Doctrine

Without an appearance of angels, and strengthened by the Word alone, the martyrs met death for the sake of the name of Christ. Why should we, too, not be satisfied with the same thing? Baptism is a sufficiently manifest and clear appearance. So are the Eucharist, the Keys, the ministry of the Word. They are equal to -- yes, they even surpass -- all the appearances of all angels, in comparison with which Abraham had only droplets and crumbs.

LW, AE vol. 4, p. 126

But the holy orders and true religious institutions established by God are these three: the office of priest, the estate of marriage, the civil government. [See Large Catechism, 4th Commandment, 158, and the Augsburg Confession, Article XVI] All who are engaged in the clerical office or ministry of the Word are in a holy, proper, good, and God-pleasing order and estate, such as those who preach, administer sacraments, supervise the common chest, sextons and messengers or servants who serve such persons. These are engaged in works which are altogether holy in God's sight.

Again, all fathers and mothers who regulate their household wisely and bring up their children to the service of God are engaged in pure holiness, in a holy work and a holy order. Similarly, when children and servants show obedience to their elders and masters, here too is pure holiness, and whoever is thus engaged is a living saint on earth.

Moreover, princes and lords, judges, civil officers, state officials, notaries, male and female servants and all who serve such persons, and further, all their obedient subjects -- all are engaged in pure holiness and leading a holy life before God. For these three religious institutions or orders are found in God's Word and commandment; and whatever is contained in God's Word must be holy, for God's Word is holy and sanctifies everything connected with it and involved in it.

Above these three institutions and orders is the common order of Christian love, in which one serves not only the three orders, but also serves every needy person in general with all kinds of benevolent deeds, such as feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, forgiving enemies, praying for all men on earth, suffering all kinds of evil on earth, etc. Behold, all of these are called good and holy works. However, none of these orders is a means of salvation. There remains only one way above them all, viz. faith in Jesus Christ.

For to be holy and to be saved are two entirely different things. We are saved through Christ alone; but we become holy both through this faith and through these divine foundations and orders. Even the godless may have much about them that is holy without being saved thereby. For God wishes us to perform such works to his praise and glory. And all who are saved in the faith of Christ surely do these works and maintain these orders.

(AE 37:364-365)

Note that neither the three broad categories (churchly, domestic, and civil) that Luther describes, nor the examples he gives, are meant to be mutually exclusive. Our church Treasurer supervises the common chest, but also holds other churchly responsibilities, as well as responsibilities in the other categories.

Now, this is a real treasure.

If you've been disturbed by what seem to be basic contradictions in the doctrine of the Bible, then read this. It will probably clear things up for you. It's also available in book form.

(From the New King James Version)

A Psalm of David.
Do not fret because of evildoers,
Nor be envious of the workers of iniquity.
For they shall soon be cut down like the grass,
And wither as the green herb.
Trust in the LORD, and do good;
Dwell in the land, and feed on His faithfulness.
Delight yourself also in the LORD,
And He shall give you the desires of your heart.
Commit your way to the LORD,
Trust also in Him,
And He shall bring it to pass.
He shall bring forth your righteousness as the light,
And your justice as the noonday.
Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for Him;
Do not fret because of him who prospers in his way,
Because of the man who brings wicked schemes to pass.
Cease from anger, and forsake wrath;
Do not fret -- it only causes harm.
For evildoers shall be cut off;
But those who wait on the LORD,
They shall inherit the earth.
For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more;
Indeed, you will look carefully for his place,
But it shall be no more.
But the meek shall inherit the earth,
And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
The wicked plots against the just,
And gnashes at him with his teeth. The Lord laughs at him,
For He sees that his day is coming.
The wicked have drawn the sword
And have bent their bow,
To cast down the poor and needy,
To slay those who are of upright conduct.
Their sword shall enter their own heart,
And their bows shall be broken.
A little that a righteous man has
Is better than the riches of many wicked.
For the arms of the wicked shall be broken,
But the LORD upholds the righteous.
The LORD knows the days of the upright,
And their inheritance shall be forever.
They shall not be ashamed in the evil time,
And in the days of famine they shall be satisfied.
But the wicked shall perish;
And the enemies of the LORD,
Like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish.
Into smoke they shall vanish away.
The wicked borrows and does not repay,
But the righteous shows mercy and gives.
For those blessed by Him shall inherit the earth,
But those cursed by Him shall be cut off.
The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD,
And He delights in his way.
Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down;
For the LORD upholds him with His hand.
I have been young, and now am old;
Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken,
Nor his descendants begging bread.
He is ever merciful, and lends;
And his descendants are blessed.
Depart from evil, and do good;
And dwell forevermore.
For the LORD loves justice,
And does not forsake His saints;
They are preserved forever,
But the descendants of the wicked shall be cut off.
The righteous shall inherit the land,
And dwell in it forever.
The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom,
And his tongue talks of justice.
The law of his God is in his heart;
None of his steps shall slide.
The wicked watches the righteous,
And seeks to slay him.
The LORD will not leave him in his hand,
Nor condemn him when he is judged.
Wait on the LORD,
And keep His way,
And He shall exalt you to inherit the land;
When the wicked are cut off, you shall see it.
I have seen the wicked in great power,
And spreading himself like a native green tree.
Yet he passed away, and behold, he was no more;
Indeed I sought him, but he could not be found.
Mark the blameless man, and observe the upright;
For the future of that man is peace.
But the transgressors shall be destroyed together;
The future of the wicked shall be cut off.
But the salvation of the righteous is from the LORD;
He is their strength in the time of trouble.
And the LORD shall help them and deliver them;
He shall deliver them from the wicked,
And save them,
Because they trust in Him.

