progress, development and evolution, but at the same time the new scientific approach to historical research was contributing to a growing historical consciousness. This historical consciousness was reflected in the Romantic movement, which permeated both popular and intellectual culture, especially in Germany, France and in the Anglosphere, the most developed cultures of the time. The 19th century world, then, was equipped to look both into the past and into the future in a way which no previous era of humankind was able to do. Indeed, the hubris of 19th century culture is displayed in its many attempts to define the past and thus direct the future, acting as if from a position of unassailed intellectual and spiritual authority. With that background in mind, let us focus on the individual responsible more than anyone else for the rise of a theory of the development of doctrine.

Newman about the time of his conversion

The proposition that doctrine develops or grows was developed in the years 1843-1845 out of the fertile mind of John Henry Newman, who was in the process of conversion to Roman Catholicism and struggling to provide a credible answer to Protestant criticism of Roman doctrines which were clearly absent from the life of the early church, such as Purgatory (the German Catholic theologian J.A. Moehler, had proposed doctrinal development some 20 years earlier than this, but by all accounts his published views are too vague to be called a 'theory'; it does, however, show that notions of development were 'in the air' at the time, particularly among those influenced by Romanticism, as Moehler and Newman both were). Newman had begun his Christian life as an Anglican Evangelical, so he knew the power of these criticisms from the inside, as it were (indeed, he had even made these criticisms himself - see below). It's true that Newman frames his work from the beginning as an attack on "Protestantism" for its alleged unhistorical character, but the tenor of the work is purely apologetic (defensive).

Littlemore, the modest set of cottages in Oxford where Newman lived with like-minded young men in a quasi-monastic setting from 1842-1845, whence his great idea was conceived

To this task Newman applied his subtle and creative mind and his gift for expressing himself in captivating, almost hypnotic prose. The end result was a seminal theological text which Roman Catholic intellectuals of the 20th century, oppressed by the growing realization that advancing historical research increasingly revealed the untenable nature of the old Roman claim of simple continuity with the early church, were to find indispensable in providing a defence against Protestantism, which dominated mid-20th century theological discourse (Barth, et al). To mangle a phrase from the debate about development in the biological field, "Newman's doctrine of development made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled, modern Roman Catholic" (with apologies to Richard Dawkins!).

No-one, to my mind, expresses the importance of the doctrine of development to the modern Roman Catholic more honestly than the Dominican theologian, Aidan Nichols:

"Why is the issue of doctrinal development worth studying? In what respects is it a significant, or even a crucial, issue for theology, and, indeed, for faith?

In the first place: for Catholic theology, the issue of doctrinal development is vital to the justification of specifically Catholic Christian doctrinal insights, vis-à-vis the serious objections to these which other historic Christian communities can lodge. For it may be said that certain elements met with in Catholic teaching today, such as, for example, the doctrine of Purgatory, were not found in the early Church, or, at any rate, can be found there only with difficulty. But if an aspect of the public faith of the Church today was not a constitutive part of the original apostolic preaching, at least not in any obvious sense, how can this aspect be supported, or even tolerated?

Put negatively, in terms of apologetics, this is a matter of defending the Catholic Church against the claim that it has corrupted the Gospel by adding to it elements which are not divinely revealed, being of merely human devising. The classic case against Catholicism in just such terms was made by John Henry Newman in his Anglican period. Writing in 1837, in pursuance of the theme of Anglican identity, Newman wrote:

"Romanism may be considered as an unnatural and misshapen development of the Truth; not the less dangerous because it retains traces of its genuine features, and usurps its name . . . However the Church of Rome may profess a reverence for Antiquity, she does not really feel and pay it. There are in fact two elements in operation within her system. As far as it is Catholic and Scriptural, it appeals to the Fathers; as far as it is a corruption, it finds it necessary to supersede them. Viewed in its formal principles and authoritative statements, it professes to be the champion of past times; viewed as an active and political power, as a ruling, grasping, ambitious principle, in a word, as what is expressively called popery, it exalts the will and pleasure of the existing Church above all authority, whether of Scripture or Antiquity, interpreting the one and disposing of the other by its absolute and arbitrary decree." (1)

Nor should it be supposed that such objections to Catholic belief are no longer met with in the contemporary period. Thus in the wake of the proclamation of the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of the blessed Virgin Mary in 1950, the Lutheran Friedrich Heiler commented that, in the matter of dogmatic evolution:

"Roman Catholic apologetic has not only happily adopted, overnight, one of the basic affirmations of the Modernist concept of dogma, but has outdone the Modernists themselves." (2)

Or again, R. P. C. Hanson, one of the most classically Anglican theologians of recent times, had this to say:

"Their (Catholics') religion is a religion which looks to the present, and to the future for its revelation, indeed one which may confidently expect new revelations and new fundamental doctrines of Christianity to emerge in the future into public gaze ... In this insistence it has entirely deserted the whole emphasis and outlook of primitive Christianity, it has reversed the current of original faith." (3)

And pointing out that the Church must consider itself bound by its original tradition, expressed in Scripture, Hanson maintains that such apparent doctrinal advances as the affirmation of the Son's consubstantiality with the Father, made at the First Council of Nicaea, are not development of that tradition, in the sense of adding fresh articles to its faith. Rather are they measures of defence expressed in the thought-forms of a period, and constructed in such a way as to meet some particular attack on an original identity. (4)

Genuine development of Christian doctrine ... has taken place only in the enunciation of certain formulae necessary to protect the original tradition of the Church from error. These formulae are only de fide, necessary to salvation, in as far as points of controversy have been raised to which they could be the only answer if the witness of the Bible to God's revelation in Jesus Christ was to be maintained in its truth.

Nor are such gravamina confined to individuals, perhaps isolated or in some way atypical. At the time of the promulgation of the Assumption dogma, the Evangelical-Lutheran faculty of theology in the University of Heidelberg issued a joint statement to the effect that the Catholic Church now claims in practice:

"to be able to generate apostolic teaching, whereas its official commission is meant to be simply to guard and interpret historically transmitted apostolic teaching..." (5)

...The ecumenical importance of the theme of development has been well expressed by the American Jesuit John Courtney Murray, best known for his part in the marking of the Second Vatican Council's declaration on religious freedom. Murray wrote:

"I consider that the parting of the ways between the two Christian communities [he is speaking of Catholicism and Protestantism] takes place on the issue of development of doctrine. That development has taken place in both communities cannot possibly be denied. The question is, what is legitimate development, what is organic growth in the understanding of the original deposit of faith, what is warranted extension of the primitive discipline of the church, and what, on the other hand, is accretion, additive increment, adulteration of the deposit, distortion of true Christian discipline?" (6)"

As for the Eastern Orthodox, Nichols notes later in his book that:

"A majority...of Orthodox writers register serious reservations about what they take to be the Catholic theory of doctrinal development. Some consider it to involve a 'vitalistic' theory of pre-conscious knowledge which is little different from an admission of blank unawareness, by the ancient Church, of some later points of confessional believing. Again, some regard the movement of Catholic thought on the issue as an attempt to transcend the notion of a closure of revelation with death of the last apostle. Many avoid the term 'evolution of dogmas', but find the phrase 'doctrinal development' acceptable at any rate when taken in the sense of a refinement of the language of theological statements, and a deeper understanding of the revealed contents."

Aidan Nichols, 'From Newman to Congar: The Development of Doctrine', T & T Clark, 1990.

-- + --

Part II of this post, which will look at Roman claims more closely and compare them with holy scripture and the patristic witness, will follow shortly, D.v., as pastoral commitments and family life permit (yes, blogging is a hobby, not my life!). I am also working on posts on the misreading of Luther by both Newman and Ratzinger.

Here are Nichols references:
1. J. H. Newman, Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church (London 1837),
p. 100.

2. F Heiler, 'Katholischer Neomodernjsmus. Zu den Versuchen emer Verteidigung
des neuen Mariendogmas', in Oekungenjsche Einheit II. 3 (1951), p. 233.

3. 1n R. P. C. Hanson and R. Fuller, The Church of Rome. A Dissuasive (London
1948), p. 84.

4. lbid., p. 102.

5. Cited by Heiler in his 'Das neue Mariendogma in Licht der Geschichte und im Urteil der Oekumene, 2' in Oekumenische Einheit II. 3 (1951). pp. 240-55. On the
controversy aroused by the preparation of the dogma, see H. Hammans, Die neueren katholischen Erklärungen der Dogmenentwicklung (Essen 1965), pp. 7-9: much more fully: A. G. Aiello, Sviluppo del dogma e tradizione. A proposito della definizione dell'Assunzione di Maria (Rome 5979); and, from a Protestant perspective (Auctores varii) Die Geschiclstlichkeit der Kirche und ihrer Verkündigung als theologisches Problem (Tubingen 1954), pp. 44-5.

6. J. Courtney Murray S.J., The Problem of God Yesterday and Today (New Haven
1964), p. 53; cited in J. Pelikan, Development of Christian Doctrine. Some Historical Prolegomena (London 1969), p. 1.

