03-1 Pastoral Care.pdf

Logiaa journal of lutheran theologyPIETY & PASTORAL CAREEpiphany/january 1994 volume IIi, number 1

ei[ ti" lalei',wJ" lovgia Qeou'logia is a journal of Lutheran theology. As such it publishes articleson exegetical, historical, systematic, and liturgical theology that promotethe orthodox theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. We cling toGod’s divinely instituted marks of the church: the gospel, preached purelyin all its articles, and the sacraments, administered according toChrist’s institution. This name expresses what this journal wants to be. InGreek, LOGIA functions either as an adjective meaning “eloquent,”“learned,” or “cultured,” or as a plural noun meaning “divine revelations,”“words,” or “messages.” The word is found in 1 Peter 4:11, Acts7:38 and Romans 3:2. Its compound forms include oJmologiva (confession),ajpologiva (defense), and ajvnalogiva (right relationship). Each ofthese concepts and all of them together express the purpose and methodof this journal. LOGIA is committed to providing an independent theologicalforum normed by the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures and theLutheran Confessions. At the heart of our journal we want our readers tofind a love for the sacred Scriptures as the very Word of God, not merelyas rule and norm, but especially as Spirit, truth, and life which revealsHim who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life—Jesus Christ our Lord.Therefore, we confess the church, without apology and without rancor,only with a sincere and fervent love for the precious Bride of Christ, theholy Christian church, “the mother that begets and bears every Christianthrough the Word of God,” as Martin Luther says in the Large Catechism(LC II, 42). We are animated by the conviction that the EvangelicalChurch of the Augsburg Confession represents the true expression ofthe church which we confess as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.THE COVER ART is a photograph of the antemesale from TrorslundeChurch. Photograph supplied by National Museum, Copenhagen.EDITORSMichael J. Albrecht, Copy Editor—Pastor, St. James Lutheran Church,West St. Paul, MNJoel A. Brondos, Logia Forum and Correspondence Editor—Pastor,St. John Lutheran Church, Vincennes, INCharles Cortright, Editorial Associate—Pastor, Our Savior’s LutheranChurch, East Brunswick, NJScott Murray, Editorial Associate—Pastor, Salem Lutheran Church,Gretna, LAJohn Pless, Book Review Editor—Pastor, University Lutheran Chapel,Minneapolis, MNTom Rank, Editorial Associate—Pastor, Scarville Lutheran Church,Scarville, IAErling Teigen, Editorial Coordinator—Professor, Bethany LutheranCollege, Mankato, MNJon D. Vieker, Editorial Associate—Pastor, St. Mark’s LutheranChurch, West Bloomfield, MISUPPORT STAFFBrent W. Kuhlman, Development Manager—Pastor, Faith LutheranChurch, Hebron, NEPatricia Ludwig, Layout and Design—Cresbard, South DakotaTimothy A. Rossow, Subscription Manager—Pastor, Bethany LutheranChurch, Naperville, ILLäna Schurb, Proofreader—Ypsilanti, MIRodney E. Zwonitzer, Advertising Manager—Pastor, EmmanuelLutheran Church, Dearborn, MICONTRIBUTING EDITORSUlrich Asendorf—Pastor, Hannover, GermanyBurnell F. Eckardt, Jr.—Pastor, St. John Lutheran Church, Berlin, WICharles Evanson—Pastor, Redeemer Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, INRonald Feuerhahn—Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MOLowell Green—Professor, State University of New York at Buffalo, NYPaul Grime—Pastor, St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, West Allis, WIDavid A. Gustafson—Pastor, Peace Lutheran Church, Poplar, WITom G.A. Hardt—Pastor, St. Martin’s Lutheran Church, Stockholm, SwedenMatthew Harrison—Pastor, St. Peter’s Lutheran Church, Westgate, IASteven Hein—Professor, Concordia University, River Forest, ILHorace Hummel—Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MOArthur Just—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, INJohn Kleinig—Professor, Luther Seminary, North Adelaide,South Australia, AustraliaArnold J. Koelpin—Professor, Dr. Martin Luther College, New Ulm, MNLars Koen—Uppsala University, Uppsala, SwedenGerald Krispin—Professor, Concordia College, Edmonton, Alberta,CanadaPeter K. Lange—Pastor, St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, Concordia, MOCameron MacKenzie—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary, FortWayne, INGottfried Martens—Pastor, St. Mary’s Lutheran Church, Berlin, GermanyKurt Marquart—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, INNorman E. Nagel—Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MOMartin Noland—Pastor, Christ Lutheran Church, Oak Park, ILWilhelm Petersen—President, Bethany Seminary, Mankato, MNHans-Lutz Poetsch—Pastor Emeritus, Lutheran Hour, Berlin, GermanyRobert D. Preus—Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, INClarence Priebbenow—Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church, Oakey,Queensland, AustraliaRichard Resch—Kantor, St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, INDavid P. Scaer—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary,Fort Wayne, INRobert Schaibley—Pastor, Zion Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, INBruce Schuchard—Pastor, St. James Lutheran Church, Victor, IAKen Schurb—Professor, Concordia College, Ann Arbor, MIHarold Senkbeil—Pastor, Elm Grove Lutheran Church, Elm Grove, WICarl P.E. Springer—Professor, Illinois State University, Normal, ILJohn Stephenson—Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Catharines,Ontario, CanadaWalter Sundberg—Professor, Luther Northwestern TheologicalSeminary, St. Paul, MNDavid Jay Webber—Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church, Brewster, MAWilliam Weinrich—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary,Fort Wayne, INGeorge F. Wollenburg—President, Montana District LCMS, Billings, MTLOGIA (ISSN #1064‒0398) is published quarterly by the Luther Academy, 2829 Fox Chase Run,Fort Wayne, IN 46825‒3985. Second class postage paid (permit pending) at Dearborn, MI and additionalmailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to LOGIA, 800 S. Military, Dearborn,MI 48124. Editorial Department: 1004 Plum St., Mankato, MN 56001. Unsolicited material is welcomedbut cannot be returned unless accompanied by sufficient return postage. Book ReviewDepartment: 1101 University Avenue SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414. All books received will be listed.Logia Forum and Correspondence Department: 707 N. Eighth St., Vincennes, IN 47591‒1909.Letters selected for publication are subject to editorial modification, must be typed or computerprinted, and must contain the writer’s name and complete address. Subscription & AdvertisingDepartment: 800 S. Military, Dearborn, MI 48124. Advertising rates and specifications are availableupon request.SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: U.S.: $18 for one year (four issues); $36 for two years (eightissues). Canada and Mexico: 1 year, $25; 2 years, $50. Overseas: 1 year, air: $35; surface: $25; 2 years,air: $70; surface: $50. All funds in U.S. currency only.Copyright © 1993. The Luther Academy. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced without written permission.

logiaa journal of lutheran theologyEpiphany/January 1994 volume III, number 1CONTENTSCORRESPONDENCE....................................................................................................................................................................................2ARTICLESThe Outer Limits of a Lutheran PietyBy Steven A. Hein.............................................................................................................................................................................................................4Conditional Forgiveness and the Translation of 1 John 1:9By John M. Moe...............................................................................................................................................................................................................11Preaching to Preachers: Isaiah 6:1–8By Donald Moldstad .......................................................................................................................................................................................................131 Corinthians 11:29 — “Discerning the Body” and Its Implications for Closed CommunionBy Ernie V. Lassman ......................................................................................................................................................................................................15Using the Third Use: Formula of Concord VI and the Preacher’s TaskBy Jonathan G. Lange .....................................................................................................................................................................................................19The Law and the Gospel in Lutheran TheologyBy David P. Scaer ............................................................................................................................................................................................................27Angels UnawareBy Paul R. Harris .............................................................................................................................................................................................................35A Call for Manuscripts...................................................................................................................................................................................................42Only Playing Church? The Lay Minister and The Lord’s SupperBy Douglas Fusselman ...................................................................................................................................................................................................43COLLOQUIUM FRATRUM...................................................................................................................................................................52David Scaer: A Reply to Leonard KleinREVIEWS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................55REVIEW ESSAY : Translating the Bible: An Evaluation of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).Pastoral Care and the Means of Grace. By Ralph UnderwoodA Common Calling: The Witness of Our Reformation Churches in North America Today. Ed. by Keith F. Nickle and Timothy F. LullOne Ministry Many Roles: Deacons and Deaconesses through the Centuries. By Jeannine E. OlsonMessianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity. By Donald JuelBRIEFLY NOTEDLOGIA FORUM................................................................................................................................................................................................64Pastor, Couldn’t We ...? • Demand and Delight • Too Much to Read? • The Common PriesthoodFearful Proof • Uppsala Colloquy + 400 • The Once and Future ChurchProfiles in Ministry • ynod X and Synod Y • Gladly in the Midst • Resourcing the ResourceConfessional Stewardship • A House Dividing? Reflections on GCC ’93Doctrine and Practice • Shared Voices / Different Vision

CORRESPONDENCETou;" ajnqrwvpou" AND ejnanqrwphsavntaIN THE NICENE CREED■ I should like to add some commentson the article “Creedal Catholicity”(LOGIA, Forum, Eastertide/April 1993p. 59). In Australia the churches have alsostudied the problem of the ejnanqrwphsavntaand reckoned with the suggestionsof the international committees.While the Anglicans, Catholics and UnitingChurch have chosen to use “becamefully human,” the Lutherans preferred“became a human being.” Admittedly,this does not overcome Weinrich’sobjection that the masculinity of Christ isbeing overlooked, but it does go furtherin establishing the historical reality of thehuman nature of Christ.However, there is a more subtlereason for the “human being,” and thisseems to have been missed by bothPrange and Weinrich. It is the significanceof the tou;" ajnqrwvpou" at thebeginning of the sentence. Here theWELS Commission has followed therecommendation of the internationalcommittees, and simply omitted thetou;" ajnqrwvpou": “for us men and forour salvation.” However, if the Greek isset out in strophe form (I use BishopGoodwin’s version), it is noticeable thatwe have here a significant rhetoricalconstruction:To;n di∆ hJma'ı tou;" ajnqrwvpou"kai; dia; th;n hJmetevran swthrivan,katelqovnta ejk tw'n oujranw'nkai; sarkwqevnta,ejk Pneuvmato" aJgivou kai; Mariva" th'"Parqevnou,kai; ejnanqrwphsavnta:The Nicene fathers are balancingthe tou;" ajnqrwvpou" with the ejnanqrwphsavnta.In other words, if we followthe recommendation of the internationalcommittees, we have a sort ofincomplete chiasmus: a … , … a insteadof a …b, b…a. The writers are makingthe weighty point that for us “humanbeings” he became “a human being,”and they draw our attention to the factby a trope. Greek theology has alwayskept Romans 5:12 and following insight, and the Orthodox have continuallyreminded us of the words of Gregoryof Nazianzus: to; aprovslhptonajqeravpeuton. Unfortuantely, the newtranslation glides over the significantrhetoric of the original.As Professor Hartwig pointed out,there is good reason for abiding by a“common” text. For this reason, theLutheran Church of Australia has used“for us and for our salvation,” but it hasadded a footnote: “for us humanbeings.” In this way, if only in a footnote,the balance has been kept with“became a human being.”To press the case for the tou;"ajnqrwvpou" might seem like specialpleading. However, two points should bekept in mind. First, scholars have arguedthat the earliest drafts of the NiceneCreed contained only the kai; sarkwqevntawhich would have been sufficient toestablish the humanity of Christ if thishad been the only concern of the confessors.The ejnanqrwphsavnta was added inorder to say something more, and it canonly be properly understood if it is keptin tandem with the tou;" ajnqrwvpou".Secondly, there is the evidence ofthe Definition of Chalcedon. In line 14,2(following the numbering of Ortez deUrbina), we have the only quotation ofthe Nicene Creed: To;n aujto;n di∆ hJma'"kai; dia; th;n hJmetevranswthrivan. Herethe tou;" ajnqrwvpou" is omitted becausethere is no rhetorical correspondencewith a following ejnanqrwphsavnta.P. Koehne261 Koroit St.Warrnambool, Australia 3280RESPONSE TO DAVID SCAER■ It’s always fun to watch David Scaershooting from the hip, especially when hehits a target, but I am having difficultyidentifying this Klein that he is aiming formore or less in “The Integrity of the ChristologicalCharacter of the Office of theMinistry” [LOGIA, Vol. 2, No. 1].He says, for instance, that “all referencesto God including Father and Son aremetaphorical.” Well, yes, insofar as theyare. To the degree that the ordinary Englishmeaning of father is sexual begetter ofchildren (like Scaer or Klein) and son isthe male offspring of such a father, there isa difference between the use of Father forGod and our use of father for some males.To admit to the metaphorical character ofthis language is not the same as to grantthe arguments of Gnostic deconstructionists,who, in any event, can hardly be heldoff with a claim that all God language issimply univocal. Of course the first twopersons of the Trinity are Father and Son,but not in the same manner as Roy andLeonard Klein or Leonard and NicholasKlein. This is easy and it’s not heretical.

CORRESPONDENCE 3Then we learn that Klein derivesthe office of the ministry from baptism!This would surprise and please many ofhis opponents in the ELCA who findhim—with some reason—a rankRomanist. But Klein has never believedthis. What could he have said to makeScaer think so?It was probably that Klein said thatthe baptism of women is not withoutbearing on the question of women’sordination. Klein expressed at FortWayne some concern that when someMissourians appeal to the ministry’scharacter as representative of Christ inarguing against the ordination ofwomen—a point that is not withoutsome merit—they argue it with a ferocityapproaching misogyny, a ferocity thatseems to overlook that, in virtue of theirbaptism, women already representChrist. Klein would never accept thenaíve use of “neither male nor female” asa sufficient argument for women’s ordination.By the same token he will notgrant that the maleness of Christ and themaleness of the clergy until very recenttimes in some places is a sufficient argumentagainst ordaining women. Themuddling of a metaphor that leads Scaerand some others simplistically to say“woman at the altar; woman on thethrone” is as invalid as the liberal muddlingof metaphor to relativize God’srevelation of himself as Father and Son.The irony of Scaer’s misunderstandingof Klein is that it overlooks Klein’spleasure that Missouri—even if only tokeep women out of the ministry—isfinally being forced to re-evaluate its traditionalfunctionalism. Klein in factagrees with Scaer that the minister representsChrist. While holding that thechurch may in evangelical freedom callwomen to that ministry, he believes thatthe issue is not beyond debate and thatthe question of representation is a legitimatepart of that debate. Klein simplythinks that the question is far more intricatethan Scaer allows. And he does notat all think some of the things Scaerattributes to him.The Rev. Leonard R. KleinChrist Lutheran ChurchYork, PALOGIA CORRESPONDENCE ANDCOLLOQUIUM FRATRUMWe encourage our readers to respond tothe material they find in LOGIA—whetherit be in the articles, book reviews or lettersof other readers. Some of your suggestionshave already been taken to heart as weconsider the readability of everything fromthe typeface and line spacing (leading) tothe content and length of articles. Whilewe cannot print everything that comesacross our desks, we hope that our newCOLLOQUIUM FRATRUM section will allowfor longer response/counter-responseexchanges, whereas ourCORRESPONDENCE section is a place forshorter “Letters to the Editors.”If you wish to respond to something in anissue of LOGIA, please do so soon after youreceive an issue. Since LOGIA is a quarterlyperiodical, we are often meeting deadlinesfor the subsequent issue about the timeyou receive your current issue. Gettingyour responses in early will help keepthem timely. Send your CORRESPONDENCEcontributions to: LOGIA Correspondence,707 N. Eighth St., Vincennes, IN 47591-3111, or your COLLOQUIUM FRATRUM contributionsto LOGIA Editorial Department,1004 Plum St., Mankato, MN 56001.

The Outer Limits of a Lutheran PietySTEVEN A. HEIN“Lutherans are remarkably unremarkable.”THIS IS CHURCH HISTORIAN MARK NOLL’S ASSESSMENT OFLutherans in America in a recent essay entitled “TheLutheran Difference.” 1 From the standpoint of makingany particular impression on American culture, or being able todescribe something unique about a “Lutheran ethos or piety,”Mark Noll observes that from the angle of social scientists, onefails to find anything that manifests itself as particularly distinctive.Lutheran religious life in America has seemed rather unobtrusive.“Beyond their instructive experience as immigrants,”Noll opines, “it is hard to isolate identifiably Lutheran contributionsto the larger history of Christianity in America.” 2 Whenit comes to the subject of piety and its impact on society in general,Lutherans seem to be extraordinarily ordinary.While this evaluation may cause consternation and alarmwithin some circles of those who wish to identify with thename Lutheran, I do not believe that protests should belaunched too loudly from those whose confession embraces thesubstance of Luther’s Theology of the Cross. From this perspective,there are good reasons to embrace the conclusion thatthe good pious Christian called to live by the cross of Christ is,and remains in this life, a bit of a phantom, a sociologicaluncertainty. Indeed, it is the intention of this essay to sketch aportrait of true Christian piety as one which usually rendersthe individual believer indistinguishable from the average citizensof this world. Godliness involves a call to faith and faithfulnesswith a distinctive worldly accent.The life of the individual believer gives expression to whoand what Christians are by the assessment of God’s judgmentof law and gospel. As such, the Christian is, as Luther paradoxicallymaintained, “righteous and beloved by God, and yet. . . a sinner at the same time.” 3 Let’s examine this moreclosely. As the Christian lives in the flesh, he stands under thejudgment of law as a sinner. The law presents all sinners inthis life a security and a peril. Outwardly, the law presents thisfallen world with the security of social orders—the structuresABOUT THE AUTHORSTEVEN A. HEIN teaches religion at Concordia University, River Forest,Illinois, and is a contributing editor of LOGIA.4of community by which temporal life is ordered. Moreover, areasonable application of the law provides a modicum of temporalsecurity for peaceful relations among the social orders ofthe world. This civic use of law boils down to a reasonableapplication of the Golden Rule: life will go well for me, if Itreat others as I would have them treat me. 4 Such behavior,however, does not make the believer extraordinary or unusual.Civic righteousness neither makes the believer pious, nordoes it focus on the essential nature of the expression ofChristian piety. Common to believer and unbeliever alike, it isrooted in self-interest. Civic righteousness is not intrinsicallythe stuff of godliness; it is the stuff of practical wisdom.Spiritually speaking however, the law presents a peril. Itpronounces all mankind sinners and threatens all sinners withthe sentence of death. Through the law, God produces selfhonestyand contrition. But for the believer, the law is onlyGod’s preliminary word, his provisional judgment, not hisfinal judgment. God’s judgment of grace is his final verdict thatsets us free. “The law was given through Moses; grace and truthcame through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1:17). This is the word of truthabout our identity that proclaims us saints—holy, righteous,pious ones; this is the truth that embodies all our godliness andsets us free.It is the righteousness of Christ bestowed by God’s graciousword that declares the Christian good and holy in God’ssight. In Christian baptism, God has declared the Christianpious. True piety or holiness is essentially a hidden possessionof the Christian, not a demonstrable attribute, nor a bundle ofsome uniquely pious activities. On the demonstrable side ofthings, the Christian is and remains an impious sinner in character,in word, and deed. And about this seeming nonsense,Luther rhetorically asked,Who will reconcile these utterly conflicting statements,that the sin in us is not sin, that he who is damnablewill not be damned, that he who is rejected will not berejected, that he who is worthy of wrath and eternaldeath will not receive these punishments? Only themediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. 5The law judges what we are in this fallen creation, thegospel who we are in Christ. And how does God require us to

THE OUTER LIMITS OF A LUTHERAN PIETY 5swallow such “nonsense” and be obedient to it? Through faith!For this reason, the essential expression of the Christian’s pietyis subjective in character; it is faith in the heart, and hence it ishidden. The expression of true piety and godliness in the Theologyof the Cross is the obedience of faith and the expression offaithfulness. The outer limits of Christian piety, what the Christianis and what the Christian does, are tied to the call of God.This call causes the individual Christian to live a “provisional”life in this old fallen creation that can, indeed, merit the estimationof being “extraordinarily ordinary.” To appreciate this, andsurvey briefly the alternatives to this stance, we must explorethe concept of Christian vocation. In the history of theology,the concept of true Christian piety and godliness has been tiedto an understanding of God’s call to faith and faithfulness.CHRISTIAN PIETY WITHIN THE VOCATIO OF GODLuther often used a special term to designate the Christianlife of faithfulness, “vocation.” The word vocation comes fromthe Latin term, vocatio. A vocatio is a call or calling to a givenway of life. It grants an individual a particular standing andposition in relation to others within a community. Moreover,it defines how one meaningfully participates in and contributesto the life of the community. In other words, our vocation tellsus who we are within life’s social structures and what kind ofduties we have for the welfare of the community; it demandsthat we live lives of faith and faithfulness. We must trust ourvocation to live securely as members of society, and our faith isexpressed, in part, by faithfully being about the tasks that comewith our particular station.Christian life is lived as a calling, a vocation that flowsfrom God’s call and love for us in Christ. Through the gospel,he has called us to be sons and daughters in his family. This callis first and foremost a summons to a life of faith, a call to trustin God and who and what we are by his grace: forgiven andadopted children of his love. Christians have received theirvocational call from God in baptism. Baptism bestows on eachof us God’s gracious claim to be his child. His call brings fulland secure membership in his kingdom. The task that God hasgiven to us is to act out our faith in his calling. This is themeans of expressing our faithfulness to him and his family.True piety expresses or acts out our trust in who we are byGod’s call. Vocatio forms pietas. Major questions about Christianvocation must be addressed. How and where in the worldshould we live and serve our God as his children? What are ourtasks? What should be our relationship with the citizens andsocial structures of the world? What do our attachments andcommitments to our family, our work, and our civic involvementhave to do with living out the call of God? The churchthrough the ages has grappled with these questions and providedquite a spectrum of responses.St. Augustine, the great thinker of the ancient church, setforth his vision of God’s call in his monumental work, The Cityof God. Augustine conceived of the church as a pilgrim people,citizens of another age who are journeying through life in thisworld to their real home, “the City of God.” The call to faith isa call to faithful living as we travel on our way to the eternalkingdom that God will usher in at the close of the age. Augustinesaw citizenship as an exclusive status. Therefore sincebelievers are citizens of God’s eternal kingdom, they inhabitthe social structures of this world as foreigners, sojourners ontheir way to their real home. During the journey, God schoolsand outfits his people for the coming age. This was Augustine’svision of what Jesus meant in his call for his disciples to be inthe world, but not of the world. We live in the world, but asforeigners—citizens of the kingdom that is not identified withany temporal community. Our days on earth are focused onGod’s gracious power, transforming us in holiness, making usfit for life in the kingdom.This vision of Christian vocation created for Augustine akind of ambivalence toward the social communities of thisworld. Christians are to live peaceably within them, butbecause they are fallen and will pass away with the dawning ofthe kingdom, we must see the call of God and the higher tasksof faithfulness as transcending our involvement in them. Truegodliness involves for the faithful Christian a higher life whichwe pursue over and above the obligations and commitmentsthat arise from our sojourning in the world’s communities.The responsibilities of old world living are not of the same stuffas the works within a calling to divine citizenship. The Christianpilgrim may have to be involved with the former, but truepietas, true godliness flowing from faith, issues a higher orderof duties that flow from divine citizenship. For Augustine, oneis either a citizen of this world, or the City of God—but notboth. His portrait of the pious expressions of faith involved anextraordinary set of tasks, largely entailing self-discipline andspiritual devotion which stood over and beyond the everydayduties that spring from our sojourning in the social orders ofthis world. Here within the ordinary of life is the extraordinary,and this is the true stuff of Christian piety.. . . our vocation tells us who we arewithin life’s social structures.If this is really what true Christian piety is all about, whynot simply separate from the entanglements of this world andpursue godliness full time? In the second and third centuries,some radical Christian thinkers had just such a plan in mind.They placed an extreme emphasis on the negative side of thecall of God to be “not of the world.” Influenced by Greek Stoicphilosophy, their conception of the call of Christ was a call tolive in seclusion, divorced from all human community. Guidedby this vision, they equated the call of God with a life of isolationand self-denial. Many believers went out into the desertand lived solitary lives in caves. For them, true Christian pietywas tied up with an ascetic life of self-denial. They maintaineda meager physical existence with just enough food and water tokeep themselves alive. They were “hermits for Christ” whodevoted themselves to reading the Scriptures, prayer and meditationwhile waiting for God to usher in the fullness of the

6 LOGIAkingdom. For them, the Christian life was certainly extraordinaryand remarkable.During the Middle Ages a variation of the hermit movementbecame the standard form for what was termed “thehigher calling” of God. Rather than caves with one hermit percave, Christians pursued the higher call of God by cloisteringthemselves in groups inside monasteries. As holy fraternities,monks and nuns dedicated themselves to a pious life of devotionto God, separated from all commitments and attachmentsto the social orders of this world. Again, the highest order oftrue godliness was depicted as a life of self-denial and seclusion.Poverty, celibacy and strict obedience to monastic orderwere seen as virtuous sacrifice, the epitome of faithfulness.Unencumbered by secular concerns, the believer could becomeabsorbed in a higher regimen of worship, prayer and meditation.Monasticism flourished in Western Christianity for morethan a thousand years as the exemplary form of Christian vocationand piety. It was a kind of synthesis of Augustine’s visionof Christian citizenship and the hermit movement. Christianshad a choice. They could be ordinary or extraordinary. Theycould live a life of mediocre piety, sojourning in the old worldcommunities, trying to do pious things on top of the time-consumingtasks of earthly maintenance. Or they could pursue themore godly life—the higher calling—and do the pious thingsof divine citizenship “full time” within monasticism.GOD’S CALL TO DUAL CITIZENSHIPWhile a young monk, Luther searched the Scriptures andrediscovered the centrality of the incarnation and the cross inthe call of God. As he developed his “Theology of the Cross” herecognized that God’s saving work and call involve a kind of“salvific worldliness” in his method. God chooses to enlistworldly elements and structures of his fallen creation as instrumentsor means to accomplish his saving purposes. Think for amoment of the whole cycle of events in the extended Joseph narrativefrom Genesis. The words “and the Lord was with Joseph”(Gn 39:23) signal for the reader that “in, with and under” all ofthe worldly and tragic events that happened to Joseph and hisbrothers, God was at work to graciously bless the family of Israel.Joseph knew with all of his senses that his brothers and otherswere at work for evil purposes, but by faith he recognized God’ssaving activity at work for good (Gn 45:5–8, 50:20).So also, in a more central way, with the Incarnation andthe cross. God takes up and hides himself in ordinary humanflesh. He then enlists earthly family life, the carpentry trade,and the political and religious movements of the day in the serviceof his saving work. He works out but hides his righteousnessand pardon for us in the grisly act of capital punishmentby crucifixion—a tragic political event. By sight, we apprehendhis chosen worldly instruments and events, but by faith we seethe glory of God revealed in his Son and our righteousnessacquired. To understand God at work in the world is to holdon to both what we see and what is given to faith. Neitherdimension is to be denied or omitted from the church’s faithand confession. In the incarnation and the cross God revealsthe ultimate expression of salvific worldliness where the extraordinarywork of God is tied to and hidden in the ordinaryevents of the fallen world. As Luther observed, “Man hides hisown things in order to conceal them; God hides his own thingsto reveal them.” 6We would like to suggest that salvific worldliness is alsohow we should understand the contours of Christian vocationand true Christian piety from within the Theology of the Cross.We have become a new creation in Christ and a temple of theHoly Spirit, but God has called us to a life of faith and faithfulnessin the flesh and blood of the old creation. This means thatChristian vocation calls us to be simultaneously members of thecommunities of this fallen world and citizens of the kingdom ofGod. Jesus carried out his call from the Father within the oldcreation communities of earthly family, work and the socialstructures of general society. So also must we who now live inChrist. Christian life and vocation involves a dual citizenship;an extraordinary membership in the kingdom of God and anordinary membership in the old creation communities andstructures of everyday life. The Christian’s citizenship involvesan extraordinary one within the ordinary one.Luther recognized that God’s savingwork and call involves a kind of“salvific worldliness.”It is important to see that on one level, faithfulness inChristian vocation involves being about the ordinary living outof our commitments and projects that arise from our membershipand specific station in our families, workplace and generalsociety. God’s call to a life of faith and faithfulness alwaystouches us within our space—where we live already. It doesnot demand that we go off and live in caves or separated communities.And on this level, the outward character of Christianlife is not radically different from the average citizen of thisworld. In this sense, it is decidedly ordinary. But in, with andunder this life, God is calling the believer to a life of faith andfaithfulness as citizens of his kingdom. The higher calling ofthe Christian is not a summons to some parallel state, separatedfrom our participation in our existing communities, butrather it is embedded within them. True Christian piety is theextraordinary life of faith and faithfulness in Christ. But it isthe obedience of extraordinary faith expressed in the ordinarylife. The pious expressions of subjective faith are tied to thecommon and often mundane tasks that flow from our oldworld citizenship. Here, our Lord calls us to express our faithin him and his righteousness by loving service within ourearthly communities and the responsibilities that arise fromour places within them. Our roles and commitments withinthese communities are the schooling by which our Lord teachesus how to live out our faith as his children.When faith serves even the least among us in the mostmundane of ways, we serve Christ and glorify our heavenlyFather. This latter dimension is hidden from the world, perceivedonly through the eyes of faith. When the Christian shop-

THE OUTER LIMITS OF A LUTHERAN PIETY 7keeper sweeps the sidewalk outside the store, the householderdoes the laundry, the parent helps his child with homework orthe Christian salesman offers quality service graciously out oftrust in Christ and love for those served, faithfulness to the callof God is rendered. Here is the essence of pious Christian living.Indeed, it is a glorious, wonderful faithfulness that glorifies Godand for which the heavenly hosts are praising God. Faithfulnessflows from a heart of faith and love as we are about the fullrange of duties and tasks that arise from our ordinary commitmentsin life. Christian living from faith to faithfulness in theworld, as with Christ and his saving work, are both extraordinarywhile hidden, and ordinary as revealed.We are indeed, as Augustine recognized, a pilgrim peopleon our way to our ultimate home in the coming age. We awaitthe coming of our King and the fullness of our calling as citizensof a new age, to dawn when he returns. Life here within our oldcreation communities is temporary and provisional. Our visionof our final calling is shadowy and vague. It is not yet clear whatwe shall become. For now, our Lord directs our attention andenergies to the tasks he has called us to be about here, as wehope in the life to come. On the whole they are not very spectacularor compelling in the eyes of the world. Perhaps we coulddescribe them in the words of Mark Noll: They are by and large“remarkably unremarkable.” Let us explore them more closely.THE TASKS OF FAITHFULNESSAs Luther worked out from the Scriptures his Theology ofthe Cross and its application to Christian vocation, he realizedthat the call of Christ to the cross was a call to freedom. Thegospel abolishes slavish obedience to the Law and excludes thecommandments of church authorities that have no clear basisin God’s Word. Two major essays written in 1520 express theessence of Luther’s thinking about the character of Christianvocation under the cross: “The Freedom of the Christian” andthe treatise “On Good Works.”In “The Freedom of the Christian,” Luther captured St.Paul’s central point in his letter to the Galatians that the gospelof Christ is the end of the law. Living in Christ’s righteousnessimparts a polarity of freedoms: There is a “freedom from” and a“freedom to” for the children of God in the gospel. We havefreedom from any and all slavish forms of obedience and fromthe curse of the law. And we have freedom to live a life of faithand walk in the power of the Spirit. For Luther this meant thatobedience to the law was replaced for the Christian with theobedience of faith. He wrote:Is not such a soul most obedient to God in all thingsby this faith? What commandment is there that suchobedience has not completely fulfilled? What morecomplete fulfillment is there than obedience in allthings? This obedience, however, is not rendered byworks, but by faith alone. 7Faith grants to the Christian a freedom from slavish selflove,and freedom to love others, secure in God’s love. Thebondage of ordering all our projects to achieve self-justificationhas come to an end. The call of the gospel is not a summons todeny or denigrate self-love, nor does it forbid us our own commitmentsand projects in life. Rather, the righteousness of Christis the fulfillment of self-love in God’s love. Self-love may take abackseat and rest in the freedom and security of being “OK.” Sindistorted our loves by placing the self at the center and forefrontof life’s priorities. But now, secure in the verdict of the cross, theclaim of Christ calls forth a reordering of our loves that sin hasperverted, back to an expression of God’s original intention. Thefaith through which we are justified is expressed—it is acted outin life—through our loves as God originally ordered them.Faithfulness in Christian vocation is faith’s activity in love. As anew creation in Christ, the freedom of the Christian is hearingGod now address us with the following question: “What wouldyou like to do, now that you don’t have to do anything?’’ 8. . . the righteousness of Christ is thefulfillment of self-love in God’s love.Luther’s second writing, his treatise “On Good Works,” islargely an extended exposition on each of the Ten Commandments.It was a forerunner to the first chief part of his catechismswhich he wrote eight years later. Luther recognized thatthe commandments of God are a comprehensive summary ofthe law—the law which always unmasks our sinfulness andreveals God’s judgment. Yet Luther also recognized that thesecommandments also express all that the Christian needs toknow from God about good and God-pleasing works.He realized that the commandments sketch out both thecontext of where Christian vocation is to be lived, and theorder of our loves as God would have faith in Christ expressthem. Good works are not some extraordinary deeds that wetake time out from ordinary life to perform. Nor are theyexpressions about some intrinsic value of a life of self-denial.Rather, the commandments describe the natural outworking offaith in the everyday affairs of daily living in our families, workand community. Indeed, the commandments presuppose livinglife in these social orders of the old creation.The first table of the commandments presupposes that allhuman living flows from a personal involvement of the holyGod in our lives. He created us; he graciously preserves us; anddaily he provides for all our needs. The Fourth Commandmenttakes for granted that we live in the context of family and ageneral society of others ordered by the structures of government.The Fifth Commandment presumes interaction withothers that can affect bodily welfare. The Sixth Commandmenttakes for granted sexual contact and the community of husbandand wife in marriage. The Seventh, Ninth and TenthCommandments presume private possessions, and some kindof appropriate exchange of goods and services. The EighthCommandment reflects the reality that we touch and interactwith one another through communication. The commandmentsreflect the interpersonal character of how we live, workand carry on our ordinary projects of life.

8 LOGIAThe greatest insight of Luther in his treatise, however, washis recognition of the primacy and all-embracing thrust of theFirst Commandment. First, this means that we must approachall of our tasks and commitments in life from the perspectiveof “fear, love and trust in God.” Indeed, we are to orient ourwhole being within such a relation to God. Secondly, Lutherrecognized that the First Commandment is embedded in allthe others. All doing that includes the concerns raised in theremainder of the commandments Luther understood as a“doing of faith.” He called this a theological sense of doingrather than a moral sense of doing. To this point he wrote:In theology, therefore, “doing” necessarily requiresfaith itself as a precondition. . . . Therefore “doing”is always understood in theology as doing with faith,so that doing with faith is another sphere and a newrealm, so to speak, one that is different from moraldoing. When we theologians speak about “doing”therefore, it is necessary that we speak about doingwith faith, because in theology we have no right reasonand good will except faith. 9Faith in Christ is first expressed in fear and love of God. Thenour love of God becomes channeled into loving service towardothers. Our justification through faith in Christ is thusexpressed in life through loving service to our neighbor.. . . the commandments describe thenatural outworking of faith in theeveryday affairs of daily living in ourfamilies, work and community.Luther recognized that “our neighbor” is determined bywhere we are placed in life. We are limited and dependent creatureswho have been called by the gospel to live within the communitiesin the context of our vocation. This context we couldcall our “circle of nearness,” which particularizes and limits ourcall to serve. Here we encounter real flesh-and-blood peoplewith names and faces. We have not been called to love someabstract humanity, but this does not mean that love is limited tosimply “my station and its duties.” Our circle of nearness alsoincludes the stranger whom we encounter in our path as we tendto our station and its duties. This is what the “certain Samaritan”in the parable understood that apparently the priest and theLevite did not. Jesus implied the same thing when he told us thatinasmuch as we serve the least of his brothers, we serve him.Each of the interpersonal spheres reflected in the secondtable of the commandments becomes a context where God callsus to act out our trust in Christ and love of God. Our tasks ofloving service will vary according to our relationships and commitmentswithin the communities we inhabit. The character ofloving service will be different toward our spouse than towardthe student in the classroom or the check-out person at thelocal supermarket. The commandments do not define love nordo they present an exhaustive list of its duties. Rather they setparameters within which our duties can be found, and beyondwhich our projects and our loves may not go. Given the boundariesof the “shalls” and the “shall nots,” the Scriptures simplyassume that we know what love is and that where it exists in allits joy and spontaneity, it will find its own way. God leaves thematter up to our own creative determination as we encounterthe peculiarities of the people, situations and places in our life.Freedom reigns here, and the possibilities are endless. WhatGod wants us to do is to live out our faith and our loves creatively.Can this involve our own interests, projects and goals?Surely it can. As Luther observed about the Christian’s calling,that which the Scriptures do not forbid is permitted. Here wehave reached the outer limits of a Christian piety. It is tied tothe possibilities of loving service that expresses the obedience offaith. The cross is the Christian’s sentence to a life of freedom.The verdict of God in the cross has set us free to choose andpursue our own activities and goals, so long as they do not conflictwith his call. Our journey of faith through this life involvesthe “gentle art of getting used to our justification.” 10THE PIETY OF THE CHURCHIn our discussion of Christian vocation up to this point,we have focused our attention on God’s call of faith as it islived and expressed by the individual believer within the socialcommunities where God has placed him to live. We haveexplored the life of faith as a life of service and reordered love.Now we want to turn our attention to the corporate dimensionof God’s call that relates to our vocation to be a fellowship offaith—to be a called-out community of God’s people—whatwe more commonly refer to as Christ’s church. We may thinkof our individual vocations within the old creation structuresof life as callings to be the “church scattered.” Here Christianpiety flows from the obedience of subjective faith in projects ofloving service. Individual Christian piety is usually extraordinarilyordinary. We now want to briefly consider the piety ofthe church corporate and for that we must investigate the contoursof vocation for the “church gathered.” This is whatWerner Elert has called “we” piety. 11The church gathered is called to be the family of God thatlives by faith under the grace and the headship of Christ. Thisis what the church is called to be, and it is its primary vocation.Flowing from this primary call is a call to duty. Unlike individualChristian piety, however, the church’s piety is expressed inobjective tasks that need not flow from the subjective faith ofthe individual Christian to be valid. While the piety of the individualChristian is largely subjective in nature and thus hiddenin the ordinary tasks and duties that arise from membership inold world communities, Christian piety considered corporatelyis objective and made up of specific commands of Christ thatare open to the observation and measure of all. This is “we”piety—where Christian piety is ordinarily extraordinary. Hereis where Christians exhibit and display their righteousness andholiness; here it is made manifest to all. In manifesting itsrighteousness and holiness, the church shows off its Head anddistributes his gift of holiness. This is Gottesdienst, the holy

THE OUTER LIMITS OF A LUTHERAN PIETY 9Pietism creeps into the church’s thinking. . . when the works of God aretied to a “higher calling.”Bride of Christ expressing her faith objectively in proclamationof the gospel as Christ taught it to his apostles, and in administrationof his sacraments as he instructed. In addition, thechurch is called to admonish and discipline its impenitentmembers and restore them through his grace when theyrepent. Through the performance of these tasks as means, Jesusand his righteousness are made manifest in the world andbestowed on sinners. Moreover, by these means as marks, thechurch is located and its piety unmistakenly observed. Thechurch gathered has no phantom existence in the world.Indeed, unlike the individual Christian, it is identified throughits piety, the righteousness and holiness of Christ as manifestedin the gospel and sacraments.Through the church’s piety, its Head continues his ministryof building up and extending the Kingdom of God. Tocarry out this vocation of the church, Christ calls pastors today,as he called the apostles before, to carry out the church’s corporatecall in the ministry of word and sacrament. When weconsider the church scattered, we see individual Christianswho receive their vocation from God in their baptism, a call tolive in the grace of Christ by faith as a member of God’s familyprimarily and to express that faith in a life of service in theduties and commitments of the old world communities. Whenwe consider the church gathered, we see her receive her callfrom Christ before he ascended into heaven, and she is calledto express her faith in the public proclamation of the gospeland the administration of the sacraments.Individual members of God’s family relate to the call ofthe church gathered in two ways. First, we are called in theThird Commandment not to despise fellowship in the Wordnor absent ourselves from it. Rather, we are called to partakeregularly of God’s Word as it is proclaimed, and the sacramentsas they are administered. This is of crucial importance,for through the means of grace Christ nurtures our faith andequips and empowers it for daily works of service. Second, thechurch scattered is to witness to Christ and mutually admonishand console one another within our circle of nearness as partof our works of service. When Jesus was with his disciples inthe upper room, he schooled the church scattered about thelife of loving service. It even includes the ordinary dirty businessof life, like washing feet. But when he came to “this is mybody . . . do this in remembrance of me” he called the churchgathered to a part of its vocation.The primary piety of the church scattered is sacrificial innature, and the primary piety of the church gathered is sacramental.The sacrificial life of the church scattered flows fromthe grace-bestowing sacramental life of the church gathered.Corporate piety is always logically prior to individual piety. Asopportunity and need arise, however, we witness to Christ inour individual callings. And as need and opportunity arise, thechurch gathered offers sacrificial service. At Paul’s request, thechurches in Greece took up a collection to aid the faminestrickenchurch in Jerusalem. The church gathered has similarprojects today. The church is hidden within the old worldstructures of society and even in the structures of church government;but it is revealed to faith in terms of its presence byits word and sacrament service. Individual Christian piety isextraordinarily ordinary because its godliness is largely hidden.Corporate church piety, however, is ordinarily extraordinary—and its godliness, which is the righteousness of Christ, is mademanifest in word and sacrament. If you want to see Christianpiety on bold display, Lutherans in the Theology of the Crosssay, “Here it is!” On this count, church historian Mark Nollhad some remarkably favorable things to say about the contributionsAmerican Lutheranism can make to the AmericanChristian scene. He wrote:The Protestant tendency in America has been topreserve the importance of preaching, Bible-reading,the sacraments (or ordinances), and Christian fellowship,but to interpret these as occasions for human actsof appropriation. That God saves in baptism, that Godgives himself in the Supper, that God announces hisWord through the sermon, that God is the best interpreterof his written Word—these Lutheran convictionsare all but lost in the face of American confidence inhuman capacity.Finally what Lutherans can offer Americans is thevoice of Luther, a voice of unusual importance in Christianhistory . . . because in it we hear uncommon resonanceswith the voice of God. ... For whatever reason,in the effable wisdom of God, the speech of MartinLuther rang clear where others merely mumbled. 12THE PERILS OF PIETISMIf we go beyond these outer limits of a piety that lives inthe Theology of the Cross as Luther enunciated it with suchclarity and power, we will inevitably lapse into a false pietyborn from the many theologies of glory that are strewn aboutin church history. Here piety usually lapses into pietism, legalismand pharisaism. Pietism creeps into the church’s thinkingwhen it begins to develop a negative attitude about participationin the worldly interests and concerns of this life; when theworks of God are tied to a “higher calling” in this life thatought to separate us from the affairs of secular life in family,neighborhood and state. When the piety of the Christian ismeasured by a certain outward code of demonstrably holyacts—even if they are drawn from the Bible—we havelaunched into a theology of glory. Historically, pietism wasLutheran orthodoxy stood on its head. Orthodox Christianity(as articulated in confessional Lutheranism) embraces theobjective presentation of Christ and his gifts as they are mediatedby the Spirit-breathed external word and sacraments.Flowing from these gifts of righteousness and holiness, a sub-

10 LOGIAjective personal piety is expressed in faith that is active in worksof loving service. Pietism argued for a subjective mediation ofChrist and the Spirit within the heart of the Christian, whilethe expressions of Christian piety are to be objectively delineatedand divorced from the tasks of worldly concern.“Nave piety” replaces the obedience offaith flowing from the righteousness ofChrist with obedience to the law.Luther depicted a piety of outward works devised by thereligious opinions of men as “churchyard piety.” Monasticismwas the contemporary expression of churchyard piety thatLuther condemned as a false and empty piety that burdenedconsciences and took Christians away from the real tasks in theworld that God would have them be about. This was cloisteredmonasticism. Today we must beware of church body or congregationalchurchyard piety: modern ecclesiastical monasticismthat seeks to inundate its church membership with a veritableplethora of programs, activities and organizational eventsthat lack the context of a true Christian vocation of sacrificialservice in the old world communities of life. “Piety” becomesprogram involvement and participation in everything from“quilting for Christ” to “living prayer chains for endangeredanimals.” In some churches, if one does not schedule life andthe use of gifts according to the week’s “Calendar of ChristianEvents,” something is seen as terribly wrong. One has not beenassimilated into the regimen of real Christian living. Some congregationsare even calling a special pastor in charge of assimilatingmembers into all of these super-spiritual events: the Pastoror Director of Assimilation. The thinly veiled messageseems to be “Blessed are the involved and assimilated, for theyshall inherit the kingdom of God.” Activism in works that donot flow from one’s vocational call is present in every age as atemptation to leave ordinary duties of Christian piety for theextraordinary. This is churchyard piety.Luther had a warning about one more variety of false piety,what he called “nave piety.” Nave piety replaces the obedience offaith flowing from the righteousness of Christ with obedience tothe law. Today some within Lutheran circles are seeking toreplace the obedience of faith with a faith defined by obedience.This, we are told, is the real goal of the gospel. 13 The gospel hasthe central objective to turn us all into obedient people underGod’s legal system. Life with God is said not to terminate evangelicallyon the gospel—it is not the Good News of death to life.Rather, the gospel merely provides the ticket of admission to alegal life of obedience to the precepts of law. Gospel is to law asmeans are to end. The lordship of Christ is not the dominion ofgrace, but the rule of Christ as lawgiver. This is the Reformednotion of the gospel in the service of the law—the idea that Godhas saved us for obedience.Away with these things. We must follow Luther from thechurchyard, from the nave, into the sanctuary where life withGod, the truly godly and pious life, begins and ends with therighteousness of Christ which is the obedience of faith. When itgoes to work in the world it may seem rather ordinary, yes evendead, when not looked upon through the eyes of faith. But herein the old world tasks of everyday life is the outer limits for theexpression of the righteousness of faith. The inner limits however,are found in the sanctuary. When we gather together inthe sanctuary, when we parade our “we” piety through themanifestation of Christ in word and sacrament, there is theextraordinary righteousness of us all—our true piety that hasset us free. And that, Mark Noll and all Christians can recognizeand confess with Luther, is and will always remain extraordinaryand—remarkable! LOGIANOTES1. Mark Noll, “The Lutheran Difference,” First Things(February 1992) p. 31.2. Noll, p. 33.3. AE 26:2354. Werner Elert, The Christian Ethos, trans. by Carl J.Schindler (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957) p. 73.5. AE 26:235–236.6. A sermon of Luther’s delivered on Feb. 24, 1517, WA1.138.13–15, as cited in Alister E. McGrath, Luther’s Theology ofthe Cross (Cambridge, Mass.: Basil Blackwell, 1990) p. 167.7. AE 31:350.8. Gerhard O. Forde, Justification by Faith: A Matter ofDeath and Life (Ramsey, N.J.: Sigler Press, 1990) pp. 57–58.9. AE 26:262–263.10. This is Gerhard Forde’s striking depiction of the sanctificationof the Christian in his presentation of “The LutheranView” of sanctification in Christian Spirituality: Five Views ofSanctification, edited by Donald L. Alexander (Downers Grove,Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988) pp. 13–32.11. Elert, pp. 336–345.12. Noll, p. 39.13. This is the central thesis of Bickel/Nordlie’s The Goal ofthe Gospel: God’s Purpose in Saving You (St. Louis: ConcordiaPublishing House, 1992) p. 271 ff.

