See the related post on my main blog. Taken from the Spectator website (original version here), not to circumvent the need for registration, but because the formatting on the original version was so appalling that I've had to tidy it up to make the article legible. If anyone from the Spectator should come across this copy and wish me to take it down, then I will be more than happy to do so, but would appreciate it if "they" could tidy up the version on their website in return!
Just who are They, and what are They up to?
Matthew Parris
They asked me how I knew/My true love was true… Or so the song goes. But who were they, and why did they ask anyway? They don’t appear very sympathetic – they with their sneering inquiries about how I knew my love was true. Are they the same They as the They who don’t know It’s the end of the world (It ended when you said goodbye)?
They pop up not only in song but all over the place in English discourse. They sound like a bossy and snooty crowd of know-it-alls. They are well placed. They are in touch. They are in the loop. They can make waves. They are depressingly indifferent to our fate. They push us around. They talk behind our backs. They don’t understand how we feel. Who do they think they are? When will they ever learn?/When will they ever learn?
They are also closer than we to where it’s at. Everything’s up-to-date in Kansas City/They’ve gone about as far as they can go/They went and built a skyscraper seven stories high/About as high as a building oughta grow. But then they would, wouldn’t they? It’s the kind of thing they do.
I have been sitting in a village pub in Derbyshire, pondering Them and their significance in popular thought. Conversation overheard can be more revealing than conversation joined, and I listened unnoticed to a discussion of how They can now impound your car without so much as a by-your-leave, in a range of circumstances known only to them. Not only was it unclear from the context whether They were the police, the local authorities or some official bully unspecified; it was highly doubtful whether anyone involved in the conversation really cared to know.
‘They’ was a more satisfactory way of putting it, permitting the conversation to rest at the participants’ preferred level of generalised dissatisfaction with the myriad monstrous interferences in our lives. To discuss in any detail what precisely the rules were, or who made and implemented them, might have drawn the conversation on to pricklier or more challenging ground – such as why there were rules in the first place, what the rules ought to be, or even (heaven forbid) whether we ordinary folk might make some sort of effort to get them changed.
The third-person plural is a marvellously sloppy get-out. ‘I’ or ‘we’ might involve personal complicity; ‘you’ or ‘he’ points an invidious finger and invites a comeback. But the use of ‘they’ allows the speaker to shift responsibility on to a sketchy entity just about able to bear the weight of our grievance, but not so clearly outlined as to amount to anything we could confront, check our facts with, or take our complaints or inquiries to. ‘They’ have no address or telephone number and do not stand for Parliament. The term is a shorthand for saying, ‘This is my grouse but I don’t plan to do anything about it’: a sort of generalised shrug which suggests there wouldn’t be any point. They never listen anyway.
Do other language-groups use the third-person plural in this way? Spanish sometimes does, I am told, but not so commonly. The French would tend to employ ‘on’ – using, for example, ‘on dit’ where we might use ‘they say’. Though on does carry some of the other-people-ness of ‘they’, it does not carry so much. ‘On fait…’ simply indicates current practice, including perhaps our own. ‘They’re carpeting ceilings now,’ I heard a fellow coach traveller once observe, staring at the interior trim above us. ‘One carpets ceilings’ would have made a different point, suggesting this is a fashion we, too, may follow.
‘One’, though rather grand, is a more democratic expression. For ‘they’ implies the abnegation of democracy and equality. Used variously to hint at resentment, dismay, sometimes wonder and even admiration, it not only separates the speaker from the perpetrators of whatever it is They do, but also implies that they are almost another order of beings, inhabiting another world beyond our control. Recourse to the term suggests passivity in the speaker, as though he and his intended audience are mere onlookers to the march of history. There is no suggestion that he or they could intervene to challenge, change, join or even understand Them and their doings. So, though ‘they’ implies dissatisfaction, it does not presage action. It is not a manner of speaking one would hear much from members of the Establishment and is used (I think) less often by upper-class than by humbler speakers, less often in town than in rural Britain, and least often in London – for, after all, They are quite likely these days to live in Islington.
This habit of speech is ancient, and very English. It echoes from an epoch when most people (and especially the poor) lived much closer to the land, and all the great decisions were made far away in London. Then, They really were a different world – of which, without daily newspapers or radio and television, most people’s knowledge was as much hearsay or rumour as personal experience or direct news.
I can think of no better unwitting guide to a modern individual’s estimation of his and his peers’ own powerlessness in the universe than his recourse to the third-person plural as a shorthand for other human beings. Do you think that we have set foot on the Moon, or that they have? Do you think that we are searching for a cure for cancer, or that they are? Can we fly faster than the speed of sound these days, or can they? Do we understand the origins of the universe, or do they? Will we – or they? – be cloning humans next?
Note that one can say (for instance) that ‘we’ are searching for a cure for cancer without meaning to imply that one is doing so oneself. I can without hesitation write that we may be about to go to war with Iraq when I myself would disapprove of this and might refuse to go myself. I say ‘we’ because I feel involved in national decisions; I feel this is my country, in whose policies I have a say and for whose actions I bear a responsibility. Paradoxically, such expressions as ‘next month they may go to war with Iraq’ are more likely to come from the very people who really could say ‘we’: the ones who will be sent to fight there.
Where have all the soldiers gone?/Gone to graveyards every one,/When will they ever learn?/When will they ever learn?
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
The Uniqueness of the Lutheran Reformation
Several weeks ago, I promised to post a summary of Dr Ronald Feuerhahn's recent lecture at our church on "The Uniqueness of the Lutheran Reformation". Here it is now.
Please note that this is a summary (and, to some extent, even an interpretation) rather than a precise transcript of what Dr Feuerhahn said. Any errors or confused arguments are therefore likely to be my fault rather than Dr Feuerhahn's!
Dr Feuerhahn started by briefly outlining the three different types of reformation:
Dr Feuerhahn then applied this to a number of areas, to demonstrate how the Lutheran Reformation can be distinguished from the other, "institutional" or "moral", reformations.
