Document Actions
Reflecting on the Bad Guys in Lent: Peter
by
Sarah Wilson
—
March 02, 2010
Peter is the icon of the sinner-saint. We always find ourselves in his shoes. He’s the one who leaps out onto the water because of his great faith in Christ, and then halfway there—when the miracle is evidently working just fine—that’s when he panics and starts to sink. He’s the one who confesses first that Jesus is the Messiah, not a prophet or Elijah or John the Baptist, for which the Lord praises him and the blessing of divine revelation that granted Peter this insight; yet within three verses Peter’s telling the Messiah that he’s not allowed to go to the cross, which is Satan speaking from within him...
Peter is the icon of the sinner-saint. We always find ourselves in his shoes. He’s the one who leaps out onto the water because of his great faith in Christ, and then halfway there—when the miracle is evidently working just fine—that’s when he panics and starts to sink. He’s the one who confesses first that Jesus is the Messiah, not a prophet or Elijah or John the Baptist, for which the Lord praises him and the blessing of divine revelation that granted Peter this insight; yet within three verses Peter’s telling the Messiah that he’s not allowed to go to the cross, which is Satan speaking from within him. And of course, Peter’s the one who protests that he’s prepared to go to the cross with Jesus—apparently he recovered from his earlier mistake—but a few hours later loudly denies his beloved master not once or twice but three whole times. Whatever its doctrinal status or popularity, simul justus et peccator’s most compelling proof is Peter himself.
The weird thing is, Peter’s recurring failures are good news for those of who are already Christians. He points up one huge, glaring, disturbing, but indisputable fact: just because you get that Jesus is Lord doesn’t mean that you get every consequence that flows from it. You can get Jesus, you can get got by Jesus, and still make massive and embarrassing mistakes. The history of doctrine is the Peters of the church sorting out what exactly it means that they’ve called Jesus Lord—and as often as not, they have drawn the wrong conclusion. The Lord reaches out to them sinking in the seas of their own creation and draws them, and the church, back out again. The history of each Christian life, unique in its struggles and insights, follows the same pattern—even once Jesus is known and loved as Lord, we often fail to see what it means for each part of our lives, choices, and convictions. Errors and just plain confusion are not barred from the doors of the church. If there were any doubt about Peter as our hapless guide—for maybe we could blame this on pre-resurrection cloudiness of vision—we have his massive mistake in refusing table fellowship with the Gentiles, which results in Paul accusing him of falsifying the gospel itself. This is a mistake of Peter the apostle, healer of the sick, raiser of the dead, preacher of the risen Lord he has seen with his own eyes.
The bad news: the church has harbored, does harbor, and will harbor mistakes. The good news: just as God was not too holy to descend and live among sinners, so faith is not too absolute to refuse congress with doubt and error. Which means, faith is really a possibility for us, even in our noisy falsehoods and self-justifications. Once faith gets a foothold, error will start to give way—but the whole point of justification of faith is not that our perfection of faith saves us, but that the perfect object of our faith does. Jesus accepts our misguided, in-a-glass-darkly faith, transfiguring it, and us, as we wend our pilgrim way on this earth.
Exalting in our inclusion?
Posted by
Henry
at
March 06, 2010 15:51
So Peter, we in the ELCA should thank God we are able to embrace everyone in our theological doubts, fears, and ambiguities. . .unlike those CORE separatists and "closed" communion LCMS bigots over there?!
more my failure to comprehend
Posted by
Peter
at
March 07, 2010 09:41
Henry,
I would say we should thank God IF we are able to embrace and love everyone as people. There is a lot of anger and misunderstanding on all sides, and we need to work together to heal that anger and misunderstanding.
My questions reflect more my lack of understanding of the thinking in the LCMS and CORE than just rhetoric against them. I can't read Sarah's reflection as anything that can be consistent with either leaving the church or closed communion. HOW do those in the LCMS and CORE understand what she wrote? Is this politeness on the part of those in the LCMS, that they all KNOW this is poor theology, but would rather not point this out to her? Similarly for the argument-weary CORE folks? Looking to avoid one more discussion in fear that it will lead to further schism with the people they're already leaving? Given the call for doctrinal purity, though, and the stated declaration that CORE MUST draw a line in the sand in regards the homosexuality issue (and hence "congress with doubt and error"), it seems like warning fellow supporters of the error would be of paramount importance.
More likely, I suspect that we might agree that Sarah wrote a nice reflection grounded in Reformation theology. If we have that common agreement, though, how does what she wrote apply to the issues of leaving the church or practicing closed communion in any way that is consistent with those choices? I am curious as to how the logic flows from what was written here to supporting either leaving the church or practicing closed communion.
I would say we should thank God IF we are able to embrace and love everyone as people. There is a lot of anger and misunderstanding on all sides, and we need to work together to heal that anger and misunderstanding.