The Sweetest Fruit on the Tree of Lies: The Pious Lie

2011-06-11T14:13:00.008+10:00

With the discussion generated by the last post on 'The Roman Way' still fresh, I now want to combine the theme of that post with that of the preceding post on the ethics of speech, with a nod to the sub-theme of the development of doctrine which was inevitably raised in the comments. I can think of no better way to do so than by presenting here a reflection on "the sweetest fruit on...the tree of lies: the pious lie", from the pen of the redoubtable German-Australian Lutheran theologian, Hermann Sasse (1895-1976), who here and in many other places in his writings seems to assume a prophetic mantle. The picture of Sasse is, according to my best estimate, from about the time he joined the stellar theology faculty of the Erlangen University in 1933 - three years before the following words were written:

“…there is in the church one particularly sweet piece of fruit on the broad canopy of the tree of lies… the greatest ethicist of our church (August Vilmar –MH) once spoke, warning the theologians of his and our time about the most grievous sin, the lie to God. The most fearful thing about the pious lie is that it will lie not only to men, but also to God in prayer, in confession, in the Holy Supper, in the sermon and in theology. The pious lie always has the propensity to become the edifying lie. It was once expelled from the church when it existed in the form of legends of the saints and the fraud of relics. Then in the full view of pious eyes, it returned in a new form, such as in the Luther legends, or in pietistic times in the form of almanacs and tracts containing the accounts of miraculous responses to prayer and equally miraculous conversions, which either never happened, or in which the kernel of historical truth was no longer discernible. This "edifying" lie even forces its way into the sphere of the church, which teaches revealed truths of revelation. After sufficient preparation it can obtain the status of "doctrinal maturity". Thus it becomes the dogmatic lie.
We ask our Roman Catholic fellow Christians to believe that it is very difficult for us to use the word "lie" here, and we do not do so to offend them. We know that they affirm a dogma such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary out of deep conviction of faith, and they will accept the yet-awaited extension of Marian dogma from the hand of the ecclesiastical teaching office with the same sincerity. But this changes nothing of the fact that in these dogmas false doctrines are established, and that the Roman Church thus finds itself in a guilt-laden error...
When we speak of the dogmatic lie, we do not, however, have in mind only the celebrated dogmas pronounced by the Catholic Church, through which theories are elevated to the level of ecclesiastical dogma, and have no basis in Holy Scripture, and are not true. We include here also precisely the dogmas with which modern Protestantism has been at pains to correct, to complete, or to replace the doctrine of the evangelical church, such as the false doctrine of Pietism concerning the church, or of rationalism concerning the person of Jesus Christ. What a fearful thing it is indeed that things are taught in the church which are not true, under the guise of the eternal truth entrusted to her. No atheism, no Bolshevism can do as much damage and destruction as the pious lie, the lie in the church. In this lie the power of one is made evident whom Christ Himself calls a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44)."

Extracted from Sasse's essay 'Union and Confession' (written in Germany in 1936), trans. by Matthew C. Harrison, published by the Office of the President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 1997.

--+--

Sasse reminds us of something that must never be forgotten if we are to remain true Evangelical Christians. As much as we are in conscience bound to protest the pious lies behind the false dogmas promulgated by the papacy, we must remain aware that no church body is above succumbing to a 'pious lie' and thus falling into the most grievous sin of lying to God in prayer and worship. Today, among the churches descended from the magisterial Reformation, we witness church body after church body succumbing to the great pious lie of our time: the 'Gospel of radical inclusion', which in practice calls evil 'good' and good 'evil', and does so with an air of superior piety that must sicken God's heart, if not raise his ire. See previous posts on the 'Church of Scotland' and the 'Evangelical Lutheran Church in America'. May God preserve us and our churches from such a sin and may he safely guide the faithful remnant in such church bodies to green pastures and still waters.

The Roman Way : Dogma Trumps History

2011-06-06T19:46:00.021+10:00

For several decades since Vatican II it has been a common refrain in Protestant circles that Rome has changed. Therefore ecumenical engagement and ecclesial rapprochement were to be actively sought. Of course, in a sense Rome has changed; no earthly institution, not even the Papacy, can remain unmoved by profound changes in the tenor of the world in which it must exist. Rome has certainly adjusted the face it shows to the 'modern world', at least cosmetically. But that Rome has changed substantially is a claim of which I have never been convinced.

Certainly, there was a move at the time of Vatican II towards a more conciliar ecclesiology, and a beginning made in dialogue with other Christians; but a sober reading of the documents of that Council reveals that in actuality Vatican II re-affirmed all of the prerogatives traditionally claimed for the Papacy, including those promulgated as de fide centuries after Luther had pointed to the late medieval Papacy as the clearest manifestation of the spirit of Antichrist in the church. Vatican II does not resile from the claims of Vatican I; in fact the documents of Vstican II cite the claims of that Council (claims which made even Cardinal Newman uneasy) in support of the continued Papal right to universal jurisdiction and unfettered power in the church.

Such assertions of Papal supremacy are a triumph of dogma - in the Roman sense - over history (in fact, none of the peculiar Roman additions to the apostolic deposit of faith can be justified at the bar of history, but for the present time we are focussed on the Papacy; for a convenient summary of the history and falsehood of Papal absolutist claims see von Döllinger's 'The & Pope and the Council'). But as the churches 'genetically' descended from the magisterial Reformation increasingly succumb to doctrinal and moral disintegration, such unhistorical claims to absolute jurisdiction and power by a church which presents itself as creedally and morally orthodox have a mysterious and for some a seemingly irresistable appeal (ironically, most Roman Catholics born within the fold whom I have spoken to view such absolute claims through a jaundiced eye; however, a liberal Catholic does not a Lutheran make!). Especially is this the case for doctrinally and morally conservative Protestant Christian intellectuals. "Is not a return to Rome the obvious solution", they plead, "to the problem of the disintegration of Christendom?" Only Rome can save the world!

Thus we observe the oft-commented on trend among Protestant intellectuals of converting to Rome, much like a panicked sailor on a sinking ship in the midst of a storm who spies land and concludes he has little to lose and much to gain by swimming for it. One can cite, to mention only the most recent example I have heard of, the case of the moderator of the 'Reformed Church in France' who announced his intention to become Roman Catholic immediately after the synod of his church voted to open holy communion to the unbaptised. The reverend gentleman may well be sincere, and we cannot fault his principled objection to the lamentable decision of his synod, but on the face of it his conversion to Rome on such a basis strikes me as fundamentally irrational - his decision is based on a massive non sequitur, namely that because the Reformed Church of France is sinking into apostacy the claims of Rome to be the one, true church of Christ and the thus the only refuge for the storm-tossed Protestant Christian must be true. But how can one be Reformed one day, and Roman Catholic the next? Surely only someone under great duress, or mightily confused about what he believes, can adopt such a course?

I have made a study of the conversion stories of many such people, and the thing which strikes me most is how they 'swim the Tiber' blindfolded, as it were, or half asleep, as if stupefied by the promise that awaits them on the other side. There seems in most cases to be no extended period, away from the tumult of ecclesiastical life, given to reasoned searching out of Roman Catholic claims with the light of history or indeed scripture (the view of the authority of scripture in such cases demands a separate post). Or, when there is, it stands out as the exception that proves the rule. Instead it most often seems that a single doctrinal issue engaged in the heat of ecclesial warfare, be it the ordination of women and/or active homosexuals, or the above-mentioned opening of communion to the unbaptised, or a single question of conscience, such as the morality of birth control, acts as a fulcrum which propels the Protestant intellectual Rome-ward (right over the Tiber, if you will, no swimming required!). Only then, when the decision to convert has effectively been made, is a formal study of Roman doctrine begun, by which time the convert has too much invested emotionally in the decision to reneg. Time and again one reads in such conversion accounts of how difficulties with this or that Roman doctrine are suspended in the interest of being "received into the church", after which the difficulties are expected to melt away. It would seem that Pascal's phrase aptly describes the state of such people: "the heart has its reasons which reason doesn't know."

I therefore view this contemporary trend as yet more evidence of the growing irrationality of our time both within and without the church. Just as the non-confessing Protestant churches sink deeper into a-historical neo-Gnosticism, some of their supposedly "best and brightest" surrender their judgment in religious matters to an authority which has an equally tenuous relation to history. In my judgment, then, this 'home to Rome' movement seems to be only the flip side of a coin minted by post-Enlightenment, liberal Protestantism. And it is essentially a reactionary movement which, because it jettisons so much of value from the legacy of the Reformers (again, note the a-historical tendency), does not present a real option for confessing and confessional Evangelicals struggling in these stormy times. We do better, if our ecclesial ship actually is sinking, to prepare to take to the boats and navigate our way out of trouble. Take heart, we have the heavens to guide us.

--+--

Which is all by way of extended introduction to the following scholarly opinion which has appeared in a new ecumenical study on the Papacy (click on the post title for an Amazon page)

In the first millennium there was no question of the Roman bishops governing the church in distant solitude. They used to take their decisions together with their synod, held once or twice a year. When matters of universal concern arose, they resorted to the ecumenical council. Even [Pope] Leo [I], who struggled for the apostolic principle over the political one, acknowledged that only the emperor would have the power to convoke an ecumenical council and protect the church.

