Logiaa journal of lutheran theology

Holy Trinity/july 1995 P volume Iv, number 3

LOGIA (ISSN #‒) is published quarterly by the Luther Academy, Bracketts Road,Shorewood, MN . Third class postage paid (permit #61)) at Aberdeen, SD and additional mailingoffices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to LOGIA, PO Box , Cresbard, SD 57435. Editorial Department: Plum St., Mankato, MN . Unsolicited material is welcomed butcannot be returned unless accompanied by sufficient return postage. Book Review Department: University Avenue SE, Minneapolis, MN . All books receivedwill be listed. Logia Forum and Correspondence Department: N. Eighth St., Vincennes, IN‒. Letters selected for publication are subject to editorial modification, must be typed orcomputer printed, and must contain the writer’s name and complete address. Subscription & Advertising Department: PO Box , Cresbard, SD 57435. Advertising rates andspecifications are available upon request.

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: U.S.: for one year (four issues); for two years (eightissues). Canada and Mexico: year air, ; year surface, . Overseas: year, air: ; surface:. All funds in U.S. currency only.

Copyright © . The Luther Academy. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced without written permission.

ei[ ti" lalei',wJ" lovgia Qeou'

logia is a journal of Lutheran theology. As such it publishes articleson exegetical, historical, systematic, and liturgical theology that promotethe orthodox theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. We cling toGod’s divinely instituted marks of the church: the gospel, preached purelyin all its articles, and the sacraments, administered according to Christ’sinstitution. This name expresses what this journal wants to be. In Greek,LOGIA functions either as an adjective meaning “eloquent,” “learned,” or“cultured,” or as a plural noun meaning “divine revelations,” “words,” or“messages.” The word is found in Peter :, Acts :, and Romans :. Itscompound forms include oJmologiva (confession), ajpologiva (defense), andajvnalogiva (right relationship). Each of these concepts and all of themtogether express the purpose and method of this journal. LOGIA considersitself a free conference in print and is committed to providing an indepen-dent theological forum normed by the prophetic and apostolic Scripturesand the Lutheran Confessions. At the heart of our journal we want ourreaders to find a love for the sacred Scriptures as the very Word of God,not merely as rule and norm, but especially as Spirit, truth, and life whichreveals Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life—Jesus Christ ourLord. Therefore, we confess the church, without apology and without ran-cor, only with a sincere and fervent love for the precious Bride of Christ,the holy Christian church, “the mother that begets and bears every Christ-ian through the Word of God,” as Martin Luther says in the Large Cate-chism (LC II, ). We are animated by the conviction that the EvangelicalChurch of the Augsburg Confession represents the true expression of thechurch which we confess as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

CONTRIBUTING EDITORSUlrich Asendorf—Pastor, Hannover, Germany

Burnell F. Eckardt Jr.—Pastor, St. John Lutheran Church, Berlin, WI

Charles Evanson—Pastor, Redeemer Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN

Ronald Feuerhahn—Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO

Lowell Green—Professor, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY

Paul Grime—Pastor, St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, West Allis, WI

David A. Gustafson—Pastor, Peace Lutheran Church, Poplar, WI

Tom G. A. Hardt—Pastor, St. Martin’s Lutheran Church, Stockholm, Sweden

Matthew Harrison—Pastor, St. Peter’s Lutheran Church, Westgate, IA

Steven Hein—Professor, Concordia University, River Forest, IL

Horace Hummel—Professor Emeritus, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO

Arthur Just—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN

John Kleinig—Professor, Luther Seminary, North Adelaide,

South Australia, Australia

Arnold J. Koelpin—Professor, Dr. Martin Luther College, New Ulm, MN

Lars Koen—Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Gerald Krispin—Professor, Concordia College, Edmonton, Alberta,Canada

Peter K. Lange—Pastor, St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, Concordia, MO

Alan Ludwig—Pastor, Concordia and Immanuel Lutheran Churches,Cresbard and Wecota, SD

Cameron MacKenzie—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN

Gottfried Martens—Pastor, St. Mary’s Lutheran Church, Berlin, Germany

Kurt Marquart—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN

Norman E. Nagel—Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO

Martin Noland—Pastor, Christ Lutheran Church, Oak Park, IL

Wilhelm Petersen—President, Bethany Seminary, Mankato, MN

Hans-Lutz Poetsch—Pastor Emeritus, Lutheran Hour, Berlin, Germany

Robert D. Preus—The Luther Academy, Shorewood, MN

Clarence Priebbenow—Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church, Oakey,Queensland, Australia

Richard Resch—Kantor, St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN

David P. Scaer—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary, FortWayne, IN

Robert Schaibley—Pastor, Zion Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN

Bruce Schuchard—Pastor, St. James Lutheran Church, Victor, IA

Harold Senkbeil—Pastor, Elm Grove Lutheran Church, Elm Grove, WI

Carl P. E. Springer—Professor, Illinois State University, Normal, IL

John Stephenson—Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Catharines,Ontario, Canada

David Jay Webber—Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church, Brewster, MA

William Weinrich—Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN

George F. Wollenburg—President, Montana District LCMS, Billings, MT

EDITORSMichael J. Albrecht, Copy Editor—Pastor, St. James Lutheran Church,

West St. Paul, MNJoel A. Brondos, Logia Forum and Correspondence Editor—Pastor,

St. John Lutheran Church, Vincennes, INCharles Cortright, Editorial Assistant—Professor, Northwestern

College, Watertown, WIScott Murray, Editorial Associate—Pastor, Salem Lutheran Church,

Gretna, LAJohn Pless, Book Review Editor—Pastor, University Lutheran Chapel,

Minneapolis, MNTom Rank, Editorial Associate—Pastor, Scarville Lutheran Church,

Scarville, IAErling Teigen, Editorial Coordinator—Professor, Bethany Lutheran

College, Mankato, MNJon D. Vieker, Editorial Associate—Pastor, St. Mark’s Lutheran

Church, West Bloomfield, MI

SUPPORT STAFFDianne Bisbee, Advertising and Subscription Manager—Cresbard, SD

Brent W. Kuhlman, Development Manager—Pastor, Faith LutheranChurch, Hebron, NE

Timothy A. Rossow, Treasurer—Pastor, Bethany Lutheran Church,Naperville, IL

Phyllis Rossow, Book Distribution Manager— Naperville, ILRobert V. Roethemeyer, Art Consultant—Art Curator, Concordia

Seminary, St. Louis, MO

THE COVER ART features an oil on masonite painting entitled “Lo, IAm with You Alway” by Richard R. Caemmerer Jr.

Enlivened by the Spirit, Christ stands triumphant over death and thegrave. As promised, He sends that same Spirit to enliven all who arebaptized in the name of the Triune God.

The original painting is now a part of the art collection at ConcordiaSeminary in Saint Louis. It was donated by the Reverend and Mrs.Floyd Spree during the Trinity season of . Used by permission.

logiaa journal of lutheran theology

Holy Trinity/July 1995 volume Iv, number 3

...........................................................................................................................................................................

Atonement Motifs in the Formula of ConcordBy Paul Lehninger....................................................................................................................................................................................................

Martin Luther on Coming to God from “Below” in Its Implications for the Church TodayBy Lowell C. Green.................................................................................................................................................................................................

Law and Gospel: The Lutheran EthicBy Scott Murray......................................................................................................................................................................................................

Paul Gerhardt: Confessional Subscription and the Lord’s SupperBy Gerald Krispin ..................................................................................................................................................................................................

Confessing the Faith in the Language of America: The Historical Context and Enduring Significance of the Henkel Translation of the Book of ConcordBy David Jay Webber.............................................................................................................................................................................................

Baptism in the New TestamentBy Clarence Priebbenow.......................................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................

Review Essay: THE SECOND M: The Life and Theology of Martin Chemnitz. By J. A. O. PreusA Theology of the New Testament. By George Eldon LaddThe Holy Spirit and the Christian Life. By Karl BarthThe Revelation of John: A Continental Commentary. By Jürgen Roloff. Translated by John E. AlsupPreach the Gospel: A Textook for Homiletics. By Joel Gerlach and Richard BalgeSalt, Light, and Signs of the Times: An Intimate Look at the Life and Times of Alfred Rip Rehwinkel. By Ronald W. StelzerJonah. By James LimburgThe Emperor and the Gods. By Daniel N. SchowalterSt. Paul at the Movies: The Apostle’s Dialogue with American Culture. By Robert JewettThe Contemplative Pastor: Returning to the Art of Spiritual Direction. By Eugene H. PetersonBRIEFLY NOTED

A Call for Manuscripts ............................................................................................................................... ..........................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................................

The Problem with A Mighty Fortress • The LWML Pledge • The of ’ in ’ • Constitutional HorrorThe Tyranny of the Familiar • The State of Denominations • Out of Africa

The Offense of Closed Communion • Have Gift, Will Travel • The Service is DivineGrace-Full Use • Community of Joy? • Except for Rituals

Promise Keepers, Losers Weepers

CORRESPONDENCE

j

LOGIA CORRESPONDENCE AND COLLOQUIUM FRATRUM

We encourage our readers to respond to thematerial they find in LOGIA—whether it be in the articles, book reviews, or letters of other readers. While we cannot printeverything that comes across our desks, we hope that our COLLOQUIUM FRATRUM

section will allow for longer response/counter-response exchanges, whereas ourCORRESPONDENCE section is a place forshorter “Letters to the Editors.”

If you wish to respond to something in anissue of LOGIA, please do so soon after youreceive an issue. Since LOGIA is a quarterlyperiodical, we are often meeting deadlinesfor the subsequent issue about the time youreceive your current issue. Getting yourresponses in early will help keep themtimely. Send your CORRESPONDENCE contri-butions to LOGIA Correspondence,

Plum St., Mankato, MN , or yourCOLLOQUIUM FRATRUM contributions toLOGIA Editorial Department, PlumSt., Mankato, MN .

To the Editors:

■ There is a scene in C. S. Lewis’s ThatHideous Strength that your April issuebrought to mind. The villainous pseudo-scientific propagators of a new worldorder are deprived of language andquickly degenerate into something like abarnyard rabble.

If there is an issue more fundamentalto apostolic and therefore confessionalChristianity than hermeneutics, it is thenature of language itself. If language isessentially a social contract, it is very diffi-cult to imagine how any text or group oftexts can claim any trans-temporal, trans-geographical, or trans-cultural authority.In a world where God has not created andwhere order is not to be expected, this isprecisely what language must be. Wherelanguage amounts to an agreementbetween sender and receiver, there is littleroom for the concept of an objectivemeaning accessible to all.

Nor will it do to try to maintain thatso long as a particular hermeneutic gen-erates our confessions it is permissible.Our confessions, after all, also must beinterpreted. A confessional church bodypresumes that its confessions containobjective trans-temporal, etc. meaning.Where reader as reader creates suchmeaning this is impossible. This view oflanguage denies the very possibility ofconfession.

If, on the other hand, a definition oflanguage begins with, and does not movefrom the idea of an objective capacitywithin individuals, a capacity created by

God, then texts whose meaning may tran-scend time, culture, etc. is possible. Onlythen can the act of confession even havepurpose or sensibility.

Hopefully there will come a timewhen scholars will bestow much-deservedridicule on those who maintain, them-selves using words, that those who readbestow meaning on texts. In the mean-time, I fear that it may be safer to committhe task of exegesis t o those who have notstudied hermeneutics.

James StrawnSt. John Lutheran Church

Racine, Wisconsin

To the Editors:

■ While many of your articles are theo-logically good and helpful, I am very dis-turbed by the unkind, unloving, andscholastically dishonest manner in whichMarva Dawn’s book(s) have beenreviewed by your journal. The responsein the most recent issue addressed thisproblem well, and I hope and pray thatthe admonition to honesty and charitywill be heard by your editorial boardregarding not only Dr. Dawn’s work, butthat of other faithful and scholarly writ-ers with whom you may have some dis-agreement. I pray that the “mind ofChrist” will guide all future editorialwords and decisions.

Elizabeth YatesOur Saviour’s Lutheran Church

Ackley, Iowa

in character. With the exception of Philip Melanchthon, it was leftto the dogmaticians of the “age of Lutheran orthodoxy” that fol-lowed the acceptance of the Book of Concord in to provide atruly systematic presentation of Lutheran doctrine. The contro-versies occasioning the writing of the first three articles of the FCrevolved around original sin, free will, and the righteousness offaith before God.

ORIGINAL SIN

The article on original sin was prompted by the Flacian con-troversy. In connection with the synergistic controversy, manytheologians on both sides of the issue made unguarded, extreme,and inadequate statements. One of these was Matthias FlaciusIllyricus. Intending to reflect scriptural and Lutheran doctrineregarding the radical sinfulness of mankind after the Fall, hemade the exaggerated statement that after the Fall the very natureof mankind was original sin, and that original sin was a sub-stance. He further stated that in conversion God created anentirely new nature.

The authors of the FC immediately recognized the danger insuch remarks. While Article I clearly and forcefully rejects Pela-gian and semi-Pelagian views of original sin, it also makes noapology for condemning the Flacian error. It affirms that if origi-nal sin were a substance, then it would either have to be true thatGod was the author of sin, or that Satan was the creator of ournature (FC SD I, ), neither of which is acceptable. Further, itwould deny Christ’s having assumed our full human nature, sinceChrist was without sin (Heb :–, SD I, )

The doctrine that is affirmed is that human nature as createdby God is good (Dt :; Is :; Acts :, ; Rv :). Since theFall into sin, however, original sin adheres so firmly and deeply inhuman nature that only God can separate the two, and does soonly at death. Original sin is a lack, a complete lack, of the originalrighteousness with which humankind was created. Not only is it alack of good, but it is also the presence of deep corruption, andthis corruption is especially present in the highest and foremostpowers of the soul in mind, heart, and will. Original sin is a hor-ribly deep accident, but it is an accident and not a substance, asmany fathers of the church attest (SD I, , ). Unregeneratemankind stands under God’s condemnation because of possess-ing a nature corrupted by sin, not simply because of possessinghuman nature.

j

ASTUDY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT CAN BE UNDER-taken from a number of perspectives: scriptural, histori-cal, philosophical, as well as others. In fact, most studies

will incorporate a number of these perspectives. But whatever theperspective, the study is also carried out from the point of view ofa particular context. In this article the doctrine of the atonementwill be discussed from the point of view of the confessional writ-ings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as contained in the Bookof Concord. Special attention will be paid to the Formula of Con-cord of –. These documents examine the atonementfrom a scriptural perspective. Although the writings of varioustheologians, especially Martin Luther, are adduced for support,they are recognized only because they are believed to be in har-mony with Scripture.

After a brief historical introduction, the first three articles ofthe FC will be examined in turn, consideration being given to thecontroversy that occasioned them, how the positive doctrine wasdefined, and that errors were rejected. Atonement motifs foundin these articles of the FC and the other confessional writings thatrelate to them will then be examined critically. I will attempt toshow that the first two articles of the FC lay necessary ground-work for the discussion of atonement in Article III, and that thedoctrines affirmed in Article III are central to the understandingof atonement in the Lutheran Confessions. I will also demon-strate that the FC integrates a number of atonement motifs in anacceptable way, and that it is desirable to do so. The two motifs towhich the most attention will be paid are the Christus Victormotif and Anselmian satisfaction.

Most of the Lutheran Confessions, like many of Luther’swritings, were occasioned by controversies.. A number of thesecontroversies arose after Luther’s death while the young LutheranChurch was in the process of becoming established. While mostof the points of disagreement with the church of Rome hadalready been dealt with, new teachings surfaced that caused dis-agreement in the Lutheran universities and ministerium. Theconfessions were written to provide a scriptural answer to thesecontroversies. For this reason, they are not essentially systematic

Atonement Motifs in the Formula of Concord

PAUL LEHNINGER

PAUL LEHNINGER is a graduate of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, Mequon,

Wisconsin, and has been a doctoral student at Marquette University, Mil-

waukee, Wisconsin. He has recently accepted a call to teach systematic

theology at Wisconsin Lutheran College in Milwaukee.

It should be noted that in this article the Lutherans, whowere primarily engaged in opposing Pelagian and semi-Pelagianviews regarding the relative corruption or lack of corruption ofhuman nature, were also quick to oppose extremism in theopposite direction. Although the FC might seem to reflect a rela-tively “low” anthropology by contemporary standards, its affir-mation of the original righteousness of human nature countersthis evaluation. Also, keeping in mind the emphasis on God’swrath against sin will later contribute to the tracing of atone-ment motifs in the FC.

FREE WILL

The synergistic controversy provided the impetus for thewriting of the second article of the FC. Victorin Strigel was atthe center of this controversy. He taught that human free will inspiritual matters had been severely weakened and impeded bythe fall into sin, but still existed. Accordingly, in conversion theHoly Spirit acting through the word excites free will, howeverweak it may be, to cooperate with God’s grace. As a result, nomatter how little free will contributes to conversion, priority isgiven to the act of the free will and preparation for grace, andnot to God’s gift of faith.

In opposition to this view, Article II of the FC says it isnecessary to distinguish four states of mankind with regard tofree will: before the fall into sin, after the Fall in external mat-ters affecting temporal life, after conversion in spiritual mat-ters, and before conversion in spiritual matters. Article II dealswith this last state.

It affirms that after the Fall and before conversion humanbeings are completely dead and corrupted spiritually as far asanything good is concerned (Gn :; Rom :), slaves of sin andcaptives of the devil (Jn :; Eph :; SD II, ). Because of this,human reason cannot understand the gospel apart from thework of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the gospel is contrary to humanreason because human reason is fallen ( Cor :; SD II, ).Mankind is not only turned away from God, but turned towardevil, to the extent that the unregenerate will is unable to yield toGod and indeed actively resists him (Gal :; SD II, , ). Rea-son and free will can contribute to some extent to the leading ofan outwardly virtuous life, but they cannot cooperate in conver-sion; this must be entirely the work of the Holy Trinity (John:; Cor :; SD II, ).

While this may appear to provide a view of the human con-dition that could easily lead to despair, it actually can give reas-surance to Christians. The article quotes Philippians :, “ForGod is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good plea-sure,” and then goes on to say:

This appealing passage is of very great comfort to alldevout Christians who perceive and discover a littlespark and longing for the grace of God and eternal sal-vation in their hearts. They know that God, who haskindled this beginning of true godliness in their hearts,wills to continue to support them in their great weak-ness and to help them to remain in true faith until theirend (SD II, ).

In other words, even the slightest, weakest faith is evidencethat God has begun his work in us, since we are utterly incapableof being converted by our own powers.

Those who objected that the fathers of the church spoke ofhuman beings having a capacity for free will were answered asfollows:

Dr. Luther calls this [that human beings can be con-verted] a “capacity,” which he explains as follows:“When the Fathers defend free will, they affirm a capac-ity for this freedom in such a way that by divine grace itcan be converted to God and become truly free, a condi-tion for which it was originally created.” Augustine haswritten in a similar vein in his second book AgainstJulian (SD II, ).

In this way both God’s absolute monergism in conversionand a biblical, traditional understanding of the freeing of the willthat follows conversion were maintained. In fact, the article isscrupulously careful to exclude the views of extreme determinists.It affirms that immediately following conversion the Christiancooperates with the work of the Holy Spirit by virtue of the newpowers that he has implanted (SD II, ).

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH BEFORE GOD

The main controversy dealt with in this article resulted fromthe teaching of Andrew Osiander. Osiander departed from theforensic view of justification of the early Lutherans by claimingthat Christ is our righteousness not by imputation of his merits,but by the infusion into us of the eternal essential righteousnessof his divine nature. Accordingly, justification is not an act bywhich God declares us just but actually makes us inherently justand righteous; it is a gradual and progressive medicinal processthat results in our being acceptable to God by virtue of the inher-ent righteousness developed within us rather than by virtue ofthe iustitia aliena (alien righteousness) that consists in the obedi-ence of Christ.

Article III opposes this teaching from two perspectives, thatof a forensic view of the righteousness of faith, and that of theintegrity of the person of Christ. Affirming that justification byfaith is the chief article of the entire Christian doctrine, it empha-sizes the necessity of understanding the biblical use of the term“justify” when it is used in the context of salvation and the forgive-ness of sins. Only the forensic view is acceptable (Phil :); justifi-cation must be a proclamation, not a process, and must never beconfused with sanctification (Rom :–; SD III, ). Further-more, the “exclusive terms” (all terms that exclude works from thearticle of justification by faith) are to be stressed (SD III, ). Con-

Even the slightest, weakest faith is evidence that God has begun his work in us.

nb

We Christians must know that unless God is in the bal-ance and throws in weight as a counterbalance, we shallsink to the bottom with our scale. I mean that this way:if it is not true that God died for us, but only a mandied, we are lost. But if God’s death and God dead lie inthe opposite scale, then his side goes down and we goupward like a light and empty pan. Of course, he canalso go up again or jump out of his pan. But he couldnever have sat in the pan unless he had become a manlike us, so that it could be said: God dead, God’s pas-sion, God’s blood, God’s death. According to his natureGod cannot die, but since God and man are united inone person, it is correct to talk about God’s death whenthat man dies who is one thing or one person with God(SD VIII, ).

This overview of the first three articles of the Formulaestablishes a number of points vital to the understanding of theatonement in the Lutheran Confessions. Because original sin issuch a deep wound in human nature and has caused it to behorribly corrupted, human beings are completely unable to freethemselves from it; the solution to this problem must comefrom God alone. Further, the depth of this sin means that indi-viduals cannot by the power of their own will appropriate thebenefits of God’s salvation; hence it is God who acts by breakingthe chains by which Satan holds the power of the will inbondage. This sets the stage for the emphasis laid on the foren-sic view of justification, as well as the Christus Victor motif. Inaddition, because original sin is not equivalent to humannature, Jesus Christ was able fully to assume human naturewithout sin and be the perfect representative of humanity, mak-ing satisfaction for sin as our Substitute. This introduces theAnselmian perspective.

ATONEMENT MOTIFS

Like Luther himself, the Lutheran Confessions do not limitthemselves to a single atonement motif. Examples can be foundof Anselmian satisfaction, the “classical” Christus Victor motif,and the idea of sacrifice and propitiation, among others. But lyingbehind the understanding of each motif are the concepts dealtwith in the first three articles of the FC: utterly fallen but infi-nitely redeemable human nature, the total inability of free will tocooperate with God’s grace before conversion, the forensic natureof justification, and the activity of the whole Christ, true God andtrue man, in salvation.

Even from the limited amount of material from the Book ofConcord dealt with in this essay, it should be obvious that the

trition and love are certainly necessary accompaniments of justifi-cation, but “neither the preceding contrition nor the subsequentworks belong in the article or matter of justification by faith”(Rom :; SD III, ). When we are justified, Christ with his per-fect obedience covers all the sins that throughout this life stillinhere in our nature. Justification is entirely his work, not ours,and therefore is entirely reliable.

It is significant that this article places emphasis upon theredemptive aspect of the entire life of Christ. Not his crucifixionalone, but his entire obedience is reckoned to us as righteousness.According to his active obedience he took our place under the lawand perfectly fulfilled it for us, and according to his passive obedi-ence he suffered and died in our place.

This he did both as true God and as true man, which leads tothe second main concern of this article. If Christ is our righteous-ness only according to the infusion into us of his divine nature, inwhat sense does his human nature participate in our redemption?And if his human nature does not participate with the divine inredemption, then can there be a true communication of attrib-utes in the person of Christ, as was affirmed by the councils of theancient church? Article III states:

Christ is our righteousness, not according to the divinenature alone or according to the human nature alone,but according to both natures; as God and man he hasby his perfect obedience redeemed us from our sins, jus-tified and saved us (SD III, ).

This matter of Christ’s being our righteousness according toboth natures was seen as being important not only as he accom-plished our salvation historically, but also as he communicates itto us in the present.

We unanimously reject and condemn . . . that in thepreached Word and in the right use of the holy sacra-ments Christ is present with us on earth only accord-ing to his deity, and that this presence does notinvolve his assumed human nature in any way what-ever (SD VIII, ).

If a Christ other than the whole Christ is our righteousness,then a false Christ is our righteousness, and the fact of our justifi-cation as well as its continual impact on our lives is in seriousjeopardy.

The orthodox teaching of the two natures in Christ had to bepreserved not only because some wanted to remove Christ’shuman nature from participation in our justification, but alsobecause others did the opposite. It was offensive to them that thedivine nature of Christ should participate in his sufferings anddeath, so they claimed that Christ did so only according to hishuman nature. Article VIII of the FC, which deals with the personof Christ, furnishes the logical counterpoint to Article III. It main-tains that it was necessary that Jesus Christ, who from the time ofhis incarnation always possesses both a human and a divine nature,suffer and die as the one person possessing these two natures (Luke:). Indeed, it is the very fact that he is true God that makes hisdeath of such import. Luther is quoted at length:

If a Christ other than the whole Christis our righteousness, then a false Christ is our righteousness.

nb

The second qualification in a propitiator is this: his mer-its must be authorized to make satisfaction for othersand to be bestowed on them by divine imputation, sothat through them we may be accounted righteous asthough the merits were our own. If one pays a debt forone’s friend, the debtor is freed by the merit of anotheras though it were his own. Thus the merits of Christ arebestowed on us so that when we believe in him we areaccounted righteous by our trust in Christ’s merits asthough we had merits of our own (Ap XXI, ).

The concepts of vicarious atonement and merit are clearlypresent in the Lutheran Confessions. But can they be harmonizedwith the Christus Victor motif?

First, although Luther and other reformers sharply criticizedthe legalistic system of merit and satisfaction prevalent in the six-teenth-century church, they also recognized a positive and bibli-cal use of these terms. Christ’s perfect obedience and innocentsacrifice satisfied the demands of God’s law and turned away hiswrath, and were the means by which he merited forgiveness forus. By this same obedience and sacrifice he silenced the accusa-tions of Satan and destroyed the power he had over us.

Second, one of the reasons why Aulen wants to divorce thetwo motifs is a problem he perceives in Anselm. He believes thatbecause Anselm emphasizes that Christ had to make satisfactionas a man, the divine nature in Christ is not in the spotlight as itdeserves to be, and as it is in the Christus Victor motif. Defendersof Anselm, however, have been quick to point out that his Chris-tology is beyond reproach; for Anselm, it is the person ofChrist, the God-man, who makes the satisfaction.

Third, Aulen’s critics have asserted that in his criticism ofAnselm’s Christology he made statements that call his own Chris-tology into question. He accuses Anselm (incorrectly, as hasalready been shown) of separating the incarnation from theatonement by asserting that satisfaction is simply the task of ahuman being, where Anselm should have realized that it was theeternal Word who did the ransoming and redeeming. But inmaking this criticism, he gives the impression that the humannature of Christ merely served as the instrument through whichthe divine Logos acted. For this reason he has been charged withdocetism, monotheletism, or even monophysitism. The reac-tion from the Eastern tradition is informative:

If the human nature assumed by the Logos is in factirrelevant to the ontological basis of salvation—the free-ing of fallen nature from its bondage to sin and death—then the incarnation itself is not theologically importantat all in the way the patristic tradition has understood it.Rather, there is then no reason for opposing a Eutychianor even a docetic Christology.

Although Aulen claims accurately to be representing MartinLuther’s central motif of the atonement, such a Christology is inharmony neither with the Lutheran Confessions nor with Luther.

Finally, Aulen also criticizes Anselm for his emphasis on alegal structure of merit and satisfaction that appeases God’swrath. It appears he believes that God’s wrath is most appropri-

Lutheran Confessions do not deal with doctrines as philosophi-cal abstractions, but approach all Christian doctrine from asoteriological standpoint. Doctrines are not regarded as static,but as solutions to a spiritual problem; they are of practicalimportance, because they work in the lives of human persons.This is especially true of the doctrine of the person of Christ.There is no Christology without soteriology. This point will bereturned to later when the relationship between two of themotifs is examined.

Hints of the Christus Victor motif can be found in the FC,although the emphasis is on the bondage of unregeneratehumanity to diabolic forces rather than on Christ’s conquest ofthese forces. One of the punishments imposed upon Adam’s chil-dren after the Fall is “the tyranny and dominion of the devil, sothat human nature is subject to the devil’s dominion, abandonedto his power, and held captive in his servitude” (SD I, ). Thecorresponding theme of deliverance from the devil is developedin the Large Catechism:

Afterward he rose again from the dead, swallowed upand devoured death, and finally ascended into heavenand assumed dominion at the right hand of the Father.The devil and all powers, therefore, must be subject tohim and lie beneath his feet until finally, at the last day,he will completely divide and separate us from thewicked world, the devil, death, sin, etc. ( LC Creed, ).

While this motif is most apparent in those confessions for whichLuther himself is directly responsible, it is implicit in the others.

Gustaf Aulen, the champion of the Christus Victor motif, rec-ognized Luther’s preference for it. Aulen also took great pains,however, in attempting to demonstrate that, while Luther spoke ofsatisfaction and merit, he did so in a way totally different from thatof Anselm. He also insisted that Anselm’s view of the atonementcould not easily be reconciled with the Christus Victor motif.

The Lutheran Confessions give no evidence of shying awayfrom the concepts of merit and satisfaction, as long as these areregarded as being entirely the work of Christ. Under the articleconcerning original sin the FC states, “we are ‘by nature thechildren of wrath,’ of death, and of damnation unless we areredeemed from this state through Christ’s merit” (SD I, ).Article III says, “Scripture teaches that . . . the forgiveness ofsins . . . is bestowed upon us by pure grace because of theunique merit of Christ, the mediator” (SD III, ). The Apol-ogy is even more explicit:

The Lutheran Confessions give no evidence of shying away from the concepts of merit and satisfaction,as long as these are regarded asbeing entirely the work of Christ.

nb

. “We believe, teach, and confess that the prophetic and apos-tolic writings of the Old and New Testaments are the only rule andnorm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must beappraised and judged . . . Other writings of ancient and modernteachers, whatever their names, should not be put on a par withHoly Scripture. Every single one of them should be subordinatedto the Scriptures and should be received in no other way and nofurther than as witnesses to the fashion in which the doctrine ofthe prophets and apostles was preserved in post-apostolic times.”FC Ep Norm , . English translations of references to the variousconfessions are from Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ). Numbers following referencesto the confessions are paragraph numbers in this edition.

. This controversy is dealt with in some detail in F. Bente,Historical Introductions to the Book of Concord (St. Louis: Concor-dia Publishing House, ), pp. –.

. This was a controversy regarding whether the person’s freewill cooperated with God’s grace in conversion. See Bente, pp.–.

. Bente, pp. –.. The distinction of these four states is made by Peter Lom-

bard, Libri IV Sententiarum ( vols.; Florence: Colegium S.

Bonaventurae, ), . II, dist. , cap. .. Bente, pp. –.. F. E. Mayer, “The Soteriological Approach to Christian

Doctrine,” Concordia Theological Quarterly () .. Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor (New York: Macmillan, ),

pp. –.. Willard D. Allbeck, Studies in the Lutheran Confessions

(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ), p. .. John McIntyre, St. Anselm and His Critics (Edinburgh:

Oliver and Boyd, ), pp. –.. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II, –, in Eugene R. Fairweather,

ed., A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham (Philadelphia:Westminster, ).