Conditional Forgivenessand the Translation of 1 John 1:9JOHN M. MOEJOHN FENTON IN HIS EXCELLENT ARTICLE, “IF WE CONFESSOur Sins: Conditional Forgiveness and 1 John 1:9,” 1 hassounded a much-needed corrective to the common misunderstandingof 1 John 1:9. “But if we confess our sins, God,who is faithful and just, will forgive our sins and cleanse usfrom all unrighteousness” is the translation used in the publicworship of many Lutheran Churches. 2 He is, I believe,absolutely correct when he says “To most people, these wordsmean: . . . (B) confessing our sins results in God forgiving usour sins just as he promised and because he is fair.” 3 He is alsocorrect in pointing out that this is not a classical “if X then Y”conditional sentence in which condition Y exists as the resultof condition X. I believe, however, that the Rev. Fenton hasmissed a very strong argument in favor of the point he is makingwhen he says that the fault for this misunderstanding is“not because of a faulty translation.” 4The Greek has eja;n oJmologw'men ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n,pistov" ejstin kai; divkaio" i{na ajfh/' hJmi'n ta;" aJmartiva" kai;kaqarivsh/ hJma'" ajpo; pavsh" ajdikiva". “If we confess our sins,faithful he is and righteous to forgive to us the sins and tocleanse us from all unrighteousness.” There are a number ofways in which the rendering of this verse by the Lutheran Bookof Worship (LBW) and Lutheran Worship (LW) is unfaithful tothe Greek text, all of which contribute to the false notion thatthe forgiveness and cleansing of which John writes is the resultof our confession.Both hymnals have “If we say we have no sin, we deceiveourselves, and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins,God, who is faithful and just, will forgive our sins and cleanseus from all unrighteousness.” 5The conjunction “but” has been added (“But if we confess,”etc.) where the Greek has no conjunction at all. Thisforces a logical connection between verse eight and verse ninethat is not there in the Greek. If saying that we have no sin isunderstood to result in deceiving ourselves in verse eight, theadded “but” to begin verse nine insures that the forgivenessand cleansing will be seen as the result of our confession.ABOUT THE AUTHORJOHN MOE is pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church, Rosemount,Minnesota.11But the major fault with the translation of verse nine liesnot with the added “but” but with the distortion of theGreek grammar in the hymnals’ version. If we assume this tobe a conditional sentence, we must divide it into the protasis,eja;n oJmologw'men ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n, and the apodosis,pistov" ejstin kai; divkaio" i{na ajfh/' hJmi'n ta;" aJmartiva" kai;kaqJarivsh/ hJma'" ajpo; pavsh” ajdikiva". The apodosis, it will benoted, is an independent clause. 6 It can stand as a sentenceby itself with subject (“He,” understood), finite verb (“is”),and a i{na clause (“to forgive our sins and cleanse us from allunrighteousness”). The force of the i{na clause is disputed,but the dispute is whether the i{na clause should be seen as apurpose or as a result clause. 7 That dispute is not pertinentto our discussion here however, for either way, our forgivenessand cleansing are the purpose or the result of God’sfaithfulness and righteousness and not the purpose or resultof our confession.The translation we are dealing with renders the infinitives,which are the purpose or the result of God’s faithfulnessand righteousness, with future indicatives “will forgive. . .” and “cleanse,” and the all-important attributes ofGod in a parenthetical phrase, “who is faithful and just.” Theresult allows, and even invites, an erroneous, conditionalunderstanding of what John has to say about forgivenesshere.Every grade-school grammar student knows that a parentheticalphrase can be overlooked without distorting themeaning of the sentence in which it lies. It merely addsinformation—pertinent, helpful information perhaps—butnot information which is essential to the meaning of the sentence.“But if we confess our sins, God, who is faithful andjust, will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness”makes logical sense without the parentheticalphrase: “But if we confess our sins, God will forgive our sinsand cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” This is the classicformulation of the conditional sentence and clearly soundslike the forgiveness and cleansing are the result of our confession.But we have seen from the Greek that what John saysis that our forgiveness and cleansing are the result or thepurpose of God’s faithfulness and righteousness, not theresult of our confession. The translation clearly supports adistorted notion that is not in the Greek.

12 LOGIAThe translation, “But if we confess our sins, God, who isfaithful and just, will forgive our sins and cleanse us from allunrighteousness,” has a logical opposite which is “But if wedon’t confess our sins, God, who is faithful and just, will notforgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”That logical deduction, invited and supported by the translation,is a dangerous error which the Greek shows to beimpossible and bordering on the blasphemous. A faithfulrendering of the Greek grammar, given the same logicaltreatment, would be: “If we don’t confess our sins, he isn’tfaithful and righteous to forgive to us the sins and to cleanseus from all unrighteousness.” Clearly this is not a conditionalsentence in which the condition described in the apodosisdepends on the “if” of the protasis.Rev. Fenton is, I think, correct in his belief (if I understandhim correctly) that we English-speaking Americansseem to expect a conditional sentence of the “if X then Y”variety whenever we are confronted with the word “if.”There are examples in English, however, of the type of sentencehe refers to as “what Dr. James Voelz calls a ‘presentgeneral condition.’” 8 That is to say there are others besides1 John 1:9. Two quick examples might be Luke 5:12, Kuvrie,eja;n qevlh/" duvnasaiv mh kaqarivvsai (“Lord, if you wish, youare able to cleanse me”) and Luke 22:67, Eja;n uJmi'n ei[pw oujmh; pisteuvshte. (“If I tell you, you will not believe”).Also, eja;n is not always best rendered “if.” A bit further onin this same letter John writes eja;n fanerwqh/' o{moioi aujtw/'ejsovmeqa (1 Jn 3:2). I know of no translation which renders this“If he appears we will be like him.” “When” seems to be thecorrect choice in this instance. I would suggest that “when”might be a better choice for the rendering of eja;n in 1 John 1:9 aswell. And although it may not read as smoothly in English, Iwould also suggest that the infinitive verb forms of the Greekbe retained in the apodosis to avoid distorting John’s meaning(that our forgiveness and cleansing are the purpose or result ofGod’s faithfulness and righteousness, not the result of our confession).I would attempt to render John’s Greek into Englishwith something like the following:eja;n oJmologw'men ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n, pistov" ejstinkai; divkaio" i{na ajfh/' hJmi'n ta;" aJmartiva" kai;kaqarivsh/ hJma'" ajpo; pavsh" ajdikiva". When we confessour sins, faithful he is and righteous to forgive oursins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. LOGIA1. Rev. John Fenton, “If We Confess Our Sins: ConditionalForgiveness and 1 John 1:9,” LOGIA Vol.2, No. 1 (Epiphany/January1993) p. 49.2. Lutheran Worship, pp. 158, 178; Lutheran Book of Worship,pp. 56, 77, 98.3. Fenton.4. Fenton.5. This translation matches no English Bible translation I havebeen able to find. Of the many which I have checked, it is closest tothe RSV which has, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just,and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”“But” has been added in the hymnal and “he is faithful and just, andwill . . .” has been changed to “God, who is faithful and just,will. . . .” Could it be that a desire to clarify the “he” of the RSV forliturgical usage has led to the hymnals’ regrettable weakening of thetranslation? The main point of John’s sentence, expressed with thefinite verb (i.e. “he is faithful and righteous”), has become not muchmore than an aside (“God, who [by the way] is faithful and just”).6. A search of every New Testament occurrence of eja;n revealsthree other sentences with a verbal clause controlled by eja;n and ai{na clause in the apodosis: Mt 18:16 eja;n de; mh; ajkouvsh/, paravlabemeta; sou' e[ti e{na h] duvo, i[na ejpi; stovmato" duvo martuvrwn h] triw'nstaqh/' pa'n rJh'ma, Jn 14:3 kai; eja;n poreuqJw' kai; ejtoimavswNOTEStovpon uJmi'n, pavlin e[rcomai kai; paralhvmyomai uJma'" pro;"ejmautovn, i{na o{pou eijmi; ejgw; kai; uJmei'" h\te, and 2 Cor 9:4 mhvpw” eja;n e[lqJwsin su;n ejmoi; Makedovne" kai; eu{rwsin uJma’"ajparaskeuavstou" kataiscunqJw'men hJmei'", i{na mh; levgwuJmei'", ejn th/' uJpostavsei tauvth/. Note that in the Matthew andJohn passages, which parallel the grammar of 1 John 1:9, theapodosis is an independent clause, and the i{na clause is dependenton the action of the verb preceding it and not on the verbcontrolled by eja;n (i.e., at Mt 18:16 the word is establishedbecause of taking one or two with you, not because the brotherdid not hear, etc.).7. The dispute is not over this verse only, but the moregeneral question of whether i{na is ever used to express result orif it must always be understood as expressing purpose. Robertsondisagrees with Burton saying, “He considers Rev. 13:13,poiei' shmei'a megavla, i{na kai; pu'r poih/' ejk tou' oujranou'katabaivnein, as the most probable instance of i{na denotingactual result. But there are others just as plain, if not clearer.Thus 1 John 1:9 pistov" ejstin kai; divkaio", i{na ajfh/' hJmi'n ta;"aJmartiva"” (A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testamentin the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: BroadmanPress, 1934) p. 998).8. Fenton.

Preaching to Preachers: Isaiah 6:1‒8DONALD MOLDSTADIn the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lordsitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his trainfilled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: eachone had six wings; with twain he covered his face, andwith twain he covered his feet, and with twain he didfly. And one cried unto another, and said, “Holy, holy,holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of hisglory.” And the posts of the door moved at the voice ofhim that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.Then said I, “Woe is me! for I am undone; because Iam a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of apeople of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen theKing, the Lord of hosts.” Then flew one of the seraphimunto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he hadtaken with the tongs from off the altar: And he laid itupon my mouth, and said, “Lo, this hath touched thylips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sinpurged.” Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying,“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Thensaid I, “Here am I; send me.”AS A STUDENT OF THE HISTORY OF ART I HAVE VIEWEDthousands of slides, paintings, drawings and sculpture.Yet I cannot recall seeing a painting of the commissioningof Isaiah (Is 6:1–8). That may be due in part to the challengeof portraying the glory of God. It is very difficult to portraythis glory adequately. Even the more familiar paintings ofthe transfiguration of Christ are feeble attempts to display thissplendor.Man is unable to face the glory of the almighty Lord.Moses hid his face from the burning bush. At the transfigurationwe are told that the disciples fell face down, terrified. Herein our text, Isaiah is struck with intense guilt before God. Hisreaction is nothing but sheer despair. The first words from hismouth demonstrate this: “Woe to me I am ruined!” His wordsremind us of Peter upon experiencing the great catch of fishesABOUT THE AUTHORDONALD MOLDSTAD is pastor of King of Grace Lutheran Church,Golden Valley, Minnesota. This confessional address was preached toa circuit pastoral conference of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod.13orchestrated by Christ. When sensing the great disparitybetween himself and the glorious Son of God, he falls to thefeet of his Lord, and cries, “Get away from me Lord, for I am asinful man.” The brightness of God’s glory, the display of hisholiness, exposes all the more man’s wickedness and mortality.Isaiah writes that the angels sing, “Holy, holy, holy”—theHebrew word v/dq; is used, which means “set apart,” emphasizingthe distinction between the holy God and sinful mortalman. The comparison is unbearable for the prophet.We make comparisons all the time in our world. When wecompare ourselves to others, we can begin to imagine ourselvesbetter than we ought. That is especially true for those of us inthe teaching and preaching ministry. We receive the gratitudeof other believers, and at times their praises too, since we arededicated to the work of the Lord full time. But Satan can useeven this blessing of being entrusted with the mysteries of Godand turn it into a temptation of self-inflation.Furthermore, there is a need, due to our calling, for anincreased outward righteousness in our daily lives. It is expected,demanded of us. It is part of what we are before the world.Because of all this there is no more fertile garden for the seedsof pride and self-righteousness than in the office of the publicministry today. It is significant that in the parable of the publicanand the Pharisee in the Temple, Christ used the role of thePharisee—the moral, spiritual leader of his day—to representself-righteousness. In teaching it today he might choose to usea confessional Lutheran pastor. And if that thought troublesus, it shows the truth of it all the more.We condemn the liberal and Reformed who question theclear teachings of the Word of God, looking at them in derision,thinking, “God, I thank thee, I’m not as other men are.”Yet, in our own thoughts and in the inner chambers of ourhearts, we are just as full of doubt. The greatest temptation forthose called to the gospel ministry is pride.And on the other side is another danger: those who are theclosest to operating the knives of God’s law are most apt to getcut. We deal with that law all the time in preaching, teachingand counseling. It carves and cuts. So when the called ministerof God falls into sin, or looks back on past failings, it can drivethe preacher to despair. We are reminded all the more of thegreat difference between what our members or students imagineus to be and what we see in our own hearts.

1 CORINTHIANS 11:29‒“DISCERNING THE BODY” 17In chapter 11 Paul never uses sw'ma in reference to the church(not counting the disputed use in v. 29). But ejkklhsiva occursthree times: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we haveno other practice—nor do the churches of God”(v. 16); “In the firstplace, I hear that when you come together as a church, there aredivisions among you, and to some extent I believe it” (v. 18); and“Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise thechurch of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall Isay to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!” (v. 22). Inthese and the preceding verses Paul deals with the sectarianism anduncaring behavior of some of the Corinthians. It is not necessaryfor him to repeat it in verse 29. Beginning with verse 23 Paul is concernedwith the Lord’s Supper itself and how it is being misusedand abused and the consequences of judgment. In verses 23–26 herepeats the Words of Institution about the essence and purpose ofthe Lord’s Supper. In verses 27–29 he talks about the consequencesand implications of the Lord’s Supper in the Corinthian congregation.Being reminded of the purpose and blessings of the Lord’sSupper, Paul expected the problem of disunity at the Lord’s Tableto be corrected.THE MEANING OF DIAKRINEI'N—DISCERNINGThe basic meanings of this word include “to part,” “to sift,”“to make a distinction,” “to differentiate,” “to judge,” “todoubt,” “to separate,” “to discriminate a person/thing from therest.” 13 As we study the use of this word in the New Testamentwe learn what we are to discern and what we are not to discern.It is proper to diakrinei'n (discern) ourselves: “But if wejudged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.” (1 Cor11:31). It is also permitted to discern legal disputes (controversies):“I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody amongyou wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?” (1 Cor 6:5).It is also proper to do this with the devil: “But even the archangelMichael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body ofMoses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him,but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” (Jude 1:9). People also discernthe sign of the sky: “He replied, ‘When evening comes, you say, “Itwill be fair weather, for the sky is red,” and in the morning,“Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.” (Mt 16:2).You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannotinterpret the signs of the times’.” This last reference is a goodparallel to 1 Corinthians 11:29 as diakrinei'n is used in a sense to seesomething that is not obvious to the uninformed person. To theuninformed person it is only a red sky, but the informed see more,what kind of day it will be. Likewise in the Supper there is morethan meets the eye. There is more than simply bread and wine; thebody and blood of Christ are present as we have been told by theWords of Institution.This understanding is reinforced in 1 Corinthians 10:15, 16where Paul uses the verb krinei'n in connection with the realpresence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Lord’sSupper. Paul says, “I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselveswhat I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which wegive thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is notthe bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?”Paul is asking people to judge, to discern, that there is morethan bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. Though this is notevident to the eyes, it is evident by the Words of Institutionwhich are accepted in faith.Furthermore, diakrinei'n does not appear to be the appropriateverb to use if sw'ma refers to the church. If by “church,” “people”are meant, a word study on diakrinei'n shows that this issomething that we are not to do in the church, i.e., to fellow believers.Some examples: “He made no distinction between us and them,for he purified their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:9); “For who makesyou different from anyone else? What do you have that you did notThe phrase “not discerning the body”refers to the real presence of the bodyof Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supperand not to the church.receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though youdid not?” (1 Cor 4:7); “Have you not discriminated among yourselvesand become judges with evil thoughts?” (Jas 2:4). The point isthat we are not to discern the body of Christ, i.e., the church. Weare not to make distinctions and show discrimination among fellowbelievers. But this is precisely what Paul speaks against in verses17–22 as he mentions the sin of despising and humiliating thechurch. However, in verse 29 Paul says the opposite of this: “Foranyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of theLord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” He criticizes theCorinthians because they should be discerning the body, and theyare not. This leads us to conclude, then, that Paul is not using theword sw'ma to refer to the church, fellow believers.CONCLUSIONIn summary, the phrase “not discerning the body” refers tothe real presence of the body of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supperand not to the church. We have based this conclusion on: 1) Theimmediate context of the verse (vv. 17–34, especially the versescontaining the Words of Institution, and chapter 10, especiallyvv. 16, 17); 2) The meaning of sw'ma in the immediate context; 3)The meaning of the word diakrinei'n and its appropriate use inreference to the real presence, and its inappropriate use in referenceto the church; 4) That the frequent use of sw'ma in chapter 12should not influence the interpretation of “discerning the body”;5) If Paul had the church in mind he had precedent in chapter 11to use ejkklhsiva (vv. 16, 18, 22) again in verse 29 but did not.6) The lexicons understand verse 29 as referring to the Lord’sbody in the Supper and not to the church.There were two closely related problems addressed by Paulin 1 Corinthians 11. The presenting problem was the division anddiscrimination manifested when the Corinthians came together.However, the root problem was a false view of the Lord’s Supperwith reference to the real presence of Christ’s body and blood. Inverse 29 Paul is addressing this root problem. He warns all whocome to the Supper of the Lord that belief in the real presence isrequired of all to partake in a worthy manner and not receive ajudgment. As such, Paul’s words still apply today and have implicationsfor the issue of open versus closed communion. LOGIA

18 LOGIA1. Unless otherwise stated, all biblical quotations are fromthe New International Version.2. AE 40:185, 186.3. AE 37:347, 348.4. Chemnitz writes in Ministry, Word, and Sacraments—AnEnchiridion [trans. by Luther Poellot, (St. Louis: ConcordiaPublishing House, 1981) p. 130]: “But the following are they thateat unworthily, as one can very clearly gather from Paul, 1 Cor11:1. They that do not discern the body of the Lord, that is [they]that do not hold that the very sacred food of this Supper is thebody and blood of Christ, but handle and use it with no greaterreverence and devotion than other common foods.”5. The Book of Concord has two references to 1 Corinthians11:29: Ap XI (Tappert 18, p. 5) and FC Ep VII (Tappert 484, p. 18).6. Colin Brown, ed., The New International Dictionary ofNew Testament Theology, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishing House, 1976) p. 237.7. Paul Hinlicky, ed., Forum Letter, Vol. 21, No. 5 (May 28,1992) p. 6.8. Joseph A. Burgess, ed., Lutherans in Ecumenical Dialogue—AReappraisal (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990) p. 44.9. This crisis has been noted by a number of individuals.Vol. 22, No. 8, p. 6 of “Forum Letter” calls the readers’ attentionto a monograph by Luther A. Gotwald, Jr., “The Trial ofLuther A. Gotwald—A Lutheran Identity Crisis,” delivered inNOTESApril of 1993 to the annual meeting of the Lutheran HistoricalSociety. In addition, reference is made to David A. Gustafson’sLutherans In Crisis: The Question of Identity in the AmericanRepublic.10. See Vergilius Ferm, The Crisis in American LutheranTheology (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1987) pp.117–235; and E. Clifford Nelson, ed., The Lutherans in NorthAmerica (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975) pp. 120–124, 127,217–227, 233.11. Grimm and Wilke. A Greek-English Lexicon of theNew Testament, translated and revised by Joseph H. Thayer(Wheaton, Ill.: Evangel Publishing Co., 1974) p. 611;W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,translated and edited by W. Arndt, F. Gingrich (Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1953) pp. 806, 807; G. Kittleand G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of The NewTestament. trans. by G. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: EerdmansPublishing Company, 1964) pp. 1024–1094. Bauer, Arndt,Gingrich and Kittle understand sw'ma in 1 Cor 11:29 as a referenceto the body of the Lord in the Supper. Thayer makesno reference to 1 Cor 11:29.12. W.R. Nicoll, ed., The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol.II. (New York: George H. Doran Company) p. 833.13. Bauer, Lexicon, p. 184; Kittle, Dictionary, Vol. III, p. 922;Thayer, Lexicon, p. 138.THE PASTOR’SCOMPANIONCROSS & CROWN PUBLISHING Is proud to offerTHE PASTOR’S COMPANIONrepublished for the first time in over 10 years.This 1932 publication by CPH is a useful toolfor Pastors making shut-in calls, hospital callsor for use in the worship service.The book is printed on ACID FREE PAPERencased in a black Lexotone hard cover.To order your copy send $20.00 plus $2.60for shipping and handling toCROSS & CROWN PUBLISHINGR.R. 1, Box 47Ceylon, MN 56121Minnesota residents please include $1.30 for state tax.

Using the Third UseFormula of Concord VI and the Preacher’s TaskJONATHAN G. LANGEIN LUTHERAN CIRCLES TODAY, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TOhear the various uses of the law treated as though they wereso many tools at the preacher’s disposal. According to thisview, the preacher’s task is to select just the right law-tool, i.e.,use, in order to accomplish the particular goal that he has inmind. For instance, if the preacher wishes to condemn hishearers, he must preach the second use, but if he wishes toinstruct in holy living he should preach the third use. 1 Foundationalto such a view is the assumption that the individual usesof the law may be employed at the preacher’s bidding. Is this avalid assumption? Is it confessionally sound? As the only locusin the Lutheran Symbols that delineates the various uses of thelaw by name, Article VI of the Formula of Concord, concerningthe third use, is the natural place to begin the query.Historically, Article VI of the Formula is closely tied toArticle V. Both articles were written in response to parties thatsought to exclude law preaching from certain spheres of theChurch’s proclamation. Article V answered the challenge ofAntinomians who taught that repentance should not bepreached from the law but from the gospel (Ep V, 1). 2 Theresulting thrust of Article V is to demonstrate that, strictlyspeaking, law preaching works repentance and gospel preachingdoes not. Article VI answers the challenge of a later varietyof Antinomian. 3 These claimed that good works are not to betaught by the law but by the gospel (SD VI, 2). 4 The burden ofArticle VI, therefore, is to assert that good works for the Christianare normed by law and not gospel. Taken together, thesearticles defend the preaching of the law in the Christian congregationsince this law preaching both works repentance(Article V) and instructs in righteous living (Article VI).Concentrating on the relationship between the law and goodworks, Article VI of the Formula sketches out two conflictingopinions. On the one side, the Antinomians taught that the regeneratedo not learn new obedience or good works “from the Lawbecause they have been made free by the Son of God, . . . andtherefore do freely of themselves what God requires of them” (SDVI, 2). 5 As a result, they held that the doctrine of good works oughtABOUT THE AUTHORJON LANGE is pastor of Immanuel Evangelical-Lutheran Church,Spencer, Nebraska.19not to be urged from the law that binds but from the gospel thatmakes free. On the other side, the authors of the Formula agreedwith the Antinomians that the regenerate are indeed moved byGod’s Spirit; and, according to the inner man, do God’s will freelyand without compulsion. Nevertheless, they asserted that the HolySpirit still makes use of the written law to instruct the regeneratein righteousness with the result that the Christian’s freely flowinggood works are always in accordance with God’s external Word(SD VI, 3). For this reason the Christian is instructed in goodworks on the basis of the law and not the gospel.The authors of the Formula assert the Lutheran positionwithin a carefully defined framework of dogmatic distinctions.These distinctions are so essential to the argument that if at anypoint they are blurred the intended sense of the Formula is lostin the confusion. Therefore, it should come as no surprise thatthe Formula here employs extremely precise terminology. Acorrect understanding of the Formula requires careful attentionto the terms involved.I. THE CHRISTIAN AND THE INNER MANThe foundational distinction at work in the Formula isone between the Christian and the inner man. In the usage ofthe Formula, the term “Christian” always refers to the Christianas he exists in this world. The Christian is simul justus etpeccator, consisting both in the new man created by spiritualregeneration and in the old man of his fleshly birth. The term“Christian” is used synonymously with the terms “true believers,”“truly converted,” “regenerated,” 6 and “justified by faith”(Ep VI, 2). Other equivalent terms are “justified Christian” (SDVI, 4), “children of God” (SD VI, 6), and “elect” (SD VI, 9). Allof these terms are used interchangeably to speak of the Christianas he exists in this world, but never are they used in referenceto the inner man. Later dogmaticians have labeled thisconcept by the phrase Christian in concreto. 7The inner man, on the other hand, is a designationemployed by the Formula to speak of the Christian only insofar“as he is born anew [and] does everything from a free, cheerfulspirit” (SD VI, 17). The inner man does not refer to a substancealtogether different from the Christian, but it narrows thefocus to only the saintly aspect of the Christian in concreto. Forthis reason later dogmaticians have dubbed the inner man asthe Christian qua Christian.

20 LOGIAWithin the Christian in concreto, the inner man and the oldAdam are at war inasmuch as “there also remains in them thestruggle between the spirit and the flesh” (SD VI, 18). Accordingly,the inner man involves the whole Christian—body andsoul together—but only insofar as he is born anew through thegospel. The old Adam, on the other hand, which also involvesboth body and soul, is not born anew by the gospel or evenreformed to any degree, but his only end is death. Thus, the oldAdam is not included in the essence of the Christian qua Christian.Yet, one must not understand the old Adam and the innerman to be separate or independent entities in this life. TheChristian in concreto always possesses the old Adam and theinner man inextricably bound together, ergo simul justus et peccator.While it is necessary to distinguish the inner man fromthe old Adam for clear theological discourse, one can never separatethem one from another until God himself does so in theresurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. 8. . . American evangelicalism wandersoff the mark when it claims tofind the difference between Christiansand unbelievers in measurable traits.The inner man can never be identified with any of theinternal or external powers of man. The Christian qua Christianis and remains an article of faith; and is not observable inthe understanding, the will, or any other tangible trait. 9 Toassume otherwise is to adopt a Nestorian anthropology withthe result that one speaks of the inner man acting on one occasionand the old Adam acting on another as if they could beidentified by sight. Here is precisely the point where Americanevangelicalism wanders off the mark when it claims to find thedifference between Christians and unbelievers in measurabletraits. In so doing, the inner man is separated from the oldAdam; and an empirical part of the Christian is placed abovethe reproach of the law and beyond its reach.The distinction between the Christian in concreto andChristian qua Christian is rooted in the doctrine of original sinas taught in Article I of the Formula. There it is affirmed thatthe human nature is so corrupted that no amount of dissectioncan reveal even one particle or one thought of sinful man thatis free from original sin. 10 This is the case not only before conversion,but also after conversion insofar as a Christianremains old Adam. 11 Article I of the Formula affirms this truthwhile simultaneously rejecting the notion that original sin is ofthe essence of human nature.While the Christian in concreto remains a sinner, incompleteand in need of the law insofar as he is also old Adam, theChristian qua Christian lacks nothing in regard to holiness andrighteousness either with need for the urging of the law or forits instruction. 12 This point is made clear by the Formula:[I]f the believing and elect children of God werecompletely renewed in this life by the indwellingSpirit, so that in their nature and all its powers theywere entirely free of sin, they would need no law . . .but they would do of themselves, and altogether voluntarily,without any instruction, admonition, urgingor driving of the Law, what they are in dutybound to do according to God’s will (SD VI, 6).For just as the sun and the moon follow the law of their presetorbits without force or compunction, but according to nature,so also the Christian lives according to the law of God withoutforce or compunction, but only insofar as he is a new man. Dr.Martin Luther’s sermon on the Epistle for the Nineteenth Sundayafter Trinity, which has received a confessional character byvirtue of the imprimatur given it in SD VI, 9, makes this point.Christians . . . thus enter again into their former relationand into the true paradise of perfect harmony withGod and of justification; they are comforted by his grace.Accordingly they are disposed to lead a godly life in harmonywith God’s commandments and to resist ungodlylusts and ways. . . . He, therefore, that would be aChristian should strive to be found in this new man createdafter God. 13According to Luther, the new man (Christian qua Christian) isa complete and perfect creature in which the believer (Christianin concreto) strives to be found through faith in Christ Jesus.II. FREEDOM FROM THE CURSE AND FREEDOMFROM THE EXERCISEThe distinction between the Christian in concreto and theChristian qua Christian leads naturally into a second. The confessorsmake two distinct assertions: First, that “justified Christiansare liberated and made free from the curse of the Law”(SD VI, 4); second, that these same Christians “should dailyexercise themselves in the Law” (SD VI, 4). The authors of theFormula maintain that, although the Christian is free from thecurse of the law, he is still bound to the exercise of the verysame law. Yet how is it possible to exercise one’s self in a lawthat always accuses while, at the same time, remaining freefrom the law’s curse and coercion? This paradox is resolvedwhen it is understood that the Christian is free from the curseof the law in a different sense than he is bound to its exercise.The authors of the Formula could assert both statementsas long as the foundational distinction between the Christian inconcreto and the Christian qua Christian was maintained. Thelogical progression of the Formula proceeds on this basis.“Christians . . . should daily exercise themselves in the Law. . . [because] the Law is a mirror in which the will of God,and what pleases Him, are exactly portrayed” (SD VI, 4). TheChristian in concreto must constantly examine his life in thelight of the law so that he might be shown the differencebetween the things that God is working in him by grace, andthe things that he himself is working according to the oldAdam (SD VI, 21). Although it is certain that “the law is notmade for a righteous man” (1 Tim 1:9), 14 it is false to conclude“that the justified are to live without the Law” (SD VI, 5). 15

USING THE THIRD USE 21According to the Formula, the meaning of St. Paul in 1 Timothycan only be that the law cannot burden the reconciled withits curse (maledictione sua), nor can it vex them with its coercion(coactione sua) (SD VI, 5). 16If the Christian is bound to exercise the law, in what senseis it true that he cannot be burdened by the curse or coercionof the law? Is it because the law applied to a Christian is differentfrom that which is applied to an unbeliever? Absolutelynot! “[T]he Law is and remains both to the penitent andimpenitent, both to regenerate and unregenerate men, one[and the same] Law, namely, the immutable 17 will of God” (EpVI, 7). A Christian is free from the curse of the law only becausehe has pleasure in the law according to the inner man (SD VI,5). To the extent that he lives according to the old Adam, theChristian in concreto remains under the law’s curse and punishments(SD VI, 9). 18 Thus, only the Christian qua Christian isfree from the curse of the law.It is not permissible to conclude that the Christian is freefrom the curse of the law because the accusing nature of thelaw is removed, “for the Law always accuses (lex semperaccusat)” (Ap IV, 38). Neither does the Formula imply thatthere is such a way to preach the law that separates it from itscurse. 19 Rather, a Christian is free from the law’s curse andcoercion only because “he is born anew [and] does everythingfrom a free, cheerful spirit” (SD VI, 17). Although the Christianin concreto is bound to the law with all of its force insofar as heis still old Adam, Francis Pieper correctly states, “For theChristian according to his new man the law is completelysuperfluous not only in part, but in its every Usus.” 20The authors of the Formula employed careful dogmaticdistinctions to maintain the typically Lutheran paradox that aChristian is freed from the curse of the law while simultaneouslybound to its exercise. This paradox was abolished by theAntinomians who simply denied that a Christian ought toexercise himself daily in the law (Ep VI, 1). Because of a failureto distinguish between the Christian in concreto and the Christianqua Christian, the Antinomians concluded that anyonewho is free from the curse of the law must also be free from itsexercise. Thus, for the Antinomians, the curse of the law wasmade identical with the exercise of the law.In addition to the error of the latter Antinomians, there is asecond distortion that can also result from the failure to distinguishthe Christian in concreto and the Christian qua Christian.This error abolishes the aforementioned paradox by proceedingas though there were two different laws. Since the Christian isfree from the curse of the law and since the same Christian isbound to exercise the law, it is supposed that there must exist aform of law preaching that does not curse or coerce the Christian.Thus, there is one law that always accuses, and from whichthe Christian is free, and another that has no curse or accusation,and in which the Christian must exercise himself daily.This rationale undergirds the popular notion that one canpreach the law after the gospel in such a way that the Christian isnot condemned, but is only guided by the Spirit. 21 With theclaim that the third use is just that form of law preaching thatcarries no curse or accusation and is used to instruct a Christianin good works, Article VI of the Formula is often trumpeted asthe confessional sedes for this idea. In reality, the Formula doesnot support this notion nearly as readily as do Calvin’s Institutes.The Formula teaches: “He [the Holy Ghost] exhorts them[the regenerate] thereto, and when they are idle, negligent, andrebellious in this matter because of the flesh, He reproves themon that account through the Law. . . . He slays and makesalive; He leads into hell and brings up again” (SD VI, 12). Comparethis to John Calvin who teaches: “The law is an exhortationto believers. This is not something to bind their conscienceswith a curse, but to shake off their sluggishness, byrepeatedly urging them, and to pinch them awake to theirimperfection.” 22 In the Formula, the law reproves, kills andcondemns the Christian, while in the Institutes, the law onlyshakes, urges and pinches the Christian.When the distinction between the Christian qua ChristianThe Antinomians concluded thatanyone who is free from the curseof the law must also be free fromits exercise.and the Christian in concreto is blurred and one operates as ifthe old Adam is separated from the inner man here in thisworld, the law is either banished from the church altogether, orits uses are separated into different messages which arepreached to different people at different times. The Formularejects both of these errors as “pernicious and detrimental toChristian discipline as also to true godliness” (SD VI, 26). 23The distinction between freedom from the exercise of thelaw and freedom from the curse of the law makes it clear thatany ideas of an exercise of the law that could be separated fromits curse and coercion are excluded. Modern preaching theoriesthat seek to find in the third use a brand of law preachingwhereby the preacher can instruct without accusing and exhortwithout coercing are ruled out by the Formula. Such an evangelicaluse of the law is simply nonexistent. 24III. THE LAW INSCRIBED AND THE LAW PROCLAIMEDWhile the Christian qua Christian is free from the lawaccording to its every use, it does not follow that he lives withoutthe law. Rather, the Formula maintains a perfect tensionby stating that, “even our first parents before the Fall did notlive without the Law” (Ep VI, 2), while also saying that whenman is “perfectly renewed in the resurrection . . . he will needneither the preaching of the Law nor its threatenings and punishments”(SD VI, 24). The perfected man has the law althoughhe does not need the law. This position cannot be comprehendedby means of the sinner/saint dichotomy that describesthe Christian in concreto because the sinner is not included inthe essence of the Christian qua Christian. It can only beunderstood in view of the distinction between the law proclaimedand the law inscribed upon the heart. The Christian inconcreto needs the law preached to him because of the old

22 LOGIAAdam while the Christian qua Christian has the law perfectlyinscribed in the heart. 25 This is a third essential distinction thatis operative in the Formula.When speaking of the law written upon the heart, the Formulaspeaks of the law that is not given by proclamation, butimplanted in the heart by creation (Ep VI, 2). 26 This is law inthe same sense as one would use the term law to describe theeffects of gravity. The law of gravity does not cause an object tofall to the earth but only describes what happens by nature. Soalso, the law inscribed in the heart is purely descriptive of whatthe perfect creation of God does by nature. 27 The proclaimedlaw, on the other hand, does not refer to the internal conditionof man but to an external proclamation of what that conditionought to be. This distinction is brought into sharp relief wherethe Solid Declaration brings both concepts into the same sentence.The authors of the Formula offer two proofs for theassertion that the justified are not to live without the law. “Forthe law of God has been written in their heart, and also to thefirst man immediately after his creation a law was givenThe proclaimed law . . . does notrefer to the internal condition of manbut to an external proclamation ofwhat that condition ought to be.according to which he was to conduct himself” (SD VI, 5). First,there is the law written upon the heart. Second, there was thelaw which was given concerning the tree of the knowledge ofgood and evil. 28 This distinction is vital for a proper understandingof the Formula. Without it, the Formula would givethe impression that both the original creation and also the newman in Christ have need to be taught the law, thereby denyingthat they have “the Law of God written also into their hearts,because they were created in the image of God” (Ep VI, 2). 29Luther also operates within the framework of this distinctionwhen he teaches of the correspondence between the prelapsarianperfection of Adam and the perfection of the Christianaccording to the new man in his sermon on the Epistle forthe Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity:For if God’s image is in man, man must consequentlyhave the right knowledge of God and right conceptionsand ideas, and lead a godly life consistent with holinessand righteousness as found in God himself. Such animage of God Adam was when first created. . . . Christians,by the grace and Spirit of God, now have beenrenewed to this image of God. 30The law written upon the heart, inscribed at the first creation(then subsequently rendered useless at the fall), is renewed bythe grace and Spirit of God and will remain in the new creationafter the resurrection of the dead.The proclaimed law, on the other hand, lacks such an eternalaspect. 31 According to the Solid Declaration, the preachingof the law belongs only “to this mortal and imperfect life” (SDVI, 24). If the third use is indeed a function of the preached law,then its purely temporal nature will not let it be equated withthe eternal law written upon the heart. Rather, the law writtenupon the heart corresponds with the image of God which existedprior to sin and will continue after “the body of sin is entirelyput off, and man is perfectly renewed in the resurrection,when he will need neither the preaching of the Law nor itsthreatenings and punishments” (SD VI, 24). Plainly, the lawwritten upon the heart is not synonymous with the third use.Since there will be no need of preaching the law in the resurrection,it is clear that the force of all preached law, includingthe third use, is not directed toward the Christian qua Christianbut only toward the old Adam, who is constantly with theChristian in concreto as long as he remains in this world. 32While it is true that the third use of the law serves as a rule andguide for the Christian in concreto, it can never be a guide forthe Christian qua Christian 33 because the preached law servesno purpose for the inner man. 34 The law governs the innerman by virtue of its inscription on the heart. Nevertheless, therenewal of the heart is not accomplished through law preaching,but only by the gospel. 35 For “the Holy Ghost, who is givenand received, not through the Law, but through the preachingof the Gospel, renews the heart” (SD VI, 11). In this sense,the preached law does not have a positive role in the formationof the Christian, but only a negative one. 36 For, “to reprove isthe peculiar office of the Law” (SD VI, 14).The law according to its third use is relevant only for theChristian because only by virtue of the new creation can a manask, “What is the good and acceptable will of God?” The needfor Christians even to ask this question, however, is always evidencethat “the old Adam still clings to them in their natureand all its internal and external powers” (SD VI, 7). This factmakes it impossible for the Christian in concreto to discern thelaw that has been inscribed perfectly upon his heart and necessarythat he hear the law proclaimed. Since there is no isolatedpart of the Christian that remains free of the old Adam, the lawis continually preached to the Christian in concreto on accountof the old Adam as long as he remains on this side of the grave.After the resurrection, however, the law will no longer bepreached since the old Adam no longer exists in heaven.CONCLUSIONCareful attention to the terminology and distinctions ofArticle VI demonstrates that the third use was not set forth as aparticular way for the preacher to wield the law. This, ofcourse, does not deny that there are many different approachesto law preaching. For instance, the law can be preached asimperative or prohibition, as exhortation to holy living or as apositive description of the new creation to name just a few.However, the Formula denies support for the notion that anyone of these methods corresponds either exclusively or evenpredominantly to any particular use of the law. So, forinstance, a preacher who uses the indicative mood to describethe new creation in Christ must not assume that he has thereby

USING THE THIRD USE 23preached the third use in isolation from the other uses of thelaw. For even the sweetness of this description curses and condemnsthe Christian according to his old Adam because he doesnot measure up. As true as this is of the indicative mood, thehortatory subjunctive is even less likely to guide without accusing.Regardless of the intent and demeanor of the preacher, astring of “let us” phrases will always coerce the Christianaccording to the old Adam to do that which is against his will.This is always true of law preaching regardless of its location inthe sermon outline. No matter which form of speaking is chosento proclaim the law, it is and remains proclaimed law that isalways superfluous for the Christian qua Christian while servingto curb, to condemn and to instruct the Christian in concreto.The third use of the law is not the preacher’s to use.Rather, it is the Holy Spirit’s to use. It is the Holy Spirit whouses the law according to all of its uses whenever and whereverit is preached. The third use simply denotes one of several 37different ways that the proclaimed law functions in the heart ofthe hearer. This does not mean that the Holy Ghost preachesthe third use apart from the oral Word proclaimed and heard.For the law that the Holy Ghost uses is precisely that law that ispreached and none other.Regarding that which is proclaimed by the preacher, onecan only conclude that it is the same law that is preached to theChristian and non-Christian alike—complete with all the curses,threats and punishments that always accompany thepreaching of the law. A preacher is not called to use or applythe law according to its various uses. That task is left to theHoly Spirit to accomplish as he will wherever the law ispreached in its full force. Any attempts to speak of the third useas if it were the preacher’s use are contrary to the intendedsense of the Formula. The wording of the Solid Declarationmust stand unqualified, that “it is just the Holy Ghost who usesthe written law for instruction” (SD VI, 3). Only in this way willone make proper use of the Evangelical Lutheran doctrine ofthe third use of the law. LOGIANOTES1. “Christians do continue to use the Law as a mirror. Butchiefly they use it as a rule and guide for the new man to dowhat is pleasing unto God.” Edward Koehler, A Summary ofChristian Doctrine (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,1971), p. 62.2. Luther’s sermon on the Gospel for the Fifth Sundayafter Trinity, which is cited in SD V, 12, summarizes the Agricolantype of antinomianism: “Hence, there is nothing in thejuggling tricks which our Antinomians play upon this example,when they say that repentance is not to be preached and practicedthrough the Law, but through the Gospel, or, as they putit, through the revelation of the Son.” Martin Luther, The Sermonsof Martin Luther, Vol. 4, ed. and tr. John N. Lenker(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), p. 158.3. See Johannes Seehawer, Zur Lehre vom Brauch des Gesetzesund zur Geschichte des späteren Antinomismus (Rostock:Carl Boldt’sche hof-Buchdruckerei, 1887).4. Historians have differed on the precise delineation of thepositions of Andrew Poach, Anton Otto and the second wave ofAntinomians. However, Martin Chemnitz’s Loci Theologici,compiled during the time of the second Antinomian controversy(1534–1584), give us reason to believe that this assertion is atleast one element of the controversy. “In our time the antinomiansare contending that the use of the Law refers only toexternal civil life. . . . Even now certain fanatics are claimingthat there is no true use for the Law to show the regenerate howthey may learn good works. . . . Therefore, they argue, theregenerate has no use for the Law, not even for teaching,because ‘His anointing will teach you all things,’ 1 John2:27. . . . But finally these extravagant statements leave in ourminds . . . the notion that it is not necessary for a regenerateperson to govern his life according to the norm of the divinelaw, from which he has been liberated; but rather whatever hedecides and thinks of and does is by the Spirit.” Martin Chemnitz,Loci Theologici, Vol. II, tr. J.A.O. Preus (St. Louis: ConcordiaPublishing House, 1989), pp. 439–440. See also Ep IV, 4.5. This and all following quotations from the confessionsare from the Concordia Triglotta (St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse, 1921).6. Werner Elert differs in that he sees “a double usage ofthe term ‘regenerate.’ On the one hand, it designates that personwho ‘is born anew by the Spirit of God and is liberatedfrom the law.’ . . . On the other hand, it [the Formula]applies this term to the man who despite his regeneration stilllives in internal conflict.” Werner Elert, Law and Gospel, tr.Edward H. Schroeder (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), p. 41.7. “But the Christian, considered in concreto, as he exists inthis world, is not yet entirely a new man; he still has the oldman dwelling in him.” Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, vol.3, tr. Walter W.F. Albrecht (St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse, 1950), p. 238.8. “And [we affirm] that no one but God alone can separatefrom one another the nature and this corruption of thenature, which will fully come to pass through death, in the[blessed] resurrection, where our nature which we now bearwill rise and live eternally without original sin and separatedand sundered from it” (Ep I, p. 10).9. Included here are any and all philosophical, physiologicalor psychological divisions within man. The Freudian id,ego, and super ego are all simul justus et peccator as also are theheart, mind, will, soul, etc. The term spirit is a special case,however. When used in opposition to the flesh, it designatesthe inner man. However, when it is used in phrases such as“the spirit of man,” it must be included as one of the philosophicaldivisions which are simul justus et peccator.10. “We believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not aslight, but so deep a corruption of human nature that nothinghealthy or uncorrupt has remained in man’s body or soul, inhis inner or outward powers, but, as the Church sings:Through Adam’s fall is all corrupt, Nature and essence human.