At the heart of the estrangement that progressively arose between East and West, there may be a historical misunderstanding. The East never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West. It never accepted that the protos in the universal church could claim to be the unique successor or vicar of Peter. So the East assumed that the synodal constitution of the church would be jeopardized by the very existence of a Petrine office with potentially universal competencies in the government of the church.

Just how far is this history from the Roman claim, promulgated at Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 22) and repeated in the current Catechism that "the Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered"? The amazing thing is that this opinion comes from the pen of an eminent Roman Catholic theologian, namely Archbishop Roland Minnerath, and can be found in his essay 'The Petrine Ministry in the Early Patristic Tradition', in How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? (James F. Puglisi, Editor, Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ©2010, pgs. 34-48). Not that we should expect this admission of profound ecclesiological diversity in the ancient church to lead to a revision of the claims of Rome or her Protestant converts. Remember: in Rome, dogma trumps history every time.

Speech Has a Moral Texture

2011-05-31T08:51:00.009+10:00

Speech has a moral texture, an ethical dimension. Speech involves more than giving voice to words and thoughts, it is also the act of a moral agent. Most obviously, to lie is to act immorally, but to equivocate is unethical in most contexts (think of an ordinand equivocating on his ordination vows - it happens) and to evade an honest question is to respond unjustly to the questioner. Yet we are most likely all guilty of these sins to some extent, such is the disordering impact of original sin upon the human psyche. Most people, one would like to think, catch themselves when they use the divine gift of speech immorally in this way; the lie may escape their lips but their conscience immediately accuses them. Then there are those who seem to be compulsive liars or who apparently believe that their occupation gives them a license to use speech immorally - no, I'm not referring to the military but to politicians, who routinely equivocate, evade and even lie to the press and consequently to their constituents. The public reads this behaviour as disdain, both for truth itself and for them as electors. Is it any wonder that public discourse is becoming increasingly toxic? Immoral speech is an acid dissolving the bonds of the civil society.

Even theologians are not above using speech unethically or even immorally, and by doing so publicly they are failing to provide a model of communication different from the world's. Evasion and equivocation are rife among theologians, and unfortunately the ad hominem attack seems to be the usual parry when they seek to block or deflect a difficult question (so, instead of dealing with an opposing argument, the proponent of the opposing position is personally denigrated). I've witnessed this on occasions more numerous to count in seminary lectures and pastors' conferences, and I've even been on the receiving end. Why should theologians be different, after all (that's an open, not a rhetorical question)? But it does, or should, disappoint their readers/fans when they behave in this way habitually. Click on the post title to read an analysis by a philosopher of a recent example of the unethical use of speech by a well-known theologian.

Not So 'Fair Trade'

2011-05-27T14:33:00.007+10:00

Since many churches, in an effort to do the right thing by Third World farmers, use or endorse Fair Trade coffee at their after service 'coffee hour', I thought this report was worth circulating. A German economic study has found that Fair Trade has tended to further impoverish Third World coffee growers and, in their efficiency-motivated drive to re-structure farms on a co-operative basis, often doesn't respect the strong tradition of family ownership in some cultures. According to the author of the article, independent Canadian coffee merchant Lawrence Solomon, free trade makes pawns of the farmers and is a joke on the customers. It seems to amount to little more than a profitable marketing angle for the middle-man.

Click on the post title for the article.

As for me and my house (and church), we shall drink tea!
(I recommend 'Dilmah' tea from Sri Lanka - a better quality product than the international companies produce, family owned and socially responsible too)

Praying for the Folk of Joplin, Missouri

2011-05-24T14:46:00.010+10:00

This isn't a news blog, so I don't generally comment much on current events, but this post is simply to say that I'm praying for those affected by the horrific tornado that has devastated Joplin, Missouri, leaving 116 dead and much destruction of property. Lord, have mercy! Click on the post title for relevant news from the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Apparently four homes belonging to teachers at the local LC-MS school are among the many destroyed. I'm thinking also of a retired pastor and his wife from one of the congregations I serve who are currently on holiday in...Missouri! The Lord bless you and keep you Norm and Joy,and also you Cathryn (a former parishioner who resides presently in St Louis).

A pastor colleague of mine has reported that the worst years for tornadoes in the US have been 1925, 1974 and 2011. Not co-incidentally, I was able to add, those were all years of significant and devastating floods in Australia. The common factor behind the extraordinary weather on both continents in those years was the 'La Nina' warming of the Pacific Ocean. Yes, Virginia, we really are interconnected! I noted with great interest a recent scientific report that concluded that the oceans may in fact have more influence on our planetary climate than the atmosphere. Perhaps the ancient Israelite fear of the sea as the source of chaos and disorder was not entirely misplaced?

How Are the Mighty Fallen

2011-05-24T10:43:00.007+10:00

The Church of Scotland has voted to allow homosexual men and women to be ordained, effectively opening up the path to recognition of homosexual marriage. Further, in what seems a very strange decision, the General Assembly has appointed a theological commission to investigate the impact this decision will have upon the church, Scotland's oldest historically Protestant church body. Wouldn't you want to investigate the likely repercussions before voting on such a question, I ask?

In fact, the decision is likely to lead to the departure of a large minority - estimated to be about a quarter of the membership - of evangelical and theologically conservative ministers and layfolk (the last such division occurred in the 1840s and led to the formation of the 'Free Church of Scotland'). One ministerial delegate said in a speech to the Assembly that voting on this issue was like being asked to pull the pin on a live grenade, and warned of the destructive consequences of the subsequent "explosion". Click on the post title to read a report from the UK's Guardian newspaper. The pic shows the standard of the Church of Scotland, the Burning Bush superimposed upon the Cross of St Andrew.

- Historical Note -

The Church of Scotland is a 'national church' but not an 'established church', as is the Church of England. It retains the allegiance of some 42% of the Scottish population. It traces its origins to the dawn of Christianity in Scotland, but historically dates from the Scottish Reformation of 1560.

- Why am I interested in it? -

The 'Church of Scotland' has a little-known significance in Western history that belies its size and geographical distance from the centres of ecclesiastical politics. Following the Reformation, the church established a system of universal education which led to Scotland becoming the most literate society in Europe at the time, even though it was also the poorest society in Europe - no mean feat! High literacy rates and the quality of the general education provided the necessary foundation for the extraordinary 'Scottish Enlightenment' of the 18th century (when Edinburgh was known as "the Athens of the North"), whose ideas and values profoundly shaped British and North American culture and enabled that culture to rise to dominance in the modern world (see Arthur Herman's little book 'How the Scots Invented the Modern World' for an exploration of this thesis). For almost every department of science or learning that one can enrol in today at a university in the 'Anglosphere', a progenitor in the Scottish Enlightenment can be identified - e.g. Adam Smith (economics), William Buchan (medicine), James Hutton (geology), Joseph Black (chemistry), James Watt (engineering), David Hume (philosophy. Of course, not all of the contributions of these men are happy ones, but their profound influence on the modern world cannot be denied.

Thus it is not an exaggeration - or only a slight exaggeration! - to suggest that 'the modern world' was born in the classrooms of schools operated by the Church of Scotland. Hence the heading of this post - "How Are the Mighty Fallen" (2 Samuel 1:27). While many of the leading figures of the Scottish Enlightenment, such as David Hume, abandoned orthodox Christianity, the movement itself could not have arisen apart from the milieu created in large part by the Church of Scotland, and the original Christian stream of the Scottish Enlightenment is exemplified by the contribution of the philosopher Thomas Reid, who was in his own day regarded as a more significant thinker than his contemporary Hume and who continues to influence Christian philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff today.

Then also, apart from the general historical significance of this decision and the way in which it reflects the decline of a once great institution, my paternal family line descends from 'Church of Scotland' members and ministers who were part of the Scottish migration to southern New South Wales in the early 19th century. Scots featured prominently in early Australian history, notably Governor John Hunter (the NSW colony's second governor), Governor Lachlan Macquarie, the person most responsible for establishing the viability of the colony of New South Wales (the 'Father of Australia'), and his successor Governor Thomas Brisbane (also an amatuer astronomer). Each of these figures typifies the values of the Scottish Enlightement as they filtered down to men of a practical nature, most notably the commitment to empiricism. Indeed, even Captain James Cook, the great navigator and discoverer of Australia's eastern coastline (not to mention his charting of the coastlines of New Zealand and Newfoundland), though born in Yorkshire, had a Scottish father.

Won't You Join Us?

2011-05-23T09:21:00.005+10:00

HT Darryl G. Hart @ Old Life Theological Society

Cyril on Scripture and Tradition

2011-05-20T09:54:00.005+10:00

"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it , and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart. Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you."

Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386), Catechetical Lectures, 5:12-13 [italics mine]

Cyril wrote his catechetical lectures as a presbyter for the instruction of those preparing for church membership. As such they are a fascinating insight into the world of the early church, and they positively brim with scriptural references and allusions which display just how central the study and knowledge of the scriptures was in the life of the early church. This is an intriguing quotation, for it clearly reveals that Cyril regarded tradition ("that which is handed on to thee") as entirely derived from and subordinated to scripture (see italicised sentences). Tradition for Cyril seems to be basically the rule of faith. We have already seen that for Cyril, nothing is required to be believed as an article of faith unless clearly derived from scripture (see last post on Cyril), and here we can see that for him tradition is simply the content of scripture passed on to the catechumens in creedal form, particularly for the benefit of the illiterate and the working class, from which most of the converts of the early church came. There is no thought here of tradition containing extra-scriptural teachings or revelations.

Whether Cyril, or the other early church Fathers, were consistent in their application of the primacy of scripture is another matter, as is also the question of whether their exegesis of scripture was always sound; but what is clear is that the principle of the primacy and authority of scripture as set forth by Cyril is in its essentials the same as that set later by the Lutheran Fathers (see the discussions of scripture and tradition in Chemnitz's 'Examination of the Council of Trent' and Gerhard's 'Theological Commonplaces'*). Tradition, in the form of creeds and confessions, has its place in the life of the church, not as a source of doctrine, but as a means of collating, confessing and teaching the doctrine of scripture, and as subordinate standards of doctrine - a 'norma normata', a rule which is itself ruled by a higher authority.

* Note - I have referenced these theologians rather than the Book of Concord because the "human traditions" discussed in the Book of Concord are mostly traditions of worship instituted to merit grace, a different category of traditions from that under discussion here.

Blog Matters

2011-05-14T10:54:00.003+10:00

'Blogger' has been very contrary lately, refusing to publish approved comments! I've therefore had to cut and paste a few comments from my e-mail, where they originally appear for moderation. So, if you don't see your name in the comments list, just check my comments, where I may have cut and pasted your comment. We don't want to alienate our readers by appearing to not publish their comments ;0)

Cyril of Jerusalem on Scripture's Authority

2011-05-06T09:26:00.009+10:00

"Have thou in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures."

Cyril of Jerusalem [c. 318-386], Catechetical Lectures,
NPNF2: Vol.VII, Lecture IV:17.

Recently an Orthodox commenter asked me what my authority was; this question came in the context of a discussion about the Biblical authorisation, or lack of it I should say, for the practices associated with relics of the saints in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism and more generally in regard to their promotion of 'sacramentals', broadly defined as extra-sacramental means of grace, from holy water to healing icons. I wonder if there was not, behind the question, the implication that Lutherans are ecclesiastical anti-authoritarians? This is, in my experience, a commonly held misconception among Orthodox and Catholics concerning Lutherans, based upon a fundamentally mistaken construal of Luther's stance at the Diet of Worms, where he was called before the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire to give account of himself and his teachings on April 16, 1521 (it is customary to date the beginning of the Reformation to the posting of the 95 Theses in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517 but it is the Diet of Worms which, in my view, marks the more decisive historical turning point).

It was at Worms that Luther uttered the famous words, "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. May God help me. Amen."

Catholics and Orthodox are prone to cite this moment as the decisive and fatal intrusion of the Lutheran spirit of individualism and anti-authoritarianism into Christianity, and to point to the baneful consequences for Christendom which followed. Yet Luther does not insert his own will into the matter but actually binds his will to the Word of God, and submits to that Word as a higher authority than popes or church councils, which have demonstrably erred. In the face of the trade in indulgences and the theology of human merit attached thereto, Luther was effectively challenging the church of the day to restore scripture to its primacy as the sole infallible and inspired authority for the church, not by merely giving it lip-service, but by actually allowing scripture to function as both authority and judge in theological matters. Luther's speech at Worms was not an attack on legitimate authority, it was a call to restore a proper hierarchy of authorities in the church, which had usurped to itself the right to institute means of grace without divine warrant. Luther was not the innovator at Worms, but was reprising an ancient stream of patristic theology which finds concise expression in these words of Cyril of Jerusalem, "concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech."

Many of the distinctive doctrines and practices of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are, I grant, set forth with skillful appeals to 'plausibility' and framed with great 'artifice of speech' and 'ingenious reasoning', but where are the demonstrations from Holy Scripture that important witnesses from church history like Cyril (and Luther) say are absolutely necessary?

For more quotations from the Fathers on the authority of scripture and other topics, see my other blog, Lutheran Catholicity [link provided at top of column to the right of this page].

King James Bible Anniversary

2011-05-02T13:46:00.006+10:00

Today marks the 400th anniversary of the publication of the Authorised or 'King James' translation of the Holy Bible. Under the heading 'Video' in the right-hand column you can view an interesting documentary on the translation process, 'When God Spoke English'. The AV has shaped the English language over the subsequent centuries, leaving its indelible imprint upon even the language we speak today, with many of its felicitous phrases becoming proverbial. Even Richard Dawkins, no friend of Christianity, could say of the AV "not to know the King James Bible is to be, in some small way, a barbarian".

For instance, today, the following seems an appropriate verse to quote, Matthew 26:52b:

"...all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

Other proverbial phrases derived from the AV include "my brother's keeper," "salt of the earth," "give up the ghost," "scapegoats," "an eye for an eye," "casting your pearls before swine," "scarlet woman," "writing on the wall", "the blind leading the blind" and "a house divided against itself."

But most importantly, the AV served to bring the Gospel to the people of the day in their own language, it was a Bible "understanded of the people":

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The Argument From Antiquity As it Pertains to Relics

2011-05-01T16:40:00.016+10:00

The argument from antiquity (argumentum ad antiquitatem)...you've all probably heard it or been on the receiving end of it in religious discussions - the church has always believed this/done it this way, therefore it is right and true! A commenter on my recent post on relics suggested that because the church had always venerated relics, the practice was legitimate, and it was up to objectors - like me! - to prove otherwise. However, we don't need to go down the evidentiary path to dispose of the argument for relics from the supposed antiquity of their veneration. The argument from antiquity has a superficial appeal, particularly because most Christians have an innate respect for tradition; indeed, even Lutheranism is known as 'the conservative Reformation' because it kept so much of the liturgical and theological tradition of Western medieval Christianity intact (how the Lutheran confessors measured and sifted tradition is a subject for another post). But in actuality the appeal to antiquity is an informal logical fallacy which proves nothing and should not be used in argumentation.

There are two difficulties with it as it relates to the question of relics: 1) the empirical difficulty of proving the antiquity and universality of the veneration of relics (the New Testament, which all parties to the discussion agree is authoritative, does not mention the practice, so we may reasonably assume that at some point it was an innovation, just as was the veneration of images - this is actually where the burden of proof enters in to this discussion); and 2) the logical difficulty that the antiquity of a practice simply does not prove its truth or goodness (otherwise we might all still happily be sacrificing our children to Molech!). Even the church fathers themselves knew to avoid this fallacy; as Cyprian once wrote, "custom without truth is simply the antiquity of error".

Without institution by the Lord, or apostolic authorisation (and it is really differences in how dominical and apostolic authority are conceived which are behind this discussion), churches which use relics as 'sacramentals' and display them or carry them about for the purpose of veneration, or who claim to heal and bless by them are simply arrogating to themselves an authority which belongs to God alone. God has given the church the means of proclaiming and distributing his grace - his Word, the rite of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, all clearly attested to in scripture. Are they incapable of effecting grace and salvation, that the church should feel the need to invent more?

Christendom is dead, let it rest in peace...for the good of the church

2011-04-29T10:01:00.022+10:00

Christendom, defined as the religious, cultural and political hegemony of Christianity in 'the West' ('the West' being more a notion than a hemisphere for our present purposes), is surely dead. All we have left are its symbols, which, like hieroglyphs, speak a language that can only be deciphered by antiquarians who spend their lives rummaging through the artifacts of this ancient but noble civilisation. Historians might opt for different dates of death for Christendom depending upon their biases: the Great Schism of the East in 1054, the papal crisis in the 14th C., which saw three popes simultaneously claiming Peter's throne, the posting of the Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, and the French Revolution of 1789 are the usual suspects. Personally, I think Christendom bravely fought its enemies - and sometimes its 'friends' - for centuries after these events before being mortally wounded and buried on the fields of France in WWI. But Christians of all shades of belief have found it as difficult to let the corpse of Christendom rest in peace as the Vatican apparently does to leave unmolested the dead bodies of those it considers saints (gratuitous RC reference - see note below). Witness the attempts of influential European Catholics to shape the European union along Catholic lines and the so called "culture wars" in the US, in which conservative American Protestants take to the barricades for such merely symbolic gestures as generic prayers in state schools. All these efforts seem to me to bespeak a failure to come to grips with reality that the church now exists in world more like the pre-Constantinian one the early church inhabited than the post-Constantinian world of most of Christian history, and betray an attitude that seeks security and certainty for faith where it is least likely to be found. After all, doesn't holy writ warn us to "put not your trust in princes..."?

