05-4 Theology of the..

More documents

Recommendations

Info

66 LOGIA ment of Christ cannot be interpreted in contradictory ways. Pastors are called by God through the congregation to be faithful “stewards of the mysteries” (1 Cor. 4: 1–2), that is, faithfully to administer the Sacrament according to the Lord’s institution. Love also requires that pastors and congregations keep from the Lord’s Table those who by their profession (or lack of it) show that they could be eating and drinking judgment upon themselves (1 Cor. 11:27). As part of this practice the pastor will seek to prevent a profession of confessional unity in the faith where there is, in fact, disunity and disagreement. In 1983 the CTCR reminded the Synod that “In keeping with the principle that the celebration and reception of the Lord’s Supper is a confession of the unity of faith, while at the same time recognizing that there will be instances when sensitive pastoral care needs to be exercised, the Synod has established an official practice requiring that ‘pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, except in situations of emergency and in special cases of pastoral care, commune individuals of only those synods which are now in fellowship with us’” (CTCR, “Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper,” p. 22; 1967 Res. 2-19; 1969 Res. 3-18; 1981 Res. 3-01); therefore be it Resolved, That the Synod reaffirm 1967 Res. 2-19 that “pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, except in situations of emergency and in special cases of pastoral care, commune individuals of only those synods which are now in fellowship with us”; and be it further Resolved, That the Synod reaffirm 1986 Res. 3-08, “that the pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod continue to abide by the practice of close communion, which includes the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and circumstances,” and beseech one another in love to remember that “situations of emergency and special cases of pastoral care” or “extraordinary situations and circumstances” are, by their nature, relatively rare; and be it further Resolved, That the Communion Card statement of the CTCR be recommended to the member congregations of Synod for guidance: The Lord’s Supper is celebrated at this congregation in the confession and glad confidence that, as He says, our Lord gives into our mouths not only bread and wine but His very body and blood to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of sins and to strengthen our union with Him and with one another. Our Lord invites to His table those who trust in His Words, repent of all sin, and set aside any refusal to forgive and love as He forgives and loves us, that they may show forth His death until He comes. Because those who eat and drink our Lord’s body and blood unworthily do so to their great harm and because Holy Communion is a confession of the faith which is confessed at this altar, any who are not yet instructed, in doubt, or who hold a confession differing from that of this congregation and The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, and yet desire to receive the Sacrament, are asked first to speak with the Pastor or an usher. For further study, see Matt. 5:23ff.; 10:32ff.; 18:15–35; 26:26–29; 1 Cor. 11:17–34; and be it finally Resolved, That because we are “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3), any members of the Synod who advocate a different practice of Holy Communion be fraternally reminded of the commitment all the members of the Synod make to one another by subscribing the Constitution of Synod to honor and uphold its doctrine and practice and, where there is disagreement, to follow the proper channels of dissent as outlined in the synodical Bylaws 2.39 c. IS MARTENS JUSTIFIED LOGIA contributing editor Dr. Gottfried Martens’s published dissertation is beginning to get the attention that it deserves (Gottfried Martens, Die Rechtfertigung des Sünders—Rettungshandeln Gottes oder historisches Interpretament Grundentscheidungen lutherischer Theologie und Kirche bei der Behandlung des Themas "Rechtfertigung" im oekumenischen Kontext (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992). ISBN 3-525-56271-3). This book belongs in every German-reading Lutheran theologian’s library. Order it now while it is still in print! At a recent pastor’s conference of the Northern Illinois District (LCMS), the veteran ecclesial diplomat Joseph Burgess noted how Martens’s dissertation has forced many to realize that the Roman Catholics and Lutherans have been “talking past each other.” Our sister journal has published a recent review essay by the even more seasoned dialoguer George Lindbeck of Yale, and a response by the always intriguing Gerhard Forde of