Reform of the Church
Calvin and Zwingli argued that the mediaeval church was corrupt, and that it was necessary to go back to the time of Jesus and the apostles to find a model for a reformed church (Calvin in many respects went back even further, into the Old Testament). This was also the approach taken by Karlstadt, who launched the 1522 iconoclasm in Wittenberg, prompting Luther's return from the Wartburg.
Luther responded to such calls for a purified, New Testament church, that we can't simply do what Jesus, because He was unique as the incarnate Son of God (as Luther pointed out, we are unable to walk on water!). Similarly, the apostles were in a unique situation, with unique gifts.
Luther argued instead that, just as the individual Christian is simil iustus et peccator, "simultaneously justified and sinful", so the church is simil sanctus et peccator, simultaneously holy and sinful. A "purified" church will be just as sinful as the "corrupt" church it seeks to replace.
Crucially, the "purifiers", the "moral" reformers, were looking to the Law rather than to the Gospel. We need rather to look at the Gospel. It is not about what we are to do to purify the church (Law), but about bringing the Gospel to the church as she is.
As Luther put it:
The great objection of Roman Catholics to the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith was based on 1 Corinthians 13:13 – "the greatest of these is love". Love is more important than faith, so it was love we needed first, before we could be justified.
Melancthon's response to this was to say that love is concerned with horizontal relationships between people. When we meet someone, we don't first talk about our faith, but we show them our love for them. But with God – in the vertical dimension – the crucial thing is faith, the empty hand by which we receive the gift of righteousness and eternal life. The first thing God does is to forgive us our sins.
Law and Gospel
While Calvin, like Luther, taught the distinction between Law and Gospel, he argued that they were both the Word of God and were therefore to be put on an equal footing.
Luther agreed that Law and Gospel were both the Word of God. However, the Law is God's alien Word, and the Gospel is God's proper Word. The Law is what God doesn't want to say, but has to. We won't ever hear the Law in heaven – we won't need it! – but we will hear the Gospel.
Fellowship
This is the section of the lecture that particularly riled my Baptist friend, as Dr Feuerhahn turned to the issue of fellowship, and particularly fellowship in the Sacrament of the Altar.
Dr Feuerhahn pointed out that in the Bible, fellowship - koinonia - is not something we choose (i.e. Law, something concerned with what we are to do or not to do). Rather, it is something that exists as we participate in God's gifts, in particular the Gospel, Holy Baptism, absolution, the Lord's Supper, suffering, and so on.
This is the link between the two NT meanings of koinonia, namely fellowship and participation: if we don't share the gifts, then fellowship does not exist. Fellowship is based on a common participation in God's gifts – Gospel – not something which we can decide to "do" for ourselves (Law). Hence, where there is no true sharing in these gifts – because one or other person denies some aspect of the Gospel or teachings relating to the Sacraments – then to that extent there is no true fellowship.
Until the 19th Century, everyone was agreed on this. Everyone was agreed that you cannot commune where there is a different confession. This can be seen in the definitions of the church dating from Reformation times (such as the Augsburg Confession or the Thirty-Nine Articles): the church can be found wherever the Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments duly administered.
But in the 19th Century, Schleiermacher introduced the concept that the church is found where the people are found (a view which has now swept all before it in much of the church, under the apparently-blameless slogan "the church is the people"). So fellowship is a human decision, one based on what I do or don't do.
Thus open communion is an approach rooted in the Law, as it holds that fellowship in the Supper is based on our actions and choices. Close communion, on the other hand, is based on a common confession of the Word and Sacraments – in other words, the Gospel.
What does "confession" mean? Literally, it means "same-say", same-saying with God and with one another. We see this in the Divine Service. First of all we see it negatively, in the confession of our sins. God tells us "you are a sinner", and we reply, "yes, Lord". Then we see it positively, in the confession of faith, where we "same-say" what God has revealed to us about Himself.
Incidentally, Luther's favourite creed was the Nicene Creed. Why? Because of what he described as its "for-usness" ("For us men and for our salvation… For our sake…").
Lutheran Worship
In addition from the "same-saying" of our confession of sin and confession of faith in the Divine Service, the Law and Gospel distinction also lies behind Lutheranism's approach to the rest of worship.
The Lutheran attitude to worship is that it is primarily God's act, rather than our own. First and foremost it is Gospel – what God has done – not Law – what we are to do and not to do. This is the true meaning of "Divine Service" – God's service, God's act (as summarized in the beautiful German expression, Gottesdienst).
Dr Feuerhahn quoted Norman Nagel's introduction from Lutheran Worship as a definitive statement of the Lutheran doctrine of worship:
There is also a difference in the Lutheran and Calvinist approaches to preaching. For Lutherans, preaching is truly a means of grace by which God works to save us (exposing our sin and convicting us by the Law, bestowing forgiveness upon us by the Gospel). This is one reason why Lutheran pastors retained the traditional "clerical" dress.
Calvin, however, placed more emphasis on preaching as teaching. Hence the switch in Geneva to the gown, which was academic dress. [A perspective also reflected in the Church of England: while the Elizabethan Settlement restored clerical vestments in place of Geneva-style academic dress, clergy were still required to wear an academic hood when preaching].
The Hiddenness of God
The Lutheran conception of worship is also linked to the distinctive Lutheran teaching of the hiddenness of God. God is hidden, and we are to look for Him only where he has promised to be found. If we look elsewhere, we may find Satan instead.
The hiddenness of God also affects our attitude to prayer, as we learn to understand "the yes behind Jesus' no" – think of the Syro-Phoenician woman, and her persistence in the face of an almost brutal initial rebuff from the Lord ("It is not right to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs").
Conclusions and reflections
Looking back at Dr Feuerhahn's lecture, the one point on which I would still take issue is his assertion that Calvin's reformation was merely "moral". There may have been a greater emphasis on outward transformation and regulation of personal behaviour in Geneva rather than Wittenberg; Calvin may have placed a greater stress on the role of the Law in the Christian life; but I still feel it is overstating the case to say that the Genevan Reformation was merely "moral", while the Lutheran Reformation alone was "doctrinal". But I'm happy to listen to arguments either way on this one.