My questions reflect more my lack of understanding of the thinking in the LCMS and CORE than just rhetoric against them. I can't read Sarah's reflection as anything that can be consistent with either leaving the church or closed communion. HOW do those in the LCMS and CORE understand what she wrote? Is this politeness on the part of those in the LCMS, that they all KNOW this is poor theology, but would rather not point this out to her? Similarly for the argument-weary CORE folks? Looking to avoid one more discussion in fear that it will lead to further schism with the people they're already leaving? Given the call for doctrinal purity, though, and the stated declaration that CORE MUST draw a line in the sand in regards the homosexuality issue (and hence "congress with doubt and error"), it seems like warning fellow supporters of the error would be of paramount importance.
More likely, I suspect that we might agree that Sarah wrote a nice reflection grounded in Reformation theology. If we have that common agreement, though, how does what she wrote apply to the issues of leaving the church or practicing closed communion in any way that is consistent with those choices? I am curious as to how the logic flows from what was written here to supporting either leaving the church or practicing closed communion.
Who is the Church?
Posted by
Henry
at
March 08, 2010 12:16
I have no problem with Sarah's blog. But I doubt that even she would defend it as reflecting an exhaustive or comprehensive understanding of Lutheranism. Often, sentiments not expressed are as revealing as those that are. Perhaps the CORE folks understand that Christ did indeed give his Church a Key to forgive sins, but only the sins of the "penitent", and that He also gave it another Key, to retain the sins of the "impenitent". They probably realize that CWA09 was not simply a matter of Lutherans being more "welcoming" to fellow Christians. . .merely exercising the sanctified life in Christ, but one that deals directly with the doctrine of Justification.
Who are the impenitent? Who is and who is not part of His church? And what about all these warnings in Scripture over false teachers and such? Aren't we all, including the impenitent, just imperfect, erring "believers" who are simply confused, and therefore not to be "barred from the doors of the church" for something that never is really ever our fault?
I suspect that those who support leaving the church or support the practice of closed communion are those who, through the Word and Spirit, know themselves as persons who will someday have to give an account before the Almighty, and therefore take the Office of the Keys and Confession seriously.
Who are the impenitent? Who is and who is not part of His church? And what about all these warnings in Scripture over false teachers and such? Aren't we all, including the impenitent, just imperfect, erring "believers" who are simply confused, and therefore not to be "barred from the doors of the church" for something that never is really ever our fault?
I suspect that those who support leaving the church or support the practice of closed communion are those who, through the Word and Spirit, know themselves as persons who will someday have to give an account before the Almighty, and therefore take the Office of the Keys and Confession seriously.
Justification
Posted by
Peter
at
March 09, 2010 21:13
We're all going to have to give an accounting of ourselves before God. Problem is that we will all fail that final exam. Fortunately for us, we are not justified because we keep God's commandments or we repent of the correct sins at the correct times but we are justified by Christ who paid our penalty with His blood and only by that. Sarah nailed it exactly in her post: "but the whole point of justification of faith is not that our perfection of faith saves us, but that the perfect object of our faith does". That's specifically NOT 'the perfect object of [only the penitents'] faith does' Do you split hairs on her statement that "faith is not too absolute to refuse congress with doubt and error" such that only errors and doubts 'of the penitents' are OK, but others are not?
The interesting thing with the warnings about false teachers is that everyone reads those texts to support their viewpoint. I, too, believe it's absolutely imperative that we as the church get that doctrine of justification-- the Gospel-- and how to proclaim it right. I would even say that the correct way is properly dividing Law and Gospel.
I don't believe we're victims of things that are not our fault. Even we, who have learned about Christ our entire lives, fail God again and again. We all are the impenitent. We properly have death and worse coming (incidentally, do you disagree with Bonhoeffer's analysis of suicide in Ethics? His argument is essentially that the overwhelming majority of us will be impenitent the moment we die and yet that is not automatically a roadblock to salvation). All the penitence in the world does not summon God to action, rather it is given as a gift-- God Himself freely takes our penalty and gives us new life. More than that, we need to find that promise every day, daily drowning the Old Adam in the waters of baptism.
The interesting thing with the warnings about false teachers is that everyone reads those texts to support their viewpoint. I, too, believe it's absolutely imperative that we as the church get that doctrine of justification-- the Gospel-- and how to proclaim it right. I would even say that the correct way is properly dividing Law and Gospel.
I don't believe we're victims of things that are not our fault. Even we, who have learned about Christ our entire lives, fail God again and again. We all are the impenitent. We properly have death and worse coming (incidentally, do you disagree with Bonhoeffer's analysis of suicide in Ethics? His argument is essentially that the overwhelming majority of us will be impenitent the moment we die and yet that is not automatically a roadblock to salvation). All the penitence in the world does not summon God to action, rather it is given as a gift-- God Himself freely takes our penalty and gives us new life. More than that, we need to find that promise every day, daily drowning the Old Adam in the waters of baptism.
In praise of Agnosticism?