24 LOGIAThis damage is unspeakable, and cannot be discerned by reason,but only from God’s Word” (Ep I, 8–9).11. “This hereditary evil is so great and horrible that onlyfor the sake of the Lord Christ it can be covered and forgivenbefore God in the baptized and believing. Moreover, humannature, which is perverted and corrupted thereby, must andcan be healed only by the regeneration and renewal of the HolyGhost, which, however, is only begun in this life, but will notbe perfect until in the life to come” (SD I, 14).12. “Without the recorded Law, the new man in himknows both what is sinful and what is good; and since theChristian is entirely godly according to the new man, he doesnot need the Law to keep him in check outwardly by its threatsand scourges. According to the new man, the Law is written inthe heart of the Christian (Jer 31:33), even as the first menbefore the Fall were created with God’s Law in their hearts.”Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3:237.13. The Sermons of Martin Luther, 8:310.14. See August Pieper, “The Law is Not Made for a RighteousMan,” tr. K.G. Sievert, Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 57(October 1960) pp. 238–256; 58 (January 1961) pp. 27–42.15. “The law is certainly to be preached without diminution(Matt. 5:17–18; Gal. 3:10; Rom. 1:18; 3:9–19), but solely forthe purpose of bringing man to a realization of his sinfulnessand deserved condemnation.” Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics3:230.16. Note here the joining of the reflexive pronoun sua withboth maledictione and coactione. The implication is that bothcurse and coercion are inherent qualities of the proclaimedlaw. This being the case, it would be impossible to conceive of apreaching of the law to sinners where these were not present.The same thought is echoed in SD VI, 14, “to reprove is thepeculiar office of the Law.”17. The adjective immutable is an important part of theFormula’s definition of the law. By this, the confessors distinguishbetween the will of God that is valid for people of alltimes and places and the particular precepts or commands thatare given to specific people for specific occasions and are notapplicable across the board (e.g., the command to Aaron tocast down his rod before Pharaoh is not to be considered underthe concept law). It is in this sense that the authors of the Formulastate, “the law is the immutable will of God.” For furtherdiscussion of this distinction, see August Pieper, p. 243–251.18. “The Formula of Concord refers in this connection (Trigl.969, SD, VI, 19) to the fact that according to their flesh Christiansare not more pious than the ungodly and that in dealing with theold Adam of the Christians only coercive measures are in place.”Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3:20, n. 23.19. Francis Pieper cites Luther from the 20th volume of theSt. Louis edition, “Moreover this, too is an exceptional blindnessand folly, that they think the revelation of wrath is somethingelse than the Law, which is impossible; for the Law is revelationof wrath wherever it is understood and felt, as St. Paulsays: Lex iram operatur.” Martin Luther, Sämmtliche Schriften,vol. 20 (St. Louis: Lutherischer Concordia Verlag, 1890) 1618,quoted in Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3:226.20. “Für den Christen nach dem neuen Menschen ist dasGesetz nicht bloß teilweise, sondern in jedem Usus, den es hat,völlig überflüssig.” Franz Pieper, Christliche Dogmatik, vol. 3 (St.Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1920), p. 279.21. E.g., “The preaching of the law is not to condemn butto convict and to correct. Persons in Christ are free from thecondemnation of the law but no one is free from the law’s convictionand correction.” Lowell Erdahl, Preaching for the People(Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), p. 42.22. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, tr. FordLewis Battles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans PublishingCo., revised ed. 1986), p. 36.23. “Luther reminds us that those preachers who use theLaw instead of the Gospel to effect sanctification are to blamefor the paucity of sanctification and good works.” FrancisPieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3:19.24. “There is a very beautiful dictum that the Law mustnot be used in an evangelical sense but in a legal sense.” Chemnitz,p. 441.25. Because of the anthropological considerations outlinedin endnote 9, the law written upon the heart cannot simply beidentified with any part of the Christian in concreto but mustremain an article of faith. Therefore the voice of the heart,mind, will or conscience is not inscribed law but these arerather instruments of the proclaimed law. Werner Elert arrivesat this same conclusion, “Conscience, therefore, is not simply asynonym for law in the heart. Otherwise, it could not bedescribed as ‘witness.’” Werner Elert, The Christian Ethos(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957), p. 33.26. To what extent does the law written upon the heartremain in the unconverted sinner (Rom 2:15)? The article onoriginal sin teaches that even as the human nature of man iswholly corrupted in the fall (SD I, 23) and yet remains human(SD I, 30), so also, the law written upon the heart is wholly corruptedand yet remains the law written upon the heart.27. Some recognize the descriptive character of the law,but ascribe it to the function of the third use rather than to thelaw written upon the heart, e.g. “Luther’s explanations of thesecond through the tenth commandments are what would laterbe commonly called the third use of the law, referring to therelationship of the law to the Christian qua Christian. . . .What this means is that for Luther the law can stand withoutits condemnations and still be the law in some sense. . . . Thelaw functioning for the Christian is not law in the sense of prohibitionand condemnation. This is the content of the Lutheranunderstanding of the third use of the law.” David P. Scaer,“Sanctification in Lutheran Theology,” Concordia TheologicalQuarterly Vol. 49, pp. 2, 3 (1985), pp. 183, 184.28. See AE (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), 1:105–110.29. At issue is the very nature of the law of God. The law isnot something extra that God imposed upon man after creation.Rather, the inscribed law is inseparably connected withthe imago Dei that is given at creation (Ep VI, 2). Werner Elertargues that the law of God can never be an arbitrary set of ruleswithout impinging on the atonement itself: “A judge proceedsaccording to right and law. Therefore he does not sentencearbitrarily. But neither can he acquit arbitrarily.” Werner Elert,

USING THE THIRD USE 25The Structure of Lutheranism, tr. Walter A. Hansen (St. Louis:Concordia Publishing House, 1962), p. 38. Prior to this, Elerthad quoted Luther to show both the distinction and the correspondencebetween the implanted law and the preached law:“‘Thus I now keep the commandments that Moses gave, notbecause Moses gave them, but because they have been implantedin me by nature; and here Moses is in agreement withnature’ (WA 24, 10, 3). Naturally, the correspondence of thewritten or proclaimed Law to the implanted Law is not accidental.”Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, p. 36.30. Luther, Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 8, p. 309.31. Some do see an eternal aspect to the third use; e.g., “Inheaven, the third use of the law will be perfectly realized.”David Scaer, “Formula of Concord Article VI: The Third Use ofthe Law,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 42, 2 (1978), p. 153.32. Max Schneckenburger explains, “Only because thebeliever as he is in this life (in concreto) is also something elsebesides a believer does the law still also apply to him to convicthim of sin. The Reformed, on the other hand, let the law applyto the believer because and in so far as he is a believer.” Quotedin August Pieper, “The Difference between the Reformed andthe Lutheran Interpretation of the So-Called Third Use of theLaw,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, tr. Richard W. Strobel,Vol. 87, No. 2 (Spring 1990), p. 113.33. Some apply the third use to the Christian qua Christian;e.g., “Self-evidently, and on the basis of Holy Scripture, theFormula stressed the continuing need that the regenerate manhas, because of the presence of the flesh, for the Law . . . as aninstrument of spiritual radar and guidance for the inner man.”Eugene F. Klug, “The Third Use of the Law,” A ContemporaryLook at the Formula of Concord, ed. Robert Preus and WilbertRosin (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978), p. 192.See also Koehler, p. 62.34. “Therefore it is false in every way and contrary to theclear word of Scripture and also of our Confession, to say: TheChristian as Christian, as a believer, is still under the Law, atleast in its use as a rule of conduct.” August Pieper, The Law IsNot Made For A Righteous Man, p. 34.35. In a footnote, Francis Pieper cites Carpzov to correctBaier’s inaccuracy on this point. “The Law indeed is said ‘to beinscribed in the heart,’ Jer 31:33, but it does not inscribe. Theinscription takes place solely through the Gospel. Solely thatwhich regenerates us renews us; now, we are born again solelyby the Gospel; ergo, we are also renewed solely by the Gospel.”Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3:18, n. 18.36. While the law does have a role in the work of sanctification,its role is purely negative and only in service of thegospel. “According to Scripture, sanctification, expressed negatively,consists in the putting off of the old man, and positively,in the putting on of the new man.” Francis Pieper, ChristianDogmatics, 3:15. “Strictly speaking, only that Word which mortifiesthe old man and supplies strength to the new man is themeans of sanctification, namely, the Gospel (the means ofgrace), not the Law. It is only the Gospel which dethrones sin;the Law can only multiply sin (Rom 6:14; 7:5, 6; Jer 31:31 ff.).However, the Law has its place in the work of sanctification; itserves the Gospel.” Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3:18.37. Francis Pieper quotes the Nitzsch-Stephan, Dogmatik(p. 509), to say that the specific numbering of the uses is inessence irrelevant. “One need not feel alarmed either at thethreefold nor at the fourfold division, so long as the thoughtsbrought out correspond to Scripture, as in fact they do.” FrancisPieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3: 238, n. 29. Again, “accordingto his old man, the Christian still needs the Law in all its uses,no matter how these uses are divided or designated.” FrancisPieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3: 238.

The Law and the Gospel in Lutheran TheologyDAVID P. SCAERANON-LUTHERAN FRIEND OF MINE SENT ME THE ACCOUNTof an interdenominational meeting in which a firebroke out. The reactions of each denomination werepredictable. The Presbyterians elected a chairperson, whosetask was to appoint a committee to report to the session. TheMethodists pondered the implications of the fire for theblessed assurance of salvation. The Roman Catholics took acollection for rebuilding. Baptists were heard asking loudlywhere the water was. The Congregationalists cried out: “Everyman for himself.” The Lutherans decided that the fire wasagainst either a) the law or b) the gospel, and was in any eventunlawful. That indelicate introduction may have been on themind of your planning committee in having a Lutheran leadoff on the topic of the law and the gospel.Simply through overuse I have developed a dislike for theologicalclichés. My unfavored ones include “word and sacrament”and “means of grace,” but my most favorite unfavoredremains “law and gospel.” Reciting clichés provides no guaranteethat the sublime realities which they intend to represent arepresented. I am sure that we agree that the law and the gospelshould be preached, but I am not so certain that the use of acliché, including this one, accomplishes the task. Somehoweven experienced preachers can ascend the pulpit and use thelaw and gospel cliché and by doing only this have preached neitherthe law nor the gospel. The real challenge is to preach thelaw and the gospel without ever using these terms. By themselveseach of these terms is open to misinterpretation. Suchphrases as “gospel ministry,” “gospel preaching,” “evangelist,”which is only the Greek derivative for “a gospel preacher,” canin common parlance refer to revivals and revivalist preaching,which can be strongly law-oriented. On the other hand the invitationto live by the gospel can be no more than an enticementto moral license without any imperatives whatsoever. 1I would like to address the following subtopics under theheading of the law and the gospel: 1) The law and the gospel asa characteristic of Lutheran theology; 2) How do the law andABOUT THE AUTHORDAVID P. SCAER is Professor of systematic theology and New Testamentat Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana, andis a contributing editor of LOGIA.27the gospel relate to our understanding about God? 3) Overcomingthe contradiction between the law and the gospel; 4)The traditional three uses of the law with special attention tothe third use; 5) The law and the gospel as a hermeneuticalinstrument; 6) The law and the gospel as a homiletical device.THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL AS A CHARACTERISTICOF LUTHERAN THEOLOGY 2The law and the gospel express the human dilemma inwhich the Christian experiences what he can only understand asa contradiction in a God who hates and loves him at the sametime. 3 To contrast his former life in Pharisaism and new life inChrist, St. Paul speaks of the bondage of the law and the freedomof the gospel. Paul’s use of these words in this way does notprevent him from using these words in other ways and shouldnot be made normative for the rest of the Scriptures. Law canrefer to the first part of the Old Testament canon or the entirecanon. The psalmist (Ps 1:2) who delights and walks in God’s lawis not so much morally self-confident; he finds confidence in thesalvation of God’s people as recorded in the Pentateuch. Torah isthe account of Israel’s redemption from the bondage of Egyptwith the promise that God will continue to act redemptively inbehalf of his people. Torah, the written law or Scripture, is whatwe would call gospel, the promise of salvation, in the phrase “thelaw and the gospel.” In the New Testament law, nomos, can alsobe a synonym for the gospel, as in the phrase “the law ofChrist.” 4 Gospel can mean the message Jesus preached, the messageabout Jesus, or one of the four books about Jesus, whichcontain both law and gospel. 5 Taking an oath by the gospel istaking an oath by the first four books of the New TestamentScriptures. In this sense both gospel and law (nomos) can refer towritten Scriptures. 6 We should not even bother ourselves in sayingthat Old Testament is law because it predominates the messagethere and that the New Testament is gospel for the samereason. Historically these words have been manipulated to causetheological confusion. For Marcion the law represented the inferiorrevelation of the Old Testament to be replaced by his narrowlydefined canon of the New Testament as the gospel.Whether this manipulation was done ignorantly or deliberately,Marcion’s procedure has reappeared under other guises.For Martin Luther the law and the gospel expressed hisown existential experience, not totally unlike that of St. Paul.

28 LOGIAThe law described that early period of life in which he attemptedto convince himself of personal salvation through the worksprescribed by medieval catholicism. This contrasted with thenew-found freedom in the gospel of the Reformation. For himthe catholicism of his day offered the gospel as if it were thelaw. The Roman Church did not deny the fundamentals of thefaith, but presented them as demand. Luther’s resolution of hispersonal dilemma by the biblical data which promised freedomin the gospel and not demand was perhaps more than any otherfactor the primary cause of the Reformation. 7 Law wasdemand and the gospel was God’s free gift in Christ. In thesesenses we use these words in this essay.If Luther resolved the dilemma ofthe law and the gospel theologically,he never resolved it existentially.If Luther resolved the dilemma of the law and the gospeltheologically, he never resolved it existentially. For as long ashe lived he understood himself as standing condemned andforgiven before God at the same time. It was not simply a matterof being rescued once, at one time, from law’s condemnationby the gospel’s emancipation. As long as he lived he wasweighed down by the law from which he was freed by thegospel. The contradiction can be resolved theoretically, butnever really within human experience. The law and the gospelare simultaneous words of God to the Christian and not subsequentones. The resolution of the tension between the lawand the gospel is their destruction. Lutheran theology uses theLatin phrase simul iustus et peccator to express this existentialdilemma. 8 Even the mature Christian never feels himself freefrom sin and its curse. Christians die as much sinners assaints. Next to the Jesus Christ, no person has been the focusof more books than Luther. His contribution to theology, language,culture, government, and education is simplyunmatched. Close to death, Luther was asked by his colleagueJustus Jonas, “Reverend Father, are you willing to die in thename of the Christ and the doctrine which you havepreached?” He answered a distinct “Yes,” heard by all in theroom, and sank into a coma. 9 Among the notes found on hisdesk, which may have been his last written words: “The truthis, we are beggars.” 10The law and the gospel did not express a chronologicalsequence but an existential awareness of God in which Lutherfound himself as saint and sinner at the same time. 11 Lutheransshould be a little uncomfortable with the line in “AmazingGrace” that “I once was lost but now am found.” 12 A profoundsense of spiritual forsakenness persists as long as theChristian lives. In the confession of sins preceding the celebrationof the Holy Communion, the Christian prays as a lost andcondemned sinner that he does not deserve to be forgiven, butasks that God would receive him for the sake of the bitter sufferingsand death of God’s Son, Jesus Christ. 13 He is always inthe position of penitent David praying Psalm 51: “Have mercyupon me, O God, according to thy tender mercies. Againstthee only have I sinned and done this great wickedness in thysight.” 14 He is always like Isaiah praying that he is a person ofunclean lips. He is the unworthy centurion under whose roofChrist dare not come. He is Peter confessing sin and beingrestored. 15 The Christian forgives seven times seventy, becauseGod in Christ has far exceeded that number. Within the liturgyof the Lutheran Church, it is not impossible to pray theLord’s Prayer several times: “And forgive us our trespasses aswe forgive those who trespass against us.” 16 The Christiancannot escape the contradiction of the God who rejects himfor not fulfilling the law and at the same time loves him inChrist. The law and gospel theme is problematic simplybecause of this contradiction and is theologically troublesomebecause of the attempts to resolve this contradiction. Thiscontradiction must be addressed.The law and gospel theme is more crucial for understandingthe genius of Lutheran theology as it leaves theChristian in a continued unresolved contradiction of being asinner, even though he has been declared a saint by thegospel. Lex semper accusat, the law always accuses, 17 is traditionallyknown as the second use of the law. 18 Lutherans arehardly alone in understanding the law as accusatory, but itcharacterizes their approach as its major use. The Reformedhave traditionally put the weight on the third use of the law asa guide in Christian life. The Arminians have downplayed thelaw in favor of the gospel, but still the emphasis is on theChristian life with the possibility of moral progress or evenperfectionism, though perfectionism is a goal never realized.19 The Lutheran position is perhaps the most philosophicallyunsatisfying because the Christian is continually confrontedby a God who hates and loves him at the same time.He cannot escape it. This allows no sense of self-satisfactionor accomplishment. He sees himself going nowhere. He isalways starting all over again. He is not the saint who occasionallysins, but the saint who feels himself in such a constantstate of siege that he still understands himself as sinner.Such a view in which the law and the gospel are severely contrastedmay however actually be the emotionally most satisfying,because it explains the human dilemma of knowing thatwe never really do what is required of us.At this point the Christological factor must be introduced.Certainly there can be no suggestion that Christ is asinner, but like the Christian who is at the same time rejectedand accepted in the law and the gospel, Christ in hisatonement is accepted and rejected by God at the same time.He who is abhorrent to God on account of our sin is thesweet-smelling sacrifice. He who is slain by God is alsoraised by him. Christ becomes a paradigm for the Christian’slife. He experiences to the extreme what the Christiandoes in his daily life, a dilemma which he cannot escape. 20This severe contrast or dichotomy between law and gospel,of being rejected and accepted by God, can degenerate intoan unbridled dualism with disastrous consequences in anyontological understanding of God. We must attempt toaddress this question next.

THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL IN LUTHERAN THEOLOGY 29HOW DO THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL RELATETO OUR UNDERSTANDING ABOUT GOD?While the law and the gospel are intended to describe man’sdilemma and not a contradiction within God, it is imperative tofocus the category of law and gospel back on to God himself. Ifhis revelation to man can be described by the categories of lawand gospel, can God be described in these terms? Let us answerthis question in a preliminary way. Apart from the law-gospelcategory, I can have no authentic experience or valid knowledgeof God, but this contradiction cannot possibly exist in God. Marcionand Gnosticism resolved the contradiction philosophicallyin favor of the gospel by degrading the law. The Old Testament aslaw was seen as an inferior revelation in comparison to the NewTestament as gospel. From that it followed that the New ratherthan the Old gave us the true picture of God. In fact differentdeities were posited for each testament. 21 This view resulted froma theological failure which required linguistic manipulation inassuming that the law referred solely to the Old Testament andthe gospel to the New. It was only a minor confusion, but resultedin creating a religion that simply was not Christian.Dispensationalism has faced this dilemma not by a multiplicityof gods, but by positing periods or epochs of differentrevelations. God chooses to unveil different motives or plans ofsalvation. In its simplest form the religion of the gospel hasreplaced the religion of the law, though most forms of dispensationalismare more complex than this. No change is attributedto God, but to the way in which he deals with man. Thisapproach in resolving the contradictions or differences at leastraises the question of why the same God chooses to act in differentways in different periods of time.If we say that the law and the gospelare revelations of God with equal forcethen we are forced into a dualism ofseeing a God with competing motivesto love and to hate at the same time.A similar approach is offered by Religionsgeschichte which incomparing religions sees an evolutionary process in man’s searchfor God. Influential for any modern evolutionary theory of religionis Schleiermacher who assumed the religion of the law in theOld Testament was inferior to the gospel of the New. 22 Germantheology has never been able to escape this evolutionistic view ofreligion in which the New Testament in offering the gospel isseen as superior to the Old Testament. We might quibble withtheir definition of the gospel, but the gospel, regardless of how itis defined, was viewed as superior to the law.The names of Adolph von Harnack and his step-disciple,Rudolph Bultmann, could also be mentioned. With both menPauline theology with its clearer dogmatic outlines is seen as aregression from the pristine simple gospel of Jesus. Dispensationalismresolves the difficulty in favor of the epistles. 23All these views share in common the attempt to resolve thetension between the law and the gospel by applying them to periodsof time. Thus it is not uncommon to hear that God of theOld Testament was vengeful and wrathful, but the God of theNew is loving. Though this does not intend to be a presentationin biblical theology, I contend that it may be that just the reverseshould be argued. The God of the Old Testament was morepatient and hence more loving than the God of the New Testament.The command to exterminate the Canaanites is no moresevere than the warnings of Jesus that Jerusalem shall be leveledto rubble. This I offer for the sake of argument, as God is consistentin his love. As inadequate as these answers attempted bysome (e.g., Marcion, Schleiermacher, dispensationalism) were inresolving the tension between law and gospel, they did recognizehow uncomfortable tensions are in theology, especially as theyapply to God. The question is whether the law and the gospel areequal revelations of God.This question becomes crucial. If we say that the law and thegospel have nothing to do with what God is in himself, we arepushed in the direction of agnosticism. But if we say that the lawand the gospel are revelations of God with equal force, then weare forced into a dualism of seeing a God with competingmotives to love and to hate at the same time, a form ofManichaeism. If we see law as primary, we seemingly deny theGod whose ultimate revelation is in man’s salvation. If we choosethe gospel, we are threatened with antinomianism. Here lies areason for the divisions within Christendom, even if it lies unrecognizedbeneath the surface. 24OVERCOMING THE CONTRADICTION BETWEENTHE LAW AND THE GOSPELIn the phrase “the law and the gospel,” the law is interpretedas prohibitions. Even a minor infraction incurs a penalty. Theultimate penalty is eternal separation from God. The Leviticallaws set forth requirements and prohibitions with correspondingpenalties and sacrifices. Thus the inescapable impression is thatGod is to be understood chiefly in terms of prescriptions withrewards for obedient behavior and penalties for transgressions.The view provided by the gospel is that God chooses or electsIsrael and continues to love her in spite of her failures. These failuresare not merely ritual misdemeanors but gross blasphemies.But even ritual misdemeanors reflect a fundamental disregard forGod. Minor regulations reflect larger principles. The ban againstmuzzling the ox is an extension of the higher principle that refusingto pay a salary commensurate with the work is stealing. Inspite of all the spiritual felonies and liturgical misdemeanors, Godpreserves the remnant. The love of God then comes to its fullestexpression in the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection ofChrist and embraces all and not just Israel. From this picture thelaw is seen as negative in demanding and punishing, and converselythe gospel is seen as positive, giving what the law demands.This distinction between the law and the gospel is called by theFormula of Concord V “an especially brilliant light.” 25But which of these contradictory pictures is the true pictureof God? Is God to be understood through the law or thegospel or both, but in a particular order? The Apology of theAugsburg Confession says the law always accuses: lex enim

30 LOGIAsemper accusat (IV 38). But this statement could not be true inan absolute sense. It speaks of man in the state of sin, the conditionwhich he has experienced since the fall and will endureto the last day. 26 In this condition everyone is born and dies.Before the fall the law did not condemn and at death the lawloses its authority. Even in this life the Christian as saint is notcondemned by the law. Though law appears to man in the stateof sin as demanding and punishing, law as it exists in God isneither demanding nor punishing, but it is the positive affirmationexpressing God’s relationship to his creation. Thetransformation of law as positive affirmation into demand andpunishment was caused by man’s transgression. Within himselfGod is not an accumulation of moral negatives, but isthroughout perfect love.The law as positive affirmation was understood by manonly during his brief stay in paradise. He knew God as his Creator,accepted his responsibility for creation, and procreated.He was prohibited from stepping out of this positive relationshipwith God. But this prohibition is not arbitrarily superimposedon man to test him, but was simply the explanation ordescription of what would happen to man if he stepped outsideof the relationship with God in which he was created. Theindicative was its own imperative. Pardon the poor illustration,but it would be similar to the prohibition of shaving with anelectric razor in the bathtub. This action imposes its ownpenalty. This is quite different from murdering someone.There the penalty must be superimposed from the outside.Disregarding the prohibition is an unsatisfactory descriptionfor the cause of man’s fall, if it suggests that God placed anegative in man’s life. In the positive relationship man knewGod’s will and could do it. By stepping outside of the createdLaw as it exists in God is neitherdemanding nor punishing, but it is thepositive affirmation expressing God’srelationship to his creation.order, man brought calamity upon himself. The act providedits own consequences. In attempting to become like God heplaced himself outside of a positive relationship with God, sothat now God was seen as the enemy placing unjust demandsupon him. 27 The First Commandment prohibiting the worshipof other gods is in no sense the arbitrary act of God determinedto exercise sovereignty, but only the natural or logicalconsequence of the oneness of God. What was totally positiveis now seen as completely negative by man. The law in thisprimitive, positive sense is a necessary and not alien or inadequatereflection of God’s essence. The law is not a code of arbitraryrestrictions placed by a capricious God on man. 28The Ten Commandments are afterthought in that theyaddress man in his fallen condition. The law had to be set forthnegatively because man in a state of sin could no longer understandGod as he is. Even the negative expression of the law whichman knows in the state of sin is an inverse reflection of the law inits original positive forms. Because of sin we are looking in fromthe outside and see an entirely different picture of God. The lawwhich could be viewed as the positive relationship of God andman is now seen by man as an impossible burden. Man whoseentire existence was committed to God must be told in nouncertain terms that all other gods have no existence and darenot be worshiped. In paradise polytheism was not even in therange of possibilities. Outside of paradise all sins were not onlyin the range of possibilities, but became realities.Sin transformed the law. For example the command not tomurder reflects that God is life. This and the other negativeassertions of the Commandments do not have an eternal originin God, but are the positive commands of God reflecting hiseternal nature, now transformed and translated into termswhich man in the state of sin can understand. Even here the negativecommands are bifurcated. Man can regulate his outwardbehavior by refraining from the evil prohibited by these negativecommands, the so-called first or civil use of the law, but he cannotcontrol his inner and true self. He cannot put God beforehimself. The same law, which controls man’s outward behavior,is addressed by God to man’s inner self so that he becomes awareof his estrangement from God and his moral incapacity. This isknown as the second use of the law. For the sake of his own sanity,he can ignore the law’s piercing of his inner being or he candelude himself into believing that he has actually fulfilled it. Inother cases he pretends it does not exist. He lives an amoral lifewith no reference to God or any law.In the condition of sin, man is on the outside looking in.The gates of heaven and paradise are shut. He, not God, isresponsible for his exclusion, for seeing law as a negative intrusionin his life. The “thou shalt not’s” are of man’s own doing.Now Christ enters into man’s situation, takes his place, fulfillsthe law perfectly not only by refraining from all immorality butby doing positive good and then suffering the full consequencesof man’s fall. Christ understands and accepts God’s no and yesin his life. Christ’s fulfilling of the law becomes the gospel’s content.Only where Christ in his atonement continually and alwaysis preached is the gospel being preached. By faith man is setwithin a positive relationship with God and man is free from thecurse of the law and fulfills God’s law both positively and negatively.Where Christ as living sacrifice and atonement as the endand completion of the law is not preached there is no gospel.There is no church. There is no salvation.But though the law and the gospel look contradictory toman in a state of sin, there is no contradiction in God. TheGod who created the world out of love and set man in a positiverelationship with himself is the same God who redeems theworld out of love. But the divine love revealed in the gospel notonly has its origin in God’s creative love for the world, but inGod himself. The God who loved the world by sending the Sonis the same God who created the heavens and the earth. TheTrinitarian doctrine is distorted beyond recognition when theFather is seen as the expression of law within God and the Sonas love. God is love and the eternal generation of the Son fromthe Father, the creation of the world with its positive expressionof the law, and the gospel must be understood in terms of

THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL IN LUTHERAN THEOLOGY 31love. Thus God’s redemption of the world must never be seenas incidental to God’s essence, as if he did not want to do it orwas even forced to do it. He wanted to do it and he wanted todo it because he is love. The gospel is the final revelation andexpression of who God is. We are not dealing with differentgods in the law and the gospel or even different dispensations,but with the same God.Even the translation or transformation of the law from positivedescription and affirmation into negative prohibition is anexpression of divine love. By the horror of the law with itsdemands and punishments, God intended that man should bediagnosed as sinner to be receptive to the gospel. 29 In no way doesGod intend the law to be his last word to any man, even the manwho is rejecting Christ. As severe as the law is, the law is God’salien work in that it does not reveal to us what God is really like. Itis a saving work because it brings man to the depths of desperationwhere only the gospel can help him. 30 Rejecting the gospel isworse than any offense against the law, because it is not merely therefusal to conform to a divine code, but the rejection of God’s freegift in Jesus Christ. Sins against the law have been covered by theatonement. Man’s rejection of the atonement is not.THE TRADITIONAL THREE USES OF THE LAW WITHSPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE THIRD USE 31Problematic is the use of the law in the Christian life, traditionallycalled the third use. Does this mean that since theChristian now lives his life freed from the law by the gospel, thathe is free from directives of the law? Or is the opposite true? Isthe law reintroduced as a regulating phenomenon in the Christian’slife? There is no argument in Lutheran theology that thecivil use of the law regulating outward behavior remains inforce for everyone, including Christians. No better proof of thisreality exists than driving along at 80 mph and seeing the redand blue lights of a state police car behind you. A letter from theIRS has the same effect. Since the law always accuses the sinner,it continues to function in this way in the life of the Christiansince he remains as a much a sinner as a saint, simul iustus etpeccator. The liturgy of the Lutheran Church, following that ofthe ancient catholic and orthodox church, allows for the worshipercontinually to confess his sins and receive absolution.The daily commemoration of baptism in Luther’s Small Catechismrequires that the old man die each day with all its evillusts and desires and a new man be daily resurrected. 32Confusion on what is meant by the third use has led to itsrejection by certain Lutheran theologians. 33 This is somewhatof an internal embarrassment, since the third use of the law isentitled to a separate article in the Formula of Concord, thedefinitive confessional document for Lutherans. For others thethird use of the law has been interpreted simply to mean thatthe first and second uses of the law remain in force. Such aview is not the Lutheran one, even though some Lutheranshave claimed this definition. The introduction of the law intothe life of the Christian seems a legalistic intrusion denying thefreedom of the gospel or turning the gospel into law becausethe gospel requires or demands certain types of behavior.In answering this ticklish question for Lutherans, I wouldlike to make reference to Luther’s understanding of the TenCommandments in his Small Catechism as a way out of thisdilemma. The reformer’s explanations of the commandments,with the exception of the first and sixth, have two parts: negativeprohibitions and positive requirements. Thus the one onkilling prohibits bodily harm to our neighbor and requiresproviding for his physical needs. The one on stealing prohibitsany attempt, even if it be legal, to obtain the neighbor’s property.Rather he is required to help the neighbor improve it.Is the law reintroduced as a regulatingphenomenon in the Christian’s life?Luther, by not mentioning outward robbery and murder,assumes that the Christian simply will not do these things.Gross immorality is out of range for the Christian, but refrainingfrom it does not even begin to fulfill the commandments.Any harm to the neighbor breaks the commandments. Youmay not rob the neighbor, but if you manipulate law or contractto deprive him of his property, you stand condemned.Perhaps Luther’s delineation of the law of God to less thanblatant transgressions is acceptable by all. But Luther reversesthe negative prohibition into the positive requirement of helpingthe neighbor, especially in his distress. The prohibitionagainst cursing God becomes a requirement to pray. Instead ofsaying foul things about our neighbor, even if they are true, weare to put the best construction on everything. Luther’s explanationsof the First and Sixth Commandments have no prohibitionswhatsoever. He turns the First Commandment aroundso that the prohibition against idolatry becomes an invitationto faith. What was law is now gospel. Under the Sixth CommandmentLuther makes no mention of adultery, but says thatspouses should honor and love one another. 34In my estimation Luther’s positive intensification of thecommandments is a work of theological genius. His explanationsof the commandments are addressed to Christians, notnon-Christians. They have nothing to say to civil law. Ratherthey are addressed to Christians as sinners and saints. Man as asinner cannot escape the negative prohibitions of the law, butat the same time the Christian is addressed as a saint, takenback to that original paradise situation in which he loves Godand his neighbor. The Christian, since he is in Christ andChrist is in him, even before he becomes aware of the possibilityof fulfilling the law, is actually fulfilling the law.Has Luther manipulated the Ten Commandments beyondrecognition by following the negative prohibitions with positivesuggestions? Here is the law in its pristine sense, as positiverequirement, as it was known before the fall into sin. Here is thelaw as it was fulfilled in Christ. All of the positive descriptions ofthe law in the Christian’s life are really only christological statements,things which Jesus did and which reached their perfectionin him. The fulfilled law is christological, as it is the account ofthe life and death of Jesus. He loved God with his whole heart, he

32 LOGIAprayed to God, he heard the word of God and kept it, he honoredhis parents, he helped those in bodily distress, he lived a lifeof pure thoughts, he provided for those in financial distress, hespoke well of others, he had no evil desires. 35 Christ is the fulfillmentof the law not only in the sense that all the Old Testamentprophets spoke of him, but he is the positive affirmation of whatGod requires of us and what God is in himself. In Christ the tensionbetween the law and the gospel is resolved. 36Luther’s understanding of the commandments as positivechristological affirmations is similar to the parable of the goodSamaritan, though I could hardly demonstrate any influencethis pericope had on the reformer’s mind. The commandmentsare not really fulfilled by refraining from the prohibited evil,but by helping the stricken traveler. Thus Christians should beembarrassed about making any unwarranted claim to moralperfection for themselves. They should be so engaged in positivegood that they have no time to think about their personalmorality or holiness.All of the positive descriptions of thelaw in the Christian’s life are reallyonly christological statements.How did Luther come to such a radical contradiction whichrequired that the Christian think of himself as total sinner and as aperson who accomplished only the good things which Christ did?He took the First Commandment with its prohibition againstidolatry and turned into an invitation to faith: “We should fear,love, and trust in God above all things.” The first commandmentis transformed into a statement of the gospel. 37 But the reformerwas not playing fast and free with the commandments, as in Exodusthe commandments really begin with the statement ofredemption: “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of theland of Egypt, out of the land of bondage.”THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL AS AHERMENEUTICAL INSTRUMENTThe law and the gospel cannot be looked upon as providingthe hermeneutical key to every pericope in the Bible. 38Hermeneutics is too complicated a procedure to be resolved bya simple method. It can however tell the reader ahead of timewhat he should expect to hear about his condition beforeGod. 39 If he does not find himself in the terrible dilemma ofstanding condemned and forgiven by God at the same time, hemay conclude that he has misunderstood the Scriptures. 40Luther, by understanding Hebrews as providing no salvationfor those who had fallen into sin, rejected it from the canon.This was a radical decision on his part that might have beenresolved by a re-examination of the pericope in question, but itdoes demonstrate the seriousness with which he understoodthe law and the gospel. The same is true of his rejection of theEpistle of James, which he understood as teaching works as away of salvation. 41THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL ASA HOMILETICAL DEVICELaw and gospel must also be understood as the basichomiletical device in the church. 42 The sermon must reflectthe tension created by the God who condemns and redeemsthe Christian at the same time. The hearer must never beallowed to fall back on the laurels of his own morality or spiritualaccomplishments. The listener is pummeled continuouslyby the law and the gospel. Testimonies of spiritual greatnessmust be replaced by the proclamation of God’s fulfilling of hisown law in Christ and the freedom which is now given theChristian in Christ. The law and the gospel should be seen asthe key to man’s existential dilemma in understanding himselfand his relationship to God. If the universal atonement meansanything, it means that God has satisfied all of the law’srequirements, its demands and penalties, in the person ofGod’s Son, Jesus Christ. The law no longer can describe howGod views man. The gospel can never be nullified. 43 Thegospel is never conditional, since incarnation and atonementare permanent realities with God. Our moral and spiritual failuresdo not trigger a negative response in God so that hereturns to the old covenant. 44 The former agenda of penalty isnot reinstated. This has been satisfied once and for all. Forwhat reason is anyone now condemned, if the law is not ineffect? A great condemnation awaits those who reject God’sfree gift in Christ. Under the covenant of the law, we failed todo what God required. Those who reject the gospel have notfailed to fulfill a requirement (that would make the gospel onlyanother law) they have rejected what God has freely done. Sinnersare accepted by Christ. Those who reject him are not.Two sayings are attributed to Luther. He promised a doctor’scap to anyone who could rightly distinguish between thelaw and the gospel. 45 Even theologians who can dogmaticallydistinguish between them cannot preach it. The other has to dowith good works. The Christian does not need the motivationof the law simply because he is so busy doing good works. Stillthe motivation of the law is there, but not law as demand, punishment,and reward, but law as fulfilled in Christ. 46 In spite ofthe terrible spiritual agony Luther experienced as long as helived, he was not a dour, gloomy or sullen person, as some otherreformers were reputed to be. Quite to the contrary he neverovercame some of his crude peasant speech, which todaywould be looked upon by some as signs of an unsanctified life.When faced with his own greatness, he said that God broughtabout the Reformation while he and Melanchthon drank beer.He was annoyed with Melanchthon’s obsession with minorsins and urged him to do something really sinful: “sin boldly.”As a hymn writer, where the brine of the middle ages mergedwith the sweet waters of the Reformation, Luther wasunmatched. He spoke about the Christian merrily going abouthis business and doing good. The law and the gospel are thesecret to understanding Luther. No longer is my chief concernrefraining from moral evil and then coming to the conclusionthat I have lived a sanctified life and thus have triumphed.Christians are never free from sin, but they are so busy doinggood that even when they fall into sin as they do good, this isall covered by grace. 47 LOGIA

THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL IN LUTHERAN THEOLOGY 331. John Agricola taught that repentance was to be taught fromthe gospel and not the law. This position was condemned by Formulaof Concord V and VI. Theodore G. Tappert, trans. and ed.,The Book of Concord (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959), pp. 558–568.2. For an extensive discussion, see Werner Elert, The Structure ofLutheranism, Vol. 1, tr. Walter A. Hansen (St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse, 1962), pp. 17–176. Elert’s section on the law reflectsLutheran thinking with its title “Under the Wrath of God,” pp. 17–58.3. See also Eugene F. Klug, “The Third Use of the Law,” in AContemporary Look at the Formula of Concord, eds. Robert D.Preus and Wilbert Rosin (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,1978), pp. 187–204. “Luther could not have put their existentialtie in the sinner’s life more graphically than when he comparedthe Law to the upper grindstone and the Gospel to the lowergrindstone. The Law crushes pretension of self-achieved righteousnessout of the human breast; the Gospel breathes life andforgiveness into the smitten sinner,” pp. 187–188.4. For a detailed discussion of law, nomos, see Johannes P.Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament, Vol. 1 (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988). InRomans 5:13 it is used of regulations (p. 395). In John 10:34, nomo"is used of the Old Testament Scriptures (pp. 395, 396). In Rom 8:2it is used for principle and in the first case refers to the gospel andthe second the law: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesushas set me free from the law of sin and death” pp. 426, 427).5. John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke(Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1992), p. 235.6. For a discussion of terms in a Lutheran perspective, seeFrancis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3, tr. Walter W.F.Albrecht (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), pp.222–224. Pieper is developing an argument presented in the Formulaof Concord VI (Tappert, pp. 478, 479).7. Luther’s Reformation discovery is associated with what hasbeen called his “tower experience.” There is scholarly debate as tothe date, but none to its being the turning point in the formation ofhis principle of justification. See E.G. Schwiebert, Luther and HisTimes (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950), pp. 145–196.8. See Pieper, 3: 228–235, “Law and Gospel as Opposites.”9. Schwiebert, p. 750.10. John M. Todd, Luther: A Life (New York: Crossroad,1982), p. 370.11. This point is made by Lowell C. Green. In speaking of theChristian as simul iustus et peccator, Luther “retained the paradox butmeant instead that the believer was a sinner in the eyes of the world butwas a just person in the sight of God and under God’s forensic declarationfor the sake of Christ and His righteousness. …This insight of thereformers [Luther and Melanchthon] was tragically confused in ensuingyears. If some seventeenth-century dogmaticians not only tended todistinguish justification and sanctification but also to separate them, theeighteenth-century pietists went to the opposite extreme. They thoughtone was a sinner and then a just person (in a before-and-after arrangement)rather than as simultaneously sinful and just through forensicjustification.” Lowell C. Green, How Melanchthon Helped Luther Discoverthe Gospel (Fallbrook, California: Verdict, 1980), pp. 263, 264.12. This hymn by John Newton is in Lutheran Worship (St.Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1982), No. 509.NOTES13. Lutheran Worship, pp. 136, 137.14. The conclusion of Psalm 51, “Create in me a clean heart, OLord,” ordinarily precedes the celebration of the Holy Communion.Lutheran Worship, pp. 143, 144.15. In the Order of the Confessional Service of The LutheranHymnal, the Christian as a penitent sinner is to compare himselfwith David, Peter, the sinful woman and the prodigal son (St.Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1941), p. 48.16. The Lord’s Prayer is used by Lutherans at Baptism andOrdination and in the Holy Communion and the minor servicesof Matins, Vespers, Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer and Compline.According to Luther’s Small Catechism it is to be prayedalong with the Ten Commandments and the Apostles’ Creed bythe family in Morning and Evening Prayer and also before andafter meals. Lutheran Worship, p. 305.17. Apology IV, 38. “For the law always accuses and terrifiesconsciences. It does not justify, because a conscience terrified bythe law flees before God’s judgment.” Tappert, p. 112.18. Lex est Deus accusans et damnans; evangelium est Deusabsolvens et iustificans. Pieper, 3:250.19. This position came over into Lutheranism through Pietismwhich had roots in Reformed theology and was akin to EnglishMethodism. For a scholarly discussion of Pietistic influence inLutheran theology, see Carter Lindberg, The Third Reformation?(Macon, Georgia: Mercer, 1983), pp. 131–178, “The ‘Second Reformation’—Pietism.”20. See my “The Concept of Anfechtung in Luther’s Thought,”Concordia Theological Quarterly 47 (1983), pp. 15–29.21. “Marcion is characterized by extreme dualism. In his‘Antithesis,’ in complete contradiction to the Christian traditionfrom which he came, he assumed the existence of two gods, one ofthe Old Testament and another of the New.” Aloys Grillmeier,Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. 1, 2nd rev. ed., tr. John Bowden,(Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), p. 99.22. See also James Dahl, “Friedrich Schleiermacher and HisRenunciation of the Old Testament,” a lecture delivered and distributedat the Midwestern Conference of the Evangelical TheologicalSociety at Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake,Ind., March 20, 1992. Dahl is an assistant professor at TrinitySeminary, Deerfield, Ill., and developed the lecture from a Ph.D.dissertation in process.23. The point was made in a lecture and defended by Myron J.Houghton, “Law and Gospel in Dispensational Tradition,” given atthe Midwest Evangelical Theological Society Meeting, Grace Seminary,Winona Lake, Ind., March 20, 1992.24. Pieper discusses the differences that Lutherans have withRoman Catholics, the Reformed, and synergists under the categoryof the law and the gospel. Pieper, 3:247–252.25. Tappert, p. 558.26. Lutherans distinguish man in the state before the fall,after the fall, after regeneration and after the resurrection(FC II). Tappert, p. 469. The law does not accuse in the firstand the last conditions. In the condition of regeneration, manas he is regenerated is not condemned. As sinner he is.27. See my “Formula of Concord: Article VI,” Concordia TheologicalQuarterly 42 (1978) pp. 145–155.