The way we Lutherans number the Ten Commandments, the Fourth is the beginning of the Second Table of the Law. God's Law is conceptually divided into two tables, the first requiring love and reverence toward our Creator, and the second, love toward our fellow human beings. The Fourth Commandment is often summarized, "Honor your father and your mother."

Dr. Martin Luther included in the Small Catechism the insight that this commandment requires honor not only toward parents, but toward all God-given authority. In fact, all authority derives from that of parents, which is evident in the biblical account of mankind's creation, in Genesis chapter 2, as well as the subsequent generations described in chapters 4 and 5.

Since the Ten Commandments provide us a concise summary of morality, and since morality is generally under attack in Western society, it's reasonable to consider the war against morality as a war against God's commandments. After all, morality has scant foundation in atheism, which ends up following the dictum, "might makes right," another iteration of Darwin's "survival of the fittest." That there are atheists who nevertheless affirm transcendent moral precepts does not mean that their morality is founded upon atheism. It may instead be strong evidence that their atheism runs against their own God-given intuition. Therefore, I think anyone can reasonably consider the degradation of social morality within the framework of a war upon the Ten Commandments.

It's worth considering each commandment, and how the morality of our time works against it. I prefer to start with the Second Table of the Law, not because it's more important, but because its transgressions are generally more concrete. However, any transgression against the Second Table may also be considered a transgression against the First.

So, consider the Fourth Commandment. This is the first moral commandment in which God orders human life on earth. Its basic form says, "Honor your father and your mother." Let's notice a few things about this. Feel free to add more.

• Both father and mother are included. Hence, children are meant to have both a father and a mother. Do I need to point out that they are of opposite genders, the father being male and the mother female? Only for those who have abandoned sense, but there are more like that all the time. The titles "father" and "mother" denote particular roles in the childbearing and child-rearing process. They are distinct from one another, and therefore not interchangeable.

• Though the mother is closer to her child at first, the father is mentioned before her. This does not subtract from the honor due to the mother, but recognizes that the father is also honored when the mother is honored. It also recognizes the chain of accountability before God for responsibilities due to the children.

• The word "honor" includes many things, if the commandment is to be kept in thought, word, and deed. It includes obedience, service, love, and respect for the father's or mother's office (which is easy), and for the person, too (which is often hard).

• This commandment is not conditioned upon the performance of fathers or mothers. It demands honor, regardless of whether or not fathers and mothers deserve it by keeping this or any other commandment, and regardless of what they believe.

• The only commandments that can trump this one are the ones that come before it in the Ten Commandments: (1) having and worshipping only the true God, (2) using God's name properly, but not in vain, and (3) keeping holy the day of rest (i.e., the ways that God provides us His spiritual blessings) in our lives. This means that we are bound before God to honor and obey our parents in every way, except where it would cause us to disobey God according to the first table of the Law. Yet recall that transgressions against the Second Table are not only against our fellow human beings, but also against God. Therefore, even commandments 5 through 10 are a higher authority than our parents. Only when obedience to father and mother would cause us to break one of God's moral commandments may we disobey our parents. In that case, the Law says that we must disobey our parents.