What I found most helpful in the lecture was Dr Feuerhahn's powerful and illuminating use of a Law/Gospel, as he demonstrated throughout his lecture that on issue after issue, what distinguishes the Lutheran Reformation is the distinction of Law and Gospel, applied in every area of the church's life. What cannot be conveyed on the "printed" page is Dr Feuerhahn's simple but effective use of gesture to help illustrate the point: gesturing to the left while referring to the Law ("what we are to do and not to do"), gesturing to the right while referring to the Gospel ("what God has done"). Doesn't sound like much, but it made the stark distinction between the two very clear.
Please note that this is a summary (and, to some extent, even an interpretation) rather than a precise transcript of what Dr Feuerhahn said. Any errors or confused arguments are therefore likely to be my fault rather than Dr Feuerhahn's!
Dr Feuerhahn started by briefly outlining the three different types of reformation:
- institutional: reform "from within", the approach of the conciliarists and of humanists like Erasmus;
- moral: reform that focuses on people's behaviour, which Dr Feuerhahn argued was characteristic of the Swiss Reformations under Zwingli and Calvin; and
- doctrinal: the distinctive characteristic of the Lutheran Reformation was that it was truly a doctrinal reformation, rather than merely institutional or moral.
- the Law proclaims what we are to do and not to do
- the Gospel proclaims what God has done
Dr Feuerhahn then applied this to a number of areas, to demonstrate how the Lutheran Reformation can be distinguished from the other, "institutional" or "moral", reformations.
Reform of the Church
Calvin and Zwingli argued that the mediaeval church was corrupt, and that it was necessary to go back to the time of Jesus and the apostles to find a model for a reformed church (Calvin in many respects went back even further, into the Old Testament). This was also the approach taken by Karlstadt, who launched the 1522 iconoclasm in Wittenberg, prompting Luther's return from the Wartburg.
Luther responded to such calls for a purified, New Testament church, that we can't simply do what Jesus, because He was unique as the incarnate Son of God (as Luther pointed out, we are unable to walk on water!). Similarly, the apostles were in a unique situation, with unique gifts.
Luther argued instead that, just as the individual Christian is simil iustus et peccator, "simultaneously justified and sinful", so the church is simil sanctus et peccator, simultaneously holy and sinful. A "purified" church will be just as sinful as the "corrupt" church it seeks to replace.
Crucially, the "purifiers", the "moral" reformers, were looking to the Law rather than to the Gospel. We need rather to look at the Gospel. It is not about what we are to do to purify the church (Law), but about bringing the Gospel to the church as she is.
As Luther put it:
Doctrine and life are to be distinguished. Life is as bad among us as among the papists. Hence we do not fight and damn them because of their bad lives. Wyclif and Hus, who fought over the moral quality of life, failed to understand this . . . When the Word of God , remains pure, even if the quality of life fails us, life is placed in a position to be what it ought to be. That is why everything hinges on the purity of the Word. I have succeeded only if I have taught correctly (WA TR 1:624; LW 54:110).Faith and Love
The great objection of Roman Catholics to the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith was based on 1 Corinthians 13:13 – "the greatest of these is love". Love is more important than faith, so it was love we needed first, before we could be justified.
Melancthon's response to this was to say that love is concerned with horizontal relationships between people. When we meet someone, we don't first talk about our faith, but we show them our love for them. But with God – in the vertical dimension – the crucial thing is faith, the empty hand by which we receive the gift of righteousness and eternal life. The first thing God does is to forgive us our sins.
Law and Gospel
While Calvin, like Luther, taught the distinction between Law and Gospel, he argued that they were both the Word of God and were therefore to be put on an equal footing.
Luther agreed that Law and Gospel were both the Word of God. However, the Law is God's alien Word, and the Gospel is God's proper Word. The Law is what God doesn't want to say, but has to. We won't ever hear the Law in heaven – we won't need it! – but we will hear the Gospel.
Fellowship
This is the section of the lecture that particularly riled my Baptist friend, as Dr Feuerhahn turned to the issue of fellowship, and particularly fellowship in the Sacrament of the Altar.
Dr Feuerhahn pointed out that in the Bible, fellowship - koinonia - is not something we choose (i.e. Law, something concerned with what we are to do or not to do). Rather, it is something that exists as we participate in God's gifts, in particular the Gospel, Holy Baptism, absolution, the Lord's Supper, suffering, and so on.
This is the link between the two NT meanings of koinonia, namely fellowship and participation: if we don't share the gifts, then fellowship does not exist. Fellowship is based on a common participation in God's gifts – Gospel – not something which we can decide to "do" for ourselves (Law). Hence, where there is no true sharing in these gifts – because one or other person denies some aspect of the Gospel or teachings relating to the Sacraments – then to that extent there is no true fellowship.
Until the 19th Century, everyone was agreed on this. Everyone was agreed that you cannot commune where there is a different confession. This can be seen in the definitions of the church dating from Reformation times (such as the Augsburg Confession or the Thirty-Nine Articles): the church can be found wherever the Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments duly administered.
But in the 19th Century, Schleiermacher introduced the concept that the church is found where the people are found (a view which has now swept all before it in much of the church, under the apparently-blameless slogan "the church is the people"). So fellowship is a human decision, one based on what I do or don't do.
Thus open communion is an approach rooted in the Law, as it holds that fellowship in the Supper is based on our actions and choices. Close communion, on the other hand, is based on a common confession of the Word and Sacraments – in other words, the Gospel.
What does "confession" mean? Literally, it means "same-say", same-saying with God and with one another. We see this in the Divine Service. First of all we see it negatively, in the confession of our sins. God tells us "you are a sinner", and we reply, "yes, Lord". Then we see it positively, in the confession of faith, where we "same-say" what God has revealed to us about Himself.
Incidentally, Luther's favourite creed was the Nicene Creed. Why? Because of what he described as its "for-usness" ("For us men and for our salvation… For our sake…").
