Pastor Hannah,
I read your article, and beyond your talk of half full and half empty glasses (an overused cliche),I would like to know what you're trying to say when you write "The LCMS...cannot overcome the temptation to believe in the salvation of being "better than thou." I have been quite familiar with the LCMS and have not found that to be the case. I have known humble men and women who love their Lord, who worship regularly and desire to reach others with the Good News of the Gospel. What charges do you level against them to accuse them of a "better than thou" attitude? The problem I have had is that you tend to write in generalities without backing up your allegations. What is the "Eucharistic legalism" that you speak of? Surely you recognise the horizontal relationship as well as the vertical one at our Lord's Supper. Are you suggesting that clergy should commune even those who have not been prepared to understand the Sacrament of the Alter? In light of 1 Corinthians, do you deny that one can partake to one's harm? Do you question the role of pastoral concern for the communicant? It's hard to understand where you're going here. How can you accuse the LCMS of "maintaining rigid purity?" If you have followed the LCMS from the break-up of the Synodical Conference to its most recent synodical conferences, you can certainly not claim they have maintained "rigid purity." I hope you will be so kind as to clarify your points. Also, are you advocating the ordination of women in the LCMS? On what would you base such a practice? Since Scripture does not support such a practice, what have you turned to? Even Holy Tradition will not serve you here. You have nearly two-thousand years of ecclesiastical history to contend with. Or, do you suppose that the church should merely change with the times? If so, I'm afraid your anchor is misplaced.

It seems to me that Dr. Hannah has pretty much hit the nail on the head regarding the LCMS, as seems to be his gift.

Any reading of the history of the LCMS, especially from those whose love for the Synod makes it necessary to describe things as they are, not necessarily as the official history would describe it.

Since the LCMS is my adopted tribe, I am most familiar with her history, especially for the past 30 years I have been a member. Throughout my formation in her schools, I heard over and over again that we were always right and those other Christians, especially other Lutherans, are wrong. That is pure hagiography. We do a lot of things in ways that seem almost suicidal, and Dr. Hannah addresses a couple of them. That being said, we do occasionally do some things very well, but in my view most of those things done well were right for the past but of little use for the future. Like the ELCA, we are but a shell of what a vibrant, catholic and welcoming Lutheranism could be, and perhaps once was. Truth be told, the LCMS has never done well with the Church at large, but tends greatly towards sectarianism. Why, for example, with the new and very well done LSB could we not simply adopt the RCL for our Scripture lessons each Sunday? We must always make things our own way, which makes us seem sectarian. A review of the past 100 years shows how we have insulated ourselves from the rest of Christianity, and how we seek to continue living in our cocoon.

I tend to see life and ministry as a glass overflowing with the grace and mercy of our Triune God; and our glass sits in a large ocean called the Christian Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The water that fills our glass is not our own; it is the gift of God to us to use for our little piece of the Church. Like the old joke about heaven, it seems like the rest of the Church sees us as a glass immersed within her, the joke is that we see ourselves as the only glass that sits along side of the bowl.

"Why, for example, with the new and very well done LSB could we not simply adopt the RCL for our Scripture lessons each Sunday? We must always make things our own way, which makes us seem sectarian." Dave, with all due respect, I must differ with you here. Which lectionary one uses, and even whether one uses a lectionary at all is a matter of adiaphora. Scripture neither commands nor forbids the use of a lectionary, neither does it command uniformaity in worship practices from the ecclesia in one place to the ecclesia in another. Those who put the LSB together were wise to choose that which they believed to be best, rather than simply binding themselves to another lectionary just because other Christians use it. The Holy Spirit is not so limited that He cannot work apart from organizational unity. The word "catholic" still has a lowercase "c", and we should not bemoan diversity in the church as some imaginary wall that must come down. Diversity existed in the early church, as some apostles were sent to the Jews, others to the Gentiles. Even within the church of Rome, is there not some diversity from Augustinians to Dominicans to Jesuits? Certainly there are the Oriental churches of the Roman Catholic church, who do not fit the model of conformity in the Roman sect.

Rik: though I do not know you (do I?) somehow I am not surprised that you do not agree with me.

Easter triumph, Easter joy!

Yes, you may know me, and Tami remembers you too, if you were at the University under the cross in the late 1980s, where IN LUCE TUA VIDEMUS LUCEM. So, I'm curious...Why are you not surprised? "Easter triumph, Easter joy! This alone can sin destroy;From sin's pow'r, Lord, set us free, Newborn souls in you to be. Alleluia!" (office hymn, 17th cent.; tr. Robert Campbell, 1814-68, alt.