Because this commandment is part of God's will for us, we are required to obey God-given authority. There have been questions and discussions about who or what, exactly, is our authority. The reformers distinguished between three realms of authority: the home, the civil economy, and the church. God rules in each realm in certain ways, and we live in each realm under the authorities He has provided.

In the home, the authority is father and mother, as the commandment says. Where there is no father, the authority is the mother. Where there is no mother, it is the father. God's design includes both, but the circumstances of our depravity and tragic consequences of sinfulness conspire to work against God's design. It's no wonder, then, that many households operate like a car with a flat tire. Cars are designed to drive with four fully-inflated tires, and though they can be driven with a flat, it's neither efficient nor pleasant. To extend the analogy, driving with a flat in the front produces one kind of instability, while a flat in the back produced another kind. Families without fathers suffer one way, while families without mothers suffer another way. Both are part of God's design, and He also designed males and females to perform the different roles He has given us in the home. When we work together as He intended, then the household will be more efficient, and more pleasant. It's also noteworthy that parents (particularly fathers - Eph. 6:4) have been given the responsibility to teach their children both God's law and gospel, in addition to anything else they need to learn for life on earth.

What I'm calling the civil economy includes government, employment, and our general neighborly relationships. There is a God-given governing authority, but there are also more limited authorities in the workplace. Though there are different arrangements of government or employment, we should regard the authorities themselves to be established over us by God. Yet like parents, they might also require something that would transgress God's own commandments. In that case, "We must obey God rather than men." Government is a special kind of authority, because it is responsible for defending its citizens, while maintaining peace against criminals and the freedom we need to make a living according to God's will. Because of these God-given responsibilities, the representatives of government have the authority to impose taxes (which would otherwise violate the commandment prohibiting stealing) and to harm certain individuals (which would otherwise violate the commandment against murder). When government does these things within the limits of its responsibility, it does so with the authority and blessing of God.

Some arrangements of government fit better with God's commandments than others. For many years now, the most successful governments have been constitutional in nature, where the rulers are themselves governed by higher laws within the nation. It was on that basis that the United States was founded in the 1770's, because the ruler of England, together with its parliament, not only broke those higher laws, but also made it impossible for American grievances to be settled. It's likely that some of the American revolutionaries participated in transgression of the 4th commandment, but it's also possible that some of them undertook the separation from England as a necessary step, in obedience to an authority greater than the King.

In the church, the ruling authority is Jesus Christ. He exercises His authority through the preaching and teaching of the gospel, and the administration of the sacraments. For that reason, He sends men to do these things according to His will. Though they are placed in office through the calling of congregations of believers, these ministers are in fact called by Jesus to perform His ministry on His behalf. Christians may conceive of ministerial responsibilities separately from the ministers who perform them, recognizing that Jesus wants those responsibilities to be fulfilled when the church calls men to do so. However, the activities by themselves are an abstraction. Jesus governs His Church through the actual service of individuals He calls to perform the responsibilities of their office: preaching and teaching the gospel, and administering the sacraments. The church of Christ has no other authority than this.

There's one part of the Declaration of Independence that I'm not sure I fully agree with. "... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...." I think I agree with it, but like the PMW, it requires further explaining.

I like the wording "Governments are instituted among Men," because it implies that the institution is not done by the Men. The only other possibility is that God institutes governments, which is in accord with "Render unto Caesar," Romans 13, Peter's epistles, and the Augsburg Confession.

I wonder whether it's accurate to say that governments "derive" their just powers from the "consent" of the governed.

Shedding some light on that is Hermann Sasse, who experienced some extreme examples of governing authority first-hand. In particular, Sasse experienced the tyranny of socialism in its national flavor under the Third Reich. His ecumenical endeavors also brought him into contact with the citizens of many other governments.

This is from the compilation of his writings called The Lonely Way (volume 1), p. 98 and 99. He writes here on "The Social Doctrine of the Augsburg Confession."

As God does his "alien work" in the midst of war, so may he also allow the outbreak of human sin in revolution in order to fulfill his angry judgment. Anarchy follows revolution. From anarchy a new power arises, and the question is whether such new power can be a legally constituted governing authority.