Lutheran Worship
In addition from the "same-saying" of our confession of sin and confession of faith in the Divine Service, the Law and Gospel distinction also lies behind Lutheranism's approach to the rest of worship.
The Lutheran attitude to worship is that it is primarily God's act, rather than our own. First and foremost it is Gospel – what God has done – not Law – what we are to do and not to do. This is the true meaning of "Divine Service" – God's service, God's act (as summarized in the beautiful German expression, Gottesdienst).
Dr Feuerhahn quoted Norman Nagel's introduction from Lutheran Worship as a definitive statement of the Lutheran doctrine of worship:
Our Lord speaks and we listen. His Word bestows what it says. Faith that is born from what is heard acknowledges the gifts received with eager thankfulness and praise. Saying back to him what he has said to us, we repeat what is most true and sure. Most true and sure is his name, which he put upon us with the water of our Baptism. We are his. The rhythm of our worship is from him to us, and then from us back to him. He gives his gifts, and together we receive and extol him. We build each other up as we speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Our Lord gives us his body to eat and his blood to drink. Finally his blessing moves us out into our calling, where his gifts have their fruitionThis applies right from the start of the service, with the invocation – "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", which fulfils the Old Testament promise that the place of blessing for God's people is "the place where God's name dwells."
There is also a difference in the Lutheran and Calvinist approaches to preaching. For Lutherans, preaching is truly a means of grace by which God works to save us (exposing our sin and convicting us by the Law, bestowing forgiveness upon us by the Gospel). This is one reason why Lutheran pastors retained the traditional "clerical" dress.
Calvin, however, placed more emphasis on preaching as teaching. Hence the switch in Geneva to the gown, which was academic dress. [A perspective also reflected in the Church of England: while the Elizabethan Settlement restored clerical vestments in place of Geneva-style academic dress, clergy were still required to wear an academic hood when preaching].
The Hiddenness of God
The Lutheran conception of worship is also linked to the distinctive Lutheran teaching of the hiddenness of God. God is hidden, and we are to look for Him only where he has promised to be found. If we look elsewhere, we may find Satan instead.
The hiddenness of God also affects our attitude to prayer, as we learn to understand "the yes behind Jesus' no" – think of the Syro-Phoenician woman, and her persistence in the face of an almost brutal initial rebuff from the Lord ("It is not right to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs").
Conclusions and reflections
Looking back at Dr Feuerhahn's lecture, the one point on which I would still take issue is his assertion that Calvin's reformation was merely "moral". There may have been a greater emphasis on outward transformation and regulation of personal behaviour in Geneva rather than Wittenberg; Calvin may have placed a greater stress on the role of the Law in the Christian life; but I still feel it is overstating the case to say that the Genevan Reformation was merely "moral", while the Lutheran Reformation alone was "doctrinal". But I'm happy to listen to arguments either way on this one.
What I found most helpful in the lecture was Dr Feuerhahn's powerful and illuminating use of a Law/Gospel, as he demonstrated throughout his lecture that on issue after issue, what distinguishes the Lutheran Reformation is the distinction of Law and Gospel, applied in every area of the church's life. What cannot be conveyed on the "printed" page is Dr Feuerhahn's simple but effective use of gesture to help illustrate the point: gesturing to the left while referring to the Law ("what we are to do and not to do"), gesturing to the right while referring to the Gospel ("what God has done"). Doesn't sound like much, but it made the stark distinction between the two very clear.
Friday, June 11, 2004
Evangelism in the Lutheran Confessions
Here is the full list of BoC quotations posted by Pr Weedon on LutherQuest in support of the public proclamation of the Word in the Divine Service as the principal means of evangelism for the church (see the related post on my main blog):
So that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and the sacraments as through instruments the Holy Spirit is given, who effects faith where and when it pleases God in those who hear the Gospel, that is to say, in those who believe that God, not on account of our own merits but on account of Christ, justifies those who believe that we are received into grace on account of Christ. Gal. 3:14b: "So that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." They condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Spirit comes to human beings without the Word through their own preparations. AC V
Places, times, persons, and the entire outward order of worship have therefore been instituted and appointed in order that the Word of God may exert its power publicly. Large Catechism, I:94
On the other hand, when we seriously ponder the Word, hear it, and put it to use, such is its power that it never departs without fruit. It always awakens new understanding, pleasure, and devotion, and it constantly creates clean hearts and minds. For this Word is not idle or dead, but effective and living. Large Catechism, 1:101
Therefore in his immeasurable goodness and mercy God provides for the public proclamation of his divine eternal law and of the wondrous counsel of our redemption, the holy gospel of his eternal Son, our only Savior Jesus Christ, which alone can save. By means of this proclamation he gathers an everlasting church from humankind, and he effects in human hearts true repentance and knowledge of sin and true faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. God wants to call human beings to eternal salvation, to draw them to himself, to convert them, to give them new birth and to sanctify them through these means, and in no other way than through his holy Word (which people hear proclaimed and read) and through the sacraments (which they use according to the Word). SD II:50
All who want to be saved should listen to this proclamation. For the proclamation and the hearing of God's Word are the Holy Spirit's tools, in, with, and through which he wills to work effectively and convert people to God and within whom he wants to effect both the desire for and the completion of their salvation. SD II:52
A person who has not yet been converted to God and been reborn can hear and read this Word externally, for in such external matters, as stated above, people have a free will to a certain extent even after the fall, so that they can go to church and listen or not listen to the sermon. Through these means (the preaching and hearing of his Word), God goes about his work and breaks our hearts and draws people, that they recognize their sins and God's wrath through the preaching of the law and feel real terror, regret and sorrow in their hearts. Through the preaching of the holy gospel of the gracious forgiveness of sins in Christ and through meditating upon it, a spark of faith is ignited in them, and they accept the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake and receive the comfort of the promise of the gospel. In this way the Holy Spirit, who effects all of this, is sent into their hearts. SD II:53,54