Posted by
Henry
at
March 09, 2010 22:32
I'll grant you, Peter, that you are certainly tenatious in your efforts to redefine such terms as "faith", "repentance" "penitance" as somehow meaning "works of the law." Me thinks that you secretly delight in draining Christian piety of all its holiness, blessedness and even the Holy Spirit, not so much because it exalts Christ, but because a less divine God is oh so much more approachable. Yet, you do not seem to grasp how how dangerous (and against Holy Scripture) such indifference to a sinner's penitance or lack thereof, truly is! The notion that this method of deprecating "faith" and "repentance" (as if penitence deserves our disdain for fear of synergism and impenitence our praise for its honesty) somehow elevates the doctrine of Justification is nonsense. In reality, it is a blurring of sin & grace and Law & Gospel. For a "God who is not too holy to descend to earth to live among sinners" may give psychological comfort to some, particularly the impenitent, but such sentiments, unwittingly and foolishly, are indeed antinomian. They undermine God's divine purpose, that of Christ's redemption of the sin of mankind, and the assurance of salvation.
works of the law
Posted by
Peter
at
March 10, 2010 07:28
What stands in contrast to "works of the law"? "Works of grace", somehow implied to be able to save us, seems to be the contrast. The problem is that so long as these are OUR works, they won't save us. (and as long as we believe they are things we can do to make it right with God, they remain works of law-- it's not what's said so much as how it is proclaimed. when repentance is proclaimed as justification, it is a work of the law, just like the AC says proclaiming the Gospel becomes a work of the law when the state tries to mandate the Gospel, or back it with the sword). It is God's work of the law that condemns, and His work of grace that saves.
Christian piety consists of fully trusting God's promise of salvation in Christ, and following where that trust leads. I think that trust will usually be evident to third parties, especially when it leads to confessing or mission. Both of those are good things, but they are downstream of the Good News that saves. It's not saying that repentance is meaningless, or even that repentance is bad, but rather that it does not save. Repentance is our response to Christ. Not in the secret feelings that so long as we're sorry we're ok, or that we've earned/owed our justification but knowing and feeling with every fiber of our being that we were not worthy of the gift God has given us, and only are so now due to the new creation God has worked in us. It is certainly Good News to the impenitent, ie sinners, but the 4 Gospels have never claimed Christ's mission to be anything else. In fact, they go so far as to say that Christ did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
Christian piety consists of fully trusting God's promise of salvation in Christ, and following where that trust leads. I think that trust will usually be evident to third parties, especially when it leads to confessing or mission. Both of those are good things, but they are downstream of the Good News that saves. It's not saying that repentance is meaningless, or even that repentance is bad, but rather that it does not save. Repentance is our response to Christ. Not in the secret feelings that so long as we're sorry we're ok, or that we've earned/owed our justification but knowing and feeling with every fiber of our being that we were not worthy of the gift God has given us, and only are so now due to the new creation God has worked in us. It is certainly Good News to the impenitent, ie sinners, but the 4 Gospels have never claimed Christ's mission to be anything else. In fact, they go so far as to say that Christ did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
Confused?
Posted by
Henry
at
March 10, 2010 18:57
Dialog is rather difficult, Peter, when one must ever wade through new and changing terminology and definitions.
"Works of Grace" = the natural antithesis of "works of Law"? [Is this how Paul explains it?];
"Impenitent" = "sinners"? [No, it's unrepentant sinners who are without regret, shame or remorse. I know of no Good News for the impenitent.];
"Repentance is proclaimed as justification" [Proclaimed by which legalist? Paul? John the Baptist? Christ?]
"Repentance is our response to Christ?" [Aren't you leaving out the Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin through God's law, in addition to our faith in Jesus as our Savior?];
"Faith" = something that is "not too absolute" to allow for error and doubt? [Such strong conviction! And I thought it was by faith alone, through the work of the Holy Spirit, whereby the law is fulfilled and one becomes justified. Wasn't it Luther who called faith something that is living and bold, willing to risk death a thousand times trusting in it?]
Accustomed to such teaching, one can readily understand how the ELCA membership can become confused. But it also brings to mind the words of Isaiah the prophet who pronounced judgment on those who call evil good, and good evil. . . . .
"Works of Grace" = the natural antithesis of "works of Law"? [Is this how Paul explains it?];
"Impenitent" = "sinners"? [No, it's unrepentant sinners who are without regret, shame or remorse. I know of no Good News for the impenitent.];
"Repentance is proclaimed as justification" [Proclaimed by which legalist? Paul? John the Baptist? Christ?]
"Repentance is our response to Christ?" [Aren't you leaving out the Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin through God's law, in addition to our faith in Jesus as our Savior?];
"Faith" = something that is "not too absolute" to allow for error and doubt? [Such strong conviction! And I thought it was by faith alone, through the work of the Holy Spirit, whereby the law is fulfilled and one becomes justified. Wasn't it Luther who called faith something that is living and bold, willing to risk death a thousand times trusting in it?]
Accustomed to such teaching, one can readily understand how the ELCA membership can become confused. But it also brings to mind the words of Isaiah the prophet who pronounced judgment on those who call evil good, and good evil. . . . .
communication is ever the issue
Posted by
Peter
at
March 10, 2010 21:15
This has been the challenge since the Reformation-- it's easy enough to learn the words, but it's harder to keep their meaning intact, especially against our legalist tendancies.