34 LOGIA28. At the end of his explanation to the First Commandmentin his Large Catechism, Luther writes: “Let this suffice for the FirstCommandment. We had to explain it at length since it is the mostimportant. For, as I said before, where the heart is right with Godand this commandment is kept, fulfillment of all the others will followof its own accord.” Tappert, p. 371.29. FC V, Tappert, p. 560.30. In Lutheran theology the gospel is offered through preaching,Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the Office of the Keys [Absolution],and the Church. SA III IV, Tappert, p. 310.31. The three uses of the law are spelled out in FC VI, Tappert,p. 563.32. Tappert, p. 349.33. The problem is alluded to by Hans Schwarz, “The Meansof Grace,” Christian Dogmatics Vol. 2, ed. Carl E. Braaten andRobert W. Jenson (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), p. 275.34. Tappert, pp. 342–344.35. As mentioned above, Luther said that if man knew the FirstCommandment, he would not need the others. For a discussion onthe significance of Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms, see RobertD. Preus and David P. Scaer, eds., Luther’s Catechisms—450 Years(Fort Wayne: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1979).36. See my “Sanctification in Lutheran Theology,” ConcordiaTheological Quarterly 49 (1985) pp. 181–195; “Sanctificationin the Lutheran Confessions,” Concordia Theological Quarterly53 (1989) pp. 165–181.37. “As I have often said, the trust and faith of the heartalone make both God and an idol. If your faith and trust areright, then your God is the true God.” Luther’s Explanation tothe First Commandment. Large Catechism, Tappert p. 365.38. The law-gospel as a hermeneutical device was the center ofthe controversy between the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St.Louis and The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in the 1970s.Various faculty members and others in the synod defended theopinion that a Lutheran exegesis of a particular pericope requiredno more than determining its significance as law-gospel. This positionwas called “Gospel reductionism” and was rooted in the existentialapproach of Rudolph Bultmann. It is debatable if thishermeneutical approach could be recognized as legitimate. It wouldbe difficult to cite scholarly works that even mention this approach.A preaching principle cannot be substituted for a historical investigationof the text. Matters are even more complicated when“gospel” is interpreted in Bultmann’s sense of coming to an awarenessof one’s authentic existence within the Christian communitywith little or no attention paid to the question of the historical existenceof Jesus. The reader may refer to my “The Law Gospel Debatein the Missouri Synod,” The Springfielder 35 (December 1972), pp.156–171 and “The Law Gospel Debate in the Missouri Synod Continued,”The Springfielder 40 (September 1976) pp. 107–118.39. The law and the gospel are “used to counter false andunevangelical practices which undermine the gospel, to combatrationalist or legalistic exegeses which undermine thegospel, and positively to offer a setting for the presentation ofarticles of faith.” Robert D. Preus, “Hermeneutics of the Formulaof Concord,” No Other Gospel, ed. Arnold J. Koelpin(Milwaukee: Northwestern, 1980), p. 331.40. The Formula of Concord V claims that the law andgospel are to be used in understanding the Scriptures. “The distinctionbetween law and gospel is an especially brilliant lightwhich serves the purpose that the Word of God may be rightlydivided and the writings of the holy prophets and apostles maybe explained and understood correctly.” Tappert, p. 558.41. For a critical appraisal of Luther’s view of James, seemy James the Apostle of Faith (St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse, 1983).42. The Formula of Concord V, “Law and Gospel,” is setforth primarily as an article on the preaching of God’s word.Tappert, pp. 477–479.43. A document entitled, “The Condemnations of the ReformationEra: Do They Still Divide?” was produced by Lutheran andRoman Catholic theologians with the suggestion the historicaldivisions of the Reformation period were no longer applicable. Thetheological faculty of the University of Göttingen responded negatively.A subsection of the opinion entitled “Justification” demonstrateshow Lutheran theology is dependent on the law-gospel distinction,especially in its understanding of justification. See TheLutheran Quarterly 5 (Spring 1991), pp. 15–30. The following is theclassical Lutheran position. “Thereby his being justified, which heis in God’s judgment, stands in contradiction to his experience ofhimself, according to which he can know himself only as sinner aslong as he lives. He is always both at the same time: justified in hisrelationship to God and sinner according to his quality (simul iustuset peccator). In Christ the believer is separated from his sin, sothat he can pray daily for forgiveness of persistent sins” (p. 17).44. At the Midwestern Evangelical Theological Society Meetingat Grace Seminary, Winona Lake, Ind., March 20–21, 1992, itbecame evident that the law-gospel distinction, in precisely thisorder, was characteristic of Lutheran theology and not other traditionswhich either reverse the process or see a gospel-lawgospeldistinction or which overlook the category. To show theimportance of this category in Lutheran theology, the Formula ofConcord V condemns any confusion on this article. “Hence wereject and deem it as false and detrimental when men teach thatthe Gospel, strictly speaking, is a proclamation of conviction andreproof and not exclusively a proclamation of grace. Thereby theGospel is again changed into a teaching of the law, the merit ofChrist and the Holy Scriptures are obscured, Christians arerobbed of their true comfort, and the doors are again opened tothe papacy.” Tappert, p. 479.45. “Now, him who is adept at this art of properly dividingLaw and Gospel set at the head of the table and declare him aDoctor of the Holy Scriptures.” St L, 9:802. Quoted fromPieper, 3:242.46. FC VI 5. Tappert, p. 564. See also Pieper, 3:237.47. For a discussion of just this point see my James the Apostle ofFaith, “The Gospel as a Fulfilled Law,” pp. 66–69. “The Law has beenfulfilled not through a divine sovereign act of arbitrary abrogationsbut by Christ’s satisfying the divine requirements of the Law with itsdemands. Thus the Law is not presented to the Christian with itsdemands only, but also with the fulfillment of these demands. To thenon-Christian the Law appears revealing the wrath of God becausehe has not yet recognized Christ as the Law’s perfect answer” pp. 67,68. The reader may wish to consult my “Theses on Law and Gospel,”The Springfielder 37 (June 1973) pp. 53–63

Angels UnawarePAUL R. HARRISTHE THEME FOR OUR CONFERENCE IS “WITH ANGELS ANDArchangels.” In keeping with this theme, my paper isentitled “Angels Unaware.” The King James Version ofHebrews 13:2 says, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: forthereby some have entertained angels unawares.” However, thesubject of this paper is not that we miss seeing angels, but thatwe miss seeing the pastor as an angel. Walther cites Malachi 2:7as proof that ministers are angels. 1 The most interesting proofpassages, however, are found in Revelation. There the letters tothe seven churches are addressed to “the angel of the churchof. . . .” These cannot be heavenly angels since in some of theletters they are implicated in sin. The angels are the pastors ofthe seven churches receiving letters. We note two things aboutthese “angels.” They have a privileged position and specialresponsibility. They are found in the hand of the reigning LordJesus (1:20), and they are singled out as being responsible forwhat is going on in their churches.Many pastors or congregations are unaware of the positionand responsibility of the pastor in the local congregation.Many have come to believe that the pastor is an employee ofthe congregation. I believe this view is a consequence of theMissouri Synod’s understanding of the voters’ assembly. Thispaper seeks to show what the proper place of the pastor is relativeto the congregation and the voters assembly and what happenswhen the proper place of the pastor is usurped or ignored.The proper place of the pastor is to rule the congregation.Stating this so bluntly shocks Missouri Synod ears. But shouldit? We all agree that in some sense the pastor “incarnates”—brings out in flesh and blood—the person and work of Christin the church. In the traditional treatment of the threefoldoffice of Christ, we say Christ is our prophet, priest, and king.No one doubts that a pastor has a prophetic function and apriestly function, but the minute it is suggested that he has akingly function feathers are ruffled.But the pastor does have a kingly role. He is to rule. Thereare four clear passages in the New Testament that state this. InABOUT THE AUTHORPAUL R. HARRIS is pastor of Christ Our Savior Lutheran Church, Harvey,Louisiana. This Essay was first presented to the Angels andArchangels Conference in September, 1992 at New Orleans.351 Timothy 3:4, 5 we read that a pastor should be “one thatruleth well his own house, having his children in subjectionwith all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his ownhouse, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” Are ourhomes to be democracies? Are they to be led by committees? Isthere to be more than one head of a household?The Greek word translated “rule” in these passages from ITimothy is proistemi. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament(B.A.G.) lists as the primary meaning “be at the head (of),rule, direct.” The secondary meaning is “be concerned about,care for, give aid.” Since St. Paul describes “one that ruleth wellhis own house” as him who has his children “in subjection,” itis clear that only the meaning “rule” fits.The other two references to a pastor ruling come inHebrews 13. Verse 7 says, “Remember them which have the ruleover you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whosefaith follow, considering the end of their conversation.” Verse 17reads, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submityourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must giveaccount, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: forthat is unprofitable for you.” The word translated “rule” here ishegeomai which B.A.G. defines as “lead, guide, ruler, leader.”Two other clear references to the authority of the pastoraloffice can be found in Acts and Titus. Acts 20:28 tells us thepastor is in the position of overseer. “Take heed therefore untoyourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghosthath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which hehath purchased with his own blood.” There is no way the word“overseer” (episkopos) can be taken to mean anything but aposition of authority. Titus 2:15 also emphasizes the authorityof the pastoral office: “These things speak, and exhort, andrebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.”Pastors are to rule their congregations. This is the clearteaching of Scripture. Martin Luther warns of the danger ofignoring clear passages of Scripture. “I have noticed with specialcare that all heresies and errors mentioned in Scripture didnot flow from the clear words of Scripture or the Bible . . . butevery error had its origin in this, that the heretics avoided theclear passages and fabricated special interpretations out of theirown minds by conclusions and tropes.” 2The church and her fathers have always recognized thatthe proper thing for a pastor to do is to rule. The Augsburg

36 LOGIAConfession acknowledges the pastor’s authority to make ordinancesin the church. “What, then, are we to think of the Sundayand like rites in the house of God? To this we answer that itis lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things bedone orderly in the Church, not that thereby we should meritgrace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be boundto judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin tobreak them without offense to others” (AC XXVIII, 53; emphasisadded). In the Formula of Concord the Latin says that ministersof the word are “leaders of the congregation . . . those whomGod has appointed to rule His Church” (SD X 10, Triglotta, p.1055). In the “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope,”Philip Melanchthon states that the pastor is to preside over thechurch and has the command from Christ to excommunicate.“In our Confession and the Apology we have in generalrecounted what we have had to say concerning ecclesiasticalpower. For the Gospel assigns to those who preside overchurches the command to teach the Gospel, to remit sins, toadminister the Sacraments, and besides jurisdiction, namely,the command to excommunicate those whose crimes areknown, and again to absolve those who repent” (Tr 60; Triglotta,p. 521).” The fact that the Treatise recognizes that the pastorhas the keys says much about his authority to rule. H. ArminMoellering in a 1988 Concordia Journal article says, “As JoachimJeremias points out, the conferral of keys in Biblical usagemeans something more than appointment to be a flunky doorkeeper.On the basis of Biblical (and Judaic) evidence he concludes:‘Transferral of the keys is accordingly installation intothe position of plenipotentiary. . . .’” 3The fact that the Treatise recognizesthat the pastor has the keys says muchabout his authority to rule.The church fathers over the centuries have made similarstatements. Irenaeus says in Against Heresies, “Wherefore it isincumbent to obey the presbyters who are in theChurch. . . .” 4`Ignatius in writing to the Ephesians says, “Letus therefore be careful not to resist the bishop, that by our submissionwe may give ourselves to God.” 5 In the same letter hesays, “Plainly therefore we ought to regard the bishop as theLord Himself.” 6 In writing to the Trallians Ignatius says, “Forwhen ye are obedient to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, it is evidentto me that ye are living not after men but after JesusChrist.” 7 Throughout the epistles of Ignatius there is the constantrefrain, “Do nothing without the bishop.” Contrast thiswith today’s unspoken yet ever present refrain, “Pastors, donothing that doesn’t please the congregation.”Luther says pastors are to rule. “For the pastor is in chargeof the pulpit, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the care of the soulsis laid on him.” 8 In his exposition of Psalm 110 Luther says that“some must be taken who shall rule the others.” 9 In fact, inanother place Luther says, “A pastor may indeed glory publiclyand rightly that he has charge of the ministry, Baptism, theSacrament, and the care of souls, and that these are commandedhim. . . .” 10 He is even more emphatic in a sermon wherehe says, “The apostles and their successors are made teacherstill the end of the world, and to them, according to their office,there has been given such great power and authority as Christthe Son of God, Himself had. . . .” 11 In another sermon forthe Fourth Sunday after Easter he even went so far as to say,“Thus all people on earth are subject to the ministry, which theapostles and their successors administer by divine right; theyhave to submit themselves and follow it if they really want toreceive God’s grace and be saved.” 12The second Martin, Martin Chemnitz, also wrote of thepower of the pastoral office. “This power which was given tothe apostles in their ministry for the necessary work of pastorsis neither a natural characteristic nor a created quality nor anormal gift nor an attribute peculiar to the apostles themselves;but it is a divine strength, power, and efficacy which assiststhem in their ministry and which works effectively through thisministry. . . . At the same time He promised that with all Hisauthority, strength, might and efficacy He would be with theapostolic ministry in the church, not only in the person of theapostles but also through all days till the end of the world.” 13While the pastor exercises a divine power when he rules, itshould go without saying that when the Scriptures or thechurch fathers speak of a pastor ruling they do not mean dictatingor tyrannically overseeing. The Scriptures themselves saythis. “Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that theprinces of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and theythat are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not beso among you” (Mt 20:25, 26). Paul says that pastors do nothave dominion over the faith of their flocks (2 Cor 1:24). Petertells us that we are not to be “lords over God’s heritage” but be“examples to the flock” (1 Pt 5:3). Twice in 2 Corinthians (10:8and 13:10) Paul says the authority of the pastoral office is foredification, not for destruction.The Treatise says, “Let neither the other ministers norPeter assume for themselves lordship or superiority over theChurch” (Tr 11). And the Apology limits the authority of pastorssaying they do not have “a free, unlimited order and power,but a limited order, namely, not to preach their own word,but God’s Word and the Gospel” (Ap 28, 18). Chemnitz alsolimits the pastor’s authority:This ministry does indeed have power, divinelybestowed (2 Cor 10:4–6; 13:2–4), but circumscribedwith certain duties and limitations, namely, topreach the Word of God, teach the erring, reprovethose who sin, admonish the dilatory, comfort thetroubled, strengthen the weak, resist those whospeak against the truth, reproach and condemn falseteaching, censure evil customs, dispense the divinelyinstituted sacraments, remit and retain sins, be anexample to the flock, pray for the church privatelyand lead the church in public prayers, be in chargeof care for the poor, publicly excommunicate the

ANGELS UNAWARE 37stubborn and again receive those who repent andreconcile them with the church, appoint pastors to thechurch according to the instruction of Paul, with consentof the church institute rites that serve the ministryand do not militate against the Word of God norburden consciences but serve good order, dignity,decorum, tranquility, edification, etc. For these are thethings which belong to these two chief points, namely,to the power of order and the power of jurisdiction. 14These limitations are essential, but we cannot go beyond thelimitations in the other direction either. That is, while it is wrongfor pastors to assume lordship and superiority, it is not wrongfor them to accept the headship and exercise their God-givenrule. Matthew 20:25, 26 does not forbid pastors from ruling butonly from ruling as the Gentiles do. In the words of Chrysostom,a pastor should be “awe-inspiring yet kindly” and “humble yetnot servile.” 15 As in marriage, the husband is not commanded tosubdue his wife, but she is instructed to submit to her husband,so in the church, pastors are not commanded to subdue congregations,but congregations are directed to submit to pastors. Pastorsare commanded to teach the truth about submitting.In what sense then is the pastor the servant of the congregation?He is a servant of the congregation’s needs, as outlinedin the Scriptures. He is not a servant of their whims andwants. 16 Using the love-faith distinction Luther is so fond ofemploying, in matters of love the pastor is the servant of thecongregation. But in matters of faith, the pastor is the servantof no man, but of Christ alone.Why emphasize the power, authority and rule of the pastorat all? It seems so worldly. First, the emphasis is not on the powerof a person but on the power of an office. The pastor as a man isno different than any other man. But he holds an office that isvery special, one that Christ instituted. As Luther said, “Whateverpertains to our person we must and will bear gladly, but whatpertains to grace, especially to this office, which has and bestowsnothing but grace, we want everybody to honor. ...” 17Second, the authority of the pastoral office should beemphasized because pastors today are regarded as lackeys ormaybe managers in God’s house. Surely, the fact that we havenot only laymen but also theologians arguing that the pastor isan “at-will employee of the congregation” is testimony to howlittle we esteem this divine office. To paraphrase what Luthersaid about the Word of God: If they really believed the pastoraloffice was divine, they wouldn’t play around with it so. Howfar we have fallen! In the past, many congregations had Christ’sexhortation, “He that heareth you heareth Me,” embroideredon their pulpit altar cloths. This Bible verse was also painted onthe east wall of churches where it was constantly before theeyes of the worshiping congregations. 18Third, we want to exalt the authority of the pastoral officefor the benefit of the sheep. In the words of Luther, “When weboast this way [of our office like St. Paul did], we are not lookingfor prestige in the world or praise from men or money, or forpleasure or the good will of the world. The reason for our proudboasting is that we are in a divine calling and in God’s own work,and that the people need to be assured of our calling in order thatthey may know that our word is in fact the Word of God. This,then, is not a vain pride; it is a most holy pride against the deviland the world” (AE 26:20, 21). The Lutheran Confessions alsoenjoin such “holy” boasting. “For the Church has the commandto appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us,because we know that God approves this ministry, and is presentin the ministry [that God will preach and work through men andthose who have been chosen by men]. And it is of advantage, sofar as can be done, to adorn the ministry of the Word with everykind of praise against fanatical men. . . .” (Ap XIII, 12, 13).Second, the authority of the pastoraloffice should be emphasized becausepastors today are regarded as lackeysor maybe managers in God’s house.The pastoral office is the means through which Christ ruleshis church on earth through his word. The Reformation was insome sense a battle to restore the pastoral office’s rightfulauthority. The papacy, a man-made institution, had placeditself over the pastoral office. In our day, another man-madeinstitution has usurped the authority Christ has given to thepastoral office. The constitutions of most American Lutherancongregations state that the voters’ assembly is the final authority.The voters’ assembly rules, not the God-given office of thepastor. This is contrary to the Word of God and the Confessions.This is no less an error than the papacy. 19It is generally assumed that the voters’ assembly is a scripturaland even a divine institution. The Abiding Word calls thevoters’ meeting an executive assembly and says these “weregenerally maintained in the first Christian congregations, asthe Book of Acts records.” 20 Even if the first congregations didmaintain voters’ assemblies, especially standing, regularlymeeting ones, this does not mean they are mandated or evenscriptural. In the words of Walther, “Whatever cannot beproved to be God’s institution from His Word cannot beregarded as His own institution without committing idolatry”(emphasis added). 21While the church has the freedom to establish voters’ assemblies,it does not have the freedom to exalt a man-made institutionover a divine one. What Kurt Marquart says concerning auxiliaryoffices and the pastoral office applies here too: “Only onething the church may not do. She may not forget the differencebetween what God Himself has established in the church as Hisinstitution, and what men establish from time to time as fruits offaith and love.” 22 Elsewhere Marquart says that human traditions“are all the details of church organization beyond the divinelymade provisions for the orderly ministrations of the holy meansof grace.” 23 The only divine provision is for the pastoral office.We do well to heed the warning of Quentin Wesselschmidt: “Onething which we must strongly guard against is the temptation toread back into Scripture practices that developed for other reasonsthan by divine institution.” 24

38 LOGIADid standing voters’ assemblies exist at all in the New Testament?Was there a body of men who sat over the divinelygiven pastoral office? Some might point to Acts 1:15–26, wherethe disciples took steps to fill Judas’s vacant office, as proof thatvoters’ assemblies existed. The text doesn’t state or even implythat voting took place in this apostolic meeting. It says “theyappointed two” (v. 23) who “went in and out” with the apostles(v. 21). Then after Peter prays, verse 26 says “they gave forththeir lots.” “They” means Matthias and Justus did. When peoplegave lots they weren’t voting for something. They wereseeking to allow God to select rather than men. Look at theaccount of Jonah. When the men cast lots to see on whoseaccount the terrible storm had come upon them, they did notvote Jonah to be the guilty party. 25By establishing voters’ assemblies inour midst we have bowed to theprinciple of democracy and majorityrule. Thinking men in our midsthave always warned against theevils of democracy.Another place some turn to prove that voters’ assembliesdid and are to exist is Matthew 18:17, “tell it unto the church.”But Jesus doesn’t call on the church to make a decision here.The decision is already made. The man is judged to be unrepentantby the first disciple. The second goes along to witness this.Then finally his impenitence is announced to the church. Theydo not vote to decide if it is so or not. 26 A misunderstanding ofthe “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope” has cloudedthis issue. The German translation of the Treatise includesthis gloss on paragraph 24: “Likewise Christ gives supreme andfinal jurisdiction to the Church when He says, Tell it unto thechurch” (Mt 18:17). This gloss does not reflect Melanchthon’sposition. Everywhere in the Treatise, Melanchthon places theauthority of jurisdiction in the hands of pastors and bishops(Tr. 59, 60, 73, 76, etc.). The argument in the Treatise is that theGerman states do have the church, and they do not need to lookto Rome for ecclesiastical authority. It by no means places thepower of jurisdiction in the hands of voters’ assemblies.By establishing voters’ assemblies in our midst we havebowed to the principle of democracy and majority rule.Thoughtful men in our midst have always warned against theevils of democracy. Wilhelm Löhe warned the Missouri Synod ina letter dated September 8, 1847: “We notice with growing concernthat your synodical constitution, as it has been adopted,does not follow the example of the first Christian congregation.We have good reason to fear that the strong admixture of democratic,independent and congregational principles in your constitutionswill do greater damage than the influence of princesand governmental agencies in the church of our homeland.” 27John H.C. Fritz, in his 1932 Pastoral Theology, also tried tolimit the effects of democracy. “Matters of doctrine and of conscienceshould not be submitted to the vote of the congregation,for these have already been decided by the Word of Goditself.” 28 In our own time men have tried to do the same thing.Marquart writes, “In the temporal sphere, given democraticarrangements, to vote is to take part in and to exercise the awesomepowers of Romans 13:1 ff. Voting is an act of supremesovereignty, which can, within constitutionally specified limits,enforce the majority will with the ultimate sanctions of thedeath penalty and war. Voting can mean nothing like this inthe church at all (Mt 20:24–28). The church is not a democracybut a Christocracy: Christ alone is Lord. Voting is but a way ofexpressing agreement or consensus.” 29Despite the warnings, despite the attempts to limit democracy,despite the desire to redefine voting, majority rule is a principleheld near and dear by most American Lutheran congregations.The more informed laymen may be aware that their votecannot make something false true or true false. But the very bestof them believes that in matters where the Word of God is notclear to them majority should rule. Furthermore, when constitutionsmake the voters’ assembly the final authority, that meansvoting is an exercise of authority; a group of laymen rather thanthe divinely instituted office is ruling the congregation.A standing voters’ assembly that rules by majority votecannot be a biblical teaching. The orthodox theologian JohnGerhard said that against the rule of faith no interpretation ofScripture should be advanced. 30 Majority ruling among God’speople is contrary to the analogy of the faith. Majority rule is aloveless principle. It means in essence that might makes right.Majority rule means the majority has the right to inflict its willon the minority. Majority rule means that truth is to be foundin numbers. Chemnitz wrote of the folly of such thinking: “Ifthen at the time of Elijah someone would have judged the truthof the doctrine according to the consensus of the visible assembly,he certainly would have erred.” 31Where did the present polity come from? Not from theLutheran Confessions, not from Luther, not from the orthodoxfathers. It came from a unique situation, in many ways anextraordinary situation. The recognized authority on the historyof Missouri Synod’s polity is Carl S. Mundinger’s Governmentin the Missouri Synod. He says that the principle establishedin Missouri is “laymen have the power by majority voteto regulate financial and spiritual matters.” 32 He calls it “thetheory of the ‘supremacy of the congregation.’” 33 He also saysthat Walther made it work through his shrewdness “and hisability to get around difficulties even if those difficulties wereconstitutional. . . .” 34 That was all well and good for Walther.But the constitution of Trinity, St. Louis was used as a modelfor a large number of congregations. 35 What if we lack theshrewdness of Walther to make our inherited polity work orplease God?It is well known that there are two strands in Luther’sthoughts on church and ministry: the priesthood of all believersand the divine institution of the pastoral office. He emphasizedthe former against the Romanists and the latter againsttheEnthusiasts. The extraordinary situation in Perry County

ANGELS UNAWARE 39led to only one of those strands being followed, the priesthoodof all believers.The situation was that a group of pastors and laymen hadfollowed a man, Martin Stephan, halfway around the world,believing him to be the very bishop of their bodies and souls.(One of the constitutions Stephan introduced said, “Thesupreme administration of all of the association’s affairs is in thehands of the first clergyman [Stephan], who combines in his personthe highest powers in both spiritual and secular affairs.” 36When Stephan proved to be a false shepherd, the colony wasdivided sharply. The laymen blamed the other pastors for whathappened. They, figuratively speaking, placed them in the sameboat as Stephan. They would have done so literally if they couldhave. For two years after Stephan was deposed, “The colony wasdivided into a clerical and a lay group, both arrayed against eachother; both striving for control of their brethren.” 37 The lay peoplewanted nothing to do with pastors ruling. Mundingerremarks, that they “had been subjected to priest rule in its mostoffensive form for half a dozen years in their early adult life. Thatthey should act like burnt children does not surprise us.” 38 Had itnot been for this group of “burned” children, according toMundinger, “the principle of congregational rights would nothave bulked so large or been worded so precisely in Missouri’sconstitution.” 39 But Walther did not cave in immediately to thelaity’s demands. He resisted the demand for lay participation inthe government of the church for almost a year and a half. 40Missouri Synod polity came out of acompromise with a “rabid” lay party. . . which stood for an extremecongregationalism . . .Missouri Synod polity came out of a compromise with a“rabid” lay party which, in the judgment of Mundinger, “stoodfor an extreme congregationalism with heavy emphasis on theindividual. Like the Anabaptists, they took certain isolatedquotations from Luther’s writings of the early 1520’s, tore themout of their life situations, and tried to construct a new churchpolity.” 41 After years of opposing this, Walther compromisedwith them. “In this extreme exigency Walther made a virtue ofnecessity and adopted a realistic course. He accepted principlesof church government which his lay opponents had gatheredfrom the writings of Luther (these were all from the earlyLuther as was noted above). To these he added from Luthercertain provisions which safeguarded the dignity of the ministerialoffice: his transfer theory, the doctrine of the divinity ofthe call, the absolute authority of the Word of God, and thepermanence of tenure.” 42As a result of this compromise Walther pastored a congregationin which the lay people ruled. Trinity congregation votersmeetings were not opened with prayer for the first year of theirexistence because the pastor, Walther, was not permitted toattend the voters meetings. The congregation wouldn’t allow itbecause they did not want to become the victims of priest rule.“As far as the minutes show, the pastor was never legally permittedto attend the business part of the voters meetings.” 43 Trinityis not just one isolated congregation. It is the mother church ofthe Missouri Synod. The preliminary conferences to form thesynod and review drafts of the constitution took place at Trinitywith the voters of Trinity present. Mundinger believes it is significantthat “The wording [for the Missouri Synod’s constitution]was fixed in the midst of a congregation that was intenselyjealous of its congregational rights.” 44This polity emphasizes what neither Luther (later in life)nor our Confessions emphasize, the priesthood of all believers.The Confessions only refer to the priesthood of all believersonce, and there it is used as a synonym for church (Tr 69). Infact the Apology specifically states that it is the Reformer’sgreatest wish to maintain the old church polity: In “Of EcclesiasticalOrder” we read, “Concerning this subject we have frequentlytestified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish tomaintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [oldchurch-regulations and the government of bishops], eventhough they have been made by human authority [providedthe bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]” (ApXIV, 24, 25). How did we get from this statement to a lay-ruled(in Mundinger’s estimation) church?Luther did not establish lay-ruled congregations.Mundinger claims that he could have but he did not. 45 TheFrench historian J.H. Merle d’Aubigné says at Luther’s timeamong the Lutherans everything flowed from the pastor. 46Also the people in Luther’s time had a general fear of democracy.Erasmus had a popular saying at the time which reflectedthis fear: “They ask us to open our gates, crying aloud—theGospel! the Gospel! . . . Raise the cloak, and under its mysteriousfolds you will find—democracy!” 47Furthermore, Luther specifically writes against congregationalrule. “You can imagine it yourselves how a fine young fellowwho has gone to school all his life, spent his father’s money,and endured all manner of tribulation would like to become apastor in Zwikau ever since the news from there is that themembers would be the masters and the pastor the servant, sittingday in, day out on a swing as it were.” 48 In another letter toa congregation in 1543 he writes, “You are not the masters ofyour pastor and the ministry. You have not established it, butsolely the Son of God. You have not contributed anythingtoward it, and hence you have less authority over it than the devilhas over the kingdom of heaven. You should not lord it overhim or teach him or prevent him from admonishing. Attend toyour business and don’t interfere with God’s rule, lest He teachyou that you must do this. None of you would tolerate it if astranger would give your servant, whom you cannot spare, a furloughor chase him away. There is not a shepherd lad, be he everso lowly, who would take an insult from a stranger, but God’sservant should be everybody’s puppet and suffer all things fromeveryone” (emphasis added). 49Another orthodox Lutheran father, David Chytraeus, oneof the contributors to the Formula of Concord, has an opinionas to what type of polity should be followed. “This episcopalorder and the ranks connected with it are not evil in themselves.They should not be disparaged when they serve to uphold the

40 LOGIAunity and harmony of the church in true evangelical doctrineand the preservation of Christian discipline and peace.” 50A lay-ruled church was not what Luther established or wantedestablished. He did not establish the voters’ assembly nor didLutheran congregations of his time. In the words of NormanNagel, “We can hardly be understanding the Confessions rightly,if that understanding runs counter to what was then being donein the churches.” 51 To extract Luther’s statements concerning thepriesthood of all believers out of the particular circumstances inwhich he wrote them, and make them a basis for a lay-ruledchurch is like focusing on some of his statements against liturgicalrites and vestments in order to reform worship. Luther wasmost definitely opposed to the papacy and pastors lordingauthority over the flock, but he was not for democracy, majorityrule or voters’ assemblies.The establishmentof standing voters’assemblies over the pastoral officeis no minor error.The establishment of standing voters’ assemblies over the pastoraloffice is no minor error. In the Missouri Synod’s synodical catechismof 1943, John 20:22–23, “Christ breathed on them and saithunto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit,they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, theyare retained,” is used as a proof passage for the teaching that “Christhas given this power [the Office of the Keys] to His Church on earth;especially, to every local congregation” (emphasis original). 52Melanchthon, however, says in the Treatise, “These words testifythat the keys are given alike to all the apostles, and that all the apostlesare alike sent forth [to preach]” (Tr 23). Marquart says thatJohn 20:21–23 is “rightly treated” as the words of institution of theministry. 53 Words which refer to the pastoral office having the keysare twisted to mean the local congregation does.Father Rudolph E. Kurz, a pastor for thirty years in the LCMSand now a pastor in the Evangelical Catholic Church, points outhow absurd the position of the LCMS is. “A group of laymen (avoters’ assembly) always has the ‘power of the keys,’ but a groupof validly ‘called’ and ordained pastors never has the ‘power of thekeys.’ For the ‘power’ by divine authority resides only with thelaity (by whose sufferance the pastor publicly holds the office ontheir behalf).” 54 The awkwardness of the situation manifests itselfwhen the pastor brings a matter of excommunication before thevoters assembly. He does not function as “judge” having made a“ruling” on a hard case and now announcing it. Instead he functionsas a prosecuting attorney trying to convince the voters tojudge in his favor. The God-ordained shepherd must convince thesheep to do what is best on behalf of another sheep under his care,for whom he will give an account before the Lord Jesus!Another area in which this flip-flopping of authority showsitself is in stewardship. Gerhard, the sixteenth-century orthodoxLutheran theologian, says if one title were to be chosen to describethe work of the pastor it would be “steward.” 55 In our day, thelaity are regarded as the stewards and the task of the pastor isdefined as making them stewards or making them better stewards.What about the relationship of the pastoral office to thechurch? Both are divine institutions. Both have existed from thevery foundations of the world. There never was a time that thechurch existed without the pastoral office or the office existedwithout the church. The church is people and pastor. There is ashepherd-shaped vacuum in the church that only a called andordained shepherd can fill. The church does not create the officebut she is called on by God to acknowledge it. This she does bycalling faithful men, approved by others in the office to fill theoffice. Church and ministry, shepherd and sheep, each have theirdivinely instituted roles. The pastor is called to rule and serve thesheep. These are not contradictory roles as can be seen in the lifeof any physical shepherd. He leads them to pasture and uses hisrod and staff on them. But at the same time he binds up thewounded and stays up with the sick. The church is called to followand support the shepherd. These are not contradictory rolesas can be seen in any physical flock of sheep. They come in andgo out at their shepherd’s leading. Yet they clothe him with theirwool and feed him with their bodies.Having seen how the voters’ assembly usurps the power andplace of the pastoral office, we turn now to the practical problemsthat come from this. First, the voters’ assembly gives standing andauthority in the church to people the Lord never intended. In thevast majority of Missouri Synod congregations a person canabsent himself from the means of grace for weeks, months, evenyears and still have a vote on matters that profoundly affect thechurch. They can determine whether or not a fellow member willbe excommunicated for despising the means of grace! These peoplecan be likened to the “mixt multitude” that lusted after thefood in Egypt and dragged the Israelites along with them (Numbers11:4). Pastors have seen how they can materialize out ofnowhere to “pack” a voters’ meeting on a particular issue. Manya pastor has been ousted by the “mixt multitude.”Second, the polity of the voters’ assembly requires a largenumber of lay people who will meet monthly to rule the church.It is clear from Mundinger’s account of old Trinity that the votersthought nothing of meeting two or three times a week for hours.Running the church was their pastime; their hobby. People todayare not so inclined. They will take a turn holding office but donot want to be constantly involved.Third, the polity of the voters’ assembly lends itself to theidea that the pastor is the trainer of the laity, as if Christ had said,“Organize my sheep into work brigades, to do the ‘real’ ministry,themselves,” rather than “Feed my sheep.” 56 The pastor in thissystem is viewed primarily as a trainer or manager, not a shepherdwho leads and rules.Fourth, the voters’ assembly is a gigantic stumbling block tothe assimilation of new members. When people are brought intothe church through adult instruction, they typically have a veryopen, positive relationship with the pastor. But being accepted bythe shepherd is only part of the battle they learn as they face thecongregation’s power structure. In most congregations the voters’assembly is a closed club. People are accepted by it onlyafter they prove themselves.

ANGELS UNAWARE 41Contrast this view with that of Ignatius. In his letter to thePhiladelphians he says, “Where the shepherd is, there follow yeas sheep.” 57 To the Smyrneans he writes, “Wheresoever thebishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesusmay be, there is the universal church.” 58 The Ignatian model isthe pastor at the center as the steward of the means of grace withthe sheep arrayed around him. The current LCMS model has avoters’ assembly (or possibly an executive board) at the centerwith the congregation arrayed around it. How close the pastor isto the center of the circle is determined by how long he has beenthere, how well he gets along with the congregation, and how wellhe gets along with the voters’ assembly. But any model that doesnot have at its center the pastoral office, which is in the stead ofand by the command of the Lord Jesus Christ, has somethingother than the Lord Jesus there.Fifth, the voters’ assembly has a grave problem when theshepherd becomes a wolf. Sheep have the right and duty tojudge their shepherd’s teachings, but when they find they havea wolf they are helpless. They instinctively turn to other shepherdsfor help. But congregational polity leads us to say, “Ican’t do anything. You must remove him yourself.” It is notenough that sheep have recognized the wolf; they must kill himtoo. Shepherds are to protect sheep; sheep cannot protectthemselves.Sixth, individual confession and absolution will never berestored as long as voters’ assemblies exist. The Apology clearlystates that the Reformers did not want to abandon private absolution:“Therefore it would be wicked to remove private absolutionfrom the Church. Neither do they understand what theremission of sins or the power of the keys is, if there are any whodespise private absolution” (Ap. VI 3, 4). As long as it is believedand/or perceived that the voters’ assembly has the keys ratherthan the pastor, the benefit of individual confession before himand personal absolution by him will be obscured. At best, he willremain a prosecuting attorney.Last, voters’ assemblies are not immune from the prophecyof St. Paul: “For the time will come when they will not enduresound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselvesteachers, having itching ears” (2 Tim 4:3). Is it wise to vestrule in the very group (“they,” the group to which the pastor ispreaching) that has the potential for only wanting pastors whowill scratch where they itch?Pastors and congregations are unaware of the high and holyoffice they have in their midst. This is serious for two reasons.First, divine offices have authority above offices of humanorigin. 59 Where this is not recognized Christ is not honored. Second,according to Ephesians 4:14, the reason the Lord Christ gavethe pastoral office to the church is so “that we henceforth be nomore children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with everywind of doctrine.” 60 The church is being tossed “to and fro” somuch today because of this low view of this divine office. Mayour Lord deliver us from this error. LOGIA1. C.F.W. Walther, Church and Ministry, tr. J.T. Mueller(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1987) p. 308.2. Martin Luther, Sämmtliche Schriften, vol. 18, ed. J.G.Walch (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1888), pp. 1820,1821, quoted in Walther, The True Visible Church (St. Louis:Concordia Publishing House, 1987) p. 81; see also AE (St. Louis:Concordia Publishing House, 1956) 33:163.3. H. Armin Moellering, “Some New Testament Aspectsof the Ministry Identified and Applied,” Concordia Journal 14(1988) p. 236.4. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.26.2 (in Alexander Robertsand James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1,reprinted. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987] p. 497).5. Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians 5 (in J.B. Lightfoot,trans. The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, Vol. 2, 2nd ed. [GrandRapids: Baker Book House, 1981] p. 545).6. Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians 6 (In The ApostolicFathers, p. 545).7. Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians 2 (in The ApostolicFathers, p. 555).8. St. L. 20:1666, quoted in Walther, The Form of a ChristianCongregation (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,1987) p. 93. See also AE 40:384.9. St L 5:1037; see also AE 13:332.10. St L 20:1666 quoted in Church and Ministry, p. 167; seealso AE 40:385.11. St L 11:757, quoted in Church and Ministry, p. 180. SeeNOTESalso The Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 2, ed. John NicholasLenker (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983) p. 389.12. St L 13:1989 quoted in Church and Ministry, p. 309.13. Martin Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, tr. J.A.O.Preus (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971) p. 318.14. Martin Chemnitz, The Examination of the Council ofTrent, Vol. 2, tr. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse, 1978) pp. 678–679.15. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 1.16, quoted inQuentin F. Wesselschmidt, “The Concept and Practice of Ministryin the Early Church,” Concordia Journal 14 (1988) p. 261.16. Kurt E. Marquart, Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, vol.9, The Church, ed. Robert D. Preus (Fort Wayne: The InternationalFoundation for Lutheran Confessional Research, 1990) p. 109.17. St L 8:1124 quoted in Church and Ministry, p. 307. AE 28:89.18. Carl S. Mundinger, Government in the Missouri Synod(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947) p. 197.19. I am indebted to Father Rudolph E. Kurz of the EvangelicalCatholic Church for these insights, and especially to hisunpublished manuscript The Pastoral Office and Church Polity(1986).20. George H. Perlich, “The Lutheran Congregation,” TheAbiding Word, Vol. 2, ed. Theodore Laetsch (St. Louis: ConcordiaPublishing House, 1947) p. 460.21. Church and Ministry, p. 248.22. Marquart, p. 144.23. Marquart, p. 206.

42 LOGIA24. Wesselschmidt, p. 264.25. Rudolph E. Kurtz, “Summaries of the Keys” )unpublishedmanuscript, 1988) p. 4.26. “Summaries of the Keys” p. 5.27. Quoted in Mundinger, p. 199.28. John H.C. Fritz, Pastoral Theology (St. Louis: ConcordiaPublishing House, 1932, p. 317.29. Marquart, p. 207.30. John Gerhard, Loci Theologici, Vol. 1, ed. EduardPreuss (Berlin: Schlawitz, 1863), p. 238, quoted in The True VisibleChurch, p. 88.31. Martin Chemnitz, The Examination, p. 43, quoted inChurch and Ministry, p. 154.32. Mundinger, p. 125.33. Mundinger, p. 125.34. Mundinger, p. 125.35. Mundinger, p. 133.36. Mundinger, p. 74, n. 77.37. Mundinger, p. 89.38. Mundinger, p. 148.39. Mundinger, p. 179.40. Mundinger, p. 204.41. Mundinger, p. 107.42. Mundinger, p. 213.43. Mundinger, p. 107.44. Mundinger, p. 177.45. Mundinger, p. 15.46. J.H. Merle d’Aubigné, History of the Reformation of theSixteenth Century, rep. of 1846 ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker BookHouse, n.d.), p. 457.47. Quoted in d’Aubigné,, p. 658.48. St. I. 21:1646, quoted in Walther, The Form of a ChristianCongregation (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,1987), p. 129.49. St. I. 22:626, 627, quoted in The Form of a ChristianCongregation , pp. 129, 130.50. David Chytraeus, On Sacrifice, tr. and ed. John W.Montgomery (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1962),pp. 101, 102.51. Norman E. Nagel,“The Office of the holy Ministry inthe Confessions,” Concordia Journal 14 (1988), p. 291.52. A Short Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1943) p. 183.53. Marquart, p. 135.54. “Summaries,” , p. 1.55. James H. Pragman, Traditions of Ministry: A History ofthe Doctrine of the Ministry in Lutheran Theology (St. Louis:Concordia Publishing House, 1983), p. 71.56. Marquart, p. 123.57. Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians 2 (in The ApostolicFathers, pp. 310, 311).58. Marquart, p. 135.59. The Pastoral Office and Church Polity, p. 105.60. The Pastoral Office and Church Polity, p. 106.