Because the natural powers of the human beings cannot do anything or help in anyway (1 Cor. 2:4-12; 2 Cor. 3:4-12), God comes to us first, out of his immeasurable goodness and mercy. He causes his holy gospel to be preached, through which the Holy Spirit desires to effect and to accomplish this conversion and renewal in us. Through the proclamation of his Word and meditation upon us he ignites faith and other God-pleasing virtues in us so that they are the gifts and the activities of the Holy Spirit alone. SD II:71
The Father wills that all people should hear this proclamation and come to Christ. And Christ will never thrust them away from himself, as it is written, "Anyone who comes to me I will never drive away [John 6:37]" That we may come to Christ, the Holy Spirit creates faith through the hearing of the Word, as the Apostle testifies when he says, "So faith comes from hearing God's Word" [Rom 10:17] when it is proclaimed purely and clearly. SD XI:68,69
According to his normal arrangement, the Father draws people by the power of his Holy Spirit through the hearing of the divine Word, as with a net, through which the elect are snatched out of the jaws of the devil. For this reason every poor sinner should act in such a way as to hear the Word diligently and not doubt that the Father is drawing people to himself. For the Holy Spirit wills to be present with his power in the Word and to work through it. This is the drawing of the Father. The reason why not all who hear the Word believe it (and thus receive the greater damnation) is not that God has not allowed them to be saved. Instead, it is their own fault, for they heard the Word not so that they might learn from it but only to despise, revile, and ridicule it; and they resisted the Holy Spirit, who wanted to work in them through the Word, as happened at Christ's time with the Pharisees and their adherents [Matt 23:26-36; Luke 11:37-54; John 7:48; 8:13; 9:16, 41; 12:42] SD XI:76-78
Monday, May 24, 2004
Defending "close communion"
This is how I ended up responding to our former Baptist pastor who expressed strong concerns about closed communion, following a lecture by Dr Ron Feuerhahn (see my earlier post on this subject).
Please bear in mind that my aim here was as much to reassure as to convince - in particular, please bear this in mind when reading my presentation of our (Lutheran) pastor's comments on the subject. If you have any issues with what our pastor had to say on this subject, please work on the assumption that I have misunderstood or misrepresented him. While I do not believe I have misrepresented what our pastor said, in the circumstances I have preferred to emphasise the differences between him and Dr Feuerhahn rather than the points of agreement. I'm really not interested in getting into a controversy on this whole issue, though any feedback is welcome.
Hi M______,
[...]
I did promise you I'd get back to you about close(d) communion. We raised this with our pastor at our membership class on Wednesday, and ended up spending most of the session discussing this and related issues.
We found the discussion reassuring. [Our pastor] said that he takes a different approach from Dr Feuerhahn on this issue. He explained that a range of views is found within Lutheranism on this issue, and Dr Feuerhahn is very much at one end of the scale on this. [Our pastor] described his own position as "close communion" rather than "closed communion" (OK, only one letter different - but I suppose one letter was enough to make the difference between Arianism and orthodox Christianity...).
In a nutshell, [our pastor] sees his job as not to peer into people's hearts to see what they really believe on every issue (like you said, the onus is ultimately on the participant to "examine themselves", per 1 Cor 11:28). Rather, he sees his task as simply to set out what Lutherans believe concerning the Lord's Supper: namely, that it is "the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and drink" (as the Small Catechism puts it). If people profess their agreement to this teaching, then he is happy for them to come to the Lord's Table.
Of course, if someone does not agree with that teaching, then it is probably neither appropriate nor desirable (from their own point of view) for them to be taking part. It's not a case of saying, "Go away, you are a second-class Christian unworthy of the Lord's Table", but rather, "This is what we believe, teach and confess is going on at the Lord's Table - on that basis, do you actually want to take part in this?"
When people line up at the communion rail to receive the bread and wine, the words used in the distribution are "Take, eat; this is the true body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, given into death for your sins" and "Take, drink; this is the true blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, shed for the forgiveness of your sins." I'm guessing you personally would not feel comfortable saying "Amen" to either of those statements. But then the issue isn't whether you are being unjustifiably "excluded"; the issue is whether the Lutheran understanding of the Lord's Supper is correct.
To go back to your comments about Christopher Idle and Dick Lucas [Anglican Evangelicals who had preached and taken the Lord's Supper at M's Baptist church recently] - while the three of you may not agree 100% on all points of doctrine, you are all pretty much agreed on what the Lord's Supper is about - that "is" means "represents", that the body and blood of Jesus are as far away from us as the heavens are from the earth, that what counts is our metaphorical "feeding" by remembrance and faith. In those circumstances it would indeed be wrong to exclude them from the Table.
As for my own views on this - well, I've never been a Zwinglian, have never held to a "mere memorial" view. Previously I've held to the classic Reformed view in which we do indeed receive and feed on the Lord's body as we eat the bread, and receive and drink the Lord's blood as we drink the wine, but that this feeding and drinking occurs only by faith - that it is not that Christ comes down to the Supper, but that we ascend by faith to Him in heaven (as taught by Calvin, the Heidelberg Catechism, the 39 Articles etc - Calvin himself regarded his teaching as being closer to Luther than to Zwingli).
The Lutheran teaching on the Lord's Supper, on the other hand, reflects the general Lutheran emphasis on the objective validity and efficacy of the Word of God - that God's promises remain true even if no-one believes them and (crucially) even if we have difficulty reconciling them with human reason or with the evidence presented to us by our human senses. So the Words of Institution ("this is my body ... this cup is the new testament in my blood") remain regardless of whether or not we believe them, and regardless of whether we can make sense of them with human reason.
I attach a PDF document which sets out the Lutheran teachings in more detail [note: this was qq.285ff. of the Explanation of the Small Catechism], but the ELCE's website summarises it well when it says:
While I do not expect to persuade you of the Lutheran position, I hope this helps alleviate your concerns about perceived "legalism" and "sectarianism". Also, that moving from the Reformed to the Lutheran position involves much less of a shift for me than it perhaps would for you. I hope we can agree to differ on the actual teachings about Lord's Supper as we already have done for some time on Baptism.