. Ted Peters, “Atonement in Anselm and Luther: SecondThoughts about Aulen’s Christus Victor,” Lutheran Quarterly

() p. .. Symeon Rodgers, “The Soteriology of Anselm of Canter-

bury, an Orthodox Perspective,” GOTR (), p. .. Aulen, pp. –.. Paul Hinlicky, “Christ Was Made to Be Sin: Atonement

Today,” Currents in Theology and Mission (), p. .. Peters, p. .

ately directed toward the devil and not toward sinful mankind.But it is exactly the refusal to acknowledge the reality of God’swrath that robs the doctrine and drama of the atonement of oneof its high points of victory:

Precisely because God is as he has revealed himself inChrist, his wrath . . . against sin is not the caprice of aZeus . . . That this self-same God of love now finds theway to surpass wrath with mercy is the mystery whichthe doctrine of the atonement seeks to trace.

The point of the atonement is not that no judgment takesplace, that God decides to compromise his holiness by not takingsin seriously, or that his wrath against sin mysteriously vanishesinto thin air. The point, rather, is that in Christ’s atoning deaththe judgment of God on us is fully executed. Anselm recognizedthis, and, like the authors of the Lutheran Confessions, had nodifficulty reconciling it with a theme of triumph:

Thus, God for Anselm is no less merciful, no less gra-cious, than is God for Luther or for Aulen. God cre-ated man out of love, and it was God’s purpose thatmen find fulfillment in eternal blessedness. And in thefinal analysis, God’s purpose is accomplished. But enroute Anselm wants us to take seriously the gravity ofman’s sin and the ultimate dimensions of God’s his-torical activity. The legalistic structure of the relation-ship between God and men is not the last thing to besaid about God. It is the means whereby God’s mercyis shown to triumph.

CONCLUSIONThe Lutheran Confessions present a variety of images to por-

tray the meaning of a single truth, that of the atonement. Theyconfront us with a multiplicity of motifs, but all are in harmonybecause they are directed toward the same purpose, that of artic-ulating the act by which a gracious God reconciled sinful human-ity to himself through Jesus Christ. While incorporating thenotions of satisfaction and merit present in Anselm, they empha-size the substitutionary aspect of Christ’s satisfaction for sin andthe declaration that his merits are now imputed to sinful humanbeings. The payment made by Christ was his perfect obedienceand his innocent death. Sacrificial imagery from both the Oldand New Testaments is employed in establishing this point: theblood of Christ is the propitiatory sacrifice that turns away God’swrath and provides a covering for sin (SD III, ).

These motifs are, furthermore, developed in harmony withwhat Aulen calls the classical motif of Christus Victor. Christ isboth victim and victor, the one whose very merits are the meansof our deliverance from bondage. He has

delivered me and freed me from all sins, from death,and from the power of the devil, not with silver andgold but with his holy and precious blood and with hisinnocent sufferings and death ( SC Creed, ).

This, the Confessions unanimously agree, he could do bothonly as true God and true man, and so Christology and soteriol-ogy are inseparable. This is of universal import because, as thefirst two articles of the FC pointed out, it is the only adequatesolution to the universal problems of humanity. LOGIA

NOTES

probe the unsearchable mysteries of God (law) but concern our-selves with his full revelation (gospel).

In a Table Talk from , Luther referred to this passage inExodus and commented on the distinction between law andgospel: “The law is the back side of God: wrath, sin, weakness. Thegospel is his face: the grace of the Lord, a gift, perfection. This iswhy Moses said: You shall see my back parts, but not my face.”

How should we understand these words? The distinction of lawand gospel is like the distinction between reason and revelation.Even an unbelieving person by means of his reason can come to anunderstanding of the law (God’s back), but human reason cannotunderstand the gospel (God’s face). The gospel can be madeknown only by divine revelation, that is, by God himself making itknown. And this revelation has taken place in the incarnation ofGod’s Son. Moses and other Old Testament saints could see the“back” of God, but they could not see his “face” until God hadrevealed himself in the Child of Bethlehem and the Man of Calvary.

In his interpretation of Psalm , Luther speaks of howthe devil tries to tear us away from God as revealed in the gospeland take us back to God hidden in the law, from God in mercy toGod in majesty. Luther reminds us that “human weakness canonly be oppressed by such majesty.” But God wants to save all lostsinners and therefore he comes “vested and clothed in his wordand promises.” We would be destroyed if we but gazed upon theGod of the law in his naked majesty. “It is necessary that we layhold of him, not as God naked, but clothed and revealed in hisword,” and especially in the gospel of Christ. “Satan tempts us dayand night that he might drive us to a meeting with the naked God,in order that we forget the promises and the saving work shown inChrist, and that we might think instead about [the majestic] Godand especially the judgment of God. If this happens, we will perishon the spot, slipping into despair”(WA :–). Luther distin-guished between God as a majestic being, hidden in the law, andGod as a kind and loving being, revealed in the gospel. He wrotethat faith has nothing to do with God as a hidden being, for Goddoes not want himself to be known in his majesty or in his judg-ment. There are many things about God that he has not told usand therefore they remain hidden. Luther was asked why Goddoes not change the will of evil men but allows them to continuedoing evil. He replied: “This question pertains to the secrets of hismajesty, where ‘his judgments are past finding out’ (Rom :). Itis not for us to probe but to adore these mysteries.”

j

ONE OF THE MOST REMARKABLE STORIES IN RELIGIOUS HISTORY IS

Luther’s evangelical breakthrough. Actually, there is nohistorical proof that Luther ever had the “tower experi-

ence” described by many writers. But there can be no question thathe experienced a severe struggle in the monastery as he laboredwith the question, “How can I find a merciful God?’

He found the answer to that question from a corrected under-standing of “the righteousness of God” in Romans :–. Afteryears of “knocking on the door” of St. Paul in Romans, he finallywas led to the insight that the sinner is not saved by the righteous-ness of the law (active righteousness) but by the righteousness ofthe gospel (passive righteousness). Luther later described his feel-ings thus: “At this time I felt that I had been born anew and that thegates leading into paradise had opened again and I stepped in.”

In a conversation with friends twenty-five years later, Luthercalled that experience the discovery of the distinction of law andgospel. He said: “Previously I had lacked nothing except that Imade no distinction between law and gospel. I took both to beone, and I said that Christ did not differ from Moses except intime and in perfection. But when I found this distinction, that thelaw is one thing and the gospel another, then I experienced mybreakthrough.”(TR # in WA TR :). Accordingly, Lutherhimself teaches us that the doctrine of justification is nothingmore or less than the right distinction of law and gospel.

Luther sometimes referred to the law as man seeking Godabove (in the majesty of heaven) and the gospel as God seekingman below (in his incarnate Son, Jesus Christ). And repeatedly hewarned that we are not to look for God “above” but only “below.”This explains the title of the article and the task we have placedbefore us.

GOD HIDDEN AND REVEALED

In Exodus , we read that when Moses had asked to see God,the Lord replied, “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall noman see me, and live” (v. ). But God continued: “Thou shalt seemy back parts; but my face shall not be seen” (v. ). From this pas-sage, Luther took his language of the “back parts” and the “frontparts” of God, saying that the back parts corresponded to the lawand the front parts to the gospel, and that we should not attempt to

Martin Luther on Coming to God from “Below” in Its Implications for the Church Today

LOWELL C. GREEN

LOWELL C. GREEN, DTheol, a contributing editor for LOGIA, is Professor

of History at State University of New York, Buffalo, New York.

One can recognize the holy Christian people by the relicof the holy cross, that they must suffer all misfortune andpersecution, all kinds of temptation and evil (as it isprayed in the Lord’s Prayer) from the devil, the world,and our flesh. Inwardly they mourn, they are weak, theyare fearful; outwardly they are poor, despised, sick, weak,they suffer. This is in order that they may be like theirhead which is Christ. And the only reason for this is thatthey cling firmly to Christ and God’s Word, and thereforethey suffer for the sake of Christ, Matthew : “Blessed arethose who suffer persecution for my sake.”

But no people upon earth must suffer such bitterhatred, they are taken for heretics, rascals, and devils, theyare cursed and called the most harmful people on earth.This is all in order that they may serve God. On accountof this they are hanged, drowned, murdered, tortured,hunted out, tormented, and no one has compassion forthem but instead they give them myrrh and gall to drinkwhen they thirst. And all this is not because they are adul-terers, murderers, thieves, or rascals, but because theywant to have Christ alone and no other god. Where yousee or hear such things, there know, that here is the holyChristian Church (AE :–).

Are these words descriptive of our church today? How wouldwe respond if we were subjected to persecution such as Christiansin other countries have faced in recent years? Have we perhapsactually met similar temptations but refused to bite the bullet?How do we respond when called upon to suffer for our faith in aneveryday situation? Do we lose heart if the church seems to beweak, or do we see weakness as the sign that God is leading his peo-ple in the war against Satan (Theologia crucis)?

EXPRESSED IN THE CHURCH SERVICE

When we come from below, we focus upon Christ in his humil-iation. The message of the cross (Luther’s theologia crucis) shouldstand in the middle of every church service; the message of glory(Luther’s theologia gloriae) should be strictly avoided. Do we seekthe work of God or the work of man in the church service?

What happens when we go to the church service? Do wecome as recipients of God’s word and sacraments, or do we attendas doers of something, such as the “worship” of God? TheLutheran Church has generally rejected cooperation in thingsdealing with our salvation (synergism) and has taught a God-cen-tered rather than man-centered church service. Of late, however,many Lutheran writers have criticized the traditional means-of-grace service with its emphasis upon divine monergism and haveadvocated innovative “worship” in which the congregation ismore active. A popular patter-word for this is “celebration.”

At this point, a word from Luther on law and gospel mightgive us something to think about. “The law is that which tells uswhat we ought to do; the gospel is truly about God, what Godwants to give us. The first we are not able to do, and the secondwe are truly able to receive by faith. But see, this is what peopleare like: the first indeed, which they are not able to do, they wantto do, and the second, which they are able to receive they do notwant to believe.

In a Christmas meditation on Isaiah , Luther commentedthat God did not want to be sought out in heaven, else he wouldnot have come down to earth. The name “Immanuel” means “Godwith us,” and this name should be written in such giant letters thatit reaches from earth to heaven. We should seek God in the mangerand the Christ-Child. In his later lectures on Isaiah, Luther pointedout: “It doesn’t say that unto us is born a Man, a King, a Prophet,some David, or some King Gygas, as he might have said. Elsewherehe is called Christ. But: ‘a child’ (he said) ‘is born unto us’” (WA:).And where he is called a king, it is made clear that his isnot a cruel reign like that of an earthly king, but “most pleasant,most attractive, and most joyful.” Luther adds: “He remains a Childfor us unto eternity. He gives himself to us, not in fourfold severity,not in frightening majesty, but he gives himself to us as a tiny Childand he plays with us unto eternity in his childliness.”

Just as it is an error to confound law and gospel, so it iswrong to confuse the majesty and the grace of God, that is, Godas judge and God as redeemer.

Know and believe only this: that Christ has gone to the Fatherand is now invisible; that He sits in heaven at the right hand of theFather, not as a Judge, but as one who has been made for us wis-dom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption from God; inshort, that He is our High Priest, interceding for us and reigningover us and in us through grace (WA :; AE :). Lutheremphasized: “But Christ by definition is not a lawgiver; He is a Pro-pitiator and a Saviour”(WA : ; AE :). Lutheran theol-ogy, more than any other, has underscored the difference betweenthe majestic and the merciful qualities in Christ. “Christ the King”was no theme in Luther’s theology of the cross. “Sin is present andis felt by believers, but it is ignored and hidden before God becauseChrist the Mediator stands between. Because we apprehend him byfaith, all our sins are sins no longer (WA : ; AE :).

THE TRUE CHURCH COMES FROM “BELOW”

Now, what do law and gospel have to do with churchman-ship? We have been reared to believe in the “American successstory,” and the old Adam in us wants to belong to a church that istriumphant and successful. Lay members, pastors, and churchofficials alike want to be able to show their “success” in terms ofhigher contributions, increasing membership, crowded churchattendance, and even worldly influence. Critics call this “tri-umphalism,” that is, a church wanting to be impressive. Verypopular today is a movement called Church Growth, which aimsat expansionism by worldly means. We should be wary of replac-ing the preached gospel with human techniques.

Martin Luther had seen all too much triumphalism in theold church of his youth. He published a book in , Concerningthe Councils and Churches, in which he sounded the followingwarning against the way of glory:

It is wrong to confuse the majesty andthe grace of God.

nb

writers, the one who selects the hymns should carefully study thewords to make sure that they present sound doctrine.

There is something unpleasant about the death of Jesus onGood Friday and the message of the cross which makes us want toshy away from them. Many of us would rather sing “All Hail thePower of Jesus’ Name” than “O Sacred Head, Now Wounded.” Butare we really willing to exchange the word of the cross for the wordof glory? Can we afford the high cost of triumphalism?

AN APPROACH FOR EVANGELISM

There is a rising trend toward “consumer religion” today. Wetry to package Lutheranism to suit the wishes of the world aboutus. It is tempting to avoid the reproach of the cross and instead tobase evangelism upon humanly conceived growth principles,derived from the methods of business management. Here we faceagain the danger of triumphalism.

It seems foolish to think that the world can be changed bysomething so weak as the word and sacraments. Will the means ofgrace really work? Isn’t there something else we can do? Aren’t wereally salesmen who have a product to market? Shouldn’t we bor-row the methods of business marketing and promote the cross ofChrist (or the church) accordingly? Wouldn’t that give us moresuccess stories? But there we have the difference between divineand human thinking. God says: “For my thoughts are not yourthoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as theheavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than yourways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Is :–). And Jesuswarned: “Enter by the narrow gate: for the gate is wide and the wayis easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it aremany. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life,and those who find it are few” (Mt :–).

Triumphalism is treason. It forsakes the message of the crossand the “foolishness of preaching” and replaces it with a messageof glory. Our church should rest upon what God has told us. Tosubstitute man’s thoughts and ways is to break the First Com-mandment and thereby the entire law of God. To be obedient toGod and his word is to flee from all triumphalism and humanstrategies of success and to return to the message of the cross. Thiswas the way of the apostle Paul when he wrote: “For I determinedto know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him cruci-fied” ( Cor :). In avoiding human strategies ( Cor :–) andrelying on the cross, the apostle Paul became the greatest mission-ary of all time. Let us follow his rejection of human strategies andreturn to the Message of the Cross!

If the task of evangelism is to win people for Jesus Christ, itfollows that the only valid method is by means of the word as lawand gospel: the law to show the sinner his need and the gospel topoint him to the remedy. Luther expressed it in a sermon as fol-lows: “The law uncovers the sickness and the gospel gives theremedy (WA :).

Only when our hearts are humble and contrite can we besaved from our sins. But the hardest thing we can do is to behumble and contrite. In fact, we cannot of ourselves; it is the giftof God. This is why God uses the law to show us our sin andmake us humble before he points us to his mercy and forgivenessin the gospel. And the gospel is nothing else than lifting up thecross of Christ, especially in the preaching of the word.

As Lutherans, we have a problem with the word worship.This is a problem of the English language; German, the languageof Martin Luther and the Lutheran Confessions, has no word forworship, but speaks instead of “God’s Service” (Gottesdienst), the“church service.” The problem lies in that “to worship” is to per-form a good work, since worship means “to ascribe worth toGod.” Therefore, “worship” can never be the cause of faith; manis the subject and God is the direct object in such a transaction. Inthe old Lutheran expression “God’s service” or “Divine Service,”God is subject and man is the direct object; God is not a passiveobject being served but is the active one who serves us and saves usthrough word and sacrament. Although God works throughhuman beings (pastors), it is God himself who works in themeans of grace, preaching and the sacraments; and these are cen-tral in our faith.

Therefore, when the new common Lutheran hymnal was pro-duced, some were conscious that the word worship should beavoided wherever possible, so that the words “Worship I and II,”used in the preliminary texts, were changed to “Holy Communion,Setting I or II” in the Lutheran Book of Worship, and to “Divine Ser-vice I or II” in Lutheran Worship. Nevertheless, for the first time ona Lutheran service book, that naughty word remained in the title.

The original Lutheran Book of Worship provided for the newecumenical feast day of Christ the King. When the Missouri Synodedition, Lutheran Worship, was being prepared, it was asked: “Isthere a place in the Lutheran service for such a festival? We preachthe message of the cross, not the message of glory. We do not seeChrist as our Judge until the end of the world; but now we see himas our merciful High Priest who intercedes for us before thethrone of God.” Accordingly, the festival of “Christ the King” wasrejected and the traditional Day of the Fulfillment, marking theend of the church year, was retained.

Triumphalism is expressed in the pomp and ceremony thatone sees in some churches and in larger religious gatherings.Impressive ceremonies and beautiful music have their place. Butthat place must be to exalt not man but God. And God has told usin the Scriptures that he wants to reveal himself in the humbleChild of Bethlehem and the suffering Man of Calvary.

Special care must be exercised in selecting hymns for thechurch service or other occasions. Unfortunately, many popularhymns are weak doctrinally. For example, some hymns dwell onthe majesty of God or upon his holy law. Although we are notexcluded from using hymns that present the message of the law orsing of God in majesty, those hymns that are based on the gospeland sing of our merciful God should predominate. Generallyspeaking, hymns written by Lutheran writers meet the law andgospel test, whereas hymns by other writers are more likely to con-fuse law and gospel and to speak of God in his naked majesty.

Since many of our congregations prefer hymns by non-Lutheran

We preach the message of the cross, not the message of glory.

nb

. These words from Luther’s autobiographical preface aregiven in D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol., eds. J. K. F. Knaake et al. (Weimar, –), p. . HereafterWA. Martin Luther, “Preface to Latin Writings,” in Luther’sWorks, American Edition, vol. , trans. Lewis W. Spitz (Philadel-phia: Muhlenberg Press, ), p. . Hereafter AE.

. We have this table-talk in two forms: TR # in WA TR:, and TR #a in WA TR :. Both versions are copies ofnotes from Luther’s friend Cordatus.

. These words are from one of Luther’s most importantbooks, On the Bondage of the Will, better translated as “on theserfdom of human choice,” WA :. A good English translationis by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, On the Bondage of the Will(Westwood NY: Fleming H. Revell Co., ), p. .

. “manet Puer nobis in aeternum. Exhibet se nobis non tetragravitate, non terribili aliqua maiestate tremendum, sed exhibetse nobis parvulis Parvulum ac ludit nobiscum in aeternum inpueritia sua” WA :, ].

. Luther in the Table Talk #, in a record by Cordatus, WAT:.

. It needs to be said emphatically that genetic Lutheranismknows no “theology of worship,” that is, a human action, butinstead a theology of the media salutis (means of grace, or, better,instruments of salvation), understood as a divine action underearthly means. Although the equivalent for the word worshipalmost never appears in the original texts, nevertheless, in themost widely used English translation of the Lutheran Confes-sions, The Book of Concord, trans. and ed. Theodore G. Tappert etal. (Philadelphia: Fortress, ), the word worship appears

times, according to the Concordance to the Book of Concord, ed.Kenneth E. Larson (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House,

), p. . Since almost the only word in the entire Book ofConcord that could properly be translated as “worship” is adorare(German: anbeten), “to adore,” a word that occurs only ninetimes (besides quotations from Jn :– in Ap XXIV, ) (Lar-son, p. ), what were the other words that were translated as wor-ship in the Tappert edition? Most frequently, words that weresome form of the word for “serve” or “service,” such as cultus Dei,a term in old Lutheranism that should generally be understood asa subjective genitive, that is, God is subject rather than object inthe Divine Service. For a good presentation on the Divine Servicein the age of Lutheran Orthodoxy see Friedrich Kalb, Die Lehrevom Kultus der lutherischen Kirche zur Zeit der Orthodoxie (Berlin:Lutherisches Verlagshaus, ). A translation was made byHenry P. A. Hamann, Theology of Worship in th-CenturyLutheranism (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ;reprint: Fort Wayne: Concordia Theological Seminary Press,n.d.); unfortunately, as already the title indicates, the word wor-ship was inserted in place of the word “service” throughout. Sofar as the translation of the Confessions is concerned, in passagessuch as Large Catechism I, where Luther speaks of faith as ful-fillment of the First Commandment or as our Gottesdienst, “ser-vice” of God, it is a distortion to translate faith as our “worship”of God, as in the Tappert version.

. In order to find out the religious beliefs of a hymnwriter, forhymns in The Lutheran Hymnal see William Gustave Polack, TheHandbook to the Lutheran Hymnal (St. Louis: Concordia, );notes to the hymns, pp. –; notes on the authors and com-posers, pp. –. Many people are surprised to learn that JohnBowring, author of “In the Cross of Christ I glory” [TLH ] wasa Unitarian. This explains why this popular hymn does not pro-claim the gospel clearly.

CONCLUSIONOur theologians, from Luther to Walther and Elert and

down till the present, have emphasized that the teaching andwork of the church must follow the proper distinction betweenlaw and gospel. The distinction between law and gospel reachesmuch further into the faith and life of the church than we

might have imagined. Every liturgical form, every sermon,every Bible study, every hymn, every evangelism or stewardshipsession, is somehow tied into this distinction. These must allrelate properly to the gospel, or else they are all wrong. Let uslearn to anchor our words and deeds in Jesus Christ and theway of the cross! LOGIA

NOTES

commands us what we are to do and not to do and demands ourobedience or service (Werk). Martin J. Heineken in his article“Law and Gospel” in the Westminster Dictionary of Ethics empha-sizes the law’s unconditional demands.

Nothing less than unconditional and complete obediencecan fulfill the demands of the law. The law, therefore, bydefinition, excludes mercy, grace, forgiveness. Under thelaw there can be no escape from its demands. Under thelaw a person gets what he or she deserves. The law is invi-olable; it allows of no exceptions, or else it is not law.

WHATEVER DEMANDS IS LAW, AND THE LAW ALWAYS DEMANDS

The gospel by distinction is what God gives. It is the goodnews of the sinner’s forgiveness before God (coram Deo). Lutherdefined the gospel as that unmerited grace of God for which thejustified person does nothing, but receives everything from Godas a gift. “The Gospel is such a doctrine or word of God as doesnot demand our works or command us to do anything, but bidsus simply receive the offered grace of the forgiveness of sins andeternal salvation and be satisfied to have it given us as a present”(WA :–).

THE THREE USES OF THE LAW

Lutheranism generally acknowledges three uses of the law:() the political or civil use, () the theological use, and () thedidactic use. For Luther the theological, or what is generallycalled the second use, is the primary or proper use of the law. Thesecond use of the law has as its purpose to destroy the pretenses ofhuman self-righteousness before God by showing humans theirabsolute and abject poverty before the demands of the law. Thesecond use of the law has as its goal to drive the sinner to Christfor the remedy to the dilemma presented by the law; hence itsbeing considered the theological use of the law.

For Luther law and gospel are utter opposites, more thanmere contradictions. “Hic iterum videmus legem et evangelium,quae inter se longissime distincta, et plus quam contradictoriaseparata sunt, et affectu conjunctissima esse” (E :; AE:). Properly speaking, their function and content are com-pletely contrary.

j

MARTIN LUTHER INSISTED ON THE CENTRALITY OF THE DIS-tinction between law and gospel in theology. ForLuther the distinction between these two doctrines was

essential to the theologian’s art. In fact, there was no theologyapart from this distinction. One of the more famous statementsmade by Luther, well known to every Lutheran theological stu-dent, touched on this subject.

Place any person who is well versed in this art of divid-ing the Law from the Gospel at the head and call him adoctor of Holy Writ; for without the Holy Ghost it isimpossible to master this distinction. That is my per-sonal experience; moreover, I observe in the case ofother people how difficult it is to separate the teachingof the Law from that of the Gospel. The Holy Ghost isneeded as Schoolmaster and Instructor in this task; oth-erwise no man on earth will be able to understand orlearn it. This is the reason why no Pope, no false Christ-ian, no fanatic, can divide these two from each other,especially in causa materiali et objecto.

The distinction between law and gospel was the highest artand most difficult task for the theologian. Since Luther’s reforma-tion Lutheran theologians have responded to this distinctionbetween law and gospel, attempting to understand, modify, apply,and teach it to succeeding generations of Lutheran theological stu-dents, and put it into practice in public preaching. Certainly, thisdistinction, deeply embedded as it is in Lutheran theology, cannothelp but make an impact on Lutheran ethics. Indeed, it is both theframework and substance of the Lutheran ethic.

WHAT ARE THE LAW AND THE GOSPELIN LUTHERAN THEOLOGY?

Law is that word of God which demands holiness fromhumans. The law requires absolute obedience to its demands.Luther defined it as command (Gebot). “By ‘Law’ we shouldunderstand nothing but God’s word and command in which He

Law and Gospel: The Lutheran Ethic

SCOTT MURRAY

SCOTT MURRAY is pastor of Salem Lutheran Church, Gretna, Louisiana,

and a doctoral student at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He

is an editorial associate for LOGIA.

and second uses of the law: the theological and political uses.Lutheranism, however, has followed the structure of PhilipMelanchthon’s treatment of the uses of the law from his famousLoci Communes, in which he taught a threefold use of the law.

Melanchthon contended that the law still applied to Christiansafter conversion, even though “they are freed from the Law, that is,from the curse and the condemnation and the wrath of God whichis set forth in the Law, that is to say, if they remain in the faith andfight against sin in confidence in the Son of God, and overcome theterrors of sin.” Yet the law must pertain to Christians because theystill need to strive to remove the sin remaining after justification,and because they need to know precisely what is and what is not agood work before God: purely a work of the law.

Martin Chemnitz, in his commentary on Melanchthon’sLoci, acknowledged that Luther in the Galatians commentary hadindeed taught a twofold use of the law: one civil and one theolog-ical. He blithely went on to state, however, without referring to aspecific writing of Luther, that “from this Luther constructed thethreefold division of the uses of the law.” As will be seen below,this is only true to the degree that Luther held implicitly a three-fold use of the law, for he did not directly denominate a “thirduse” of the law.

Though Luther gave the law a twofold use, the threefold useof the law became normative among Lutherans. The students ofMelanchthon, the chief among them being Martin Chemnitz,composed the Formula of Concord of . This document wasintended to quell (and did for a time) the internecine feudingthat broke out among Lutherans after the death of Luther in .Articles V and VI of the Formula of Concord were written to stopthe continually simmering dispute about the place of the law inthe life of the Christian begun by John Agricola as early as .

Agricola had contended that Christians no longer needed the lawand that the gospel itself would continue to bring them to repen-tance. For the authors of the Formula of Concord that was noth-ing short of a confusion of law and gospel, a betrayal of Luther’splus quam contradictoria separata sunt. Thus the Epitome of theFormula of Concord responded to Agricola’s position with a verystrong condemnation:

Accordingly we reject and regard as incorrect and inju-rious the dogma that the Gospel is properly a preachingof repentance or reproof, and not alone a preaching ofgrace; for thereby the Gospel is again converted into adoctrine of the Law, the merit of Christ and Holy Scrip-ture are obscured, Christians robbed of true consola-tion, and the door is opened again to the Papacy.

The Formula of Concord also responded to the continuouslysticky problem of the use of the law in the life of the Christian inArticle VI, “On the Third Use of the Law.” This is the point atwhich there has been a continuing and hotly debated dispute onthe law both inside and outside Lutheranism during the twenti-eth century.

According to the Formula of Concord, the person who is nota believer is under the law and all its penalties and judgments.When such a person does what the law demands it is purely inresponse to the coercive power of the threat of punishment in this

According to the apostle, Rom. , the gospel is the mes-sage about the incarnate Son of God, who was given uswithout our merits for salvation and peace. It is theword of salvation, the word of grace, the word of com-fort, the word of joy, the voice of the bridegroom andthe bride, the good word, the word of peace, as Isaiahsays: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet ofthose who bring good tidings, who publish peace; whopreach good tidings” (:). But the law is the word ofperdition, the word of wrath, the word of sadness, theword of pain, the voice of the judge and the accused, theword of unrest, the word of malediction; for, accordingto the apostle, the law is the strength of sin ( Corinthi-ans :), the law works wrath (Romans :), and it is alaw of death (Romans :) (WA :. AE :).

Thus the message that does God’s true and proper work inthe church is the gospel alone. In fact, the sum and center of theChristian faith is the gospel because the law can never save; italways and only condemns. For Lutheranism the law is not even auniquely Christian doctrine. “Christ has left nothing to the worldexcept the gospel” (AE :).

The first use of the law is the political or civil use. This use ofthe law is an external use meant to coerce humans into obedi-ence. It deals purely with acts, not with motivations. It is intendedby God to curb outbursts of sin and is required only because ofthe sin in the world.

All human beings are at all times subject to this “bigstick” use of the law. This is God’s rule with his “lefthand,” made necessary because of sin. It is God’s “strangework” of coercion as opposed to his “proper work” withthe “right hand” of grace. It applies not only to the laws ofthe state, but applies wherever human beings live, work,and play together and cannot get along without rules toimpose order upon them. Among sinful human beings itis unrealistic to dispense with law and to rely on sponta-neous obedience.

Certainly this use of the law is good and valuable. God hasordained the orders by which evil is restrained in the civil realm,and they include the good offices of magistrates, parents, teach-ers, lawyers, and jailers (E, Ad Galatas, :). It does not, however,produce Christian righteousness before God.

Luther seemed to restrict the uses of the law to two in his com-mentary on Galatians, where he consciously said: “Hic sciendum estduplicem esse legis usum” (E :). He went on to describe the first

The law must pertain to Christiansbecause they still need to strive to removethe sin remaining after justification.

nb

But since believers are not completely renewed in thisworld, but the old Adam clings to them even to thegrave, there also remains in them the struggle betweenthe spirit and the flesh. Therefore they delight indeed inGod’s Law according to the inner man, but the law intheir members struggles against the law in their mind;hence they are never without the Law, and neverthelessare not under, but in the Law, and live and walk in theLaw of the Lord, and yet do nothing from constraint ofthe Law (SD VI, ).

The law is still to be preached to Christians for the reasonthat and to the degree that they are still flesh until “the body ofsin is entirely put off, and man is perfectly renewed in the resur-rection” (SD VI, ). Thus the law is preached to Christians andapplies to Christians in so far as they are sinners; the gospel ispreached to and applies to Christians in so far as they are right-eous. Law and gospel both are preached to the regenerate.

At this point, where the Formula of Concord tried toresolve the problem of the use of the law, Lutherans have com-menced their struggle over the status and nature of ethics in theLutheran Church.

KARL BARTH: GOSPEL AND LAW

Karl Barth touched off the fierce debate about the law andthe gospel in the twentieth century by inverting the traditionalorder to gospel and law in a monograph, “Gospel and Law.”

Barth posited a dialectical relationship between law and gospel,but one in which there was a leveling of the distinction betweenthem. For Barth law and gospel are not plus quam contradictoriaseparata sunt. The dialectic is not real opposition, but merely afunctional or verbal opposition. According to Werner Elert, Barthtaught that “law and gospel merely designate one and the sameact of God, the content of which is always the same, although it ismanifested in God’s twofold manner of speaking. When Godspeaks in the law, it is simultaneously a promise, therefore alsoGospel.” Barth’s doctrine of revelation, with its elevation of hisdoctrine of the word, directed him to see every revelation of God,whether law or gospel, command or promise, as a word of grace.“The very fact that God speaks to us, that, under all circum-stances, is, in itself, grace.” Every revelation of God has the samecontent: it is the word of God; it merely has differing forms, lawand gospel. “The Law is nothing else than the necessary form ofthe Gospel, whose content is grace.” Barth’s interchanging of thelaw and gospel order becomes explicable in terms of his doctrineof the word, the unifying theme of his dogmatic system.