Only Playing Church?The Lay Minister and The Lord’s SupperASIXTEENTH-CENTURY PRIEST ONCE RELATED THIS ESTIMATIONof the laity performing churchly acts:If a layman should perform all the outward functions of apriest, celebrating Mass, confirming, absolving, administeringthe sacraments, dedicating altars, churches, vestments,vessels, etc., it is certain that these actions in allrespects would be similar to those of a true priest, in fact,they might be performed more reverently and properlythan the real ones. But because he has not been consecratedand ordained and sanctified, he performs nothingat all, but is only playing church and deceiving himselfand his followers. 1DOUGLAS FUSSELMANThe proposition that any such layman is “deceiving himselfand his followers” becomes noteworthy and evokes seriousconsideration only when it is disclosed that the priest whouttered these words in 1515 was the young Martin Luther. Wasthis notion nothing more than a remnant of Luther’s Romanroots? Did the mature Luther ultimately reject this understandingof the office of the ministry? If not, to what extent did heand other sixteenth-century theologians retain this position?Many such questions beg for answers. Luther’s statement issignificant also in light of the ever expanding utilization of layministers in North American Lutheranism. Most Lutheranbodies are currently either exploring or employing lay ministry.The Missouri Synod, for example, opened the door forlay ministry in 1981 with the provision that “in exceptional circumstancesor in emergencies . . . qualified individuals maytemporarily be called upon to perform, under proper supervision,functions that are otherwise performed by the pastor.” 2In 1989 Missouri officially sanctioned the lay exercise of publicministry functions when the 57th Synodical Convention adopteda resolution which allowed for the celebration of the Lord’sSupper by “licensed” layworkers in congregations which wouldABOUT THE AUTHORDOUGLAS D. FUSSELMAN is pastor at Our Savior Lutheran Church inValentine, Nebraska. This essay was presented as an Open/AcademicTopic at the Second Annual Theological Symposium at ConcordiaSeminary, St. Louis, Missouri, on May 6, 1992.43otherwise be deprived of the sacrament for a long period oftime. 3 At present, approximately 135 lay ministers are servingin “an ongoing Word and Sacrament ministry” 4 within theMissouri Synod. Luther’s suggestion that any layman who performsthe outward functions of a priest is “only playingchurch” is of more than passing historical interest when onerealizes that hundreds of God’s people receive what theybelieve to be the body and blood of Christ from the hand of alay minister. Concern for these believers makes it imperative todetermine if, as Luther suggested, the efficacy of the HolyCommunion is in any way dependent upon the office of theministry. Does a lay minister distribute the true sacrament oronly bread and wine? Can the functions of the ministry be genuinelyperformed apart from the office? Answers to these andother related questions shall be sought in early Lutheran discussionsof the pastoral ministry.THE CHRISTOLOGICAL VIEW OF THE OFFICEFrom the beginning, Lutherans have confessed a decidedlychristological understanding of the public ministry. Luther, inhis 1533 treatise on the private mass, highlighted Christ’s intimateconnection with the office.For we must believe and be sure of this, that baptismdoes not belong to us but to Christ, that the gospeldoes not belong to us but to Christ, that the office ofpreaching does not belong to us but to Christ, that thesacrament [of the Lord’s Supper] does not belong tous but to Christ, that the keys, or forgiveness andretention of sins, do not belong to us but to Christ. Insummary, the offices and sacraments do not belong tous but to Christ [AE 38:200].The office of the public ministry is Christ’s office in Christ’schurch. Individuals are allowed, even commanded, to exercisethe office, yet it is not their possession. The ministry, like thechurch, belongs to Christ alone. A pastor, therefore, cannotperform the functions of the office personally. The pastor canact only as a representative of Christ. Thus Melanchthon, inApology VII and VIII, was able to assert: “[Ministers] do notrepresent their own persons but the person of Christ, becauseof the church’s call, as Christ testifies (Lk 10:16), ‘He who hears

44 LOGIAyou hears me.’ When they offer the Word of Christ or thesacraments, they do so in Christ’s place and stead.” 5The pastor functions “in the stead and by the command” ofthe Lord Jesus Christ, as the modern Lutheran liturgy so clearlystates. 6 This common description of the Christ/pastor relationship,however, can easily convey a Reformed rather thanLutheran christology if understood in isolation. To say only thatthe pastor represents Christ or stands in his place can suggestthat Jesus is locally confined in heaven and thus incapable ofpersonal presence among his people. Under this scheme a pastormust serve as the earthly surrogate necessitated by Jesus’heavenly exile. Since the pastor is required to perform churchlyacts for Jesus, as his substitute, the functions of the office ultimatelyeclipse the office itself. Christ is relegated to a place farThe minister then functions as themeans and instrument through whichChrist himself personally does hiswork in his Church.removed from his church on earth and to the very fringe of anydiscussion of the office of the ministry. Inasmuch as this understandingof the public ministry portrays Christ in absentia, itmust be identified as neither Lutheran nor truly Christological.This was never the intent of the early Lutheran fathers. The pastordoes not stand in the place of an absent Christ, but rather inthe stead of an eminently present Christ. According to both hisdivine and human natures, Jesus is present in his church. Thisconcept was clearly stated in Solid Declaration VIII.[N]o other human being in heaven and on earth cansay truthfully, “Where two or three are gathered inmy name, there am I in the midst of them” [Mt18:20], likewise, “I am with you always even to theclose of the age” [Mt 28:20]. . . . We believe that thecited passages illustrate the majesty of the man Christ,which Christ received according to his humanity atthe right hand of the majesty and power of God, sothat, also according to and with this same assumedhuman nature of his, Christ can be and is presentwherever he wills, and in particular that he is presentwith his church and community on earth as mediator,head, king, and high priest [SD VIII 76, 78].Christ is not distant from his people but he is truly presentand active in his church on earth. This divine/human ecclesiasticalpresence is identifiable, for Christ has chosen to approachhis people under earthly elements. One such place in whichChrist is present is in the Sacrament of the Altar [SD VIII,76–78]. In Apology XIII Melanchthon identified the office of theministry as another place in which Christ’s presence is encountered:“The church has the command to appoint minister; tothis we must subscribe wholeheartedly, for we know that Godapproves this ministry and is present in it” [Ap XIII, 12].Christ’s presence in the church is not ethereal but real. Congregationsare obliged to give concrete embodiment to this presenceby appointing pastors. The pastor then is the means andinstrument through which Christ himself personally does hiswork in his church. The pastor does not function in the placeof a Christ who is far removed from his people; on the contrary,Christ is personally present in the local congregation in,with, and under the person of the appointed pastor. Other sixteenth-centuryLutheran theologians would concur. In hisEnchiridion, Martin Chemnitz explained: “God Himself dealswith us in the church through the ministry as through ordinarymeans and instrument. For it is He Himself that speaks,exhorts, absolves, baptizes, etc., in the ministry and throughthe ministry.” 7 Luther directly applied this understanding ofthe ministry to his own office and ecclesiastical function in a1539 sermon: “Whenever you hear me, you hear not me, butChrist. I do not give you my baptism, my body and blood; I donot absolve you’’ [AE 51:299]. On another occasion he amplifiedthis same concept:Thus the apostles and pastors are nothing but channelsthrough which Christ leads and transmits HisGospel from the Father to us. Therefore wherever youhear the Gospel properly taught or see a person baptized,wherever you see someone administer or receivethe Sacrament, or wherever you witness someoneabsolving another, there you may say without hesitation:“Today I beheld God’s Word and work. Yes, Isaw and heard God himself preaching and baptizing.”To be sure, the tongue, the voice, the hands, etc., arethose of a human being; but the Word and the ministryare really those of the Divine Majesty Himself.Hence it must be viewed and believed as though God’sown voice were resounding from heaven and asthough we were seeing him administering Baptism orthe Sacrament with His own hands [AE 24:67].In his 1540 sermon on John 4, Luther used even stronger languageto express this important truth.Even today Baptism and the proclamation of theDivine Word are not mine but God’s. When we hearthis Word, we must bear in mind that it is God himselfwho is addressing us. When kings hear the Wordand see the administration of the Sacraments, theyshould place their crowns and scepters at His feet andsay: “It is God who has His being here, who speakshere, and who is active here.” You will perhaps betempted to interpose: “Why, it is just a plain prieststanding there and administering the Lord’s Supper!”If that is your viewpoint, you are no Christian. If Iwere to hear none but you preach, I would not care astraw about it; but it is God who is speaking there. Itis He who is baptizing; it is He who is active. He Himselfis present here. Thus the preacher does not speakfor himself; he is the spokesman of God, the heavenly

ONLY PLAYING CHURCH? 45Father. Therefore you ought to say: “I saw God Himselfbaptizing and administering the Sacrament of theAltar, and I heard God preaching the Word.” . . .Whydo you refuse to listen to God, who comes in the guiseof a humble human being, who conceals Himself andresembles His beloved apostles? The word that youhear is not that of a pastor; it is God’s Word. And sinceit is God’s Word, you should be excited and happyover it. But people will not do this. They think thatthey know better [AE 22:505, 508, 509].Luther and other Lutheran fathers espoused an understandingof the ministry which was exceedingly christological. They heldthat Christ himself in, with, and under the office of the publicministry is both present and active among his people. It is preciselythis mystical union of Christ’s office and Christ’sdivine/human presence that is described in Apology VII and VIII:“[Ministers] do not represent their own persons but the personof Christ, because of the church’s call, as Christ testifies (Luke10: 16), ‘He who hears you hears me.’ When they offer the Wordof Christ or the sacraments, they do so in Christ’s place andstead.” 8 No empty representation is intended here. The pastordoes not act as a private individual but, “because of the church’sLuther and other Lutheran fathersespoused an understanding of theministry which was exceedinglychristological.call,” functions as the earthly element through which Christhimself is speaking to and working among his own people. Thecongregation does not simply hear Jesus’ words coming out ofthe pastor’s mouth like one person reading a speech written byanother. The congregation hears Jesus! He is present as speakerand actor. The pastor is only the means or instrument throughwhich Jesus personally does his work in his church. This is notto say that everything a pastor does is instrumental. In SolidDeclaration VII it is asserted that, “Nothing has the character ofa sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ, or apartfrom the divinely instituted action’’ [SD VII, 85]. This oft-cited“Nihil rule” can be profitably applied also to the public ministry.Only those ministerial actions which are commanded byJesus can be performed instrumentally. Apart from thesedominically instituted actions, the pastor does not—indeedcannot—represent the person of Christ. The specific actions ofthe ministry, therefore, are essential. They must be conductedin accordance with the divine command. But “correct function”is not the only consideration. As has been demonstrated above,“office” is also of vital importance. The proper relationshipbetween both factors must be maintained: Jesus is present andactive under the earthly element of the human pastor when(and only when) the pastor performs Christ’s functions inChrist’s office in accordance with Christ’s commands.THE OFFICE AND SACRAMENTAL EFFICACYThis understanding of the office can help to clarify the distinctionbetween laity and pastors. The difference here is mostcertainly not a matter of spiritual or personal inferiority/superiority.The pastoral vocation in no way entails human achievementof a more spiritually advanced quality than that possibleamong the laity. Rejected, too, is any notion of the pastor as anelitist, high-level, ecclesiastical manager. Such an administrativeview of the office is only marginally christological if notaltogether unchristian; Christ came—and continues to come inthe office—not as tyrant, but as servant: “I am among you asone who serves” (Lk 22:27). Far from second-class members ofthe kingdom, laymen and laywomen are the very objects ofChrist’s continuing service through the public ministry. Hehas, in fact, promised his presence only to them (the “two orthree” gathered in his name) and not to isolated clerics separatedfrom the Christian community. The office does not andcannot exist apart from the church! The laity need only supplythe elements for Christ’s presence among them; congregationsmust provide the concrete embodiment for his presence bycalling and appointing pastors. Through these pastors, asthrough means, Christ himself personally serves his peoplewith his own word and sacraments.The distinction between laypeople and pastors, then, is simplya matter of instrumentality; a layperson functions accordingto his/her own person; a pastor functions in the office, that is, asthe instrument of Christ’s presence. The layperson might correctlyperform churchly acts, but in such actions he/she alone isthe actor. When the pastor performs these same acts in theoffice, Christ himself is the actor. This distinction can influencethe efficacy of the divinely instituted actions.The lay/pastor distinction is nowhere better understoodthan in absolution. The pastor, by virtue of the office, is able todeliver “indicative-operative absolution” in the first personsingular: “I forgive you all your sins. . . .” 9 Christ is here personallyaddressing the penitent through the instrument of thepastor—the penitent truly encounters Christ. If a member ofthe laity should speak in this manner, the offered forgivenesswould be considered as coming from the absolving individualrather than from the only begotten Son of the Father. The laitycan deliver divine pardon only in the third person singular:“God forgives you all your sins.” While it cannot be demonstratedthat one form of absolution is always or necessarilypreferable to the other, it can be demonstrated that the twoabsolutions are not identical. The office is the difference. Thelay/pastor distinction is discernible also in the application ofthe Word. In Church and Ministry, C.F.W. Walther quotedLuther on this issue.Indeed, many blurt out and say: ‘Why do we need morepastors and ministers, since we can read [the Bible] ourselvesat home?’ So they go their way in carnal security,and do not read it at home. Or even if they do read it athome, it is neither as fruitful nor as effective as the Wordis efficacious when it is publicly proclaimed by themouth of the pastor whom God has called and appointedto preach and teach it to you. 10

46 LOGIAIt is not suggested here that the written word is without effect.The point is that the Word proclaimed by the pastor is moreeffective than that read by a layperson. How could Luther (andWalther concurs) make such a contention? This statement isdifficult—if not impossible—to explain unless reading wordsabout Jesus is somehow different from hearing words fromJesus. 11 In which case, the office is once again the difference. 12The lay/pastor distinction plays most prominently in the discussionof the efficacy of the Holy Communion. In his Examinationof the Council of Trent, Chemnitz elucidated the importanceof the office in the administration of the sacrament after firstrejecting any sort of magical potency in the words of institution.The words of institution are said to beefficacious because they are the wordsof the present and powerful Christ,spoken by Christ himself through themouth of the minister.[T]he recitation of these words is not to be used in theway magicians recite their incantations in set formulas,for instance to bring down Jupiter Elicius or the moonfrom heaven, namely, by the strength and power of theletters and syllables, if they are recited and pronounceda certain way; but as Paul asserts, that in the preachingof the Gospel Christ Himself speaks through themouth of ministers (Rom 15:18, 19; 2 Cor 13:3) and thatGod is “making His appeal through us” (2 Cor 5:20).So in the action of the Eucharist the minister acts as anambassador in the place of Christ, who is Himselfthere present, and through the ministers pronouncesthese words: “This is My body; this do,” etc., and forthis reason His Word is efficacious. Therefore it is nota man, the minister, who by his consecration andblessing makes bread and wine into the body andblood of Christ, but Christ Himself, by means of HisWord, is present in this action, and by means of theWord of His institution, which is spoken through themouth of the minister, He brings it about that thebread is His body and the cup His blood. . . . 13Chemnitz would allow no incantational understanding of theconsecration; he rejected any suggestion that the sounds of thewords alone could effect a magical transformation of the elements.The words of institution are said to be efficacious becausethey are the words of the present and powerful Christ, spoken byChrist himself through the mouth of the pastor. Chemnitz continuedhis discussion of the essential relationship between theoffice and the sacrament, after spurning the notion that the consecrationhas nothing more than historical significance.Therefore the words of institution are spoken in ourLord’s Supper, not merely for the sake of history butto show to the church that Christ Himself, throughHis Word, according to His command and promise,is present in the action of the Supper and by the powerof this Word offers His body and blood to thosewho eat. For it is He who distributes, though it bethrough the pastor; it is He who says: “This is mybody.” It is He who is working through His Word, sothat the bread is His body and the wine His blood. 14Christ is said to be present not only in the words and elementsof the Supper but in the action of the Supper as well. 15The sacrament, therefore, is efficacious because Jesus personallyspeaks the words of institution. The pastor is only the instrumentthrough which Christ himself is among his people toconsecrate and distribute his own body and blood.This understanding of the consecration and distributionwas also presented in The Lord’s Supper where Chemnitz citedChrysostom to once more suggest that through the minister itis Christ himself who actually consecrates and distributes thesacrament: “When you see the hand of the priest holding outto us the body of the Lord, we must remember that it is not thehand of the priest stretching out to us but the hand of Christwho says, ‘Take and eat; this is My body’.” 16 Chemnitz wouldhave the Christian “see” Christ under both the sacramentalbread and the sacramental celebrant. The “real presence” of theLord’s Supper is here fused with the “real presence” of theLord’s office. Luther similarly emphasized the importance ofChrist’s presence in the administration of this sacrament.We hear these words, “This is my body,” not as spokenconcerning the person of the pastor or the ministerbut as coming from Christ’s own mouth who is presentand says to us: “Take, eat, this is my body.” We donot hear and understand them otherwise and knowindeed that the pastor’s or the minister’s body is not inthe bread nor is it being administered. Consequently,we also do not hear the command and ordinanceaccording to which he says, “Do this in remembranceof me,” as words spoken concerning the pastor’s person;but we hear Christ himself through the pastor’smouth speaking to us and commanding that weshould take bread and wine at his word, “This is mybody,” etc., and in them according to his commandeat his body and drink his blood [AE 38:199, 200].For Luther the elements do not encompass the pastor’s bodybecause the consecration is not spoken concerning the pastor’sperson. Through the office Christ speaks and thus offers hisown body and blood under the elements. This understandingof the consecration is also set forth in Solid Declaration VII:No man’s word or work, be it the merit or the speakingof the minister, be it the eating and drinking or

ONLY PLAYING CHURCH? 47the faith of the communicants, can effect the true presenceof the body and blood of Christ in the Supper.This is to be ascribed only to the almighty power ofGod and the Word, institution, and ordinance of ourLord Jesus Christ. . . . Chrysostom says in his Sermonon the Passion: “Christ himself prepares this table andblesses it. No human being, but only Christ himselfwho was crucified for us, can make of the bread andwine set before us the body and blood of Christ. Thewords are spoken by the mouth of the priest, but byGod’s power and grace through the words that hespeaks, ‘This is my body,’ the elements set before us inthe Supper are blessed. . . .” [SD VII, 74, 76].No mere mortal is capable of presenting the Supper. It is Christhimself, through the pastor, who prepares the sacrament andblesses it. Luther’s insights into the consecration of the Supperare cited in support of this position in the Solid Declaration.“[I]f I were to say over all the bread there is, ‘This isthe body of Christ,’ nothing would happen, but whenwe follow his institution and command in the Lord’sSupper and say, ‘This is my body,’ then it is his body,not because of our speaking or of our efficaciousword, but because of his command in which he hastold us so to speak and to do and has attached his owncommand and deed to our speaking” [SD VII, 78].To attempt consecration in the third person singular,“This is the body of Christ,” is here said to be contrary to thedivine institution and therefore fruitless. Apart from an incantationalrecitation of the words of institution (which Chemnitzdisallowed above), the laity can not employ the first person singularconsecration, “This is my body,” and have it apply to thebody of Christ because the antecedent of “my body” is the individual’sown body. For a layperson to attempt consecrationwith the formula “Christ said, ‘This is my body,’” is to resort tomere historical narrative which has also been rejected above. Inthe final assessment, only a minister, by virtue of the office, canspeak the words of institution according to Christ’s command,for only a pastor can genuinely consecrate the Supper in thefirst person singular. When, through the instrument of the pastor,Christ himself is present and declares, “This is my body,”then and only then is the Holy Communion efficacious. 17 Theoffice makes the difference. It must be ever maintained that theLord’s Supper is not robbed of its efficacy when administeredby unworthy or evil ministers [Ap VII and VIII, 28, 47]. Neitheris the intention of the officiant of any consequence, as Chemnitzdeclared: “Faith may hold the sacrament to be true andhave true efficacy when it is administered according to the institution,no matter what the minister either thinks or believes orintends, if only he preserves the institution of Christ in theadministration.” 18 In 1533 Luther went so far as to suggest thateven the devil himself could celebrate a valid sacrament.[L]et us suppose that I found out afterward that thedevil had inveigled his way into the office by stealthor, having assumed the form of a man, let himself becalled to the office of the ministry, and publiclypreached the gospel in the church, baptized, celebratedmass, absolved and exercised and administeredsuch offices and sacraments, as a pastor would,according to the command of Christ—then we wouldfor all that have to admit that the sacraments werevalid, that we had received a valid baptism, had heardthe true gospel, obtained true absolution, and hadparticipated in the true sacrament of the body andblood of Christ.For our faith and the sacrament must not bebased on the person, whether he is godly or evil, consecratedor unconsecrated, called or an impostor,whether he is the devil or his mother, but upon Christ,upon his word, upon his office, upon his commandand ordinance; where these are in force, there everythingwill be carried out properly, no matter who orwhat the person might happen to be [AE 38:200, 201].. . . the public ministry must beunderstood christologically—the officeis a concrete expression of Christ’spresence in the congregation.Christ’s body and blood would be present under the elementseven though administered by the devil himself if two basicrequirements were satisfied: if the sacrament was celebrated inaccordance with the divine command, and if the devil held theoffice of the ministry through which Christ personally functions.The office, not the person who fills it, is a most importantconsideration in determining sacramental efficacy. Lutherillustrated this truth with his usual eloquence.Offices and sacraments always remain in the church;persons are daily subject to change. As long as we calland induct into the offices persons who can administerthem, then the offices will surely continue to beexercised. The horse has been bridled and saddled; ifyou place on it even a naked lad who can ride, thehorse will proceed as well as if the emperor or thepope were riding it [AE 38:201].Even a boy may be set in the saddle and ride, but any attemptto jog alongside is an altogether different proposition.LUTHER WAS CORRECTAccording to the early Lutheran fathers, the public ministrymust be understood christologically; the office is a concreteexpression of Christ’s presence in the congregation.Christ is not a distant or absent lord but the ever-present Lordof the church! He is the foundation upon which the publicministry is built. Consequently, there can be no ministry about

48 LOGIAJesus Christ for there exists only the one ministry of JesusChrist. Through the office, Christ is personally active amonghis people. He preaches, he absolves, and he celebrates thesacraments according to his own command and institution.Apart from the office of the ministry, churchly acts are performednot by Christ but by the individual alone. Historically,the functions of the pastoral office have been almost exclusivelyperformed by those placed into the pastoral office. Thechristological understanding of the ministry presented herewould suggest that this ancient practice is not only reasonablebut absolutely essential.To insure every communicant’s sacramentalcertainty, no individual shouldbe allowed to perform the functions ofthe office of the ministry apart fromthe office itself.It seems that the young Luther’s view of the efficacy ofsacraments was correct: a layperson may perform all theactions of the Holy Communion quite reverently and correctly,yet he/she can only offer ordinary bread and wine; for withoutChrist’s presence through the office of the ministry, his commandand institution simply cannot be observed. Unless Christhimself says, “This is my body . . .” there can be no consecrationand therefore no Sacrament of the Altar. Any attempt tocelebrate the Eucharist apart from the public ministry is morethan a minor departure from “good order”; it is not only illicitbut also invalid and inefficacious.Since “lay minister” is a confusing, oxymoronic term, 19the issue of the lay minister and the Lord’s Supper is not soeasily or quickly resolved. The endless discussions of“ordained versus called,” “educated versus uneducated,”“exclusive functions of ministry versus distinctive functions ofministry” may be promptly dismissed, however, for lay ministrycan only be properly defined and understood accordingto its relationship to the public ministry. In matters ofeucharistic efficacy, the office makes a difference. If, in fact,the lay minister holds the office of the ministry because of thecongregation’s appointment (as some congregations and layministers might suppose), then Christ is indeed present andactive in the office and the sacrament consecrated by a layminister is valid and efficacious. If, on the other hand, layministers do not hold the office—if they only perform thefunctions of the ministry apart from the office itself (as suggestedin the LCMS Lay Worker resolution 20 )—then lay ministersare merely acting according to their own persons whenthey attempt to consecrate the Supper and can offer only emptybread and wine; for apart from Christ’s speaking in andthrough the office, Christ’s own institution cannot beobserved and no valid Eucharist is possible.Who is to say which assessment of the lay ministerdescribes the spiritual reality? Man-made theological hybridslike lay ministry often defy easy categorization, always raise difficultquestions, and sometimes even obscure the truth. Inmatters related to the Lord’s Supper, however, such uncertaintyis intolerable and inexcusable. God’s people should neverhave occasion to doubt the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper celebratedin their midst. This is precisely the kind of confusionand suspicion that Augustana XIV was intended to eliminate.Something must be done!To insure every communicant’s sacramental certainty, noindividual should be allowed to perform the functions of theoffice of the ministry apart from the office itself. This does notnecessarily mean that all lay ministers should be banned fromtheir altars and driven from their congregations, although thepresent difficulty could be corrected in this way. A less drasticapproach might be more desirable: Why not openly and publiclyconfer the office of the public ministry on those lay ministerspresently serving in “ongoing Word and sacrament ministry”?Not just a “license” to impersonate a pastor, but theholy office itself could be granted to these individuals. 21 Thenthere would be no doubt about the efficacy of the church’ssacramental celebration. Then God’s people would no longerneed to wonder if, perhaps, the individual at their altar was“only playing church.” LOGIA

ONLY PLAYING CHURCH? 491. Luther’s Works, American Edition, Vol. 25 (Saint Louis:Concordia Publishing House, 1972) pp. 234, 235.2. The Commission on Theology and Church Relations ofthe Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, The Ministry (St.Louis: LCMS, 1981) p. 35.3. “To Adopt Recommendations of Lay Worker StudyCommittee Report as Amended,” Resolution 3–05B in Proceedingsof the 57th Regular Convention of the LCMS in Wichita.Kansas 7–14 July 1989 (St. Louis: LCMS, 1989) p. 113.4. “Recommendations,” p. 111.5. T.G. Tappert, ed. and trans., The Book of Concord(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959) p. 173.6. The Commission on Worship of the LutheranChurch—Missouri Synod, Lutheran Worship (St. Louis: ConcordiaPublishing House, 1982) p. 137.7. Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacraments, tr.by Luther Poellot (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,1981) p. 29. For a fuller treatment of Christ’s presence andactivity in the church see Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ,tr. by J.A.O. Preus (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,1971) p. 423–465.8. Tappert, p. 173. See also Tappert, p. 177.9. Commission on Worship of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, “Notes on the Liturgy,” in Lutheran WorshipAltar Book (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1982) p. 34.10. C.F.W. Walther, Church and Ministry, tr. by J.T.Mueller (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1987) p. 193.11. This distinction may be subtly suggested in the Gospels:John the Baptist announced that his proclamation about Jesus,although effective, was inferior to the greater personal ministryof Jesus (Mt 3: 11). Similarly, emergency lay baptism might beprofitably compared to John’s baptism, which was effective butdistinguishable from Jesus’ baptism (Acts 18:25).NOTES12. It is perhaps significant that in the Roman Catholic tradition,a layperson may read the first two lessons, but only thepriest (or deacon) is allowed to read the Gospel, the very wordsof Christ.13. Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent,vol. 2, tr. by Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse, 1978) p. 228, 229.14. Examination, p. 229.15. If Luke’s Emmaus account (24:13 ff.) is understoodsacramentally (see Tappert, p. 237), it is significant that the twodid not recognize Jesus in the elements of the Supper but in theaction of the Supper: “the breaking of the bread, th/" klavseitou'" a[rtou (24:35).16. Martin Chemnitz, The Lord’s Supper, tr. by J.A.O. Preus,(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1979) p. 159. For a fullertreatment of Chrysostom’s understanding of the office andeucharistic efficacy see Carl A. Volz, Pastoral Life and Practice inthe Early Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990) p. 40.17. Herein lies an important difference between Baptismand the Lord’s Supper. While the formula for the Eucharist isin the first person (“This is my body”) thus necessitatingChrist’s own action in the office for efficacy, the formula forBaptism is in the third person (“. . . in the name of the Fatherand of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) thus allowing validemergency lay baptisms apart from the office.18. Examination, 2:105–106.19. Substituting “lay worker” or “deacon” helps little. SeeProceedings, p. 112.20. Proceedings, p. 112.21. Others have suggested this course of action. See, forexample, John R. Stephenson, “Who is the Rightful Celebrantof Holy Communion?”, Lutheran Theological Review 11:1(Fall/Winter 1989–90) p. 31.

COLLOQUIUM FRATRUM“Through the mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren . . .”Smalcald Articles III/IVDAVID SCAER:A REPLY TO LEONARD KLEINComparatively speaking, it could be argued that PastorLeonard Klein has been more courageous in affirming confessionalLutheranism in the ELCA than has anyone in the LCMS.The key word is “comparatively,” but this does not detractfrom the courage of his convictions. His Lutheran Forum hasnot minced words in describing the introduction of a neutered,genderless liturgy as apostasy and gnosticism. In “Counterpoint:Against the Ordination of Women” in the February 1991issue of Lutheran Forum (14), the author was among thosecheering the present editor Leonard Klein and former editorPaul Hinlicky for fighting what could be a hopeless battle tomaintain traditional Trinitarian terminology in the ELCA.They refuse to allow feministic philosophies to replace “Father,Son, and Spirit” with “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.” Pastissues of the Concordia Theological Quarterly have placedKlein’s Lutheran Forum and its monthly offspring Forum Letteron the “must” reading list.Klein agrees with the author that we are fighting a modernform of ancient gnosticism in neutered Bible translations,creeds and liturgy. Though he does not see that ordainedwomen pastors are part of this modern gnosticism, he doesrecognize that both women clergy and neutered references toGod were part of historical gnosticism. This writer’s position isthat both phenomena are symptomatic of gnosticism; not thatone is the cause of the other. However, at the appearance ofone symptom one may confidently await the other. The othershoe will drop! Klein rightfully insists that we may not transgressthe biblical revelation of God by explaining him in anyother sense than that in which reveals himself, namely asFather, Son and Spirit. In this revelation “Father” and “Son”are hardly mere metaphors. God can be like a mother, thief,farmer—these are metaphors—but he is Father and Son. SupposedlyGod might have chosen other metaphors besides thiefor farmer, a point which will not be debated here. Sermons arein a sense metaphors, or a collection of metaphors, since theyattempt to explain the divine in human terms. All suchattempts are not of equal value. Biblical metaphors have theadvantage of prior divine choice and approval. But God’s revelationof himself as Father and Son is not a metaphor. Hechooses when to reveal himself; but unless he would be untrue52to himself (which he cannot be), he must reveal himself asFather and Son. His Trinitarian existence as Father and Sonand Spirit is not subject to a sovereign choice. To suggest aname change for God is comparable to the question of whetherGod could put himself out of existence, an idea put forward byprocess philosophy.Without denying the metaphorical or symbolical characterof language—including religious language—certain termsdescribing God cannot be absolute metaphors. Under suchconditions, we could never be sure whether language aboutGod corresponded to what he is. We could never know who orwhat was behind the words. If language about God was puremetaphor, we might concede “mother” and “daughter” asappropriate substitutes for “Father” and “Son,” especially if weconcluded that feminine attributes in God should be givenequal space to masculine ones. Not only is this being suggestedby others, but it is in fact being carried out. Those who areunaware of this have not kept abreast of current theologicalissues. But putting that issue aside, consider Pastor Klein’sargument for speaking of God as Father and Son.His basic thesis, that “the ordinary English meaning offather is sexual begetter of children,” might be an assumption.First, it is arguable whether “father” or “son” in English has adifferent connotation than, for example, in French, German,Greek or Hebrew. Second, “father” is used by children prior tothe age of sexual awareness without any sense of being physicallyconceived. Even after they learn about “the birds and thebees,” they still might choose to remain in the dark. Call itdenial. In fact, a child’s first and prolonged use of “father” hasno sexual connotation to him at all. Third, “father” is used as atitle of honor for the clergy in the vast majority of Christendomand to say to an older clergyman that “you are a father tome” has no sexual overtones at all. Compare 1 Timothy 1 and2 Timothy 1. Fourth, “father” has been used of ancestors likeAbraham and Isaac. Fifth, “father” and “sons” have been usedfor the older and younger members of society. Finally, Jesusunderstands his relationship to the disciples as that of father tochildren (sons) (Mt 23:9). Obviously “father-son” languagedoes carry the idea of a “sexual begetter of children,” but hardlyin every case.Still, “Begetter” is hardly foreign to God’s own essence andwork. Apart from any “sexual” connotations, the Father is theBegetter of the Son in a real and not figurative sense: “his only

COLLOQUIUM FRATRUM 53begotten Son.” Beyond this no other mystery, not even theincarnation, is more profound. The Son is dependent on theFather—almost in the way children are dependent on theirfathers—in such a way that the Son shares in the divine essenceof Father as God. Pagan religions fail precisely in their introductionof female deities by whom other deities and the (restof) creation are brought into existence. Again, apart from “sexual”connotations, God is the Father of his creation and, in aspecial way through baptism, also of his church. “He has sentthe Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying Abba, Father” (Gal4:6). “He has begotten us with the word of truth” (Jas 1:18).Perhaps we should reverse the discussion and turn themetaphor around. The relationship between earthly fathersand their children is a metaphor of the one, lasting reality ofGod, who is not “like” but truly is the Father. We must chooseto be fathers. God is Father. This is how Athanasius andNazianzus argued, and therefore we have introduced nothingnew into the discussion. Human fathers are instruments of theEternal Father and they are only fathers because he allows themto be. We come to a fuller knowledge of what we are as fathersand sons, only after we have known God as the Father and theSon. The existence of God as Father and Son is not a metaphor,but the most real of all realities, the ground of all being, thebasis of all existence.The theological argument (here using “theological” in thenarrow sense) must be brought into every theological argument(here being used in the wider sense). That is to say whateverthe church says and does must in some way reflect and correspondto God as Father and Son. There is no theology (as allreligious knowledge) which is not derived from theology (asthe precise knowledge of the Trinity). We cannot describe Godas a mother—not simply because this terminology denies hisrevelation, as Klein holds—but because it contradicts that he isthe Father.Klein supports both masculine terms for God (Father-Son) and female clergy, even though in pointing to historicalgnosticism he is not unaware of a potential contradiction. Oneway to overcome the tension of having a God who is understoodas Father (and not mother) while maintaining a femaleclergy is to establish the foundation for the ministry not in theHoly Trinity, nor in the incarnation of the Son or the all-maleapostolate, but in faith or baptism. The Archbishop of Canterbury,in response to the decision of the House of Lords toendorse the ordination of women priests in the Church of England,went one step further and made humanity the basis forthe practice. This anthropocentric (male-female) approach, asopposed to a theocentric (Father-Son) approach, not onlyallows but requires that women be ordained on the same basisas men, since it regards the ministry as the common possessionof all believers. Klein contests that this is not his position, but itmight well belong to his fundamental argument, as will beshown below. In a similar vein, though the Wisconsin Synodcertainly opposes the ordination of women, their recent pronouncementson the ministry provide the philosophical argumentsfor the practice. Now we have reversed images. Kleinendorses the ordination of women pastors, but claims not toderive the ministry from a common faith or baptism. The WisconsinSynod derives the ministry from a common faith, butforbids women ordination. They are saved from adopting theELCA practice by biblical prohibitions (law). Pastor Kleinwants to find himself in what the author has written. Rarelydoes one have such a privilege to serve as the second use of thelaw (mirror). He may discover that this writer’s comments in“The Integrity of the Christological Character of the Office ofthe Ministry” (LOGIA, Vol. 2, No. 3) were not shot from the hip,but after having taken careful aim several times: On your mark,get set, fire. In the Advent 1990 issue of Lutheran Forum (5), theinitials “P.R.H. & L.K.” are appended at the end of an articleentitled with the poor pun “Professor Scaer’s Tactics.” [Theforgiveness in speaking of “a scare tactic” requested by “P.R.H.& L.K.” is denied on the grounds that it lacks originality, themark of dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. Besides, the Scaerfamily finds “scare” jokes wearisome.] One may assume that“P.R.H. & L.K.” are Paul R. Hinlicky and Leonard Klein. Andin their article baptism is introduced into the discussion on theordination of women: “As for us [Hinlicky and Klein], theevangelical credibility of the evangelical catholic movementdepends on delivering genuine theological support for theordination of women, grounded in Holy Baptism, normed bythe same standards of confessional subscription, personalintegrity and professional competence that have always beenrequired, and warranted by the gospel freedom of the churchand to respond and adapt to a changing world which we trustto be governed by the loving hands of the Father of Jesus”(emphasis added).The arguments in “The Integrity of the ChristologicalCharacter of the Office of the Ministry” were hardly new, sincethey appeared in part in the author’s “Counterpoint: Againstthe Ordination of Women” in Lutheran Forum (February 1991,p. 14). “Hinlicky and Klein attempt to support the ordinationof women within a theological totality by deriving it from baptism.But this is only a sacramental variation we all [Hinlicky,Klein, Scaer] oppose.” For two years Pastor Klein made noresponse to the author’s article in his own Lutheran Forum. Letthe readers draw their own conclusions. Neither Hinlicky norKlein nor the author hold to a functional view of the ministry,but in an attempt to justify the ordination of women, Hinlickyand Klein introduced baptism as a theological factor into theargument. Such tactics amount to a “high church” variation of“everyone a minister.” Baptism—not faith—is considered thebasis of the ministry, but there is essentially no difference, sinceministry is derived from the church. Indeed the WisconsinSynod might have to show why it is that every Christian shouldnot be ordained in accordance with its theory of deriving thepublic ministry from what they call “the personal ministry.”One observer remarked that the Wisconsin Synod might aswell ordain everyone, which is strangely the fear of some ELCAwomen pastors. If the ministry and ordination are the commonpossession of all believers, then for women to possess theministry through ordination has little or no value. Pastor Kleinand even some women ELCA clergy consider the practice to beproper, but the arguments admittedly not. (See “Open Letter,”Lutheran Forum, Vol. 24, 2, pp. 8, 9.) All this hand-wringingcomes about twenty years too late. Rather than overturning a

54 LOGIAnear 2,000 year tradition, it might have been the better part ofwisdom not to ordain women at least until the matter wasresolved. Klein is among the remnant in the ELCA who “thinkthat the issue and meaning of women’s ordination is open todebate.” This overlooks the fact that in every intersynodicaldialogue with the LCMS the ELCA has removed the ordinationof women as a negotiable item from the table. Any future fellowshiparrangement will require that the LCMS accept theELCA practice. Any rapprochement will require that the ordinationof women become an open question for the LCMS, butnot the ELCA. Unfair!I count Pastor Klein as a scholar, a confessor and a friendand I appreciate his rejoinder as he certainly does mine. Weboth recognize and oppose “making the ministry optional andfunctionalist” in our churches. But a functionalist view providesthe most accessible support for the ordination of women.Many of Klein’s statements are memorable. Here is one of myfavorites: “One of the abler minds in the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is David P. Scaer of the Fort Wayne Seminary.”A prophet is never without honor except in his own country.Even without a common synodical citizenship, this might beapplicable to both of us.David P. ScaerFort Wayne, IN

REVIEWS“It is not many books that make men learned . . . but it is a good book frequently read.”Martin LutherReview EssayTRANSLATING THE BIBLEAn Evaluation of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV),Oxford University Press, New York. Produced and copyrighted(1989) by Division of Christian Education of the NationalCouncil of Churches of Christ in the United States of America,owner of the copyright also of the Revised Standard Version(RSV), New Testament 1946, whole Bible 1952, NT revised 1972.Released Spring 1990.■ The term “Standard” constitutes a claim on continuity withthe historic King James Version of 1611 (KJV), “Appointed to beRead in Churches.” It seems appropriate then that an evaluationof the NRSV be done by someone like myself, who grew up withthe KJV and made the transition to the RSV. I became a Biblereader upon my confirmation in 1935, my version being the KJVwhich I had heard read Sunday upon Sunday from childhood,verses of which I had also memorized. My first Bible, publishedby Concordia, St. Louis, and given me by my parents, was handsomelybound, with splendid center-column cross-referencesand even a Bible dictionary and concordance. It saw me throughthe seminary and well into my first pastorate.The appearance of the RSV in 1952 was a rare and notableevent for me and my congregation. It preserved the languageand cadences of the KJV wherever possible, even the respectful“thee” and “thou” language toward God, rightfully discontinuednow by the NRSV. My earlier memorizing adapted to it inmost cases with little difficulty. Its paragraphing was a positivegain. It read well. Helped by my recollections of the KJV, I continuedeven to use my Young’s Analytical Concordance. Forteaching and sermon work I used the original Hebrew andGreek, however, and thereby discovered my own list of flawsand occasional irritations in the RSV, as I would for any translation.Overall, however, I accepted it, grew into it, enjoyedreading it in worship, and quoted the Scriptures by it.Into that competition comes now the NRSV. Although theKJV has continued in the public domain and can still be purchased,the copyright holder of both RSV and NRSV is purposefullyphasing the RSV out of existence. For me at my agethis does not matter much, but for churches that have longbought into the RSV it will pose a problem. In time they will be55forced to change to the NRSV, or to some other version.Indeed, worship inserts published by Augsburg Fortress for usewith the Lutheran Book of Worship switched to NRSV already inthe summer of 1991, thus in effect forcing a change. Either useinserts with NRSV readings or do without them, that is thechoice.“Standard” in the NRSV’s name implied to me it wouldhold to the “standard” of the KJV as faithfully as possible, andthus substantially preserve past renderings. A “standard” versionshould resist the impulse simply to tinker with words, forexample. One of my memorable irritations with the RSV wasits substitution in Deuteronomy 8:3 of “every word that proceedsout of the mouth of the LORD” with “everything.” TheNRSV returns to “every word” here, only to foul the text furtherby reading “one” for “man” in the clause, “one does notlive by bread alone,” and striking “man” from the secondclause altogether.A “standard” version ought not indulge in such tinkering,yet it keeps happening. In Ezekiel 18:25, KJV’s “The way of theLORD is not equal” (Hebrew ~ˆkeT;yI) was accurate and intelligibleenough, yet RSV tinkered it into “not just,” and the NRSV nowinto “not fair.” “Let my son go that he may serve me (Hebrewdb'[;)” in Exodus 4:23 KJV and RSV becomes “worship me” in theNRSV—more tinkering. In a parallel text NRSV retains “serve”for db'[;, however, “him shall you serve” (Dt 6:13). The link ofsonship with servanthood in Israel is highly significant in theGospels, yet NRSV’s tinkering obscures it. Driven by nothingmore than the bare Greek douleuvw and its noun form dou'lo",NRSV foists a Greek conception of “slavery” upon the Hebrew“servant” world in which Jesus lived and taught. It has Jesus say,“No one can serve two masters, for a slave will either hate theone and love the other. . . .” (Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13). The complaintof the elder son takes the form, “All these years I have beenworking like a slave for you” (Lk 15:29). Most problematic, in theparable of “the unforgiving servant” (Mt 18:23–33) the notion ofIsrael as God’s “son” and “servant” is utterly lost. A reader perceivesonly the dou'lo" of Greek culture, a boss king, a sub-boss“slave” and an underling “fellow slave.”The general effect of such departures from the “standard”is to erase conceptual links previously preserved. A “standard”version ought to cherish and not diminish the “concordance”value of its renderings for the associative memory of readers.Words and their roots ought to be translated the same way