I think the issue of unrepentant sinners is one of the ones on which the ELCA and LCMS diverge most. We're all unrepentant. Sure, we manage to actually repent of some of the things, but there's always one or more things of which we do not repent. And even one is enough for damnation. Christ's offer of forgiveness has no conditions on it. It is freely given, which we see again and again in the Gospels (where does it say the Syrophoneician's daughter repented prior to healing? or Zaccheus? or the woman caught in adultery? or Bartimaeus? Or the paralytic?) It isn't until we have been forgiven that we truly realize just how bad we had it.
I have to admit, this is the first I've heard that it is the Spirit who does the convicting. Generally, I've figured that's a function of God the Father. Whoever does it, we are condemned under the Law for our sins. Our repentance comes with the life-giving sacrifice of Christ, though, not as a precondition.
I do think it is faith alone through which we are justified and the law fulfilled, but it is because the object of our faith makes good on His promise-- remember that even faith the size of a mustard seed will move mountains. Part of that boldness of the living faith is trusting God and His promise in Christ alone, even against our doubts and tendancies to trust our understanding of the Law. Error and doubt do creep in, but so long as we cling to Christ, we can trust we will get through any storm.
Interestingly, judgment is also pronounced on those who call good, good and evil, evil, as well. The original sin is taking the knowledge of good and evil for ourselves so that we can be as God and judge good from evil. Instead of knowing good from evil, we must only know Christ and live as people redeemed by Him.
I think the issue of unrepentant sinners is one of the ones on which the ELCA and LCMS diverge most. We're all unrepentant. Sure, we manage to actually repent of some of the things, but there's always one or more things of which we do not repent. And even one is enough for damnation. Christ's offer of forgiveness has no conditions on it. It is freely given, which we see again and again in the Gospels (where does it say the Syrophoneician's daughter repented prior to healing? or Zaccheus? or the woman caught in adultery? or Bartimaeus? Or the paralytic?) It isn't until we have been forgiven that we truly realize just how bad we had it.
I have to admit, this is the first I've heard that it is the Spirit who does the convicting. Generally, I've figured that's a function of God the Father. Whoever does it, we are condemned under the Law for our sins. Our repentance comes with the life-giving sacrifice of Christ, though, not as a precondition.
I do think it is faith alone through which we are justified and the law fulfilled, but it is because the object of our faith makes good on His promise-- remember that even faith the size of a mustard seed will move mountains. Part of that boldness of the living faith is trusting God and His promise in Christ alone, even against our doubts and tendancies to trust our understanding of the Law. Error and doubt do creep in, but so long as we cling to Christ, we can trust we will get through any storm.
Interestingly, judgment is also pronounced on those who call good, good and evil, evil, as well. The original sin is taking the knowledge of good and evil for ourselves so that we can be as God and judge good from evil. Instead of knowing good from evil, we must only know Christ and live as people redeemed by Him.
Flee from humility, my son!
Posted by
Henry
at
March 10, 2010 22:44
I see. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled. And whoever humbles himself (with the help of this new theology, hopefully) will discover that any self-humbling is to be avoided because it is most certainly a work of self-righteousness . . .an act apart from the Holy Spirit, and therefore merely a product mankind's legalistic tendencies. In a sense, then, the Publican's act of humility is as despicable as the Pharisee's act of exultation! Both are trying to earn God's favor!
Had the Publican simply trusted in God's promise of forgiveness first, rather than dwell on his sinfulness, he would have realized how bad he had it with regards to his self-righteous humility, and he could have gone away from the temple with a non-preconditioned, post-forgiveness type of repentance, rather than an incomplete, Pharisaical repentance. Justified. . .I think not!
Hmmm, isn't it interesting how Christ, the Lord (and end)of the Law, fell right into that same legalistic trap of trying to teach his sheep the difference between good and evil with parables such as this? It's as if He were trying to make us all Gods! Good thing we know better!
Had the Publican simply trusted in God's promise of forgiveness first, rather than dwell on his sinfulness, he would have realized how bad he had it with regards to his self-righteous humility, and he could have gone away from the temple with a non-preconditioned, post-forgiveness type of repentance, rather than an incomplete, Pharisaical repentance. Justified. . .I think not!
Hmmm, isn't it interesting how Christ, the Lord (and end)of the Law, fell right into that same legalistic trap of trying to teach his sheep the difference between good and evil with parables such as this? It's as if He were trying to make us all Gods! Good thing we know better!
humility
Posted by
Peter
at
March 13, 2010 14:07
If you are humbling yourself in order to be exalted, it is false humility. The point of the Pharisee and the publican is specifically that we cannot justify ourselves. The publican's cry is 'have mercy'. He has already been convicted by the Law, and knows what he has coming. His only hope, just as is our only hope- is that God is merciful. That mercy is Christ's death and resurrection.
Take comfort in the Pharisee's faith!