Lutheranism is realistic when it comes to church/state relations, which can probably be traced back to Luther's sage observation that godly princes were rare birds. Lutheranism, when it is true to itself, lets God be God, lets the state be the state, and lets the church be the church. So, I was encouraged to discern something like a Lutheran 2K view in this cracking paragraph in a blog post by Presbyterian theologian and author Michael Horton, over at the White Horse Inn, bemoaning the misplaced energies of so many Christians expended in reaction to secularism:

"In the 1950s, C. S. Lewis was asked by Decision magazine whether he was concerned about the “de-Christianizing” of the West, especially Europe. Lewis replied, “I’m not really qualified to speak to the question of the culture, but there is definitely a de-Christianizing of the church.” It’s one thing for Christian churches to lose their cultural influence. Fusing Christ with a particular civilization is already a gross distortion of the faith. Nevertheless, “Christendom” is over, regardless of whether you think it was a good or bad idea in the first place. Benign prayers to an unknown god in public schools, apart from the Mediator, is already a capitulation to secularism. Who cares whether crosses no longer dominate national memorials where Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, and atheists are buried? The question is whether the cross is proclaimed in our churches."

Michael Horton, at the White Horse Inn blog (click on post title to read the full post).

[Explanatory note - Six years after his death, the Vatican is exhuming the body of JPII from its current resting place and moving it to the Chapel of St Sebastian, but to create room for it there they will have to exhume the remains of Blessed Pope Innocent XI. Whatever happened to 'requiscat in pace'?

Catholic observers might remember the furore last year over the exhumation, in connection with his beatification, of Cardinal John Henry Newman's remains from a Birmingham cemetery...Newman had the last laugh, having left orders for compost to be regularly placed on his grave, thus accelerating the decomposition process, there were no remains to be found or venerated!]

What Would Luther Say?

2011-04-27T10:35:00.011+10:00

The following report came across the wires to the old manse this morning:

"VATICAN CITY Blood taken from Pope John Paul II during his final hospitalization will be used as the official relic for veneration after he is beatified.

The Vatican made the announcement Tuesday, putting to rest questions about what relic would be presented during Sunday’s beatification.

In a statement, the Vatican said four small vials of blood had been taken from John Paul during his final days for a possible transfusion, but were never used. Two of the vials were given to John Paul’s private secretary, Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, and another two remained at the Vatican’s Bambin Gesu hospital in the care of nuns.

One of the hospital vials will be placed in a reliquary and presented Sunday; the other will remain with the nuns.

John Paul died April 2, 2005.

The Associated Press"

What would Luther say? No doubt something like this:

"the Word of God is the holy of holies; in fact, it is the only holy thing we Christians know and have. Even if we had the bones of all the saints and all holy, blessed objects heaped together, we would be none the better for the collection. All these relics are lifeless objects that can sanctify no-one. God's Word, however, is the treasure that sanctifies everything. By it all the saints themselves were sanctified."
Martin Luther, The 3rd Commandment, The Large Catechism

Thank God for Martin Luther!

ANZAC Day, 2011

2011-04-25T20:32:00.012+10:00

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
For the Fallen, Laurence Binyon

Note for overseas readers: the 25th April marks the annual commemoration of the landing of troops from the 'Australia and New Zealand Army Corps' (ANZACs) at Gallipoli, Turkey in 1915, as part of a British attempt, planned by Winston Churchill, to capture Istanbul and take the Ottoman Empire, a German ally, out of World War I. The attempt failed, but since 1916 the day has been set aside by Australia, New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue and Tonga as a day of remembrance for those who served in WWI, and more broadly in all conflicts since (for cultural, geographic and historic reasons, the soldiers of these countries have often served side by side in theatres of war). Culturally, Anzac Day holds the same position in Australia as Veterans' Day in the US or Remembrance Day in the UK. Attendance at Anzac Day parades and memorial services has increased, rather than diminished, in contemporary times. Most Australian families of long-standing have ancestors who have served in war; I have two great uncles who served in France in WWI and a grandfather who served in the Pacific theatre in WWII.

Why Are Catholics Becoming Protestant?

2011-04-25T17:44:00.013+10:00

Recently, erstwhile Lutheran pastor come Roman Catholic layman David Schuetz, over at his blog Sentire Cum Ecclesia, posted on the string of prominent Lutheran theologians who have become Roman Catholic in recent years. I couldn't help but offer a rejoinder to the effect that I have more ex-Catholics in my two congregation parish than the half dozen or so former Lutherans David could cite...but apparently since my parishioners aren't theologians they don't matter! Several RC commenters at David's blog then suggested that Catholics who leave Rome for various forms of Protestantism really aren't from among the "best and brightest" Catholics in the first place. That smacks of denial to me, so I left off the discussion, knowing there was little point continuing.

But at least one Catholic intellectual is interested in who the 1/3 of members the Catholic Church in the US has lost in recent years are, and why they have left (and the US situation is small beer compared to South America, where the formerly monolithically Roman Catholic nation of Brazil will become a majority Protestant nation in the next generation). He is Jesuit Fr Thomas Reese, and an article expressing his concern and findings has recently appeared in the US National Catholic Reporter. It makes for interesting reading. Here are some excerpts...

The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.

In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service...

People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.

Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic. While 42 percent of Catholics who stay attend services weekly, 63 percent of Catholics who become Protestants go to church every week. That is a 21 percentage-point difference.

Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers. Seventy-one percent say their faith is “very strong,” while only 35 percent and 22 percent reported that their faith was very strong when they were children and teenagers, respectively. On the other hand, only 46 percent of those who are still Catholic report their faith as “very strong” today as an adult.

Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst.

Make of Fr Reese's conclusions what you will (and I caution that nothing that emanates from the Roman Catholic sphere is as simple as it appears on the surface), but at least he acknowledges there's a problem. I for one find it curious that doctrine matters so little to those who leave, and apparently equally little to those who stay. For a church which is so rigorously doctrinal, that is surely a problem - there is evidently a failure to connect doctrine with life (surely a challenge to all confessional churches in late modernity, but particularly so when you have a doctrinal system as complex and irreformable as Romanism).

On a more positive note, those who leave for Protestantism report their "faith is stronger" as a result - I think that probably translates as they find greater assurance of salvation under Protestant preaching, surely a good thing!

Click on the post title to read the full article.

Raised for our Justification

2011-04-23T20:50:00.005+10:00

"You have heard in the story of the Passion how Christ is portrayed as our exemplar and helper, and that he who follows him and clings to him receives the Spirit, who will enable him also to suffer. But the words of Paul are more Christian and should come closer home to our hearts and comfort us more, when he says: "Christ was raised for our justification." Here the Lamb is truly revealed, of whom John the Baptist testifies, when he says in Jn 1, 29: "Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world." Here is fulfilled that which was spoken to the serpent: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head," which means that for all those who believe in him, hell, death, and the devil and sin have been destroyed. In the same manner the promise is fulfilled to-day which God gave to Abraham, when he said in Gen 22, 18: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Here Christ is meant, who takes away our curse and the power of sin, death and the devil.

All this is done, I say, by faith. For if you believe that by this seed the serpent has been slain, then it is slain for you; and if you believe that in this seed all nations are to be blessed, then you are also blessed. For each one individually should have crushed the serpent under foot and redeemed himself from the curse, which would have been too difficult, nay impossible for us. But now it has been done easily, namely, by Christ, who has crushed the serpent once, who alone is given as a blessing and benediction, and who has caused this Gospel to be published throughout the world, so that he who believes, accepts it and clings to it, is also in possession of it, and is assured that it is as he believes. For in the heart of such a man the Word becomes so powerful that he will conquer death, the devil, sin and all adversity, like Christ himself did. So mighty is the Word that God himself would sooner be vanquished than that his Word should be conquered."

From an Easter sermon by Martin Luther on Mark 16:1-8, from his Church Postils, mid-1520's [taken from volume II:238-247 of 'The Sermons of Martin Luther', published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, Mi.)] This set of Luther's sermons is still available at a reasonable price from Christian bookshops.

Holy Saturday: The Descent Into Hell

2011-04-23T11:24:00.009+10:00

"Before Christ arose and ascended into heaven, and while yet lying in the grave, He also descended into hell in order to deliver also us from it, who were to be held in it as prisoners ... However I shall not discuss this article in a profound and subtle manner, as to how it was done or what it means to 'descend into hell', but adhere to the simplest meaning conveyed by these words, as we must represent it to children and uneducated people...since we cannot but conceive thoughts and images of what is presented to us in words, and unable to think of or understand anything without such images, it is appropriate and right that we view it literally, just as it is painted, that He descends with the banner, shattering and destroying the gates of hell...we ought ... simply to fix and fasten our hearts and thoughts on the words of the Creed,which says: I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,dead, buried, and descended into hell,' that is, in the entire person,God and man, with body and soul, undivided,'born of the Virgin, suffered died, and buried'; in like manner I must not divide it here either, but believe and say that the same Christ, God and man in one person, descended into hell..."

Excerpted from Luther's Torgau sermon on Christ's Descent Into Hell.