We must answer this question in the affirmative. For as far back in history as we are able to see, every governing authority once arose from anarchy. Legitima ordinatio is not only that governing authority which can trace its legitimacy back through an ancient past by letters of investiture and deeds, rather every political power may become the "governing authority." How can this happen? Doubtless not by the acknowledgement of men through a national assembly or a vote of the people. The assertion "the power of the state arises from the people." is false according to Lutheran doctrine, if it would be more than a formal description of the proceedings in a modern state by which a government is formed. The power of the state proceeds from God. One last reminder of this lives on in the religious formulas and forms with which modern peoples still surround the state and civil life. Any political power which has arisen out of anarchy may become a God-given governing authority, if it fulfills the tasks of the office of governing authority. This task is the assurance of peace and the maintenance of law through external power, the symbol of which is the sword. The governing authority is a "servant of God, the avenger for those who do evil." Legal governing authority is distinguished from religious power in that it not only (as does the latter) possesses power, but also uses its power in the service of law. Both belong to the essence of the state: power and law [Macht und das Recht].

A governing authority which bears the sword in vain, which no longer has the fortitude to decisively punish the law breaker, is in the process of burying itself. A state which removes the concepts "right" and "wrong" from jurisprudence and replaces them with "useful" and "injurious," "healthy" and "ill," "socially valuable" and "socially inferior," [a state] which in the place of the principle of remuneration places the principle of inoculation, a state which in its civil law dissolves marriage and family -- [such a state] ceases to be a constitutional state and thus the governing authority. A governing authority which knowingly or unknowingly makes the interests of social position or class the norm for the formation and definition of law, or which allows the norms of the law to be dictated by the so-called "legal consciousness" of the time, sinks to the level of raw power.

This danger exists now -- and this is not addressed by the Augustana -- for all governing authorities, and shall for all time. It exists especially in the modern democratic forms of government and in the dictatorship. For the result of the secularization process of the last century has been that the consciousness of eternal legal norms which are not determined by man has nearly perished. But where this consciousness ceases to exist, there God-given power is changed into demonic power, resulting in its ruin among peoples and states. But wherever on earth a governing authority -- irrespective of which form -- is conscious of a [civil] righteousness independent of its will, exercises the power of its office, upholds the law and guards the peace, there it is "God's good gift," there it is "by the grace of God."

What a juicy quote, eh? Sasse is evidently describing the sort of social development he saw in Germany ca. 1930, when this essay was first published. The door had been opened to the rightly infamous and undeniably diabolical socialism of Herr Adolph. The parallels to present-day America are uncanny.

Yet as Christians, we must ask whether a government "fulfills the tasks of the office of governing authority." Even a social democracy might accomplish that to some degree. If it does not, we should be able to describe how it does not, before we resist that government in any way.

What about the governing authority of King George, against which the Declaration of Independance was written? He may have been fulfilling the tasks of governing authority for his subjects east of the pond, but perhaps not for his subjects in America. I haven't quite reached a conclusion about this yet, but I think this might provide an acceptable meaning for the Declaration's statement about governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

What say you?

Since some of my fellow Americans seem to be mortally frightened of "theocracy," I'll help them back from the ledge by closing with Sasse's next paragraph, which states something important, but rather obvious to me. Unfortunately, it's not so obvious to everyone.

The task of the church over against the governing authorities is an especially difficult responsibility. It must guard itself against any illusion of a "Christian state" and must limit itself.

I recently had a conversation with a man who viewed Christianity through the lens of Bart Ehrman's work. In particular, this man mentioned his reliance upon Ehrman's book called "Misquoting Jesus." I haven't read any books by Ehrman, though I've now read snippets online, thanks in part to Google Books.

Ehrman's approach to scripture is highly praised by some. One reviewer was convinced that the emperor Constantine controlled the Council of Nicea, and through it, determined the canon of scripture we have today and the doctrine accepted as "orthodox." If that notion sounds familiar, it's because you heard about it in Dan Brown's fictional novel, The DaVinci Code. While that novel was still top on the bestseller lists, I happened to be in a Border's bookstore in Madison, Wisconsin, and couldn't help overhearing a loud conversation about it between two crunchy females, in which one exclaimed (so that all nearby could hear), "I'm so glad that the truth is finally coming out!" To them, Christianity as a whole was finally debunked.