Posted by
Henry
at
March 14, 2010 06:15
Not so fast, Peter. According to you, both the Pharisee and the Publican are impenitent, like all of us. Moreover, the Publican's remorse might well be over an incomplete understanding of God's Law that really needs no repenting over whatsoever. In fact, the Publican's knowing that there may be some evil that he may or may not have done, rather than trusting in Christ alone, is akin to him trying to be like God.
And why isn't the freely given, unconditional, justifying grace, mercy, forgiveness and salvation valid for the unrepentant Pharisee, like it is for the Syrophoneician's daughter, Zaccheus, woman caught in adultery, Bartimaeus, or the paralytic who you imagine were all, like the Pharisee, unrepentant? Might the Pharisee also have gone away justified, having discovered a "repentance" that comes from knowing Christ and not from hearing God's Law, like that Publican? Shouldn't we take comfort that God forgives us when we have a faith that is not too absolute to congress with the Pharisee' error? Wouldn't a God who withholds his grace from the Pharisee because of an imperfect "repentance", born out of an erroneous understanding of God's Law, be exactly what those CORE people and LCMS bigots would agree with?
And why isn't the freely given, unconditional, justifying grace, mercy, forgiveness and salvation valid for the unrepentant Pharisee, like it is for the Syrophoneician's daughter, Zaccheus, woman caught in adultery, Bartimaeus, or the paralytic who you imagine were all, like the Pharisee, unrepentant? Might the Pharisee also have gone away justified, having discovered a "repentance" that comes from knowing Christ and not from hearing God's Law, like that Publican? Shouldn't we take comfort that God forgives us when we have a faith that is not too absolute to congress with the Pharisee' error? Wouldn't a God who withholds his grace from the Pharisee because of an imperfect "repentance", born out of an erroneous understanding of God's Law, be exactly what those CORE people and LCMS bigots would agree with?
faith
Posted by
Peter
at
March 14, 2010 17:55
Knowledge of good and evil does bring with it the knowledge that we are evil. The publican knows that he is separate from God, and that means death. His cry is one for reunion with God-- mercy. Being a sinner means that he is entirely guilty, and his cry reflects that. He accepts that he has failed-- and probably in ways even he cannot fully comprehend. But, unlike the Pharisee, who knows the list of laws and carefully ticks them off, he knows it doesn't matter which one he has broken or which one he has kept. He is a sinner and separated from God.
What undoes that separation is neither the publican nor the Pharisee. It is God Himself who hears that cry for mercy and grants it in Christ's suffering, death and resurrection. That is offered to both Pharisee and publican, but faith is the reason why the Pharisee leaves unjustified. His faith is placed entirely in his own ability to fulfill the law. Do you think he have left any more justified if he had named a couple laws that he had broken, offered the appropriate sin offering, and gone on his way? The publican, on the other hand, places his faith in God, and not his own ability or the laws that he has fulfilled, or the ones he has left unfulfilled.
What undoes that separation is neither the publican nor the Pharisee. It is God Himself who hears that cry for mercy and grants it in Christ's suffering, death and resurrection. That is offered to both Pharisee and publican, but faith is the reason why the Pharisee leaves unjustified. His faith is placed entirely in his own ability to fulfill the law. Do you think he have left any more justified if he had named a couple laws that he had broken, offered the appropriate sin offering, and gone on his way? The publican, on the other hand, places his faith in God, and not his own ability or the laws that he has fulfilled, or the ones he has left unfulfilled.
Fellowship with the Pharisees?
Posted by
Henry
at
March 15, 2010 13:08
Would it be a massive error, then, if the Publican (and the church)continued to proclaim God's Law to the Pharisee, and seeing no signs of repentance, but rather contempt for God's Law, refused him fellowship?
Another angle
Posted by
mdebusk
at
March 15, 2010 13:47
This discussion of grace and law has been very interesting. At the risk of being a "gnat" among intellectual "giants", I would like to throw my 2 cents worth into this discussion. I love the law. I know that this may sound crazy, but I think the law is good. I have been pondering John 8:1-11, the woman caught in adultery. This story is very rich in grace and law. It seems to me that this story reaffirms Jesus intention that He came not to "change the law, but to uphold it." However, what He does change are the condemnations of the law. People are no longer to be the "condemners" as seen by the statement "let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus himself will not condemn the woman through his humanness (neither do I condemn you), and because that is not his mission (For God did not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him). Jesus moves the condemnation of the law from human hands to God's hands ("vengeance is mine, I will repay," says the Lord). However, Jesus does not change the law (...go and sin no more). We also glimpse a sort of crucifixion/resurrection theology in that Jesus inserts himself into the woman's dilemma ( "Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?") He could have just as easily said, "This doesn't concern me. See to it yourselves." Instead, He takes the woman's dilemma upon himself. What wonderful grace!