The elevated doctrine of the word adopted by Barth was inpart a response to the German church situation that gave rise tothe Barmen Declaration of . The Barmen Declaration,authored by Barth, rejected the identification of the NationalSocialist ethic with the natural law, commonly taught by theChristian church. Barth fought this identification of the Volksge-setz with God’s law by denying the natural revelation of the divinelaw and positing that every word of God is a gracious word ofspecial revelation. This is the issue over which Barth spoke hisresounding Nein! to Emil Brunner, who perceived that to denynatural revelation was to deny that God has a point of contact in

:

life and eternal damnation in the one to come. The unregenerateperson is “under the law,” not “in Christ.” So the Formula ofConcord held:

For as long as man is not regenerate, and conducts him-self according to the Law and does the works because theyare commanded thus, from fear of punishment or desirefor reward, he is still under the Law and his works arecalled by St. Paul properly works of the Law, for they areextorted by the Law, as those of slaves; and these are saintsafter the order of Cain [that is, hypocrites] (SD VI, ).

When a person is regenerated he does what is pleasing to Godaccording to the law of God through the power of the Holy Spirit,although he still has the recalcitrant old man or old Adam clingingto him. The Formula of Concord depicted the regenerate life:

But when man is born anew by the Spirit of God, andliberated from the Law, that is, freed from this driver,and is led by the Spirit of Christ, he lives according to theimmutable will of God comprised in the Law, and so faras he is born anew, does everything from a free, cheerfulspirit; and these are called not properly works of the Law,but works and fruits of the Spirit, or as St. Paul names it,the law of the mind and the Law of Christ. For such menare no more under the Law, but under grace, as St. Paulsays, Rom. , [Rom :; Cor :] (SD VI, ).

Thus the works that arise from the regenerate will are noteven, properly speaking, works of the law, because they are notcoerced from the regenerate individual. Instead, the regenerateperson now delights in the law of the Lord, being under no com-pulsion to obedience. But this does not mean that the Christian isnow totally without the law. The law still applies “in so far as”(quatenus) the regenerate person still carries with him the unre-generate flesh or old Adam. Here the Lutheran Confessionsevinced a solid realism that takes into account that Christians stillare flesh and live in a world of flesh, and because of this they stillneed the preaching of the law.

The regenerate, according to Luther, are simul justus et pecca-tor. They live in the tension of ambiguity between the verdict of notguilty rendered in justification and the verdict of guilty rendered bythe law “in so far as” they are still flesh. The Formula of Concordtaught this quatenus to hold the tension between antinomianismand legalism. The antinomian position held that the law had noplace whatsoever in the life of the Christian, nor in the preaching ofthe church. Legalism contended that obedience to the law stillplayed some part in man’s standing as righteous coram Deo.

The regenerate person now delightsin the law of the Lord, being under no compulsion to obedience.

nb

totally without any constructive power in the life of the Christ-ian. Construction is the realm of the gospel. Elert maintained:“Here the law has its necessary and abiding place in the preach-ing of the church as well as in the lives of its members. It servesnot in the construction of the new man but in the destruction ofthe old.” Thus the security and strength of the church and herchildren must always be the gospel message firmly anchored inthe work of Christ through which he renders the world notguilty of its sin. There will never be any security for the church inthe law, because it always accuses.

There is no need for “casuistry” under such a view. The lawdoes not have as its goal to teach the good or how to achieve it. Itprovides neither rules nor guides, only accusations. In Elert’sview, then, the Old Testament legislation with its rules and excep-tions is abrogated with the exception of the Decalogue. Casuistrycannot take up the church’s ethical energy:

When now the church, in continuity with Christ andhis apostles, confines Sinai’s enduring validity to theDecalogue, one must ask whether the Decalogue alonecan provide the Christians with that which the Torahprovides the Jews, namely, casuistic answers for all thepractical questions of domestic, social, and politicallife. The answer can only be negative. Neither the littlequestions of our earthly life—whether and whom weshould marry, which vocation we should select—northe practical questions of social policy in the realm oflabor, taxation, or inheritance, nor the great politicalquestions of communism, socialism, or liberal democ-racy can be answered from the Decalogue. In reducingthe Old Testament law to the Decalogue, Christ and hisapostles demonstrate that this reduced law cannot pos-sibly be as Calvin thought, the “one everlasting andunchangeable rule” for our life.

Even Jesus’ own interpretation of the Decalogue had as itsgoal to make clear the killing power of the law and to slay everyhuman pretense of spiritual righteousness. The Formula of Con-cord testified:

For since the mere preaching of the Law, without Christ,either makes presumptuous men, who imagine thatthey can fulfill the Law by outward works, or forcesthem utterly to despair, Christ takes the Law into Hishands and explains it spiritually, Matt. , ff.; Rom. , and , , and thus reveals His wrath from heavenupon all sinners, and shows how great it is; wherebythey are directed to the Law, and from it first learn to

the world. Several theologians exhibited strong objections to theextreme position advanced by Barth in the Barmen Declaration,

though such objections were handicapped by the odor of capitu-lation to National Socialist dogma. Barth’s reordering of gospeland law forced Lutherans to respond and to rethink the wholelaw and gospel ethic.

WERNER ELERT: THE LAW ALWAYS ACCUSES

Werner Elert attempted a recovery of the law and gospelpattern of Lutheran theology. Elert was guided by the insight that“the law always accuses,” as Melanchthon declared in the Apologyto the Augsburg Confession (Ap IV, ). For Elert there was noway to tame this accusing voice of the law or to prevent it fromspeaking a verdict of guilty over us.

If the law really is God’s law, God never assumes the atti-tude of a human legislator merely waiting to seewhether or how man will fulfill it. Rather, God is alwayssimultaneously the judge who renders a verdict and,without making any exceptions, passes sentence. Noamount of thoughtful reflection can eliminate thisaccusatory function from the law.

The law cannot be merely didactic or directive in the thought ofElert. “There is no situation imaginable, so long as the law reignsover us, where it would not exercise this accusatory function.”

Elert’s Criticism of Calvin and Barth

Elert’s work was characterized by a ringing rejection ofCalvinism. Elert thought Barth a thoroughgoing Calvinist in hisgospel and law doctrine. Calvin tended to emphasize that the lawhad a didactic or informatory task, giving a rule for life. Sinwould then be a transgression from the narrow way which wouldbe corrected by education and greater understanding. Elertthought of sin as a deep and horrible corruption that does notmerely set the person off the narrow way but places him in a stateof war with God, so that “our entire life’s journey from beginningto end is on the wrong side of the fence.” Elert denied Calvin’streatment of the law as a rule for life. The merely verbal dialecticbetween law and gospel in Barth had the result of smoothing overthe contradiction between them, leading to Barth’s accepting thelaw as a rule for life, rather than as the divine verdict of guilty.Indeed, his denial of natural revelation made it necessary forBarth to tame the law of God so that it could be of use in civilsociety. Thus Barth could say that

ethics as an independent discipline alongside of dogmat-ics is quite impossible. The ethical question is the ques-tion of human existence. The Word of God, the subjectmatter of dogmatics, has precisely this human existenceas its own subject matter. Consequently ethics necessar-ily becomes an auxiliary discipline of dogmatics.

The Law’s Validity for Christians

But given its juridical accusation against sinners, can the lawthen be in any sense valid for Christians? Elert restricted the use-fulness of the law to this accusatory power or work. It therefore is

Elert’s work was characterized by aringing rejection of Calvinism.

nb

halt des Kerygmas) that has to be preached in the church. Dogmat-ics deals not with credenda, or docenda, but praedicanda. By dis-tinction, the Christian ethos “is the quality, the value, which manhas by virtue of God’s verdict upon him. Therefore the central taskof theological ethics is the question of the sufficient grounds of thedivine judgment.” Thus ethics is not the things to be done(agenda) that correspond to the things believed (credenda). Theethics of Elert deals with qualities in persons under God’s verdicts,not with acts: “It must examine man’s quality under God’s verdictof the Law and also man’s quality under God’s verdict of theGospel.” Elert’s ethics did not deal with rules, principles, casuistry,or human acts, but with man’s standing under the verdicts of God.It is not surprising that Elert wrote that his ethics would be “unac-ceptable to other Protestant groups.”

Law and gospel are a way of being, not a way of doing. Inthat sense Lutheran ethics were existential before there were exis-tentialists. The individual is defined by his standing coram Deounder the divine verdict. This certainly changes the focus ofethics away from rules and principles. Whether this leaves roomfor an acceptable ethic is a question. Law and gospel is played outin the relationship between the two kingdoms, the civil and thereligious, in Lutheran ethics.

LUTHER AND THE TWO KINGDOMS

Does the law and gospel distinction actually work? Can itreally provide an ethic, or does it lead to antinomianism ornihilism? Luther’s sermons on the Sermon on the Mount will givea case to judge. Luther used the occasion of his sermons on theSermon on the Mount to delineate his doctrine of the two king-doms. The distinction between law and gospel led Luther to dis-tinguish between the two kingdoms; the secular kingdom, thekingdom of the left hand and the spiritual kingdom, the kingdomof the right. This distinction helped Luther treat the problem ofrevenge. While the doctrine of the two kingdoms seemed to havebeen derived from St. Augustine’s City of God, Luther did notemploy this distinction in the same way Augustine did. This canbe attributed to Luther’s less philosophically focused point ofview, and again, to his less than systematic treatment of mostquestions, including this one.

Revenge: Lutheran Ethics at Work

Luther’s sermons on the Sermon on the Mount weremolded by his desire to articulate the doctrine of the two king-doms. This may have been necessitated by the happenings of thesummer of , when the Lutheran princes and estates pre-sented the Lutheran confession of faith at the Imperial Diet ofAugsburg. The religious division in the Holy Roman Empirecaused by the Lutheran reformation brought to a head manyquestions about the unity of the empire itself and the nature of

:

know their sins aright—a knowledge which Mosescould never extort from them (SD V, ).

Elert and the Third Use of the Law

Since the law always accuses, the law does not provide a thirduse, a didactic use, according to Elert. The law can never be onlydidactic. Here is the crux of the argument about the third use ofthe law for Lutherans. Elert set up a false alternative: either thelaw accuses or it is only didactic. The Formula of Concord doesnot present the reader with such an alternative. Certainly Chris-tians are still accused by the law in so far as they are still sinners:“For the old Adam, as an intractable, refractory ass, is still a partof them, which must be coerced” (SD VI, ). Elert is on theverge of dissolving the existential dilemma faced by the Christianin concrete circumstances, namely that, as regenerate he delightsin the law of the Lord, and as sinner he is accused and con-demned by the law. The Formula of Concord lets the tensionstand in the application of law in the life of the Christian. Elertwas correct, however, in rejecting the view that the law is primar-ily or properly didactic, as Calvin taught.

Elert’s rejection of a third use of the law overlooked thestatements of Luther that led Chemnitz to attribute to him athreefold use of the law. While Luther did not title or name aspecific third use, his extant works show plenty of evidence of athird use. In his sermons on the Gospel of St. John he said: “TheTen Commandments are still in force and do concern us Chris-tians so far as obedience to them are concerned. For the right-eousness demanded by the Law is fulfilled in the believersthrough the grace and assistance of the Holy Spirit, whom theyreceive” (AE :). In On the Councils and the Church Lutherindicated that the church is sanctified by the Holy Spirit accord-ing to the two tables of the law (AE :–). Armin W.Schuetze, after comparing Luther and the Formula of Concord,concluded: “Article VI restates the views already expressed byLuther in numerous writings from various periods of his life.”

Walter R. Bouman very clearly saw Luther taking a threefoldapproach to the uses of the law:

Luther does three things with the decalog in his two cat-echisms. First, he rearranges the order of the materials,putting the decalog first, in contrast to the catechisms ofthe late middle ages. The decalog is thus able to functionas prolegomenon to the Creed (gospel) by uncoveringsin. Second, the decalog is interpreted as an expressionof natural law for the good ordering of the world. Third,the decalog is used to exhort and describe the life ofbelievers, a kind of ethical manual for Christian folk.

Elert had overstated his case by overemphasizing the semperaccusans character of the law to the exclusion of other divinelywrought results and by presuming that because Luther neverexpressly mentioned a “third use” of the law that he did not usethe law as a didactic tool for Christians.

The Relation of Dogmatics and Ethics

Elert saw a disjunction between dogmatics and ethics. Hedefined dogma as the “required content of the kerygma” (Sollge-

Law and gospel are a way of being, not a way of doing.

nb

can never be any correct understanding in Christen-dom, as I have often said and shown. So far, all we havebeen hearing is the way Christ directed His sermonagainst the Pharisees, who were misleading the peoplein both doctrine and life and were misinterpreting anddistorting God’s commandment in such a way as toproduce only counterfeit saints. It is the same today.Among the preachers there is always a group—if not amajority!—of such Jewish saints, whose teaching dealsonly with the sin and the piety that are manifest in out-ward works (AE :).

Christian as Person-in-Society

Luther taught that the Christian as a person-in-society mayseek revenge in the properly prescribed way outlined by the gov-ernment authority, but as a Christian he had no right to suchrevenge, nor ought he to harbor any desire for such. As a Christ-ian the individual needed to be concerned about purity of heart,but might at the same time seek retribution as a member of secu-lar society. Christ’s purpose in the Sermon on the Mount was todestroy the Jewish opinion that personal revenge was righteous aslong as it was meted out in an “eye for an eye” manner.

Now Christ comes along to demolish this pervertedidea and false interpretation [Ex :, Lev :, thatthe individual may take personal revenge whenwronged]. He is not tampering with the responsibilityand authority of the government, but He is teachingHis individual Christians how to live personally, apartfrom their official position and authority. They shouldnot desire revenge at all. They should have the attitudethat if someone hits them on one cheek, they are ready,if need be, to turn the other cheek to him as well,restraining the vindictiveness not only of their fist butalso of their heart, their thoughts, and all their powersas well. In other words, what He wants is a heart thatwill neither be impatient nor wreak vengeance nor dis-turb the peace. Such a righteousness is different fromthe one they taught and maintained. Still they wantedto deck themselves out with what they found in Moses,claiming that revenge and self-defense were properagainst violence (AE :).

Luther defended his interpretation by appealing to an argu-ment from absurdity. It was simply absurd to think that Christwas commanding humans in every context to accept every injurywith no recourse whatever to secular safety.

Must a person suffer all sorts of things from everyone,without defending himself at all? Has he no right toplead a case or to lodge a complaint before a court, orto claim and demand what belongs to him? If all thesethings were forbidden, a strange situation woulddevelop. It would be necessary to put up with every-one’s whim and insolence. Personal safety and privateproperty would be impossible, and finally the socialorder would collapse.

Lutheran obedience to the imperial law; this was made all themore urgent by the looming presence of the Turks at theDanube. The preface to the Augsburg Confession even treats theproblem of the doctrinal disharmony in the empire and itsimpact on the defense of the empire. The compromise of theDiet of Speyer (), however, which permitted to each territor-ial prince freedom to enforce his own religious reform, cuiusregio, eius religio, introduced this problem of obedience to theimperial government. This problem became clearer after theapparently irreparable breach following the presentation of theRoman Catholic Confutation of the Augsburg Confession at theDiet of Augsburg in . This was the background of Luther’ssermons in –. Jaroslav Pelikan, an editor of the AmericanEdition of Luther’s Works, commented in a note:

This [section of Luther’s commentary] is one of themost explicit statements of the polemic underlyingmost of this commentary. The fundamental teachingLuther is defending is his doctrine of the two king-doms: the secular kingdom, ‘the kingdom of the lefthand,’ which God rules through the secular authority;and the spiritual kingdom, ‘the kingdom of the righthand,’ which God rules through His Word. Lutheraccused the Roman Catholics of confusing these twokingdoms by assigning temporal authority to thepope; and he accused the radical Reformers of confus-ing them by seeking to rule the secular realm with theLaw of God, either the Ten Commandments or theSermon on the Mount. Thus he regarded the properdistinction between the two kingdoms or realms,together with the proper distinction between the Lawand the Gospel, as basic to all theological considera-tion (AE :, n. ).

For Luther the problem lay with the distinction between thesecular and the religious. He thought that the confusion of thesecular with the religious in the realm of morals led to the intro-duction of purely external works as satisfaction of the require-ments of God’s law. Such a satisfaction was prototypical Phari-saism to Luther:

This text has also given rise to many questions anderrors among nearly all the theologians who have failedto distinguish properly between the secular and the spir-itual, between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdomof the world. Once these two have been confusedinstead of being clearly and accurately separated, there

It was simply absurd to think that Christwas commanding humans in every context to accept every injury with no recourse whatever to secular safety.

nb

about the right relation of the heart to God, while inall these other questions it should take care to staypure and not to stumble into a false righteousness. Youmust grasp and obey this distinction, for it is the basison which such questions can be easily answered. Thenyou will see that Christ is talking about a spiritual exis-tence and life and that He is addressing Himself to HisChristians. He is telling them to live and behave beforeGod and in the world with their heart dependent uponGod and uninterested in things like secular rule orgovernment, power or punishment, anger or revenge(AE :).

Luther rejected a super-spirituality that sought to extractthe Christian from the world; he was in the world, not of theworld. But there were two hats for the Christian to wear: thesecular hat and the spiritual hat. In relation to others and his

responsibility to them, the Christian needed to remain subjectto the imperial authority. Touching his faith and doctrine hewas subject to none but Christ. This structure of the two king-doms is almost an analog to Luther’s doctrine of the larvae Dei;the Christian as a Christian wears the mask of Christian piety,the Christian as individual in society wears the mask of the sec-ular individual.

There is no getting around it, a Christian has to be asecular person of some sort. As regards his own per-son, according to his life as a Christian, he is in sub-jection to no one but Christ, without any obligationeither to the emperor or to any other man. But at leastoutwardly, according to his body and property, he isrelated by subjection and obligation to the emperor,inasmuch as he occupies some office or station in lifeor has a house and home, a wife and children; for allthese are things that pertain to the emperor. Here hemust necessarily do what he is told and what this out-ward life requires. If he has a house or a wife and chil-dren or servants and refuses to support them or, ifneed be, to protect them, he does wrong. It will not dofor him to declare that he is a Christian and thereforehas to forsake or relinquish everything. But he mustbe told: “Now you are under the emperor’s control.Here your name is not ‘Christian,’ but ‘father,’ or‘lord’ or ‘prince.’ According to your own person youare a Christian; but in relation to your servant you area different person, and you are obliged to protecthim” (AE :).

:

To answer this, you must always pay attention tothe main point, which is, that Christ is addressing Hissermon only to His Christians and seeking to teachthem the kind of people they should be, in contrast tothe carnal ideas and thoughts that still clung to theapostles. They imagined that He would institute a newrealm and empire and set them up in it to rule as lordsand to conquer their enemies and the wicked world.Thus flesh and blood has always expected to find itsown dominion, honor, and advantage in the Gospel,and an escape from all suffering. The pope has longedfor this, too, and his realm has developed into nothingmore than a secular dominion, so dreadful that theworld has had to submit to him.

Now, too, we see the whole world seeking itsown advantage in the Gospel. This has brought on therise of so many sects, whose only aim is their ownadvancement and aggrandizement, together with theextermination of others. So it was with Münzer andhis peasants, and more recently with others, too. Evenreal Christians are sometimes tempted this way (AE:).

The governance (Kasiers Regiment and Christus Reich) thatbelongs to the state was not separate from God. God was also theGod of the state. The kingdom of the left had to do with curbingthe gross outbursts of sin. God had his own particular and specialpurpose for the state. Bornkamm wrote:

Thus, the state, established by God, exists by reason ofman’s sin. If there were no sin, it would not be needed.But this, of course, does not imply that the administra-tion of the government or service in the state is sinfulin itself. Nothing is farther from the truth than thatoft-repeated canard that Luther regarded the state assinful. It exists because of sin. Force is indispensable.Self-evidently, those who serve as officials of the stateare sinful, but the order of the state per se is not. Theold Anabaptist viewpoint, attacked by Luther, is rootedin this erroneous assumption of the state’s sinfulness,and perhaps has found its way into the LutheranChurch by way of pietism and in this way has done thechurch a great disservice. Luther has nothing at all incommon with the pessimistic doctrine of JakobBurkhardt that the might and force of the state are evilin themselves.

Thus even the early Luther said: “Licet potentes sint mali etinfideles, tamen ordo et potestates eorum bona sunt et ex Deo”(WA :). Luther was thoroughly convinced that Jesus wasspeaking only about specifically Christian morals in the Sermonon the Mount. This is not to say that these morals were com-pletely otherworldly, for they were to have an impact upon theChristian in society.

But the Gospel does not trouble itself with these mat-ters [of secular government and order]. It teaches

It would have been suicidal for aChristian in society to give up his rights and privileges.

nb

tian, but as a soldier or a judge or a lawyer. At the sametime he keeps a Christian heart . . . . Yet while we keepour obligation to this rule and established order,inwardly we live by another rule, which does not hinderit nor even deal with it, but which is willing to put upwith it (AE :).

Luther and Augustine differ greatly in that Luther on theone hand divided very sharply between secular and religiousethics. The religious ethic was derived from the power of thegospel, the secular ethic from the power of authority. The powerof the gospel was a winsome, comforting power, seeking toencourage the individual. The power of authority was vengefuland punishing, accepting of no mitigation. Thus for LutherAugustine’s misericordis justitia was oxymoronic. There wasonly the mercy of the gospel on the one hand and the unremit-

ting thunder of the law on the other. The law alone, with its quidpro quo structure, could be derived by human reason. Thegospel, with its unmerited grace, was revealed by God and couldnever be derived from human reason alone. There could belegal justice and mercy, but there could not be merciful justice inLuther’s thought. Here there could be no casuistry, no mitiga-tions, no middle axioms, only the relentless verdict of Godagainst man.

CONCLUSION

For Lutherans, ethics is an equivocal enterprise on two levels.First, Lutherans tend to treat ethics from the perspective of thetheological principle of law and gospel. This removes it from therealm of principles and rules for life and puts it in the realm of thedivine response to man in his sin and justification. Second,Lutheran ethics tends to avoid making ethical statements in thepolitical realm as “church.” This is the work of the law, not thechurch’s proper work. The church’s children may, however, withgreat boldness and confidence attempt great things in the civilrealm, without being burdened by casuistic nitpicking and worryof failure, because the eternal Lord Christ stands ready in hischurch to pronounce again the verdict of not guilty. So RichardJohn Neuhaus wrote: “Knowing that . . . all action is morallyambiguous, the church’s message of forgiveness enables the Chris-tian to act boldly in the courage of uncertainty, confident that finaljudgment does not depend upon the correctness of our purposeor the adequacy of its fulfillment.” The law and gospel ethicplaces Christians in the tension of relation: the relation of thesacred and the secular, the tension of the divine and the human,the tension of the verdicts of condemnation and salvation. TheLutheran ethic comes to be within that tension. LOGIA

It is precisely at this point that Luther introduced his argu-ment from absurdity. It would have been suicidal for a Christianin society to give up his rights and privileges because this wouldhave led to a destruction of society. In practice this would seem tohave been difficult for the Christian to maintain. For it is the taskof the Christian to be a light set on a hill. He needs to practice hisfaith in relation to others. Nonetheless Luther said:

You see, now we are talking about a Christian-in-relation[Christen in relatione]: not about this being a Christian,but about his life and his obligation in it to some otherperson, whether under him or over him or even along-side him, like a lord or a lady, a wife or children or neigh-bors, whom he is obliged, if possible, to defend, guard,and protect. Here it would be a mistake to teach: “Turnthe other cheek, and throw your cloak away with yourcoat.” That would be ridiculous, like the case of the crazysaint who let the lice nibble at him and refused to kill anyof them on account of this text, maintaining that he hadto suffer and could not resist evil (AE :–).

Ultimately for Luther our secular relationships are gov-erned by the secular law as embodied in the imperial law. Theselaws governing outward actions were able to be derived by rea-son and had no need of being taught by Christ who was con-cerned with the faith of the heart and the resulting thoughts ofthe human heart as normed by the word of Christ. Christ’steaching in the Sermon did not destroy this outward law butreaffirmed it, even if it was relegated to its own place as separatefrom religious piety.

Do you want to know what your duty is as a prince or ajudge or a lord or a lady, with people under you? You donot have to ask Christ about your duty. Ask the imperialor the territorial law. . . . What kind of crazy motherwould it be who would refuse to defend and save herchild from a dog or a wolf and who would say: “A Chris-tian must not defend himself”? Should we not teach hera lesson with a good whipping and say: “Are you amother? Then do your duty as a mother, as you arecharged to do it. Christ did not abrogate this but ratherconfirmed it” (AE :).

But how can this work in practice? It seemed simple todivide the man from his Christianity when he was a judgeappointed by the state for he was bound by explicit laws. Butwhat action can be taken when a neighbor builds a fence onanother Christian’s property? Ought he to forgive him and ignorethe fact that his property has been trespassed against, or shouldhe take him to court to have the fence removed? It seems thatLuther would have said he could do both. He could have forgivenhis neighbor the trespass, but he could also have had the secularauthority enforce his property rights.

Thus when a Christian goes to war or when he sits on ajudge’s bench, punishing his neighbor, or when he regis-ters an official complaint, he is not doing this as a Chris-

Luther on the one hand divided verysharply between secular and religious ethics.

nb

:

. Quoted in C. F. W. Walther, The Proper Distinction BetweenLaw and Gospel, trans. W. H. T. Dau (St. Louis: Concordia Pub-lishing House, ), p. . “Darum, welcher diese Kunst, dasGesetz vom Evangelio zu scheiden, wohl kann, den setze obenan,und heiße ihn einen Doctor der heiligen Schrift. Denn ohne denHeiligen Geist ist es unmöglich, diesen Unterschied zu treffen. Icherfahre es an mir selbst, sehe es auch täglich an anderen, wieschwer es ist, die Lehre des Gesetzes und Evangelii von einanderzu sondern. Der Heilige Geist muß hier Meister und Lehrer sein,oder es wirds kein Mensch auf Erden verstehen noch lehren Kön-nen. Darum vermag kein Papist, kein falscher Christ, keinSchwärmer diese zwei von einander zu theilen, sonderlich incausa materiali et in objecto.” Martin Luther, SämmtlicheSchriften, ed. J. G. Walch (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,), vol. , p. .

. C. F. W. Walther certainly was the foremost interpreter inAmerica of the law and gospel distinction. Walther’s lectures onlaw and gospel, noted down during his Luther Hour lectures atConcordia Seminary, St. Louis, in –, are classics in theirown right. These notes were collected into the volume notedabove. Werner Elert, Law and Gospel, trans. Edward H. Schroeder(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ), p. , in his assessment of thedismal state of the Lutheran distinction between law and gospel,remarked: “Even among the Luther interpreters of the last cen-tury, only a few, such as Theodosius Harnack and the AmericanLutheran, C. F. W. Walther, broke through to the Pauline-Lutheran understanding of the divergence. Albrecht Ritschl andWilhelm Herrmann at least took up the theme once more, but atthe same time they barricaded an entire generation from anunderstanding of it by presenting it as but one variation of theirown private theme, the relation between ‘religion’ and ‘morality.’”

. Martin Luther, Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe(Weimar, ), vol. , p. . Hereafter cited as WA.

. Westminster Dictionary of Ethics, s.v. “Law and Gospel.” Theauthor, Martin J. Heineken, makes a baffling statement in thesentence following this quotation: “That is why an elaborate sys-tem of casuistry is necessary in order to apply the law in all fair-ness in all cases.” First, the law and gospel ethic has not, in fact,given rise to any such “elaborate system of casuistry.” Second,such a system is nothing like “necessary.” Third, “fairness” inapplication is hardly a major concern in the Lutheran law andgospel ethic. “Fairness” would actually be seen as impossible inthe real life application of the law. This critique of Heineken willbecome clearer below.

. Martin Luther, Commentarium in Epistolam S. Pauli adGalatas, ed. J. C. Irmischer (Erlangen: Charles Heyder, ), vol., p. . Hereafter cited as E. See Luther’s Works, American Edi-tion, gen. eds. Helmut Lehmann and Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis:Concordia Publishing House, ), vol. , p. . Hereafter citedas AE.

. Westminster Dictionary of Ethics, s.v. “Law and Gospel.”. Here certainly the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms

has its birth. Carl Braaten, “Whatever Happened to Law andGospel,” Currents in Theology and Mission (April ), p. ,saw this when he wrote: “the proper distinction between law andgospel must be worked out as the proper distinction between the

two kingdoms to guide the church’s public proclamation of theWord of God and every form of ministry.”

. See Holsten Fagerburg, A New Look at the Lutheran Confes-sions, trans. Gene J. Lund (St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse, ), pp. –, for a beneficial summary of the contro-versy about the third use of the law in contemporary Lutherresearch.

. Philip Melanchthon, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Loci The-ologici, vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus (St. Louis: Concordia Publish-ing House, ), vol. , p. .

. Chemnitz, p. .. For a fuller discussion of the historical background to the

Formula of Concord see Eugene F. Klug and Otto F. Stahlke, Get-ting into the Formula of Concord (St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse, ), and Arnold J. Koelpin, ed., No Other Gospel (Mil-waukee: Northwestern Publishing House, ).

. F. Bente and W. H. T. Dau trans. and eds., ConcordiaTriglotta (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), p.

(Ep IV, ). Hereafter references to the Lutheran Confessions willbe by document, article, and paragraph.

. Karl Barth, “Gospel and Law,” Community, State, andChurch, trans. A. M. Hall (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books,), PP. –.

. Elert, Law and Gospel, p. .. Elert, Law and Gospel, p. .. Barth, p. .. See Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olsen, Twentieth-Century

Theology (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, ), p. .. For example, Edmund Schlink, “Die Verborgenheit Gottes

des Schöpfers nach lutherischer Lehre,” in Ernest Wolf, ed., The-ologische Aufsätze, Karl Barth zum . Geburtstag (Munich, )and Werner Elert.

. Werner Elert (–) taught at Erlangen University(–). His most important works are The Structure ofLutheranism and The Christian Ethos.

. Elert, Law and Gospel, p. .. Elert, Law and Gospel, p. .. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans.

Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, ),vol. , pp. –.

. Elert, Law and Gospel, p. .. Karl Barth quote by John Cullberg, Das Problem der Ethik

in der dialektischen Theologie, I, Karl Barth (Leipzig, ), p. ,in Edward H. Schroeder, “The Relationship Between Dogmaticsand Ethics,” Concordia Theological Monthly (Dec ), p. .

. Elert, Law and Gospel, p. .. James Childs, “The Third Use of the Law and Constructive

Ethics,” Currents in Theology and Mission (Feb ), pp. –,attempted to place the Formula of Concord’s ethical direction inthe context of modern ethical paradigms, in which he claimedthat the Formula’s view would lead to treating rules as “generalabsolutes.” They are absolutes that lay claim on me as definitionsof how love behaves in various circumstances of life. This makesthem more than just guides; that is, they are not subject to subjec-tive reinterpretation or dismissal. They are, however, general.They do not prescribe in the sense of defining my specific behav-

NOTES

ior in every situation of life; that is, that they are not subject tocasuistic extension.