Prayer to be said before a Crucifix on Holy Saturday evening (candles remain unlit on this day)

Lord Jesus Christ,
by Your powerful Word You govern all things,
You have buried the shame of the Cross and the iron nails,
You have broken the bars of the bronze doors and descended into hell,
You have shone with the brightness of Your light on all those who were sitting in the shadow of death; Son of righteousness, risen from the tomb, shine upon our darkness with the radiant light of Your risen Body. Amen.

How To Contemplate Christ's Holy Sufferings

2011-04-22T18:24:00.006+10:00

"...they meditate on the Passion of Christ aright, who so view Christ that they become terror-stricken in heart at the sight, and their conscience at once sinks in despair. This terror-stricken feeling should spring forth, so that you see the severe wrath and the unchangeable earnestness of God in regard to sin and sinners, in that he was unwilling that his only and dearly beloved Son should set sinners free unless he paid the costly ransom for them as is mentioned in Is 53, 8: "For the transgression of my people was he stricken." What happens to the sinner, when the dear child is thus stricken? An earnestness must be present that is inexpressible and unbearable, which a person so immeasurably great goes to meet, and suffers and dies for it; and if you reflect upon it real deeply, that God's Son, the eternal wisdom of the Father, himself suffers, you will indeed be terror-stricken; and the more you reflect the deeper will be the impression."

A Good Friday Sermon on How to Contemplate Christ's Holy Sufferings
by Martin Luther. The full sermon is available at http://www.orlutheran.com/html/mlcross.html
It was printed many times even in Luther's lifetime and is one of his most treasured sermons. Take the time to read it this Good Friday.

Come meet the 2nd Person of the Trinity

2011-04-20T10:53:00.003+10:00

Events of Holy Week via Google Earth

2011-04-18T11:00:00.006+10:00

Here's a nice little resource to aid in your reflections on Holy Week courtesy Google Earth and Crossways, who publish the ESV Bible translation. You know what to do...click on the balloons in alpha order to get an overview of where/when/how each of the week's events unfolded. I suggest you click "view larger map" first.

View Larger Map

HT Paul McCain @ Cyberbrthren

Should Christians Celebrate the Haggadah/Seder?

2011-04-16T17:14:00.007+10:00

Speaking of things Jewish (see last post), should Christians celebrate the Haggadah or Seder, the Jewish ritual meal which remembers the Passover? Over the last thirty or so years Christian enactments of the Seder have become increasingly common in connection with Maundy Thursday celebrations of the Lord's Supper. The following statement from the Lutheran Church of Australia's 'Commission on Worship' (the C. o. W.; affectionately known as "the sacred cow") enumerates some good reasons to reject this dubious trend...

"1. A study of the Passover Haggadah by Christians can be useful for teaching, as background for understanding and appreciating aspects of the Old Testament and the context for Christ's death and his institution of the Lord’s supper.

2 However, the Passover belongs to the Jews and not to us, and we need to take care to use it in a way that does give unnecessary offence to Jews.

3 If the Passover Haggadah is studied or enacted, it needs to be considered in its complete and authentic form.

4 If the Passover is enacted, it does not belong to our worship in connection with the holy communion service, because Christians have never celebrated the Lord’s supper in connection with the Passover, and the communion service does not derive its meaning from the Passover, but from Christ’s death and resurrection.

5 Since Christ is our Passover Lamb, he has both fulfilled and abolished the Old Testament Passover together with all the worship of the Old Testament.

6 The Lord's supper is not primarily a remembrance of the exodus of Israel from Egypt, as the Passover is, but instead it is the remembrance and gift of Christ as our Passover."

Masada

2011-04-16T12:09:00.011+10:00

According to my historical almanac, today marks the anniversary of the fall of the Jewish fortress at Masada to the Roman legions in AD73, which marked the conclusion of the first Jewish-Roman War, otherwise known as the Jewish Revolt. When the Jewish Revolt began in AD66, a group of rebels with surprise on their side took the Masada fortress from a Roman garrison; later, after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70, their number was further supplemented. This remnant group then occupied the fortress for a further three years, until finally succumbing to the Romans. When the Romans finally entered the fortress compound by means of a gigantic earthen ramp built up to the height of the fortress's walls, they found only masses of dead bodies, the Jews preferring death at the hands of their own to slavery under the Romans.

Older readers may remember an American TV miniseries dramatising this revolt which aired back in the 1980s, if memory serves correct. I remember that the Roman leaders were portrayed by Englishmen with impeccable upper class accents, while the Jews were all-American actors. No doubt the Jewish interpretation of the story as a tale of an oppressed people battling a heartless occupier resonated with American sensibilities. Curiously, visitors to the historical site today can view the remains of the imitation Roman ramp constructed by the film crew of the miniseries, which was filmed on location.

Click on the post title to visit the 'Jewish Virtual Library' article on Masada.

An alternative view of the heroic "Masada myth" can be found here: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/masadamyth1.htm.

Ironically, Masada was first fortified by Herod the Great in the 30sBC as a possible refuge in case of a revolt by his subjects. Just as ironically, but perhaps understandably, this site of a mass suicide has become in modern times a symbol of Jewish survival in the face of persecution. For example, there are a number of Jewish institutions in Australia, from schools to a hospital, which bear the name 'Masada'.

For lovers of Bach

2011-04-10T17:49:00.000+10:00

Personally, I think it's a bit wooden.

Cajetan on the OT Apocryphal Books

2011-04-09T13:08:00.012+10:00

Most lay people will be aware that Protestant and Roman Catholic bibles (not to mention Eastern Orthodox bibles!) have different contents in terms of the books/writings included in them. Theologians call this list of definitive biblical writings the canon, meaning the rule of faith. I'll leave the historical reasons for these differences for another time; for now, I simply want to point out that although Luther is often criticised by Roman Catholics for his views on the Old and New Testament canons, his views were not outside of the bounds of accepted late medieval discussion on the subject. In fact, Luther's views were mainstream.

Exhibit number 1 is an excerpt from Cardinal Thomas Cajetan's writings (Cajetan is a particularly relevant figure to cite on this question, since he was Luther's interrogator at Augsburg in 1518):

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

From Cardinal Cajetan's commentary upon the historical books of the Old Testament.

Cajetan (Thomas de Vio, 1469-1534) was the papal representative who interrogated Luther at Augsburg in 1518. That famous meeting crystallised the differences between Thomistic Catholicism and the incipient Lutheran Reformation. Cajetan was a moderate Thomist himself, and in this quote we can see that his views on the Old Testament canon were not dissimilar to Luther's. Following Jerome, Cajetan regards Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, as well as portions of other books, as not forming part of the scriptural canon or rule of faith (note the assumption that scripture is the rule of faith here), but as suitable for reading for purposes of edification.* In short, Cajetan believed books listed by Jerome as apocryphal should not be used as a source of doctrine. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563), the official Roman response to the Reformation, included the writings mentioned here by Cajetan in their canon, although by giving them the name deuterocanonical (of the second canon) it acknowledged that they were not included in the protocanon of the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible that Jesus knew. Does it matter? Well, consider that the chief scriptural proof text (Latin: dicta probantia) for the Roman doctrine of purgatory is found in 2 Maccabees.

* At one time Protestant bibles used to invariably include the Old Testament apocrypha, usually in a separate section between the OT and the NT. This reflected Luther's view that the apocryphal writings were beneficial to read, but did not belong to the official canon.

An extract from Cajetan on the New Testament canon will follow shortly.

Atheists in the Pulpit, Divine Service Optional

2011-04-07T09:26:00.020+10:00

Atheists in the pulpit, divine service optional - that seems to be the future direction of the famed Oxford University, hitherto a bastion of the Anglican Establishment in England.

In February, it is reported, well-known author Philip Pullman, a self-described "Church of England Atheist", in other words a "cultural Anglican" but not an actual believer (reminds me of the old joke: "Are you Christian? No, C of E."), preached - "gave the address" is often the euphemism used on such occasions - in the University Church of St Mary's, Oxford.

In order to fully understand the symbolic import of this unhappy event, it might help to rehearse some of the history of St Mary's, Oxford. This is the hallowed site of the trial of bishops Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, at which they each received the sentence of death by burning for adhering to the principles of the English Reformation. It is also the church where John Wesley preached his famous sermon on 'Justification By Faith', leading to the Evangelical revival in the Church of England. From the same pulpit, some one hundred years later, in 1833, John Keble preached the famous Assize sermon on national apostasy, which marked the beginning of the controversial and divisive, but influential 'Oxford Movement'. John Henry Newman, the leading light of that movement, also preached regularly at St Mary's when he was still an Anglican and resident at Oxford.

However mistaken, from the Lutheran position, these men may have been on some doctrines of the faith, they were at least professed believers, not atheists. And even with Lutheran reservations about aspects of the public doctrine of the Church of England, one can still apppreciate the great historical significance of this particular church not only for English Christianity but for world Christianity. Sermons preached from the pulpit of this church have echoed down the centuries and around the world and led to orthodox missionary endeavours that have brought literally millions into the kingdom of God. But aside from that history, this is a church dedicated to the glory of God and built to serve the edification of his Anglican people at Oxford University, an historically Anglican institution. What business does the rector of the church have to invite an atheist, even one who claims to respect the church as an historical institution, to preach - or even "give an address" - in this church? Does the Church of England have a death wish?

