Spiritual Communion

An order for "Spiritual Communion", for those unable to attend Holy Communion, based on the order for Spiritual Communion from the Armed Forces Prayer Book, 1951, but using texts from the Lutheran Service Book. For more details see this post on my main blog, together with the discussion on the Ship of Fools forum that prompted this post.

This is an experimental, draft version. Feedback is invited on whether this is an appropriate concept, and as to specifics of language/content. Word (.doc) version available on request, by email or in the comments.

SPIRITUAL COMMUNION

If on any Sunday or other Principal Feast or Holy Day you are prevented from attending Divine Service, make an act of Spiritual Communion, as follows:

The sign of the cross (+) may be made by you in remembrance of your baptism.

In the name of the Father and of the + Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Then say the Confession:

Most merciful God, we confess that we are by nature sinful and unclean. We have sinned against you in thought, word and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone. We have not loved you with our whole heart; we have not loved our neighbours as ourselves. We justly deserve your present and eternal punishment. For the sake of your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, so that we may delight in your will and walk in your ways to the glory of your holy name. Amen.

Then say:

The Almighty and merciful Lord, grant me + pardon and absolution of all my sins. Amen.

Then read the Collect for the day, the Old Testament reading, the Epistle, and the Holy Gospel.

Say the Nicene Creed:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered, and was buried. And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. And he will come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy Christian and apostolic Church, I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life + of the world to come. Amen.

Then say:

Therefore with angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify your glorious name, evermore praising you and saying:

Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might: Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

Then say:

In union, O Lord with the faithful at every altar of your church, where the Sacrament of the Altar is now being celebrated, I desire to offer you praise and thanksgiving. I present to you my soul and body with the earnest wish that I may always be united to you. And since I can not now receive your body and blood in the Sacrament, I beseech you to come spiritually into my heart. I unite myself to you, and embrace you with all the affections of my soul. Let nothing ever separate you from me. May I live and die in your love. Amen.

Spend a few moments in meditation upon the fact that God so loved you that he sent his only Son into the world for you. Recite the Lord’s Prayer and afterward say:

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit + be with us all. Amen.

The Brewing of Soma

To go with this post on my main blog, here is the whole of John Greenleaf Whittier's poem, The Brewing of Soma (source). For those who haven't read the main post, let's just say that the final six stanzas of the poem may seem vaguely familiar:

THE BREWING OF SOMA
John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-92)

"These libations mixed with milk have been prepared for Indra: offer Soma to the drinker of Soma." - Vashista, translated by Max Muller.

The fagots blazed, the caldron's smoke
Up through the green wood curled;
"Bring honey from the hollow oak,
Bring milky sap," the brewers spoke,
In the childhood of the world.

And brewed they well or brewed they ill,
The priests thrust in their rods,
First tasted, and then drank their fill,
And shouted, with one voice and will,
"Behold the drink of gods!"

They drank, and lo! in heart and brain
A new, glad life began;
The gray of hair grew young again,
The sick man laughed away his pain,
The cripple leaped and ran.

"Drink, mortals, what the gods have sent,
Forget your long annoy."
So sang the priests. From tent to tent
The Soma's sacred madness went,
A storm of drunken joy.

Then knew each rapt inebtiate
A winged and glorious birth,
Soared upward, with strange joy elate,
Beat, with dazed head, Varuna's gate,
And, sobered, sank to earth.

The land with Soma's praises rang;
On Gihon's banks of shade
Its hymns the dusky maidens sang;
In joy of life or mortal pang
All men to Soma prayed.

The morning twilight of the race
Sends down these matin psalms;
And still with wondering eyes we trace
The simple prayers to Soma's grace,
That Vedic verse embalms.

As in the child-world's early year,
Each after age has striven
By music, incense, vigils drear,
And trance, to bring the skies more near,
Or lift men up to heaven!

Some fever of the blood and brain,
Some self-exalting spell,
The scourger's keen delight of pain,
The Dervish dance, the Orphic strain,
The wild-haired Bacchant's yell, -

The desert's hair-grown hermit sunk
The saner brute below;
The naked Santon, hashish-drunk,
The cloister madness of the monk,
The fakir's torture-show!

And yet the past comes round again,
And new doth old fulfil;
In sensual transports wild as vain
We brew in many a Christian fane
The heathen Soma still!

Dear Lord and Father of mankind,
Forgive our foolish ways!
Reclothe us in our rightful mind,
In purer lives Thy service find,
In deeper reverence, praise.

In simple trust like theirs who heard
Beside the Syrian sea
The gracious calling of the Lord,
Let us, like them, without a word,
Rise up and follow Thee.

O Sabbath rest by Galilee!
O calm of hills above,
Where Jesus knelt to share with Thee
The silence of eternity
Interpreted by love!

With that deep hush subduing all
Our words and works that drown
The tender whisper of Thy call,
As noiseless let Thy blessing fall
As fell Thy manna down.