. Elert, Law and Gospel, p. . Lutheranism tends to view the“good” of external righteousness as a good only in a synech-dochal sense. It ascribes to humans the freedom to act prudentlyor foolishly in these externals. Thus the Augsburg Confessionsaid: “Of civil affairs they [the Lutheran churches] teach that law-ful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that it is right forChristians to bear civil office, to sit as judges . . . . They condemnthe Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to Christians. Theycondemn also those who do not place evangelical perfection inthe fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices; for theGospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart” (AC XVI,–). And in Article XVIII, “Of Free Will,” the Augsburg Confes-sion pointed out that the Lutheran churches “teach that man’swill has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to workthings subject to reason. But it has no power, without the HolyGhost, to work the righteousness of God . . . . These things aresaid in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon BookIII: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it hasthe judgment of reason, not that it is thereby capable, withoutGod, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things per-taining to God but only in works of this life, whether good or evil.“Good,” I call those works which spring from the good in nature,such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have afriend . . . . “Evil,” I call such works as willing to worship an idol,to commit murder, etc. (AC XVIII, –).

. Elert, Law and Gospel, p. .. Here we see why Lutheranism avoids defining faith as obe-

dience. Elert said: “The Lutheran confessions understand faith asfiducia, trust, and by ‘new obedience’ they mean the good worksrisked in faith, though not therefore identical with faith. One cantest this matter for oneself. When Jesus addresses the Canaanitewoman, ‘Woman, great is your faith’ (Matt. :), can he possi-bly be praising her obedience . . . ? Can one substitute the term‘obedience’ for faith in Heb. :? In I John :, faith, to be sureappears together with love as the content of the divine command-ment. But to conclude from this that faith is obedience makes nomore sense than to say that love is obedience. What would onegain thereby for an understanding of the nature of love? By thesame token what does one gain thereby for understanding the

nature of faith? Additional legalistic interpretations of the gospelcan be seen when the kingdom of Christ is viewed as animperium exercised by him by virtue of his authority to givecommands, or when correspondingly, the Reformed confessionsrefer to Christ as a lawgiver” (Elert, Law and Gospel, p. ).

. Armin W. Schuetze, “On the Third Use of the Law:Luther’s Position in the Antinomian Debate,” in No Other Gospel,p. .

. Walter R. Bouman, “The Concept of the ‘Law’ in theLutheran Tradition,” Word and World (Fall ), p. .

. See Werner Elert, The Christian Ethos, trans. Carl J.Schindler (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, ).

. Quoted in Schroeder, p. . Gilbert Meilander, “The Placeof Ethics in the Theological Task,” Currents in Theology and Mis-sion (August ), pp. –, took a completely oppositepoint of view by distinguishing between dogmatics and practicaltheology, so that law and gospel are treated in preaching, but dog-matics has to do with some abstract system of teachings. Meilan-der has taken a Barthian rather than Lutheran position: “Theethicist is free to look at the law not just as we have misused it butas in truth it comes from God: always gracious in intent, remedialrather than retributive” (p. ). Meilander is closer to Paul Ram-sey than to Elert.

. Schroeder, p. .. Schroeder, p. .. Werner Elert, The Christian Ethos, p. .. George Tavard, Justification: An Ecumenical Study (New

York: Paulist Press, ) has done some interesting research intolast-minute negotiations between Melanchthon and the RomanCatholics, including John Eck.

. Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther’s World of Thought, trans.Martin H. Bertram (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,), p. .

. J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Latinae, vol. (Paris: GarnierFratres, ), –, Augustine, lib. cap. :.

. See Emil Brunner, “The Christian Doctrine of the Church,Faith, and the Consummation,” in Dogmatics, trans. DavidCairns and T. H. L. Parker (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,), vol. , pp. –.

. Richard John Neuhaus, “To Serve the Lord of All: Law,Gospel, and Social Responsibility,” Dialog (Spring ), p. .

draw upon these sources in order to illustrate that Gerhardt’s the-ology of the Lord’s Supper held tenaciously to Luther’s doctrineof the real presence of Christ’s body and blood, not out of confes-sional obstinance, but because of his pastoral concern for hisparish.

The polemics of the Thirty Years War overshadow practicallyall of Gerhardt’s career from his schooldays at Grimma, his stud-ies at Wittenberg, to his initial sojourn in Berlin as studiosus. Thewar had also precluded his receiving a call into the Holy Ministryuntil he was called to be provost in Mittenwalde in at the ageof forty-four. Yet precisely these years of waiting, followed by hisyears at Mittenwalde, provided Gerhardt with the quietude inwhich he was able to write much of his hymnody. On the otherhand, the battles and theological struggles that followed in Berlin,as well as the pettiness of the parish at Lübben that he served theremaining seven years of his life, virtually served to silence Ger-hardt as a hymnwriter in all but one notable exception: his com-position of a hymn for the Lord’s Supper as a confessional legacyfor his Berlin congregation.

The death of his brother-in-law, the Archdeacon JoachimFromm at St. Nikolai in Berlin on April , , created a vacancythat Gerhardt was called to fill. In July of the same year he wasinstalled as third Deacon at St. Nikolai, the same congregation inwhich he had been ordained upon acceptance of the call to Mit-tenwalde six years before. The ordination book bears the entry ofhis ordination on November , , in his own hand:

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity. Amen. Iconfess and promise to preach and defend the teachingthat is contained in the first and not in the smallest bitUnaltered Augsburg Confession and its Apology, theSmalcald Articles, both Catechisms of Luther, and theFormula of Concord, that is, the entire Book of Concord,which are supported by the clearest and most firm wit-nesses of the prophetic and apostolic writings; and withthe help of divine grace I intend and will steadfastly per-severe in this faith until the end of my life.

Paul GerhardCalled prior of the church of Mittenwald

on this day of my ordinationthe th of November, .

j

PAUL GERHARDT IS SOMETHING OF AN UNKNOWN ENTITY

within English-speaking Lutheranism. While some of hishymns are certainly well known, among them his passion

hymns such as “O Sacred Head Now Wounded” (the one PaulGerhardt hymn actually utilized by J. S. Bach in the St. MatthewPassion) and “A Lamb Goes Uncomplaining Forth,” Gerhardtwas never accorded the place in the English Lutheran hymnalsthat he enjoyed in their German Lutheran counterparts. In theGerman hymnals, Gerhardt’s hymns are outnumbered only bythose of Luther himself. In German literary history, he ranksamong the most noted of German poets. Yet Gerhardt’s theol-ogy, interpreted exclusively through what are essentially occa-sional and devotional hymns, has been at best misunderstoodand at worst misrepresented.

Gerhardt was actually an ardent defender of the Formula ofConcord and its theology. His life in general, and the theologicalstruggles that he endured in Berlin particularly, give tremendousinsight into what confessional subscription meant to the pastorsof the seventeenth century, as well as the cost of remaining faith-ful to their subscription. As will be demonstrated, Gerhardt con-sidered his ordination vows and his confessional subscription inan eschatological light: he would one day have to give accountbefore God for his faithfulness to both. It was this conviction thatmade him, and those in the ministerium with which he served,resolute in their confession, which to a large degree focused onthe Lord’s Supper.

An examination of Paul Gerhardt’s confession of the Lord’sSupper in particular has to take into account at least some of thehistorical and theological material that went into him beyondwhat is readily apparent (though it is actually implicit) throughhis hymnody. Invaluable groundwork for such a study has beenlaid by the publication of critical editions of primary sourcematerial, hymnological contributions, and biographical mono-graphs. The commemorative years of this century celebratingGerhardt’s birth ( and ) and death () produced fur-ther works that sought to reconstruct the theological and spiri-tual Sitz im Leben in which he wrote his hymns, and from whichhis theology can be understood. The following observations will

Paul GerhardtConfessional Subscription and the Lord’s Supper

GERALD KRISPIN

GERALD KRISPIN is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Concordia

College, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and is a LOGIA contributing editor.

() [Then] with the help of God none of the Lutheranpreachers in the Berlin Ministerium will enter into sucha peace.

Gerhardt and the ministerium drew up their battlelinesbehind the Formula of Concord, much to the chagrin of theElector and his representatives. The colloquy began on Septem-ber , .

As their secretary and spokesman, Gerhardt voiced his opin-ion that the endeavors of the Reformed were nothing other thanthe attempt to arrive at a “peaceful syncretism” (pacem syncretisti-cam) or at the very least “mutual toleration” (tolerantiammutuam) on the most spurious of grounds. Such peace and toler-ance, however, were out of the question for the Berlin Minis-terium in light of the profound doctrinal differences between theReformed and the Lutherans, specifically in the matter of theLord’s Supper. The position from which Gerhardt and the minis-terium refused to budge was therefore unequivocally presented inhis Votum during the early stages of the colloquy in . Theupshot of his preliminary statement was that the Lutheranswould fight such a peace and fellowship tooth and nail:

we always and everywhere denied such peace and broth-erhood, even now resist it, and will with the help of Godnever give in to it.

At the heart of the resistance to the peace and brotherhoodsought by the Reformed was the firm conviction of Gerhardt thatbaptism in the name of Jesus and confession of Jesus of Nazarethas Messiah and Savior does not make a Christian, for otherwise“not only Calvinists, but also Papists could be called Christians”

Ultimately it was Gerhardt’s conviction that without right faiththere cannot be the right God. Consequently only he is a Chris-tian “who holds to saving faith purely and unadulterated, reveal-ing its fruits in his life and walk.” The question of what is thetrue and saving faith, pure and unadulterated, had been settled bythe Book of Concord. Consequently the Reformed rejection of thefaith that is confessed in the Book of Concord led Gerhardt to onlyone conclusion: “I therefore cannot consider the Calvinists assuch to be Christians.”

Seventeen fruitless encounters at the colloquy failed to con-vince the Lutherans that the confessional differences between theLutherans and Reformed were a matter of indifference. Nor werethey enthralled with the proposition that a real agreement on thetruth of doctrines was not a necessity for union or at least toler-ance as long as Christ was confessed. Gerhardt refuted this

This was not the first commitment Gerhardt had made tothe confessional writings of the Lutheran Church. Nor was it tobe his last opportunity to present himself in statu confessionis.

The “great Elector” Friedrich Wilhelm of Brandenburg hadfollowed his father Georg Wilhelm and grandfather JohannSigismund not only in adhering to the Reformed confession, butin actively pursuing a union of the Reformed and Lutheran con-fessions. The favorable example of tolerance between these con-fessions that he had encountered in the Netherlands providedhim with a model that he sought to implement in his electoralterritory.

Yet Brandenburg, with its two and a half million Lutheransand only fifteen thousand Reformed, was not so readily predis-posed to a union. Its geographical proximity to the heartland ofthe Reformation and the stiff resistance mounted by Wittenbergand its alumni was continually to close the door on any thoughtof what the Lutherans saw to be a “syncretistic peace” (pacem syn-cretisticam). Barring actual peace, the Elector sought tolerance.But such accommodation was impossible for the Lutherans whounderstood the Reformed not merely as that denomination, but adifferent religion altogether. The Berlin Ministerium, which hadchosen Gerhardt as its secretary, mounted the most persiste

At the heart of the Reformed expansion was the desire of theElector for the Lutherans and Reformed to be blended into onedenomination. To this end he had already in ordered theMagistrate in Berlin to receive the Reformed as members of theparishes. Friedrich Wilhelm further pursued the tolerant recog-nition of Reformed theology by the Berlin Ministerium, andindeed all Lutherans in Electoral Brandenburg, by means of thecolloquy that he ordered convened August , . This call foran “amicabile colloquium” was preceded by a not so amicableedict of June of the same year, wherein the Elector had deter-mined to press all candidates for the ministry in his land to thepoint that they desist from all mutual condemnation, so that

the unchristian rendering [of the Reformed] as heretics,slander, and condemnation, as well as the false hairsplitting and forced accusations of blasphemous teach-ing cease.

Failing such compliance, these ministers could seek anoffice elsewhere. Consequently the Berlin Ministerium was inno doubt as to the real tenor and purpose of the “friendly collo-quy.” Supported by Calov and the Wittenberg faculty, the BerlinMinisterium had Gerhardt set out their position even before theoutset of the colloquy. They suspected that the success of theReformed at Marburg with the help of Lutherans of the town ofRintlingen gave the Reformed of Berlin reason to expect thehand of fellowship, or at the very least a peace accord betweenthe confessions. Gerhardt, on behalf of the ministerium,unequivocally rejected these advances:

() If one desires through this colloquy to bring us tosuch a peace as the Rintlingers accomplished with thoseof Marburg, whereby the Reformed remained with theirprevious points of teaching and the Lutherans neverthe-less were to recognize and accept them as brothers:

Brandenburg, with its two and a halfmillion Lutherans and only fifteenthousand Reformed, was not so readily predisposed to a union.

nb

That the importance of the oral eating is being disputedby the Reformed deeply grieves us, but not for our sake,but for the sake of our dear Saviour, whose bequest andinstitution the oral eating is.

Gerhardt therefore makes it clear that they are dealing with theLord’s Supper, not the Lutheran or the Reformed supper. And theLord’s Supper is nothing other than the distribution of the bodyand blood of Christ to be eaten and drunk for the forgiveness ofsins. They are therefore pained that such a gift should be sodespised and rejected by reasoned and willful unbelief. Further-more, what the Lord has instituted indubitably has bearing uponsalvation. The onus therefore is not upon the Lutherans to provethe importance of this article, but upon the Reformed to establishthat it does not belong to the “teachings that are necessary” (dog-matibus quae necessaria sunt) and “circumstantial to faith or to the-ological knowledge” (ad circumstantiam fidei oder ad scientiam the-ologicam), and finally that it has no basis in the Word of God.

Gerhardt pointed out that such arguments to the contrary havebeen long in coming during the colloquy. Consequently theLutherans are constrained to remain with the clear words “this is”(tou'to ejstin), which the Reformed have conveniently sought tocircumvent. In fact, their refusal to submit their reason to faithcannot be construed as being anything else but a willful rejection ofGod’s will and words. No further answer need be given.

The caution that Gerhardt exercised in his response to theReformed was later revealed to be well founded. With their thesesthe Reformed were trying to do nothing other than to press theLutherans toward the spurious alternatives of either making salva-tion contingent upon the manducatio oralis or admitting that mencan be saved even without the manducatio oralis. For the Lutheransto affirm either proposition would have pleased the Reformed. Inthe first instance the Reformed would have wanted to show theLutherans as being decidedly unevangelical. In the latter case theLutherans would be found to be in agreement with the Reformedconcerning the lack of importance of the manducatio oralis. Theresponse of Gerhardt steers between this Scylla and Charibdes:

If we contend that the article concerning the oral eat-ing is a fundamental article of faith, though not a deci-sive one, yet one which saves, then we would neverthe-less not be allowed to show that no one could come tofaith, love, and hope, thus eternal salvation, withoutthis teaching.

approach as untenable. This was especially the case in the matterof the “oral eating” (manducatio oralis) of the body and blood ofChrist in the Lord’s Supper. The Reformed had purposely posedthe question not in terms of the truth of this article, but in rela-tion to the importance of this doctrine, that is, whether it actuallyis necessary for salvation. Two theses were therefore put on thetable by the Reformed at the behest of the Senior President, Frei-herr von Schwerin:

() The teaching concerning the oral eating of the super-natural and imperceptible body and blood of Christ inthe Lord’s Supper, which is unified in the three confes-sions, is not of such importance that God would notsave a Reformed Christian without such knowledge andrecognition.

() The teaching concerning the oral eating of thesupernatural and imperceptible body and blood ofChrist in the Lord’s Supper, which is unified in the threeconfessions, is not of such importance that God wouldnot save a Reformed Preacher without such knowledgeand recognition.

The Lutherans answered that the manducatio oralis couldnot be qualified as to importance but has to be dealt with as afundamental truth having a clear bearing on salvation. Nor is ita question of the importance that they as ministers of the wordattach to the doctrine:

I know well that this sentence: The oral eating is not ofsuch importance, ‘is not absolute but only to be seen incomparative terms.’ Nevertheless, it is not possible formy soul to hear it without pain. It is easy for theReformed to speak and to think in this manner, sincethey deny this and refute the oral eating as a figment,indeed as madness. We, however, know this eating to beordained by our most glorious Savior and establishedupon his most clear and certain word, and directed forthe salvation of our souls, whereby its weight andimportance are weightier than heaven and earth. Butthat some who are ignorant of this article are notdamned is not, I believe, brought about by defectiveunderstanding, but out of the immense mercy of God,who overlooks this weakness in men. The emphasis andthe whole weight of the oral eating stems partly from itsauthor and founder, who is the God-man Jesus Christ,partly from the object, which is not a common food,but the body of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, himself;partly out of its end, which is the salvation and blessed-ness of our souls.

The query of the Reformed should therefore ultimately beaddressed to the Lord who instituted the bodily eating of his bodyand blood. Their dubious attempt to relegate this doctrine tosomething inconsequential is furthermore not an assault onLutheran theology or theologians, but on the Lord himself,whose words they refuse to believe.

Their attempt to relegate this doctrineto something inconsequential is not anassault on Lutheran theology, but onthe Lord himself, whose words theyrefuse to believe.

nb

The ministerium was taking most seriously that theReformed refusal to confess the manducatio oralis left theirunderstanding of the Lord’s Supper dangerously deficient. And inlight of their confessional subscription and its implications forthe Last Judgment, the Lutherans saw themselves as compelled toexclude the Reformed from their fellowship. To move on to a dis-cussion concerning the person of Christ was therefore all butimpossible, since the Reformed had simply refused to see thestrength of argument for the manducatio oralis and continued toreject this Lutheran doctrine. For these Lutherans no fellowshipwas possible apart from Christ. And no confession of Christwas conceivable apart from the Christ who gives his body andblood to be eaten and drunk bodily for the forgiveness of sins.The confession of the manducatio oralis therefore precluded a dis-cussion of Christ apart from the manducatio oralis, which was forGerhardt the sine qua non not only of the Lord’s Supper, but alsoof Christology. Ultimately the doctrine of the manducatio oraliseffectively served to stalemate the colloquy.

The expected consequence of the colloquy had thereforebeen realized on May , with the seventeenth and finalmeeting. Neither side had budged. The Lutherans had adhereduncompromisingly to the doctrine of the Formula of Concord,which had given Gerhardt and the Lutherans he representedclearly developed theses to articulate and present at these meet-ings. Further recourse had been available by consultation withWittenberg. Ultimately, however, the ministerium did nothingother than steadfastly to confess the faith to which each of itsmembers had subscribed in the Book of Concord. Neither thetenor nor indeed the substance of the colloquy proved to be anydifferent than previous colloquies concerning the Lord’s Supperand Christology that had separated the Lutherans from theReformed since the time of the Marburg Colloquy in . In fact,these documents fail to reveal any new arguments on either sidethat had not been extensively dealt with at previous colloquies.

Nevertheless, they do reveal Paul Gerhardt as being a faithfultransmitter and confessor of the Lutheran Confessions.

For their unrelenting confession, the Lutherans, includingGerhardt, had to bear the odium of being regarded as intractable,obstinate, intolerant, contentious, and polemical people. Deci-sive action by the Elector followed this thwarting of a negotiatedsettlement. An edict was published on September , , that insum obligated the disputing parties to cease their polemics and torefrain from drawing conclusions from the disputed doctrinalpositions. In fact, the edict essentially disputes the conclusionsdrawn within the Formula of Concord concerning Reformeddoctrine. The Lutherans therefore regarded it as a call for seces-sion from the Formula. As a matter of practice, for example, itcalled for the exorcism prior to baptism to be made a matter ofchoice, not doctrine. In the final analysis the edict sought tolegislate the desired “Christian ecclesiastical peace” that the collo-quy was unable to achieve, and in effect declared the disputedtheological articles as nonessential for salvation. In so doing,Friedrich Wilhelm appealed to precedent:

And since the Lord God has, as in the Reformed church,awakened learned men also among Lutheran theologians, whichhave written tractates of peace, and proven that evangelical dis-sent is in itself not a matter of fundamentals, and that a tolerant

In other words, it is not the prerogative of the Lutherans toprove that God will save people without external means such asthe manducatio oralis of the body and blood of Christ, when hehas so clearly located the gospel in such means. When, on theother hand, the Lutherans concede that people will be saved whodid not know of or believe in the oralem manducationem, it doesnot follow that “the teaching concerning the bodily eating is not afundamental article of faith.” Nor does this latter convictionpreclude Gerhardt from concluding that the Reformed, who hadagain and again accused the Lutherans of “maliciously, with hos-tility, and virulently denying and opposing the union,” and so hadtried to show that the Lutherans were “not doctors now but evenstudents of the Reformed,” actually “are damned.”

These responses of the Berlin Minsisterium as penned by Ger-hardt were less than well received. Particular objection was taken tothe renewed damnentur, which was now uttered in the context ofwhat had been billed as a “friendly colloquy.” Yet the Lutheranswere convinced of their conclusion that the Reformed were teach-ing another gospel. And to those who teach another gospel thewords of Paul in Galatians are applied, namely, that they indeed are“damned.” The collapse of the colloquy seemed imminent whenon April , , the Senior President called Lorenz and Helwig ofthe ministerium to account for not following the mode of proce-dure established by the Elector. Yet what was to be a reproof andreprimand also furnished an opportunity to clarify certain formu-lations in the submissions of the ministerium.

Surprisingly, the Reformed returned to the table on April with a document that rejoiced that there was agreement in mostarticles, and only minor differences in three remaining points.They therefore urged that further discussion also include a newarticle: concerning the person of Christ. Gerhardt and the minis-terium were much less jubilant. They regarded this advance asnothing other than an attempt to overburden the agenda, permit-ting only a superficial treatment of the “article concerning thesupper and specifically the oral eating” in order to press onward“with full force towards syncretism.” Instead, the Lutheranssuggested leaving all other articles aside in order to devoteremaining time for the article concerning the supper of the Lordand to give even greater consideration to the oral eating. Ger-hardt was convinced that much still needed to be said before thisarticle could be left behind.

For before we can emerge from the article concerningthe supper of the Lord and the specific point of the oraleating, we are going to continue to remonstrate that wedo not accept them as brothers nor compatriots in thefaith, nor that they can hope for our fellowship.

Yet the Lutherans were convinced oftheir conclusion that the Reformedwere teaching another gospel.

nb

if they want to have it understood that the true union ofthe two natures is such a union, that one nature alsocommunicates with the other.

This question needed to be asked in light of the conclusionsof the Marburg Reformed theologians that stood behind the edict.These had limited the divine power that was communicated to thehuman nature of Christ. In essence they had taught that

the bestowed omnipotence or the participation in suchan attribute of divine nature is not proper to the humannature of Christ. This is nothing else than a desire toposit a limitation of power.

The ministerium suggested that the Reformed refusal toaccept the manducatio oralis indicates a glaring inconsistency intheir whole Christology. On the one hand they do not want todeny that Christ is wholly present. On the other hand they do notwant to go as far as to admit the real presence of Christ’s humannature. Certainly they cannot have it both ways, even though theydeny saying that they do not acknowledge the presence of thewhole Christ. The Lutherans therefore sought clarity about whoand what was present with Christ,

that not the whole Christ is with us, if it is to be under-stood that not only he who is God and man, but alsothat which is God and man is in Christ and also that thewhole Christ, the whole person with both its unifiednatures, the divine and the human, is with us. For werethere to be only one nature of the Lord Christ and notthe other, then, according to our doctrine, the wholeChrist would not be there.

The consequence of denying the manducatio oralis had effec-tively led the Reformed to confess a partim Lord’s Supper andtherefore a partim Christ. The consistent Reformed position couldnot be construed as being anything but a denial of a real commu-nication of attributes and especially the genus maiestaticum.

Despite these weighty unresolved doctrinal differences, theministerium assured the Elector of its continued compliance inthe matter of accusations of heresy, its willingness to redress thetone with which they would address their opponents, and to setthe utterance of the damnamus in its proper light. But sincethey were also conscience-bound to their confessions, they alsosought to secure the freedom to expose doctrinal error whereverit was found, not for the sake of an alleged desire for strife, hon-our, and hatred of peace, but because of their office as “servantsof the word of God, who are obligated to give serious account forthe souls of the parishioners entrusted to them.” The conscienceof these men was unequivocally bound to their ordination sub-scription affixed to the whole of the Book of Concord. To sign theDeclaration was therefore tantamount to apostasy from the con-fessions, especially since the edict contained quite a number ofpoints that were insurmountable and would have demanded thecompromising of their Lutheran faith. Their appeal to the Electortherefore had begun by pointing out that his edict

church can indeed be established: we therefore will not in anyway give others who do not possess such knowledge or peacefuldisposition . . . [the right] to chide publicly or damn otherpeaceful councils.

To ensure compliance with this edict, as well as those thathad preceded it in and , the signing of a declaration wasrequired of the ministerium and indeed all Lutheran ministersthroughout Brandenburg. The substance of this declarationcalled for submission to the mentioned edicts while permittingfaithful adherence to the Augsburg Confession and its Apology.Notably, all other confessional writings, including the Formulaof Concord, are not mentioned within the declaration. Con-science bound to their oaths to all the confessions of the

Lutheran Church, the Berlin Ministerium asked for permissionnot to sign the declaration, citing among their objections specifi-cally the unresolved matter of the manducatio oralis and theensuing Christological questions. These conspicuous doctrinaldifferences could not possibly be brushed aside as being insignif-icant and irrelevant by the ministerium. Conscience-bound, thewhole Berlin Ministerium made it clear to the Elector that theycould not and would not desist from warning their congrega-tions that the Reformed were in fact rejecting the Lutheran doc-trine of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’sSupper when they teach:

The finite cannot comprehend the infinite. It is not pos-sible for one single body to be [anywhere] at the sametime and always except in one place. A permeating bodyis abhorrent to nature. Whatsoever is digested in thestomach is thrown out.

At the heart of these Christological questions remained thedoctrine of the manducatio oralis. The ministerium had made itclear that the manducatio oralis rests upon the clear words ofScripture, and as such it provides the foundation upon which thewhole understanding not only of the Lord’s Supper but of Christhimself depends. To confess the bodily eating and drinking of thebody and blood of Christ is then to confess the communicatioidiomatum, especially the genus maiestaticum. The ministeriumtherefore asked these Reformed representatives if, in light of theedict’s assertion that the doctrinal points in question were not ofconsequence, they do indeed confess a true communication ofattributes in Christ, and so:

For their unrelenting confession, theLutherans had to bear the odium ofbeing regarded as intractable, obsti-nate, intolerant, contentious, andpolemical people.

nb

Liebe.” It appeared first within Johann Georg Ebeling’s Pauli Ger-hardti Geistreiche Andachten in . Indeed, the sitz im Leben forall of Gerhardt’s hymnody was not the Divine Service of the con-gregation, but the quiet of personal devotion. But even in thequiet of their own homes, these parishioners were to be remindedwhat is placed into their mouths when they come to the altar dur-ing the Divine Service, emphasizing specifically the manducatiooralis. The hymn is at times something of a strained dogmaticrhyme, yet one that reflects the Seelsorge of Paul Gerhardt, whichis its primary concern.

In light of the persuasive and reasoned arguments that hadconfronted the ministerium during the colloquy, Gerhardtknew that his parishioners were going to be severely temptedby Reformed doctrine to abandon the institution of Christ infavor of a rationalistic interpretation. He therefore remindsthem who it is that tempts and seeks to lead away from theinstitution of Christ.

You know of my afflictionsAnd Satan, my enemy’s cunning.When he diligently endeavors to gnaw at my spirit,he has a thousand tricksto draw me away from you.Soon he drives the mist of doubt into my mind,Soon he takes my attention away from your intention and willand teaches me to completely denywhat you have firmly established.

Nun weißt du meine PlagenUnd Satans, meines Feindes, List.Wenn meinen Geist zu nagen,Er emsig und bemühet ist,Da hat er tausend Künste,Von dir mich abzuziehen:Bald treibt er mir die DünsteDes Zweifels in den Sinn,Bald nimmt er mir dein MeinenUnd Wollen aus der AchtUnd lehrt mich ganz verneinen,Was du doch fest gemacht. .

For Gerhardt it is precisely the Christ on the altar who deliv-ers from all uncertainty and doubt as to whether Christ in themanger and on the cross is indeed given for me.

Lord Jesus, my desire,I’d never have any peace or restif that which you have accomplished would not remain firmly within me.

Herr Jesu, meine Liebe,Ich hätte nimmer Ruh und Rast,Wo nicht fest in mir bliebeWas du für mich geleistet hast. .

contains a great number of very significant and impor-tant points that we find to be full of dangerous difficultiesfor our souls, and, if we should comply with them, wouldalso serve to divorce and separate us from the entireLutheran church (to which, however, along with all itssymbolic books of faith we intend to hold firmly to theend of our lives through the grace of God).

Still, some two hundred Lutheran ministers in Brandenburgdid comply with the declaration in order to remain in theirparishes. Among them was one of the ministerium, Provost Lil-ius, who had composed his own declaration which was foundacceptable by the Elector. On February , Paul Gerhardt washimself confronted with the option of signing the Declaration orbeing removed from office.

Gerhardt’s not unexpected refusal to sign was followed by animmediate call for dismissal from his office as Deacon at St. Niko-lai. This unhappy state of affairs brought the ministerium, as wellas the town council, to the aid of Gerhardt. Their witness con-firms in Gerhardt a man bound by conscience, who in no wayhad ever maligned the Reformed and had done nothing otherthan stand upon the confessions to which he had subscribed.

Yet the Elector was not impressed by these attempts at retaining aman who refused the hand of brotherhood to the Reformed,counseled his colleagues to refuse signing the Declaration, and byall reports was the most obdurate of the Berlin Ministerium.

Gerhardt was summarily removed from his office. More lobbying, however, did bring forth a compromise.

Gerhardt would not have to sign for a time since he allegedly didnot fully understand the nature of the Declaration and wouldtherefore be reinstated. Yet the messenger who brought Gerhardtthis piece of news also related to him that the Elector was willingto reinstate him in his office since he was satisfied with Gerhardt’smoral, albeit unwritten agreement with the spirit of the Declara-tion. Such an implication was unbearable to Gerhardt’s con-science. Only under one condition could he resume his office:the complete remission of his obligation to the edicts. He wouldtherefore permit himself to be reinstated if he were permitted toremain faithful to the Formula of Concord and unmuzzled in histeaching. Thus the impasse remained. Conscience-bound, Ger-hardt was compelled to reject his reinstatement, whereupon hisposition was declared vacant.

The requirement to leave his parish in the care of those whohad succumbed to the pressures of the Elector led Gerhardt toput into the hands of his parishioners a means by which theycould continue the faith into which they had been baptized withthe publication of his sole communion hymn “Herr Jesu, meine

Gerhardt knew that his parishionerswere going to be severely tempted by Reformed doctrine.

nb

In Sanftmut und Geduld.Nimms beides mit dem MundeUnd denk auch mit darbeiWie fromm im HerzensgrundeIch, dein Erlöser, sei. .

The hymn might indeed be construed as anti-Calvinistpolemics when Gerhardt affirms Christ’s death and atonementfor the whole world as being given so mediately. But Gerhardt’sburden is pastoral, not polemical. The Lord’s Supper is given forthe strengthening of faith, and gives the certainty that Christ hasdone the lot. This is not to say, however, that Gerhardt withdrawsfrom exposing error and false teaching, especially when it arisesin one’s mind (the origin of such thoughts remains unnamed).Falsehood and error is met fully by the Savior himself, this timelocated specifically in the use of the Lord’s Supper, where Ger-hardt confesses that it is not the priest or the pastor who placesthe body and blood into my mouth but rather Christ himself. Hewho sits at the right hand of the Father Almighty as true God andtrue man stretches out his right hand to give himself for my con-solation to eat and to drink:

And in order that my thoughts,which are full of falsehood and deception,will not in the least falter,as if you were not serious enough:You lower your heartalong with the right handand give to me great kindness,to me the highly valued pledgeto eat and to drink.Is that not consolation and lightfor him, who lets himself thinkthat you want nothing to do with him?