There are in fact a number of parallels with Baptism here: after all, there are literally thousands of churches in this country - and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Christians - who would deny that I (and many other Christians) have been baptised, and a good number of those churches would exclude me from membership on this account. Some might even exclude me from the Lord's Table over it (which is at least consistent - it's difficult to see what meaning Baptism has if people can even participate in the Lord's Supper without being validly baptised).
However hurt or offended people may be at being "excluded" from the Lord's Table in a Lutheran Church, it is no less hurtful to be told that one's baptism is invalid, to be excluded from membership in a church over the issue, and to sit through testimonies at "re-baptisms" in which people repudiate and denigrate their earlier baptism (and, by implication, one's own), all of which I have had to endure on numerous occasions in the last ten years.
Given what the NT says about baptism, to deny that someone is baptised is virtually to deny that they are Christians. I know that you have never sought to say this - quite the opposite - and I remain grateful for this, particularly thinking back to when we had to "seek refuge" at C________ [M's, and our, previous church]. But I think the Baptism issue remains a good illustration of churches saying, quite legitimately, "This is what we believe. We don't deny that you are a true Christian, but we do believe you are wrong about this, and please understand that we need to behave in a manner which is consistent with what we believe. Please don't ask us to change our beliefs just so we can avoid awkwardness or discomfort."
As always, I look forward to your response on any of this.
All the best,
John
Please bear in mind that my aim here was as much to reassure as to convince - in particular, please bear this in mind when reading my presentation of our (Lutheran) pastor's comments on the subject. If you have any issues with what our pastor had to say on this subject, please work on the assumption that I have misunderstood or misrepresented him. While I do not believe I have misrepresented what our pastor said, in the circumstances I have preferred to emphasise the differences between him and Dr Feuerhahn rather than the points of agreement. I'm really not interested in getting into a controversy on this whole issue, though any feedback is welcome.
Hi M______,
[...]
I did promise you I'd get back to you about close(d) communion. We raised this with our pastor at our membership class on Wednesday, and ended up spending most of the session discussing this and related issues.
We found the discussion reassuring. [Our pastor] said that he takes a different approach from Dr Feuerhahn on this issue. He explained that a range of views is found within Lutheranism on this issue, and Dr Feuerhahn is very much at one end of the scale on this. [Our pastor] described his own position as "close communion" rather than "closed communion" (OK, only one letter different - but I suppose one letter was enough to make the difference between Arianism and orthodox Christianity...).
In a nutshell, [our pastor] sees his job as not to peer into people's hearts to see what they really believe on every issue (like you said, the onus is ultimately on the participant to "examine themselves", per 1 Cor 11:28). Rather, he sees his task as simply to set out what Lutherans believe concerning the Lord's Supper: namely, that it is "the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and drink" (as the Small Catechism puts it). If people profess their agreement to this teaching, then he is happy for them to come to the Lord's Table.
Of course, if someone does not agree with that teaching, then it is probably neither appropriate nor desirable (from their own point of view) for them to be taking part. It's not a case of saying, "Go away, you are a second-class Christian unworthy of the Lord's Table", but rather, "This is what we believe, teach and confess is going on at the Lord's Table - on that basis, do you actually want to take part in this?"
When people line up at the communion rail to receive the bread and wine, the words used in the distribution are "Take, eat; this is the true body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, given into death for your sins" and "Take, drink; this is the true blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, shed for the forgiveness of your sins." I'm guessing you personally would not feel comfortable saying "Amen" to either of those statements. But then the issue isn't whether you are being unjustifiably "excluded"; the issue is whether the Lutheran understanding of the Lord's Supper is correct.
To go back to your comments about Christopher Idle and Dick Lucas [Anglican Evangelicals who had preached and taken the Lord's Supper at M's Baptist church recently] - while the three of you may not agree 100% on all points of doctrine, you are all pretty much agreed on what the Lord's Supper is about - that "is" means "represents", that the body and blood of Jesus are as far away from us as the heavens are from the earth, that what counts is our metaphorical "feeding" by remembrance and faith. In those circumstances it would indeed be wrong to exclude them from the Table.
As for my own views on this - well, I've never been a Zwinglian, have never held to a "mere memorial" view. Previously I've held to the classic Reformed view in which we do indeed receive and feed on the Lord's body as we eat the bread, and receive and drink the Lord's blood as we drink the wine, but that this feeding and drinking occurs only by faith - that it is not that Christ comes down to the Supper, but that we ascend by faith to Him in heaven (as taught by Calvin, the Heidelberg Catechism, the 39 Articles etc - Calvin himself regarded his teaching as being closer to Luther than to Zwingli).
The Lutheran teaching on the Lord's Supper, on the other hand, reflects the general Lutheran emphasis on the objective validity and efficacy of the Word of God - that God's promises remain true even if no-one believes them and (crucially) even if we have difficulty reconciling them with human reason or with the evidence presented to us by our human senses. So the Words of Institution ("this is my body ... this cup is the new testament in my blood") remain regardless of whether or not we believe them, and regardless of whether we can make sense of them with human reason.
I attach a PDF document which sets out the Lutheran teachings in more detail [note: this was qq.285ff. of the Explanation of the Small Catechism], but the ELCE's website summarises it well when it says:
LORD'S SUPPERNote the emphatic rejection of "consubstantiation" - the whole point of the Lutheran position is that it does not seek to impose a philosophical explanation (such as Rome's "substance/accidents" distinction, or Calvin's "finitum non capax infiniti") on the "plain Word" of the Lord. It goes without saying that Roman teachings concerning transubstantiation, "the sacrifice of the Mass", adoration of the physical elements, the "priestly" function of the minister presiding, the need for priestly confession & absolution before partaking, etc, are all emphatically rejected.