Drop Thy still dews of quietness,
Till all our strivings cease;
Take from our souls the strain and stress,
And let our ordered lives confess
The beauty of Thy peace.

Breathe through the heats of our desire
Thy coolness and Thy balm;
Let sense be dumb, let flesh retire;
Speak through the earthquake, wind, and fire,
O still, small voice of calm!

FAQs about the BOC

The following frequently asked questions about the Book of Concord have been made available via Revd Paul McCain's website. As Revd McCain states in his post: "Feel free to copy and use this information, if you find it helpful. We ask only that you not change the FAQ, nor sell it, nor include it with anything sold."

Lutheran pastors were asked to share the questions they most frequently hear when they talk to people about the Lutheran Confessions. These questions and answers are based on their response.

What is the Book of Concord?
The Book of Concord is a book published in 1580 that contains the Lutheran Confessions.

What are the Lutheran Confessions?
The Lutheran Confessions are ten statements of faith that Lutherans use as official explanations and summaries of what they believe, teach, and confess. They remain to this day the definitive standard of what Lutheranism is.

What does Concord mean?
Concord means “harmony.” The word is derived from two Latin words and is translated literally as “with one heart.”

What does confession mean?
When used in this context, confession means “to say what you believe.” The Lutheran Confessions are statements of faith that Lutherans use to say to the world, “This is what we believe, teach and confess. ”

What is in the Book of Concord?
The Book of Concord contains the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology [Defense] of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord.

What are the Ecumenical Creeds?
Creed is from the Latin word credere, which means “to believe.” The three creeds in the Book of Concord are the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. They are described as “ecumenical,” meaning “universal,” because they are accepted by the majority of Christians worldwide as correct expressions of what God’s Word teaches.

What is the Augsburg Confession and Apology of the Augsburg Confession?
In the year 1530, the Lutherans were required to present their confession of faith before the Holy Roman Emperor in Augsburg, Germany. The Augsburg Confession was publicly presented on June 25, 1530. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession was written to defend the Augsburg Confession. Apology means “defense” when used in this way.

What are the Small and Large Catechisms?
Martin Luther wrote two handbooks in 1529 to help families and pastors teach the basics of the Christian faith. The Small Catechism and the Large Catechism are organized around six topics: the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, Holy Baptism, Confession, and the Sacrament of the Altar. The catechisms were so universally accepted that they were included as part of the Book of Concord in 1580.

What are the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope?
Martin Luther wrote a set of doctrinal articles in 1537 for an alliance of Lutheran princes and territories, known as the Smalcaldic League. Luther’s articles were widely respected and were eventually included in the Book of Concord. At the same meeting that considered Luther’s articles, Philip Melanchthon was asked to expand on the subject of the Roman papacy and did so in his treatise, which was also later included in the Book of Concord.

What is the Formula of Concord?
After Luther’s death in 1546, various controversies arose in the Lutheran Church in Germany. After much debate and struggle, the Formula of Concord was adopted in 1577 by over eight thousand princes, political rulers, theologians, and pastors, effectively ending the controversy.

Who wrote the Book of Concord?
The ancient creeds in the Book of Concord were prepared by early church pastors and theologians. Philip Melanchthon, a layman, was a professor of Greek and theology at the University of Wittenberg. He was chiefly responsible for writing the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. Martin Luther wrote the Small and Large Catechisms and the Smalcald Articles. A group of Lutheran theologians prepared the Formula of Concord. They were Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz, Nicholas Selnecker, David Chytraeus, Andrew Musculus, and Christopher Koerner.

Since we have the Bible, why do we have the Book of Concord?
The Lutheran Confessions are a summary and explanation of the Bible. They are not placed over the Bible. They do not take the place of the Bible. The Book of Concord is how Lutherans are able to say, together, as a church, “This is what we believe. This is what we teach. This is what we confess.” The reason we have the Book of Concord is because of how highly we value correct teaching and preaching of God’s Word.

A friend of mine says it is wrong to use creeds or confessions. How do I respond?
The Bible itself not only contains numerous confessions and statements of faith by believers, but it also urges us to confess the faith. If a confession is completely in accord with Scripture, we can hardly claim that the content of the confession is merely “man-made” (1 Corinthians 12:1–3).

Are the Lutheran Confessions just for pastors and theologians?
No. They are for all people: pastors, theologians, and laypersons alike. They are important statements of faith. They are not necessarily easy to understand, but they are so important that everyone who is a Lutheran should be aware of what the Book of Concord is and should have a copy of the Lutheran Confessions.

There is an edition of the Book of Concord prepared specifically for laypeople to read, filled with notes, annotations, illustrations, and many other useful materials to aid reading and understanding. It is titled Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions: A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord. It is available from Concordia Publishing House (1-800-325-3040 or www.cph.org).

What documents should a layperson read first in the Book of Concord?
The Small Catechism is called “The Layman’s Bible” by the Formula of Concord because it does such a good job of summarizing the most important teachings of the Bible. The Large Catechism would be the next document to read carefully. The Augsburg Confession is the primary Lutheran Confession and should be read by every layperson. The Smalcald Articles are lively, bold, and powerful and capture readers’ interest.