I say all this because I believe that the law for Christians should be used as a "mirror", and not a "club". As a "traditionalist", I don't believe that the law should be changed or ignored. At the same time neither should people who break the law (whatever it is) be condemned. The "speck in my brother's eye...log in your own eye..." I believe has to do with condemnation, not identification. Also, I believe, the problem in the ELCA has more to do with "traditionalist" than with "revisionist" thinking. The problem with same-sex partnering has been coming along for decades. Unfortunately, instead of entering into dialogue with our homosexual brothers and sisters, lines were "drawn in the sand". We have been more interested in "being right" than in helping those we see as being "in error." I know that attitudes being the way they were and are this would have been very difficult, but also the loving thing to do.
I say all this because I believe that the law for Christians should be used as a "mirror", and not a "club". As a "traditionalist", I don't believe that the law should be changed or ignored. At the same time neither should people who break the law (whatever it is) be condemned. The "speck in my brother's eye...log in your own eye..." I believe has to do with condemnation, not identification. Also, I believe, the problem in the ELCA has more to do with "traditionalist" than with "revisionist" thinking. The problem with same-sex partnering has been coming along for decades. Unfortunately, instead of entering into dialogue with our homosexual brothers and sisters, lines were "drawn in the sand". We have been more interested in "being right" than in helping those we see as being "in error." I know that attitudes being the way they were and are this would have been very difficult, but also the loving thing to do.
Club or Mirror
Posted by
Henry
at
March 15, 2010 15:49
Good point. The church (and Christ) would have everyone know his Law as a mirror. . .but the devil, the world and our flesh view it only as a club. Thus, we want the Law to be changed, diluted, ignored, circumvented, reinterpreted or preempted by an enabling "Grace". The question is: Can true love & "unity" exist in the church, where one party's mirror is forever the other party's club?
mirror and club
Posted by
Peter
at
March 16, 2010 19:46
Yes, Henry, I think it would be an error for the publican to refuse fellowship with the Pharisee on the grounds that the Pharisee is a sinner. What's the publican's cry? "I am a sinner". If we are asked to forgive "seventy times seven" times and we know neither the hour nor the day that Christ is coming, the publican needs to stand ready to help the Pharisee if/when he needs it.
Welcome to the discussion, mdebusk. I do agree that we should leave condemnation to God. However, I would say that the law is both mirror and club. The law functions as a mirror to shows us where we fail, and serves as a club in the judgment exercised against us. Certainly, God's law is good in the objective sense. But for us sinners, the law says that we are damned and must pay for our sins in blood. The reward it offers is only for the perfect, which leaves all of us behind, no matter how hard we try. That news is not good for us or our survival. Christ's life-giving death and resurrection sets us free from that law of retribution-- He pays the blood-price in our place. That is something both Good and New-- we're freed from our sins, and that is not through the function of the law. After experiencing the healing this forgiveness brings, it's hard not to tell others about it. The message isn't "if you do the right things, Christ will fix you." It's an invitation to trust that Christ has, does and will fix you.
With this as the background, it isn't quite as shocking that Luther realized that not everything in the Bible applies in every sense to us. A good example is the parts of the OT that Luther called "judensachsenspeigel", or the Hebrew theocracy's equivalent of Saxony's laws. Do either apply to us here in the US? Another good example of an NT prohibition overturned is in the Augsburg Confession, Article 28:65-66: "The Apostles commanded (Acts 15:20) to abstain from blood. Who does now observe it? And yet they that do it not sin not; for not even the Apostles themselves wanted to burden consciences with such bondage; but they forbade it for a time, to avoid offense. For in this decree we must perpetually consider what the aim of the Gospel is." I don't think it's consistent with the AC to forbid those in same-gendered relationships from proclaiming God's Word or even to burden their consciences with such bondage. Now, the fear is certainly that we might be inclined to say that anything we don't like/want is undue bondage for the conscience. That's one way to fall off the horse, and is certainly realized throughout the NT, to the extent that it led Paul to write those various "don't do" passages. The answer, though, is not 'you must follow every last iota of the law'. That takes us back to death, and falls of the horse on the other side. Instead, our works must become ventured works, as Bonhoeffer says.
Welcome to the discussion, mdebusk. I do agree that we should leave condemnation to God. However, I would say that the law is both mirror and club. The law functions as a mirror to shows us where we fail, and serves as a club in the judgment exercised against us. Certainly, God's law is good in the objective sense. But for us sinners, the law says that we are damned and must pay for our sins in blood. The reward it offers is only for the perfect, which leaves all of us behind, no matter how hard we try. That news is not good for us or our survival. Christ's life-giving death and resurrection sets us free from that law of retribution-- He pays the blood-price in our place. That is something both Good and New-- we're freed from our sins, and that is not through the function of the law. After experiencing the healing this forgiveness brings, it's hard not to tell others about it. The message isn't "if you do the right things, Christ will fix you." It's an invitation to trust that Christ has, does and will fix you.
With this as the background, it isn't quite as shocking that Luther realized that not everything in the Bible applies in every sense to us. A good example is the parts of the OT that Luther called "judensachsenspeigel", or the Hebrew theocracy's equivalent of Saxony's laws. Do either apply to us here in the US? Another good example of an NT prohibition overturned is in the Augsburg Confession, Article 28:65-66: "The Apostles commanded (Acts 15:20) to abstain from blood. Who does now observe it? And yet they that do it not sin not; for not even the Apostles themselves wanted to burden consciences with such bondage; but they forbade it for a time, to avoid offense. For in this decree we must perpetually consider what the aim of the Gospel is." I don't think it's consistent with the AC to forbid those in same-gendered relationships from proclaiming God's Word or even to burden their consciences with such bondage. Now, the fear is certainly that we might be inclined to say that anything we don't like/want is undue bondage for the conscience. That's one way to fall off the horse, and is certainly realized throughout the NT, to the extent that it led Paul to write those various "don't do" passages. The answer, though, is not 'you must follow every last iota of the law'. That takes us back to death, and falls of the horse on the other side. Instead, our works must become ventured works, as Bonhoeffer says.
Unequally yoked. . .the right thing to do?
Posted by
Henry
at
March 17, 2010 07:32
Forgiveness is one thing, Peter, but me thinks that your admonition that the publicans of the world remain in fellowship with the Pharisees of the world for the sake of the "gospel" amounts to mere "Petersachsenspiegel".
I'd call it mission
Posted by
Peter
at
March 17, 2010 20:19
It gets worse than just fellowship with the Pharisees. We're sent out by Christ to not only be in fellowship with them, but also all of the other sinners. Worse, we're expected to love them, even if that leads to our death.
Christian mission!
Posted by
Henry
at
March 18, 2010 06:02
Alas, a more prescient Bonhoeffer should have heeded Christ's call to remain in mission & fellowship with the German Christians, rather than opposing them! Who knows how many more Nazi members of the German Christians would have seen the light, had light not refused congress with darkness?
persecution
Posted by
Peter
at
March 21, 2010 14:46
Bonhoeffer was forced to organize in the face of actual persecution, which meant that he would have faced arrest, forced resignation or worse for continuing to publicly contest the German Christians. The Confessing church faced severe problems from the German church. In the ELCA homosexuality debate, the only group that has yet to actually be prevented from serving as pastors in the ELCA are the married homosexuals.
Non sequitur. . . . .
Posted by
Henry
at
March 22, 2010 04:22
Let's try again. You said that you cannot understand the logic of CORE and the LCMS refusing "congress with error" (which it considers the ELCA to be in) because all Christians share the "perfect object of our faith" and therefore, unity in the midst of differences, for the sake of the "gospel" should always prevail. Yet, I just gave an example of Bonhoeffer, who's convictions led him to oppose the German Christians and to support the Confessing Church, a group that refused congress with the German Christians, and your logic is what? That "married" homosexuals were persecuted by the ELCA like the German Christians persecuted Bonhoeffer? Please, Peter, spare me your "logic".
so it's fear of persecution?
Posted by
Peter
at
March 22, 2010 19:46
My point is that the Confessing church had specific problems with the German Christians that literally made fellowship difficult/impossible. There is no persecution approaching that scale in American Lutheranism, and what persecution there has been has been against married homosexuals, so I don't think that's a good example.
The Persecuted Church
Posted by
Henry
at
March 23, 2010 05:25
One person's mirror is another person's club. One person's immutable Word of Law is another's judensachsenspiegel. One party sees the Church suffering persecution, as it is starved of God's Word of Law, through which the Holy Spirit may bring people to Christ. The other prefers a Gospel that does not presuppose the Law, but pre-empts it. But hey, cause we're all sinners, and we all have the same "object of our faith", these things shouldn't stand in the way fellowship! "Lutherans and Antinomians, Unite!"
so we should all be Jews?
Posted by
Peter
at
March 24, 2010 18:44
Was Christ starving the disciples of God's immutable Word of Law when he didn't require them to wash their hands before eating, or when he defiled himself by talking to women and foreigners, or worse, touching them or dead bodies, or encouraging them stories about violating that immutable Word of Law?
More from a Gnat
Posted by
mdebusk
at
March 17, 2010 14:11
I agree with several things you have said, but I seek clarification on others. First, would we say if the law is God's law then it is also God's damnation? Jesus said that we must be perfect even as our Heavenly Father is perfect. For me this is "the objective sense of the law." Most everything you say after that I agree with, and it makes me tremble when I see the consequence of my sin (the cross)and humbles me when I see who paid the price (Jesus my Lord and Savior and God's own Son). The only other thing I would submit for your consideration is that we are freed from the consequences of our sins, not our sins. Jesus points out in John 3 that "just as Moses lifted up the bronze serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up. The serpents (sin?) were not removed but their effects (death?) were nullified.
You impressed me with "judensachenspeigel"! What a great word! If I read you correctly, the point you are making with the comments after this word and along with the quote from the Augsburg Confession is that the law should not be made to burden the conscience. I think I agree with you on this. However, back to John 8, when Jesus told the crowd that "the one without sin should cast the first stone", do you believe that consciences were burdened or was He trying to get them to see something else? When Jesus told the woman caught in adultery "go and sin no more" was he trying to burden her conscience or to see something else? In the section of the Augsburg Confession you quoted, were the Apostles concerned with the consciences of those who abstained from blood or those that did not? When the reformers said that "they forbade it for a time, to avoid offense" were they talking about offending God or people who believed they should abstain from blood? When Paul talks about eating meat sacrificed to idols, was he talking about being careful about the consciences of those eating the meat or those brothers and sisters watching them eat who might be offended?
Are you saying that because the law "burdens the conscience" of our homosexual brothers and sisters it should be discounted or ignored? If so, then this is where our traditionalist brothers and sisters need to be involved and, I believe, have not been. The traditionalist side of the church has had decades to become involved in this issue and has instead chosen to issue edicts (clubs), in my opinion. When you attend a "traditionalist" church, will you find a welcoming atmosphere for homosexuals? When you attend a "revisionist" church will you find a welcoming atmosphere for traditionalists? I realize that over time attitudes and beliefs have become entrenched, but until we see from both sides of the issue that our attitudes and beliefs "burden the conscience" of the other side, we will continue down ever diverging paths.
You impressed me with "judensachenspeigel"! What a great word! If I read you correctly, the point you are making with the comments after this word and along with the quote from the Augsburg Confession is that the law should not be made to burden the conscience. I think I agree with you on this. However, back to John 8, when Jesus told the crowd that "the one without sin should cast the first stone", do you believe that consciences were burdened or was He trying to get them to see something else? When Jesus told the woman caught in adultery "go and sin no more" was he trying to burden her conscience or to see something else? In the section of the Augsburg Confession you quoted, were the Apostles concerned with the consciences of those who abstained from blood or those that did not? When the reformers said that "they forbade it for a time, to avoid offense" were they talking about offending God or people who believed they should abstain from blood? When Paul talks about eating meat sacrificed to idols, was he talking about being careful about the consciences of those eating the meat or those brothers and sisters watching them eat who might be offended?
Are you saying that because the law "burdens the conscience" of our homosexual brothers and sisters it should be discounted or ignored? If so, then this is where our traditionalist brothers and sisters need to be involved and, I believe, have not been. The traditionalist side of the church has had decades to become involved in this issue and has instead chosen to issue edicts (clubs), in my opinion. When you attend a "traditionalist" church, will you find a welcoming atmosphere for homosexuals? When you attend a "revisionist" church will you find a welcoming atmosphere for traditionalists? I realize that over time attitudes and beliefs have become entrenched, but until we see from both sides of the issue that our attitudes and beliefs "burden the conscience" of the other side, we will continue down ever diverging paths.
complete healing
Posted by
Peter
at
March 17, 2010 21:11
I think it is interesting to consider whether we are freed from our sin or only the consequences. Leaving it to only the consequences, though, veils the full extent of Christ's sacrifice. I don't think He is only playing to save us from the consequences of our sin, but from sin itself. It is only in that way that we can be made perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. This is also the distinction between Law and Gospel. To take John 3, I would identify the serpent as the law: Moses lifted up the law for the protection of the people. This is the essence of the Old Covenant. So long as the people would keep the law in sight, the people of Israel would be safe from one consequence of failing the law- the bite of the serpent. The bronze serpent did not fix the bigger problem-- it was only helpful during the wilderness, and did not cure the Israelites of their sin. In John, it is now Christ being lifted up instead of the serpent. Rather than the Old Covenant, a New Covenant is now in place. The promise is no longer 'when these snakes bite, look to the bronze serpent if you don't want to die', but something new and even better than before: "everyone who believes in him shall have eternal life." This fix is permanent: we always have Christ, and the promise we are given is one of healing. Death itself is defeated, where the bronzed serpent could only delay it.
As to which consciences are being burdened and the effects therein, I'm not sure we can limit it to just one group. It's probably multiple groups to varying degrees. I think there are also a couple of interesting twists to the woman caught in adultery. When Christ says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", is he just admonishing the others, or claiming the right to stone the woman himself? If by both the law and His own words, Christ was the one to stone her, why did He not?
I do think dialogue between all groups is essential, and that more and continued dialogue will help us bear this issue in mutual love. Right now, there's an awful lot of anger and frustration on all sides. Figuring out how to trust Christ instead of one's own anger and frustration, and forgive the others' anger and frustration on the other side is one major task now. It's not going to be easy.
As to which consciences are being burdened and the effects therein, I'm not sure we can limit it to just one group. It's probably multiple groups to varying degrees. I think there are also a couple of interesting twists to the woman caught in adultery. When Christ says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", is he just admonishing the others, or claiming the right to stone the woman himself? If by both the law and His own words, Christ was the one to stone her, why did He not?
I do think dialogue between all groups is essential, and that more and continued dialogue will help us bear this issue in mutual love. Right now, there's an awful lot of anger and frustration on all sides. Figuring out how to trust Christ instead of one's own anger and frustration, and forgive the others' anger and frustration on the other side is one major task now. It's not going to be easy.
making it concrete
I'm also curious how the LCMS folks here understand Peter's "massive mistake in refusing table fellowship with the Gentiles" today? Wouldn't it be open communion with fellow Christians at the very least?