I don't know if this is Ehrman's view too, but a good number of his disciples seem to hold it. His work that I perused on Google Books compiles several non-canonical books from the first few centuries after Christ, claiming that the are "lost scriptures" of Christianity. Reading his translations, it seems clear to me that they were not so much "lost" as simply rejected. They do not have the character of the New Testament scriptures, and contradict it in fundamental ways. Beside that, they all seem to have been written at relatively late dates in comparison with the New Testament scriptures. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Ehrman is able to hold these non-canonical books in similar regard to the New Testament canon not so much because he has elevated the importance of the non-canonical books (though that may also have happened), but because he has taken a rather low view of the New Testament scriptures. In particular, he doesn't seem to regard their self-claimed divine inspiration (e.g. 1 Peter 1:12, 2 Peter 1:21, John 20:31, 2 Timothy 3:16) as something worth believing. If these writings are not divinely inspired, then they are merely the products of various individuals, replete with redactions and copyist changes both intentional and unintentional. If they are not divinely inspired, then there's no reason to suppose that God has preserved them in any way through the history of the Church. If they are not divinely inspired, then it would make sense that the development of the New Testament canon was a mere exercise of human power and influence.

If the New Testament writings are not divinely inspired, though they claim to be, then there is no more reason to base our faith upon them then upon the writings of William Shakespeare.

However, if we believe the claim of divine inspiration, then all of those things are reversed. We are then not at liberty to dispose of any part of the scriptures, because there is no way for a mere creature to judge the writings of his Creator. We must even believe that the transmission of the New Testament text through the human work of scribes was somehow governed by God so that His original message was preserved. What's more, we are forced to believe what those writings say about Jesus, and that's really the center of this controversy. It's not so much about the Bible as about the one Person who is both true God, one with the Father, and true Man, born of the virgin Mary. It's about our utter need for a Savior, and the way in which He had to accomplish our salvation all alone, without any help from us. It seems clear to me that those are the things which Ehrman's disciples (generally speaking) really want to circumvent.

The scholarly credentials attached to Ehrman are impressive, and at least some of his disciples seem to think that those credentials should put an end to all argument against his work. However, in my slight reading of that work, I have found at least one obvious historical error. He claims that the Jewish canon (the Old Testament) was not assembled until well after the Christian era began. However, it's clear that the Septuagint (a common Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) existed well before Christ. Granted, there are details about the Septuagint which are unknown to many casual Bible students, but Ehrman's implication is that even the selection of our Old Testament books took place under some suspicious Christian influence. Not so. That the Septuagint also included apocryphal parts considered important by many Jews makes no difference. That the Septuagint was not really a single, authoritative version also makes no difference. The fact is that the Old Testament books were assembled together long before Jesus was born, so that He could refer to them all (The TaNaCH: Torah or Law, Neviim or Prophets, and Chetuvim or Writings) in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51, which mention the first and last murders recounted in the Jewish scriptures. The historical evidence against Ehrman's claim is not limited to the Septuagint, either. Yet for a Christian whose faith is in Jesus Christ, and is based upon the Bible, the decisive evidence against Ehrman's claim is Jesus' own acceptance and promotion of the Old Testament canon.

It's not hard to see that there is a chasm here between two parties, or even two worldviews. It's not between the scholarly and the unscholarly, but between those who believe that the biblical scriptures are intrinsically holy and those who believe they are made "holy" by the decisions and influence of mortal men. It's a divide of faith, more than anything else. There are many people who have been raised on the notion that the most worthy god we have is Science. It's the only religion allowed in American public schools. Meanwhile, Christianity has always embraced science as the beneficial study of Creation, but not having authority to trump what God has revealed. Many of the world's most significant scientific discoveries were made by Christians, based upon their biblical worldview. Ehrman's scholarship, on the other hand, represents the application of Science-as-religion to the sacred scriptures of Christianity.

The god of many understandings is a false god, an idol; that is, no god at all. Prayer to such a god is idolatry. A person claiming to speak to Christians about their god, and invoking a "god of many understandings" is a false prophet. It is impossible to approach the true, living God while avoiding Jesus.

An email comment on More Seeds of Discord highlights two challenges we face in achieving genuine agreement on a statement of doctrine.

I agree with your point about asking the right questions. But how to find those right questions?

Also, how to define something that ought to be simple, "What are plain words of Scripture?"

Since I don't have easy answers to these questions, I'll pronounce them "good questions." That's how it's usually done, right? But they are good questions, also because they can help us to avoid discord and promote harmony.