The time and attention needed to read the longer documents in the Book of Concord are well worth the effort since they are filled with such powerfully comforting and instructive biblical truth.

What is a confessional Lutheran?
A confessional Lutheran is a person who uses the documents contained in the Book of Concord to declare his faith to the world. The contents of the Book of Concord are cherished by such a person precisely because they are powerful means by which the correct teachings of Holy Scripture can be taught and shared with other people.

The spirit of confessional Lutheranism is reflected well in the last words written in the Book of Concord: “In the sight of God and of all Christendom, we want to testify to those now living and those who will come after us. This declaration presented here about all the controverted articles mentioned and explained above—and no other—is our faith, doctrine, and confession. By God’s grace, with intrepid hearts, we are willing to appear before the judgment seat of Christ with this Confession and give an account of it (1 Peter 4:5). We will not speak or write anything contrary to this Confession, either publicly or privately. By the strength of God’s grace we intend to abide by it.” (FC SD XII 40).

What is an “unconditional subscription” to the Confessions?
Confessional Lutheran pastors are required to “subscribe,” that is, to pledge their agreement unconditionally with the Lutheran Confessions precisely because they are a pure exposition of the Word of God. This is the way our pastors, and all laypeople who confess belief in the Small Catechism, are able with great joy and without reservation or qualification to say what it is that they believe to be the truth of God’s Word.

Why is an unconditional subscription to the Lutheran Confessions so important?
Authentically Lutheran churches insist on a subscription to the Confessions because they agree with the Bible, not merely in so far as they agree with Scripture. Otherwise, there would no objective way to make sure that there is faithful teaching and preaching of God’s Word. Everything would depend on each pastor’s private opinions, subjective interpretations, and personal feelings, rather than on objective truth as set forth in the Lutheran Confessions.

Do all Lutheran churches have the same view of the Book of Concord?
No. Many Lutheran churches in the world today have been thoroughly influenced by the liberal theology that has taken over most so-called “mainline” Protestant denominations in North America and the large Protestant state churches in Europe, Scandinavia, and elsewhere.

The foundation of much of modern theology is the view that the words of the Bible are not actually God’s words but merely human opinions and reflections of the personal feelings of those who wrote the words. Consequently, confessions that claim to be true explanations of God’s Word are now regarded more as historically conditioned human opinions, rather than as objective statements of truth.

This would explain why some Lutheran churches enter into fellowship arrangements with non-Lutheran churches teaching things in direct conflict with the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.

Do other churches have confessions like the Lutheran Church?
Yes, they do. Most other churches have confessions scattered throughout various books. The Book of Concord is unique among all churches in the world, since it gathers together the Lutheran Church’s most normative expressions of the Christian faith into a single book that has been used for nearly five hundred years as a fixed point of reference for the Lutheran Church.

Other churches have various catechisms and confessions they can point to, but few have as complete a collection of confessions that has received as much widespread use and support, for so long a time, as the Lutheran Confessions contained in the Book of Concord of 1580.

Where can I purchase a copy of the Book of Concord?
You may order copies of the Book of Concord from Concordia Publishing House by visiting their web site at www.cph.org or by calling their toll-free telephone number at 800-325-3040.

Summing things up . . .
To be a Lutheran is to be one who honors the Word of God. That Word makes it clear that it is God’s desire for His Church to be in agreement about doctrine and to be of one mind, living at peace with one another (1 Corinthians 1:10; 2 Corinthians 13:11).

It is for that reason that we so treasure the precious confession of Christian truth that we have in the Book of Concord. For confessional Lutherans, there is no other collection of documents, statements, or books that so clearly, accurately, and comfortingly presents the truths of God’s Word and reveals the biblical Gospel as does our Book of Concord.

Hand in hand with our commitment to pure teaching and confession of the faith is, and always must be, an equally strong commitment to reaching out boldly with the Gospel and speaking God’s truth to the world. That is what confession of the faith is all about, in the final analysis.

Indeed, “Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, ‘I believed, and so I spoke,’ we also believe, and so we also speak” (2 Corinthians 4:13). This is what it means to be, and to remain, a genuinely confessional Lutheran.

For more information on the forthcoming "Reader's Edition" of the Book of Concord, being published to celebrate the 425th anniversary of its original publication, see here. For those who cannot wait till June, the most recent English translation of the BoC, the Kolb/Wengert edition, can be found on Amazon.com and (for the absurdly low price of £21.22 inc. P&P) on Amazon.co.uk.

Matthew Parris on "They"

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?

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:

• 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.
  

Dr Feuerhahn went on to set out a basic frame of reference within which to consider the uniqueness of the Lutheran Reformation: the Law and the Gospel:

• the Law proclaims what we are to do and not to do
  


• the Gospel proclaims what God has done
  

As Norman Nagel puts it, "Who's driving the verbs?".

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 fruition

This 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.