Lutherans believe and teach that in the other Sacrament, Holy Communion, the Lord Jesus Christ, according to His own plain Word, gives us His body and blood for the remission of sins; that the Lutheran belief, called the 'Real Presence', does not imply, either by transubstantiation or consubstantiation, any kind of change in the visible elements, that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, but by virtue of Jesus' word of institution, this bread is His body and this wine is His blood; that all who eat and drink at the Lord's Table receive His body and blood in and with the bread and wine, those who believe to the strengthening of their faith, those who reject to their condemnation; and that this Sacrament ought therefore to be withheld from those who are unable to examine themselves in the Christian faith.
References: Matthew 26: 26-28; Mark 14: 24; 1 Corinthians 11: 24-25, 26-28; Matthew 7: 6; 1 Corinthians 11: 29.
While I do not expect to persuade you of the Lutheran position, I hope this helps alleviate your concerns about perceived "legalism" and "sectarianism". Also, that moving from the Reformed to the Lutheran position involves much less of a shift for me than it perhaps would for you. I hope we can agree to differ on the actual teachings about Lord's Supper as we already have done for some time on Baptism.
There are in fact a number of parallels with Baptism here: after all, there are literally thousands of churches in this country - and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Christians - who would deny that I (and many other Christians) have been baptised, and a good number of those churches would exclude me from membership on this account. Some might even exclude me from the Lord's Table over it (which is at least consistent - it's difficult to see what meaning Baptism has if people can even participate in the Lord's Supper without being validly baptised).
However hurt or offended people may be at being "excluded" from the Lord's Table in a Lutheran Church, it is no less hurtful to be told that one's baptism is invalid, to be excluded from membership in a church over the issue, and to sit through testimonies at "re-baptisms" in which people repudiate and denigrate their earlier baptism (and, by implication, one's own), all of which I have had to endure on numerous occasions in the last ten years.
Given what the NT says about baptism, to deny that someone is baptised is virtually to deny that they are Christians. I know that you have never sought to say this - quite the opposite - and I remain grateful for this, particularly thinking back to when we had to "seek refuge" at C________ [M's, and our, previous church]. But I think the Baptism issue remains a good illustration of churches saying, quite legitimately, "This is what we believe. We don't deny that you are a true Christian, but we do believe you are wrong about this, and please understand that we need to behave in a manner which is consistent with what we believe. Please don't ask us to change our beliefs just so we can avoid awkwardness or discomfort."
As always, I look forward to your response on any of this.
All the best,
John
Friday, May 21, 2004
The Fearsome Pirate's Final Bow
Josh has kindly given permission to post his "Blog Obit" explaining why he has taken down his blog:
So you’re wondering why I took down the blog and deleted everything pertaining to it. Well, there are a lot of reasons. I’ve been seriously mulling this over since I was involved in a very ugly online incident primarily because people were so offended by things I never said and things I do not believe, yet somehow I was continually accused of saying and believing. At that time, it became apparent to me that my diction and grammar matter far less than how people feel when they read what I write—they react to the feeling, not the propositions. Further, they construct opinions and views which they ascribe to me based on this nebulous “feeling” they get from my blog (or comments), then persist in demanding that I explain why I believe such-and-so even after I’ve pointed out several times that I believe quite the opposite (such as being repeatedly accused of believing that salvation is found only in the LCMS, an absurd idea I have vehemently rejected in public and private discussion numerous times). Such has been experienced by me over e-mail, in comments, and on others’ blogs.It's a shame to lose you, Josh, but I'm sure everyone'll agree that what you say above makes sense. All the best for the future - look forward to your continuing presence in people's comments sections!
Explaining what I say consumes enough time without being demanded to explain what I don’t say. I have grown weary of continually having to turn to Merriam-Webster to prove to people that I really mean what I said I meant when I made a given statement. The appalling antipathy toward grammatical precision, mastery of the English language, logically supported claims, and consistent reasoning has driven me from the blogosphere, which revolves around pejoratives, slander, misrepresentation, straw men, emotions, and false witness. I see no point in speaking if the hearer is incapable of hearing anything other than what he has decided beforehand I ought to say. Communication is a completely dead art. Rather than perpetually engage the masses of self-wise illiterates, I prefer instead to interact only with those capable of choosing their words carefully and expressing exactly what they mean, whether they lived in the 16th century or the 20th.
A lesser reason is that blogging has become an addiction for me; I spend hours and hours each day doing it when I should be using my day more fruitfully. Of course, spending two hours writing something to have it completely distorted and ripped apart by undiscerning readers is hardly a rewarding experience, which led me to question why I constantly did it. Spending as much time as I do blogging has resulted in a noticeable decrease in opportunities to actually live life, so it’s time to stop.
I also was uncomfortable with the high profile. I’m not a spokesman for the Missouri Synod, Lutheranism, or anything else. I’m only 22 as of this writing (I’ll turn 23 in July) and nowhere near being established in life. I’m far, far away from having career, home, or wife, and consequently am not really in a position in life where I can engage in doctrinal battles and not have it adversely affect the attainment of those goals. I’ve lost a lot of sleep and have been in seemingly perpetual bad moods because of things people have said either to me, about me, or about the confession of my church, and frankly, I was a grumpy insomniac before I ever knew what a “blog” was, so this wasn’t helping me any. The longer my blog was around and the more people that read it, the higher their expectations were, the more sleep I lost, the crankier I got, and the less I got done.
Also, I really didn’t like the person I was becoming via the blog. Blogging makes my disposition increasinlgy negative, in part because there are so many idiots on the Internet, and in part because you increase your readership by grandstanding and baiting people into arguments. It’s a sick pleasure to troll on someone else’s blog and do all the things I just complained about, and I’m not innocent of it. People have said I come of as arrogant on my blog with good reason. I can be a pretty arrogant guy, and blogging just feeds that (however, what people call “arrogance” is often no more than believing that what the Evangelical Lutheran Church confesses is true. I wish more people were “arrogant” in such a way). People say things on the Internet that they never would have said in real life, and the last time I checked, “people” included me.