How to find the right questions? I think we'd have to take a practical approach to this. We don't need to go looking for theological questions to answer. Instead, we can address only the questions that arise from the circumstances in which we find ourselves. One of the first things we should do is identify the question being asked, and determine if it's merely speculative, or what authority is needed to produce a real answer. A question of language usage, for example, can be authoritatively answered by the speakers and writers themselves: "What are the various senses in which we use the term 'office of the ministry'?" A question of God's will, on the other hand, can only be answered by holy scripture -- if at all: "How does God wish us to regard Baptism?" With some questions, it may be impossible to tell what authority is required. I'd suggest that it may be easier to make headway by first rephrasing or even redefining the question. Only the authority of God's Word can provide a definitive, unchanging answer, and only questions that can be answered this way require complete agreement among Christians.

The commenter elaborated on the second point:

In this case, I think there are people at both ends of the continuum that claim the higher ground of adhering to the specific words of scripture. On the one hand are those who believe that Christ in specific places instituted a specific Ministry that is entrusted with the preaching of the word and administering of the sacraments.

There are on the other end of the continuum, those who see clearly in Scripture words that seem to indicate or imply or from which can be inferred the clear institution of a wider sense of the ministry.

And so you see, we have a difference in defining something that in English sounds very clear cut, "What does plain mean?"

Here we have suffered from some overlap of meaning. "No kidding," you say. In this example, we have the term "ministry" (capitalized or not), used in two different senses. In other parts of the whole ELS ministry conversation, we've seen the same thing with the term "office" (capitalized or not). If we really want to promote harmony, we will have to agree to some arbitrary language conventions that allow us to avoid this kind of imprecision and the resulting misunderstanding. I think the PMW attempts this rather well, but more can be done. For example, what if we agreed upon the convention of using "office" or "office of the ministry" for only one thing (the current "narrow sense," for example) while using "ministry" for the other? Artificial and arbitrary? Sure. But helpful, too. We would have to notice that these words were used with less precision (or at least a greater reliance upon context) in years past, and read our fathers' writings -- including the Confessions -- with that in mind.

If we could reliably distinguish these two related things that Scripture says have been instituted by God, then we'd see that there are really two categories of questions to be answered, one about "the ministry" and one about the "office of the ministry." No wonder, then, that each party can claim the higher ground, since they are talking about subtly different questions.

As far as what "plain" means -- as in "plain words of Scripture," my guess is that asking the right kind of questions will help a whole lot. We can expect no plain answer for speculative questions, or those that require only a human authority for their answer. Yet the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture is an article of faith. If we believe that Scripture is clear, then we will either find where it addresses the question plainly, or we will conclude in the end that God has not revealed the answer.

I welcome your further comments.

Quoted from LW 27:36-37:

The entire epistle gives ample evidence of how disappointed Paul was over the fall of the Galatians and of how often he pounded at them -- now with reproof, now with appeals -- about the very great and inestimable evils that would follow their fall unless they reconsidered. This care and admonition, so fatherly and truly apostolic, had no effect at all on some of them; for very many of them no longer acknowledged Paul as their teacher but vastly preferred the false apostles, from whom they imagined that they had derived true doctrine rather than from Paul. Finally the false apostles undoubtedly slandered Paul among the Galatians in this way: Paul, they said, was a stubborn and quarrelsome man, who was shattering the harmony among the churches on account of some trifle, for no other reason than because he alone wanted to be right and to be praised. With this false accusation they made Paul detestable in the eyes of many. Others, who had not yet fallen completely away from Paul's teaching, imagined that there was no harm in disagreeing a little with him on the doctrines of justification and faith. Accordingly, when they heard Paul placing such great emphasis on what seemed to them a matter of such minor importance, they were amazed and thought: "Granted that we have diverged somewhat from Paul's teaching and that there is some fault on our side, still it is a minor matter. Therefore he should overlook it or at least not place such great emphasis on it. Otherwise he could shatter the harmony among the churches with this unimportant issue."