Y no llamen "padre" a nadie en la tierra, porque ustedes tienen un solo Padre, y él está en el cielo. Mt. 23.9

If you have followed the LCMS from the break-up of the Synodical Conference to its most recent synodical conventions, you can certainly not claim they have maintained "rigid purity."

RIK:

Reforms in the history of the church have always been generated in the midst of a majority who didn't believe reform was necessary. Perhaps the reforms I project will not occur. Then you need not worry. If they do occur, you need not support them. In any event, I am mindful of the words of one of the fathers, "In the sixteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when a person's salvation is made to depend on his association with the visible orthodox Church and when salvation is denied to every person who errs in any article of faith." Remember also that the synodical catechism changed the question to, "Who should not come to Communion?" I had been, "Who should come?" There are good, sound arguments for not ordaining women. The alleged God given superiority of men is not one of them. My mother taught be better.

Pawstor Hannah:
You quoted "the words of one of the fathers, "In the sixteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when a person's salvation is made to depend on his association with the visible orthodox Church and when salvation is denied to every person who errs in any article of faith." I couldn't agree with you more. While the church is present, wherever the Word is proclaimed in its purity and the Sacraments are rightly administered, anywhere where God's Holy Word is proclaimed, heard, read, etc., the Word of God is efficacious! Some may reject God's Word, but you are absolutely right that salvation in no way depends upon any one's ties to a visable church. While any false teaching taken to its logical conclusion would lead to unbelief, thanks be to God that he grants the sons and daughters of men such inconsistency that prevents them from unbelief. Nonetheless, one would desire to be feeding on spiritual food from an orthodox church, rather than purposefully subjecting themselves to teachings they know to be contrary to their shepherd's voice (as known through Holy Scripture). One may stay in an heterodox church for a time, to testify to the truth of God's Word, but dare we think that false teaching cannot harm us? If our witness falls on deaf ears, we would do well--in my opinion--to find a congregation whose teachings are in accordance with our Master. -Rik. I agree with your statements regarding womens' ordination as well: Good reasons and wrong reasons not to ordain them. Thank you, pastor, for your reply.

"-Rik" was intended to be a signature, with a postscript following. The way it appears is as though I were calling Rik "Master." Not only was this not intended, but I would never wish that for any of our sakes. The God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob: Father, Son & Holy Ghost is the one true God--there is none other! -Rik.

John Hannah, with your quote from Mark Granquist, “One possible way out of these trends is to go to the root again and rebuild a Lutheran identity on a genuine confessional identity, one that might be stronger than the socio-cultural identities that have tended to characterize American Lutheranism in the past,” you have landed, somewhat by accident, on exactly the problem.

What if a “confessional identity” is part and parcel of a Northern European “socio-cultural identity”? What if the very notion of a confessional faith, presupposes a certain cultural worldview to start with? I have never heard anyone; either inside or outside the Lutheran Church ever address this foundational question. If the notion of a confessional faith is a plant that only grows in certain cultural soils, then a pursuit of a multi-cultural Lutheran faith is an idea that is already DOA.

I would sincerely like to know how others here might approach this foundational question.

GLEN:

Lutheranism has successfully planted itself throughout the world and is not confined to wetern culture. There certainly are many, many traits and characteristics of Lutheranism we know that are culturally based. Those are usually based upon spurious extra-confessional and sub-confessional doctrines.

Thank you for your reply. I’m not contesting the fact that across the globe there are countless churches and worship communities with Lutheran in their names. But I’ve been to churches in my area whose services have become so generic that they easily could replace the “Lutheran” in their name with “Community” without causing a single person to notice. And there is at least one, and probably more, ELCA Lutheran churches here in the San Francisco Bay Area alone, that are not even technically Christian anymore. For all intents and purposes, the name “Lutheran” has become no more than a brand name or a corporate franchise, that groups can license and use however they see fit.

But back to the basics, what exactly is a Lutheran anyway? I was born a Lutheran, raised Lutheran and will die Lutheran. My parents were Lutheran. My grandparents and all of their ancestors back to the Old Country were Lutheran. But, besides generational inertia, could you, as a Pastor, explain to anyone, why, out of all the flavors of Christian worship there are, they should become a Lutheran? Could you stand up in front of a congregation and say, “We Lutherans are unique and special among all of the other Christian denominations in that we…(fill-in-the-blank).” And continue with, “I was drawn to the Lutheran Church because the uniquely Lutheran approach to scriptural understanding and style of worship I found there made me feel spiritually at home in ways no other church I’ve attended was able to do.