56 LOGIAwherever possible. KJV did some of this by its relative literalness.RSV improved on KJV modestly here and there, thoughperhaps more by accident than conscious intent. It renders theGreek ejxousiva as “authority” rather than “power” in additionalplaces (Lk 10:19; Mt 28:18), yet still reads “power” in others(Jn 1:12; 10:18). NRSV is no improvement.Another principle, obvious at least to me, is that a “standard”version not pamper its readers, but respect their intelligenceand challenge them to think on their own. A problempassage ought not be explained away or covered over. Biblestory books, movies, paraphrases, commentaries and evenpreachers may entertain, but translators should translate. Theircalling is not to make a translation “free-flowing and easy” byimposing their own “solutions” on problematic texts, for thatwould deny readers any chance to know and wrestle with whata text in itself actually says, and foreclose the possibility thatsome reader might break through into what could be anauthentic understanding.One value I cherished in the KJV was its preservation ofHebrew stylisms. If a text said, “. . . 4him that pisses againstthe wall” (1 Kgs 14:10), KJV said it too, not displacing it with“male” as in RSV and NRSV. On the feminine side, if a textsaid “vessel,” like 1 Peter 3:7, KJV said “vessel” too, not “sex” asin RSV and NRSV (though NRSV reinstates “vessel” at least ina footnote). Reducing the Hebraism “Is your eye evil because Iam good?” (Mt 20:15) to paraphases like “Do you begrudge mygenerosity?” (RSV), or “Are you envious because I am generous?”(NRSV), robs readers of any chance to link “evil” and“good” here with texts like Psalm 16:2 and Mark 10:18, or “eye”with “eyes opened” to “the tree of the knowledge of good andevil” in Genesis 3. Displacing the classic “Peace to you” in Genesis43:23 with a vapid “Rest assured” (RSV and NRSV),“assures” nothing more than that readers will never notice parallelslike Jesus’ “Peace be with you” in John 20:19, or the greetingof peace in the church’s liturgy.Readers trusted with the literal text might have imaginationto see what translators failed to see. “The breath of Godheld still over the waters” might stir them to visualize God as“holding his breath” in a precreation silence, and then by hisbreath giving voice to his creating word (Gn 1:2). Jesus’ saying,“Which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to hisstature?” if not transmuted into “span of life” as in the RSV(fouled further by NRSV), might stir some readers to marvelhow a newborn infant of a forearm’s length, one cubit, growsup in time to an adult “stature” of three or four cubits, withoutworrying about it in the least! (Mt 6:27)“Inclusive Language” in the NRSVSuch concerns are trivial, however, alongside the sponsors’momentous policy decision that the NRSV be translated notinto mere English, but into a recently invented “inclusive language”English. The Pilgrim Press (Yeadon, Penn.) has producedAn Inclusive Language Lectionary “based on the RSV,” andother biblical books, on that principle. People who want this sortof translation can find it here. When NRSV, however, whichclaims still to be “standard” and for all “the churches,” is madeto conform to this additional, alien, and radically new “standard”(in effect, the politically correct feminist-culture-religionof our time), it is no longer for all churches, but sectarian.Bruce M. Metzger, chairman of the committee of thirtytranslators, seeks to justify this decision in his preface “To theReader” (italics are mine):. . . NRSV remains essentially a literal translation.Paraphrastic renderings have been adopted only sparingly,and then chiefly to compensate for a deficiencyin the English language the lack of a common genderthird person singular pronoun.During the almost half-century since the publicationof the RSV, many in the churches have becomesensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arisingfrom the inherent bias of the English language towardthe masculine gender, a bias that in the case of theBible has often restricted or obscured the meaning ofthe original text. The mandates from the Divisionspecified that, in references to men and women, masculine-orientedlanguage should be eliminated as faras this can be done. . . .I perceive three fallacies here. First, what Metzger calls“the inherent bias of the English language toward the masculinegender,” is no less a bias of Hebrew, Greek and other languages.To eliminate it in English requires editing it out of theoriginal Hebrew and Greek texts too.Second, to posit “a deficiency in the English language thelack of a common gender third person singular pronoun,” is toignore or blandly decree out of existence the male grammar“inclusive language” that has in fact long characterized Englishand most languages. Male-form singular pronouns like “he,”“him,” and “his” are often “inclusive” of both male and femaleas are also nouns like “man” in English, µd:a; in Hebrew, anda[nqrwpo" in Greek. People may have reasons to object to thisin our time, repudiate it, even hate it. But to deny that formsgrammatically male can express “common gender,” and toinsist (by way of the NRSV) that the languages of the biblicalpast also be made to express common gender in the neuteredforms invented by our culture, is tyranny. The problem here isnot linguistic but cultural. What is needed in Bible reading,translating and interpreting today is a dispassionate and appreciativeunderstanding of its own style of gender-inclusivity.Only within its own style can the Bible’s core message and wisdombe recovered, and that not for the churches only, but forthe world and culture of our time.A third fallacy is the anti-male prejudice implicit in theword “bias.” Feminist logic argues that men have dominatedwomen and held them in bondage through the ages. It followsthat, if women are to have any integrity as persons in their ownright, they must renounce such domination and every sign ofit, and set out on their own. Let me hasten to acknowledge thatmale domination over women does exist, and that it must beaddressed, likewise instances of female seduction and dominationover men. Perversions of this sort are “sin,” and need to bedealt with as such. The root issue here, however, concerns the

REVIEWS 57validity of our culture’s blanket condemnation of what it perceivesto be biblical “patriarchy” in its manifold expressions,and its assessment that this is a subtle conspiracy on the part ofmen to dominate women and keep them inferior. In my mindthat diagnosis is not only mistaken but deadly. What appearsto be “bias toward the male gender” in the Bible (to use Metzger’sterm) has to do with a remarkable insight which feministconditionedanti-male culture seems incapable of knowing:the wonder of oneness through the diversity of male andfemale for the sake of family and home down through the generations,and the noble responsibility assigned to men for theirfamilies. In the biblical view men and women possess one andthe same basic human personhood and honor. Every personindividually has this treasure as pure gift from the God who iswithout partiality. Secure in this commonality, and buildingon this one grand “given,” men and women alike are called andfreed also to discover, receive and fill full their diverse giftstoward each other, their children and their society, in praisetoward God and in love for one another.Enslaved by their fallacies, however, NRSV and its protagonistswait expectantly for everybody with any sense eventuallyto buy into their theory, thereby misjudging and unable tocomprehend the many who don’t and won’t. Why won’t they?Because men and women who know their native honor fromGod, and cherish the wonder of love and mutual honor inmarriage and family, do not regard the home as a second-ratefrontier, or wifehood and motherhood as an inferior calling, orthe husbandhood and fatherhood of a man in the home as suppressingwomen and their talents, or work outside the home assuperior in glory and freedom. Since they accept and valuewithout offense the Bible’s own style of “inclusivity,” they areable to recognize that “Father” as a name for God is not maledominatingbut gender-inclusive language, and that the name“my firstborn son” for God’s people is likewise gender-inclusive.They are able to notice also how personal pronouns like“he” and “him” include women as well as men, as do other languageforms too.NRSV’s myopic policy is a “religious” aberration. It directspeople’s eyes and hearts inward toward their own self-judgingself-consciousness, rather than outward to the grace of God inJesus Christ, and to the “equality” already “given” not to menand women alone either, but to people of every other diversitytoo. NRSV and its language game will not enhance the equalityof women. On the contrary, as Jesus says, “Whoever does notgather with me scatters” (Mt 12:30). NRSV’s tactic will onlysplit those who support it, from others who perceive it as evidenceof NRSV’s tragic captivity to an unreal, destructive andinevitably transitory sociopolitical theory.Furthermore, NRSV’s policy dishonors both Scripture andits readers. With respect to “translating” it yields nothing butdisaster. The evidences I offer here are only a beginning.“What is man (v/Ona‘) that you are mindful of him, and theson of man (µd:a;AˆB,) that you care for (visit) him?” saysHebrews 2:6 (RSV, KJV) quoting Psalm 8:4. NRSV converts“man” into a plural here, “human beings,” and “son of man”into “mortals” not to translate, however, but only to eradicatethe stench of maleness. An NRSV footnote in Hebrews(entered apparently when Psalm 8:4 had not yet been deodorized)explains that “man” and “son of man” in the Psalm “bothrefer to all humankind.” Yet in NRSV as published this Psalmverse too, and its parallels, has been “corrected” to say “humanbeings” and “mortals” (Ps 80:17; 144:3). Evidently consistencycounts for nothing, however. Isaiah 56:2 has “the man” as “themortal,” with “the son of man” reduced to merely “the one,” a“neutering” device found also in Deuteronomy 8:3 (above).That readers are not allowed to notice what such texts reallysay, or to associate one text with another, or to think for themselves,matters nothing to these tamperers. All they care aboutis their deodorizing word game.The title “son of man” is critical. It appears to be a piouseuphemism for “son of God,” not in the Gospels only, butalready in Daniel (7:13, 18, 22, 27). “One like a son of man comingwith clouds” is there identified as “the holy ones of the MostHigh” meaning the Israel whom the Lord by Moses haddeclared to be “my firstborn son,” in effect the “son of God”(Ex 4:22). Unconcerned for consistency, NRSV does not convert“son” into “child” in this text, as it does freely elsewhere. InDaniel it displaces “son of man” with “human being” (not“mortal” this time). When the Lord addresses Ezekiel as “son ofman” (Ez 3:1, 4, 10, 17), however, NRSV has “O Mortal,” as inPsalm 8. When Jesus calls himself “the Son of man,” NRSV letsit stand unchanged. Note what such “translating” does! Itdenies readers the privilege of their own noticing, associatingand thinking. They have no way to link Daniel’s “son of man”vision with Jesus’ designation of himself by that name, not evenin contexts where the association is almost explicit (Mt 16:27, 28;26:64). Neither can they wonder about “son of man” in Ezekiel.Thus the false “standard” makes mockery of “translating.”The Greek for “son” is the masculine uiJov", for “brother”vajdelfov". As designations for God’s people both of these termsare “inclusive.” NRSV cannot tolerate male inclusivity, however.Consider Romans 8:12–17. Where Paul addresses the saints as“brothers,” it must add “and sisters.” Where Paul thinks inclusively,“All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God,”NRSV writes “children.” Where Paul perceives his hearers ashaving received “a Spirit of sonship,” NRSV substitutes “adoption.”Where Paul speaks of “the Spirit bearing witness with ourspirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs(vtevkna in Greek),” NRSV cares not in the least whether readersnotice that the shift from “sons” to “children” here is Paul’sown doing his way of affirming that prior terms like “brothers”and “sons” and “sonship” are gender-inclusive.NRSV mangles Galatians 3:26‒28 in the same way. “InChrist Jesus you are all sons of God through faith,” Paul writes,“sons” affirming their link to “Christ Jesus” as “the Son of God.”Yet NRSV scratches “sons” again and writes in “children,” asthough the church’s sonship link to Christ were of no account.That Paul goes on to affirm explicitly the total “inclusivity” of histerm “sons” “neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neithermale nor female,” matters nothing to the NRSV either. All itcares about is to neuter every stench of maleness.On the other hand, in Matthew 21:28–32 NRSV blindly followsKJV and RSV. The Greek text says, “A certain man hadtwo children (vtevkna), and he went to the first and said, ‘Child,

58 LOGIAgo and work in my vineyard today!’” “Children” here, ratherthan “sons,” may anticipate the upcoming male and femalediversity of “tax collectors and harlots.” What a marvelouschance to stress “inclusivity” by way of Jesus’ own language! YetNRSV keeps “two sons” and “son,” just like its predecessors.“Brothers,” likewise male in grammar, is clearly inclusive ofthe whole church. NRSV, however, under compulsion to neuterthis term too, and yet unable to come up with a decent alternative(“siblings” for some reason will not do) makes it read“brothers and sisters.” The Bible’s own assurances, that the malelanguage form does not make women inferior or leave them out,count for nothing. Women must hear the language say againand again, to the point of nausea, “brothers and sisters”! ConsiderJames 2:1, 5, 14, “My brothers . . . my brothers beloved . . .my brothers.” In every case NRSV tacks on “and sisters.” ThatJames interposes “the royal law” and a sound warning againstshowing “partiality” is of no consequence. When James himselfsays “a brother or sister” in verse 15, however, NRSV’s tamperingfrustrates any chance for readers to take note of it.In Matthew 18:15–21 NRSV comes up with another deviceto neuter “brother.” “If your brother sins . . .” becomes “ifanother member of the church sins.” Peter’s “How often shallmy brother sin against me . . . ?” becomes “If another memberof the church sins against me. . . .” Stilted artificialities ofthis sort are the price NRSV must pay to cleanse the Bible of itsmaleness. But does “brother” here really mean “another memberof the church”? Might it not mean a “brother” still inJudaism? The tamperer does not care about such questions orallow the reader to care. Elsewhere in Matthew, four timeswithin three verses, he converts “brother” to “brother or sister”(Mt 5:22–24).The perversions go on. Patriarchal “fathers” must beneutered into “ancestors,” and “fathers” into “parents.” Hoseais not allowed to foresee the nations as “sons of the living God”but must say “children” (Hos 1:10; similarly Dt 14:1). “Sons ofthe Most High” in Psalm 82:6 is a crucial referent for the disputebetween Jesus and “the Jews” over his supposed blasphemy(Jn 10:35, 36), yet NRSV’s “children” makes this link unrecognizable.NRSV cannot let Jesus say, “Blessed are the peacemakers,for they shall be called sons of God” either. He mustsay “children.” But enough!The church could still use a “standard” translation, butthis one does not qualify. I cannot imagine that Metzger andthe thirty competent scholars who worked so intensely withhim for so many years (since 1974), men and women of integrity,created this abuse of their text on their own. A copy of theiroriginal, untampered work must surely still exist somewhere.My guess is the parent committee, having received their finishedmanuscript, submitted it for stylistic improvement tosome “expert” or “experts” in modern “inclusive language”theory (who understood and cared about nothing else, meaningsbeing out of their province in any case) with no comprehensionwhatsoever of the ruthless mangling that would, anddid, inevitably result.Paul G. BretscherValparaiso, IndianaPastoral Care and The Means of Grace. By Ralph Underwood.Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 1993. 155 pages. Paper.■ In Pastoral Care and The Means of Grace, Ralph Underwood,Professor of Pastoral Care at Austin Presbyterian TheologicalSeminary, Austin, Texas, attempts to “demonstrate andsupport a thesis . . . that emphasizes the essential place of ritualin pastoral care ministry.” To do this he presents chapters onPrayer, Dialogue, Scripture, Reconciliation, Baptism andEucharist. To his credit Underwood seeks to counter the postmodernculture which he claims discredits ritual and mystery.Unfortunately, while desiring to free himself from a pastoralapproach that resorts merely to social ministry and psychologicalcounseling devoid of spirituality, Underwood neverthelessis too much a product of his clinical pastoral education backgroundto free himself of the very post-modernism he attemptsto address. While dealing subjectively in his approach to pastoralcare, he declines to deal objectively with the theology ofword and sacrament. One would like to assume the approachhe takes presupposes objective meaning in the Sacraments, butnever is it clear that he is able to incorporate it; priority alwaysseems to dictate that the experiential is the highest good of pastoralcare.To his credit and with an honest struggle to present truth,Underwood says some good things and a few excellent things.The first words of the chapter on Reconciliation (what Lutheranswould call the Office of the Keys) describe masterfully thetemptation to exchange confession and absolution for merecounseling. And in a rare reference to Lutheran theology,Underwood lauds Lutherans for having a form of confessionwhich definitely “pronounces absolution in contrast to generalwords of assurance.” Underwood even sounds Lutheran whenhe says prayer is a response to the God of Scripture. And in hischapter on Eucharist he rightly emphasizes the need for pastoralvisits to shut-ins with the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.But beyond these references Pastoral Care and The Means ofGrace leaves much to be desired.For one thing it is never quite clear what Underwoodmeans by “the means of grace” since he includes prayer as ameans and implies that people themselves are a means of grace.Grace does not seem to be an attitude or action God takestoward us, but one we take toward God as in, “Eucharist is ameans of grace in part because it is a means of a life of service.”This could possibly be understood properly were it not for anoverriding sense that “means of grace” to Underwood hasmore to do with our response to God than God’s response tous. He waxes “poetic” but lacks clarity in the use of phrasessuch as “prayer as the soul of pastoral care,” or “a theology ofsacred space,” or concepts such as “human faultedness” whichone gets the impression is something like human sinfulness butwithout the guilt. One often reads anticipating the emergenceof definitions that seldom mature and clarify.Although Underwood attempts to conserve tradition,liturgy and the sacraments he ends up redefining them in waysthat denude them of meanings which would convey their

REVIEWS 59objective revelation of truth. In speaking of Eucharist, forexample, he never refers to the body and blood of Christ butonly to bread and wine, something we offer to God. Too oftenwe are left with theology as a relative enterprise that derives itslegitimacy from psychological pragmatism and the need forprocess, rather than content, to lead us. All this is part of theheritage of CPE which is permeated with post-modern existentialismand relativism. The goal of Pastoral Care and TheMeans of Grace still seems to be the post-modern attempt atself-fulfillment with the use of spirituality to accomplish it.This, contrasted with pastoral care as a ministry of “feedingand leading” with the means of grace as an end toward faithfulnessin its own right. It seems appropriate to paraphrase Bonhoeffer’swarning that we must learn to love God for God’sown sake and not for what we can get out of him—even “selffulfillment”in a post-modern age.What is missing from Underwood’s effort is the theologyof the cross. Nowhere does he deal with justification as themeans to our “transformation” before God. For example, thereis no articulation of death and resurrection of the sinner thatfrees us from post-modernism. As an “authentic” mainlineProtestant in a post-modern age, Underwood means well, buthas yet to discover the theology of the cross as Luther describesit in the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518, from which we derivethe heart of pastoral care of the sick and dying, the troubledand hopeless, as a proclamation of God’s grace in the midst ofsuffering. At the core of post-modernism is the rejection ofobjective truth and the desire to recreate for ourselves themeaning that suits us. Pastoral care ought not point people toself-fulfillment, but to the abandonment of self and freedom inChrist which sees even in suffering that “all things worktogether for good to those who love God.”In some ways Underwood is on the right track, having recognizedthe need to leave behind the void CPE created whenspirituality was traded for psychology, but he has yet to freehimself from the subjectivity of post-modernism in sheep’sclothing which in this case aims at pastoral care as a means toself-fulfillment. It is hard for me to recommend this book forthe typical parish pastor since it requires a depth of experiencewith CPE and the pitfalls of the psychologizing of faith in orderto understand it rightly. Read lightly (if that is possible), thebook is comfortable in its accommodation to the culture ofpost-modernism. Like the Church Growth Movement, Underwood’sapproach “feels” good, but leaves us with a gnawingsense that something is wrong at the very core of its appeal.Sometime next spring this reviewer’s own book on pastoralcare and the theology of the cross will appear and will offeranother attempt at clarifying the meaning of pastoral care.Richard C. EyerDirector of Pastoral Care, Columbia HospitalMilwaukee, WisconsinA Common Calling: The Witness of Our Reformation Churchesin North America Today. Edited by Keith F. Nickle andTimothy F. Lull, Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress Press, 1993.88 pages.■ A Common Calling “presents the report of the Lutheran-Reformed Committee for Theological Conversations,1988–1992. It includes a proposal that full communion beestablished between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Americaand three reformed churches: the Presbyterian Church(USA), the Reformed Church in America, and the UnitedChurch of Christ” (quoted from back cover of the book).This proposal is the result of a third round of dialogue,picking up where previous conversations between Lutheranand Reformed church bodies left off. The present discussionfinds its roots in the conclusion of the first round of talks(1962–1966) which stated already at that time that there were“no insuperable obstacles to pulpit and altar fellowship” (MarburgRevisited, Augsburg, 1966, p. 191). This theme was carriedthrough ensuing ecumenical discussions contained in An Invitationto Action (Fortress Press, 1984). The result we havebefore us in A Common Calling is the “action” in which theLutherans and Reformed are now invited to participate. Thereport concludes:In light of the specific mandate given this committee,and on the basis of our theological discussions, we canname “no church-dividing differences” that shouldpreclude the declaration of full fellowship betweenthese churches. While the disagreements between ourcommunities that led to the sixteenth-century condemnationsregarding eucharist, christology, and predestinationcontinue to shape and reflect our identities,they cannot claim to be church-dividing todayand should not stand in the way of achieving “fullcommunion” among us (p. 65).The Eucharist, christology and predestination are relegatedto the role of shaping and reflecting our identities, as if theywere secondary articles of the faith. Gospel reductionism peeksits head out from under the covers in many places in the bookwhile glossing over those who believe there is a place in ecumenicaldialogue for the discussion of specific doctrines as theyimpact upon the gospel. A Common Calling is, in all fairnessthough, only pointing out the reality of gospel reductionism alltoo prevalent in many parishes.The reality today is that the present state of catechesisencourages gospel reductionism. Eucharist, christology andpredestination are perceived to be peripheral to any discussionof the gospel. And, sad to say, this perception is encouraged bymany Lutheran churches today, largely as a result of the churchgrowth manuals which tell us to avoid anything with whichothers might disagree or find controversial. The call of RodneyKing is much more attune to the ears of our people than thecall of 1 Timothy 3:16.

60 LOGIAOne can almost hear the groans of the committee as theyinclude the minority report of the LCMS which asks for doctrinalagreement in all of the doctrines of Scripture (p. 24). A muchsimpler and more productive way to reach our common calling,according to the report, is through the principle of “mutualaffirmation and admonition” (p. 67). The principle applied hereis really nothing more than the Hegelian dialectic approach totheology. Both Reformed and Lutheran serve as correctives toeach other. Their union would result in a faith which leavesbehind the excesses of each tradition while confessing the synthesis:“Both sides . . . heed[ing] the concerns of the partners, ifnot as a guide to their own formulations, then at least as no trespassingsigns for the common forms of the churches’ witness. . .”(p. 49). It is no wonder that names such as Melanchthon,Brenz and Bucer are viewed in a much more appreciative lightwith regard to their formulas for union. The variata ofMelanchthon are alive and well in A Common Calling.While this reviewer and most readers sympathize with thegoal of A Common Calling, the Hegelian dialectic it proposes is notthe solution. But then one must ask: How do we deal with what is areal problem today—“denominational switching” and lack ofdenominational loyalty due to biblical illiteracy rampant in ourchurch and others? We are facing a society that is impatient withcatechesis because of the churches that follow the church growthmodel who revel in lowest common denominator theology.Compounding the ELCA’s problem—and why A CommonCalling has more appeal for that church body than for theLCMS—is their acceptance of critical scholarship which underminesany authoritative source such as Scripture and encouragesa subjective theology. A Common Calling predictably finds thispredicament helpful to the ecumenical cause. Scripture andcreeds are witnesses to our common calling, functioning as“non-binding but authoritative norms for the community, itstheology and practice” (p. 62). No wonder it can find agreementwith the UCC, which does not adhere to something as basic asthe three ecumenical creeds. Once the authority of a source hasbeen lost, then the rule and norm for determining what is doctrineis lost. All that remains is a consensus theology where weagree where we can, and agree to disagree on the rest. This is thebasic proposal for fellowship in A Common Calling.The church of the late twentieth century faces a dearth ofbiblical knowledge and authoritative sources. This more thananything else has paved the way for the modern ecumenical dialoguewe see in A Common Calling. Some seminaries, perhapsunwittingly, may be contributing to the appeal of ecumenicalendeavors like A Common Calling by cutting back on core systematicand exegetical courses in favor of more “practical” courses.Where the clergy are unclear about the significance of certaindoctrines, one knows that the laity cannot be far behind.The solution must begin with catechesis for pastors and bypastors. The church needs to become once again the teachingchurch in its seminaries, sermons and Bible studies (as it was inthe sixteenth century), rather than simply the pep rally that ourculture wants it to be with the concomitant need to avoid controversyand discussion of differences. This is consonant withthe Lord’s mandate in Matthew 28:20 where he includesdidavskonte" in his Great Commission.Disciples are made by baptizing and teaching. If both of theseare going on in our churches, there is a much greater chance of ushaving a truly common calling based on our common knowledgeof God’s Word as he has given it to his church to confess. Wherethis is not going on, subjective theology by consensus becomes thenorm for ecumenical dialogue as opinions are elevated abovecreeds and confessions. Specific doctrines give way to “a coherentapproach to the whole of [a confessional tradition’s] theologicalbasis” (p. 24). In other words, it is much easier to agree withabstract “wholes” of something rather than getting mired in messyspecifics. Perhaps, because many pastors and lay people in thechurches of this proposed union (and our own) are unsure ofwhat the “specific doctrines” are anymore, A Common Calling hasa greater chance of succeeding today than ever before.Joel ElowskyMission Developer, Peace Lutheran MissionGalloway, New JerseyOne Ministry Many Roles: Deacons and Deaconesses throughthe Centuries. By Jeannine E. Olson. St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse, 1992. Paper. 460 pages. $21.95.■ This latest book in the “Concordia Scholarship Today” seriesfills a long-standing void. No book on the history of the diaconateis this brief yet comprehensive. Since the Concordia Scholarshipseries explores current issues from a theological viewpoint, readersexpect theological analysis woven into the historical review. However,this expectation must be put aside so the reader can appreciatethe astounding amount of pure history.Olson presents the office of deacon as created by thechurch to administer charity. Thus, “in a sense, the history ofthe diaconate can be viewed as the history of social welfare inthe church” (p. 17). The book ambitiously chronicles 2000years of the office of deacon, the offices which sprang from it,and the diakonia of the church (which Olson describes as theintertwining of religion and social service).Eight chapters break down diaconal history into chronologicalportions: Biblical and Early Church, Constantine to Luther, Reformation,Protestant Reformation to nineteenth century, nineteenthcentury Europe, nineteenth century British Empire and America,twentieth century, and Permanent Deacons and ContemporaryTrends. Within each chapter, Olson traces diaconal developmentaccording to denomination or religious movement. Helpful summariesend major sections. This structure, along with an excellentindex, enables a selective reader to make maximum use of thebook. For those wanting to do further research, the superb twentyfive-pagebibliography lists more than four-hundred sources .Olson perceives several voids in diaconal research which sheattempts to fill. First, most scholarship unjustly centers on deacons’liturgical role to the neglect of their charitable work. Deacons havefunctioned in diverse ways: lay or clergy, volunteer or professional,full- or part-time, permanent or transitional, and in charity orliturgy. Second, the history of deaconesses is neglected in historicalsurveys, especially in the LCMS. Almost all books regarding deaconesswork are out of print (a challenge for this instructor of deaconessstudents). The author concisely reviews the monumental

REVIEWS 61contribution of deaconesses during the last 180 years. Third, thereare many recent changes in the status of deaconesses and deacons.Olson’s final chapters are revealing. The World Council ofChurches and various denominational mergers and ecumenicalendeavors are profoundly affecting the diaconate.Considering the quantity of information, the book reads surprisinglywell. The social history lessons benefit lay people and studentsand are not laborious for the knowledgeable. The notes arecomprehensive. Those familiar with English only will appreciatethe translations of the French and German. Where possible Englishtranslations of foreign works are cited.An important contribution is the reinforcement of a historicalunderstanding that deacon and deaconess are not simply male andfemale counterparts of the same office. This is particularly truenow as some denominations have female deacons; in some casesdeaconesses exist alongside male and female deacons. The readerlearns to appreciate the tremendous world-wide service to societyand the church done by the diaconate.Beyond my disappointment that only six pages are devoted toreview biblical texts, my objections center around the final twochapters (the weakest yet arguably the most valuable sections).Since this was written for Concordia Publishing House, I wouldexpect a greater understanding of Lutheran polity and theology.Three examples illustrate the problem. First, Olson did not utilizevital primary sources. She did not visit the three Lutheran deaconesstraining centers in the United States or interview our deaconesses.She did talk with the three program directors by phoneand letter and used our limited responses as primary sources. Someinformation was not evaluated; as a result, there are errors. She didnot attend DIAKONIA (The World Federation of Diaconal Associationsand Sisterhoods) in Nova Scotia last June, which was aninvaluable opportunity to learn first-hand from the diaconates ofthirty-five countries. Second, Olson makes very few conclusions, soone in particular surprised me. She supports deaconesses who wishto remain so even when ordained into the pastoral office (p. 315).Her conclusion is not supported by theology, but only by sociology.Third, the title of the book demonstrates an insensitivity to theorthodox Lutheran mind.My concerns should not dilute the value of Olson’s contribution.It is useful for examining the significance of the diaconate invarious denominations. It serves as an incomparable tool for furtherresearch. The history of the church’s social service is revealing.It will certainly be an encouragement to my students to see therichness of deaconess history and how they are part of it. Theologiansmay find it intriguing to see that the struggles today regardinglay ministry and the pastoral office are nothing new. Rationalesfor certain types of “lay ministry” today echo Protestant andRoman Catholic models of years past.Olson is to be commended for this comprehensive introductionto ecclesiastical practices in the diaconate of denominationsthroughout the world. Although I suspect most people will notwant to read the text cover to cover, its value will not be lost byselective reading. Personally, it is simply a joy to see the impact ofdeaconesses is no longer a secret!Kristin R. WassilakDeaconess Program Director, Concordia UniversityRiver Forest, IllinoisMessianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the OldTestament in Early Christianity. By Donald Juel. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1988. 193 pages.■ The first paperback edition of a book originally published byDonald Juel in 1988 provides readers with yet another opportunityto avail themselves of a work significant in its fresh approach to anold debate, the development of New Testament christology. Theguiding thesis of Juel’s approach may be roughly stated as follows:The confession of Jesus as Messiah, that is, as the crucified andrisen King of the Jews, stands at the forefront of the early Christianchurch’s christological reflection and interpretation of the Scriptures(at least the reflection and interpretation that provide for thesubstructure of New Testament Christianity). Beginning with thehistorical realities of Jesus’ passion, then, “we can understand theprocess by which a variety of biblical passages came to be enlistedin the task of making sense of Jesus and his career, and how theyare combined” (p. 171). The thesis, which Juel admits borrowingfrom his teacher Nils Alstrup Dahl, may seem rather self-evidentto the readers of a journal of Lutheran theology. Indeed, as Juelpoints out, most scholars would agree that early Christian reflectionmade use of the Scriptures of Israel. And few anywhere woulddisagree that the primary focus of early Christian scriptural interpretationwas “christological.” Still, there remains considerabledisagreement among scholars concerning the manner in whichthe writings of Israel were used and for what reason. And onlyvery few prominent in this debate have argued “that what standsat the beginning of that reflection and provides a focus and adirection for scriptural exegesis is the confession of Jesus as Messiah”(p. 1). Instead, studies have concentrated on such salvific figuresas the Suffering Servant, the Son of Man, the eschatologicalProphet, Wisdom, or the Righteous Sufferer. Juel’s thesis, then,“that the confession of Jesus as Messiah is primary,” does indeedqualify as “something of a novelty” (p.2). Why the Scriptures wereread and how they were read are questions which continue todeserve attention, especially in light of the work which has beendone in recent decades to improve our understanding of theexegetical traditions of first-century Judaism.Juel begins his study, then, by arguing for the following. Bythe first century, traditions of translation and interpretationwere well established both on the level of popular synagogue lifeand on the level of the school. And all Jews, including those whofollowed Jesus, located themselves squarely within these traditions.But no one expected that the Messiah would come to sufferfor sins. No one expected that the Messiah would rise fromthe dead, because no one expected that he would come in orderthat he might die. When Jesus came, therefore, that he mightsuffer, die, and rise from the dead, when he was executed as amessianic pretender, and when his resurrection from the deadwas seen as the Father’s vindication of the crucified Messiah, theproclamation of the crucified and risen Christ became the unexpectedpivotal foundation of Christian preaching and Christianfaith. All christological exegesis focused on the crucified andrisen Messiah. That which lay at the heart of Christian traditionand christological exegesis, therefore, was a confession of Jesusin considerable tension with the traditional messianic figurecommon to Jewish eschatological scriptural exegesis. The lack of

62 LOGIAsuch a pre-Christian Jewish concept of a suffering Messiah provided,then, one of the first agenda items for the early Christianchurch. The task of the first Christians was to understand howsuch things could be and what the implications were, and thattask led them into the Scriptures with a specific agenda. Theiragenda was one never before implemented. And yet, becausethe greatest difference between early Christian exegesis and anyother form of Jewish scriptural interpretation was only to befound in the impact made by Jesus, the working out of thatagenda was still determined largely by the interpretive world ofwhich the first believers were a part.The Christian documents which we presently have at ourdisposal contain only “bits and pieces of interpretive tradition”belying “a vast network of exegesis to which we have only limitedaccess.” In spite of these limitations, however, Juel argues that,“given our knowledge of first-century scriptural interpretation,and given some sense of interpretive traditions available, itshould be possible to explain the choice of biblical texts to explicatehis (Jesus’) career, and to show what controlled the directionand shape of the interpretive tradition” (p. 2). His studyfocuses, then, on a variety of Old Testament passages whichreceive messianic interpretations in the New Testament. Howthese Old Testament passages are employed is examined andwhy they were selected in order to illustrate the career of Jesus isexplained. The passages studied include 2 Samuel 7:10–14, thePsalms (in general), Psalm 110 (in particular), Isaiah, and Daniel7. Thus, both passages qualifying as “standard messianic oracles”and those which can boast no messianic reading outside Christianliterature are treated. Where Jewish interpretations of theOld Testament passages in question are available, these too areidentified both to point out similarities in interpretive techniqueand to emphasize differences in the conclusions drawn.There is much, then, which commends Juel’s study. His is avaluable contribution not only to the study of how the earliestChristian church interpreted the Old Testament, but also to thestudy of its earliest beginnings. This is not to say, however, that hisstudy is without its weaknesses, which he himself acknowledges.The study has its decidedly one-sided moments. For example, inhis examination of the New Testament use of the Old Testament,Juel spends little time examining the use of scriptural materialfrom the wisdom traditions or from the biblical materialemployed which speaks of Jesus as a heavenly being. Neither doeshe devote serious attention to the scriptural material employedwhich speaks of holy men and prophets. Questions concerning therelationship of form and function have also often been neglected.Still, these weaknesses do not in the end significantly detract fromthe book’s primary accomplishment. Again, the strength of Juel’sstudy is to be found in his fresh appreciation for that which theNew Testament itself offers as the chief stumbling block of Jesus’messianic identity, the necessity of his suffering and death.Bruce G. SchuchardSt. James Lutheran ChurchVictor, Iowa

REVIEWS 63BRIEFLY NOTEDIntroduction to Christian Worship: Revised Edition. By JamesF. White. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990.■ James F. White, a United Methodist minister currentlyserving as Professor of Liturgy at Notre Dame, is one of themost prolific writers in the field of liturgics. First published in1980, this revised edition takes into account subsequent developmentsin liturgical scholarship as well as the appearance ofseveral new worship books (including Lutheran Worship).White has provided readers with a concise introduction to currentliturgical theology and practices in Roman Catholic,Orthodox and Protestant communions.Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult. By GeorgeA. Mather and Larry A. Nichols. Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishing House, 1993.■ As there are thousands of religious cults in North Americaalongside the major world religions, Mather (New England Instituteof Religious Research) and Nichols (Our Redeemer LutheranChurch, Greenville, R.I.) have rendered a fine service in writing awell-documented account of various religious groups and practices.In their forward the authors note: “Although this book willserve a variety of purposes, its pre-eminent objective is to equipChristian believers with the material they need in the continuingstruggle against ‘the principalities and powers’ and the battle overconflicting truth claims.” The writers make no apology for writingfrom a Christian perspective, measuring the spiritual assertions ofa variety of religious groups against the standards of the Christianfaith as it is confessed in the ecumenical creeds. The authors write,“You will note that throughout the volume we have made frequentreferences to the ecumenical creeds of Christianity (Apostles’,Nicene and Athanasian, and Chalcedonian—see AppendixI). The rationale for this seems obvious. Every Christian denomination—Eastern,Roman Catholic, and Protestant—that subscribesto the traditional orthodox faith readily abides by theseancient symbols of orthodoxy and orthopraxis. The methodology,while not foolproof, prevents the sort of provincialism characteristicof denominational ‘proof-texting’ approaches so commonlyfound in treatises on cults and religions.”Appendices which diagram the christological heresies faced bythe early church and their connection to contemporary cults andsects make the volume even more useful. An extensive bibliographyconcludes the book. This is a book for every parish library.Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, 1532–1546. ByMartin Brecht. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.■ This volume brings to a conclusion Brecht’s trilogy on thelife and theology of Martin Luther. Here Brecht traces thecareer of the Reformer from the death of Elector John Frederickin 1532 to Luther’s own death in 1546.The Church: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn. Editedand introduced by Michael P. Plekon and William S. Wiecher.Delhi, New York: American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, 1993.■ The American Lutheran Publicity Bureau has renderedthose who care about the church a great service in bringingtogether articles of the sainted Arthur Carl Piepkorn (d. 1973),one of this century’s most churchly and learned theologians.Most of the essays were written during Piepkorn’s long tenureas professor of Systematic Theology at Concordia Seminary,St. Louis. The volume is divided into three sections: 1) TheChurch and Her Ministry, 2) The Parish at Prayer, and 3)Mary, the Archetype of the Church. The collection includesscholarly works, devotional reflections, and sermons.Readings for the Daily Office From the Early Church. By J.Robert Wright. New York: The Church Hymnal Corporation,1991.■ The St. Mark’s Professor of Ecclesiastical History at TheGeneral Theological Seminary has brought together readingsfrom the patristic period, organized according to the churchyear, for devotional reading with the Daily Office.Adventures in Law & Gospel: Lectures in Lutheran Dogmatics.By Lowell C. Green. Fort Wayne: Concordia Theological SeminaryPress, 1993.■ Growing out of his doctoral work at Erlangen underWerner Elert and more than thiry years of teaching theology,Adventures in Law and Gospel: Lectures in Lutheran Dogmaticsis, as the author states, “a trial balloon” in presenting AmericanLutherans with a one-volume dogmatics developed around thedistinction between law and gospel, between God as Deusabsconditus seu revelatus. This distinction permeates everylocus in Green’s work. Section 54, “The Central Importance ofthe Means of Salvation and the Divine Service,” reflectsGreen’s desire to view the liturgy theologically.Selling Jesus: What’s Wrong With Marketing the Church. By DouglasD. Webster. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992.■ Presbyterian cleric Douglas Webster challenges the marketingmentality of the Church Growth Movement in generaland of George Barna in particular in this popular critique ofconsumer-based Christianity. Rather than submitting to thebaby boomers’ wish list, Webster calls the church to a renewalthat is centered in Scripture and worship. JTP

LOGIA ForumSHORT STUDIES AND COMMENTARYArticles appearing in LOGIA Forum may be reprinted freely forstudy and discussion in congregations and conferences with theunderstanding that appropriate bibliographical references aremade. Unsigned articles in this section are the work of LOGIAForum’s editor, the Rev. Joel A. Brondos. Initialed pieces are writtenby contributing editors as noted on our masthead. Brief articlesmay be submitted for consideration by sending them to LOGIAForum, 707 N. Eighth St., Vincennes, IN 47591–3111. Because of thelarge number of unsolicited materials, we regret that we cannotpublish them all or notify authors in advance of their publication.PASTOR, COULDN’T WE ...?“Pastor, couldn’t we sing In the Garden at one of our worshipservices? It’s a real favorite that many of us have had sincewe were little.” “Pastor, couldn’t we let our young people writetheir own special creed for the service?” “Pastor, couldn’t wehave our favorite Willie Nelson song sung at our wedding?”“Pastor, couldn’t we celebrate National Fast for the Hungry Sunday?It’s a wonderful group that I belong to and they have sentme a special worship service and prayer to be used next month.”How does a pastor handle requests for extraordinary worshipexperiences? More than that, how does one evaluate thehymns and services which are used by Christians as they aregathered for the word of God? Is it merely a matter of personaltaste or is there something more?Some members feel frustrated when their pastor turnsdown a request for a special worship service or hymn. Theydon’t understand why the pastor is being so hard-headed andstubborn in refusing to allow certain hymns or worshipmaterial from various special-interest groups for festive services.Perhaps, they might think, it is his personality: Thepastor is just a closed-minded, behind-the-times, ultra-conservativeparty-pooper.Perhaps. But there may be another explanation. It may bethat the pastor is not just evaluating such requests by a differenttaste in music, but by an altogether different standard. Aslong as this standard remains invisible to those to whom thepastor is speaking, however, the people may think that the pastoris denying their requests merely on the basis of his personalwhims and fancies.While pastors ought to have been trained to have a keeneye for yeast and wolves (Gal 5:9; Mt 7:15; 1 Tim 4:16; Heb13:17), it may not be so easy to get the people to see them.And if people don’t see them, they may see their pastor asfighting against shadows and mythical ogres. He may seem tothem like Don Quixote doing battle against a monstrous,albeit imaginary, windmill.Unseen enemies, however, are not necessarily unrealenemies. It may be extremely difficult for members tobelieve a pastor’s cautions, especially when they “don’t seeanything wrong with it,” or “don’t see how it would hurtanything.” Yet, by God’s grace, they may be led to trust theirpastor as one who lovingly knows best—who is faithful tothe word of God and has a sharp eye for what would be dangerousto them.I remember taking my car to visit a member who was anauto-body specialist. With just a glance, he could see wherethe body of the car had been worked on—and where it wasstill dented. I looked and asked, “Where? I don’t see it!”Carefully, he showed me where to stand and what to look for.Sure enough: Those imperfections leapt out at me. He had akeen eye for imperfections. A pastor, too, is supposed to havea keen eye for the imperfections of beliefs which could provehazardous to the faith of the people he serves—even if theydon’t see it themselves. As the Spirit gathers, enlightens andsanctifies through the word preached and taught, they areshown where to stand and taught what to look for to makethe invisible standards become visible so that yeast andwolves may be recognized for what they are.The following is an attempt to make the pastor’s scripturalevaluations visible. Demonstrate these means to thepeople and then let them evaluate their request on the basis ofthis standard. It may be that they will resist this method andany other because the desires of the heart can often outweigha clear exposition of the themes of grace in Christ. Nothingshort of the Spirit’s working through the means of grace canchange that. At the very least, however, people may come tosee that the pastor does have a standard that he follows—it’snot just a matter of personal tastes. They may still accuse himof being a stick-in-the-mud, but at least he is a stick-in-themudwith clearly recognizable criteria.64

LOGIA FORUM 65Some guiding thoughts and questions along the waymight be helpful. Consider the following:1) The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel. The lawcommands what man is obligated to do. It always condemnsand accuses us sharply by showing our failures and inabilities.The gospel pronounces what God has done in JesusChrist and continues to do through his presence in wordand sacrament.Questions to ask of the material: How is the Lord bringingabout his work among us? Who is doing the verbs? If the subjectof most of the verbs is man, then the material probablyoriginates from a Reformed-Evangelical view of sanctificationand is not appropriate for use among us.2) Theology of Glory versus Theology of the Cross. The theologyof glory is terribly one-sided and unbalanced. It tends tolook only at the beautiful and sweet things of creation andignore the harsh and heavy aspects of life. It tends to fulfill theMarxist dictum of religion as the opiate of the people—itmakes people feel good by thinking good thoughts. It can alsosee suffering as though it were sinful—as though people arefaithless who aren’t always living a happy, joyful, triumphant,and victorious life.The theology of the cross sees God’s beauty and glory inthe despised, rejected and scorned things of this world forChrist’s sake (Is 53). It even may consider the beautiful thingsof life as garbage when they are not in service to the gospel inChrist (Phil 3:8). The cross is scandalous to those who areseeking to make the world a better place to live. The Christiandoes not expect glorious living as the cross is borne and as theflesh is crucified daily, but the heart is buoyant, calling to mindwhat Christ has accomplished on his cross even as that issealed to the Christian in Baptism and communicated to theChristian in Holy Communion.Questions to ask of the material: Are words like “praise,” “glorious,”“amazing,” “wondrous,” “beauty,” or “sweet” used overabundantly?Are they used to heighten a person’s emotionallevel to a fevered religious pitch? Are they treated as beingattainable ideals to be constantly maintained in a Christian’slife? Is success treated as the blessing of God while sufferingand hardshipare regarded as the abandonment of God?3) Natural Revelation versus Special Revelation. Natural revelationtells us some things about God, but it is woefully incomplete.We cannot be certain of how God is toward us by lookingat the world around us. We can be too easily confused bytrying to interpret the signs of the times. Dependence on naturalrevelation subtly introduces itself where there is a predominanceof talking about God without specific reference toJesus Christ. While we acknowledge Jesus to be true God andtrue man, it is possible to fall into a generic way of talkingabout God which loses touch with the incarnate Christ, Godfor us. Generic God-talk leads to speculation about his invisiblequalities which lead us into uncertainties.To speak of God merely by his attributes without beingcentered in the grace which is revealed to us only in Christ, wecan get a god who does things directly to us apart from theGod who instituted the means of grace as the word made flesh.Special revelation makes known through the Word and Spiritwhat is otherwise unavailable and unachievable to mortal eyesand minds (1 Cor 2:14).Questions to ask of the material: How is it that we find out howGod is toward us? How are we assured and comforted? Is it bylooking at the things of creation or is it by seeing him in Christalone? Where is Jesus in the hymn’s speaking about God? Is Hemerely a moral teacher or a helper?With copies of the Instrument for Evaluating ServiceMaterial in hand, select a hymn such as “In the Garden,” “TheOld Rugged Cross” or “Blessed Assurance.” Analyze each ofthem according to the specified criteria and mark on the scalewhether the text of these hymns falls on the left side or theright. Then subject hymns like “A Mighty Fortress,” “DearChristians, One and All, Rejoice” and “Salvation Unto Us HasCome” to the same standards. What do you notice?There are some inherent dangers and shortcomings in utilizingthis instrument. First of all, it might suggest that the twopositions run along the same spectrum or sliding scale. This,most certainly, is not intended. There is a mutual exclusivenessabout them when speaking about matters of justification andsanctification.Second, it might suggest a misguided religiosity whereinemotions are seen as something to be neutered or that appreciationof the beauties of God’s creation is materialistic adulterationof pure spirituality. Such positions are wholeheartedlyrejected. The reservation arises when emotions, beauty, praiseand glory attempt to accomplish what can be achieved byChrist’s divinely instituted means alone.The intent of this instrument is simply that we mightmore readily recognize the hymns and liturgies which extol themeans of grace and the theology of the cross most clearly. Thegift for displaying this Christ-centeredness is what has madethe hymns of Luther, Gerhardt, Franzmann and others so dearto our hearts. They speak Christ into us rather than fallingsubject to the gauche or maudlin.“Sir, we would see Jesus,” the Greeks said to Philip (Jn12:21). So we say to those who would select hymns and liturgies:“Sir, we would see Jesus—not as One who moves ouremotions nor as One whom we can make beautiful by our ownimaginations, but One who is really present in his word andgrace, who forgives us, renews us, and draws us to himselfwithout our effort or merit.”