This event follows quickly upon the approval, given in January by the university's governing council, to one Oxford college's (Hertford) proposal to remove the constitutional requirement to appoint religious chaplains (i.e. C of E clergy), along with the requirement upon them, when they are appointed, to conduct regular divine services. So, we have atheists in the pulpit, and clergy who, when they are employed, will not be expected to lead public worship. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction in late-modern Oxford.

Now, an enlightened pluralist observer of these developments might well respond: "Well, Oxford University is simply beginning to reflect the multi-cultural, multi-religious face of present-day England. Why should Christianity, especially the flabby, undisciplined, middle-of-the-road version of it that prevails in the Church of England, receive special treatment when most of the students are probably agnostics?" Agreed, the situation of established European churches, pallid heirs of the riches of the long-dead ideal of Christendom, is becoming increasingly untenable as their societies hurtle towards non-belief and moral confusion, and disestablishment is indeed a discussion that Oxford University and eventually England will one day soon have to have. But, in the meantime, bear in mind that this University still admits graduates to degrees with a solemn 'in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti' as a New Testament is momentarily placed upon their head. God cannot be mocked with impunity.

HT Cranmer [click on post title to view]

Meantime:
Australian academics (including an Anglican priest) call for end to Special Religious Instruction in Australian schools in favour of multi-faith education
[http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/academics-call-for-review-of-school-religious-teaching-20110406-1d4h5.html]

and,

Atheist scientist awarded top religious prize
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/fury-as-top-scientist-awarded-religion-prize/story-fn3dxity-1226035049604]

and,
Christian Foster Carers Seek Reversal of Council Decision Against Them
[http://christianconcern.com/our-concerns/sexual-orientation/christian-foster-carers-campaign-for-re-instatement-by-derby-council]

More poetry...

2011-04-03T21:58:00.008+10:00

When God at first made man,
Having a glass of blessings standing by,
“Let us,” said he, “pour on him all we can.
Let the world’s riches, which dispersèd lie,
Contract into a span.”

So strength first made a way;
Then beauty flowed, then wisdom, honour, pleasure.
When almost all was out, God made a stay,
Perceiving that, alone of all his treasure,
Rest in the bottom lay.

“For if I should,” said he,
“Bestow this jewel also on my creature,
He would adore my gifts instead of me,
And rest in Nature, not the God of Nature;
So both should losers be.

“Yet let him keep the rest,
But keep them with repining restlessness;
Let him be rich and weary, that at least,
If goodness lead him not, yet weariness
May toss him to my breast.”

'The Pulley' by George Herbert, from The Temple (1633)

I love that line 'a glass of blessings standing by'. I once had a seminary lecturer, Dr Maurice Schild (successor to Sasse's chair), who told us that there was something wrong with Lutheran pastors who did not read poetry (Dr Schild was known for his rhetoric!). Granted, poetry is not everyone's 'cup of tea', particularly in these prosaic times, but I think that what Maurice was getting at was that, apart from the pure enjoyment and stimulation that poetry provides, good poetry stretches our imagination and improves our use of language. Preachers can always benefit from that. But if that doesn't convince you to take up reading poetry, consider this: even the Holy Spirit chose to inspire men to write poetry!

From the Wiki entry on Herbert: George Herbert (3 April 1593 – 1 March 1633) was a Welsh born English poet, orator and Anglican priest. He took up his duties in Bemerton, a rural parish in Wiltshire, about 75 miles southwest of London in 1630. Here he preached and wrote poetry; also helping to rebuild the church out of his own funds.

In 1633 Herbert finished a collection of poems entitled The Temple, which imitates the architectural style of churches through both the meaning of the words and their visual layout. The themes of God and love are treated by Herbert as much as psychological forces as metaphysical phenomena.

Suffering from poor health, Herbert died of tuberculosis only three years after taking holy orders. On his deathbed, he reportedly gave the manuscript of The Temple to Nicholas Ferrar...telling him to publish the poems if he thought they might "turn to the advantage of any dejected poor soul", and otherwise, to burn them.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Herbert]

Pic: George Herbert at Bemerton (Dyce, 1851).

Autumn

2011-03-27T18:55:00.011+10:00

After a horrendous summer, there's a welcome touch of cold in the evening air tonight, which heralds the welcome news that Autumn will soon be here in her full, golden-red regalia. Although the city I live in is at a latitude which is officially sub-tropical, the elevation of the city means that our climate is actually temperate, with four distict and welcome seasons. We've even had snow (light!) in winter. Autumn days here are clear and sunny, and the number of deciduous trees planted in the city promises a sublime display of autumnal colours that few Australian cities can deliver, as pictured above. The cold evening brought to mind my favourite Autumnal poem, appropriately anough titled 'Autumn', by the long-forgotten English poet T.E. Hulme, who gave his life in World War I. We don't have a ruddy-faced moon here, rather a shimmering silver one, but wistful stars with white faces like town children are in abundance in the Southern sky. Enjoy:

A touch of cold in the Autumn night
I walked abroad,
And saw the ruddy moon lean over a hedge
Like a red-faced farmer.
I did not stop to speak, but nodded;
And round about were the wistful stars
With white faces like town children.

Dunn on Faith Alone

2011-03-24T09:49:00.004+10:00

"It was confidence in God, a positive acknowledgment of God’s power as creator, a calm certainty that God had made known to Abraham his purpose and could be relied on to perform it without further question or condition. Here from another aspect is the same reason why Abraham’s faith should not be thought of in terms of covenant loyalty or as incomplete apart from works, for faith is confidence in God’s loyalty as alone necessary, as alone able, as alone sufficient to bring God’s promise to full effect."
James D.G. Dunn, Romans, Word Commentary, (1990) 1:239 [italics mine].

-- + --

Dunn is a leading British New Testament scholar whose work has contributed to the so-called 'New Perspective on Paul' (NPP) that originally derives from E.P.Sanders's claim that the Reformation tradition, from Luther onwards, had mis-read Paul on Judaism and the relation between faith and works. The NPP has been cited by some former Lutherans and Reformed as influential in their decisions to convert to Roman Catholicsm, on the grounds that the NPP's reading of Paul shows that the Roman Catholic view of salvation as a process that includes growth in justification/sanctification through good works correctly interprets Paul's thinking. Yet here, in his commentary on Romans 4, Dunn is saying the opposite - Abraham's faith - cited, of course, by Paul, as paradigmatic for the Christian's justification by faith alone - was "alone sufficient to bring God's promise to full effect".
We need only add the caveat that faith is instrumental, not causal when it comes to the justification of the sinner; i.e. faith is the open hand that receives God's grace in and through Christ, it is not meritorious in and of itself (lest we have something in which to boast!).

Soli Deo Gloria!

Please remain calm...

2011-03-23T14:14:00.004+10:00

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself - climate is beyond our power to control . . . Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”
Robert Laughlin, Physicist, Nobel Prize winner (1998), Professor of Physics and Applied Physics, Stanford University, USA.

Click on the post title to read his full article, from Canada's Globe & Mail, and then make yourself a nice cup of tea and relax. While you do so, you may like to ponder how God's active preservation of the world (conservatio mundi; cf. Hebrews 1:3, Col 1:17) might actually be responsible for the processes Dr Laughlin refers to as "the earth healing itself".

For Preachers & Seminarians

2011-03-18T13:40:00.004+10:00

Preacher,
Please don't use the pulpit to invite people to 'join you on the bandwagon of your own uncertainty'; speak with conviction, or don't bother speaking at all.

As you ponder that, check out what this guy has to say:

The Practicality of the Vincentian Canon

2011-03-18T09:41:00.013+10:00

Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all); this is the well-known "Vincentian Canon", which is often brought into debates on sola scriptura (scripture alone) by proponents of Roman Catholic and Orthodox "scripture + tradition is the rule of faith"* positions as evidence that scripture alone is not sufficient to serve as the sole infallible rule of faith in the church. Rather, these apologists counter, what has been believed "everywhere, always and by all" is the rule of faith. Leaving aside the largely historical question of whether contemporary Roman and Orthodox doctrine is actually quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (obviously both cannot be so in their totality!), there is the also the methodological question of the fitness or practicality of Vincent's rule to the task Roman and Orthodox apologists ascribe to it.