St. Paul (George Lindbeck, “Martens on the Condemnations—Review Essay,” and Gerhard Forde, “Response” Lutheran Quarterly 10 (Spring 1996): 59–69). One is reminded of the truth of Robert Preus’s parting comment at the 1995 St. Catherine’s Sasse Symposium, that Martens was the most intelligent student he ever taught. Although Martens did not directly address the present proposal to lift the sixteenth-century mutual condemnations between Rome and Wittenberg, the proposals are based on the same dialogues analyzed by Martens: Regensburg (1540), LWF at Helsinki (1963), Leuenberg Concord (1973), Malta Report (1971), U.S. Justification by Faith (1985), and the Lehrverurteilungen (1986; the response of the Göttingen faculty to this dialogue is available through LOGIA books under the title Outmoded Condemnations). Martens’s conclusion is that the dialogues have focused on the varied historical definitions of the doctrine of justification, to the exclusion of the universal reality of God’s work of justifying the sinner. Therefore real consensus on the hauptartikel has not been achieved or even approximated. Is Martens’s conclusion justified Lindbeck has several criticisms to which I wish to respond. First, he defends the dialogues’ use of progressive-developmental language, so that they could speak to an audience accustomed to this way of thinking. The fact is that when progressive-developmental
LOGIA FORUM 67 language is used to describe church dogma (which by definition transcends particular linguistic expressions), it is an implicit surrender to the Roman doctrine of progressive revelation normed by the magisterium. In Forde’s terms, that is “playing the game on their [Roman] turf.” Second, Lindbeck agrees with the German critics, that Martens’s argument is hermeneutically naïve. Perhaps. It is more likely that Martens has not been beguiled by the epistemologies of German idealism, historicism, and existentialism, which argue that perception and interpretation are irreparably subjective experiences. When such epistemologies are applied to church dogma, it is “playing the game on Liberal Protestant turf.” Third, Lindbeck believes that church fellowship does not depend on a common confession, but on the absence of condemnations. This should alert the reader to the real intent of the ELCA assembly in 1997, namely, fellowship between the ELCA and the Roman church. Although condemnations are admittedly distasteful, they are a necessity in certain cases. In Romans 12:9, St. Paul commands, “Let love be genuine; abhor what is evil, hold fast to what is good.” This definition of agape needs to be reconsidered in our age, which confuses absolute tolerance with love. Condemnations are warning signs placed at strategic spots to protect the ignorant and naïve—for example, “Beware of dog.” Forde makes some interesting comments about the eschatological import of any formulation or discussion of justification. Here one is reminded of Martin Chemnitz’s words: It must be diligently considered why the Holy Spirit wanted to set forth the doctrine of justification by means of judicial terms. Worldly, secure and Epicurean men think that justification of the sinner is something easy and perfunctory, therefore they are not much concerned about sin and do not sincerely seek reconciliation with God, nor do they strive with any diligence to retain it. However, the peculiar nature of the word “justify” shows how weighty and serious an action before the judgment seat of God the justification of the sinner is. Likewise, the human mind, inflated with a Pharisaical persuasion when it indulges in its own private thoughts concerning righteousness, can easily conceive a high degree of confidence and trust in its own righteousness. But when the doctrine of justification is set forth under the picture of an examination and of the tribunal of divine judgment, by a court trial, so to say, those Pharisaical persuasions collapse, vanish, and are cast down. Thus the true nature of the word “justify” preserves and defends the purity of the doctrine of justification from Pharisaical leaven, and from Epicurean opinions (Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], 1: 476–477; Topic 8, Sec. 1, ii, 10). The Preface of the Book of Concord explains the issue of the condemnations best: With reference to condemnations, censures, and rejections of false and adulterated doctrine . . . these have to be set forth expressly . . . that everybody may know that he must guard himself against them. . . . [W]e mean specifically to condemn false and seductive doctrines and their stiff-necked proponents and blasphemers. These we do not by any means intend to tolerate in our lands, churches, and schools, inasmuch as such teachings are contrary to the expressed Word of God and