And let’s not forget the endless hatred I incurred for, you know, actually believing all that stuff we confess in the Book of Concord! Somehow, people constantly expected that true Christian charity would compel me to either flatly reject or apologize for Article VII of the Augsburg Confession. Hence, my repeated assertion that Article VII is a most true and Christian article, rejection of which compromises the integrity of the church in a given location and the pure proclamation of the Gospel was met with endless hatred of my person. God help me, I cannot confess otherwise. The Church lives by Christ alone, who is present among us in the Gospel and Sacraments, not by pious sentiments, edifying feelings, or sincere commitments to justice and morality. Hence there is no room in the Church to compromise the Gospel for the sake of “love” or “brotherhood.” I can only say what Martin Luther said over 400 years ago: “Do not speak to me of any love and friendship where one would demolish faith or the Word. For not love but the Word brings everlasting life, God’s grace, and all heavenly treasures.” It is not the business of a Christian to apologize for the Gospel or to compromise it for the sake of “peace.” Christ asks us the same question he asked his disciples: “But who do you say that I am?” and we must answer with Peter, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” because it is upon this confession that Christ said “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.” Woe to those who would turn that rock from Peter’s “You are the Christ” to “Love your neighbor,” because then the Gospel is changed into the Law and the Church no longer has anything to confess before the world. Indeed, where the Gospel is not confessed or preached, there is no Church at all, but only an association of people united by a common pious affection.
What else? Oh yeah. I get really, really, really sick of people acting like because they know my opinions on Baptism (it saves), taxes (too high), and soccer (it sucks), they’re qualified to make character judgments about me. A blog is not a window into the soul. There’s lots of me and my life that I don’t put on the blog, so quit acting like your in a place to make a comment on the “fruit” displayed in my “life.”
Finally, nothing good can come of a woman I’m interested in reading my blog. I’d like to not be single for the rest of my life, and my public rantings on the Internet weren’t helping a bit. If I meet someone, I’d rather her get her impressions of me by spending time with me, not by reading my scathing criticisms of Reformed doctrine or the Purpose-Driven Life. My blog was hardly of the sort to leave a favorable impression on the opposite sex.
So that’s it. Over 2 years and 279,173 words later, it’s over. I’m done. You may see me in the comments now and then, but my blogging days are over. If you’re offended by anything I’ve written here, tough crap. Don’t bother writing to me, because you’re probably one of the reasons I quit blogging. For everyone else, I’m still fishstik45atgoeshereyahoodotgoesherecom.
Friday, April 23, 2004
The Theology of the Cross
This is the table summarising my early reading on the topic of the Theology of the Cross, as explained in the corresponding post on my main blog.
Each of the headings clicks through to the resource on which that section of the table is based (in some cases, quite loosely based).
PS - if anyone can tell me how to shrink the font size in that table (simply!), please let me know.
Each of the headings clicks through to the resource on which that section of the table is based (in some cases, quite loosely based).
Theology of Glory | Theology of the Cross |
| Human beings (though flawed and sinful) are fundamentally capable of doing good and knowing God | Human beings are intrinsically and radically sinful, incapable of doing good or truly knowing God |
| God is to be sought by ascending ladders of mystical experiences, religious or philosophical speculation or moral achievement (“mysticism, speculation or merit”) | God is to be sought only in the Cross of Christ, with knowledge and communion him being given as a gift, received by faith |
| God is the Deus Revelatus – he can be known through all things and events | God is the Deus Absconditus – he can be known only through the Cross of Christ and the witness to that of the Word |
| Seeks direct, unmediated knowledge of & encounter with “the naked God” (and sees such a direct encounter as an unqualified “good thing”) | Recognises that (for sinners such as ourselves) the “naked God” at the end of the ascent is not salvation, but the “consuming fire”. One day there will be glory, but for now, the Cross – the Cross is both the basis of our righteous status before God and the model of how we are to live for God |
| “Looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened” | “Comprehends the invisible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the Cross |
| “Calls evil good and good evil” | “Calls the things what it actually is” |
| The gospel is what gets you saved – then other things take you forward in the Christian life. “Once saved, always saved” | The preaching of sin and grace, Law and Gospel, produces sanctification as well as justification |
| Repentance = sorrow for sin and determination to sin no more | Repentance = sorrow for sin coupled with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation |
| Christian living is detached from the gospel – reduced to a set of do’s and don’ts, with “rededication” the proper remedy for backsliding | Never gets past the Cross – good works are the fruit of faith |
| Testimonies focus on the change in the individual’s life | Testimonies focus on the work of Christ in history for us |
| Sermons lead you to try to live a better life | Sermons lead you to rejoice in forgiveness |
| Christian life seen as an ascent through different stages (conversion, “entire sanctification”, “baptism in the Spirit” etc) | You’re never “better” than anyone else – a growing appreciation for Christ’s work |
| “Every day in every way I’m getting better and better” | “Every day in every way I’m not getting better and better” – growing awareness of sin |
| Encourages inward focus (which is the essence of sin – homo incurvatus) | Turns us away from ourselves, forsaking our own good works and spiritual experiences and clinging to Christ’s blood and righteousness |
| Can contemplate God’s omnipresence and majesty without fear | Recognises our sin, deserving of God’s condemnation. The testimonies of nature etc to God’s glory only confirm in our conscience the verdict against us (The God we see in nature is “One who is angry with us, and threatens evil” [Newman]). |
| Content with God’s general revelation in nature | Recognises our need of a promise of forgiveness and acceptance |
|
| “What we see as glorious, God sees as shameful; what we see as shameful, God sees as glorious” |
| Worship as celebration, seeking to ascend to God through our worship | Worship as receiving the mercies of God in Christ, through the means of grace (Word, sacraments, prayer) |
| Seeks to strike a bargain with God, tendency towards a moralistic works-righteousness | Permits God to do everything to effect and preserve his salvation |
Feels it knows God immediately through his expressions of divine wisdom, power and glory | Recognises God in the place he has hidden himself – the Cross and its suffering |
PS - if anyone can tell me how to shrink the font size in that table (simply!), please let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