Here is one prominent Orthodox theologian from the 20th century (indeed, some say the greatest Orthodox theologian of the last century) who thinks the Vincentian Canon is not up to the task:

"The well known formula of Vincent of Lerins is very inexact, when he describes the catholic nature of Church life in the words, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est [What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all]. First of all, it is not clear whether this is an empirical criterion or not. If this be so, then the "Vincentian Canon" proves to be inapplicable and quite false. For about what omnes is he speaking? Is it a demand for a general, universal questioning of all the faithful, and even of those who only deem themselves such? At any rate, all the weak and poor of faith, all those who doubt and waver, all those who rebel, ought to be excluded. But the Vincentian Canon gives us no criterion, whereby to distinguish and select. Many disputes arise about faith, still more about dogma. How, then, are we to understand omnes? Should we not prove ourselves too hasty, if we settled all doubtful points by leaving the decision to "liberty" — in dubiis libertas — according to the well known formula wrongly ascribed to St. Augustine. There is actually no need for universal questioning. Very often the measure of truth is the witness of the minority. It may happen that the Catholic Church will find itself but "a little flock." Perhaps there are more of heterodox than of orthodox mind. It may happen that the heretics spread everywhere, ubique, and that the Church is relegated to the background of history, that it will retire into the desert. In history this was more than once the case, and quite possibly it may more than once again be so. Strictly speaking, the Vincentian Canon is something of a tautology. The word onmes is to be understood as referring to those that are orthodox. In that case the criterion loses its significance. Idem is defined per idem. And of what eternity and of what omnipresence does this rule speak? To what do semper and ubique relate? Is it the experience of faith or the definitions of faith that they refer to? In the latter case the canon becomes a dangerous minimising formula. For not one of the dogmatic definitions strictly satisfies the demand of semper and ubique.
...In general, no consensus can prove truth. This would be a case of acute psychologism, and in theology there is even less place for it than in philosophy. On the contrary, truth is the measure by which we can evaluate the worth of "general opinion." Catholic experience can be expressed even by the few, even by single confessors of faith; and this is quite sufficient. Strictly speaking, to be able to recognize and express catholic truth we need no ecumenical, universal assembly and vote; we even need no "Ecumenical Council." The sacred dignity of the Council lies not in the number of members representing their Churches. A large "general" council may prove itself to be a "council of robbers" (latrocinium), or even of apostates. And the ecclesia sparsa often convicts it of its nullity by silent opposition. ...The historical and practical methods of recognizing sacred and catholic tradition can be many; that of assembling Ecumenical Councils is but one of them, and not the only one. This does not mean that it is unnecessary to convoke councils and conferences. But it may so happen that during the council the truth will be expressed by the minority. And what is still more important, the truth may be revealed even without a council."

George Florovsky, from 'The Catholicity of Councils' (I have misplaced the full bibliographic details of this essay; if anyone can supply, thanks in advance!)

If one did not know otherwise, one might assume the author was a Lutheran, so closely does his position on Councils resemble Luther's!

* To be fair, some Roman Catholic and Orthodox apologists would object to this simplified formulation of their positions, but this is what it finally boils down to: tradition (variously defined) is practically an authority in the church alongside scripture, rather than under scripture (Lutherans too have their tradition - but always under the scrutiny and judgment of the one infallible authority of scripture).

More to come soon on the Vincentian Canon, d.v..
In the meantime, see Luther, On the Councils and the Church, Luther's Works (AE) 41; also available, albeit in an early 19th century translation, here: http://books.google.com/books?id=5-oDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

St Patrick's Day : Not Just for Irish Catholics

2011-03-17T23:24:00.008+10:00

St. Patrick’s Breastplate

I bind unto myself today
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same
The Three in One and One in Three.

I bind this today to me forever
By power of faith, Christ’s incarnation;
His baptism in Jordan river,
His death on Cross for my salvation;
His bursting from the spicèd tomb,
His riding up the heavenly way,
His coming at the day of doom
I bind unto myself today.

I bind unto myself the power
Of the great love of cherubim;
The sweet ‘Well done’ in judgment hour,
The service of the seraphim,
Confessors’ faith, Apostles’ word,
The Patriarchs’ prayers, the prophets’ scrolls,
All good deeds done unto the Lord
And purity of virgin souls.

I bind unto myself today
The virtues of the star lit heaven,
The glorious sun’s life giving ray,
The whiteness of the moon at even,
The flashing of the lightning free,
The whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks,
The stable earth, the deep salt sea
Around the old eternal rocks.

I bind unto myself today
The power of God to hold and lead,
His eye to watch, His might to stay,
His ear to hearken to my need.
The wisdom of my God to teach,
His hand to guide, His shield to ward;
The word of God to give me speech,
His heavenly host to be my guard.

Against the demon snares of sin,
The vice that gives temptation force,
The natural lusts that war within,
The hostile men that mar my course;
Or few or many, far or nigh,
In every place and in all hours,
Against their fierce hostility
I bind to me these holy powers.

Against all Satan’s spells and wiles,
Against false words of heresy,
Against the knowledge that defiles,
Against the heart’s idolatry,
Against the wizard’s evil craft,
Against the death wound and the burning,
The choking wave, the poisoned shaft,
Protect me, Christ, till Thy returning.

Christ be with me, Christ within me,
Christ behind me, Christ before me,
Christ beside me, Christ to win me,
Christ to comfort and restore me.
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,
Christ in hearts of all that love me,
Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.

I bind unto myself the Name,
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same,
The Three in One and One in Three.

By Whom all nature hath creation,
Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:
Praise to the Lord of my salvation,
Salvation is of Christ the Lord

-- + --

Not too long ago, courtesy a distant cousin, I discovered that I have Irish ancestry, both native Irish ('Heenan') and Anglo-Irish ('Yeats'). It was quite a thrilling discovery as ever since my teens I have had an interest in Irish poetry and culture. My relative's research even uncovered a family connection to one of the few truly great English-language poets of the 20th C., W. B. Yeats, a volume of whose poetry, would you believe, I purchased out of my very first wage packet more years ago than I care to remember!

St Patrick has long since been claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as their 'patron saint' for Ireland, but it should be noted that the (Anglican) Church of Ireland, many Orthodox Churches, and even some Lutheran Churches include this day in their church calendars, although the significance of the day varies among them - neither do the Church of Ireland nor the Lutheran Church make a distinction between believers on the basis of works or exalt mere human beings to the position of mediators between God and humans, no matter how holy their lives on this earth have been. The Lutheran Church of Australia does not officially mark St Patrick's Day (perhaps because of its strong associations with Irish Catholicism), preferring to publicly commemorate only New Testament saints, but this is one 'Anglo-Celtic' Lutheran who will privately lift a glass of Irish ale in remembrance of St Patrick tonight.

Happy St Patrick's Day!

Are Lutherans & Reformed Different? Duh! But Why?

2011-03-15T09:55:00.010+10:00

"Are Lutherans different from Reformed Protestants? Duh! The odd aspect of the arguments that distinguish Lutheranism from Reformed Protestantism is that the arguers don’t seem to be so conscientious when it comes to Baptists. Are Baptists Calvinistic? Some are. Lots aren’t. So when it comes to drawing distinctions among Protestants why the urge to draw lines between Reformed and Lutherans and not between Reformed and the uncles of Baptists, the Puritans?"

So muses Reformed theologian and blogger Darryl G. Hart over at Old Life Theological Society (click on the post title to read in full). But Hart's not content just to ask why, for so many of his fellow Presbyterians, Lutherans are odd but Baptists are welcome bedfellows, he goes on to scuttle* the old Reformed canard that it's because Lutheran theology is anthropocentric (in Reformed lingo that's bad!) while the Reformed are truly theocentric by suggesting that the problem is the Reformed have misread Lutheranism because they've never truly grasped Luther's theology of the cross.

Now, should we Lutherans praise the Reformed, whom we regard as fundamentally in error on the Gospel? Well, when they are so honest and get it so right, like Hart does here - and are heading in the Lutheran direction, then I say: Yes!

Hart's post is part of what I perceive to be an intra-Reformed discussion about the true nature of 'Calvinism' and how its professed adherents presently relate to their heritage from the magisterial Reformation. In the course of this discussion, I have observed several notable Reformed/Presbyterian theologians who have been willing to criticise aspects of their own tradition based on their reading of Luther, as Hart does here. I think it is worthwhile keeping a 'weather-eye' open for how this plays out. Most of the discussion is taking place in US circles (both in print and in the blogosphere), where, of course, the confessional Lutherans are a big enough presence that they can't be ignored. I don't know how much of it is impacting upon Australian or UK Reformed circles, or further afield where Lutherans and Reformed co-exist...but if we are awake to what is happening, we Lutherans in these places should be looking to cultivate this discussion with confessional Reformed folk in our sphere of influence in order to bring them closer to a doctrinally sound understanding of the saving Gospel.

* scuttle - to sink one's own ship.

Remember Japan Lutheran Church In Your Prayers

2011-03-12T10:16:00.006+10:00

The international news services are providing extensive coverage of the horrifying impact of the extraordinary earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and while we should pray for all those affected, please especially remember our brothers and sisters of the 'Japan Lutheran Church' in your prayers. I know very little about Lutherans in Japan, but I do know that there are at least two church bodies. The JLC, with c. 35 congregations, is a confessional church body affiliated with the International Lutheran Council. It was begun by Missouri Synod missionaries after WWII, with a particular focus on the north of Japan; hence the likely exposure of its members to damage and loss of life from this earthquake. Lord, have mercy!

Click on the post title to visit the Japan Lutheran Church website (English edition); there's a good chance updates on how the locals a re faring will appear there as available..