cannot coexist with it (Tappert, 11). Here is the rub. False doctrine and the Word of God cannot coexist, therefore there can never be true pluralism in the church. Although the majority of Martens’s dissertation committee opined that he had formulated a false dichotomy between the classical Lutheran view of justification and the plurality of its historical “expressions,” the sixteenth century confessors would have felt that his formulation and concerns are justified. Martin R. Noland Oak Park, Illinois FROM ARROWHEAD TO AUGSBURG Craig A. Parton, a lawyer in the Santa Barabara, California, area, has been composing some very timely and poignant pieces that would distinguish Lutheranism from mainstream Protestantism. His title refers to Arrowhead Stadium, a place typical of Bill Bright’s crusades, and Augsburg, where the steadfast Lutheran confession was made. The following is an excerpt from an article by the same title found in the quarterly journal for church leadership Reformation & Revival 5 (Winter 1996), pages 82–94. Check out the entire article! Bill Bright is president of perhaps the largest evangelical “parachurch” ministry in the world—Campus Crusade for Christ. Recently Mr. Bright informed those who read his “Bright Side” newsletter that he and others in the Crusade leadership would embark on a forty-day vigil of fasting and prayer. Friends and supporters were urged to send prayer requests. After forty days of denial, the long expected report came. Others within the circle of Campus Crusade leadership, such as vicepresident Steve Douglass, according to the “Bright Side,” got “into the Jet Stream of what Bill was praying for . . . .” And what did the “Jet Stream” of the Lord reveal to Dr. Bright Well, I’m personally still a bit unclear what the Jet Stream did say, at least initially. Of greater importance is what the God of the Burning Bush, who terrorized Moses, Isaiah, and Luther with His holiness, whose Word leveled Saul of Tarsus to the ground, whose law demands perfect obedience to all His commandments, did not say to Bill Bright. The Jet Stream did not speak to Bill Bright about his sin. Didn’t need to. As Bright put it in the “Bright Side,” “Since I learned how to breathe spiritually many years ago, I frankly do not have that much to confess.” Let me see if I’ve understood correctly After enough years of “spiritual breathing” your sins decrease. One enters an experience where sins of heart, word and deed (of both commission and omission) are numerically reduced. Bill Bright’s approach to the Christian life appears to be, strangely enough, classically medieval. Only certain terms are altered; the content remains thoroughly Roman. The “ladders of
Page 1 and 2:
Logia a journal of lutheran theolog
Page 3 and 4:
logia a journal of lutheran theolog
Page 5 and 6:
NOT ONLY REFLECTIVE, LEARNED SCHOLA
Page 7 and 8:
THE TWO-FACED GOD 7 vated and drive
Page 9 and 10:
THE TWO-FACED GOD 9 wrath and judgm
Page 11 and 12:
Luther’s Augustinian Understandin
Page 13 and 14: LUTHER’S AUGUSTINIAN UNDERSTANDIN
Page 15 and 16: LUTHER’S AUGUSTINIAN UNDERSTANDIN
Page 17 and 18: The Doctrine of Justification and I
Page 19 and 20: JUSTIFICATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR EVA
Page 25 and 26: THE DEBATE OVER THE USE OR NON-USE
Page 27 and 28: DIVINE SERVICE: DELIVERING FORGIVEN
Page 29 and 30: DIVINE SERVICE: DELIVERING FORGIVEN
Page 31 and 32: 32 LOGIA fied with Christ. 4 We fai
Page 33 and 34: 34 LOGIA makes it great: its abilit
Page 35 and 36: 36 LOGIA them; that they may be one
Page 37 and 38: 38 LOGIA vidual, written in the plu
Page 39 and 40: 40 LOGIA place in a vacuum; it is i
Page 41 and 42: 42 LOGIA 4. The theology of the cro
Page 43 and 44: Patrick Hamilton (1503-1528) A Scot
Page 45 and 46: REVIEWS “It is not many books tha
Page 47 and 48: REVIEWS 49 liturgy as an enactment
Page 49 and 50: REVIEWS 51 should be timeless, and
Page 51 and 52: REVIEWS 53 What does Mead mean by
Page 53 and 54: REVIEWS 55 dent revolution in Hambu
Page 55 and 56: REVIEWS 57 above-mentioned sort wer
Page 57 and 58: LOGIA Forum SHORT STUDIES AND COMME
Page 59 and 60: LOGIA FORUM 61 tempting God. For in
Page 61 and 62: LOGIA FORUM 63 ME GAVTE LA NATA A r
Page 63: LOGIA FORUM 65 basis of church fell
Page 67 and 68: LOGIA FORUM 69 10. Our worship says
Page 69 and 70: LOGIA FORUM 71 make a few blunders,
Page 71 and 72: The Angels Are Aware . . . and We A
Page 73 and 74: Index of Articles by Author Volumes
Page 75 and 76: Index of Book Reviews by Title Afte
Page 77 and 78: Index of Book Reviews by Author Alt
Page 79 and 80: Index of LOGIA Forum Volumes I thro
Page 81: CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Ulrich Asendor
show all

05-4 Theology of the..

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?