If the Lutheran Church’s own pastors can’t do this, then maybe it is time to retire the Lutheran brand name; much the same way as GM is retiring the Pontiac line of cars. When a team’s coaches can’t find the excitement inside themselves to root for their own team, then nobody should be surprised when the players stop trying and the fans decide to stay home.

Pastor Hannah's claim, one that I've read him make elsewhere, often, that the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is a "massive ecumenical advance" is simply an assertion without solid theological evidence. When a good number of the members of the LWF did not adopt it, when a very large number of the most prominent Lutheran theologians in Germany rejected it, and when there is such a clear case to be made that the JDDJ represented a Lutheran compromise of the key terms and understandings of Justification, and to top it all off, when the Vatican itself took great care to make clear, after the JDDJ was finished, that nothing of substance has changed in Rome's position on justification, and went out of its way to make clear the Canons of the Council of Trent apply as much as ever before, Pr. Hannah's claims simply do not hold up under closer scrutiny.

Persons wishing to explore the problems with the JDDJ in more detail can start here:

www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/justclp.pdf

Well, that's interesting. An LCMS theologian appealing to contemporary German theology!
Not to nitpick, but 1) Rome under Ratzinger can hardly be expected to follow up on JDDJ, but to what extent has the LWF followed up on JDDJ? 2) In JDDJ Rome does not concede to justification the preeminent hermeneutical status Lutheran's accord it as the test of church life, but restricts itself to dogmatic issues. 3) To deny that JDDJ makes great progress on the traditional dogmatic questions is hard to understand except as willfull stubbornness, just like what afflicted those protesting German theologians (though the best of the lot, Eberhard Juengel, switched from opposition, and supported it). To overcome an exclusively forensic teaching of justification, and return to Luther's teaching of divine, Spirit-wrought faith in which the crucified and risen Lord is present both for us to forgive and in us to renew is progess indeed -- and not just for Catholics!

PAUL:

Paul Hinlicky has responded well. I would add one suggestion to his comments. In addition to the JDDJ, consider the very similar work done by non-Lutherans, namely "The Gift of Salvation" by Evangelicals and Catholics Together. This work led by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus again suggest that our ecumenical identity need not depend upon the blanket rejection of Rome. "The gift of Salvation" is another of many succesful projects contributing to massive ecumenical advances.

JOHN:

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that you persist in misrepresenting the JDDJ as a "massive ecumenical advance" when clearly, it is not, and was not. I have also never read a careful analysis by you of the substance of the protests issued by the German Lutheran theologians and the detailed response issued by both of the seminary faculties of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and the LCMS Commission on Theology on Church Relations. I would welcome such careful analysis on your part.

PTM

My Anklage here is that the missing voice in the international RC/Lutheran dialogs has been the Missouri Synod and its international reps (ILC). Of course, these groups represent a small minority of global Lutherans numerically. So why should anyone care?

I believe Benedict XVI cares. And would enjoy and support the presence of the Missouri Synod and its allies at these tables. He said so in as many words with a great big smile when he greeted me in New York a year ago. "Greet them all in the Missouri Synod for me," he said.

So, does the Missouri Synod care to be involved? There are obstacles. One is recent past history in which the Missouri Synod felt the need not only to disagree, but to file minority reports to various round-tables. Not a way to win friends and get that return ticket.

The other is that the Missouri Synod, taking the LWF's statement of its own identity as a "church" at its own word, which in my opinion is not an accurate word, cannot participate even as an associate member because there would be occasion for false fellowship rather than simply membership in an organization. This little conundrum has got to be solvable. If the Missouri Synod and its allied members were associate members of the LWF, then application for various ecumenical dialogs would not be viewed as independent activity by the other partners, but as collaborative diversity from inside the Lutheran framework.

Actually, there was overwhelming acceptance of the JDDJ by LWF members. It was only the handful of German theologians who protested. In fact, it was the first time since 1580 that Lutherans across the world have made a joint agreement among *themselves* about the doctrine of justification!