If Luther's description of the situation is correct, would you have allowed Paul to remain an apostle in your church? Hard to say, unless you've lived through a similar situation, in which a conscientious teacher of God's Word is slandered in such a way. It would seem that breaking fellowship with Paul would be a worse evil than enduring the strife that resulted from his "stubborn and quarrelsome" nature. Luther continues:

Paul answers them with this excellent proverbial statement: "A little yeast leavens the whole lump." This is a caution which Paul emphasizes. We, too, should emphasize it in our time. For the sectarians who deny the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper accuse us today of being quarrelsome, harsh, and intractable, because, as they say, we shatter love and harmony among the churches on account of the single doctrine about the Sacrament. They say that we should not make so much of this little doctrine, which is not a sure thing anyway and was not specified in sufficient detail by the apostles, that solely on its account we refuse to pay attention to the sum total of Christian doctrine and to general harmony among all the churches. This is especially so because they agree with us on other articles of Christian doctrine. With this very plausible argument they not only make us unpopular among their own followers; but they even subvert many good men, who suppose that we disagree with them because of sheer stubbornness or some other personal feeling. But these are tricks of the devil, by which he is trying to overthrow not only this article of faith but all Christian doctrine.

The controversy over the sacrament is appropriate to consider. It serves as a good basis for comparison and contrast with more recent controversies, in which similar complaints have been made about "insufficient detail" in holy scripture to warrant such "sheer stubbornness."

In hindsight, we know that the chief question in that controversy was "What does the pastor distribute and the communicants receive in the Sacrament of the Altar?" The sectarians denied "the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper," while the Lutherans insisted upon it. Is it true that scripture provides "insufficient detail" to settle that controversy? Not at all, for how could Jesus have answered the question more simply and plainly? "This is My body."

Granted, not every theological question will have such a simple and plain answer in holy scripture. However, that does not mean that scripture will settle every controverted point. This shows that the theological questions we ask are just as important as the answers we give. For example, there are miles of difference between asking, "What is the office of the ministry of the Gospel?" and asking, "What do we mean by the term 'office of the ministry' in relation to the Gospel?" One answer will not be found in scripture. The other might, but the question still suffers from inexactness that will inevitably show up in the answer. Hence, the PMW and its tragic controversy. Some understood the question one way, others understood it another way, while a growing number understand it both ways simultaneously.

Remember doublethink? This is similar. But instead of holding two mutually contradictory propositions to be true (something akin to the Lutheran principle of living with the tension of apparent theological contradictions in scripture), this holds two mutually contrasting senses of an expression to be valid usage, each in its proper context. Its weakness is that the "sense" of an expression is not a matter of doctrine at all, but a matter of the ephemeral usage of language. However, it may be the best hope for the ELS to arrive at some kind of unified confession with regard to the PMW.

Final word from Luther:

To this argument of theirs we reply with Paul: "A little yeast leavens the whole lump." In philosophy a tiny error in the beginning is very great at the end. This in theology a tiny error overthrows the whole teaching. Therefore doctrine and life should be distinguished as sharply as possible. Doctrine belongs to God, not to us; and we are called only as its ministers. Therefore we cannot give up or change even one dot of it (Matt. 5:18). Life belongs to us; therefore when it comes to this, there is nothing that the Sacramentarians can demand of us that we are not willing and obliged to undertake, condone, and tolerate, with the exception of doctrine and faith, about which we always say what Paul says: "A little yeast, etc." On this score we cannot yield even a hairbreadth. For doctrine is like a mathematical point. Therefore it cannot be divided; that is, it cannot stand either subtraction or addition. On the other hand, life is like a physical point. Therefore it can always be divided and can always yield something.

Is the sense we impart to the words "This is my body" a matter of doctrine, or of life?

Is the sense we impart to the words "The office of the public ministry of the word" a matter of doctrine, or of life?

In one case, they are the words of holy scripture. In the other, they are not. What difference does that make? I may answer this question in a subsequent post, if it is not answered earlier in a comment.

You probably never thought of these two things at the same time before. I don't think I did, until I read just now this great little commentary in the words of Saruman of Many Colors. (White robes were no longer good enough for him.) I am amazed at how fitting they are in the context of contemporary worship. You see, worship is about power. In the true worship of the Christian Church, it's God's power to save, manifested in the forgiveness of sins and administered through the Means of Grace -- Word and Sacrament -- by those appointed to do so, according to His will. However, it's possible to substitute something else for that power of God. Hear Saruman:

"And listen, Gandalf, my old friend and helper!" he said, coming near and speaking now in a softer voice. "I said we, for we it may be, if you will join with me. A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Numenor. This then is one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means."

The point is that God has provided certain means to accomplish His gracious will, when and where it pleases the Holy Spirit. I use the term "Contemporary Worship" to describe the worship movement that seeks not "any real change in our designs, only in our means." If you or your pastor is considering changes to the Divine Service in the interest of evangelism, or in search of effectiveness among a certain demographic, then there is a good chance that you are playing the part of Saruman of Many Colors. Yes, there is such a thing as Christian freedom, but even the Wise can easily lose their way in matters greater than themselves.