66 LOGIAAN INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING SERVICE MATERIALMAN-CENTEREDI am the one doing most of the action in thishymn: my feelings, my thoughts, my personalsacrifice or dedication.CHRIST-CENTEREDChrist is the one doing the action in this hymn,through his Holy Absolution, Holy Baptism andHoly Communion.THEOLOGY OF GLORYThe hymn emphasizes a success, triumph, victoryin this world which persons can experience ifonly they will practice Christianity with a strongpersonal faith and determination and obedience.THEOLOGY OF THE CROSSThe hymn acknowledges that weakness and sufferingare the crosses which are borne, not by personalstrength, but by grace and the gift of faith whichis confident in Christ despite external appearancesof failure.NATURAL REVELATIONGod is seen as being good or great in terms of hisworks and creation; God is beautiful and strongbecause his creation shows beauty and power.Friendliness, sharing and caring are the evidencesof God’s grace and love.SPECIAL REVELATIONOne cannot look at beautiful rainbows and sunsetswithout also looking at devastating earthquakesand floods. God’s promises are not seen; they arebelieved by faith as spoken to us in his Holy Absolution,Holy Baptism and Holy Communion.WITHOUT MEANSGod does his working through quiet whispers ina person’s heart or mind. He moves peoplethrough life’s decisions by feelings and notionswhich are gained by contemplation as thoughwalking through a garden.MEANS OF GRACEGod does his work via the Spirit’s bringing Christthrough his Absolution, and Holy Communion.The God who is everywhere is incarnationallysomewhere for his people in his Holy Absolution,Holy Baptism and Holy Communion.EMOTIONSThe emphasis is on good feelings as evidence ofsalvation and a strong faith. A person is led toforget the cares of the world for a moment by ahappy song. Rejoicing is the result of personal,repeatable and demonstrable life experiences.FAITHOne trusts in God’s mercy in Christ even when itdoesn’t feel like He is present or active. All hellmay be breaking loose with emotional or psychologicalsuffering, but faith clings to what ispromised, not what is seen or felt. Rejoicing is theresult of trust in spite of personal experiences.MYTHICALFounded on imaginary thoughts, wishes anddesires of one’s personal dream world of whatChristianity would be like if it were ideal. Hopeis viewed in terms of wishful thinking.INCARNATIONALRooted in the historical revelation of God’s actionsin Scripture and directing people to Christ’s presencein Holy Absolution, Holy Baptism and HolyCommunion. Hope is understood as faithful trust.

LOGIA FORUM 67DEMAND AND DELIGHTIn his sermon on Matthew 11:2–10, Luther has a magnificentmiddle section distinguishing between law and gospel(Lenker edition, I:96–100). There Luther makes three points:1) The law is beneficial not when it forces us to do right orleads us in the right way, but only when it drives us to despair.Now he must be a poor, miserable and humiliatedspirit whose conscience is burdened and in anguishbecause of the law, commanding and demanding paymentin full when he does not possess even a farthingwith which to pay. Only to such persons is the lawbeneficial, because it has been given for the purpose ofworking such knowledge and humiliation; that is itsreal mission. . . . For the law gives and helps us in noway whatever; it only demands and drives and showsus our misery and depravity. (98, 99)2) The gospel motivates or compels us to nothing; it simplygives what it promises.The other word of God is neither law nor commandments,and demands nothing of us. But when that hasbeen done by the first word, namely, the law, and hasworked deep despair and wretchedness in our hearts,then God comes and offers us his blessed and life-givingword and promises. . . . Therefore, works do notbelong to the gospel, as it is not a law; only faithbelongs to it, as it is altogether a promise and an offerof divine grace. (99)3) When the gospel is given, it does not motivate or lead us tokeep the law; rather, it creates what was not there—a love anddelight for the law. And in thanksgiving, then, the law is kept; athanksgiving and rejoicing for having received the gospel,which thanksgiving would never come about had the gospelnot created it.. . . and in addition to this [the work of the gospelis] to create in us love and delight in keeping hislaw. . . . Whosoever now believes the gospel willreceive grace and the Holy Spirit. This will cause theheart to rejoice and find delight in God, and willenable the believer to keep the law cheerfully, withoutexpecting reward, without fear of punishment, withoutseeking compensation, as the heart is perfectlysatisfied with God’s grace, by which the law has beenfulfilled.The Rev. John FentonImmanuel and Zion Lutheran ChurchesHannover and Center, WisconsinTOO MUCH TO READ?To the Christian Nobility, (1520), AE 44:205.The number of books on theology must be reduced andonly the best ones published. It is not many books that makemen learned, nor even reading. But it is a good book frequentlyread, no matter how small it is, that makes a man learned inthe Scriptures and godly. Indeed, the writings of all the holyfathers should be read only for a time so that through them wemay be led into the Scriptures. As it is, however, we only readthem these days to avoid going any further and getting into theBible. We are like men who read the sign posts and never travelthe road they indicate. Our dear fathers wanted to lead us tothe Scriptures by their writings, but we use their works to getaway from the Scriptures. Nevertheless, the Scripture alone isour vineyard in which we must labor and toil.THE COMMON PRIESTHOODThe following paragraphs form the conclusion for the STM Thesisof the Rev. Tom Winger, pastor of Grace Lutheran Church, St.Catherines, Ontario, Canada. This 192-page work entitled ThePriesthood of all the Baptized: An Exegetical and TheologicalInvestigation was presented in May of 1992 to the faculty of ConcordiaSeminary, St. Louis. Interested parties may inquirethrough the Concordia Seminary Library.Much of the present misuse of the common priesthood isperpetrated in the name of Luther. For this reason, we turnedfrom our exegetical investigation to a consideration of Luther’suse of the teaching. We found that the common priesthoodalways served a specific role in each theological writing. Ateach turn the gospel was at stake. In the debate with Rome,Luther found himself facing a stratification of Christianitywhich placed clergy on a higher level of spirituality than ordinaryChristians. This spirituality was used to justify temporallordship, the reservation of absolution, private masses, andother such abuses. Luther argued that to create such levelswithin the church was to deny the grace of Baptism. ThroughBaptism all are holy and priestly. The distinction between clergyand laity is one of office and function, not character. Faithfulto the Scriptures, Luther used the common priesthood toaffirm the holy and Spirit-enlivened character of all thosewashed with Baptism, and so justified.Because priesthood is created by the sacraments, Lutherused it to call for the right of reception. Because they werepriests, Christians could not be denied the comfort of absolution,as the papists did. Nor could they be denied the preachingof the gospel and administration of the sacraments. Thepriesthood needs its ministers (see also Tractate 67–69). Thisleads Luther to speak of the priestly sacrifice as faith, for that iswhat is engendered by reception.

68 LOGIAWhen he was unencumbered by his opponents’ errors,Luther placed the priesthood into the divine service. Thepriesthood is created through Holy Baptism. The priesthoodreceives the word of God as it is preached by the office bearers.Having thus received, they respond in prayer, praise andthanksgiving. If there is a Zweipoligkeit in Luther, it involvesthe poles of sacrament and sacrifice. Without sacrament thereis no priesthood. First they receive. Then the sacrifice flows outback to God. Only with this distinction does Luther finallycome to clarity on the relationship of the preaching of theword to the common priesthood.One conclusion which can be proffered is that perhaps toomuch has been said on the basis of common priesthood. At thesame time, the magnificent use to which the Scriptures put thismetaphor has been ignored. It is a rich application of thegospel which too often is turned into rights, privileges, obligations,and thus, law. This occurs when the role of the priesthoodis confused with the exercise of the office of the keys.What can be said uniquely of the priesthood is also lost when itis constantly measured against the office of the ministry. Whenpriesthood is given its proper place, the gracious action of Godin creating for himself a holy people is proclaimed. This is toaccord the proper dignity to Holy Baptism.We have repeatedly come to the liturgy to understand thepriesthood. In the liturgy law and gospel, sacrament and sacrifice,are most clearly distinguished. In the liturgy the people ofGod have their life. Luther cannot be said to be unfaithful toScripture when he uses the priesthood as Peter does. And Peteris only being faithful to the Old Testament. The priesthood ofthe baptized describes the church of the liturgy, the holy peopleof Yahweh, his treasured possession, whom he bought withthe price of his Son to worship him.FEARFUL PROOFWhat critic could display more candor than Friedrich Nietzsche?His antitheses to Christianity may seem refreshing to those apologistswho would avoid a defense of the faith centered on somethingother than the cross—a mistake into which many of our age havefallen. The following excerpt is taken from The Will to Power,edited and translated by Walter Kaufman with assistance fromR.J. Hollingdale, New York: Vintage Books, 1968, pp. 138–139.Even granted that the Christian faith might not be disprovable,Pascal thinks nonetheless that, in view of a fearful possibilitythat it is true, it is in the highest degree prudent to be a Christian.Today one finds, as a sign of how much Christianity hasdeclined in fearfulness, that other attempts to justify it by sayingthat even if it were in error, one might yet have during one’s lifethe great advantage and enjoyment of this error: it thereforeseems that this faith ought to be maintained precisely for the sakeof its tranquilizing effect, not therefore, from fear of a threateningpossibility, rather, from a fear of a life that has lost its charm.This hedonistic turn, the proof from pleasure, is a symptomof decline: it replaces the proof from strength, from thatwhich overpowers us in the Christian idea, from fear. In fact,with this reinterpretation, Christianity is approaching exhaustion:one is content with an opiate Christianity because onehas the strength neither to seek, to struggle, to dare, to wish tostand alone, nor for Pascalism, for this brooding self-contempt,for faith in human unworthiness, for the anguishedfeeling that one is perhaps damned.But a Christianity intended above all to soothe diseasednerves has really no need of that fearful solution of a God onthe cross: which is why Buddhism is silently gaining groundeverywhere in Europe.UPPSALA COLLOQUY + 400This past year, the Church of Sweden celebrated the quattrocentennialof the Uppsala Colloquy, the official adoption ofthe Augsburg Confession by the Church of Sweden in 1593.The peak of the jubilee was a major ecumenical celebration inUppsala Cathedral in which three sermons were delivered: oneby his Holiness Gunnar Weman, the Lutheran Archbishop ofSweden; one by his Eminence Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidyfrom the Vatican; and one by his All-Holiness Bartholomew,the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.The sermon delivered by the Ecumenical Patriarch wasdoubtless the best of them, stressing the significance of thecommunication of attributes in the God-Man for our salvationas well as the circumincession or interpenetration (pericwvrhsi"),between the divine and the human nature in Christworking out the salvation of mankind.The other two sermons were only a kind of ecumenical flirtationbetween a Lutheran and a Roman Catholic position. Thiscelebration in Uppsala Cathedral was, as said above, only thepeak of the celebration of the Uppsala Colloquy. Prior to that,almost every household in Sweden was given a small bookletnamed The Little Book about Christian Faith, which indeed is littleboth in size as well as in content. Everything that echoedLutheran was of course removed from the book.The Church of Sweden has for some time flirted with theRoman Church. This was expressed in the celebration of thecanonization of St. Bridget of Sweden which took place inSt. Peter’s in Rome last fall in which three clergymen officiated:Pope John Paul II and the Archbishops of Sweden and Finland.The undersigned has as a colleague a female pastor whosits in the Doctrinal Committee of the Church of Sweden whotold me that they intend to throw out most of the Book ofConcord, especially the Formula of Concord, but even theApology of the Augsburg Confession.In that case, a fitting word for the Church of Swedenwould be St. John’s word to the church in Ephesus: Rememberthe height from which you have fallen! Repent and do thething you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to youand remove your lampstand from its place (Rv 2: 5). It seemsthat the lampstand is already removed.Dr. Lars KoenUppsala, Sweden

LOGIA FORUM 69THE ONCE AND FUTURE CHURCHAt our urging, Dr. Edwin S. Suelflow, president of the South WisconsinDistrict, is permitting us to reprint his review of Loren B.Mead’s book, The Once and Future Church. Mead, former presidentof the Alban Institute, sets forth in this work a model which ishighly regarded by several of the LCMS’ leading administrators andconsultants such as Robert Scudieri, John Schuelke and Alan Klaas.Copies of the book were sent to all participants in the meetingof the seminary faculties and Council of Presidents held in August1993. The book is about congregations and the purpose for theirexistence. It is about the way congregations follow the Great Commissionand make disciples for Jesus. It is about a paradigm of missions.Dr. Suelflow offers some constructive criticism and caution.In the early church, the apostles simply went out to preach thegospel. Dr. Mead calls this the Apostolic paradigm. The book ofActs details how it played out. A new paradigm began to emergewith the conversion of Emperor Constantine, when the churchbecame identified with the empire or the state. This is the Christendomparadigm as explained by Dr. Mead.As this paradigm developed, some noticeable changesoccurred: Religious education was carried on by the state, and, forthe sake of unity in certain areas, a religion was declared to be theofficial religion. As part of the Christendom paradigm in the UnitedStates, the Constitution guaranteed a diversity in the freedom ofreligion. Many of us are familiar with the era where the governmenttried to control righteousness, to some extent, with the passageof blue laws; stores were not open on Sunday; professionalbaseball games did not start on Sunday until 1 P.M.; liquor was notsold on Sunday.Slowly changes began to take place. Starting in the 1930s and1940s, the Christendom paradigm began to fall apart. With thesechanges, according to Dr. Mead, came a misunderstanding or lackof understanding or a confusion of the mission and the purposefor the existence of the church. Clergy and laity seemed to be atodds with one another. The people who feel the changes most ofall, according to the Alban Institute, are the denominational executives,for they have, as St. Paul says, the care of all the churches.Three reasons are advanced by Dr. Mead to explain this confusion:1) There is a fundamental change in how people understandthe mission of the church; 2) Local congregations are movingfrom a progressive responding role in support of mission infar-off places to support of the mission at their own doorstep; and3) Institutional structures are collapsing.Denominational offices, area judicatory offices and localcongregations are aware of this, but they do not know what to doabout it. As a response, some denominations are almost franticin their efforts to keep the ship afloat. New programs are developed,so compelling, that the hope is to re-attract all the erodedsupport. But with new programs resources still continue todecline. Also, churches do large-scale restructuring (like LCMSdid at its Pittsburgh Convention); there is a re-alignment of staffand departments; there is consolidation. Dr. Mead claims mostof this is like fibrillation in which the heart under stress pumpsmore and more rapidly but without coordination, thus actuallyworking against itself, pumping less and less blood to the body.Another sign of desperation, according to the Alban Institute,is the periodic infusion of capital through major gift drivesand major mission funding efforts. Dr. Mead says it is past timefor developing a new paradigm of missions. The problem hereis that to reach a consensus on what that new paradigm shouldbe will take a long time, actually several generations. He israther harsh in his assessment of denominations and judicatoryoffices, calling them antiquarian relics, who hold on to collapsingstructures even after they have lost their possibility for newlife. He claims the judicatory office continues to provide help tomany organizations that drew their last unassisted breath adecade ago.Here are some of the pressure points enumerated as theyapply to denominational executives: Friction in congregationswhich executives or reconcilers are asked to address andresolve; districts must deal with almost annual reductions inresources for their regional budget; congregations are seeing agreater need to fund the mission at their local level rather thenat the national level. All of this makes the district office lessimportant, even an impediment, as far too many in the localcongregation are concerned.Dr. Mead suggests that district leaders must discover a centralrole in mission leadership. What will save district programsat least for a while are the tradition and loyalty of the past. Theprognosis, however, is that congregations will see little connectionbetween the district program and what they identify as missionon the local level. For that reason, fewer and fewer congregationswill feel compelled to support district staff and budgets,which the congregations feel to be less than marginal as far astheir value to them is concerned. In fact, congregations will feelthat the mission of the district should be to help support them atthe local level as they carry out their own mission.Dr. Mead suggests that denominations and/or judicatoriesmust get away from the idea that they can develop programswhich fit every situation and every congregation as if all werethe same, as if all lived by the same schedule. That approach isoutdated. He suggests districts and congregations becomeattuned to what he calls learning points. These are times in acongregation when it’s not business as usual; when the normalpattern of church life is upset; times which will make the congregationopen to learning to operate or at least willing to lookat another paradigm.Learning points could be such things as a change in thepastoral office or sociological change in the community or thedestruction of a building by fire or the closing of a Christianday school. At those times the district staff must be ready tohelp congregations adjust to new situations. Dr. Mead writes:“The most important function of the judicatory is to provideoversight.” He talks about offering a wide menu of resources,claiming that a judicatory which does this well does not needto mount independent programming efforts. His suggestion isto put all energy into congregations that are at learning points.The others? Leave them alone.Two important factors to this process are trust andaccountability. Do the leaders of our congregations trust synodand district leaders enough to accept the help they offer? Dothey believe that their best interest will be served?

70 LOGIAI don’t suppose all of us agree with the Alban Instituteassessments and I’m not sure whether it makes much differenceif we do or not. One point, however, gives great cause for concern.In the entire discussion on the future paradigm of mission,nothing was stated by the author about theology and howit directs and controls and dictates practice for the church. Infact, Dr. Mead suggests that we will have to rethink some of ourpractices such as infant baptism. (It is not clear whether hethinks this is a practice or a doctrine.) He talks about the agewhen people are baptized as a practical matter and the age foradmitting people to the communion rail as relating to churchgrowth. He says nothing about the understanding from Scripturethat the sacraments are the means of grace God has givento his church to convey and impart the forgiveness Christearned through his death and resurrection.Further, he claims that the primary theologians in thechurch will need to be the laity because they are on the missionfrontier. Clergy and seminary faculties will need to be retrained,he says, to become resource persons for the lay theologians.There is no mention of any training for these lay theologiansoutside of the real-life situations they encounter wherethey live. He advocates the use of cell groups or meta-churchmodels where the laity can develop a theology from experience.Scripture tells a pastor to equip the saints, assuming thatthis equipping is done on the basis of God’s word, not real-lifeexperiences. Where does this leave the office of the ministry asordained by God and explained in the Lutheran Confessions?Perhaps the gravest concern is centered in this statement:Transformation is occurring because of the persistent call of Godthat our work be made new and the church’s mission in that worldbe transformed itself in new patterns of reconciling the world toGod. I thought that point was perfectly clear in the Scriptures. Godreconciled the world unto himself through Jesus Christ.Here is another point of real tension. Does the new missionparadigm include also a change in theology? We mayagree that methods change by which the gospel is brought tothe world, but the message of the gospel does not change. Asconfessional Lutherans we will continue to be concerned aboutchanges in theology. We will remind folks that changes in worshipstyle do reflect changes in theology more then they reflectoutward forms of worship.What the Alban Institute is saying sort of coincides with therecent Church Membership Initiative project. An outlineappeared in the Milwaukee Sentinel on July 10, 1993. The headlinein the paper said, “Variety Fills Pews, Study Shows.” It israther difficult not to become facetious and ask, “Does thismean there are also a variety of ways to fill heaven?” A statementin the article said, “For some people the method of presentingtheology is equivalent to theology.” We would like to suggestthat this is a matter of communication, not a matter of theology.Perhaps a lot of LCMS people agree with this. But it is apoint of real tension. When you advertise a program in thechurch as Potty Training With Jesus and say it is a good way tostart teaching Christian discipline, this is a bit beyond thiswriter’s idea of how to teach the faith.It is obvious that also we in the LCMS are struggling withthe new paradigm of missions. We need to be careful that wedo not become so involved and so enamored of new and creativeways of doing the mission our Lord gave us that we makethe sacred appear commonplace. Eternal salvation is involved.The church is still the dispenser of the means of grace whichChrist has given us as the assurance that his suffering and deathwas meant for us personally as the only way to eternal life.Are we in danger of losing this emphasis in our desire tobecome relevant to meeting the needs and desires of people?The greatest need people have is the forgiveness of sins. Whatassurance do we have that this need is addressed when we subjectpeople, as the Church Membership Initiative report says,to a Whoopi Goldberg twist on traditional hymns?PROFILES IN MINISTRYFROM: Jordan Management ConsultantsTO: Jesus Christ, CarpenterDear Sir:The Rev. Dr. Edwin S. SuelflowPresident, South Wisconsin District LCMSThank you for submitting resumés of the twelve men youhave chosen for management positions in your new organization.All of them have taken our battery of tests, and we havenot only run all the tests through our computer, but we havearranged interviews for each of them with our psychologistand our company vocational aptitude consultant.The profiles of all the tests are included, and you will wantto study each of them carefully. It is the staff’s opinion thatmost of your nominees are lacking in background, education,and vocational aptitude for the type of world-wide enterpriseyou are undertaking.They do not have the team concept. We would like to recommendthat you continue your search for persons of greaterexperience in managerial ability and proven capability.Simon Peter is quite emotionally unstable and given to fitsof temper. Andrew, his brother, has absolutely no requiredqualities of leadership. The two other brothers, James andJohn, obviously place their own personal ambition far aboveany company loyalty. Thomas demonstrates a questioning attitudethat would tend to undermine morale. We feel it is ourethical duty to inform you that Matthew, the tax-collector, hasbeen blacklisted by the greater Jerusalem Better BusinessBureau. Thaddeus and Simon, of the Zealot Party, have radicalleanings.One of your chosen candidates, however, shows greatpotential. He is a man of proven ability and resourcefulness.He has a keen business mind and has maintained importantcontacts in high places. He is highly motivated, ambitious, andresponsible. We highly recommend him as your comptrollerand right-hand man. His name is Judas Iscariot. All the otherprofiles are self-explanatory.Sincerely yours,The Jordan Management Company

LOGIA FORUM 71This little anecdote probably seemed clever to many of theparishioners who read it. But that perception might change whenwe find that the truth is uncomfortably close to the fiction.Students at the seminaries of the LCMS are now being subjectedto a sociological testing instrument entitled Profiles in Ministry,produced by the Association of Theological Schools in theUnited States and Canada, 10 Summit Park Drive, Pittsburgh, PA15275–1103, and authored by Milo L. Brekke, David S. Schuller andDorothy Williams, revised by Daniel Aleshire in 1985.Composed primarily of situational vignettes, the casebookquestionnaire prompts seminarians to select from a set of predeterminedresponses which would most closely fit his mostlikelyreaction.Respect for the wishes of the authors of this instrumentpreclude us from giving samples of the situations. To divulgethe samples might skew the results of the test, biasing the reactionof students who would take the test. In other words, theydon’t want the respondents to think too deeply before takingthe test, preferring immediate responses. Nevertheless, clergyand laypeople ought to be aware of the analytical methods usedby our seminaries today in discerning the needs and characterof seminarians who are being equipped for the pastoral office.The casebook claims to be a kind of values clarification forthe seminarians. It claims to create the opportunity “for you toidentify your attitudes, characteristic approaches and perceptionsof ministry. It is not designed to identify good and badministry. Most of the printed responses to the case situationsare present because ministers have identified that response orrationale as one they would use. Your responses to these itemswill be summarized with profile scores which will indicate thetendencies and perceptions you have about ministry.”So then, this tool is not merely used to help seminarians toidentify what lives within themselves; it is also used by theadministrators to determine whether these young men havethe right character to serve Christ’s body with the means ofgrace. Paul and Luther had to do without the kind of psychosociologicaltesting instrument represented by Profiles in Ministrywhen they instructed that pastors be called in every place.Perhaps the implication is that we have become more sophisticatedand better able to judge whether or not a man ought tobe ordained now that we have such casebooks.It may be simple to categorize respondents according totheir answers but will that give an accurate picture from whichan overall judgment may be made? To be sure, such surveysare not used in isolation. Interviews and faculty assessmentswill also play their part. The question remains, however,whether this method is trustworthy in determining any facet ofa candidate’s true character. Can one general survey, coveringevery theological bent from the Religious Society of Friends tothe Greek Orthodox Church in America, be expected to servewell for confessional Lutheran candidates? Perhaps you canimagine the frustration of seminarians who are forced to selectan answer from among those given when none of the selectionsreflects an evangelical Lutheran confession of law andgospel.If you have experienced some of the casuistry that takesplace at circuit pastoral conferences, you may well wonder if acasuistic instrument such as this is likely to render accuratereadings from young men who have but a year or two of seminaryclasses under their belts. Besides that, such testing programsare usually very expensive, all the more so when we considerthat the peanut butter can be spread pretty thin on theseminary sandwich budgets.Does this evaluation, Profiles in Ministry, faithfully portraythe true character of these young men or does it merely create acaricature? Is it worth the hundreds of dollars being pouredinto it or have we once again bought into the latest Veg-O-Maticmethodologies of religious Home Shopping Club hucksters?Such questions might be viewed as taking cheap shots atthose who are entrusted with the work of evaluating men fitfor the ministry. It is not by any means, however, our intentionmerely to cast dubious aspersions upon others. Our concernis grounded in experiences which have shown that we aretoo often prone to accept interdisciplinary techniques whichare founded upon something other than Christ. A certain utilitarianismlurks within our human natures. We may easilybecome enamored with the latest instruments which come inneat packages. We then tend to want to baptize them somehowas Lutheran when in fact we ought to realize that certain thingsare not redeemable. Where this is recognized, no one ought tobe faulted for asking the questions. And no one ought to be soaffronted as to refuse to offer some answers.

72 LOGIASYNOD X AND SYNOD YIn his keynote speech presented to the Growing ChurchConference in Albuquerque (July 30, 1993), Charles Mueller,Sr., voiced his assessment of the LCMS today with what hecalled “a deceptively innocent-looking assertion.” RepresentingWheat Ridge Ministries, he opined that, “The LutheranChurch in which I was baptized in 1929, the Lutheran Churchwhose clergy roster I signed in 1953 and the Lutheran Churchfrom whose full-time ministerium I stepped down in 1992 havemany things in common, but in truth they are three very differentchurches.” He buttressed this assertion by attempting toshow how the seminaries in each age were training future pastorson the basis of outmoded experiences. “I believe they honestlydidn’t see the signs of our changing times.”From there Mueller leaps into the statistics of the last fortyyears. Looking at the one thousand larger churches (after all, thiswas a conference of and for large churches), he attempts toinduce certain conclusions about the LCMS as a whole. In pointof fact, over the past forty years, the big in the LCMS havebecome more plentiful and have gotten larger. Matching thatfact is another from the other end of the size spectrum: Thesmall, too, have multiplied, and, sad to say, appear to have gottensmaller. That’s a tragic truth, if for no other reason than thatsize is directly related to expanding the financial base of a parish.Based on statistics demonstrating the trends in congregationalsize, Mueller proclaims that the 1.9 million-membersynod is not united: “We are clearly two synods. Oh, no, weare not divided theologically. Even suggesting that is nonsense.Any testing of Lutherans evidences such a uniformity of theologyespecially within the LCMS that to talk of large-scale theologicaldifferences is laughable. Such talk only keeps us fromfacing the truth. Our real LCMS dilemma is another kind ofdivision, one whose reality was so tragically shrouded in andby our 1970s interlude. It has to do with our parish sizes[emphasis added], our pastor/parish attitudes about growth,and how we handle change.” Mueller identifies the major divisionsin the LCMS as Synod X and Synod Y.“Church life in Synod X bubbles with parish activities,program offerings and a rich assortment of opportunities forserving God and man. Synod X has most of our day schoolsand youth workers and DCE-led adult education programsand large mission efforts and all kinds of music and familyenrichment at every level of need. In Synod X it’s AA and BoyScouts and libraries and brass choirs with something goingon every hour of every day in almost every room of theirchurch buildings.“Iwon’t try to characterize Synod Y life except to say thatfor most who live there, life is a struggle. Some great pastorsand people are fighting for their very existence in Synod Y circumstances.. . . I did not come to talk with you about SynodY and wouldn’t even have mentioned they exist except, byvirtue of their sheer mass, I must. You see, Synod Y dominatesand controls most of our institutional initiatives, our publishingdecisions and our synodical energies. They do thatbecause Synod Y is in control. It has the votes, the politicalclout in the synod.”Thus for Mueller, bigger is better. The lilliputian Synod Yparishes are bogging down what otherwise would be a gloriousand triumphant day for the meta-churches in the LCMS. Still,Mueller instructs the Synod X churches gathered at that conferenceto be positive in at least three main areas: 1) Begin byencouraging the one-thousandor so LCMS parishes of SynodX and more particularly the 275 congregations within thatnumber with five-hundred or more worshippers in churcheach week; 2) Recognize that you [Synod X churches] are ourhope—you and a like-minded minority in the clergy thechurch over; and 3) Do not believe deliverance will come fromsomewhere else either in a theological or institutional sense.Mueller is not surprised by the “so-far-sniffy receptionwith which last year’s AAL Church Membership Initiative, thestudy of the Lutheran congregations and pastors, was received.Saddened, yes. But not surprised. What other response shouldwe expect from the 40% of our pastors/parishes who find niceways of saying that growth is of little/no particular concern tothem? Or from another 40% who grant that growth may haveits importance, and they intend to get around to it any daynow? . . . Which leaves a lonely, but lively 20% who not onlyhave the conviction in this matter but a will to move on it.That’s you. It’s got to be you. Your spirit and track record isolateyou as leaders among the people of faith and action in theLCMS. The 80% aren’t. Yet.”By now, you readers who represent the 80% called SynodY may be wondering what it is that your portion of the moneypie for Wheat Ridge seals and AAL benevolences is actuallybeing spent on. You may be all too predictably aghast atMueller’s dictums like “I doubt that Jesus at his coming will bepleased with a report of spending most of our time and ourbest energies in defense of his truth.” You may even be temptedto use your overwhelming political clout to heap more disgraceand infamy upon yourselves in the face of the gloriousSynod X congregations. But don’t you do it. That would besmall of you.On one hand, you might: approach pastors and membersof Synod X congregations at conferences, rallies and conventions,and beg their forgiveness for being small-minded; letyour district or congregational representatives be instructed bythe largest congregations as to how they should vote; or evenpray fervently that one day your congregation will be able tohave a three-octave handbell choir and a personal satellitelink-up with the three missionary families you have sponsoredin addition to the $1 million in offerings that you are alreadysending to district and synod. But then again, maybe not.On the other hand, you might be influenced by someonewho sounded like a Synod Y guy in the late 1530s who wrote:“For wherever you see a small group that has the true wordand the sacraments, there the church is if only the pulpit andthe baptismal font are pure, or Do not look at the crowd, atwealth, but where the gospel is to be found.” These shams areto be removed from sight, and regard is to be had only for theword, even though the despised people who have it are notsharp. Though they are poor and ride on mules or travel afoot,nevertheless, they are the church. No wealth and no povertymake the church, but the word does.”

LOGIA FORUM 73Yes, it is Luther who says, “The appearance of the churchis not that which is drawn by artists, who picture her as anattractive maiden or as a well-fortified and beautiful city. To besure, the picture is true, but not according to the eyes of theflesh. Spiritual eyes do see the fine form and elegance supremeof the church because Christ is her Spouse, has begotten herfor himself through the Holy Spirit and beautified her with hisblood, his merits, and his righteousness. Of these matters, theflesh is unable to see or judge anything. . . . If, then, a persondesires to draw the church as he sees her, he will picture her asa deformed and poor girl sitting in an unsafe forest in themidst of hungry lions, bears, wolves, and boars, nay, deadlyserpents; in the midst of infuriated men who set sword, fire,and water in motion in order to kill her and wipe her from theface of the earth.”GLADLY IN THE MIDSTThe following comes from Luther’s Admonition Concerning theSacrament of 1530, AE 38:109.If I cannot or must not preach, I still want to listen; whoeverlistens also assists in thanking and honoring God, since,where there are no listeners, there can be no preacher. If I cannotlisten, I nevertheless want to be present among the listeners;at least I want to be present there, with my body and itsmembers, where God is praised and glorified. Even if I coulddo no more, I still desire to receive the sacrament for this reason,that by such reception I might confess and bear witnessthat I also am one who would praise and thank God, andtherefore desire to receive the sacrament to the glory of God.Such reception shall be my remembrance with which I think ofand thank him for his grace shown me in Christ.For it is not a small thing when someone is gladly in themidst of the multitude among whom God is praised andthanked; it is something for which the ancient fathers longedwith deep sighs, as Psalm 42 says: I would gladly go with themultitude and go with them to the house of God, with thesound of praise and thanks among the multitude keeping festival.. . . For whoever belongs to the multitude, if he is notinsincere, has a part in all the honor and thanks which are renderedto God there. Since you can render service to God andcan show him such great honor, which costs you neither moneynor great effort, and which you can accomplish by listeningwillingly or by receiving communion with a thankful heart,you would have to be a desperate knave if you did not want todo this for your God. In fact, you should be quite willing towalk to the end of the world if you knew you would find theresuch a multitiude among whom God is praised and glorifiedand you could thus share in the sacred fellowship.RESOURCING THE RESOURCEThe Rev. Paul T. McCain, assistant to the president of the LCMS,St. Louis, Missouri, wrote an open letter to Mr. David Anderson,principal editor of the Worship Leader’s Resource newsletter.That letter has been edited for inclusion in this section of theLOGIA Forum.In the Summer 1993 issue of Worship Leader’s Resource (Vol.2, No. 3) prominence was given to a quotation from the Book ofConcord: We believe, teach, and confess that the community ofGod in every locality and every age has authority to change suchceremonies according to circumstances, as it may be most profitableand edifying to the community of God (FC Ep X).Any effort to grapple with the teaching of the LutheranConfessions on worship and liturgy is commendable. To quoteonly that select portion of Article X, however, is misleading.Taken out of context, some readers might conclude from thiscitation that they are justified in incorporating anything theydesire into Lutheran worship services. This would be a mostunfortunate assumption to make.First of all, from a simple linguistic point of view, theword “churches” here does not refer to individual congregationsbut to church bodies, usually territorial churches. This isso in virtually every instance of the use of the word churches inthe Book of Concord. Individual congregations are not as freeas some would suppose to tinker with the liturgy, rather theymust in unity with other congregations preserve to the greatestextent a uniform liturgy for the good of the gospel in ourmidst. This is clearly affirmed in numerous places in theLutheran Confessions.For instance, consider printing these quotations from theBook of Concord:Those usages are to be observed which may beobserved without sin and which contribute to peaceand good order in the church, among them being certainholy days, festivals, and the like. (AC VII)The Mass is observed among us with greater devotionand more earnestness than among our opponents. . . no conspicuous changes have been made in thepublic ceremonies of the Mass. . . . (AC XXIV)No novelty has been introduced which did not existin the church from the ancient times. (AC XXIV:40)We gladly keep the old traditions set up in the churchbecause they are useful and promote tranquility, andwe interpret them in an evangelical way, excludingthe opinion that they justify. . . . We can truthfullyclaim that in our churches the public liturgy is moredecent than in theirs. (Ap XV:98–139)

74 LOGIAWe do not abolish the Mass but religiously keep anddefend it. In our churches Mass is celebrated everySunday and on other festivals, when the sacrament isoffered to those who wish for it after they have beenexamined and absolved. We keep traditional liturgicalforms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments,etc. (Ap XXIV:1)The principle of adiaphora which occasioned the tenth articleof the Formula was precisely to defend the historic liturgyagainst the charge that it was a hindrance or obstacle to growth.It is puzzling that, from those who call for contemporary andcreative worship, one rarely if ever hears a call for a renewal inour appreciation for, and a more intricate and beautiful use of,historic liturgical structures. Why is this? Why would we bewilling, for example, to encourage congregations to engage inhand waving and clapping for the Lord in the Divine Servicebut are silent about encouraging historic physical gestures suchas kneeling and making the sign of the holy cross? What doesthis say about where our true sensibilities lie?So much of what passes these days for creative worship islittle more than a poor imitation of what one could receivefrom the local Assemblies of God or any number of ReformedProtestant worship centers. That certainly is far from creative.In fact, one could very well argue that the best way to destroythe Lutheran Church is to force our scriptural and confessionaltheological substance into an alien style. Does the scripturaltheology of the means of grace produce a distinct style of worshipto support, affirm, and increase the word and sacramentsamong us? I believe the answer is a resounding “Yes!”Surrounded in this nation as we are by sects of all kindsand descriptions, one would think that it would be necessaryto retain with great care the historic worship forms, as Article Xfurther advises:We believe, teach, and confess that at a time of confession,as when enemies of the word of God desire tosuppress the pure doctrine of the holy gospel, theentire community of God, yes, every individual Christian,and especially the ministers of the word as theleaders of the community of God, are obligated to confessopenly, not only by words but also through theirdeeds and actions, the true doctrine and all that pertainto it, according to the word of God. In such a case weshould not yield to adversaries even in matters of indifference,or should we tolerate the imposition of suchceremonies on us by adversaries in order to underminethe genuine worship of God . . . (FC SD x:10)C.F.W. Walther developed quite a penetrating defense of theliturgy on the basis of these words. He said in a convention essay:We refuse to be guided by those who are offended byour church customs. We adhere to them all the morefirmly when someone wants to cause us to have aguilty conscience on account of them. . . . It is trulydistressing that many of our fellow Christians find thedifference between Lutheranism and Papism in outwardthings. It is a pity and dreadful cowardice whenone sacrifices the good ancient church customs toplease the deluded American sects, lest they accuse usof being papistic!Indeed! Am I to be afraid of a Methodist, who pervertsthe saving word, or be ashamed in the matter ofmy good cause, and not rather rejoice that the sects cantell by our ceremonies that I do not belong to them?. . . We are not insisting that there be uniformity ofperception or feeling or of taste among all believingChristians neither dare anyone demand that all beminded as he. Nevertheless it remains true that theLutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheran worship fromthe worship of other churches to such an extent that thelatter look like lecture halls in which the hearers aremerely addressed or instructed [or entertained?], whileour churches are in truth houses of prayer in which theChristians serve the great God publicly before the world.The objection: What would be the use of uniformityof ceremonies? was answered with the counter: Whatis the use of a flag on the battlefield? Even though asoldier cannot defeat the enemy with it, he neverthelesssees by the flag where he belongs. We ought notto refuse to walk in the footsteps of our fathers. Theywere so far removed from being ashamed of the goodceremonies that they publicly confess in the passagequoted: It is not true that we do away with all suchexternal ornaments . . . (Walther, Essays for theChurch, Volume I:194).Walther was keenly aware of the American experience and allthat it meant for Lutheran identity as expressed in the worshipforms used by the Lutheran Church here in America. Again,commenting on the portion of Article X of the Formula ofConcord quoted above, Walther says:For at a time of confession the Formula of Concordsays quite correctly, one dare not yield. Now, however,that time is for us always, because we are everywheresurrounded by Reformed and other sects (Ibid, p. 197).These observations need to be given every serious consideration.I challenge the editors, patrons and readers of WorshipLeader’s Resource to grapple earnestly with Walther’s observations.Concordia Publishing House will soon be releasing a wonderfulbook on these sorts of issues entitled Lutheran Worship:History and Practice. Perhaps as we approach these issues from an

LOGIA FORUM 75informed theological basis, instead of doing whatever happens toappeal to the emotions of our parishioners, we will reach a muchmore satisfying solution to the challenges posed by the materialsone sees prominently featured in your publication.How can ELCA Lutherans and LCMS Lutherans jointogether to mimic Assemblies of God and quasi-Pentecostal orevangelical worship forms with no consideration whatsoeverfor the most serious doctrinal divisions which tragically divideour church bodies? Are these of no consequence? Do we notcare that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has surrenderedvirtually every major historical dogma of the churchand has permitted skepticism and doubt to be cast on them?One suspects that doctrinal indifference accompanies a desireto abandon Lutheran distinctives in worship and ceremonies.Having rambled on for some length here, I will concludeby repeating that I found it troubling that this periodicalwould so prominently feature a snippet from the LutheranConfessions without any consideration of its history andmeaning, other than to use it to support what is an obviousattempt to move the Lutheran Church away from the historicliturgical structures by which our identity has been shaped andour theology expressed.If we embrace forms which are poor imitations of thatkind of praise worship which is done with unequalled exuberancein other church bodies, do we really think we shall remainLutheran in any meaningful sense of that word? Do we thinkwe can satisfy the tastes of persons who have become inclinedto the more emotional and charismatic worship forms (whichdo indeed entertain and might make for fun during a Sundaymorning worship experience)? Won’t such people just moveon to those sects which provide most completely for these lustfulpassions for enthusiasm like that which is found among thedenominations of the holiness bodies congregations? Or arewe just disinterested enough in being Lutheran that we arewilling to overlook these serious questions? I certainly praythat this will not be so among us.Although I have been most candid and frank in theseobservations, I assume that we all are supportive of and committedto the growth of the church, the increase and spread ofthe gospel, and the salvation of all for whom our Lord andSavior Jesus Christ suffered and died. I do feel however that agreat chasm divides those who are enamored with the likes ofWorship Leaders’ Resource and those who are not. These arenot simply matters of taste or style but are matters of profoundtheological and soteriological significance in light of the giftswhich our Lord Jesus Christ has commended to us. These giftsdo not raise us to him through uplifting praise, but are ratherthose in which He himself comes to us for life and peace.CONFESSIONAL STEWARDSHIPEchoes of autumn stewardship programs and drives haveprobably trailed off by now. Other programs may be pressingfor volunteers and donors in our congregations during theEpiphany and Lent seasons. Now, however, may be as good atime as any to consider stewardship from a confessionalLutheran perspective.“Stewardship” occurs in the Book of Concord in inverseproportion to the number of times it is found in many currentchurch publications. The only occurrence appears in the lastarticle of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession dealing withEcclesiastical Power. The complaint cited there is that churchleaders have grown quite wealthy while congregations andpeople suffer poverty. God undoubtedly sees and hears them,and it is to him that you will some day have to give account ofyour stewardship (XXVIII, Tappert p. 281 f.).The word stewardship might not have made it into theBook of Concord at all if the Papists had not misunderstoodarticle XXVIII of the Augsburg Confession. The question aboutgood stewardship was not really germane to the issue at hand(for in this article we have been arguing about something different).Melanchthon digresses, saying in effect, “We weren’treally talking about stewardship, but now that you mention it,you haven’t been such good stewards.” Then he quickly goeson to discuss the real concern.Was stewardship so insignificant in the sixteenth centurythat it received so little attention when the Lutheran Confessionswere penned? Was stewardship only conceived of interms of indulgence trafficking and state funding or was thereanother view quietly maintained among the faithful? Has theChristian Church ever in its history seen the likes of the stewardshipprograms, campaigns and emphases which are pressedupon us today from every corner? If not, why not?Perhaps such materials thrive in our century and culture ina way which would not be appropriate in any other. Is the stewardshipwith which most of us are familiar the necessary formshaped by a Western democracy in the late twentieth century?In any case, these materials are urged upon us presumablybecause there are so few good stewards. Judge by the statisticsapparent in many congregations: 60–70% of the members giveless than two dollars per week. They spend twice as much for asingle trip to McDonald’s as they do on a weekly visit to theLord’s house.Our synod’s problems often seem to be measured in theshortage of dollars. Fundraising phone-a-thons from our collegesand seminaries smell so very much like manipulative techniqueswith heavy doses of air freshener, sprayed in hopes ofsqueezing more cash from members. But even when there areattempts to see self-management in terms of something otherthan dollers, i.e., in terms of talents and time, the figures are notmuch better: 10% of the members seem to do 90% of the work.What procedure could turn these tragic figures around? Inthe current program-minded approach to stewardship, theLutheran Confessions seem to have nothing to offer. There areno special worship services, no clever fundraising suggestions,and no well-produced audio-visual materials. In spite of that,

76 LOGIAhowever, the Book of Concord remains one of the best textbookson stewardship available.A program approach to stewardship often begins with theassumption that what we need is a better biblical understandingabout stewardship. If people understand stewardship better,they will become better stewards. The Confessions do notspeculate thus about people. What the Confessions do best forstewardship is when stewardship is not mentioned at all. Onedoes not effect good works by talking about good works. Goodworks are the consequent fruits of faith.Broadly speaking, we might say that the Confessions speakin a way that bears stewardship fruits in three ways when it:1) Removes obligation as a response to gospel gifts, 2) Rejects apartnership understanding of God’s relationship with us, and3) Remands us to the theology of grace as opposed to a theologyof success and glory.First of all, the obligation of good works is removed fromthe saving gospel. In our own day, we sometimes get a take-offon the familiar John F. Kennedy quotation: Ask not what Jesuscan do for you, but ask what you can do for Jesus. The idea isthat Jesus has done so much for you, you ought to be doingsomething (i.e., giving something) for him. What a comminglingof law and gospel in one fell swoop! Now that the gospelhas been used to urge obligation, what is left for comfort andjoy? That which is to be for peace of mind has been turned intosomething that incites guilt. What is left to do the work of thegospel when the gospel is doing the work of the law?Such insidious ideas have slipped into our hymnals. Forexample, in the hymn “I Gave My Life for Thee” (TLH 405),these words are put into Jesus’ mouth by Frances Havergal:I gave My life for thee,My precious blood I shed,That thou might’st ransomed beAnd quickened from the dead.I gave My life for thee;What hast thou giv’n for Me?I suffered much for thee,More than My tongue can tell,Of bitt’rest agony,To rescue thee from hell.I suffered much for thee;What canst thou bear for Me?Here, even what Christ has done for us seems to have stringsattached to it. Perhaps this hymn would work well as a strongdosage of law, but how can any gospel be proclaimed since theSavior who has done all and given all seems to be expecting allin response?In this way God’s gospel gifts in Christ are made to seemlike the times when we get an unexpected Christmas gift fromsomeone. But I didn’t get you anything. The guilt which ensuesmay prompt us to exit quickly and return with a gift of near orequal value. We don’t like being given to when we have nothingto offer in return. We feel under obligation to repay thelove shown to us even though we don’t like it if those positionsare reversed. We particularly resent the thought that someone’sjust doing it because they felt they had to. You wouldn’thave gotten me this gift if I hadn’t given you one first.In Christ, however, we are simply given to. God is completelysatisfied with the obedient faithfulness He has receivedfrom his Son, Jesus Christ. In forgiveness, we have the gift offorgiveness, Jesus Christ himself for us. That gift is not somethingstatic—it is life itself! What He gives by grace is a newheart and life. It is not up to us whether or not we will chooseto do something for God in response to his love. Even our willand abilities are the result of his gifts in Christ (Phil 2:13).Works follow faith as we note in the Apology, Articles IV andXX, in the Large Catechism on the Creed, and in the Formulaof Concord, Articles IV and VI.Secondly, the Lutheran Confessions dismiss a partempartemview of our relationship with God. That is to say, in noarea of life can we mete things out as if this part is God’s partand what remains is our part. Pelagianism divvies up responsibilitieswith regard to our justification: God does his part forour salvation, now we must do our part.Similarly, with regard to our sanctification, we do not suggestthat God is doing his part in assisting us whenever we feellike we need some help doing our part. It is not as though weas Christians can now act on our own, calling on God onlywhen we need a little divine assistance. Our entire life and salvationdepends on the Lord being gracious through his giftsvia the means of grace.When AC VI [The New Obedience] states that such faithshould produce good fruits and good works and that we mustdo all such good works as God has commanded, we ask, Fromwhence comes the will and the ability to do what we must? Is itnot the working of God through faith rather than an act of thehuman will apart from faith? This point was a stumbling blockto the likes of George Major and Nicolaus von Amsdorf ashandled in FC IV.Furthermore, the question of whether sanctification is monergisticor synergistic comes into play here as well. If we viewstewardship synergistically, we easily take God’s part for grantedand our programs become efforts to get us to do our part. Whilethe Confessions do speak at times of cooperation (FC Ep, II, 18,19), other portions describe more clearly what is meant: HolyScriptures ascribe conversion, faith in Christ, regeneration,renewal, and everything that belongs to its real beginning andcompletion in no way to the human powers of the natural freewill, be it entirely or one-half or the least and tiniest part, butaltogether and alone to the divine operation and the Holy Spirit(FC SD, II 25; see also: LC, The Third Article of the ApostlesCreed, paragraph 58, 59; FC SD, III, 28; FC SD, III, 41).As Adolf Koeberle states in his Quest for Holiness, p. 95,The other and more important result is the fact that sanctificationmust also be understood as an exclusive act of God. Just asforgiveness is exclusively God’s work and every cooperation orconditioning activity on man’s part is completely excluded, soregeneration is an energy that comes simply out of Christ’s victoryand does not require our supplementary efforts. It is notfitting to teach justification evangelically and then in the doctrineof sanctification to turn synergistic.