Sarah,the facts about the "adoption" of the JDDJ do not bear out what you are claiming. It was the LWF's General Council that announced that it was "accepted" by the LWF, when in fact members were invited to vote, but many either voted no, or did not vote at all. At the time, the Vatican expressed its concern that the LWF was making claims about the extent to which it spoke for worldwide Lutheranism. And when you describe the protesting German Lutheran theologians as a "handful" I think you are understanding the case. In fact, 165 of the top "teaching theologians" in Germany expressed their serious concerns, an effort initiated by Gerhard Ebeling and Eberhard Jungel. The professors asserted, among other things, that there had be no consensus reached on the doctrine of justification and the key issue at the time of the Reformation remained unresolved; namely, the role of good works in salvation.

And finally, your claim that Lutherans "across the world have made a joint agreement among themselves about the doctrine of justification" certainly is overstatement, to say the least.

As quickly became obvious when the leadership of the Lutheran World Federation hailed the "Joint Declaration" as a breakthrough is that, in fact, it was not. Rome was very careful quickly to clarify at its announcement that the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent are very much in full force. Hundreds of the most well-respected theologians in Germany issued a statement declaring that the Joint Declaration represented an unacceptable compromise of the central article of the Christan faith, the very heart of the Gospel itself: the doctrine that we are saved by grace, alone, through faith alone. Rome has never denied that it is by grace, alone, that we are saved, but it has repeatedly denied that it is through faith alone that we are saved.

What is so painfully difficult for those of us who subscribe to the Book of Concord, unconditionally and without reservation, is that the Bishop of Rome and those who regard him as the Vicar of Christ on earth, are our separated brethren. As we Lutherans clearly and repeatedly confess, through even the darkest years of the Roman Church's history, the Gospel was still read, the Body and Blood of Christ was still received by communicants, and by God's providence, even in the midst of the darkness of Christ-obscuring error, the Gospel still shone forth, for the Word of the Lord endures forever. That is why it is all the more painful that the Church of Rome still continues to propagate such deeply anti-Gospel teachings.

To any extent that Martin Luther is regarded as less of a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church, we can be glad and rejoice, for to that degree then the writings of Luther will be read and studied and the Holy Spirit can, and will, work through the pure Gospel therein proclaimed to move hearts away from the errors of Rome and into the light of the truth of Christ. For this we can give thanks and rejoice and pray ever more fervently for the unity of the Church, a unity not consisting of compromise and faithless neglect of the truth, but a unity rooted, grounded and growing in the Truth of God's most Holy Word.

We can all rejoice in any progress away from the traditional errors that still are very much in place, but we dare not forget, neglect the fact that the Bishop of Rome, in his role as Cardinal Ratzinger, was very careful to make it clear that the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification did not, in any way, change, alter or set aside the historic condemnations of the Council of Trent over against the Lutheran doctrine of justification.

Let's be careful not to forget what Trent declared over against the Gospel:

CANON 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

CANON 12: "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed."

Canon 14: "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema."

Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."

Canon 30: "If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema."

Canon 33: "If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

Here is an excellent Q/A on the issue of Rome, Lutheranism and Justification:

Q. I would like to understand the main problem your church body has with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (signed October 31 by representatives of the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church). Is it the fact that it implies that we are saved as a result of both faith and works?

A. Yes, you are on the right track here. The recently signed Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) does not signal a change in the Roman Catholic church, but rather, a willingness on the part of the Lutherans who signed it to allow Rome's doctrine of justification to stand as a valid interpretation of what the Bible teaches us about justification. This is something that the Lutheran church has never done before, and in fact, it is a great tragedy and a profoundly sad moment in the history of Lutheranism.

Rome historically has always taught that we are saved by grace, and grace alone. They emphasize that very strongly. The 16th century Council of Trent makes this point very clear. Thus, there is nothing new on this in the Declaration on this point, even though some Lutherans have made it sound as if Rome's words about grace signal some marvelous breakthrough.

What you probably have not heard is that the JDDJ very carefully avoid precise definitions of the words grace, faith, sin, etc. That is no accident. Careful definition of those terms would have shown how far apart our two churches actually are on the doctrine of justification.

The problem with Rome's view of justification is that they view it as a process, whereby we cooperate with God's grace in order to merit eternal life for ourselves, and even for others (that is a paraphrase of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches). They view grace as a sort of "substance" that God infuses into us that permits us to do those works that are necessary in order that we might earn more grace. The Bible describes grace as the loving and favorable disposition of God; in other words, grace is all about what God is doing and giving.