The Church is not a business, though some aspects of business experience are helpful when managing earthly aspects of the Church.

Because of that, a Christian congregation is also not a business. Likewise, a synod or larger church body is not a business.

The business world is a bit like the military world. Decisions are made by a few, and everyone else has to follow them. Dissent is not tolerated. The leader(s) determine the principles of the organization, and anyone who contradicts them is terminated or disciplined.

This has been extended to publications. If an employee writes a book or blog that somehow comes against the principles or interests of his company, then he is in trouble. His allegiance, even in his privately published writings, is to his company. Personally, I think some companies have taken this way too far, but it's a free country. They have the right to be wrong, just like the rest of us.

In the Church, our primary allegiance is not to our own congregation, nor to our synod, per se. That would be a kind of idolatry. It would be denominationalism, like backing the Red Sox only because you live near Boston, rather than because they have any particular virtue or skill. Applied to baseball, that approach is fine. Applied to churches, it's wrong. Some churches and synods are more virtuous than others, because they hold to the Word of God in doctrine and practice better than others.

This article, linked from the Drudge Report, makes some claims meant to disturb Christians. The discovery it describes is interesting, and I'd like to hear more about how it pans out. However, some of the application is sensational, to say the least. Here's a bit quoting Israel Knohl, described as "an iconoclastic professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem:"

"This should shake our basic view of Christianity," he said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University. "Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."

That's about all you need to understand what someone is trying to do with this story.

The news here is that a stone with writing on it is supposed to date from the first century before Christ. It was discovered in connection with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have provided many ancient writings, including the oldest known OT manuscripts in existence. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed the accuracy of the OT manuscripts extant at the time of their discovery.

This stone is being promoted as a challenge to the basic tenet of Christianity: that Jesus died and rose again the third day (counting the day He died). That's more or less what this article seems to claim, though it may not actually say so explicitly.

The key point is that the writing on the stone says something about a savior dying and rising again on the third day.

Toward the end of the article, we learn what Mr. Knohl considers the important aspect: "the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus." This is important, he says, because "in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day."

I don't know who these NT scholars are, but they're wrong. My guess is that they consider the NT in isolation from the OT. That's always a bad idea. The Bible, though not homogenous in terms of human origin or style, is completely united in divine origin and purpose. These NT scholars may also consider the NT not to have a divine origin, especially in the sense of plenary inspiration. In any case, Mr. Knohl would be correct that an artifact like this stone, referring to a salvific death and resurrection, should help to set those NT scholars straight.

The article ends with a supposedly-devastating application of this discovery: "To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel." Huh? I don't see how that's even a challenge for Christianity.

The Church of the NT is Israel. As horrible as it may sound to some Jews, the believing Gentiles have been grafted into the olive tree of Israel (see Romans 11), while the unbelieving Jews have rejected their own honor and glory. Jesus is a Jew. The OT Scriptures, the Tanakh, is all about the Messiah in one way or another. That means it's all about Jesus, including His death and resurrection. Read the letter to the Hebrews once or twice, and the pattern begins to emerge.

What does redemption mean? A lot of Jews had it wrong, including Jesus' disciples from time to time (Luke 24:21, Acts 1:6), and possibly including the person who wrote on this stone. But Isaiah had it right (44:22), as well as Hosea (13:14), both being OT prophets to Israel.

How's this for putting it delicately?

May [God] keep us from ever again falling into the folly of extorting for dim verdicts a credulous Amen.

(p. 103, The Complete Timotheus Verinus)

There's a reasonably good summary on the Council of Nicea at LiveScience. The writer shows small appreciation for the implications of Arianism's divergence from orthodoxy, but in such a short piece, there's hardly room for all that anyway. The bit about the Son being of the same substance doesn't really do justice to the earlier part of the Nicene Creed's second article: "...God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God; begotten, not made..."

It is worth noting that from a secular-historical point of view, Arians were Christians, and thus the Christian Church at the time was possibly more Arian than orthodox, if counted democratically. From a theological point of view, however, Christians are defined by doctrine, not by labels alone. This might be hard for some of our contemporaries to grasp, but it has been the Christian approach from the Beginning. Therefore, the Arians were not Christians, just as their present-day counterparts (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and the like) are not Christians.