LOGIA FORUM 77Possession of time and material goods is not exclusive:“For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas orthe world or life or death or things present or things to comeall are yours, and you are of Christ and Christ is of God”(1 Cor 3:21–23). We cannot divide between God’s portion andour portion. The earth is the Lord’s and all that dwells therein.In Christ, we have the blessed communion with the Lord GodAlmighty, even though it is only seen in this life by faith andnot by sight. We cannot think of time as though one day aweek were set aside for God while the rest of the week is forourselves to do with as we please. We must not think of ourincome in terms of 10% is God’s and 90% is mine. We areChrist’s and He is ours.God is no “Indian giver.” He doesn’t give us what we haveand then ask for some of it back while we keep the rest tospend as we please. By his Holy Spirit at work through wordand sacrament, all that we are, all that we have, and all that wedo serves the vocation into which He has been pleased to callus in Christ.Where the gospel is living and active, there stewardshipwill be living and active. Where the gospel is not taught purelyand the sacraments not administered rightly, stewardship alsowill be on shaky ground. Copious offerings and numerous volunteersmay be solicited by artificial means and by thepromptings of the law. One must not mistake this, however,for the stewardship which is the result of the gospel.Thirdly, a theology of success and glory is nowhere apparentin the Confessions. Where faith by God’s grace is livingand active, stewardship will be happening even though it beunnoticed. The widow’s last two mites were not especiallynoteworthy to any but the eyes of Christ who gave his discipleseyes to see what he had seen. Our successes are not measuredin terms of dollars and cents, days and hours, or numbers ofpeople. Our successes are measured in Christ and his cross.In times of plenty and in times of want we know what itmeans to be satisfied and content, both as individuals and ascongregations. We simply rejoice by faith which does not look atstatistics and things that are seen, but that the Lord is at work.If we can be happy to build a large administration, we canalso be happy to disassemble a large administration. If weacquire a large worship facility and many automated gadgets, wewill also be happy to lose them all as long as word and sacramentare not taken from us. This is not to say that there is somethinginherently wrong about large administrations, buildings,and gadgets. Sometimes they can serve the gospel well. At othertimes they can distract us and rob us of time and freedom to bestudents of the word and servants of one another. In the end,however, the gospel is what moves Christians—not budgets,programs, or motivational seminars.Stewardship is not talking people into doing what they don’twant to do. It is not coercing people to give what they don’t wantto give. Stewardship is simply a fruit of the gospel. Stewardshipwill be found wherever the church and faith are found—and theChurch and faith will be found wherever the word is purelypreached and the sacraments rightly administered.This can be stultified and stifled by turning stewardshipover to a program mentality. It happens easily enough. Sinceour congregations have Boards of Stewardship, the pastorshave to find something for them to do. Why not a program?Since we are paying men to be stewardship executives at thesynod and district levels, it is only reasonable that they earntheir keep by developing stewardship programs.What the Lutheran Confessions do for stewardship is toprovide for pure preaching and right administering of God’sgospel gifts in Christ. Therein our hearts rejoice—new life isours—and stewardship commences like heart beating andlungs breathing. And He who provides seed for the sower andbread for food will supply and multiply the seed you havesown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, while youare enriched in everything for all liberality, which causesthanksgiving through us to God (2 Cor 9:10, 11).In our day, we may never know what the Christian life waslike before programs. We may never know what the Christianlife would be like if stewardship were mentioned as rarely inour church publications as in the Confessions, but our confessionalsymbols do point to a time when something else wasesteemed—something to which a quiet few still cling today.A HOUSE DIVIDING?REFLECTIONS ON GCC ’93As the sectional crisis intensified in nineteenth-centuryAmerica, Abraham Lincoln, on June 16, 1858, delivered hisfamous “House Divided” speech, in which he said:“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Ibelieve this government cannot endure, permanentlyhalf slave and half free. . . . It willbecome all one thing, or all the other. Either theopponents of slavery will arrest the furtherspread of it, and place it where the public mindshall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimateextinction, or its advocates will push it forward,till it shall become lawful in all States, oldas well as new—North as well as South. Have weno tendency in the latter condition? 1As approximately 6,600 people (mainly members of theLutheran Church—Missouri Synod) gathered in Minneapolisthis past October 7–10 for the Great Commission Convocation,division seemed the last thing on most people’s minds. Indeed,the promoters felt that the event was an opportunity that would“enable participants as partners in the gospel to share their faithand to involve their congregations in the task of teaching,reaching and caring for all people in our changing world.” 2The people who attended the convocation seeminglycaught this vision as they stated their reasons for attending: “Iwant to move to a greater depth of spiritual growth and getmotivated for mission”; “I . . . want to make a spiritual connectionwith other people”; “[I want] to learn more aboutmusic in the church—to see if we can liven it up”; “I came formy faith and walk with the Lord. As you give the gospel away,it comes back to you.” 3

78 LOGIABut divergence over the best way to attain and implementthese goals quickly became evident within the convocationatmosphere. The convocation speakers consistently broughtbefore the participants the specter of change—changes in thedemographic and ideological character of the United States,the need for change in the church. The task for participantswas clear: The church, particularly the LCMS, must alter itsway of “doing ministry” in response to society or it willdecline. As David Mahsman said in a recent edition of theReporter:The message brought to participants in many of theaddresses before the full contingent was that while theMissouri Synod must not change its Bible-based theology,it needs to recognize changes in the world thatcall for new approaches to ministry and outreach. 4Dr. Dwayne Mau (Executive for Mission and EducationServices, Atlantic District, LCMS) underscored the need forchange forcefully and clearly. And he stressed it with regard tothe ministry of the church, saying:There is a popular phrase that we use to describe ourministry in the church. That phrase is “word andsacraments.” I wonder if those terms have become acliché for us; an easy motto lacking content. Nowplease understand that I am all for the means of graceincluding word and sacrament. But I want us to considerthese phrases. Because often we state them withoutstating the verbs that go with them. 5He went on to say that the use of the verbs “preach” and“administer” indicate that the ministry is solely the work of thepastor. “We are basically limiting the ministry to what the pastordoes. This loses the emphasis on the universal priesthoodof all believers.” Mau expressed a desire to see a new emphasison the ministry of laypeople. But in so doing he implicitlyopened the door to nearly full-fledged lay-pastoral care.The actions of preaching the word and administering thesacraments are usually done in the church building as part ofthe public worship. People must come to the church building.This worked very well when we were still in a churched culturesociety and people had the built-in audience of people beingborn into the church. The understood conclusion in his discussionwas that the ministry of word and sacrament must betaken from the exclusive confines of the divine service and intothe community.The ministry, therefore, is no longer the purview of thedivinely called and ordained clergy. Ministry will take placeprimarily when lay-priests build relationships that will enablethem to share the word with the unchurched. Once theunchurched are converted people, they are then brought to thechurch for external admission into the church through baptismand attendance at the altar. The fundamental place ofministry, then, is not in the divine service, but in the daily relationshipsestablished by lay-priests with the unchurched.Change was also the dominant theme of Friday morning’splenary session, “A View of the Lutheran Church—MissouriSynod”(subtitled “What Kind of Congregation Do You Wantto Be?”). Alan Klaas (chair, LCMS Research Advisory Group)and Cheryl Brown outlined their work as compiled in theChurch Membership Initiative (CMI), and Lyle Muller (executivedirector of the synod’s Board for Evangelism) added somecomments on the implications of Klaas and Brown’s findings.This session stressed the fact that the United States has shifteddramatically from a churched to an unchurched culture;somewhere between 50% and 70% of the population does nothold church membership.The repercussions for the church are significant. If Lutherancongregations desire to grow, they must take this fact intoaccount and shift their perspective of ministry. Klaas assertedthat the vast majority of congregations making up the LCMS(80%) had failed to own up to this fact. He described thesenon-growing or declining churches as internally focused, havingrelatively few long-term leaders, “and generally notinvolved in their ‘context.’” Growing churches (20% of LCMScongregations), on the other hand, have a primary purpose ofministering primarily outside their current membership.Common characteristics of these congregations are: astrong sense of vision, which is created by the pastor and successfullydelivered to and shared by the laity; a variety of waysto deliver mission primarily in their communities, includingcontemporary worship and community programs as other“entry points” into the church; a focus on meeting needs,hopes and hurts, not on budget and structure; and a focus onmission, not membership. 6In an “Insight Session” called “Tools to Help CongregationsFind Mission,” the framers of CMI maintained that worship“style” is the key area in which Lutheranism shouldaccommodate to the present. 7 Klaas strongly advocated theadoption of contemporary worship forms to reach theunchurched more effectively. “If you are trying to communicateeffectively it might require you to use different language ordifferent forms of music. Things that are comfortable to them.”Still, Klaas carefully made it clear that, while traditionalworship is generally ineffective in reaching the unchurched, hedid not advocate giving traditional worship up completely.Rather, he stressed the need to have both traditional and contemporaryforms of worship offered within the single congregation.“We are talking about traditional and, not versus, contemporary.”He and Brown drew this out even further in theirpublished findings.Growing congregations accept both points of view.Growing congregations celebrate and utilize the richheritage of more traditional Lutheran worship forthat portion of their community that finds deepmeaning in traditional forms. . . . Growing congregationsdo not use an “either/or” practice of communication.They use a “both/and” approach. 8It is at precisely this point that the greatest danger for divisionlies. Klaas advocated founding “churches within a church”on the basis of the both/and approach to worship. Congrega-

LOGIA FORUM 79tions should offer traditional worship for older and lifelongLutherans who appreciate that kind of style. However, in orderfor the church to reach those outside, it is imperative that contemporarystyles be used. The unspoken assumption was thattraditional Lutheran worship forms and hymnody cannot, generally,be effective in reaching the unchurched. Once “hooked”by contemporary worship, unchurched people can be instructedin the tenets of the faith and brought to membership.So, in effect, Klaas argued for two different congregationsusing the same church facilities. Many of the participants withwhom this writer spoke found the work of Klaas and Browncompelling. Yet they dismissed CMI as a mere sociologicalstudy. While they agreed that the LCMS must change, theyhoped that LCMS doctrine would be maintained, much asPresident A.L. Barry has recently written:The convocation devoted a lot of attention to“change” in the church. As we move into the yearsahead there are undoubtedly a variety of changes thatwill expand and improve our efforts for the sake ofthe gospel. But the laypeople I spoke with were veryconcerned that “change” not occur in our doctrinenor in our doctrinal practices. 9The options for change offered at GCC ’93 are neither theologicallyneutral, nor simply a matter of style versus substance.For when one examines carefully what the authors of CMI propose,ones sees a general shift away from the theology ofLutheranism as expressed in the symbols, to one driven by theperceived “needs” of unchurched people. Church MembershipInitiative is not a neutral document, as its title clearly indicates.It has a purpose that is explicitly spelled out by its authors: “Theoverall objective of the Church Membership Initiative is: To setin motion forces that will result in annual increases in the numberof members of Lutheran congregations.” 10Shifts in practice are justified as being simply changes inemphasis or style, not substance. But a closer examinationreveals subtle shifts away from confessional Lutheranism asexpressed by the LCMS from its founding. For example, whilespeaking of the hurt and anger that some ex-Lutherans harboragainst the church, Klaas recounted the following story:[There was] a Minnesota Lutheran in the Garrison Keillorsense of the term: A Lutheran all his life but not reallya member of a church anywhere. Well, [he] takes hisnine-year-old son to church; he’s now responsible forthis boy as a single parent. And they come to the communionrail, and the pastor says, “Are you a member ofour congregation?” He says, “No.” The pastor says, “I’msorry I can’t give you communion.” And on the way outof the church that day the nine-year-old looks up andsays, “Daddy, does this mean that we can’t have supperwith Jesus?” And he says, “Not in this church we can’t.”The hint was clear: Closed communion is detrimental tothe growth of the church because denial of the sacrament, evento one who professes no doctrine and is not a member of a congregation,causes deep hurt. The implicit message was that itshould be discontinued for the sake of growth. But to open thealtars of the church to those who do not join in her confessionis no minor shift in practice or simple matter of style. The practiceof our synod is clearly predicated on its biblical theology.Another instance of the integral relationship between substanceand style, form and function, became apparent whenKlaas treated the content of two pieces of music. He stated thatthe contemporary song with the lyrics, “Great and mighty isthe Lord our God, Great and mighty is he,” expresses the sametheology as “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.” But how can onesay that the Christ-centered message of Luther’s great hymn,with its theology of the cross, is the “same” as the trite “Greatand Mighty” with its Calvinistic stress on the sovereignty ofGod, and its theology of glory?Clearly we are dealing at this very point with an issue ofsubstance, not style. Continually chanting the chorus, “Greatand mighty is the Lord, our God, Great and mighty is he,”does not communicate the doctrine of the atonement ofChrist, namely that “He holds the field victorious” through thecross. On the one hand, Luther stresses that our God is ourfortress because of the work of Christ. On the other hand, thechorus simply testifies to the power of the divine being—a sentimentthat most faiths would be comfortable making. Is thechorus heretical? Of course not! But it does not say substantiallythe same things as Luther’s great hymn. Thus worship isa matter of substance and not mere style. 11The changes proposed for the LCMS at GCC ’93, if adopted,would move the denomination away from the Lutheran theologicalemphasis on word and sacraments as the place where Godacts for and speaks to his people, and they respond with thanksgivingand praise for his work of redemption. At GCC ’93, prayerwas stressed as the chief means through which God speaks to hispeople. 12 Further, if the advice to form churches within thechurch based on worship style is adopted, the church will soonfind itself at war among its member congregations.This too-brief, and perhaps overly negative, assessment ofGCC ’93 does not do justice to the gathering as a whole.Indeed, this writer encountered several useful “Insight Sessions”(as well as several unhelpful). The point is that in theoverall experience of the convocation there was a decided pushfor the adoption of practices that run contrary to confessionalLutheran theology. If these practices continue to make theirinroads into the LCMS, the doctrine of that body will be compromisedand forced to change. And that would be a profoundchange for the worse for Lutheranism in America.Still, we have not reached that point. There is evidencethat we may be dividing, but we are not yet fully divided. Weseem to be separating, but we are not yet split. Yet if thingscontinue the way they are, difficult times face the LCMS, for,as history has shown us, and as Lincoln noted in his “HouseDivided” speech: “I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will ceaseto be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.” 13The Rev. Lawrence R. Rast, Jr.Madison, Tennessee

80 LOGIANOTES1. Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,vol. 2 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press,1953) pp. 461, 462.2. “Mission Statement for GCC ’93,” Convocation News(October 9, 1993) 4.3. “Why Did You Come? Some Attendees Share Their Expectationsof GCC ’93,” Convocation News (October 8, 1993) pp. 1, 3.4. David L. Mahsman, “GCC Told to Change Methods,Not Theology,” Reporter (November 1993) p. 1.5. Dwayne Mau, “What is Happening in Society Todayand How it Affects the Church Today,” Great CommissionConvocation Plenary Session, Saturday, October 9, 1993.6. “U.S. No Longer ‘Churched,’” Convocation News (October9, 1993) pp. 1, 3.7. Alan Klaas and Cheryl Brown, “Tools to Help CongregationsFind Mission,” Great Commission ConvocationInsight Session SA05, Saturday, October 9, 1993.8. Church Membership Initiative: Narrative Summary ofFindings, 1993, p. 8.9. A.L. Barry, “Convocation Reminds Us That Our DoctrineIs Stability During Times of Change,” The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod President’s Newsletter (November 1993) p. 2.10. Church Membership Initiative: Narrative Summary ofFindings, 1993, 2. Clearly having CMI in mind, Barry offers thefollowing caveat (Barry, “Convocation,” p. 2): “A recent studyconcerning the decline in church membership has been featuredprominently in many forums throughout our synod. It isan interesting study which raises a number of very importantquestions. However, in this connection a word of caution isalso in order. Analysis of data and research results is alwaysvery subjective in nature. As we draw conclusions from studieslike these, we must be extremely careful in the kinds of conclusionsand generalizations we reach. For to do otherwise couldnot support but rather take away from our desire to remainfaithfully Lutheran and to reach out with the gospel.”11. Alan Klaas and Cheryl Brown, “Tools.” Dwayne Maualso spoke of the relationship of music and the future of thechurch when he discussed the impact of the modern age onyouth, and the Lutheran Church’s failure to adapt to it (Mau,“What is Happening”): “Technology has especially had animpact on young people in this country. Today’s young peoplefunction in a multi-stimuli environment of sound, music, andvisual image. A lot of the music is music that is not common inthe church. You see, the church tries to communicate oftenjust using one form of media, usually print media. In 1990Newsweek reported on a Canadian city where the playing ofmusic by Bach and Mozart in the city parks caused all the drugdealers and youth gangs to leave those parks. Now that’s nothingnew. The Lutheran Church, using the same music, has hadthe same effect: all the young people have left.”12. In growing congregations, Brown argued, prayerreceives the greatest emphasis (Klaas and Brown, “Tools”):“Their total ministry revolves around prayer.”13. Basler, ed., pp. 461, 462.DOCTRINE & PRACTICENot since Gutenberg’s invention have printing ventures blossomedin such geometric proportions. Another journal some ofour readers might be interested in is Doctrine & Practice. Thoseinterested may receive this brief quarterly for a donation by writingto Subscriptions, Doctrine & Practice, c/o The Rev. ToddWilken, 1246 Muskopf, Dupo, IL, 62239. What follows is a selfdescriptionand excerpts from the premier January 1994 issue.Pastors dare not delegate their responsibility to help eachother think and write carefully about the gospel. Fads in churchmethodologies come and go, but the issues of faith and life, ofright teaching and right doing, of what the church confessesand how she receives and lives by God’s gifts, namely, issues ofdoctrine and practice, remain vital to the pastor’s work of proclaimingthe word and administering the sacraments.If AC VII Were Normativeby the Rev. Randy Asburry“The issue of AC VII is not one of seeking church unity, butrather defining wherein the church’s God-given unity lies. Thesixteenth century Roman Catholic claim was that the confessorswere abolishing too many observances, or marks, of thechurch, and thus disrupting the true unity of the church. Theconfessors, on the other hand, responded that they were notdisrupting the church’s true unity. Rather, they were omittingcertain abuses and highlighting the actual, scriptural bases forthe church and her unity.”Listening to the “Voice of Our Church”by the Rev. Todd Wilken“The Winkel serves not only as the proper place for discussionof the questions of church and ministry in light of our synod’sdoctrine, but it is also the proper place for the expression of dissentfrom that doctrine. For instance, a pastor who holds a differingdefinition of the office, or of the call would come inhumility to his brothers saying, ‘Dear brothers, I am not convincedthat we are right on this or that, please show me where Ihave misunderstood, or correct me if I am wrong.’ Then his circuitbrothers can gently try to lead him to an understanding ofthe truth using Scripture and the Confessions.”

LOGIA FORUM 81SHARED VOICES/DIFFERENT VISIONOn October 22 and 23 at Concordia Lutheran Church in Kirkwood,Missouri, the third national Different Voices/SharedVision (DV/SV) conference was held. The list of registered participantsand speakers included 109 names (73 women, 36 men, andtwo district presidents). This report and review is offered by theRev. Timothy C.J. Quill who attended the conference.The theme of the third national Different Voices/SharedVision (DV/SV) conference was Being the Church. In somerespects a more appropriate theme would have been Being theChurch Without a Pastor. It is not that the organizers reject theoffice of the holy ministry, but the conference was an attemptto discuss what it means to be the church without reference tothe pastoral office. At worst the approach is hypocritical, atbest naive—in reality it turned out to be futile.In a pre-conference promotional article titled “Why aConference on the Church?” Marie Meyer wrote: “You areinvited to attend and participate in this conference. It will be anopportunity for open and frank hearing and learning—not‘business as usual.’ We pray that lay people and clergy willcome together for an honest discussion of what it means tobe—and to function as—holy believers who recognize the voiceof their Head.” Meyer’s article includes two Scripture references,1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2:12. She opines, “Theidea of men only exercising authority remained unquestionedfor generations. 1 Timothy 2:12 was quoted to prove that menonly may teach God’s Word. Without examining the particularword Paul uses to tell women they are not to exercise selfappointedauthority, church leaders decided that God prohibitswomen from functioning with authority in the church” (VoicesVision, No. 8, Summer, 1993, pp. 2, 3). The promotionalbrochure for the conference iterates, “The LCMS is much concernedabout women in the church. This conference asks, ‘Arewomen the church?’ If so, why is 1 Timothy 2:12 used to prohibitwomen from acting with authority in the church?”In her opening remarks prior to the first session on Fridaynight, conference organizer Marie Meyer instructed the conferenceparticipants that it was not the purpose of the conferenceto address the question of the ordination of women butto discuss what it means to be the church. “An opportunity foropen and frank hearing and learning”? “Honest discussion”?Any theological discourse on the doctrine of the church thatprohibits reference to the holy ministry lacks theologicalintegrity. It also leaves the leadership of the DV/SV movementopen to being perceived as disingenuous. The DV/SV group isattempting to address important and timely issues which arefacing the church. What is the future of the DV/SV within thebroader synodical context? If it is to become more than aneccentric rump group it will have to clarify its position on theordination of women. The credibility of the DV/SV organizationdepends on an honest, straightforward answer to thequestion, “Are you for or against the ordination of women?”A constant refrain in DV/SV materials is to lament the factthat “Presently, the issue is defined by men, who then selectsome women to deal with what men perceive to be the problem.. . . Currently, what women say publicly about being thechurch is subject to the judgment of men. Thus men protestagainst women proposing any personal or hidden ‘agendas’”(Voices Vision, no. 8, Summer 1993, p. 2). Ironically, of the sixpresenters and reactors selected by the women of DV/SV todeal with the problem of women’s role in the church, only onewas a woman.The first presenter was Pastor Anthony Steinbronn whosepresentation, “Biblical Images of the Church,” consisted of arather innocuous discussion of discipleship, priesthood andbeing a Christian. The reactor was the the Rev. Paul McCain,assistant to the synodical president. The Rev. McCain began,“My assignment, as I understand it, is to serve as a ‘reactor’ toPastor Steinbronn’s presentation. I appreciate Pastor Steinbronn’svery clear emphasis on the priesthood of all believers,Christian discipleship and the notion of the masks of God.Simply put, I agree with what Pastor Steinbronn has presented.That makes my task as a ‘reactor’ a bit more challenging. Ithought that I could build on Pastor Steinbronn’s remarks inthe time allotted to me. I will offer some observations aboutthe priesthood of all believers, the office of the holy ministry,the Lutheran concept of vocation and station in life, and thenapply these concepts to some contemporary questions aboutthese important gifts which Christ has given to us. My presentationhas as its theme: Receiving the Gifts of Christ with Thankfulnessand Faithfulness.”Rather than exclude the holy ministry from the discussion,McCain took the inclusive approach. “The church,” saidMcCain, “dare not sneer at God’s gift of the priesthood of allbelievers nor dare she denigrate God’s gift of the office of theministry. She receives both with thanksgiving and praise toGod for his wisdom in giving these gifts.”The pre-conference registration brochure included fivequotes from Luther concerning the priesthood. Participantswere asked to consider these words from Luther in preparationfor the conference. Unfortunately no references were includedalong with the quotations. The final quotation can be found inLuther’s 1523 treatise to the Bohemians entitled “Concerningthe ministry” and reads: “So when women baptize, they exercisethe function of the priesthood legitimately, and do it notas a private act, but as a part of the public ministry of thechurch which belongs only to the priesthood. . . .”McCain correctly noted that Luther’s writings need to beunderstood within the context in which they were written. Forexample, early treatises (1520 and 1523) were written in defenseof the laity against the papal hierarchy which denied thegospel. These works were unfortunately misunderstood by theleaders of the Radical Reformation. Luther later clarified hisposition on the relationship between the priesthood of allbelievers and the holy ministry (e.g., “Infiltrating and ClandestinePreachers” of 1532, AE 40:388–391; “Lectures on Titus” of1527, AE 29:16, 17). McCain drew upon Luther’s 1535 “Sermonon Psalm 11” to expand the discussion of what it means to bethe church into the broader area of vocation and station.“Even though not everybody has the public office and calling,every Christian has the right and duty to teach, instruct,admonish, comfort, and rebuke his neighbor with the Word of

82 LOGIAGod at every opportunity and whenever necessary. For example,father and mother should do this for their children andhousehold; a brother, neighbor, citizen, or peasant for the other”(AE 13:133).McCain continued, “As Luther indicates so often in hiswriting, the priesthood of all believers has a wonderful diversityof vocations in this life. It is precisely in these various vocationsthat the royal priesthood exercises the duties and responsibilitiesChrist has entrusted to it. I appreciate how PastorSteinbronn noted this important concept in Luther’s theology.It is a terribly harmful error to imply that it is only when amember of the royal priesthood is involved in some sort of‘church’ work that he or she is truly ‘living up to’ his or hercalling in Christ. No, nothing could be further from the truth.What a delusion we will inflict upon our synod if we reinstitutea sort of monasticism by which the function and duties ofour ‘secular’ life are of lesser degree, value, worth or merit inChrist’s church than the service one renders in a ‘church’ job.Service within the four walls of a church building is not to beviewed as being of greater worth or value than the duties andresponsibilities Christ has given us in our callings in life. No,we dare not slip into a new monasticism with this kind ofthinking. We serve where we have been called and placed byGod, not demanding what has not been given to us by him.”The Rev. McCain later made the important observation,“I would now like to apply the foregoing remarks to a particularsituation and issue which I believe and am convinced liesbehind much of the other discussion we hear these days aboutthe priesthood of all believers, the service of women in thechurch and the office of the holy ministry. The issue reallytakes the form of a very simple question: May a woman, surelyas much a member of the royal priesthood as any man andcertainly given gifts by the Holy Spirit, serve in the ordainedministry of word and sacrament in the church? It is not sufficientfor any of us to say, ‘That is not our concern’ or ‘That isnot our issue’ or to say, ‘I do not have an opinion on that matter.’Nor dare we suggest that this is an ‘open question.’ Ratherwe must ask, ‘Are we willing as the royal priesthood, as membersof the bride of Christ, the church, to receive with thanksgivingour Lord’s will for his bride?”The Rev. McCain then points out that the Lord’s will forhis bride is clearly revealed through God’s Word, “given to thechurch through Christ’s apostle St. Paul, specifically in1 Corinthians 14:34; 1 Timothy 3:2, 5; 1 Timothy 2:12,” whichspecify that “the responsibility for public, authoritative preachingand teaching of the Gospel in the church is to be entrustedto capable and qualified men. . . . This is the teaching of theHoly Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions; it is not possiblefor the evangelical, orthodox church of the Lutheran Confessionto recognize the legitimacy or validity of female pastors.. . . To those church bodies which would alter or otherwisedistort these gifts we must, for the sake of the gospel itself,understand that a church which ordains women to the officeof word and sacrament ministry thereby indicates publicly thatit does not wish to conform itself to the word of the apostles.”The assistant to the synodical president addressed the issuesraised by the DV/SV agenda squarely, honestly and dispassionately.He positively connected what it means to “be the church,”to both the pastoral ministry and to the wider context of servingGod according to one’s vocation and station in life. The reactionof many of the participants to the Rev. McCain’s comments wasvery negative. Dr. Marva Dawn, rose and demanded that theRev. McCain ask the community for forgiveness. His sin? Heapparently was not aware that the previous night Marie Meyerhad instructed the conference participants that they were nothere to discuss the office of the ministry. Dr. Dawn also chastisedthe Rev. McCain for not being sensitive to the painexpressed in the personal journeys of the panelist the previousevening. The fact that the Rev. McCain was unable to attend theFriday session was overlooked. The fact that numerous otherpeople (presenters, reactors, audience participants) addressedthe issue of the ordination of women and were not called torepent could not have gone unnoticed. Indeed, the very nextpresenter, the Rev. Stanley Abraham, attempted to build a casefor the ordination of women on the basis of Luther’s writings.The title of the second presentation was “The Priesthoodof all Believers.” In his opening remarks, the reactor, Dr.William Weinrich, noted that “Pastor Abraham focused moredirectly on the question of the ordination of women than was,as I understand it, intended by the broader agenda of thismeeting which wishes to consider the common priesthood as away of considering the life in the church, that is, life as a Christian.”Pastor Abraham was not chastised by the DV/SV groupfor focusing on the question of the ordination of women. Toquote Professor Weinrich, “With dizzying rapidity, StanleyAbraham has taken us from a notion of the common priesthoodin which all possess an equality of authority and functionto the assertion that were it not for lack of education and thethreat of Anabaptist disorder even Luther would have surelyopted for the ordination of women in the public ministry ofword and sacrament.” Weinrich added, “Indeed, so egalitariandoes Pastor Abraham render the sixteeth-century MartinLuther that he next argues that Luther ‘equates the priesthoodof all believers with the ordained ministry.’”Weinrich went beyond merely reacting to Pastor Abraham’spromotion of women’s ordination. He also dealt constructivelywith what it means to be a priest. He reminded theconference that Luther never used the term “priesthood of allbelievers” or for that matter the term “universal priesthood.”He used instead “spiritual priesthood” or the “common priesthood.”Weinrich pointed out that “Luther does not begin witha general notion of the priesthood, but derives an understandingof the priesthood from that which gives and bestowspriesthood. There is one baptism which gives the Holy Spirit,and therefore in relation to God there is but one, undifferentiatedspiritual priesthood. What denotes the priest is faith, andprecisely because faith is essentially reception, to ‘possess’ baptismis to have received it.“Rather than the distinct office of the public ministry disappearinginto a commonly possessed priesthood, being derivedfrom the common priesthood, or being equated with the commonpriesthood, Luther’s understanding of the common priesthoodpresupposes a distinct ministry within the church for thepurpose of faith, on behalf of faith, that is, in order that there

LOGIA FORUM 83might be a priesthood and that priesthood might be served withthe gospel through preaching and the sacraments. Here we aresimply nonplussed how our good friend, Stan Abraham, couldmaintain that Luther equated the common priesthood with theordained ministry. Here the statements of Luther which speak ofthe public office being instituted by Christ through his will andcommand are really too numerous to mention. Luther withsome frequency makes the point that priests are born (that is,through baptism) while pastors are made (that is, through calland ordination)” (see AE 13:332).By far, the most popular person at the conference amongthe loyal DV/SV followers was Dr. Marva Dawn. In keepingwith the purpose of the conference, her paper, “Romans 12 andHow to Be the Church,” did not address the office of the holyministry. However, the question of teaching was alluded to.One is led to wonder if Dawn’s indignation over McCain’sopen and honest statements on the holy ministry (such as, “Itis not possible for the evangelical, orthodox church of theLutheran Confession to recognize the legitimacy or validity offemale pastors”) is not in some way residue from being deniedthe position on the faculty of Concordia College, St. Paul, toteach theology.Dr. Dawn is without question an engaging speaker andgifted communicator. She regularly departed from her writtentext on detours that were both entertaining and instructive.Dr. Dawn began, “If we are considering in this conference whatit means to be women and men together in the church, then itis necessary that we look at one of the most important descriptionsin the Scriptures of how the church should function. Inthis presentation I will sketch briefly ten key points fromRomans 12 that describe for us what it is like to have the mindof Christ.” Point one is that “Grace is the basis.” Dawn correctlydrew this point from the opening verse, “Therefore, I urgeyou, brothers and sisters, because of the mercies of God. . . .”Drawing on verse two, Dawn concluded, “At this conferencewe desire for God’s Word to be renewing our minds, toreshape our thinking about what it means to be women andmen together in the church. We dare never think that theprocess of new thinking has been completed.”From Romans 12:2, 3, “Then you will be able to test andapprove what God’s will is . . .” Dawn stressed that this testingand discovery of God’s will is not a singular activity, butrather something “done together as a community.” She thenconcluded that “Grace requires that each of us participate inthe thinking processes which renew the church.” Dawn placedRomans 12 into the context of Roman house churches (ofchapter 16) which included “women and men leaders, includingthe deacon Phoebe, Paul’s fellow-worker Priscilla, thewoman apostle Junia, and the leaders Mary, Julia andTryphosa, among others.” At the same time Dawn insists onthe universality of Romans 12. “Paul,” said Dawn, “does notlimit the thinking or the gifting in any way—not by socialclass, race or gender. Rather, he is writing in the book ofRomans to each member of the Body of Christ. His exhortationsare for all—and each.”Dawn stressed that everyone in the church has receivedgifts, and that the lists found in the Bible are a representativesampling—categorical lists. “There are skillions of them[gifts],” and Paul “puts no limitations on who might receivedifferent ones because he simply uses the names of the functionsand exhorts each person to be faithful to the functionwith the gift.” “How do we know our gifts? The communitytells us . . . perhaps our gifts are specifically needed by ourlocal community; perhaps by the larger church.” Dawnstressed repeatedly that “There is no hierarchical listing of thegifts” in Romans 12. “We dare not limit each other… . Wemust never . . . stifle the gifts of others. For example, ourchurches do that frequently when we don’t hear the Spirit’steaching through our children/teenagers or the elderly or thehandicapped in our congregations.”The reactor to Dr. Dawn was Dr. James Voelz who beganby saying “There is so much to be agreed to in her presentation,”especially “Marva’s emphasis on ‘therefore’ at the beginningof chapter 12, as the hinge of the epistle, on the grace ofGod as fundamental to everything Paul says. . . .” Voelz,however, continued, “But I cannot, I am sad to say, agree completelywith what Marva has proposed.” Dr. Voelz raised questionsover Dawn’s thoroughness of interpretation of verse twoand over her “limitation of the evidence” in restricting herselfalmost exclusively to Romans chapter 12. He added that his“reasons for disagreement with Marva’s paper are hermeneutical,in the end, especially as related to her central thought of‘egalitarian giftedness.’”Dr. Voelz’s primary disagreement with Dr. Dawn was overher use of a “delimited canon.” He noted, “Now, Lutherans arenot unfamiliar with this charge, that we work with a delimitedScripture canon of Pauline justification texts, a ‘canon within acanon,’ as it were. In a way this charge is true, and in a way thecharge is not. If certain passages form our ‘touchstones’ forinterpretation, the keystone of the matrix of passages to beinterpreted, then everything is fine—this is not ‘canon within acanon’—this is how interpretation works. But if certain passagesform our touchstone in such a way that other passagesdisappear from view, or that other passages are rejected orjudged as out of bounds, then we do truly have a ‘canon withina canon,’ and that is incorrect. In my judgment, Marva hasdone this second thing, considering, as she does, only 1 Thessalonians5 outside of Romans 12. (This it seems to me, is a seriousmatter, because the texts excluded [from other Pauline letters]are homologoumena and not antilegomena, i.e., from thebooks whose authority is basic for the church.)“With such a limited canon, how does one test one’s viewof Romans 12? But, it may be claimed, Marva’s paper is muchtoo brief; it assumes much that is not said. Her articulation, itmight be argued, does not actually reject other portions of theNew Testament; it simply reinterprets them, or, interpretsthem in the light of Romans 12. Marie Meyer’s cover letter forthis conference, which alludes to exegesis of 1 Timothy 2 (p.2),does suggest as much. And so do Marva’s comments concerningPhoebe, Priscilla, and Junia and other women in theRoman world. But this then raised a third and furtherpoint. . . . Why do authors—many authors—make sweepingstatements of a general nature concerning freedom, onenessand egalitarianism on the one hand, but on the other hand in

84 LOGIAspecifics, in actual, incarnated cases, or in controversial situations,put restrictions on what they say? I phrase the problemthus, because St. Paul is not the only one who exhibits thisphenomenon. Martin Luther, quoted often at this conferenceand in its promotional literature, does so frequently, as well.”Voelz mentioned five common explanations for why werun into this “problem” with authors. “The author—whetherLuther or Paul—is inconsistent; he is accommodating himselfto backward thinking; he himself is bound to older ways; hisadvice is situational and context-bound (this corresponds toMarva’s type C text in her essay on hermeneutical considerations)[see Dawn’s essay, “Hermeneutical Considerations forBiblical Texts” in Different Voices/Shared Vision: Male andFemale In The Trinitarian Community, p.16]; the passage isnot written by Luther or St. Paul, but there is a sixth explanationto be given:. that the sweeping generalizations are notreally so sweeping, so all-encompassing, so general, after all.They, too, are contextual, spoken within real-life situations,in the end.“Thus, for example, when Martin Luther extols the priesthoodof all believers, its value, its freedom, its authority and itsrights, is he not perhaps, in his given situation, extolling thatpriesthood in the face of . . . a Roman Catholic insistence thatthe church is really the clergy, that the laity cannot judge doctrine(as did the believers in Berea), and that the Reformationmovement was actually quite illegitimate, at its very core? Andwhen St. Paul speaks of our oneness in Christ, no differencebetween Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, mighthe not be addressing a Jewish context in which barriers forpeople were common and in which access to and worthinessbefore God was severely limited by laws of every kind? But in adifferent context, when different concerns arise—in the twocases I have presented, when confronted not by external devaluationbut by internal anarchy, or, differently conceived, whenconfronted, not by a problem of worth but by a problem oforganization or of order—talk of men like Luther and St. Paulis significantly less egalitarian, indeed! In other words, MarvaDawn has not been radical enough in her assessment of variouskinds of texts! What I mean is this. Conservative exegetes tendto see virtually no texts as context-bound. Marva Dawn seessome texts as context-bound (her type C texts). I see all texts ascontext-bound.”Professor Voelz continued, “Consider Romans 12 from thispoint of view. Is Paul uttering timeless generalities in the firstthirteen verses or so? I think not. In verse 3 he tells the peoplenot to think more highly of themselves then they ought, but tobe sensible. In verse 4 he notes that the one church as Christ’sbody has many members but that all members do not have thesame function. What is going on here? Marva notes that inchapter 14 Paul deals with divisions regarding weak and strong.It seems to me that this is the context of Romans 12 and thecontext of these verses. Paul is telling his readers: Be satisfiedwith what you have and/or do not despise others, for (if I mayuse 1 Corinthians 12:11) the Holy Spirit distributes gifts whenand as he wills. In other words, this is not an abstract discussionof everyone having a gift and it might appear in anyone, by anymeans. Which means that, in verse 2, when Paul speaks ofapproving the will of God, he is probably referring, not toGod’s will in general or in the abstract, as Marva would suggest(“How he can use us for his purpose in the world?” [p. 6]) butto his own admonitions as God’s will, attempting to convincehis readers that what he says is right (i.e., God’s will specificallyin this matter of gifts of grace).”The modus operandi of the DV/SV group is adroit yettransparent to any who take the time to peruse their literature(Voices Vision newsletter; Different Voices/Shared Vision: Maleand Female in the Trinitarian Community). DV/SV repeatedlydenies that it is furtively working for the ordination of women.The group is annoyed by the accusations of its “detractors”(their words) who repeatedly bring the discussion back to theoffice of the ministry. On the other hand, DV/SV literature ispermeated with implicit and explicit references supportive ofwomen pastors. One searches in vain for a single, articulate,apologetic in support of synod’s position.DV/SV envisions itself as a serious theological movementwhich is “open and frank,” and in favor of “honest discussion.”The organizers of the DV/SV conference in St. Louis are to becomplimented for inviting the teachers of the church from oursynodical seminaries and the assistant to the synodical president.But as long as the DV/SV agenda is to explore what itmeans to be the church, theological integrity demands that theoffice of the ministry be included in the discussion. Church andministry go together. Questions concerning the role of the laity,both men and women, in the church will continue to be frontburnerissues shared by many throughout the entire church.But if DV/SV is to be taken seriously, it will have to come cleanon the question of the ordination of women. To do less isunfair to those who endeavor to offer an honest critique.The Rev. Timothy C. J. QuillAffton, Missouri