We distinguish between the result of justification, which is the Christian life, and the work of God to save us. Rome mixes sanctification with justification. Why is this view troublesome? Because it teaches that something other than trust in Christ is necessary for or salvation. That "something other" is what we bring to the table. And the only thing we do bring to the table is our sin, not our good works. Our works are a response that God works in us, but not a contributing cause to our justification.

The Roman Catholic Church is very careful to state that even this "something other" is made possibly only because God has given us the "initial" grace to desire more grace. But in practical reality, it is apparent that the Roman Catholic Church is finally throwing people back on relying on what they are doing, or can do, to merit eternal life. When we mix in our works in the picture of our salvation, the glory and merit of Christ always end up becoming obscured.

But the Bible is clear that it is purely by grace, not by works, or else grace would just be a "help" for us to do the works that finally are what merit God's forgiveness. In the Roman Catholic view, justification is a process by which we participate with God in achieving our salvation. The Biblical view is that justification is God's declaration of our complete righteousness and total forgiveness, apart from any works. This gift is received by faith alone--apart from works (Rom. 3:28; Eph. 2:8-9).

Another point to be made is this: If, in fact, Rome does teach justification as the Bible teaches it, then there should be an immediate change in its view of indulgences, prayer to the saints and the myriad of other extra-biblical traditions that it has embraced. For if justification is the heart and center of the Bible, then these other things are incompatible with it.

I hope this helps you see that the Roman Catholic view of justification and the classical Lutheran view are definitely not complementary, but diametrically opposed to one another. The JDDJ did not change that fact. The Lutherans who signed the document did not insist on careful definition of terms so as to make absolutely clear that our salvation is by faith alone, through Christ alone, by grace alone.

The best short study of the historic differences between Rome and Lutheranism on the doctrine of justification is available in a book called "Justification and Rome" by Robert Preus. You may purchase a copy of this book from Concordia Publishing House (CPH) (800-325-3040).

The most complete treatment of this subject is in the 16th century Lutheran response to Trent, which still stands today as the best and most complete treatment of Trent by a Lutheran. It is "The Examination of the Council of Trent" by Martin Chemnitz, also available through CPH.

And here is a superbly done analysis of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification which shows how, tragically, Lutherans compromised the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/justclp.pdf

I certainly concur with you when you wrote, "It does become harder to maintain much optimism when situations (like the state of the Church or the economy) are bad and out of my control." It can be frustrating when we feel powerless. If we look at history, that doesn't seem to encorage optimism. How many schisms have been reversed? The Bishop of Rome (Pope) and the Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated each other. Has this been undone? The pope's claim to superiority has only become more puffed up over the centuries. To this day, have the Eastern Orthodox churches truly reconsidered the teaching that the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father AND THE SON? " Yet history is always comforting for it shows that virtually nothing remains the same. It can better just as it can get worse." Much of what I see in history has gotten worse and worse. The Council of Trent still stands, and while Vatican II helped, the anathema still stands. The Synodical Conference of North America disbanded when the LCMS would not heed the godly admonision of her sister synods (including the ELS, WELS, and now CLC, etc.). "Rigid purity?" Where's the purity, even after the walk-out in St. Louis, the creation of Seminex, the formation of the short-lived AELC which united such unlike groups: the liberal LCA with the more conservative ALC into the ELCA. Looking back on the years since her formation, is the larger ELCA all that different from the old LCA? A dream. A dream of rebuilding American "Lutheran identity on a genuine confessional identity" sounds grandiose indeed. First, we need some operational definitions: What is a "genuine confessional identity?" Quia or quatenus? Subscription to some of the confessions, or all of them, including the Formula of Concord? Yes, a confessional revival could be refreshing indeed, but would it be directed by committees trying to please everybody, or would it be directed by the Holy Spirit in His timing, in accord with God's Holy Word." Let's pray for God to breathe new life into His bride, the church. But don't look down on those who, in godly wisdom, are at least suspicious. "God is doing a new thing!" sounds great on the surface. But, before we are swept up in the enthusiasm of the moment, should we not see first if it is really God doing the new thing? We are told to "test the spirits." I would be only too glad to have optimism toward genuine eclesiastical healing. But I find it hard to believe when I hear my brothers and sisters crying out the childish words: "You first!!" May God help me to see that He is in control of all history, and Lord of the church. May His Spirit draw people to Him in genuine unity. Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus.