Document Actions
Justification and the Messy Boundaries of Church
by
Paul R. Hinlicky
—
May 11, 2011
In recent discussions with Midwestern Lutheran friends who are as troubled as I am about the drift by the ELCA into liberal Protestantism, I heard again the tired argument: the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church is doomed to failure because Lutherans have only one, I repeat, just one criterion for church unity, namely, “the” article on which the church stands and falls—justification”! But the Joint Declaration is doomed because Catholics do not affirm that Justification is more than one criterion alongside others...
In recent discussions with Midwestern Lutheran friends who are as troubled as I am about the drift by the ELCA into liberal Protestantism, I heard again the tired argument: the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church is doomed to failure because Lutherans have only one, I repeat, just one criterion for church unity, namely, “the” article on which the church stands and falls—justification”! But the Joint Declaration is doomed because Catholics do not affirm that Justification is more than one criterion alongside others.
Rightly understood, one can say that justification is the single criterion. But right understanding does not reduce to the psychological effect of “comfort,” as so many contemporary Lutherans seem to think. That is just the liberal Protestant mess we have drifted into! As they say, if it comforts, it’s the gospel! If it challenges, makes us uncomfortable, stretches us—it’s the law! Now apply to this psychological reduction of the law-gospel distinction a little deconstructive magic: “’Law’ a human power trip! An attempt to control, discipline, dominate!” Voila! Now you have the operative gospel of the ELCA with its new “god term:” inclusiveness. (Never mind that Jesus promised the Reign of God, called us to discipleship, and is acclaimed as Lord wherever and whenever the Spirit grants justifying faith.) But this is child’s play.
With Catholics the matter is much more theologically serious. They ask with their hesitation about Justification as the sole criterion whether Lutherans both affirm the classic dogmas and have the church office to materialize those affirmations here and now on the earth. Call to mind that, rightly understood as in the Augsburg Confession, justification presupposes the triune God, the fall of humanity into sin, and the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity culminating in His saving death on the cross, as Articles I to III teach. Rightly understood, justification includes both the objective and the subjective poles, as Article IV most precisely states: we are justified when we believe about our own selves that we are received into mercy on account of Christ, the Christ previously described in Article III. Rightly understood, justification entails the office of the church, the gospel’s preacher in word and sacrament, the fellowship of those gathered by the gospel’s proclamation as those called out by the Spirit to new lives of obedience, as Articles V to VII go on to spell out. I could continue through the AC, culminating in the crucial Article 28, but you get the point. Justification is not a reductive slogan comforting the comfortable in their impenitence, but a summation of the Christian doctrine at the point where it intersects with the lost cause of the helpless but penitent sinner. That person, and that person alone, is to be “comforted” by the gospel.
So I ask in all sincerity of my midwestern Lutheran friends: can we claim that our “Lutheran” church(es) is (are) united in the right understanding of justification? Or, is our idea of the true unity of the Church really nothing but the phantasm of a Platonic idea? Can we fail to see that in our confused situation of denominational breakdown, we often have far greater unity in doctrine with those outside our denominational ranks, including Catholics? I continue to argue that the real line of division within the ELCA, made manifest in the demoralizing debacle over the August 2009 decisions, is a dispute between two contending doctrines of reconciliation. The one side holds to justification, so sketched above, as a summation of Christian doctrine. The other is classical liberal Protestantism, in H. Richard Niebuhr’s compelling paraphrase, of “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”
Reports out of Germany relate that ecumenical dialogue has entered into a blind alley. But why? This is not just the fault of Catholic conservatism but also of the theology of modern Protestantism, constantly giving up more and more of Christian doctrine. I report from the correspondence of a German Catholic theologian, who asked to remain anonymous: “Modern Protestant theology in Germany has largely abandoned the doctrine of the death of Jesus on the cross as reconciliation for the sins of man—thus it has abandoned the root dogma of Luther! The very concept of sin is challenged on the grounds that all evil deeds are only the result of a loveless environment. Hence there is no actual guilt. Jesus therefore need not to perform any representative act of satisfaction. But if the theology of sin and justification is thrown into the garbage can, how can an ecumenical dialogue between Protestantism and Catholicism occur? Catholics must come to the conclusion that any drawing near to Wittenberg or Geneva will only bring an invasion of unbelief. I myself know of no solution!”
We have all entered into a blind alley. Ten years ago when the Joint Declaration was signed I was asking whether Lutherans were in fact doctrinally united, where “unity” means having the requisite ecclesiological order and self-discipline to materialize the chief article which they officially claim. Good heavens, whatever else could “confessional Lutheranism” mean, if not binding confessional subscriptions in the vows of confirmation and ordination, actually overseen by an “evangelical episcopacy” (AC 28)? I made a point about this last year in my lecture at the CORE conference and I see now that the ELCA Convocation of Teaching Theologians is taking up the issue of “authority” in the Church this summer. I take this to be manifest recognition that at least we in the ELCA now realize that we have no such unity nor are we a “confessional” church, in spite of Chapter Two of the ELCA Constitution.
Dear friends! Since the denominational jig is up anyway (and for my part, let me say, since the “evangelical catholic” strategy to move toward a super-denomination is also a spent force), that is, since we are all adrift looking for whatever fellowship in the Gospel we can find, why not accept the progress represented in the Joint Declaration for what it is: it clears away some characteristic misunderstandings on both sides and receives the Christian concerns of the other in a spirit of mutual admonition? Don’t we all have to go back to the drawing board, not only Catholics but also we Gnesio-Lutherans, who have not succeeding in preserving justification, rightly understood, as the sole criterion, rightly understood, in our own collapsing house?
Paul R. Hinlicky is the Tise Professor of Lutheran Studies at Roanoke College in Salem, Virginia.
The Whole Council of God.
Posted by
Jack Kilcrease
at
May 12, 2011 05:40
Dr. Hinlicky, I am of course in agreement with you that doctrines other than justification matter. As Missouri has always maintained, the word "Gospel" really means the whole summary of apostolic teaching. Actually quite a lot of historical research has vindicated this view (Melanchthon it seems is making an allusion to the Code of Justinian, and sugggesting that the Wittenberg reformation is a religio llita under imperial law because it accept the whole apostolic teaching). I guess the point I would make in agreement with Dr. Paulson is that the other articles of the faith are only meaningful insofar as they have a relationship to the article of justification. Since justification is the chief article of the faith, all other articles must be interpreted in relationship to it. Hence, a vast amount of overlap witht the Catholics isn't terribly meaningful since, because they deny justification by faith, the other articles they share with us are distorted. For example, when I was at Marquette Catholic friends would often assert that the real presence was a point overlap. But, for Catholics, the entire point of the real presence is that it is tied up in the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ. It is meant to help us "amplify" our own good works, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it. Hence, taken out of relationship to the article of justification, the doctrine means the very opposite of what it means for Lutherans. I also don't put a lot of stock in JDDJ as in any way meaningfully resolving anything. Once a person realizes that Catholics and Lutherans don't mean anything similar to one another by the words "justification", "faith", or "grace"- the common statements that we "agree such-and-such" about them aren't even remotely meaningful. In fact, they come off as rather comical attempts at sounding like there's agreement when there's none. At best, JDDJ gives us justification by grace and not by faith (which is of course something very different!). Ultimately, I agree that we shouldn't put much hope in denominations- which have in my mind be a horrible failure at doing what they're supposed to be doing. I agree with Dr. Paulson: Preach the Word and let the electing God do as he wishes.
reply to Professor Paulson
Posted by
Son of WMC
at
May 12, 2011 23:03
Prof. Paulson,
I am confused as to how anyone can say essentially "polity doesn't matter". Isn't it the case that on moral teaching, for example, the closer a Christian denomination resembles a magisterial polity similar to that of the early church the less likely it is to have changed from what it was in apostolic times? Perhaps there is sign here for us that other teachings of the Church of the Apostles (seeing as we claim belief in the "Apostolic Church")under such authority are much closer to what the Apostle's taught, or after greater development at least have roots in what they taught much closer than contending teachings under other polities.
It seems to me that when Christ Jesus in John's Gospel promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth, a mechanism had to be in place for this to happen, since as I have also learned or more accurately gained a clearer perspective on, the New Testament Canon was not yet formed much less closed at the time of the Apostles. If the early Church was trustworthy enough to determine the canon of Scripture we use then they also should have been trustworthy enough to keep and extend down to our times the magisterium Jesus founded upon the Apostles. If the Holy Spirit completely abandoned this magisterium, then at some point there was no preaching good, bad, or indifferent, and no sacraments either running counter to Jesus' promise that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church he founded.
My biggest beef with my seminary education of which you were a part was that we didn't seriously, in great detail, deal with the Church Fathers, those who learned at the feet of the Apostles and in succeeding generations who were much closer to the Apostles than we are. When I read the following, a number of years after seminary, my jaw practically hit the floor!
The Apostolic Father Clement of Rome, in the only writing that scholars can clearly attribute to him, a letter to the Corinthians, writes in chapter 42, “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ, therefore, is from God and the Apostles are from Christ. Both, accordingly, came in proper order by the will of God…Preaching, accordingly, throughout the country and the cities, they (the Apostles) appointed their first-fruits, after testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should believe. And this they did without innovation, since many years ago things had been written concerning bishops and deacons.” Clement continues then in chapter 44 of his letter by saying, “Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention over the bishop’s office. So, for this cause, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned men, and afterwards gave them a permanent character, so that, as they died, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. Those, therefore, who were appointed by the Apostles or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who ministered blamelessly to the flock of Christ in humility, peaceably and nobly, being commended for many years by all – these men we consider are not justly deposed from their ministry.”
Then there is the Apostolic Father Ignatius of Antioch. In the opening of his letter to the Romans he writes, “Ignatius Theophorus to the Church on which the majesty of the most high Father and of Jesus Christ, His only Son, has had mercy; to the Church beloved and enlightened by the faith and charity of Jesus Christ, our God, through the will of Him who has willed all things that exist – the Church in the place of the country of the Romans which holds the primacy. I salute you in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. You are a Church worthy of God, worthy of honor, felicitation and praise, worthy of attaining to God, a Church without blemish, which holds the primacy of the community of love, obedient to Christ’s law, bearing the Father’s name…” Later at the beginning of verse three of this same letter, Ignatius adds, “Never have you envied anyone. You have been others’ teachers…” Not only this, but it is important to note, that of all of the letters that Ignatius writes to the various churches (much like Paul does in the New Testament), his letter to the Romans is unique in that it alone contains no corrections in teaching to the faith and morals of its recipients.
To this we can add the writings of Irenaeus who was Bishop of Lyons, France, born roughly between 120 and 140 AD and is thought to have died in 202 AD. His major writing “Against Heresies” was written between 182 and 188 AD. In the third book of this five volume work, from chapter 3:2-3 we find Irenaeus to write, “2. Since however, it would be very tedious, in such volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. 3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus (*Note: Linus was the first to succeed Peter as Bishop of Rome) the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace (*Note: Irenaeus is here referring to the letter of the time of the Apostolic Fathers written by Clement of Rome to the Corinthians I quoted from above. There is no other such letter in the history of the early Church that exists written from one church to another exercising such authority – only the church in Rome, and specifically its Bishop dared to do this.)…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. (*Note: Eleutherius served as Bishop of Rome from 175 to 189 AD.) In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us…” It is also noteworthy that Eusebius who wrote his famous “History of The Church” around 325 AD, quotes verbatim in book five, chapter six this very passage written by Irenaeus, thus confirming its authenticity and importance.
Cyprian, another of the early Church Fathers, wrote in a letter to all his people in 251 AD, “They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.”
Cyprian in another letter of his, this one to Cornelius of Rome written around 252 AD wrote, “With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal (*Note: priestly) unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy (*Note: betrayal/deceit) to have entrance.”
David Gustafson, of blessed memory, put it best in a paper he wrote a number of years ago entitled, "The Augsburg Confession and Polity: Where We've All Screwed Up". He wrote under what he called Thesis Two, "The Augsburg Confession takes for granted that the church would continue to be governed by bishops. If we take a good, close look, we will find that little is said about church polity, with the exception of AC XXVIII ('The Power of Bishops'). This is no accident, and it can only lead us to conclude that the Reformers had no intention of making sweeping changes in the church's organizational life. They thought the polity that had served the church almost from its beginnings could and should continue to do so. Apology XIV ('Ecclesiastical Order') confirms this. It states:
'On this matter we have given frequent testimony in the assembly to our deep desire to maintain the church polity and the various ranks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, although they were created by human authority. We know that the Fathers had good and useful reasons for instituting ecclesiastical discipline in the manner described by the ancient canons.'
The confessors at Augsburg believed that reforms were needed in the episcopacy--abuses had occurred. The monarchical bishop, so predominant in the Middle Ages, was rejected; the temporal and the spiritual should not be confused. But bishops should continue to be the church's spiritual leaders and be evangelical in their dealings and life. Bishops are not to be rulers but teachers and pastors. AC XXVIII states, 'Our teachers assert that according to the Gospel the power of the keys or the power of bishops is a power and command of God to preach the Gospel, to forgive and retain sins, and to administer and distribute the sacraments.' The power of the bishops is precisely that which Christ has given to the church and it is identical to the power given to the office of the ordained ministry.
AC XXVIII is lengthy, but one point is clear: the office of bishop and the episcopal structure that goes with it should be retained. The office of bishop should be reformed but retained, for the sake of good order and for having a definitive governing office in the church's life. This is not by human, but by divine right. Therefore, AC XXVIII asserts, 'According to divine right, therefore, it is the office of the bishop to preach the Gospel, forgive sins, judge doctrine, and condemn doctrine that is contrary to the Gospel, and exclude from the Christian community the ungodly whose wicked conduct is manifest.' By divine right, the bishop not only is to teach; the bishop is also called to judge doctrine and conduct."
Gustafson's last two theses made the following conclusions: "THESIS SIX: All ecclesiastical structure in Lutheranism in America has abandoned the vision for church order contained in the Augsburg Confession, which has resulted in what can, at best, be described as a watered-down version of the church."; and "THESIS SEVEN: Lutherans in America need a polity that conforms to that of the Augsburg Confession, for the sake of fidelity to the Word and the Sacraments and the integrity of the church."
Given that not only is Liberal Protestantism not heading in the direction of such polity either in the ELCA or elsewhere, nor is this the direction of the LCMC or the NALC, and that the reform of the magisterium that Gustafson well argues was needed at the time of the Reformation has actually come to pass, perhaps this ought to be a sign to us where God is indeed leading by the Holy Spirit, not to mention how important polity is to the proper understanding of the history of the Church Christ founded as well as to its proper function. The other post that on this thread details the further decline of the Lutheran Church in Europe to the point of no longer finding anything of sin that humans need salvation from, not to mention the demise of faith in the crucified and risen Christ, tells me that watered down Protestant polity in North America will in another century or so share the same fate as that of what currently exists in Europe.
I am confused as to how anyone can say essentially "polity doesn't matter". Isn't it the case that on moral teaching, for example, the closer a Christian denomination resembles a magisterial polity similar to that of the early church the less likely it is to have changed from what it was in apostolic times? Perhaps there is sign here for us that other teachings of the Church of the Apostles (seeing as we claim belief in the "Apostolic Church")under such authority are much closer to what the Apostle's taught, or after greater development at least have roots in what they taught much closer than contending teachings under other polities.
It seems to me that when Christ Jesus in John's Gospel promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth, a mechanism had to be in place for this to happen, since as I have also learned or more accurately gained a clearer perspective on, the New Testament Canon was not yet formed much less closed at the time of the Apostles. If the early Church was trustworthy enough to determine the canon of Scripture we use then they also should have been trustworthy enough to keep and extend down to our times the magisterium Jesus founded upon the Apostles. If the Holy Spirit completely abandoned this magisterium, then at some point there was no preaching good, bad, or indifferent, and no sacraments either running counter to Jesus' promise that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church he founded.
My biggest beef with my seminary education of which you were a part was that we didn't seriously, in great detail, deal with the Church Fathers, those who learned at the feet of the Apostles and in succeeding generations who were much closer to the Apostles than we are. When I read the following, a number of years after seminary, my jaw practically hit the floor!
The Apostolic Father Clement of Rome, in the only writing that scholars can clearly attribute to him, a letter to the Corinthians, writes in chapter 42, “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ, therefore, is from God and the Apostles are from Christ. Both, accordingly, came in proper order by the will of God…Preaching, accordingly, throughout the country and the cities, they (the Apostles) appointed their first-fruits, after testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should believe. And this they did without innovation, since many years ago things had been written concerning bishops and deacons.” Clement continues then in chapter 44 of his letter by saying, “Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention over the bishop’s office. So, for this cause, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned men, and afterwards gave them a permanent character, so that, as they died, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. Those, therefore, who were appointed by the Apostles or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who ministered blamelessly to the flock of Christ in humility, peaceably and nobly, being commended for many years by all – these men we consider are not justly deposed from their ministry.”
Then there is the Apostolic Father Ignatius of Antioch. In the opening of his letter to the Romans he writes, “Ignatius Theophorus to the Church on which the majesty of the most high Father and of Jesus Christ, His only Son, has had mercy; to the Church beloved and enlightened by the faith and charity of Jesus Christ, our God, through the will of Him who has willed all things that exist – the Church in the place of the country of the Romans which holds the primacy. I salute you in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. You are a Church worthy of God, worthy of honor, felicitation and praise, worthy of attaining to God, a Church without blemish, which holds the primacy of the community of love, obedient to Christ’s law, bearing the Father’s name…” Later at the beginning of verse three of this same letter, Ignatius adds, “Never have you envied anyone. You have been others’ teachers…” Not only this, but it is important to note, that of all of the letters that Ignatius writes to the various churches (much like Paul does in the New Testament), his letter to the Romans is unique in that it alone contains no corrections in teaching to the faith and morals of its recipients.
To this we can add the writings of Irenaeus who was Bishop of Lyons, France, born roughly between 120 and 140 AD and is thought to have died in 202 AD. His major writing “Against Heresies” was written between 182 and 188 AD. In the third book of this five volume work, from chapter 3:2-3 we find Irenaeus to write, “2. Since however, it would be very tedious, in such volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. 3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus (*Note: Linus was the first to succeed Peter as Bishop of Rome) the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace (*Note: Irenaeus is here referring to the letter of the time of the Apostolic Fathers written by Clement of Rome to the Corinthians I quoted from above. There is no other such letter in the history of the early Church that exists written from one church to another exercising such authority – only the church in Rome, and specifically its Bishop dared to do this.)…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. (*Note: Eleutherius served as Bishop of Rome from 175 to 189 AD.) In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us…” It is also noteworthy that Eusebius who wrote his famous “History of The Church” around 325 AD, quotes verbatim in book five, chapter six this very passage written by Irenaeus, thus confirming its authenticity and importance.
Cyprian, another of the early Church Fathers, wrote in a letter to all his people in 251 AD, “They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.”
Cyprian in another letter of his, this one to Cornelius of Rome written around 252 AD wrote, “With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal (*Note: priestly) unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy (*Note: betrayal/deceit) to have entrance.”
David Gustafson, of blessed memory, put it best in a paper he wrote a number of years ago entitled, "The Augsburg Confession and Polity: Where We've All Screwed Up". He wrote under what he called Thesis Two, "The Augsburg Confession takes for granted that the church would continue to be governed by bishops. If we take a good, close look, we will find that little is said about church polity, with the exception of AC XXVIII ('The Power of Bishops'). This is no accident, and it can only lead us to conclude that the Reformers had no intention of making sweeping changes in the church's organizational life. They thought the polity that had served the church almost from its beginnings could and should continue to do so. Apology XIV ('Ecclesiastical Order') confirms this. It states:
'On this matter we have given frequent testimony in the assembly to our deep desire to maintain the church polity and the various ranks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, although they were created by human authority. We know that the Fathers had good and useful reasons for instituting ecclesiastical discipline in the manner described by the ancient canons.'
The confessors at Augsburg believed that reforms were needed in the episcopacy--abuses had occurred. The monarchical bishop, so predominant in the Middle Ages, was rejected; the temporal and the spiritual should not be confused. But bishops should continue to be the church's spiritual leaders and be evangelical in their dealings and life. Bishops are not to be rulers but teachers and pastors. AC XXVIII states, 'Our teachers assert that according to the Gospel the power of the keys or the power of bishops is a power and command of God to preach the Gospel, to forgive and retain sins, and to administer and distribute the sacraments.' The power of the bishops is precisely that which Christ has given to the church and it is identical to the power given to the office of the ordained ministry.
AC XXVIII is lengthy, but one point is clear: the office of bishop and the episcopal structure that goes with it should be retained. The office of bishop should be reformed but retained, for the sake of good order and for having a definitive governing office in the church's life. This is not by human, but by divine right. Therefore, AC XXVIII asserts, 'According to divine right, therefore, it is the office of the bishop to preach the Gospel, forgive sins, judge doctrine, and condemn doctrine that is contrary to the Gospel, and exclude from the Christian community the ungodly whose wicked conduct is manifest.' By divine right, the bishop not only is to teach; the bishop is also called to judge doctrine and conduct."
Gustafson's last two theses made the following conclusions: "THESIS SIX: All ecclesiastical structure in Lutheranism in America has abandoned the vision for church order contained in the Augsburg Confession, which has resulted in what can, at best, be described as a watered-down version of the church."; and "THESIS SEVEN: Lutherans in America need a polity that conforms to that of the Augsburg Confession, for the sake of fidelity to the Word and the Sacraments and the integrity of the church."
Given that not only is Liberal Protestantism not heading in the direction of such polity either in the ELCA or elsewhere, nor is this the direction of the LCMC or the NALC, and that the reform of the magisterium that Gustafson well argues was needed at the time of the Reformation has actually come to pass, perhaps this ought to be a sign to us where God is indeed leading by the Holy Spirit, not to mention how important polity is to the proper understanding of the history of the Church Christ founded as well as to its proper function. The other post that on this thread details the further decline of the Lutheran Church in Europe to the point of no longer finding anything of sin that humans need salvation from, not to mention the demise of faith in the crucified and risen Christ, tells me that watered down Protestant polity in North America will in another century or so share the same fate as that of what currently exists in Europe.
Pneumatology
Posted by
Robert Saler
at
May 11, 2011 10:12
Alongside justification and ecclesiology as the major loci under debate in any assessment of the Joint Declaration, I would add that pneumatology needs to be a key element in the discussion.
The Roman Catholic church, as demonstrated in numerous documents from the magisterium, has a robust sense of how pneumatology undergirds both magisterial authority and theological creativity. By comparison, in my judgment Lutheran theology has yet to invest matters of authority/ecclesiology (and their relation to our thinking on justification) with comparable pneumatological significance.
My claim is not that helpful reflection on the Holy Spirit is absent from contemporary Lutheran theology (since it clearly is not), but rather that our pneumatology has yet to permeate our discussions of ecclesial authority in sufficiently evocative ways.
The Roman Catholic church, as demonstrated in numerous documents from the magisterium, has a robust sense of how pneumatology undergirds both magisterial authority and theological creativity. By comparison, in my judgment Lutheran theology has yet to invest matters of authority/ecclesiology (and their relation to our thinking on justification) with comparable pneumatological significance.
My claim is not that helpful reflection on the Holy Spirit is absent from contemporary Lutheran theology (since it clearly is not), but rather that our pneumatology has yet to permeate our discussions of ecclesial authority in sufficiently evocative ways.
Confusion on the "Sole Criteria"
Posted by
Rev. Paul T. McCain
at
May 11, 2011 11:29
Where Paul Hinlicky goes wrong, this time, is in his assertion that the doctrine of justification is the "sole criterion" for church unity, as if as long as we all can mouth along together some same definition of justification [which, by the way, Rome does not share, as they have repeatedly asserted, during, and after the JDDJ!], we have enough for unity.
Unfortunately, such a notion goes back to a very sloppy and willfully negligent reading of our Lutheran Confessions, in which the word "Gospel" in AC VII is reduced to a very minimal and threadbare definition of "justification" when in fact the Confessions are clear that unity is around the articles of the Christian Faith, thus, as always, the AC is played off FC X to create the mess that exists today.
The only "jig that is up" is the failed experiment of Seminex and its ultimate product: the ELCA. Mainline Protestantism is in free fall and the ELCA has gladly jumped out of the Lutheran plane with no parachute.
Unfortunately, such a notion goes back to a very sloppy and willfully negligent reading of our Lutheran Confessions, in which the word "Gospel" in AC VII is reduced to a very minimal and threadbare definition of "justification" when in fact the Confessions are clear that unity is around the articles of the Christian Faith, thus, as always, the AC is played off FC X to create the mess that exists today.
The only "jig that is up" is the failed experiment of Seminex and its ultimate product: the ELCA. Mainline Protestantism is in free fall and the ELCA has gladly jumped out of the Lutheran plane with no parachute.
Defining "Sole Criteria"
Posted by
Pastor Philip Spomer
at
May 11, 2011 12:31
“Where Paul Hinlicky goes wrong, …is in his assertion that the doctrine of justification is the "sole criterion" for church unity,”
Rev. McCain, I don’t quiet understand your point of disagreement. Isn’t Rev. Hinlicky saying that such an affirmation, implies the other doctrines that you fear that he overlooks? He wrote-
“Rightly understood, justification entails the office of the church, the gospel’s preacher in word and sacrament, the fellowship of those gathered by the gospel’s proclamation as those called out by the Spirit to new lives of obedience, as Articles V to VII go on to spell out.”
Sorry if I’m being obtuse.
God bless,
Pastor Spomer
Rev. McCain, I don’t quiet understand your point of disagreement. Isn’t Rev. Hinlicky saying that such an affirmation, implies the other doctrines that you fear that he overlooks? He wrote-
“Rightly understood, justification entails the office of the church, the gospel’s preacher in word and sacrament, the fellowship of those gathered by the gospel’s proclamation as those called out by the Spirit to new lives of obedience, as Articles V to VII go on to spell out.”
Sorry if I’m being obtuse.
God bless,
Pastor Spomer
Alas, Pastor Spomer
Posted by
Paul Hinlicky
at
May 11, 2011 12:44
Rev. McCain often shoots before he takes aim.
Free fall?
Posted by
Randy
at
May 22, 2011 08:53
The ELCA in free fall? Hardly. Will it lose 10-15% of churches to the NALC? Yes, though 30% of those that join the NALC will leave after the first disagreement that body has (such as over the issues of divorced ministers and women ministers.) The NALC is a narrow (theologically) path most Lutheran Christians will not walk, as will also be the case with the Missouri folks, once you people have another blood letting and remove the "latest" apostates among you. Christianity is moving forward without the NALC and Missouri, which WILL lose members over the next 10 years at a rate FAR greater than the ELCA. (After the initial "growth" the NALC brags about, which is nothing more than fishing from the same pond.) As the "anti--gay" Lutheran choice, the NALC severely limits its ability to grow over the next 30 years; spend some time talking with young (under 30) folks and see how few have ANY interest in a church body that spends so much of its time and energy condemning a specific segment of the population, let alone building a new church around that homophobia. Its ALSO why the Missouri folks are aging; where are you going to grow in time? What well educated young woman or man wants to be part of church with such a narrow and restrictive (and hateful, in my mind)vision of God? LOOK at your demographics. 20 years from now, the ELCA will STILL be larger than the NALC and Missouri (its first cousin)combined. I cant wait to see the first time the NALC passes a controversial position at their national gathering, then asks member churches to ratify it. WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN IF PASSES 55%-45%? WHAT WILL THE 45% DO? THEY WILL LEAVE! The precident has been set; when you lose in a difficult vote, quit, and take your toys to start ANOTHER Lutheran church body. WATCH!
The ELCA has many problems, to be sure. But looking at the world and how the Church will have to interact with it to survive the 21st century, the NALC and Missouri are dinosaurs....a good ole boy church that wont make it over time. Fact.
Watch and see.
The ELCA has many problems, to be sure. But looking at the world and how the Church will have to interact with it to survive the 21st century, the NALC and Missouri are dinosaurs....a good ole boy church that wont make it over time. Fact.
Watch and see.
Free Fall?
Posted by
Pastor Spomer
at
May 24, 2011 22:01
Dear Randy,
You mention membership numbers as the criterion for success. Isn’t our first calling to do what’s right, rather than what’s popular? Remember Elijah.
Besides, even by the popularity criteria, the largest (Roman Catholic) and fastest growing (Pentecostal) have the same ‘vices’ that you see in Missouri Inc.
You mention membership numbers as the criterion for success. Isn’t our first calling to do what’s right, rather than what’s popular? Remember Elijah.
Besides, even by the popularity criteria, the largest (Roman Catholic) and fastest growing (Pentecostal) have the same ‘vices’ that you see in Missouri Inc.
Free Fall
Posted by
Dan
at
June 02, 2011 18:53
Maybe not free fall, but sort of a slow death spiral. The church was already aging and shrinking before the CWA. And that is going by laughably optimistic numbers. To add to that problem by jettisoning 10% of the congregations was idiotic. That, to me, was the most disturbing thing about the, gay clergy proponents: they were obviously killing the denomination, and they didn't care. The freedom to perform certain acts was more important.
Yes there are lots of under 30's who agree with the new rules. But guess what, they aren't going to go to your church anyway. They just like churches with no rules more than churches with rules, and part of the reason is that you don't have to show up at the ones with no rules.
Yes there are lots of under 30's who agree with the new rules. But guess what, they aren't going to go to your church anyway. They just like churches with no rules more than churches with rules, and part of the reason is that you don't have to show up at the ones with no rules.
comment
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
May 12, 2011 22:42
Simplicity is inherent within the Augsburg Confession when it declares that the church is wherever the Gospel is preached in its purity and the sacraments are rightly administered according to the Gospel. There needn't be any distinction making between a so-called visible church (and a resultant search for doctrinal visible unity) and invisible church. Unity is already achieved when the Gospel is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. No need for episcopate nor congregational design based on a sociological model (Schleiermacher's dilemma)to guarantee such visibility either. If we don't see it is based on a sinner's need for clarity. Faith in God's word in the Gospel declares that the unity is already there in Gospel-preaching and sacrament-administration. It is the preacher's job to find the mandatory content(that which must be there for the Gospel to be heard as Gospel) and preach it as such. The New Testament kerygma embodies that unity already and public confession of that kerygma evokes that unity.
Drs. Hinlicky & Paulson
Posted by
Pastor Jim Wagner
at
May 13, 2011 09:11
It is a strange world we live in. I just returned from my Spring STS retreat with a copy of Steve Pauslon's new book under one arm and a copy of Robert Jenson's systematics under the other (literally!). Beside my bed are two volumes of Piepkorn, and on my shelf, close at hand, are two volumes of Sasse.
At our retreat were four from the ELCA, one from LCMS and one from NALC. While we would all probably be considered Evangelical Catholics, at least two of us are avid readers of Forde and I suspect both Drs. Hinlickly and Paulson would find the gospel preached in its purity and the sacraments administered according to the gospel were they to show up in any of our congregations this Sunday (although the use of a eucharistic prayer by most - but not all - of us might set Dr. Paulson a bit on edge). In my years as a guest and member of STS I can honestly say that I have heard only one bad sermon - something that is hard to say about many other gatherings I have attended.
I came of age in a wonderful time in American Luheranism. I was nurtured on Prenter, Aulen and Wingren. While still in (an ALC!) seminary I heard both Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson lecture. As a young pastor I learned of Gerhard Forde and read everything of his I could get my hands on. And the old Dialog. It was a wonderful time when bothers (there weren't many sister-theologians or pastors in those days) dwelt together in unity (mostly).
These days some of my closest colleagues are from the LCMS. They are a Godsend. We study the confessions together regularly. And yes, there are many faithful gospel-preachers in the ELCA too!
I guess what I want to say it that the gospel will not be silenced, whatever the foibles of individual bishops, theologians or church bodies. I do worry about the training of our younger pastors, but as long as there are voices like those of Drs. Paulson, Hinlicky and others, bad ecclesiology will not be able to trump good theology.
There was plenty of bad preaching in the "good old days" and many of us survived. Likewise, bright young pastors will always be called forth to preach and preside in grace and truth. If I didn't believe that it would be a hopeless time indeed.
At our retreat were four from the ELCA, one from LCMS and one from NALC. While we would all probably be considered Evangelical Catholics, at least two of us are avid readers of Forde and I suspect both Drs. Hinlickly and Paulson would find the gospel preached in its purity and the sacraments administered according to the gospel were they to show up in any of our congregations this Sunday (although the use of a eucharistic prayer by most - but not all - of us might set Dr. Paulson a bit on edge). In my years as a guest and member of STS I can honestly say that I have heard only one bad sermon - something that is hard to say about many other gatherings I have attended.
I came of age in a wonderful time in American Luheranism. I was nurtured on Prenter, Aulen and Wingren. While still in (an ALC!) seminary I heard both Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson lecture. As a young pastor I learned of Gerhard Forde and read everything of his I could get my hands on. And the old Dialog. It was a wonderful time when bothers (there weren't many sister-theologians or pastors in those days) dwelt together in unity (mostly).
These days some of my closest colleagues are from the LCMS. They are a Godsend. We study the confessions together regularly. And yes, there are many faithful gospel-preachers in the ELCA too!
I guess what I want to say it that the gospel will not be silenced, whatever the foibles of individual bishops, theologians or church bodies. I do worry about the training of our younger pastors, but as long as there are voices like those of Drs. Paulson, Hinlicky and others, bad ecclesiology will not be able to trump good theology.
There was plenty of bad preaching in the "good old days" and many of us survived. Likewise, bright young pastors will always be called forth to preach and preside in grace and truth. If I didn't believe that it would be a hopeless time indeed.
thanks
Posted by
Geoff Sinibaldo
at
May 26, 2011 08:07
Great response Jim - and thanks to all for who in the midst of the mess we find ourselves in continue to assert and clarify and assert again.
As an ELCA pastor who often feels like I'm on the outside looking in, other times happy not to be in, and many times intentionally looking to network elsewhere - I have come to believe that there never really were "good old days" when the gospel was preached and taught with truth and clarity - only different challenges. The gospel is never easy to preach - that is its scandal; but a scandal worth bringing to bear each time God's Word is opened to us. Yes, the church is a dismal mess. Yes, much of that mess is our own doing, and by our own making. Yes, it could be a lot better if we got smarter, more refined, more focused, and less interested in the many "isms" that seem to concern us so greatly. We'll all have to answer for that. But greater still is God's love for sinners like you and me revealed on a cross by some guy named Jesus we call savior and Lord. Jesus says, "because I live, you will live." (Jn.14:19) "Alive" - let us tend to this mess we call the church with joy. Thanks for stying in the fight.
As an ELCA pastor who often feels like I'm on the outside looking in, other times happy not to be in, and many times intentionally looking to network elsewhere - I have come to believe that there never really were "good old days" when the gospel was preached and taught with truth and clarity - only different challenges. The gospel is never easy to preach - that is its scandal; but a scandal worth bringing to bear each time God's Word is opened to us. Yes, the church is a dismal mess. Yes, much of that mess is our own doing, and by our own making. Yes, it could be a lot better if we got smarter, more refined, more focused, and less interested in the many "isms" that seem to concern us so greatly. We'll all have to answer for that. But greater still is God's love for sinners like you and me revealed on a cross by some guy named Jesus we call savior and Lord. Jesus says, "because I live, you will live." (Jn.14:19) "Alive" - let us tend to this mess we call the church with joy. Thanks for stying in the fight.
comment
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
May 26, 2011 20:38
Yes, it is true that the ELCA is a mess. But the church isn't the ELCA. The ELCA is the latest "incarnation" which holds and houses a banner for those who wish to attempt to find the mandatory content which speaks and hears the Gospel. Much of the mess, if it is a mess, has to do with how we understand "the church", ie. ecclesiology.
I continue to believe that the Augsburg confessors got it right when they discovered the simple angle that the true, visible church is where the Gospel is preached in its purity and the sacraments are rightly administered according to that Gospel.
The interesting bit is that the "house" in which this Gospel is found can be anywhere and at anytime as long as the Gospel is preached there.
I tell the congregations here that the context is of lesser importance, in this instance, than the New Testament (ie. the new covenant)itself. You can have the most profoundly large building or the meekest cottage:
but if the Gospel isn't there don't call that the church. It could be rotary club, or a political action committee, but it is not the church.
I continue to believe that the Augsburg confessors got it right when they discovered the simple angle that the true, visible church is where the Gospel is preached in its purity and the sacraments are rightly administered according to that Gospel.
The interesting bit is that the "house" in which this Gospel is found can be anywhere and at anytime as long as the Gospel is preached there.
I tell the congregations here that the context is of lesser importance, in this instance, than the New Testament (ie. the new covenant)itself. You can have the most profoundly large building or the meekest cottage:
but if the Gospel isn't there don't call that the church. It could be rotary club, or a political action committee, but it is not the church.
comment
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
May 26, 2011 20:38
Yes, it is true that the ELCA is a mess. But the church isn't the ELCA. The ELCA is the latest "incarnation" which holds and houses a banner for those who wish to attempt to find the mandatory content which speaks and hears the Gospel. Much of the mess, if it is a mess, has to do with how we understand "the church", ie. ecclesiology.
I continue to believe that the Augsburg confessors got it right when they discovered the simple angle that the true, visible church is where the Gospel is preached in its purity and the sacraments are rightly administered according to that Gospel.
The interesting bit is that the "house" in which this Gospel is found can be anywhere and at anytime as long as the Gospel is preached there.
I tell the congregations here that the context is of lesser importance, in this instance, than the New Testament (ie. the new covenant)itself. You can have the most profoundly large building or the meekest cottage:
but if the Gospel isn't there don't call that the church. It could be rotary club, or a political action committee, but it is not the church.
I continue to believe that the Augsburg confessors got it right when they discovered the simple angle that the true, visible church is where the Gospel is preached in its purity and the sacraments are rightly administered according to that Gospel.
The interesting bit is that the "house" in which this Gospel is found can be anywhere and at anytime as long as the Gospel is preached there.
I tell the congregations here that the context is of lesser importance, in this instance, than the New Testament (ie. the new covenant)itself. You can have the most profoundly large building or the meekest cottage:
but if the Gospel isn't there don't call that the church. It could be rotary club, or a political action committee, but it is not the church.
comment
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
May 26, 2011 20:38
Yes, it is true that the ELCA is a mess. But the church isn't the ELCA. The ELCA is the latest "incarnation" which holds and houses a banner for those who wish to attempt to find the mandatory content which speaks and hears the Gospel. Much of the mess, if it is a mess, has to do with how we understand "the church", ie. ecclesiology.
I continue to believe that the Augsburg confessors got it right when they discovered the simple angle that the true, visible church is where the Gospel is preached in its purity and the sacraments are rightly administered according to that Gospel.
The interesting bit is that the "house" in which this Gospel is found can be anywhere and at anytime as long as the Gospel is preached there.
I tell the congregations here that the context is of lesser importance, in this instance, than the New Testament (ie. the new covenant)itself. You can have the most profoundly large building or the meekest cottage:
but if the Gospel isn't there don't call that the church. It could be rotary club, or a political action committee, but it is not the church.
I continue to believe that the Augsburg confessors got it right when they discovered the simple angle that the true, visible church is where the Gospel is preached in its purity and the sacraments are rightly administered according to that Gospel.
The interesting bit is that the "house" in which this Gospel is found can be anywhere and at anytime as long as the Gospel is preached there.
I tell the congregations here that the context is of lesser importance, in this instance, than the New Testament (ie. the new covenant)itself. You can have the most profoundly large building or the meekest cottage:
but if the Gospel isn't there don't call that the church. It could be rotary club, or a political action committee, but it is not the church.
Gospel purity and rightly administered Sacraments
Posted by
Son of WMC
at
May 27, 2011 23:54
Ok, so I am Joe Seeker and I want to love God with all my heart, soul, strength, and mind and love all as Jesus has loved me. He has said of the Church that he has created that the gates of Hades will never prevail against it. So I take that to mean it is here in this world now or his promise is a lie. If we go by the "Satis Est" criterion, can you point me to this Church so I can join it? I'm not sure you can. The definition is thought to be specific but in truth is nebulous because there is no agreement even among Lutherans (whether across denominational flavors of Lutherans or within them, much less beyond this segment of Christianity) as to what comprises such pure preaching and Sacramental administration. Even if you point me to a bunch of Bible verses that supposedly define what the "Satis Est" means, somebody is going to contradict you, and then how am I, Joe Seeker, supposed to figure out who is right? There has got to be more than the "Satis Est", more than Sola Scriptura (because it too is so variously interpreted) so that one like me can know that I am not only following Jesus but getting properly what he intends to give me (not just a little, or a moderate amount, but the fullness of his grace that he intends me and all people to have access to). Please, I beg you all, tell me where is this Church?
reply to Hinlicky