Und daß ja mein Gedanke,Der voller Falschheit und Betrug,Nicht im Geringsten wanke,Als wär es dir nicht Ernst genug:So neigst du dein GemüteZusamt der rechten HandUnd gibst mir große GüteMir das hochwerte PfandZu essen und zu trinken.Ist das nicht Trost und LichtDem, der sich läßt bedünken,Du wollest seiner nicht? .

What is implicit in all of Gerhardt’s hymnody actuallycomes to full and explicit expression here, to the point of pro-claiming rhymed dogma. The historical circumstances seem tohave tempered Gerhardt in such a way that a communion hymnthat clearly belongs to the realm of the Divine Service should benecessary for the devotion of the home. From the first verse tothe last it is proclamation of Christ’s work of salvation for us inthe way of Christ located in tangible means of grace. In fact,Gerhardt confesses clearly that the very reality of the incarna-

To avert all doubt and uncertainty Christ has instituted histable, where along with the words of forgiveness he gives his bodyand blood to be eaten and drunk, distributing pro me the forgive-ness of sins.

To avert such disaster,you, Lord, have established your table; there you let me eatso that I am edified to the core of my being.You extend to me your precious flesh and blood to eatand let words flow forthupon which my whole heart rests.Come, you say, come and approach me without fear;what I give to you, receive,and take it confidently to yourself.

Solch Unheil abzuweisen,Hast du, Herr, deinen Tisch gesetzt,Da lässest du mich speisen,So daß sich Mark und Bein ergötzt.Du reichts mir zu genießenDein teures Fleisch und BlutUnd lässest Worte fließen,Da all mein Herz auf ruht.Komm, sprichst du, komm und naheDich ungescheut zu mir,Was ich dir geb, empfaheUnd nimms getrost zu dir. .

Gerhardt’s source of comfort and certainty is the manducatiooralis of the body and blood of Christ of which his hymn speaks.And as though to preclude any misunderstanding as to what hemeans, Gerhardt reiterates this same thought all the more care-fully on the basis of the words of institution:

Here with the bread is presentmy body, that is given into the bands of death and the cross,For you, who strays away from me.With the wine is that which flowed,my blood, which I have poured out in humility and patiencefor the blotting out of your guilt.Take both with your mouth,and remember also along with ithow faithful to the bottom of my heartI, your Redeemer am.

Hier ist beim Brot vorhandenMein Leib, der dargeben wirdZum Tod und KreuzesbandenFür dich, dir sich von mir verirrt.Beim Wein ist, was geflossenZu Tilgung deiner Schuld,Mein Blut, das ich vergossen

. Editions of the hymns of Paul Gerhardt that were utilized inthe course of this study are the historical critical edition of JohannFriedrich Bachmann, Paulus Gerhardts Geistliche Lieder (Berlin:L. Oehmigke’s Verlag, ); Albert Fischer, Das deutsche evange-lische Kirchenlied des . Jahrhunderts, ed. Wilhelm Tümpel,

vols. (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, ),unaltered new edition (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuch-handlung, ); Wilhelm Nelle, Paul Gerhardts Lieder undGedichte (Hamburg: Gustav Schloeßmann’s Verlagsbuchandlung,); Eberhard von Cranach-Sichart, Paul Gerhardt Dichtungenund Schriften (Munich: Verlag Paul Müller, ). It is accordingto this latter edition that the numbers of the hymns that followwill be cited.

. Compare the depictions of Gerhardt as they appear inEduard Emil Koch, Geschichte des Kirchenlieds und Kirchenge-sangs, vols. (Stuttgart: Chr. Belser’schen Verlags handlung,), :–; Paul Gabriel, Das deutsche evangelische Kirchen-lied (Leipzig: Verlag Quelle und Meyer, ); Wilhelm Lueken,Lebensbilder der Liederdichter und Melo disten, Band II/ Hand-buch zum Evangelischen Kirchengesangbuch, ed. ChristhardMahrenholz, Oskar Söhngen and Otto Schlißke, (Göttingen:Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, ), pp. –; Paul Gabriel,Geschichte des Kirchenliedes, Band II/, Handbuch zum Evangelis-chen Kirchengesangbuch, ed. Christhard Mahrenholz, OskarSöhngen and Otto Schlißke (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck undRuprecht, ); Walter Blankenburg, “Paul Gerhardt,” Die Musikin Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Friedrich Blume, vols. (Kasselund Basel: Im Bärenreiter Verlag, ), :–; W. Matthiasand W. Jannasch, “Paul Gerhardt,” Die Religion in Geschichte undGegenwart, rd ed., vols. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, ),:–. Ingeborg Röbbelen, Theologie und Frömmigkeit imdeutschen evangelischlutherischen Gesangbuch des . und .Jahrhunderts (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, ), pp.–.

. The yet unsurpassed treatment of Paul Gerhardt is that ofHermann Petrich, Paul Gerhardt. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte desdeutschen Geistes (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, ); other note-able studies are those of E. C. G. Langbecker, Leben und Liedervon Paulus Gerhardt (Berlin: Sander’schen Buchhandlung, )who provides in the main a plethora of primary documents; Kurt

Ihlenfeld, Huldigung für Paul Gerhardt (Munich: SiebensternTaschenbuch Verlag, ); Karl Hessenbachers, Paul Gerhardt.Sein Leben—Seine Lieder, ed. Siegfried Heinzelmann (Neuffen:Sonnenweg Verlag, ); Ernst Kochs, Paul Gerhardt. Sein Lebenund Seine Lieder (Leipzig: A. Deichert’tsche Verlagsbuchhand-lung, ).

. See Walter Blankenburg, “Die Entwicklung der Hymnolo-gie seit etwa ,” Theologische Rundschau, (): –.Blankenburg provides an exhaustive bibliography of the mostrecent Paul Gerhardt literature, including some evaluation of var-ious works. Cf. Winfried Zeller, “Paul Gerhardt, der Dichter undseine Frömmigkeit,” Theologie und Frömmigkeit, ed. BerndJaspert (Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag, ), p. . Zeller herenotes and reviews various notable articles that appeared duringthe more recent commemorative Gerhardt years.

. Cf. Zeller, pp. –. This hymn, “Herr Jesu meine Liebe,”will be discussed at some length at the end of this essay.

. In nomine sacrosanctae et Individuae Trinitatis Amen.Doctrinam in Aug. Confessione prima illa minimeque.

mutata, Eiusdem Apologia, Articulis Smalkaldicis utroq. B.Lutheri Catechismo, Formula item Concordia comprehensam,Apertissimis juxta ac soldissimis Propheticae et Apostolicae scrip-turae niti fundamentis, Meq. in Ea ad finem usq. vitae meae Deijuvante gratia, constanter preseveraturum confiteor atq.promitto.

Paulus GerhardusVocatus Praepositus Ecclesiae Mittenwaldensis

Ipso Ordinationis meae die. Novbr. A.

Cranach-Sichart, p. . Cf. [K?], “Paul Gerhardt der Beken-ner,” Lehre und Wehre (), p. , who offers a German trans-lation for Gerhardt’s ordination entry.

. As a theological student at the University of Wittenberg, hewas required to provide unqualified subscription to the Book ofConcord.

. The intent of Johann Sigismund was clearly expressed in thecolloquy he had called in October of . His chancellor, Dr.Prückmann, opened the colloquy, outlining that the Electorwanted convincing proof from the Lutherans that Reformed doc-trine was indeed against God and his word. The Elector “wanted

confessionalist” appears somewhat dated in an age of pastoralaccommodation to trend-driven practices. But for Gerhardt it wasimpossible to divorce his pastoral practice from his confessionalsubscription. The Book of Concord continued to figure prominentlyin all of his ministry, informed and formed his conscience, andgave him the courage and serenity to let the earthly powers that behave their way with him. So it is with a servant of the word, whocannot be a servant of men (Gal :), be they church councils orchurch administrators. Perhaps this brief portrayal of Gerhardt willadd him to that cloud of witnesses (Heb :) for the encourage-ment of the many pastors who today are under pressure to sub-scribe to “declarations” and practices that are contrary to the con-fessions and to conscience. There are, after all, worse things than tobe accused and found guilty of orthodoxy. LOGIA

tion would be destroyed by even the most subtle spiritualizationof the Lord’s Supper that he found explicitly in the doctrine ofthe Reformed.

The matter of the oral eating and drinking of the Lord’s bodyand blood therefore was not simply a matter of dogmatic obsti-nacy. It was the very core of Gerhardt’s faith and piety. Neither inhis polemics nor in his hymns could it be a secondary article. Forit was the body and blood of Christ that was given for him thatalone gave him certainty of salvation [Heilsgewißheit], since heknew that here for him is Christ himself, who alone gives himnothing less than the righteousness that lets him stand beforeGod at the last day.

Paul Gerhardt’s resolute confessional stand and his willingnessto endure removal from office and the odium of being a “hyper-

NOTES

to be convinced in his own person whether or not the teachings,that he sought to establish in his lands, would be of such a kind,that they militated against God and his Word, in which case hewould in a moment abandon such faith” [“wolle sich auch fürseine Person überzeugen, ob die Glaubenslehren, die er in seinemLande einzuführen gedächte, von der Art seien, daß sie gegenGott und sein Wort stritten, in welchem Falle er von Stund anvon diesem Glauben abtreten würde”]. Becker, p. . Cf. Lehreund Wehre , pp. –.

Although there is some debate as to what the immediateintent of Friedrich Wilhelm was, there seems to be no doubt thathis ultimate goal also was the union of the Lutherans andReformed in Brandenburg. See J. L. Neve, “Paul Gerhardt in theChurch Troubles of His Time,” Theological Quarterly (),pp. , .

. See E. C. G. Langbecker, Leben und Lieder von Paulus Ger-hardt (Berlin: Verlag der Sander’schen Buchhandlung, ).Langbecker provides an extensive anthology of unaltered primarydocuments that shed light upon these struggles within whichGerhardt was engaged as secretary. In a writing of March , ,Gerhardt relates that the Lutheran clergy in Berlin did concede“that the salvation of those who do not know of this article doesnot come out of a defective understanding, but out of the fath-omless goodness and mercy of our God” [“daß die Seligmachungderer, die diesen Artikel nicht wissen, nicht herkomme ex defectuponderis, sondern aus der grundlosen Güte und Barmherzigkeitunsers Gottes”]. Langbecker, p. . Cf., p. . But “that theReformed as such should be considered fellow Christians, my fel-low brothers, my fellow congregation members, this I indeeddeny.” [“daß die Reformierten quatenus tales Christen, und alsomeine Mitchristen, meine Mitbrüder, meine Mitglieder sein, hocest quod nego”]. Idem., p. . In these writings Gerhardt consis-tently made the point that matters of Lutheran doctrine such asthe person of Christ, the means of grace, and Scripture are not tobe considered matters of indifference. For Gerhardt the Reformedand Lutheran views are therefore “not two views with equal rightsto existence.” Neve, pp. –.

. Langbecker, p. .. Neve describes the spread of Calvinism as motivated “by

the lust of aggrandizement on the part of ambitious rulers.” Neve,p. . Yet he provides no evidence for nascent absolutism in theElector.

. Becker, p. .. “das unchristliche Verketzern, Verlästern und Verdammen,

auch falsche Deuteleien und erzwungene Beschuldigungengotteslästerlicher Lehren allerseits eingestellt [werde].” Lang-becker, p. . This charge was again raised as one of the main rea-sons for the colloquy. The Formula of Concord was seen to be theprod which gave the Lutherans the impetus to utter the damnatus(we condemn) over the Reformed. Gerhardt responds to thecharge by underscoring that such condemnation is nothing per-sonal. “Inasmuch as the little word “damnamus” appears tospring up in these present deliberations, [one should know that]in the Formula of Concord it never is applied to the persons,teachers, or churches, but always to the errors and false teachings[themselves]” [“Wie wohl das wörtlein damnamus auch ausdiesem jetzigen Händel sich zu entspinnen scheinet, in der For-

mula Concordiae niemals auf die personen, Lehrer oder Kirchen,sondern allemal auf die errores und falsche Dogmata gerichtetist”] (p. ).

. “() Will man uns durch dieses Colloquium zu einensolchen Frieden bringen, wie die Rintlinger mit den Marpurgerngemacht haben, da nehmlich die Reformierten bei ihren vorigenLehrpuncten verbleiben, und doch gleichwohl die Lutheraner sievor Brüder erkennen und annehmen sollten. () Solchen Friedwird mit Gottes Hülfe keiner unter uns Lutherischen dem Ministe-rio Berliniensi zugethanen Predigern eingehen.” Langbecker, p. .

. The Lutherans knew that such a position was “odious” tothe elector, yet resolutely held to their confessional subscription.“II. Because we have heard how one is grievously dissatisfied withthe Formula of Concord, and how odiously we are promoted ashaving subscribed to it, [we thought it well] to make a renewedpublic confession prior to the colloquy, that we are not ashamedof the Formula of Concord, that we had indeed subscribed to it,and that we again confessed ourselves to it with heart and mouth,and thereby sought to persevere in it with the help of God untilour end” [“II. Weil wir gehört haben, wie übel man mit der For-mula Concordiae zufrieden, und wie odieus uns das aufgerücktwerde, daß wir dieselben unterschrieben hätten, ob wir nichtnoch vor dem Colloquio deshalb unser öffentliches Bekenntnißthun wolten, daß wir uns der Formulae Concordiae nichtschämten, daß wir ja dieselben unterschrieben hätten, unsnochmals mit Herz und Mund darzu bekenneten, auch mitGottes Hülffe biß an unser Ende darbey zu verharrengedächten”]. Langbecker, p. .

. “solcher Friedens und Brüderschaft haben wir uns je undallewege geläugnet, weigern uns ihrer noch und werden mit GottesHülfe nun und nimmermehr darin willigen.” Langbecker, p. .

. Langbecker, p. .. Cf. The First Commandment in Luther’s Large Catechism,

in Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelischlutherischen Kirche (Göt-tingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, ), p. , . Hereafterabbreviated BKS. Cf. Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ), p. : . Hereafter abbrevi-ated Tappert.

. Ibid. “welcher den wahren seligmachenden Glauben reinund unverfälscht hat, auch die Früchte desselben in seinem Lebenund Wandel sehen läßt.” Gerhardt is perhaps echoing the openingwords of the Athanasian Creed: “Whoever will be saved shall,above all else, hold the catholic faith. Which faith, except everyonekeeps whole and undefiled, without doubt he will perish eternally.”

. Langbecker, p. .. Neve makes the surprising statement that the Lutherans

made a grave theological error in their discussions when “Theyoverlooked the fact that it is not the adoption of single and sepa-rate articles that saves us, but true faith in Christ as the Saviorfrom sin and guilt” (p. ). Gerhardt did not overlook this point,as outlined above. For the Lutherans it was precisely a question of“true” faith that was inconceivable apart from the confession ofthe articles under discussion. The ministerium understood all toowell that the Reformed desired acceptance into fellowship regard-less of what is “true faith”; to reiterate their ultimate goal and theministerium’s ultimate fear was “ that we would have to acceptthem immediately as fellow brothers in Christ, and as members

of our Christian church. For whoever is once accepted as a Christ-ian is necessarily my compatriot in Christendom and also my fel-low Christian” [“ daß wir sie für Christen halten sollen, denn damitwürden wir sie alsbald als Mitbrüder in Christo, und als Mitgliederunserer christlichen Kirche annehmen müssen, denn einmal werein Christ, der ist ja mein Mitgenosse im Christenthum und alsomein Mitchrist”]. Langbecker, p. .

. “It is the intent of the Reformed to pose the questions whichhave been commended before us not according to their truth, butto consider them as articles of controversy” [“Ist die Meinung derReformierten diese daß in den vorgelegten Fragen uns befohlensey, nicht de veritate, sondern de pondere articulorum controverso-rum zu handeln”]. Langbecker, p. .

. Cf. Langbecker, pp. (), (), ().. “. Die Lehre von dem mündlichen, jedoch übernatürlichen

und unempfindlichen Essen und Trinken des Leibes und BlutesChristi im Abendmahl, welche in den drei Confessionen verneinetwird, ist nicht von solcher Wichtigkeit, daß ohne deren Wis-senschaft und Erkenntniß Gott keinen reformierten Christen wolleselig machen.

“. Die Lehre von dem mündlichen, jedoch übernatürlichenund unempfindlichen Essen und Trinken des Leibes und BlutesChristi im Abendmahl, welche in den drei Confessionen verneintwird, ist nicht von solcher Wichtigkeit, daß ohne deren Erkenntnisund Bekenntnis Gott keinen reformierten Prediger wolle seligmachen.” Langbecker, p. . The three confessions in question werethose of the Reformed that the Berlin Ministerium had challenged:The Confessio Sigismundi, the Colloquium Lipsiacum, and the Dec-laratio Thoruniensis. Cf. Becker, p. .

. Langbecker, p. . The right confession of the coena Dominiand the persona Christi is the canon of the documents presented byLangbecker. Cf. pp. –, , –.

. “Phrasin istiam: die mündliche Nießung ist von solcherWichtigkeit nicht, etsi probe videam hic non absolute sed com-parate positam esse, tamen absque dolore animi audire eam nonpossum. Reformatis facile est ita loqui et sentire, ut qui negent etpro figmento, imo pro insania reputent oralem manducationem.Nos autem scimus hanc manducationem esse ordinationem glo-riosissimi nostri salvatoris clarissimo et certissimo ejus verbo fun-datam et ad animarum nostrarum salutem directam; adeoquepondus ejus ac momentum gravius esse coelo ac terra; quod autemquidam articulum hunc ignorantes non damnentur, non puto fieriex defectu ponderis, sed ex multitudine miserationum Dei istamimbecialliatem hominibus condonantis. Pondus sane sibi contrahitoralis manducatio, partim, ex autore et fundatore, qui est JesusChristus, qeavnqrwpo", partim ex objecto, quod non est vulgariscibus, sed ipsum corpus filii Dei Jesu Christi: partim ex fine, qui estsalus et beatitudo animarum nostrarum.” Langbecker, pp. –.

. “Daß uns die Wichtigkeit der oralis manducationis von denReformierten streitig gemacht wird, thut uns von Herzen wehenicht eben um unsertwillen, sondern um unseres lieben Heilandeswillen, dessen Stiftung und Einsetzung solche oralis manducatioist. . . . .” Langbecker, p. .

. Langbecker, p. .. “. Indeed, since our opinion concerning the consequences

of this dear controversy, that is, the “this is” tou'to ejstin is confessedfirst, and since we place the bodily eating afterward, [these words]

are silently passed over as if they are not even written there” [“. Ja,da wir unsere Meinung de consequentia controversia carente, item,das tou'to ejstin confessionis erst, hernach de orali manducatione set-zen, wird auch das nicht einmal berühret, sondern mitStillschweigen übergangen, als ob es nicht einmal da stünde u].”Langbecker, p. . “. Again we come to play the same old tune,that we are to prove our “this is” (tou'to ejstin), which is clearlyattested in the Scripture litera A, even though the letter is plain andclear as day. All that is lacking is that they take it from us and toppleit by contrary proof, which, however, has been forbidden them nomatter how clever and impertinent they would be, for which wepraise and thank God” [“. Endlich kommts doch wieder auf diealte Leier, daß wir unser tou'to ejstinwelches wir in der Schrift lit-era A vorgeben, beweisen sollen, da doch der Buchstabe hell undklar am Tage liegt, und nur daran fehlet, daß Gegentheil uns dem-selben nehme, und umstoße, das ist ihnen aber, und wenn sie nochso klug und naseweis wären, wohl verboten, davor wir Gott lobenund dankbar sein”]. Langbecker, p. .

. “That the Reformed certainly could know the eating of thebody of Christ, which is done by the mouth, but do not want toknow it, is certainly and most truly true” [“Daß die Reformiertenwohl wissen könnten manducationem corporis Christi, quae ore fit,aber nicht wissen wollen, ist gewiß und wahrhaftig wahr”]. Lang-becker, p. .

. “. We have plainly enough established the “this is” (tou'toejstin) but no one has wanted to look or pay attention, proven thecontrary nor honored us with the least response. And because wehave the “this is” (tou'to ejstin) we can draw no conclusions norsubstantial interpretation that departs from the “this is” (tou'toejstin) which is confirmed by the consensus of the ancient writ-ers” [“. Haben wir das tou'to ejstin deutlich genug dargewiesen,aber es hat das niemand sehen und merken wollen, unser Gegen-theil hat uns nicht eines Buchstabens Antwort daraus gewürdiget,und weil wir uns das tou'to ejstin haben, so dürfen wir keine con-sequens auch keiner Sachen interpretation die (von dem tou'toejstin abschritte et) notario antiquitatis consensu bestätiget werde”].Langbecker, p. .

. “Geben wir den articulum de orali manducatione zwar voreinen articulum fidei fundamentalem aus, aber nicht vor einemconstituentem, sed conservantem und also dürfen wir auch nichterweisen, daß ohne dieser Lehre Niemand den Glauben, Liebe undHoff nung, und also die ewige Seligkeit erlangen könne.” Lang-becker, pp. –.

. Langbecker, p. . Cf. BKS, p. , , (Tappert, pp. –,, ); pp. –, , , (Tappert, p. , , , ); pp. –,– (Tappert, pp. –, –); Hutter, pp. –. Gerhardt isalso quite unequivocal about the consequences of deliberate(mutwilligen) unbelief with respect to the doctrine of the manduca-tio oralis: “whoever is in this way ignorant of the oral eating, andtherefore to be sure denies and stubbornly, wickedly, with virulenthostility and blasphemy contradicts us, we are unable to judge himto be free from damnation” [qui enim oralem manducationem itaignorat, ut simul eam neget et pertinaciter, malitiose, hostiliter vir-ulenter et blaspheme contradicat illum sane nos a damnationisreatu liberare non possumus”]. Langbecker, p. .

. “malitiosa, hostili et virulenta negatione et contradictioneconjunctam, non doctores modo sed auditores etiam Reformati,

damnentur.” Langbecker, p. . Cf., BKS, p. , (Tappert, p. ,). “manducatio in coena non modo accipientibus non salutaris,sed noxia etiam et damnationis causa esse sollet.”

Langbecker, p. . Paul Wernle, in a not unpartisan spirit,makes the comment that it is “the purest heretic-hating spirit ofLuther and those of Wittenberg that one can perceive here” [“derechteste ketzerhassende Geist Luthers und der Wittenberger, denwir hier vernehmen”]. Paul Wernle, Paulus Gerhardt (Tübingen: J.C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) ), p. . Sasse, though himself notimpartial, doubtless has however grasped the true spirit in whichGerhardt and the Lutherans could utter the “damnamus” when hewrites: “The ‘damnamus’ is not a loveless judgment against otherChristians but the rejection of false doctrine that is commanded inthe New Testament, a duty of pastoral care for those who are stray-ing no less than for those who are endangered by error.” HermannSasse, We Confess the Sacraments, trans. Norman Nagel (St. Louis:Concordia Publishing House, ), p. . Cf. the detailed apologyof Gerhardt’s position in an unsigned article, “In Behalf of PaulGerhardt and the Elenchus,” Theological Quarterly , pp. –.

. Langbecker, p. .. “denn ehe wir aus dem articul de coena domini et puncto

oralis manducationis herauskommen, werden wir ihnen so vielremonstrieren, daß weder wir sie für Brüder und Glaubens-genossen annehmen, noch sie unsere Brüderschaft begehren kön-nen.” Langbecker, pp. , . That the colloquy never did movebeyond this point is indicated by the objections to the edict of theelector that followed the colloquy in . The elector had pointedout that the sacraments are not mere signs. The ministeriumtherefore queried if the Reformed are prepared to confess the realpresence of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and the wine: “Ifthe holy sacraments are not only to be mere signs, types, and rep-resentations, that is, if they then are able to propose and interpretthis particular chief article or chief opinion, namely, that they [thebread and body/wine and blood] are unified and joined for pre-sent use, according to its substance, in other words, as an examplethat the body and blood of Christ are not so far separated and divided from the bread and wine as heaven and earth [are dividedfrom each other” [“Wenn die heil. Sacramenta nicht sollen nurbloße Zeichen, Fürbilder und Bedeutungen seyn, ob sie dann mitdemjenigen Hauptstück oder Haupt gut welches sie fürbilden undbe deuten können, und Zwar mit dessen substantz zu gegenwär-tiger Genießung vereiniget und verbunden seyn, also zum exem-pel, daß der Leib und das Blut Christi nicht so weit als Himmelund Erde von Brod und Wein geschieden und abgesondertseyen”]. Langbecker p. .

. “If the Reformed stray away from the oral eating impulsivelyand outside of a word of God evoke a better conscience, in whichconscience the Papists, Photinians, Turks, and Jews also persist, yetreject our Lutheran [conscience], then, however, they, in the samemanner, reject the truth and love lies, contrary to a conscience thathas been so often better taught from the word of God. They havecertainly seen what foundation and arguments the Lutherans havefor the oral eating, but they repress themselves and hide and do notwant to see [“Wenn die Reformierten oralem manducationem nachdem Trieb erronea et ex verbo Dei meliora edocenda conscientia,qua conscientia, auch die Papisten, Photinianer, Türken, Juden beiihrer Religion verharren, und unser Lutherische verwerfen, aber so

ipso verwerfen sie die Wahrheit und lieben die Lügen, contra consci-entiam toties ex verbo Dei meliora edoctam, sie haben wohl gese-hen, was fundamenta et argumenta die Lutheraner pro orali mand-ucatione haben, aber sie verhalten und verstecken sich selbst undwollens nicht sehen”]. Langbecker, p. .

. It might be noted at this juncture that there were otherLutherans who were much more compliant than Gerhardt and theBerlin Ministerium, namely, those who had met at Kassel in .This meeting between the Reformed of Marburg and Lutherantheologians had produced an agreement whereby “no part was tocondemn the other or call them heretics because of the outstandingdifferences of opinion [!!]. . .” [“kein Teil den andern wegen dernoch zurückgebliebenen Verschiedenheit der Meinungen [!!] ver-dammen oder verketzern sollte”]. Lehre und Wehre , p. , note .What had these theologians relegated as indifferent? “ Whether ornot the body and blood of Christ is received by believers and unbe-lievers according to his nature? Whether or not God is willing andprepared to offer and give his grace to human beings through theordinary means? Whether or not Christ died for all people, no lessfor the reprobate than for the elect? Whether or not certain divineattributes can also be predicated from the human nature of the Sonof God?” [“Ob Christi Leib und Blut im Abendmahl dem Wesennach von Gläubigen und Ungläubigen empfangen werde? Ob Gottwillens und bereit sei, allen und jeden Menschen seine Gnadedurch die ordentlichen Mittel anzubieten und zu geben? Ob Chris-tus für alle Menschen, für die Verworfenen nicht minder als für dieAuserwählten, gestorben sei? Ob gewisse göttliche Eigenschaftenauch von der menschlichen Natur des Sohnes Gottes prädiciertwerden können?”] Lehre und Wehre , pp. , , note . The judg-ment of Wittenberg was unequivocal. The Epicrisis that they hadreached along with Jena and Leipzig targeted these “Pseudoluther-ans” as deniers of the faith and as having succumbed to a mostungodly peace. The Reformed, on the other hand, saw here thepotential for success elsewhere as well.

. Gerhardt had counseled to reject attending the colloquy,fearing that no matter what the Lutherans did, refuse the colloquyor attend, they would be characterized as being “disobedient, obsti-nate, peace-hating [people]” [“ungehorsame, widerspenstige,friedhäßige [Leute]”]. Langbecker, p. .

. “The clergy of Berlin refused to budge one inch from theFormula of Concord as its confessional weapon, the Reformed, onthe other hand, refused to let it count” [“Die BerlinischeGeistlichkeit sich keinen Schritt von der Concordienformel, als ihresymbolische Waffe, die Reformierten dagegen ließen dieselbe nichtgelten”]. Becker, p. .

. “He [Gerhardt] was convinced that the true direction ofconscience was only to be found in Wittenberg, the source of allLutheran orthodoxy” [“Er [Gerhardt] war überzeugt, die RechteGewissensleitung nur in Wittenberg, an der Quelle derlutherischen Rechtgläubigkeit, zu finden”]. Petrich, p. .

. Lehre und Wehre , pp. , .. This judgment prevailed and prevails to the present. Fr. W.

Krummacher, during the latter part of the nineteenth century, putthe matter in the following light: “But the well intentioned endeav-ors [of the elector Friedrich Wilhelm] were frustrated by the recal-citrance of the Lutheran theologians” [“Aber seine [des KurfürstenFriedrich Wilhelm] treugemeinten Bemühungen waren nament-

lich an der Ungefügigkeit der lutherischen Theologen gescheitert”].Fr. W. Krummacher, “Paul Gerhardt,” Die Zeugen der Wahrheit, ed.Ferdinand Piper, vols. (Leipzig: Verlag von Bernhardt Tauchnitz,), vo. , p. . More recently: “Among those who were not ableto obey the commandment of Christian love for their enemies wasour Gerhardt” [“Unter denen, die sich diesem Gebot christlicherFeindesliebe nicht zu fügen vermochten, war auch unser Ger-hardt”]. Walter Frei, “Gedanken zum . Todestag von Paul Ger-hardt,” Reformatio (), p. . [Italics added].

. In his edict, the elector commands the termination of thedrawing of conclusions from the respective teachings, as well as theattendant condemnations. Such would lead to “a good beginningto an evangelical church peace and Christian tolerance in th ourlands of electoral Brandenburg” [“einen guten Anfang zum Evan-gelischen Kirchenfriede, und christlicher Verträglichkeit in diesenUnseren Landen der Chur und Mark Brandenburg”]. Among thematters to be muzzled were the accusations that the Reformedteach: “That there is no true communication of the two naturesand their attributes in Christ, or that only a man died for us, or thatChrist is locked up in heaven as in a prison, or that not the wholeChrist is with us . . . . That the holy Sacraments are mere symbols,examples, and references . . . . That the words of Christ: ‘This is mybody,’ etc. are not held to be true, and that in the bread and wine inthe Lord’s Supper are mere empty husks without the grain” [“Daßkeine wirkliche Gemeinschafft der beyden Naturen und Eigen-schaft in Christo sey, oder daß nur ein blosser Mensch für unsgestorben, oder daß Christus im Himmel, als in einem Gefängnis,eingeschlossen, oder, daß nicht der gantze Christus bey uns sey. . . . Daß die heiligen Sacramenta nur blosse Zeichen, Fürbilderund Bedeutungen . . . . Daß die Worte Christi: Daß ist mein Leibu., nicht für wahrhafftig zu halten, und daß im heiligenAbendmahl schlecht Brot und Wein, und also leere Hülsen ohneKern seyn”]. Langbecker, p. . Cf. p. .

. Cf. Walther Killy, “Paul Gerhardt. Glaube, Schwermut,Dichtung,” Musik und Gottesdienst (), p. , who here citesthe exorcism formula during baptism as the prime cause of Ger-hardt’s refusal to sign the declaration. Clearly Gerhardt’s firm standagainst the ordered subscription was not merely the result of theexcision of the exorcism formula, but the underlying cause ofwhich its rejection was symptomatic: the Reformed demand forthe rejection of the Formula of Concord.

. The result of this colloquy mirrored the one called byFriedrich Wilhelm’s grandfather in . As Langbecker relates, thechancellor, Dr. Prückmann, established the basic tenets of the col-loquy in the presence of the elector by declaring: “Since the sourceof all discord concerned only the oral eating of the body of Christin the Lord’s Supper, he exhorted them toward tolerance andbrotherly love, and added that the chief matter is, after all, the spiri-tual eating, without which there would be no salvation. Beyondthis they were also in agreement about the foundation, namely,that Jesus Christ is the sole cornerstone and mediator, etc.” [“Dader Grund aller Zwistigkeiten nur die mündliche Genießung desLeibes Christi im heiligen Abendmahle beträfe, so ermahnte er siezur Duldsamkeit und brüderlichen Liebe, und setzte hinzu, daß dieHauptsache ja das geistige Genießen sei, ohne welches es dochkeine Seligkeit gäbe. Ueberdies wären sie ja auch in dem Funda-ment einig, nämlich: daß Jesus Christus der alleinige rechte Eck-

stein und Mittler sei u.”]. Langbecker, p. . The Lutheran clergy atthat time implored the elector to abandon the thought of a collo-quy with such presuppositions. Their wish was granted upon thepromise to abide by the mandate issued by the elector.

. “Und weil auch Gott der Herr, gleich wie in derReformierten Kirche, also auch unter den Lutherischen Theologen,dann und wann gelehrte Männer erwecket hat, welche Frieden-schrifften geschrieben, und erwiesen, daß der Evangelischen dis-sensus an sich selbst nicht fundamentalis sey, und eine tolerantiaecclesiastica gar wohl gestifftet werden könne: So wollen wirkeinesweges gestatten, daß andere, so solches Erkenntniß undfriedliches Gemüthe noch nicht haben . . . andere friedliche Con-silia öffentlich tadeln oder verdammen sollen.” Langbecker, p. .

. Langbecker, pp. –. The declaration which was to besigned was not in one form. Langbecker produces two examples(pp. –), as well as one accepted by the Elector written by Liljehimself (pp. –). The content of the declarations, which wereall similar in substance, is exemplified in one of the declarationscited by Langbecker: “That the here below named preachers of theLutheran churches in Berlin continue in our teaching officeaccording to the faith and life teachings, and, namely, that we retainDr. Luther’s opinion and explanation in the remaining disputedpoints between us and the Reformed, as the same are contained inthe Augsburg Confession and its Apology. Accordingly we alsointend to remain steadfast in the fellowship of the general Lutheranchurch, yet to keep ourselves inviolable in all negotiations of theconsidered controversies, as has been commended to us by theedict of the Electors of Brandenburg in the years , , .We promise, document, and confess to do such with our own sig-niture to this edict” [“Daß Wir Endes Bennante Prediger Bey denLutherischen Kirchen Zu Berlin in Unserm Lehr Ambte Bey denglaubens und Lebens Lehren, Undt Nahmentlich auch in denenZwischen Uns und den Reformirten schwebenden streittigenpuncten Bey Dr. Lutheri Meinung und erklährung, wie selbige inAugustana Confessione und deren Apologia enthalten, Undt dem-nach auch in Gemeinschafft der Allgemeinen LutherischenKirchen beständig Zubleiben gemeinet sein, Jedoch aber Bey trac-tirung der gedachten Controversien uns Zugleich Unverbruchlichhalten wollen, wie in den Churfl. Brandenb. Edictis de Anno ,, uns anbefohlen ist, Solches Thun wir mit diesem eign-händig unterschriebenen Revers angeloben, Uhrkunden undbekennen”]. Idem. pp. –.

. “Finitum non est capax infiniti, Unum numero corpus nonpotest esse simul et semel nisi in uno loco. A penetratione Corpo-rum abhorret natura, Qvidqvid manducatur in ventrem, dejiciturconcoqvitur.” Langbecker, p. . Cf. p. .

. “ob sie die wirkl. Gemeinschafft der beyden naturen undEigenschaften in Christo wollen verstanden haben, von solcherGemeinschafft, welche auch eine natur an der andern habe.” Lang-becker, p. .

. “der Menschlichen natur Christi nicht die mitgetheilteAlmacht oder die Gemeinschaft an solcher Eigenschafft Göttlichennatur eigenthümblich Zu stehet, sondern mehr nicht, als einepotentiam finitam zu legen wollen.” Langbecker, pp. –.

. “daß nicht der gantze Christus bey uns sey, ob es also solleaufgenommen werden, daß nicht nur der, der Gott und Menschist, sondern auch das was Gott und Mensch ist in Christo und also

das totum Christi die gantze Person mit Ihrer beiden vereinigtennaturen, der Göttlichen und Menschlichen bey uns sey. Dann woeine natur nur des Herrn Christi seyn solte, und die andere nicht,da wäre nach unserer Lehre nicht der gantze Christus.” Langbecker,p. . Cf. pp. , , .

“That we also will further, in agreement with our teaching,and in all due refutation use all Christian discretion, and continueto provide obedience to the published edicts of your IllustriousElectoral Highness as concerns the excessive and unChristian con-demnation, slander, reviling and mutually placed insults” [“Daßwir auch ferner in fürtrag unßrer Lehre undt gebührende wider-legung unß aller Christlichen Bescheidenheit gebrauchen, Undtdenen von Ew. Churfl. Durchl. ergangenen Edicten, waß daß unge-bührliche undt Unchristliche verdammen, lästern, schmähen undeiniges vorsetzliche Beschimpffen anlangt, noch ferner gehorsam-liche folge leisten”]. Langbecker, p. . The ministerium had earlierexplained that the damnamus was never uttered ad persona but aterroneous doctrine.

. This was the opinion of the Elector in his declaration of May, . Langbecker, p. .

. “Diener am worte Gottes, die wir vor unsern anvertrautenPfarrKinder Seelen, schwehre rechenschaft Zu geben schuldigseyn.” Langbecker, p. .

. “eine Ziemliche anzahl sehr hoher undt wichtiger puncta insich begriffet, die wir voller gefährlichen undt uns an die Seelegehenden difficultäten finden, undt durch welche wir auch, wo wirdenselben beyfallen sollen, uns von der gesamten LutherischenKirchen (an der wir dennoch undt allen Dero Symbolischenglaubens Büchern durch die Gnade Gottes bisher hangen undt bisan das Ende Unseres Lebens Zu verbleiben gedencken) trennenundt absondern müsten.” Langbecker, pp. –.

. Langbecker provides all the documents attendant to Ger-hardt’s struggle (pp. ). The numerous accounts of theseevents make their detailed restatement unnecessary in this context.See for example Petrich, pp. –; Zeller, pp. –; Nelle,“Paul Gerhardt,” pp. LXVII–LXI.

. Lehre und Wehre , p. .. The appeals that were launched by the civic as well as the

consistorial authorities testified to Gerhardt’s placid character: “Forit has certainly been shown that the much talked about Mr. Ger-hardt has never in his sermons reviled or scolded with even oneword the religion of your most Illustrious Electoral Highness . . . tothe extent that your most Illustrious Electoral Highness had nomisgivings to include within your Brandenburg Hymnal whichwas issued in your high name in the year , his spiritual hymnsor songs, putting a considerable number of them into print andpublishing them. [“Dann freilich ists an dem, daß VielbesagterHerr Gerhard Sich allemal in seinen Predigen also erwiesen, daß erEw. Churfürstl. Durchl. Religion niemalß mit einem WorteGedacht, Zu geschweigen, daß Er auff dieselbe Geschmähet oderGescholten haben solte . . . so gar, daß auch Ew. Churfl. Durchl.Kein Bedencken tragen laßen in Dero Märckisches Gesangbuch, sounter dero Hohen Nahmen Ao. alhier außgegangen, seineGeistlichen Gesänge oder Lieder, deren eine zimblich Anzahl imDruck Zu Geben, und Publiciren zu laßen”]. Langbecker, pp.–. They also saw fit to warn of the dire consequences of beingresponsible for the extradition of such a man: “ how much more

unbearable will it be for us when we not only fail to keep suchpious and blessed men, but want to cast them away from us. [“wieViele unerträglicher wird es Unß dann ergehen, wann wir auchdieselben nicht behalten, sondern fromme undt Gottseelige Män-ner von Uns stoßen wollen”]. Langbecker, p. .

. Writing to the Magistriat on January , , Gerhardtregrets that the terms of the restitution to office have only aggra-vated his situation, “ inasmuch as it has become known that I hadwithheld signing the edicts or declaration because I had failed tocomprehend the edicts or their intent . . . so the situation remainsthe same one way or the other, that despite not having beenexempted from signing the edict, I nevertheless have to live accord-ing to them, and show myself as having to be bound in accordanceto them” [“indem es ja klar daselbst verlautet, ich hätte darum denChurfl. Edicten oder Reversen zu unterschreiben mich entzogen,weil ich die Edicten oder derer Meinung nicht begriffen hätte, . . .so bleibt es auch noch einen Weg wie den andern dabei, daß ob mirgleich die Unterschrift erlassen würde, ich dennoch den Edictennachzuleben, und denselben mich gemäß bezeigen verbunden seinsollte”]. Cranach-Sichart, p. .

. “for my conscience is filled with restlessness and fearbecause of this; yet what takes place with a bad conscience is anabomination before God and draws not a blessing but a curse afteritself, whereby neither my congregation nor I would prosper”[“denn mein Gewissen will mir darüber voller Unruhe undSchrecken werden, was aber mit bösem Gewissen geschiehet, dasist für Gott ein Greuel und zieht nicht den Segen sondern denFluch nach sich, womit aber weder meiner Gemeine noch mirwürde geraten sein”]. Cranach-Sichart, p. .

. “I pray that before the gracious electoral concession comesinto effect, that I might, by the gracious release from obedience tothe edict . . . remain unmoved with my Lutheran confessions,specifically the Formula of Concord, that I may also instruct mycongregation and listeners accordingly and not have to promise toadhere to any moderation or modesty that does not have a basis inmy presently considered faith of the Lutheran Confessions” [Icherbitte das vorher die Churfl. gnädigste Verüngstigung geschehe,daß ich nächst gnädigster Erlassung des Gehorsams der Edicta . . .bei allen meinen lutherischen Bekenntnissen, namentlich der For-mula Concordiae unverrückt verbleiben möge, also daß ich auchnach derselben meine Gemeine und Zuhörer unterweisen und zukeiner andern moderation oder Bescheidenheit mich anheischigmachen dürfte, als welche in jetztgedachten meinen lutherischenGlaubens bekenntnissen Grund habe.] Cranach-Sichart, p. . Inhis letter to the elector Gerhardt expressed his distress in greaterdetail. Due to the great sorrow and anguish in his soul he cannotaccept the elector’s reinstatement to office under the given terms,“since with such obedience I would have to abandon and put awayfrom me the Formula of Concord from the confessions of myLutheran faith. . . . I am afraid for myself before God, before whoseface I walk here upon earth, and before whose judgment seat Imust one day appear, and cannot but feel that I would heap uponmyself his wrath and severe punishment if I should again acceptmy office in the previously mentioned manner” [wie ich beysolchem Gehorsam mein Lutherisches Glaubens Bekentnuß For-mulam Concordiae verlassen unnd von mier legen müste . . . . Ichfürchte mich für Gott, in dessen Anschauen ich hier auf Erden

wandele, unnd für welches gerichte ich auch dermaleinsterscheinen muß und kan nach dem, wie mein Gewissen von jud-gend auff gestunden unnd noch itzo stehet, nicht anders befindenalls das ich, auff die vorher berührte art unnd weise wieder inmein Ampt tretten sollte, seinen Zorn und schwehre Straffe aufmich laden werde.] Cranach-Sichart, p. .

“but Gerhardt’s faithful disposition, the inner connectionof his heart with his Lord, had given his conscience such tender-ness, that he willingly, to the great pain of his congregation andall citizens, relinquished his office” [“aber Gerhardts gläubigesGemüth, die innige Verbindung seines Herzens mit dem Herrn,hatte seinem Gewissen eine solche Zartheit gegeben, daß er frei-willig, zum großen Schmerz seiner Gemeinde und der ganzenBürgerschaft seinem Amt entsagte”]. Langbecker, pp. –.Langbecker’s observation is somewhat dubious in that Gerhardtcertainly had not voluntarily left office but was rather preventedfrom reassuming it because of the compromising edicts whichwere still in force. Krummacher, however, follows Langbecker inthis evaluation, but adds that the true cause was an erring con-science informed by the Formula of Concord: “He [Gerhardt]followed the voice of his conscience. If it was an erring con-science, it was so only insofar as the Formula of Concord towhich he was bound erred in its anathemas of the confession ofthe Reformed” [“Er [Gerhardt] folgte der Stimme seines Gewis-sens. War dieses ein irrendes, so war es dies doch nur insoweit, alsetwa die Concordienformel, in der er gebunden war, in ihrenBannsprüchen wider die Confession der Reformierten irrte”].Krummacher, p. .

. “If the preacher Paul Gerhardt does not want to assumeagain the office graciously granted him by his Illustrious Elec-toral Highness, for which he will have to give account beforeGod, then the magisteriat will speedily invite several otherpeaceloving, adept people to provide a sample sermon. These arenot to be called, however, before his Illustrious Electoral High-ness has been provided with a report concerning their qualities.Cologne, the th of February, ” [“Wenn der Prediger PaulusGerhard das Ihm von Sr. C. D. gnedigst wieder erlaubte Ampttnicht wieder betreten wil, welches Er den vor dem högsten GottZu Verandttwortten haben wirdt, So wirdt der Magisteratehestens eineige andere friedtliebende geschickte leüte Zu able-gung der probepredigkt einladen, dieselbe aber nicht ehr vocirenbis Sie Zuförderst Sr. Churfl. Durchl. von Dero qualiteten Unt-gst. bericht abgestattet haben. Cölln, den . Febr. ”]. Lang-becker, p. . It might be noted that in less than years time,Philip Jakob Spener was to be one of Paul Gerhardt’s successorsat St. Nikolai in Berlin.

. Luther too is able to speak of the words of Institution andthe body and blood given in the Lord’s Supper interchangeably.See (Large Catechism) BKS, pp. , ; , (Tappert, pp. ,; , ). It is most dubious and indeed not possible to play oneoff against the other.

. Cf. Luther’s struggle with Karlstadt for the locatedness ofChrist in the Lord’s Supper, and the locatedness of its distribu-tion: WA , , –, ; AE :–.

. Cf. (Large Catechism) BKS pp. , ; , (Tap-pert, pp. :–; :).

is our faith, doctrine, and confession; in which, by thegrace of God, we shall appear with humble confidencebefore the judgment-seat of Christ, and render anaccount for the same.

Respect for the Lutheran Confessions and for their theologydid indeed remain strong in the institutional Lutheran Churchduring the age of Lutheran Orthodoxy, but the rise of Pietism inthe late seventeenth century inaugurated a trend toward doctrinalindifference and religious subjectivism that undermined theauthority of the Confessions. And when Pietism gave way toRationalism, confessional theology was almost totally eclipsed.This loss of confessional consciousness also engendered a “union-istic” spirit, which led to the notorious Union of Lutheranand Reformed Churches in the Kingdom of Prussia, and to simi-lar Unions in other German territories.

But another wind was also in the air in the early nineteenthcentury. There were many Christians in the Lutheran churches ofEurope who had never completely forgotten the teachings of theircatechism, and their slumbering faith was finally stirred. Underthe pastoral leadership of Claus Harms, who penned ninety-fivetheses against Rationalism and Unionism in , along withother revitalized Lutheran theologians, the Confessional Revivalwas born. But this revival had to compete with the Unionism,Rationalism, and lingering Pietism that also inhabited the institu-tional church, and the frustrations and ecclesiastical persecutionsthat the “Old Lutherans” often experienced led many of them toimmigrate to the United States. Especially notable were a largegroup of Saxons who left in and in helped organize theMissouri Synod, and a large group of Prussians who left in

and in organized the Buffalo Synod.The Lutheran Church had originally been brought to Amer-

ica in the seventeenth century by Swedish and Dutch settlers, andmany German Lutherans arrived in the first half of the eighteenthcentury. The earliest Lutherans in the American colonies were forthe most part orthodox in their orientation. For example, theavowedly orthodox ministers of the New York Consistory, underthe leadership of Wilhelm Christoph Berkenmeyer, declared intheir church order that they would “regulate their teachingand preaching according to the rule of the divine Word, the Bibli-cal prophetical and apostolical writings, also according to ourSymbolical Books, the Unaltered Confession of Augsburg, its

j

The Lutheran Church differs from all other churches inbeing essentially the Church of the pure Word andunadulterated Sacraments. Not the great number of heradherents, not her organizations, not her charitable andother institutions, not her beautiful customs and liturgi-cal forms, etc., but the precious truths confessed by hersymbols in perfect agreement with the Holy Scripturesconstitute the true beauty and rich treasures of ourChurch, as well as the never-failing source of her vitalityand power.

THE ENTIRETY OF THESE SYMBOLS, AS CONTAINED IN THE BOOK

of Concord of , first appeared in English in , duelargely to the translating and editing efforts of Socrates

Henkel. English-speaking Lutherans in America and in the worldnow had unimpeded access, in their own language, to the officialconfessions of their church: the Apostles’, Nicene, and AthanasianCreeds; the Augsburg Confession and its Apology; the SmalcaldArticles (including the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of thePope); Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms; and the Formula ofConcord. At a time when American Lutherans were strugglingwith the question of what it means to be a Lutheran, the Henkeltranslation of the Book of Concord helped many of them to findthe answer.

THE EUROPEAN ROOTS

In the closing paragraph of the Formula of Concord, its six-teenth-century authors offered a firm declaration of their convic-tions that reflected the prayerful hope that their posterity wouldalso know and embrace the faith that they had confessed:

In the presence of God, therefore, and before the wholeChristian church, we have desired to testify to those whonow live, and to those who shall come after us, that thisDeclaration now made, concerning all the controvertedarticles already mentioned and explained, and no other,

Confessing the Faith in the Language of America

The Historical Context and Enduring Significance

of the Henkel Translation of the Book of Concord

DAVID JAY WEBBER

DAVID J. WEBBER, pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church, Brewster, Massa-

chusetts, is a LOGIA contributing editor. This essay was delivered at the

First General Meeting of the Lutheran Confessional Synod, October –,

, at Christ Lutheran Church, Decatur, Illinois.

was to yield or compromise nearly everything that waspositive or definite, until, as Dr. [Charles Porterfield]Krauth said, in speaking of the condition of the Evan-gelical Lutheran Church, at the close of the eighteenthand the beginning of the nineteenth century, “We had aweak, indecisive pulpit, feeble catechisms, vague hymns,and constitutions which reduced the minister to theposition of a hireling talker, and made Synods disorga-nizations for the purpose of preventing anything frombeing done.” Unionism followed in the wake.

THE “AMERICAN LUTHERANS”

What eventually emerged from this chaotic situation duringthe first half of the nineteenth century was a new form of “Ameri-can” Lutheranism. The doctrinal character of the “AmericanLutheran” movement is reflected in an letter from SamuelSimon Schmucker, its acknowledged leader, together with Ben-jamin Kurtz and others, to representatives of the Prussian UnionChurch:

Now as to our doctrinal views, we confess without dis-guise, indeed confess it loudly and openly, that thegreatest majority of us are not old Lutherans, in thesense in which a small party exists in Germany underthat name. We are convinced that, if the great Lutherwere still living, he would not be a member of it either.We believe that the three last centuries have also pro-duced men who were capable of independent thought,research and growth equal to the th. Yea, as insignifi-cant as we consider ourselves, we are neverthelessemboldened, particularly through our feeling of duty, toinvestigate and explore Scripture, and to draw our doc-trinal views from this heavenly source. But, neverthe-less, we are Evangelical Lutheran. Committed toLuther’s fundamental principle that God’s Word iswithout error, we have proved that Luther’s doctrinalconstruction is essentially correct. In most of ourchurch principles we stand on common ground withthe union or merged church of Germany. The distinc-tive views which separate the old Lutherans and theReformed Church we do not consider essential; and thetendency of the so called old Lutheran party seems to usto be behind our time.

The General Synod had been organized in by several“American Lutheran” regional synods, and, as a bulwark againstthe more extreme forms of Rationalism, it did acknowledge theAugsburg Confession—in an admittedly qualified way—“as asubstantially correct exhibition of the fundamental doctrines ofthe Bible.” The “American Lutherans” would be quick to add,however, that they did not, “after the additional experience andlight of more than three centuries, feel any reluctance in depart-ing from some of the minor doctrines of the Augsburg Confes-sion.” These “minor” doctrines included some that the six-teenth-century Reformers would certainly not have consideredminor. For example, Schmucker condoned the views of PastorJohann Augustus Probst, a member of the Pennsylvania Minis-

Apology, the Smalcald Articles, both Catechisms of Luther, andthe Formula of Concord.” They declared furthermore that theywould not “teach or preach, privately or publicly, anythingagainst these [Confessions] nor even use any other new phraseswhich would contradict the same.”

The Confessions also held an important place in the theol-ogy and practice of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, often styled the“Patriarch” of American Lutheranism. Socrates Henkel notedthat Muhlenberg and his co-laborers in the Pennsylvania Minis-

terium, founded in , did not “teach any other doctrines, norendeavor to establish, in this country, any other system of faith,than that inculcated in the Lutheran Confessions and Cate-chisms.” The congregations of the Pennsylvania Ministerium, inthe earlier decades of its existence, subscribed to “the EvangelicalLutheran doctrine, according to the foundation of the Prophetsand Apostles, and the unaltered Augsburg Confession and all theother Symbolical Books.”

The American Lutheran Church, however, was eventuallyinfluenced by the more destructive theological trends of its Euro-pean counterpart. Henkel elaborates on this:

Pietism and Rationalism prevailed to an alarmingextent in Germany and other countries. The former,inaugurated by Spener—a man of distinguished talentsand rare learning—for the purpose of reviving, in theChurch, greater zeal for vital piety and practical Chris-tianity, was afterwards carried beyond its contemplatedobject by Francke, a very zealous and able minister, andthus, amidst the agitation, it finally resulted in fanati-cism, as well as in a perversion of many of the leadingdoctrines of the Church, and in ignoring, to a greater orless extent, her true Confessions. . . . Some of the min-isters who immigrated to this country were of the Halle,Franckean, Pietistic school, and they came imbued withthat spirit, to some extent, and infused it in some partsof the Church . . . Rationalism . . . crept into the Protes-tant theology of the continent, especially of Germany.The extremes of Pietism, it appears, prepared the wayfor Rationalism, the other extreme. One extreme usuallyresults in another, in the opposite direction. Fanaticismgenerally ends in skepticism. This pernicious, disturb-ing element, Rationalism, also found its way to NorthAmerica, and exerted a very baneful influence over thepeople in regard to the teachings of the Bible, as pre-sented in the Confessions of the Church. The tendency

The rise of Pietism in the late seven-teenth century inaugurated a trendtoward doctrinal indifference andreligious subjectivism.

nb

down to us. Let us thank God, not that we are betterthan other portions of his kingdom in our land; butthat, in common with them, we have fallen heirs to sorich a legacy of civil and political, and above all, of reli-gious liberty, bought by the joint blood of our fathersand theirs, bestowed by the kind Providence of theirGod and ours.

It is noteworthy that the colonial Lutheran fathers admiredby Schmucker had, for the most part, held to a confessional posi-tion. Joseph Augustus Seiss laments that their theology was notembraced by the generations that followed them:

A happy thing would it have been for our Church, itsusefulness and success in this country if their successorsand descendants had all and always remained steadfastto the true confessional basis on which the LutheranChurch in this new world was started. But a long periodof defection came—a period of rationalistic and thenMethodistic innovations—a period of neglect of theconfessions and of the doctrines of the church as Lutherand Muhlenberg taught them—a period of self-destruc-tive assimilation to the unsound and unchurchly spiritof surrounding sects, by which the life and vigor of ourchurches were largely frittered away.

William Julius Mann describes the extent to which the“American Lutherans” accommodated themselves to the religiousenvironment that surrounded them:

Gradually a desire manifested itself to gain popularityfor the Lutheran Church in this country. The hard dog-matical knots of the old Lutheran oak were to give wayunder the Puritan plane. The body was deprived of itsbones and its heart, and the empty skin might be filledwith whatever was most pleasing, if only the Lutheranname was retained. The statement of the seventh articleof the Augsburg Confession, that “unto the true unity ofthe Church it is not necessary that human traditions,rites or ceremonies, instituted by men should be every-where alike,” was most extensively used, and in thedesire to make the Lutheran Church as much as possiblelike others, her leaders were much more ready to adoptforeign elements than to retain her own distinctive fea-tures. Thus the liturgy, the ancient lessons of theGospels and Epistles, the festivals of the Church Year,the gown and other usages were given up, in order thatas little as possible might be seen of these Lutheran

terium, who, in promoting an American version of the PrussianUnion, made a series of truly breathtaking assertions:

The doctrine of unconditional election cannot be in theway. This doctrine has long since been abandoned; forthere can scarcely be a single German Reformedpreacher found who regards it as his duty to defend thisdoctrine. Zwingli’s more liberal, rational and scripturalview of this doctrine, as well as of the Lord’s Supper, hasbecome the prevailing one among Lutherans andReformed, and it has been deemed proper to abandonthe view of both Luther and Calvin on the subject ofboth these doctrines.

The whole mass of the old Confessions was occa-sioned by the peculiar circumstances of those troubloustimes, has become obsolete by the lapse of ages, and isyet valuable only as a matter of history. Those times andcircumstances have passed away, and our situation bothin regard to political and ecclesiastical relations, isentirely changed. We are therefore not bound to thesebooks, but only to the Bible. For what do the unlearnedknow of the Augsburg Confession, or the Form of Con-cord, of the Synod of Dort [?]

All enlightened and intelligent preachers of bothchurches agree, that there is much in the former sym-bolical books (or confessions of faith) that must bestricken out as antiquated and contrary to commonsense, and be made conformable with the Bible, andthat we have no right to pledge ourselves to the merehuman opinions of Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli.

Schmucker himself stated that, in his capacity as a professorin the General Synod’s seminary at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, hewould “defeat the design of the institution” if he inculcated in hisstudents “the obsolete views of the old Lutherans, contained inthe former symbols of the church in some parts of Germany, suchas exorcism, the real presence of the body and blood of Christ inthe Eucharist, private confession, baptismal regeneration, immer-sion in baptism, as taught in Luther’s Large Catechism, etc.”

The “American Lutherans” wanted very much to “fit in” withthe established religious culture and not to be perceived as beingin any way less than fully “American.” A few years before the onehundredth anniversary of the founding of the Pennsylvania Min-isterium, Schmucker observed that

The memory of the pilgrim fathers is cherished by ourNew England brethren, with an interest bordering onveneration. And yet we hesitate not to affirm, that inregard to piety and zeal, father Muhlenberg, andBrunnholtz, and Handschuh, and Bolzius, were by nomeans inferior to Cotton, Hooker, Davenport, or theMathers; and in learning they were their superiors. Letthen the contemplated centenary be improved as afavored season, to review the goodness of God to us andhis American Zion in general. Let us bless God, not thatwe are better than our fathers; but that they were sogood, so faithful, so rich in blessings, which have flowed

The “American Lutherans” wantedvery much to “fit in” with the established religious culture.

nb

obligation. Our churches, for near a century, have notacknowledged any one of them except the AugsburgConfession, and for fifty years past have received asbinding, none at all, until the General Synod formallyadopted the Augsburg Confession, and that only as tofundamentals; and probably not a dozen of all ourAmerican ministers have ever read all these books.

One of the primary reasons why “probably not a dozen”American Lutheran pastors had ever read all of the LutheranConfessions, as contained in the Book of Concord, was that theBook of Concord was still locked away in the German and Latinlanguages. The Ancient Creeds, the Small Catechism, and theAugsburg Confession had all been translated into English, but therest of the Confessions, with the exception of a few excerpts, hadnever been so translated. It was therefore that much easier for

Schmucker and the “American Lutherans” to think of therecently-emigrated confessionalists as a foreign element that neednot be taken seriously, since the historic Symbols they embracedwere accessible only in a foreign language. Of course, the lack oforthodox Lutheran material in the English language during thetime when Lutherans in America were making their transition tothat language was one of the important factors that facilitated thedevelopment of “American Lutheranism” in the first place. Juer-gen Ludwig Neve writes that

The English language reached ever widening circles at atime when there was not yet an English literaturebreathing the Lutheran spirit. English speakingLutheran laymen had to resort to a devotional literaturefull of Methodistic and Puritanic suggestions; whileministers, barely familiar with the German tongue,filled the shelves of their library with books of Reformedauthorship and assimilated erroneous view-points.Thus many lost the sense of consistent Lutheranism.They recognized as fundamental those features whichall denominations held in common, and considered asnon-fundamental the special heritage from the Churchof Luther.

In spite of all this, and in spite of Schmucker’s disdain for theOld Lutherans, there were some well-established Lutherans inearly nineteenth-century America who were not a part of the“American Lutheran” movement, and who were attempting torediscover and cling to the heritage of the Lutheran Reformation.If Schmucker could dismiss the Missourians as misguided for-

peculiarities. Hoping to gain others, they lost them-selves. The Lutheran Church had given away her ownspirit, her own original life and character.

THE “OLD LUTHERANS”

As we might expect, the “American Lutherans” had little sym-pathy with the views of the Old Lutherans who had emigrated toAmerica in the late s. To Schmucker and his supporters, theywere a foreign element, promoting an antiquated, foreign theology.In the face of criticism from them, especially from the pen of theMissouri Synod’s Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther, Schmuckerdefended the position to which he was committed:

American Lutheranism grew out of the Lutheranpredilections of our fathers, the unrestricted liberty offollowing the Scriptures, which they enjoyed in thisWestern world, and the influence of our free civil insti-tutions. Under this joint influence they graduallyrejected the symbolical bondage of Germany, andrestored the original liberty in fundamentals, whichChrist and his apostles bequeathed to us. They boughtthis liberty at the price of great sacrifices; and shall theirAmerican sons, that were “born free,” suffer it to betaken from them?

If our old Lutheran brethren are willing to regard theirpeculiarities as non-essential, and live in peace with us,they are welcome to take part with us in our ministryand ecclesiastical organizations; but if they cannotrefrain from either regarding or denouncing us as dis-honest, and pseudo Lutherans, and perjured, becausewe do not believe everything contained in confessionswhich we never adopted, and because we will not adoptbooks as symbolical, which contain numerous errorsand Romish superstitions; for ourselves, whilst we wishthem well as individuals, we desire no ecclesiasticalcommunion with them, either in our Synods, or Gen-eral Synod; and believe it will be for the furtherance ofthe Gospel of Christ, that they should be associated withthose who share their intolerance and bigotry. In lessthan twenty years they will themselves see their error,and change their position, and their children will beworthy members of our American Lutheran Church.

Schmucker was confident that when the Missourians becameculturally Americanized, they would also become “AmericanLutherans.” Schmucker noted that

It has sometimes been said, as Lutherans we ought toadhere to the standards of the Lutheran church. This isperfectly true and just, if the standards of the Lutheranchurch in America be intended; for these are none otherthan the “Word of God and the fundamentals of thatWord as taught substantially in the Augsburg Confes-sion.” But as to the former symbolical books of theLutheran church in Germany, we are under no such

The “American Lutherans” had littlesympathy with the views of the OldLutherans who had emigrated toAmerica in the late s.

nb

David Henkel happened to come across a German copyof the Book of Concord, at the residence of a German inSouth Carolina, with whom he spent a night or two.After much persuasion, the German let him have thebook. This he brought with him, rejoicing in his goodfortune to get it, to North Carolina. This he presented tosustain the correctness of his translations made fromthe Latin copy of his Book of Concord. For, this the peo-ple could read and understand for themselves, and find-ing that his translations from the Latin copy referred to,were correct, many of the members of the Church tooka decided stand in favor of him and his positions, andfaithfully defended him and his doctrines against theinnovations and false charges of his opponents. Thecouncil of the congregation met, and after consideringthe matter, one of the Elders, Capt. John Stirewalt,

father of the late Rev. Jacob Stirewalt, presented theBook of Concord to the minister, saying, We want toknow whether you intend to preach according to thisbook, in the future. The minister hesitated and evaded,but being pressed, he raised the book up and brought itdown on the table, saying, From this day henceforth, Iwill not; it is nothing but a controversial book. Mr.Stirewalt then raised the book up, and brought it downon the table, saying, From this day henceforth, youwon’t be our preacher. The differences in doctrinebecoming more apparent, the controversies and con-flicts assuming a wider range and more formidableaspects, affecting some of the more vital doctrines of theChurch, and the authority of her Confessions beingcalled into question, furnished occasion for rupture andschism, and gave rise to the chief causes or reasonswhich ultimately resulted in the organization of theEvangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod.

The “American Lutherans,” of course, entertained a differentinterpretation of the events and people referred to above. Theopinions of John Bachman, a member of the North CarolinaSynod at the time of the rupture, were quoted with approval bySchmucker:

Some years ago several individuals residing in North Car-olina, who had previously been members of our church,on account of some dissatisfaction separated themselvesfrom our communion. They chose as a leader an individ-ual by the name of (David) Henkel, (hence they are calledHenkelites,) a weak and illiterate man, whose ground of

eigners, he could not so easily dismiss the Henkels or the Ten-nessee Synod to which they belonged.

THE HENKELS

Pastor Paul Henkel, the patriarch of the family, was the great-grandson of Anthony Jacob Henckel, a Lutheran minister whoarrived in Pennsylvania in . Paul’s genealogical credentials asan “American” were therefore beyond reproach. Both he and hissons, however, most of whom were also Lutheran pastors, did notendorse the “American Lutheran” attempt to redefineLutheranism according to Zwinglian/Puritan/Methodist norms.In his earlier years, Paul Henkel was somewhat more lax in hiscommitment to the distinctive theology of the Lutheran Church;and the North Carolina Synod, to which he had belonged since itsfounding in O, definitely reflected the “American Lutheran”viewpoint. But by the time of the organization of the TennesseeSynod in O, in which Paul and two of his sons, Philip Augustusand David, played a major role, he had come to embrace a consis-tently confessional position. Richard H. Baur notes that theHenkels and their Tennessee Synod colleagues

anchored themselves to the Word of God and the Con-fessions of the church as correct expositions of it. It was“the only Lutheran Synod in America at that time thatunreservedly and unqualifiedly received the AugsburgConfession,” and no one could serve in their churchwho did not agree to this. In all contacts with other syn-ods through which fellowship or mutual understandingwas sought, this was fundamental.

As we would expect, the Tennessee Synod did not even considerjoining the General Synod.

David Henkel, Paul’s most gifted and theologically astuteson, immediately became the theological leader and literary apol-ogist of the new body. Before his untimely death in at the ageof thirty-six, David had translated Luther’s Small Catechism intoEnglish and had also written, in the English language, severalessays and pamphlets that defended and promoted the confes-sional Lutheran position on various doctrinal issues. While still alicentiate of the North Carolina Synod, before his ordination,David had already earned a reputation as an outspoken propo-nent of this position. Socrates Henkel, David’s son, recountssome of the tumultuous events that took place during this stageof his father’s life:

One of the leading ministers charged Rev. David Henkelwith teaching doctrines contrary to the position of theChurch. To defend himself against such unfoundedcharges, the latter appealed to a Latin copy of the Bookof Concord, which he had in [his] possession. That gavehim a decided advantage, in some respects, in the esti-mation of many of the people, who were not willing toacquiesce in the extreme, latitudinarian views incul-cated by the former. To counteract this increasingadvantage, that minister called into question the cor-rectness of these translations from the Latin. Thisproved disparaging for a while, but soon afterwards Rev.

David Henkel immediately becamethe theological leader and literaryapologist of the new body.

nb

feeling of many who see the truth, but are slow to makea decided and public demonstration of it.

By Krauth was much more confident in his endorse-ment of orthodox, confessional Lutheran theology:

Our verdict is unequivocally in behalf of the study, thethorough study, of this theology. We would have itthrown over our church with a liberal hand; we wouldhave all our ministers acquainted with the SymbolicalBooks; we would have them all versed in the distinctivetheology of the Church. We would have introduced intoour theological schools the study of the Symbols, anddidactic and polemical theology so administered as tobring before the view pure, unadulterated Lutheranism.

Charles Frederick Schaeffer, who, ironically, was married toSchmucker’s sister, was another leader among the confessionalpastors of the General Synod. Already by “the intensity of hisconviction of the truth of the Confessions of the Church in alltheir teachings, and of the binding obligation of those Confessionson Lutheran ministers, began to make him uncomfortable in hissurroundings.” John Gottlieb Morris, who had signed the infa-mous letter to the Prussian Union Church, dissociated him-self from the erroneous views he had endorsed in that documentas he grew in his understanding and appreciation of Lutheran the-ology. In his later years Morris said of the preparation and sendingof the letter: “Never was a more senseless blunder committed.”

Yet there were many “American Lutherans” who refused to recon-sider or correct their views. As a greater number of General Synodpastors began embracing the distinctive theology of the LutheranSymbolical Books, Schmucker and his supporters, especially Ben-jamin Kurtz, intensified their opposition to it. William MortonReynolds, then a professor at Pennsylvania College (and later thepresident of the Ohio Synod’s Capital University), expressed hisfrustration with them when he wrote that

there is a large body of men in our church who have noknowledge of her history, no sympathy with her doc-trines, no idea of her true character, and whose wholeconception of the Church is that of a kind of mongrelMethodistic Presbyterianism, and of this party Drs. S. S.Schmucker and Kurtz are the coryphaei.”

THE TENNESSEE SYNOD’S GREATEST CONTRIBUTION

The Tennessee Synod was certainly able to recognize its alliesin the effort to promote confessional Lutheranism, both amongand beyond its own membership. The following resolution waspassed at its convention:

Resolved, That we rejoice to learn that some of our Ger-man Lutheran brethren in the West, have formed them-selves into a Synod, called “The German EvangelicalLutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and other States,”and that they are publishing a German paper, styled Der

dissent, as far as can be gathered from the crude, vision-ary and inflammatory publications, which have fromtime [to time] appeared, either under his name or that ofhis sect, was, the Evangelical Church had departed fromthe true doctrines of the Reformation, which he and hischurch had attempted to restore.

Schmucker himself had served as a pastor in Virginia beforehis call to the Gettysburg seminary, and he therefore had somepersonal knowledge of the Tennessee Synod and its leaders. Hewrote that

nearly one half of this Tennessee Conference, which forsome years consisted chiefly of David Henkel, his father,and several of his brothers, resided in our pastoral dis-trict in Virginia between and , and during thewhole time carried on the same warfare against us,charging us with upholding the General Synod and notadhering to the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession.Hundreds of our parishioners yet live to testify that wenever pretended to deny the differences between us, andthat in whatever defence we felt called on to make, werepresented their peculiarities either as misapprehen-sions of the Augsburg Confession, or especially the doc-trine of the bodily presence as being remnants ofRomanism, retained indeed in the Confession, but uni-versally rejected by our church in the present age.

But the writings of David Henkel—the American “ClausHarms”—had helped to ignite a confessional revival that couldnot be stopped.

THE CONFESSIONAL REVIVAL

The Ohio Synod, organized in , had never joined theGeneral Synod, and due in part to the fact that two of its earlymembers were Andrew and Charles Henkel, sons of Paul, it had acordial relationship with the Tennessee Synod. Professor WilliamFrederic Lehmann also exercised a very positive confessionalinfluence on the Ohio Synod, and soon after he began his laborsat its Columbus seminary in , the Board of Directors notedwith approval “that the new Professor had fulfilled his manifoldduties with faithfulness and diligence, and that as respects doc-trine it is always his endeavor to remain faithful to the Confes-sions of our Church.” Under Lehmann’s consistent theologicalleadership, the Ohio Synod continued to grow in its confessionalconsciousness and in its commitment to historic Lutheranism.

The Confessional Revival also began to spread to the GeneralSynod. Charles Philip Krauth, the president of Pennsylvania Col-lege in Gettysburg (and after the president of the Gettysburgseminary), described the theological struggle that he and othersexperienced as they gradually came to accept the historicLutheran position:

I find the Lutheran doctrine of the Sacraments hard toaccept, in view of my Puritanic training, but I find theScripture passages quoted in favor of them still harderto get over and explain away, and this I apprehend is the

laudable zeal for the doctrines of the church. The mostobvious cause, however, seems to be, that the larger por-tion of Lutherans in America are accustomed to read theEnglish language only, and consequently have never hadan opportunity to appreciate the value of their Symbols.Yet, we cherish the anticipation of a brighter day in theLutheran church. In a land of freedom, of science and art,where the generous spirit of political wisdom encouragesthe exercise of reason, and guards the decisions of con-science; where industry, energy, and enterprise, thoughdaily attaining fresh prospects of future improvement, arecontinually unburying the sacred treasures of the past, webelieve that the doctrines of our church will ultimately bereclaimed, and that men of our western clime will enterinto the investigation of these doctrines with all the avid-ity natural to a love for the truth. . . . At the urgent solici-tation of many zealous members of the church, weannounced, Oct. th, , our resolution to procure acorrect English version of the entire work, and publish itas soon as practicable. Since that period no time or laborhas been spared to fulfil our promise . . . . May ourlabors be the instrument, in the hands of Providence, forpromoting an acquaintance with the Book of Concord, thenorm of all genuine Lutherans since , and for extend-ing the doctrines taught by the illustrious Reformer!

As a final indication of the publishers’ belief that confes-sional Lutheranism was fully compatible with the values andideals of American culture, this Preface was dated, “Newmarket,Shenandoah, Va., July th, .”

Socrates Henkel assumed the general editorial responsibilityfor the book, and he and his uncle, Ambrose Henkel, also pre-pared the initial translations of the Augsburg Confession, theApology, the Smalcald Articles, and the Catalogue of Testimonies(an appendix to the Formula of Concord). The initial translationof the Larger Catechism was prepared by Jacob Stirewalt (the sonof John Stirewalt, noted earlier). The Formula of Concord wasinitially prepared by Henry Wetzel, who translated the Epitome,and Jonathan Reinhard Moser, who translated the Full Declara-tion. All of these men were Tennessee Synod ministers. As a last-ing tribute to David Henkel, his translation of the SmallerCatechism was also incorporated into the volume. Once all themanuscripts had been gathered together and compared with theoriginal texts by Ambrose Henkel, they were given their final revi-sion by Socrates Henkel.

Abdel Ross Wentz comments on the phenomenal receptionthat The Christian Book of Concord received:

It is a clear indication of the new spirit that was arisingin the General Synod that this English book found aready acceptance in all parts of that body. Many copieswere bought in Pennsylvania and Ohio. The professorsand students in the seminary and college at Gettysburgstudied it. So also did Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Lehmannand their students of Capital University and its Theo-logical Department at Columbus, Ohio. The southeagerly welcomed it.

Lutheraner which is devoted to the promulgation anddefence of the primitive doctrines and usages of theLutheran Church; to which paper we would call theattention of our German brethren.”

The Tennessee Synod likewise understood the importance ofthe printed word in the work of the church, and in this regard sawone of its primary responsibilities to be the publication ofsoundly Lutheran materials in the English language. And as Baurobserves, in this work

the Henkels had one advantage over other synods: aprinting establishment. It had been founded in the earlyyears of the th century by Paul Henkel and his oldestson Solomon in New Market, VA. From it came theolog-ical, doctrinal, devotional, and polemical works, all sup-porting the Henkels’ position. One of the most signifi-cant and influential of these publications was an Englishedition of the Book of Concord in . It was widely andwell received, indicating that the earlier Henkel interestin confessionalism had finally pervaded a large part ofthe Lutheran church in the United States.

Charles P. Arand calls its publication of The Christian Book ofConcord “the Tennessee Synod’s greatest contribution to Ameri-can Lutheranism,” and indeed it was. Since culture is reflectedand conveyed primarily through language, the distinctive theol-ogy of the Book of Concord was now just as much a part of theEnglish-speaking American culture as “American Lutheranism”had been. The existence of the Lutheran Symbolical Books in thelanguage of the United States was a vivid testimony that, whilethe members of the Tennessee Synod were not “American Luther-ans,” they were Confessional Lutherans, and Americans!

In their Preface to this translation its publishers explained,with a typically “American” spirit of optimism, the reasons forthe project:

The Book of Concord, comprising the Symbolical Booksof the Evangelical Lutheran Church, has as yet enjoyedbut a limited circulation in the United States. Wrapped inthe obscurities of its original languages—the Latin andGerman—that venerable production of the Reformationhas been left to slumber almost entirely in silence andneglect. Numerous causes have contributed to prolongthis neglect. The descendants of German emigrants inAmerica, have never cultivated the language and litera-ture of their fathers with due interest; many of them areunable to read German; while many, able to read, andoccupying elevated stations, have never manifested a

The Henkels had one advantage overother synods: a printing establishment.

nb

proceeded from the Papists, it must be confessed thatsome theologians, in several articles of chief impor-tance, have departed from it, and either have not arrivedat its true sense, or have certainly failed to adhere to ituniformly; while some also have endeavored to affix toit a sense really foreign to it, who nevertheless professedthat they embraced the Augsburg Confession, and pre-tended to glory in the profession of it. But from this cir-cumstance very grievous and pernicious controversiesarose in the reformed churches . . .

To the claim that “if the great Luther were still living” hewould probably be an adherent of the Prussian Union or some-thing similar, the Book of Concord responded:

But inasmuch as this highly enlightened man saw inspirit that, after his death, some would endeavor to ren-der him suspected of having receded from the doctrinejust mentioned, and from other Christian articles, hesubjoined to his Larger Confession the following protes-tation: “Whilst I behold faction and error increase astime advances, whilst I see no cessation of the raging andraving of Satan; lest therefore, during my life, or after mydeath, some might hereafter conceal their device undermy name, and fraudulently employ my writings toestablish their errors, as the Sacramentarians and theAnabaptists now begin to do, I shall by this instrumentof writing, profess my faith on all points before God andall the world. And in this faith, by the help of God, Iintend to persevere until death, and, in it, to depart fromthis world, and to appear before the judgment-seat ofour Lord Jesus Christ; and if, after my death, any oneshould say: ‘If Dr. Luther lived now, he would teach andbelieve differently concerning this article or those; for hedid not consider such sufficiently;’ in opposition to this,I say now as then, and then as now, that by the grace ofGod I have most diligently considered all these articles,and compared them again and again with the Scriptures,and would as warmly defend these as I have nowdefended the Sacrament of the Altar.”

THE ONGOING IMPACT

The nineteenth-century Confessional Revival in America,inaugurated by the writings of David Henkel and bolstered by thepublication of The Christian Book of Concord, finally resulted inthe organization of the General Council in by several synodsthat had withdrawn from the General Synod and that had cometo embrace a more genuinely Lutheran doctrinal position. It alsoeventually inspired a more conservative form of Lutheranism,even in the General Synod and in other American Lutheran bod-ies as well.

The Henkel translation of the Book of Concord establisheda literary tradition which, to a greater or lesser extent, was per-petuated through later English translations of the SymbolicalBooks. When Henry Eyster Jacobs edited a new English versionof the Book of Concord in , which also appeared in a revisedsecond edition in , he stated in the Preface that the second

The literary efforts of the Tennessee Synod also got the atten-tion of the German-speaking Missouri Synod. In two Mis-souri Synod pastors, Theodore Julius Brohm and August Hoyer,wrote to the Tennessee Synod on behalf of their body:

We take the liberty, with consent of our president, toaddress your reverend body by these few lines, assuringyou of our fraternal love and sympathy, founded uponthe conviction, that it is one and the same faith whichdwells in you and in us. We are highly rejoiced in thisvast desert and wilderness, to meet a whole LutheranSynod steadfastly holding to the precious Confessions ofour beloved church, and zealously engaged in divulgingthe unaltered doctrines and principles of the Reforma-tion among the English portion of Lutherans, by trans-lating the standard writings of our Fathers, at the sametime firmly resisting the allurements of those who saythey are Lutherans, and are not. Our synod extends,through our instrumentality, the hand of fraternity toyou, not fearing to be refused, and ardently desires,however separated from you by different language andlocal interests, to co-operate with you, hand in hand, inrebuilding the walls of our dilapidated Zion.

Due to the widespread popularity of The Christian Book ofConcord, a second edition was soon needed. This time the pub-lishers enlisted the assistance of English-speaking Lutheran schol-ars from outside the Tennessee Synod, in order to produce a moreaccurate, improved version. The Augsburg Confession wasrevised by Charles Philip Krauth, the Apology by William F.Lehmann, the Smalcald Articles by William M. Reynolds, theCatechisms by John G. Morris, and the Formula of Concord andCatalogue of Testimonies by Charles F. Schaeffer. Socrates Henkelonce again supervised the whole process and put the revised edi-tion into its final form before its publication in .

THE CONFESSIONS SPEAK

To the confessional Lutherans of the mid-nineteenth cen-tury, the availability of the Book of Concord in the English lan-guage provided a clear and authoritative way to respond to theaberrations of the contemporary “American Lutheran” establish-ment. When it was asserted that Zwingli’s doctrine of the Lord’sSupper was “more liberal, rational and scriptural” than that ofLuther, and that a Lutheran may feel free to reject the latter andembrace the former, the Book of Concord reminded everyone that“the Zwinglian teachers are not to be reckoned among the num-ber of theologians receiving the Augsburg Confession, fromwhom they withdrew at the time when this Confession was deliv-ered”; and that “they now attempt to obtrude themselves uponthe latter, and to circulate their error under the cover of thisChristian Confession.” When it was said that no harm will bedone to the Lutheran Church if its ministers or members “departfrom some of the minor doctrines of the Augsburg Confession,”the Book of Concord warned:

But though the pious doctrine of this Confession, ingeneral has met with no opposition, except that which

associates were prepared to surrender their lives, but notthe doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, the Apology,the Schmalkald Articles, and the Catechism, had thesemen of faith and prayer discovered treasures of divinetruth of less extent and less value than we possess in mod-ern times? When the Elector Augustus with holy fervorprayed to God that the authors of the Concord-Formulamight be guided by the Divine Spirit in the preparationof that admirable work, was his prayer for the illumina-tion of the Spirit less efficacious than modern prayers are?If the writers of the Symbols were unworthy of regard, orare erroneous in their exhibition of truth, who are themen that are more competent to unfold the Scripturaldoctrine? . . . Are we wiser, more holy, richer in divinegrace, more useful through the inspiration of the “spiritof the times” than our pious fathers were? We are wearyof the superior intelligence of the Nineteenth Century inmatters of Christian faith.

NOTES

. Concordia Triglotta, ed. F. Bente (St. Louis: Concordia Pub-lishing House, ), p. iv.

. Formula of Concord, Full Declaration XII, in The ChristianBook of Concord, trans. and ed. Socrates Henkel, nd ed. (NewMarket, VA: Solomon D. Henkel and Brs., ), p. .

. Karl Kretzmann, “The Constitution of the First LutheranSynod in America,” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly

(), p. . See also David Jay Webber, “Berkenmeyer andLutheran Orthodoxy in New York,” Concordia Historical InstituteQuarterly , no. (Spring ), pp. –.

. Socrates Henkel, History of the Evangelical Lutheran TennesseeSynod (New Market, VA: Henkel and Co., ), p. .

. Quoted in Robert F. Scholtz, “The Confessional Stance ofHenry Melchior Muhlenberg and the Early Pennsylvania Minis-terium,” Lutheran Quarterly (new series), no. (Winter ),p. .

. Henkel, pp. –.. “Aus Amerika,” Zeitschrift für Protestantismus und Kirche

(), pp. –; quoted in E. Clifford Nelson, ed., The Lutheransin North America, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ), p.. The letter was also signed by Henry N. Pohlman, John G.Morris, and Henry I. Schmidt. We are gratified to read in this oth-erwise discouraging letter that its authors did at least recognize andacknowledge Luther’s belief in Scriptural inerrancy, and were will-ing to take their stand with him on this point. John WarwickMontgomery notes that modern scholars often deny that theReformer held to this view, in large part “because of the commonhuman failing we all have to want great men to agree with us.” See“Lessons From Luther on the Inerrancy of Holy Writ,” in The West-minster Theological Journal , no. (Spring ), p. . See alsoMichael Reu, Luther and the Scriptures (Columbus, OH: WartburgPress, ), and Eugene F. Klug, From Luther to Chemnitz on Scrip-ture and the Word (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub-lishing Company, ), which demonstrate that Schmucker andhis associates were correct in their assessment of Luther’s position.

. S. S. Schmucker, The American Lutheran Church (Springfield,

LOGIA

edition of the Henkel translation had “been frequently con-sulted” and had “furnished material aid.” When G. FriedrichBente and William Herman Theodore Dau prepared the Eng-lish text of the Concordia Triglotta in , their work was basedon the original German and Latin and “on the existing Englishtranslations, chiefly those incorporated in Jacobs’s Book of Con-cord.” And in the Forward to the version of the Book ofConcord that he edited, Theodore Gerhardt Tappert mentionedthe three English translations that had previously appeared,and then noted “It is of course inevitable that the present trans-lators should have been influenced by the work of those whopreceded them.

As the Lutheran Church in America enters the twenty-firstcentury, it is once again plagued by many of the same problemsthat plagued it in the past. The historical-critical dismantling ofbiblical authority in many segments of the institutional church,combined with the pervasive influence of the Charismatic Move-ment and other forms of American Evangelicalism, have pavedthe way for a resurgence of “American Lutheranism” in our day.Lutherans are once again trying to “fit in” with what they perceiveto be the accepted religious culture of the United States. We notethe popularity of the so-called Church Growth Movement, withits anti-liturgical “entertainment evangelism” methods; thestrong proclivity, on the part of many Lutherans, toward churchfellowship with various Reformed bodies; a willingness to ignoreor distort, on the basis of rationalistic assumptions, the clearstatements of Holy Scripture pertaining to women’s ordinationand other important issues; and a general spirit of indifferencethat often reveals itself in the practice of “open Communion” andin similar expressions of confessional laxity.

In the midst of these and other problems, the Henkel editionof the Book of Concord speaks to us, even if through its successortranslations, as we struggle to be both American and Lutheran. Itcalls on us to return to the Word of God, to the pure gospel, tothe divinely-instituted means of grace, and to the orthodox faithof the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. It does not call onus to renounce or remove ourselves from our culture, but it doescall on us to preserve, promote, and proclaim our Lutheranismwithin that culture. Charles F. Schaeffer posed some crucial ques-tions that are just as applicable to our situation as they were tohis, almost a century and a half ago:

Have we really made such progress in the discovery oftruth since the era of the Reformation, that we under-stand the Scriptures more thoroughly than those whoframed the Symbolical Books? When Luther and his

The availability of the Book of Concordin English provided a way to respondto the aberrations of the contemporary“American Lutheran” establishment.

nb

OH: D. Harbaugh, ), p. .. Schmucker, p. .. J. A. Probst, Die Wiedervereinigung der Lutheraner und

Reformierten (), p. ; quoted in Schmucker, p. .. Probst, p. ; quoted in Schmucker, p. .. Probst, p. ; quoted in Schmucker, p. .. Schmucker, p. .. Schmucker, p. .. Joseph A. Seiss, Ecclesia Lutherana, th ed. (Philadelphia:

Lutheran Book Store, ), pp. –; quoted in Nelson, p. .. W. J. Mann, Deutscher Kirchenfreund , p. ; quoted in

Adolph Spaeth, Charles Porterfield Krauth (Philadelphia: Christ-ian Literature Company, ), vol. , p. ; quoted in J. L. Neve,A Brief History of the Lutheran Church in America, nd rev. andenlarged ed. (Burlington, IA: German Literary Board, ),p. .

. Schmucker, pp. –.. Schmucker, pp. –.. Schmucker, p. .. Neve, p. .. See Nelson, p. [note ]; see also Richard H. Baur, “The

Birth of the Tennessee Synod,” Concordia Historical InstituteQuarterly , no. (Winter ), p. .

. Baur, pp. –. The quotation is from Martin L. Wagner,The Chicago Synod and Its Antecedents (Columbus, OH: Wart-burg Press, n.d.), p. .

. Henkel, pp. –. The “leading minister” who opposedDavid Henkel was apparently Gottlieb Schober (or Shober), whoseems to have held dual membership in the North CarolinaSynod (of which he was secretary and later president) and in theMoravian Church. See Charles P. Arand, “David Henkel and theLutheran Confessions,” in Concordia Journal , no. (January), p. ; see also Baur, pp. –, and Henkel, pp. –.

. John Bachman, The Doctrines and Discipline of theLutheran Church (), p. ; quoted in Schmucker, p. . Seealso Jerry L. Surratt, Gottlieb Schober of Salem (Macon, GA: Mer-cer University Press, ), pp. –.

. Schmucker, p. .. Christian Spielmann, “Rev. Prof. W. F. Lehmann, Ph.D.,”

in J. C. Jensson, American Lutheran Biographies (Milwaukee:), p. .

. Quoted in Spaeth, vol. , pp. –; quoted in David A.Gustafson, Lutherans in Crisis (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ),pp. –. Charles Philip Krauth was the father of Charles Porter-field Krauth, also a leading confessionalist.

. Charles Philip Krauth, reviewing Heinrich Schmid’s DieDogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, in EvangelicalReview , no. (July ); quoted in Gustafson, p. .

. Beale M. Schmucker, “Rev. Charles F. Schaeffer, D.D.,” inJensson, p. . Beale Melanchthon Schmucker was the son of

Samuel Simon Schmucker, but in his theological position he fol-lowed his uncle rather than his father.

. John G. Morris, Fifty Years in the Lutheran Ministry (Balti-more: James Young, ), p. ; quoted in Nelson, p. .

. Quoted in Abdel Ross Wentz, History of the GettysburgLutheran Theological Seminary, – (Harrisburg, PA: Evan-gelical Press, ), pp. –; quoted in Gustafson, p. .Reynolds himself had been a supporter of the “AmericanLutheran” agenda in his earlier years, but after his theological “con-version” he actively opposed Benjamin Kurtz’s literary efforts onbehalf of that agenda. “The Evangelical Review was founded in

by Professor William M. Reynolds [of the faculty of the Pennsylva-nia College in Gettysburg]. The aim of this paper was to oppose theLutheran Observer, edited by Dr. Kurtz, and at that time serving asthe chief organ of the American Lutheranism. Soon, however,Reynolds was called to the presidency of Capital University,Columbus, Ohio, and now Dr. Charles Philip Krauth, of the Get-tysburg Seminary, became his successor [as editor of the EvangelicalReview].” Neve, p. .

. Henkel, pp. –.. Baur, p. .. Arand, p. .. The Christian Book of Concord, pp. iii–v.. The Christian Book of Concord, p. v.. The Christian Book of Concord, p. iv.. Abdel Ross Wentz, A Basic History of Lutheranism in Amer-

ica (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, ), p. .. Henkel, p. .. The Christian Book of Concord, p. vi; see also “Rev. Socrates

Henkel, D.D.,” in Jensson, p. . In spite of his zealous efforts onbehalf of the confessional Lutheran movement, William M.Reynolds became a minister of the Protestant Episcopal Church in. He claimed that his sole motive for leaving the LutheranChurch “was that every door for employment within it was closedagainst him.” Henry E. Jacobs, “Reynolds, William Morton, D.D.,”in Lutheran Cyclopedia (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, ),p. . All the other translators and translation revisers remainedtrue to the faith of the Confessions for the remainder of their lives.

. Formula of Concord, Epitome VII, p. .. Formula of Concord, Full Declaration, Preface, p. .. Formula of Concord, Full Declaration VII, p. .. The Book of Concord, ed. Henry E. Jacobs, nd ed. (Philadel-

phia: United Lutheran Publication House, ), p. .. Concordia Triglotta, p. iii.. The Book of Concord, ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadel-

phia: Fortress Press, ), p. v.. Charles F. Schaeffer, in Evangelical Review (), p. ;

quoted in Theodore E. Schmauck and C. Theodore Benze, TheConfessional Principle and the Confessions of the Lutheran Church(Philadelphia: General Council Publication Board, ), p. .

day the gospel came to Cornelius’ family, and when a group ofabout twelve at Ephesus who had previously known only thebaptism of John the Baptist received Christian baptism. It cameunexpectedly on whole groups at once, not individually as par-ticular people met conditions for it. The gift of tongues wasaccompanied by other manifestations of the Spirit’s presence,the sound of rushing wind and tongues of fire on the day ofPentecost, praising God at Caesarea, and speaking God’s wordat Ephesus. On the day of Pentecost speaking in tongues neededno interpretation. The various languages were understooddirectly by the hearers.

In the expression “the gift of the Spirit” the Greek for gift isthe special word dwvrea. It is used four times in Acts. Expressionsusing the word “of” are not always possessive. In “the promise ofMy Father” “of” is possessive. It means “what My Fatherpromised.” However, “of the Spirit” in the expression “the gift ofthe Spirit” is a genitive of definition (as in “the city of Chicago”).That is evident from Acts :–, for example:

Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, andthey received the Holy Spirit. When Simon [the Sor-cerer] saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on ofthe apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said,“Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” Peteranswered: “May your money perish with you,because you thought you could buy the gift of Godwith money!”

Baptism is always a literal baptism with water. Baptism andthe gift of the Holy Spirit regularly came together. There werethree exceptions to this that we know about, all in Acts.

() On the day of Pentecost the first group of received theSpirit first, and then were baptized.

the company of persons was in all about a hundredand twenty. . . . When the day of Pentecost had come,they were all together in one place. And suddenly asound came from heaven like the rush of a mightywind, and it filled all the house where they were sit-ting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire,distributed and resting on each one of them. And they

j

THIS ESSAY WILL DEAL WITH THREE ASPECTS OF BAPTISM IN THE

New Testament: The relationship of the gift of the Spiritto baptism, the seal of the Spirit, and the indirect refer-

ences to baptism in the New Testament.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE GIFTOF THE SPIRIT TO BAPTISM

The series of four studies by Andrew Das, Born Again! ByWater and the Word, Discipleship Series (St. Louis: ConcordiaPublishing House, ), has been an excellent treatment ofbaptism in the current context. These studies could well beextended by taking up several more aspects of baptism.

The most distinctive teaching of Pentecostals and Charis-matics is subsequence: to them “baptism in the Spirit” is subse-quent to “water baptism” (actually, the New Testament uses onlyverbal expressions). They refuse to accept that rebirth comesthrough baptism with water; they frequently despise “non-charismatics” because they have had only “water baptism”; manyof them list a series of steps that a Christian must take that leadup to “Spirit baptism” and characteristically equate “Spirit bap-tism” with speaking in tongues; they speak like the Anabaptistsof Luther’s day, who disparaged infant baptism and spoke “as ifthey alone have any right to talk about the Spirit”; and theyattribute power and rebirth to a later “experience.”

The New Testament does not support this subsequence.The only subsequent thing after baptism is the return of Christ.Nowhere does the New Testament say or imply that some Chris-tians possess the Spirit and some do not: “just as our testimonyconcerning Christ was confirmed in you. And so you do notlack any charismatic gift [carivsmati] as you eagerly look forour Lord Jesus Christ to appear again” ( Cor :–).

In any case, the charismatic gifts come from all three per-sons ( Cor :–). The “gift of the Spirit” is not the charis-matic gift of speaking in tongues that the Spirit gives, but God’sgift of the Holy Spirit himself. Speaking in tongues is men-tioned only three times in Acts, on the day of Pentecost, on the

Baptism in the New Testament

CLARENCE PRIEBBENOW

CLARENCE PRIEBBENOW lectured for twenty years at Luther Seminary,

Adelaide, Australia, in languages and church history. He is now pastor

of four congregations in Queensland, Australia, and is a contributing

editor of LOGIA.

and witnessed the gift of the Spirit to the Samaritans personallyas they laid their hands on them. This incident was important,because the gospel reached its third phase: “and Samaria” (Acts:). Pentecostals make the baptism with water followed byreceiving the Spirit the normative order for every Christian.What must be realized is that this incident was highly excep-tional. That is emphasized by the words “only” and “not yet.”The reason for the delay should not be seen in any deficiency inthe faith of the Samaritans. Previously Jewish people had hadno dealings with Samaritans. They too had accepted the word ofGod that Philip preached. God wanted the leaders of the churchat Jerusalem to witness their reception of the Spirit so that theywould not regard Samaritan Christians as second-rate believers.

Philip went down to a city of Samaria, and proclaimedto them the Christ. And the multitudes with oneaccord gave heed to what was said by Philip, when theyheard him and saw the signs which he did. For uncleanspirits came out of many who were possessed, cryingwith a loud voice; and many who were paralyzed orlame were healed. So there was much joy in that city.

But there was a man named Simon who had pre-viously practiced magic in the city and amazed thenation of Samaria, saying that he himself was some-body great. They all gave heed to him, from the least tothe greatest, saying, “This man is that power of Godwhich is called Great.” And they gave heed to him,because for al long time he had amazed them with hismagic. But when they believed Philip as he preachedgood news about the kingdom of God and the name ofJesus Christ, they were baptized, both men andwomen. Even Simon himself believed, and after beingbaptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signsand great miracles performed, he was amazed.

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard thatSamaria had received the word of God, they sent tothem Peter and John, who came down and prayed forthem that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for hehad not yet fallen on any of them, but they had onlybeen baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then theylaid their hands on them and they received the HolySpirit (Acts :–).

When the New Testament distinguishes baptism with waterfrom baptism with the Holy Spirit, baptism with water refersonly to the baptism of John the Baptist, not to Christian Bap-tism (Mt :; Jn :–). There is only one exception: thoughJohn had been baptizing everyone else with water only, and notwith the Spirit, when he baptized Jesus, the Holy Spiritdescended on Jesus in the form of a dove. There Jesus was“anointed” for his work as the Messiah. The word “Messiah”means “The Anointed One.” Even the baptism that Jesus’ disci-ples were doing early in Jesus’ ministry (Jn :; :–) was notyet real Christian baptism, and did not confer the Holy Spirit(Acts :). Jesus had not yet received his “baptism” on the cross.Christian baptism joins people to Jesus’ death, burial, andresurrection.

were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speakin other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance(Acts :, :–).

The apostles had been with Jesus about three years and hadearlier received the baptism of John the Baptist; they also hadbeen making disciples for Jesus by baptizing (Jn :; :–).Two things should be noticed from the following passage, inwhich Peter was defending at Jerusalem what he had done at thehouse of Cornelius: They traced their faith in Jesus back to theday of Pentecost, and they too received Christian baptism on

the day of Pentecost. There had been no Christian baptism inthe full sense before the day of Pentecost. Then the apostleswere baptized with the Spirit as Jesus promised (Acts :). Theyreceived Christian baptism with water at Pentecost, when theyalso received the Holy Spirit.

As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just ason us at the beginning. And I remembered the word ofthe Lord how he said “John baptized with water, butyou shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If then Godgave the same gift to them as he gave to us when webelieved in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that Icould withstand God?” (Acts :–).

() Likewise, in the first Gentile Pentecost Cornelius and hisfamily first had the Holy Spirit poured out on them, and that ledimmediately to Peter’s direction that they should be baptized.The significance of this occasion is that then the fourth period ofexpansion of Christianity began: “to the end of the earth” (Acts:). That is emphasized by the word “even”; and the parallel toPentecost is emphasized by the words “just as we have.”

While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell onall who heard the word. And the believers from amongthe circumcised who came with Peter were amazed,because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured outeven on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking intongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Canany one forbid water for baptizing these people whohave received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And hecommanded them to be baptized in the name of JesusChrist (Acts : –).

() When the Gospel first came to Samaria through Philip,Luke makes a special point of the fact that when they were bap-tized the Holy Spirit was not given to any of them. That hap-pened only when Peter and John came down from Jerusalem

There had been no Christian baptism inthe full sense before the day of Pentecost.

nb

If anyone is not born of water and the Spirit, hecannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn :). [Note: thereis only one Christian baptism, one rebirth of water andSpirit. Hebrews : should not be used to argue forChristian baptisms in the plural. The reference is toJewish ceremonies of washing. For those the New Tes-tament word is baptivsmo". The word for the baptismof John and Christian baptism is nearly always bap-tivsma—never used in the plural.]

But you have been washed, you have been madeholy, you have been justified in the name of the LordJesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God ( Cor :).

For by one Spirit all of us—whether Jews orGreeks, whether slaves or free—were baptized into onebody, and we were all given to drink of that one spirit( Cor :). [Note: The Spirit is both the agent andthe gift in baptism.]

But when God our Savior showed how kind He isand how He loves us, He saved us, not because of anyrighteous works which we have done, but because ofHis mercy. He saved us by the washing of regenerationand renewal of the Holy Spirit (Ti :).

THE SEAL OF THE SPIRIT

There is a series of passages in the New Testament that referto a particular point in the past when the Spirit was received,when people became believers. These can readily be understoodas oblique references to baptism. Examples of these include:

For you did not receive the spirit of slaves to make youfeel afraid again, but you received the Spirit of God’sadopted children by whom we call out, “Abba, Father!”(Rom :)

And because you are sons, God sent out the Spiritof His Son into our hearts to cry, “Abba, Father!” (Gal:). [Note: Baptism is referred to in the immediatecontext, Gal :–.]

. . . and have put on the new self, which is continu-ally renewed in knowledge to be like Him who createdhim (Col :).

There are three references to the seal of the Spirit that point to aparticular event in the past:

When you heard the message of the truth, the GoodNews that you were saved, and when you becamebelievers in Him, you also were sealed in Him by theHoly spirit whom He promised. That Holy Spirit isnow the guarantee of our inheritance until God freesus to be His people so that His glory may be praised(Eph :–).

And do not grieve God’s Holy spirit, by whomyou were sealed for the day when you will be set free(Eph :).

It is God who makes both us and you firm in Christand who also anointed us and put his seal on us and gaveus the Spirit as a guarantee in our hearts ( Cor :–).

It is an important aspect of Luke’s style in Acts that he canusually refer to peoples becoming Christians by mentioning justone aspect of it, such as “they were added to the church, “or “theybelieved, “or “they were baptized.” Paul also does that when heasks the Galatians, “Did you receive the Spirit by doing what theLaw says, or by believing what you heard?” (Gal :). There areseveral instances in Acts in which the Holy Spirit is promised, andit is simply reported that baptism occurred. This does not meanthat the Holy Spirit was still to be expected after baptism, but thatat baptism what had been promised was received. The first pas-sage refers to the rest of the , or so people (about ,) whobecame believers on the day of Pentecost.

And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptizedevery one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for theforgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift ofthe Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to yourchildren and to all that are far off, every one whom theLord our God will call.” And he testified with manyother words and exhorted them, saying, “Be savedfrom this crooked generation.” So those who receivedhis word were baptized, and there were added that dayabout three thousand souls (Acts :–).

Ananias went, and came to the house. After helaid his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lordhas sent me—Jesus, whom you have seen on your wayhere—so that you may see again and be filled with theHoly Spirit. Immediately something like scales fellfrom his eyes, and he saw again. He got up and wasbaptized. Then he had something to eat and wasstrengthened (Acts :–).

When Cornelius and his family received the gift of the HolySpirit, Peter immediately realized that they had to receive Chris-tian baptism. The two belonged together. It is the normal thingfor the gift of the Spirit to come through baptism. For example:

While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled over themountainous country to get to Ephesus. He met somedisciples there and asked them, “Did you receive the HolySpirit when you became believers?” “No,” they answeredhim, “we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”He asked them, “Into what then were you baptized?”“Into John’s baptism,” they answered. Paul said, “Johnbaptized with the baptism of repentance and told peopleto believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”When they heard this, they were baptized into the nameof the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them,the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to talk inother languages and to speak God’s word. There wereabout twelve men in the group (Acts :–). [Note: Apol-los had been preaching about Jesus at Ephesus, but heknew only the baptism of John the Baptist. Priscilla andAquila took him aside and explained God’s way moreaccurately. But apparently there were other people atEphesus who had heard Apollos and had not received thismore accurate instruction (Acts :–).]

INDIRECT REFERENCES TO BAPTISMIn the indicative the Greek aorist was usually like our English

past tense. Imperatives, subjunctives, and participles in this tense,however, sometimes included the meaning “begin to.” In the con-text of baptism we find such usages that speak of faith, putting onChrist as a garment, and the new life beginning at the point ofbaptism:

When we were baptized into His death, we were buriedwith Him so that, as Christ was raised from the deadwith the glory of the Father, we too might begin to live anew life (Rom :).

He met some disciples there and asked them, “Didyou receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?”“No, they answered him, “we have not even heard thatthere is a Holy Spirit.” He asked them, “Into what thenwere you baptized?” (Acts :–)

When I began to speak the Holy Spirit came downon these people as He originally came on us, and Iremembered what the Lord had said, “John baptizedwith water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit”Now if God gave them the same gift as He gave us whenwe became believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, who wasI—could I stop God? (Acts :–)

Consequently, it is not difficult to see indirect references tobaptism in similar uses of the Greek ingressive aorist even whenbaptism is implied.

When you heard the message of the truth, the GoodNews that you were saved, and when you became believ-ers in Him, you also were sealed in Him by the HolySpirit whom He promised. That Holy Spirit is now theguarantee of our inheritance until God frees us to be Hispeople so that His glory may be praised (Eph :–).

It is God who makes both us and you firm inChrist and who also anointed us and put his seal on usand gave us the spirit as a guarantee in our hearts ( Cor:–).

Our salvation is now nearer than when we firstbecame believers (Rom :).

There are other oblique hints of baptism. Two examples willsuffice. When John says that Jesus told the man who had beenborn blind, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,” why should he add,parenthetically, “the name means ‘Sent’”? He goes on to report,“He went, and washed, and as he came back, he could see” (Jn:). Of course, this was not a baptism. But Christians of all ageshave probably sensed overtones of meaning. Jesus is the One sentby God, who, through the washing of baptism, has given us spiri-tual sight. John : has such a hint also:

This is He who came by water and blood—JesusChrist—not by water only, but by water and by blood.And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because theSpirit is the Truth. LOGIA

There are also two references in John to a “chrism,” anunction, or anointing, that probably belong here also, asmetaphorical references to the indwelling Spirit, who has beenreceived in baptism:

You have an anointing from the Holy One, and you allknow ( Jn :).

You received the anointing from Him, and thatanointing remains in you, and you do not need anyoneto teach you. But since His anointing teaches you every-thing—and since it is true and no lie, just as He also hastaught you—remain in Him ( Jn :).

High Church Anglicans have insisted on regarding thesepassages as references to confirmation as a sacrament witholive oil or chrism. G. W. H. Lampe, in The Seal of the Spirit(London: SPCK, ), has shown conclusively that the seal ofthe Spirit must refer to baptism. Points to note are the consis-tent use of the past tense, the ingressive expression “becamebelievers” in Ephesians :, and the deliberate play on thewords “Christ” and crivsa", “who . . . anointed” in Corinthi-ans :. This play on words shows that Paul was not simplyusing “Christ” as a proper name, but with the thought thatJesus was anointed as the Messiah when He received the Spiritat His baptism. We can see an indirect reference to baptismtherefore even in the English word “christen” and in our name“Christian.” The expressions “in the Christ . . . in whom” in

Ephesians :– and “into Christ” in Corinthians :

emphasize incorporation into Christ. We are baptized into theone body of Christ ( Cor :). From Pentecost on, Christianshave been incorporated into their ascended Lord through bap-tism and the Lord’s Supper.

A seal, stamped in wax on letters, was used as a sign ofauthenticity or as a guarantee. Slaves and cattle were brandedwith marks as recognizable signs of who owned them, and sol-diers were given tattoos by which they could be recognized if theydeserted. Prisoners were often branded. So baptism can bethought of as God’s spiritual mark of ownership by which he willrecognize as his own, and our mark of loyalty, devotion, and ser-vice. Circumcision had been God’s physical mark. Paul used theword “seal” for circumcision in Romans :, and he referred tobaptism as a metaphorical circumcision in Colossians :. Thebook of Revelation speaks of men who will not be harmedbecause they have the seal of God on their foreheads (:). Theseal of the Spirit in baptism is the guarantee of our inheritance.As Jesus promised that His disciples would be clothed with powerfrom on high (Lk :), so the Spirit guarantees that we will beclothed with our heavenly dwelling ( Cor :–).

Lampe has shown conclusively that theseal of the Spirit must refer to baptism.

nb

Review EssayThe Second Martin: The Life and Theology of Martin Chemnitz.By J. A. O. Preus. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. .

■ Dr. J. A. O. Preus, professor and president of Concordia The-ological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois, and for twelve years presi-dent of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, spent the lastproductive and fruitful years of his life translating the theologicalworks of Martin Chemnitz (–), the second most impor-tant confessional Lutheran theologian in the history of theLutheran church. The most significant of Chemnitz’s many writ-ings translated by Preus was his Loci Theologici, publishedposthumously in . That opus magnum, together with his con-tributions to the Formula of Concord as its foremost author,established Chemnitz as the “Second Martin.” Chemnitz was aneminently gifted man: a first rate exegete, historian, and patrolo-gist. He was the father of modern dogmatics. He was also a pas-tor, a teacher of the church, and superintendent in the city ofBraunschweig. Such a threefold ministry, carried out faithfully byChemnitz, made him an excellent model for pastors, teachers,and officials in the Lutheran Church today. Since there were nobooks in homiletics or practical theology in Chemnitz’s day, hismany books offered much needed help to pastors in writing theirsermons and applying the evangelical doctrine in their ministries.His works are just as helpful today.

Recognizing this fact and the great importance of Chem-nitz’s life as well as his writings, Jack Preus decided to write abook on the life and theology of Chemnitz. He made his decisionnot only for the purpose of reviewing the profound impact ofChemnitz on the church life and theology of his day, not only tocomment on Chemnitz’s role in the writing of the Formula ofConcord and the rehabilitation of confessional Lutheranism insixteenth (and seventeenth) century Europe, but to present thishumble and peaceful man as an example for today of a faithful,confessional Lutheran pastor, professor of theology, and churchofficial (bishop, district president, synodical president, circuitcounselor, and so on) in the Lutheran Church.

What kind of example is Martin Chemnitz to a pastor whowants to be a confessional Lutheran today? Chemnitz put thepure doctrine of the gospel first in his ministry. This involvedmuch work and occasioned much trouble. But by his confession

REVIEWS“It is not many books that make men learned . . . but it is a good book frequently read.”

Martin Luther

j

of the gospel of justification Chemnitz’s parishioners grew ingrace and holiness, according to Preus’s biography. And so a pas-tor today who wishes to be edified or stimulated would be welladvised to read Preus’s book about Chemnitz, or better yetChemnitz’s books in translation dealing with the great themes ofsalvation, rather than books from the plethora of modern, oftenlightweight works on such quasi-theological subjects as steward-ship, church growth, or pastoral counseling having little or nobasis in Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.

Chemnitz is also a paradigm for those who are called to beprofessors and teachers of the church today. How so? In Preus’sbiography the point is made repeatedly that Chemnitz, whetheracting as pastor or professor or official, makes his first concern toarticulate and confess a corpus doctrinae on which the theology ofthe church should be based. In other words, the priority of theteacher of the church should be to confess the truth of the gospeland all its articles. What was taught by the theological faculties atthe universities and other schools in those days, whether exegesisor dogmatics or whatever, was in the service of the doctrine, theconfession. Sadly, this is no longer the case in many quarters ofthe Lutheran Church.

There are Lutheran seminaries today where more hours aredevoted to sociology than to the teaching of the Bible (dogmaticsor exegesis). And often dogmatic theology amounts to no morethan the history of dogma or the history of religion, or, worsestill, an adjunct to sociology or anthropology of some kind. Andstudents are graduating from Lutheran seminaries today whohave never read the Lutheran Confessions nor had a course inthem. The best thing that could happen at any Lutheran seminarytoday is that every professor would read Preus’s The Second Mar-tin, and then proceed to Chemnitz’s Loci Theologici, and thenemulate that great teacher of the church. This is especially desir-able for those whose courses are in quasi-theological subjectssuch as sociology, psychology, counseling, “church growth,” stew-ardship, and others that are gaining ascendancy at manyLutheran seminaries. If this could only happen, our seminarieswould become more Lutheran, more theological, more evangeli-cal, more practical, more relevant—yes, and more sensitive anddevoted to the mission of the church.

Chemnitz’s activity as a faithful and busy superintendentshould also serve as an example for every Lutheran official to fol-low today. And every Lutheran bishop, synodical president, and

district president would benefit greatly if he were to take the timeto read Preus’s book, which closely follows Chemnitz’s superin-tendency. Chemnitz was a model superintendent, wise and com-passionate, considerate of both pastor and congregation. As hebegan his ministry he had no compunctions, out of considerationto the church that was calling him, about preaching a prescribedtrial sermon prior to being called as pastor and coadjutor atBraunschweig. Later, as superintendent he did not impose candi-dates or pastors on congregations, nor did he prevent congrega-tions from making a knowledgeable decision to call the pastor oftheir choice. During his entire superintendency he carried out hisrigorous calling as pastor: preaching, teaching, visiting his people,and administering the keys. As superintendent he never sus-pended another pastor except for flagrant false doctrine orproven ungodly life, and then only after thorough investigationand due process. He faithfully inaugurated the visitation of pas-tors, and hard admonition was given to mean-spirited, incompe-tent, lazy pastors. But in such cases the pastor was advised to takeanother call or resign or, if old and tired, to retire from office; butthese men, with all their faults, were not forced out of the min-istry or blackballed, at least not by Chemnitz. Nor did he, with orwithout the connivance or active support of other superinten-dents, officials, or princes, try to control the call process. He wasas concerned to be evaluated himself, along with other officials, asto evaluate his fellow pastors. Throughout his long superinten-dency he was deeply respected and loved for his evangelical treat-ment of fellow pastors and the congregations of the city.

Why was this so? Because, as Preus abundantly shows,Chemnitz had the highest regard for the office of the minister;because he was deeply committed to the divinity of the call to thatoffice; because he was dedicated to an evangelical church polity;because he was faithful to the Lutheran Confessions (everyoneknew where he stood) and loyal to those ministers who stead-fastly adhered to them; and because he loved Christ’s sheep. Inshort, because he practiced what he taught so powerfully in hisLoci Theologici about church and ministry (trans. J. A. O. Preus[St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ], vol. , pp.–)). And so he received the love and praise of the pastorsand people in Braunschweig and of confessional Lutheransthroughout the German empire and beyond.

A great problem faced Chemnitz throughout his entire min-istry, the problem of developing an evangelical church polity thatin those days had to conform to the articulate Lutheran position onthe two kingdoms (See AC XVI, Ap XVI; see also Loci Theologici,Frankfurt and Wittenberg, , vol. , pp. – and passim) aswell as to the real state of affairs prevailing in Braunschweig andother territories, mainly Lutheran and Roman Catholic, at thattime. Throughout his biography Preus touches upon this matter.

In the sixteenth century the role of the prince or magistratewas prominent in the life of the church. The prince and civilrulers had a part in calling pastors, supporting the church finan-cially and politically, and often in carrying out church discipline.They considered themselves the defenders of the faith, and oftenentered into the affairs and theological controversies of thechurch in earnest. In Lutheran as well as Roman Catholic landsthe churches were often under the virtual hegemony of the princeor state, and such circumstances often compromised the church

and the pastors and especially the superintendent. For instance,in Braunschweig where Chemnitz labored, Duke Julius, an ardentLutheran, was very supportive of Chemnitz, both of his theologi-cal leadership and his administration and of the Lutheran refor-mation. But when Julius for political reasons supported the ordi-nation according to the Roman rite of his son to the bishopric ofthe nearby region of Halberstadt, Chemnitz was compelled tocondemn such an action. He incurred the wrath of the duke, whowithdrew his support of Chemnitz and the Formula of Concordand dismissed Chemnitz as a member of his consistory. Oftensuperintendents and pastors did not have the courage to stand upto the kingdom of the left with such firmness.

Today in America we do not have to contend with the inter-ference of the state, and we suppose that our separation of churchand state under the first amendment solves that vexing problem,which has plagued European Lutheranism until this day. InEurope the church depended upon the state in many respects.When Lutherans immigrated to America they were forced tochange their church polity radically. The role of the civil govern-ment no longer was any factor in administering the church. Andso a church polity had to be developed whereby the role of civilgovernment was divvied up among the entities that were strictlyecclesiastical, for instance, the laity, the pastors, the officials, andthe church councils. In some cases the immigrant Lutheran pas-tors and people worked out a polity that gave too much authorityto the laity (for example, some of the “low church,” anti-clerical,Scandinavian pietists). In some cases undue authority was giventhe clergy and the superintendents, or bishops (for example, TheBuffalo Synod). The Missouri Synod under the leadership ofC. F. W. Walther and other fledgling synods trod a middle coursewhereby both pastors and people were encouraged to carry outtheir respective offices with integrity and according to biblicalprinciples, and the function of synodical president and other offi-cials was advisory. Thus Walther and other immigrant Lutheranswere faithful to the evangelical polity of Chemnitz and at thesame time able to rid the Lutheran Church in America of theencroachments of the civil government that Chemnitz and hisage had to endure, as well as the entrenched, at times almostErastian polity that marked later generations in Europe livingwithin a state church. Today Lutheran synods have graduallyhanded over to church officials who hold their offices iurehumano many of the legal and legislative functions and powersthat the state exercised in Chemnitz’s day and the pastors andpeople performed in Walther’s day. A polity of entrenched eccle-siasticism seems to prevail in the larger Lutheran synods inAmerica today. The extravagances and power plays of the secularprinces of Chemnitz’s day are repeated by the princes of thechurch today. This turn of affairs has proven to be no blessing tothe church, and the losers are both the pastors and the peoplewho together make up the church.

Jack Preus devotes fully half of his book to Chemnitz’s theo-logical position on the chief articles of the Christian faith. Hedeftly draws from Chemnitz’s prodigious theological output,including the Formula of Concord, a summary of the mainthemes of the Lutheran Reformation and of the Lutheran Confes-sions. This makes the book very helpful to the busy pastor andlayman to understand the theology of confessional Lutheranism.

Preus examines Chemnitz’s brilliant treatment of such topics asScripture and the theological task, the person of Christ, and justi-fication, and he shows in several instances how Chemnitz in theFormula of Concord and in his other writings correctly under-stood and presented Luther’s position in contrast toMelanchthon’s. This is important to Preus in light of the fact thatmodern-day Lutherans have on crucial issues often swallowedmore of the later Melanchthon than they have drunk from Lutheror Chemnitz; and the result has been synergism, the denial orcompromise of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood inthe Lord’s Supper (supported by the practice of open commu-nion), unionism, and doctrinal indifferentism.

Preus’s book is especially helpful because Lutheranism todayis beset with the same aberrations and un-Lutheran pressuresfrom outside and within her ranks as in Chemnitz’s time, such asRomanism, Antinomianism, Majorism, Osiandrianism, Crypto-Calvinism, and confusion concerning adiaphora. All these falsedoctrines struck at the very heart of the gospel. All of them haveto varying degrees penetrated our Lutheran synods and congre-gations today. In the attractive dress of ecumenism, popularevangelicalism, the Church Growth Movement, and other fadsand movements, they have freely entered our Lutheran Zion andare causing a lot of trouble. Preus’s book will be of great help toall Lutherans who wish to address our modern situation. It willhelp us all to meet the problems and challenges we as confes-sional Lutherans all face in our complex and increasingly secular-ized society today, and help us to be faithful to our confessionalheritage and to the mission of the church. It sounds a trumpetcall to the Lutheran Church to heed the words of the prophet:“Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where isthe good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for yoursouls” (Jer :). For Lutherans—lay people, pastors, teachers,and officials—to look to their past will provide the best means toface the present and the future. The great reformer did this. Sodid the Second Martin. So did Walther and Jack Preus.

Robert D. PreusShorewood, Minnesota

Note

. A state of affairs has developed in the larger Lutheran syn-ods in America today that is more akin to a Reformed model ofpolity than the free position on Kirchenregiment so typical of his-toric Lutheranism. The Westminster Confession (XXX, l) says,“The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his Church, hath appointeda government in the hand of Church officers, distinct from thecivil magistrate.” At times officials in the Lutheran Church todayact as if they hold office iure divino. This is seen most clearlytoday when officials exercise church discipline by suspending apastor or congregation from a synod or church body without firstobserving due process (See Tr ). Such a mischievous practice isespecially harmful in our country where neither pastor or con-gregation can seek due process in civil courts and in some casesno ecclesiastical due process is provided. Such was not the case inChemnitz’s day. I imagine that the church and civil courts inChemnitz’s day were as inept and corrupt at times as in our mod-ern day, but at least they were there.

A Theology of the New Testament. By George Eldon Ladd.Revised edition. Edited by Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans. . pages. Paper.

■ This “updating of a time-honored textbook,” as it is adver-tised on its cover, is not only an update but also an expansion.Over one hundred pages have been added to the original work.The editor has added a section (“Biblical Theology in the LastTwenty Years”) to the Introduction. An appendix by David Wen-ham (“Unity and Diversity in the New Testament”) deals withrecent developments not covered by Ladd in his original work butwhich, according to the editor, he had intended, before his death,to address. An index of subjects is also a helpful addition.

The bibliographies have been updated, and the editor admitsto “a certain arbitrariness in deciding what to include.” The broadrange of topics covered by Ladd, the amount of material writtenon those topics in the last twenty years, and the need to keep thebibliographies relatively short, would naturally make the choiceof what to add to Ladd’s bibliographies a somewhat arbitrarytask. Some works that were included in the original bibliogra-phies have been omitted, however, without reason given or clearindication that such omissions have been made. Some mention,however brief, of the criteria that were used in determining suchomissions would have been helpful.

Masculine language, according to the editor, “grates on one’ssensitivities.” Diane Bradley has, therefore, “carefully gonethrough the text and removed the objectionable language.” As areader, I find this removal of objectionable language grates on mynerves (if it spares my sensitivities) for several reasons.

If I am reading George Eldon Ladd, or any other author, forthat matter, I want to know what that author wrote, not what wasleft after someone went through his work and cleaned up his lan-guage according to his own set of sensitivities. I am left continu-ally guessing what the censor might have changed and what theauthor originally wrote.

Much of the work of Ms. Bradley in this volume is transpar-ent. The many occurrences of both the male and the femalewhenever gender-specific parts of speech occur are obviousattempts to remove the “objectionable language.” She even strivesmightily to be fair as she alternates which gender is named first.We go from “men and women” to “women and men.”

The attempt at inclusive language creates cumbersomeredundancies that detract from Ladd’s writing style and changehis meaning. Many languages, including the Greek of the NewTestament as well as English, use the male gender to include boththe male and the female sex. When someone like Ladd writes, forexample, about how God deals with men, only a dullard or some-one with a feminist ax to grind would fail to recognize that bothsexes are included. To change it to how God deals with womenand men not only adds unnecessary verbiage, it changes themeaning. “Men” in this context is inclusive. It refers not only toboth sexes but to all ages, men, women, infants, children,teenagers, the elderly. “Men and women” excludes all but adultsof either sex.

Those whose sensitivities are offended by “masculine lan-guage” would, perhaps, do us all a service if they were to acceptthat grammatical gender is not the same thing as sexual distinc-

tion. They might then let up before our use of the English lan-guage and ability to communicate is eroded further.

Ladd’s careful scholarship is well known, as is the originaledition of this work. Very little comment is therefore necessaryexcept perhaps some reflections from a conservative, Lutheranstandpoint.

For conservatives, the strength of this book is that it is a fineexample that shows that intelligent biblical scholarship need notundermine the truth and integrity of the New Testament. Laddclearly demonstrates that the historical evidence can be seen tobear witness to a New Testament theology that is firmly groundedin the teaching of Jesus Christ.

For Lutherans, Ladd’s prejudice against the sacraments(although no surprise to anyone at all familiar with Fuller Semi-nary and its prevailing theology) is the book’s greatest negative.His careful treatment of the texts leads him to apprehend theclear meaning of passages dealing with Baptism and the Lord’sSupper. He then, however, finds it necessary again and again toexplain away any sacramental understanding.

The book is, as it was originally intended by Ladd, a goodintroduction to the discipline of New Testament theology.Those who already have the edition on their shelves willfeel no great need to rush out and purchase this update of anoriginally fine work.

John M. MoeSt. John Lutheran Church

Rosemount, Minnesota

The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life. By Karl Barth. Louisville:Westminster/John Knox, . pages. Paper.

■ This book is a reprint of a English translation of lecturesthat Barth gave at a pastors’ conference in October . In theselectures, Barth sought to articulate his understanding of the roleof the Holy Spirit in the Christian life. One wonders why theselectures given sixty-five years ago are being reprinted today. I sus-pect it is because Barth’s work represents a powerful countervail-ing voice to some contemporary trends in theological ethics. Inthese contemporary trends, there has been a return to someaspects of the theological method of classic Protestant liberalismto which Barth was opposed.

Classic Protestant liberalism assumed a continuity betweenthe divine and the human in its construal of the work of the HolySpirit. Surprisingly, the works of contemporary thinkers like SallyMcFague and other Liberationist and Process thinkers assume asimilar continuity. Theological liberalism sought to ground thetruth of faith in a religious depth experience that all people share incommon. Today’s neo-liberal strategies claim that the continuitybetween the divine and the human is not expressed in commonhuman experience. Instead, this continuity is thought to be foundas expressed in the experiences of the socially and economicallymarginalized. Perhaps Barth’s work is important for the last yearsof the twentiethth century because it opposes this attempt toground theology in human experience (whether that be commonhuman experiences or the select human experiences of the socially

marginalized). Barth responds to this quest with his characteristicNein. For Barth, God’s communication to humanity is “presuppo-sitionless,” based solely on God’s own terms. It assumes no givencontinuity between God and humanity, not even in religious expe-rience. Hence it challenges basic assumptions of both yesterday’sliberal and today’s neo-liberal strategies in theological ethics.

What bearing, if any, does this conflict about the role ofhuman experience as a source and norm for theological ethicshave on confessional Lutheran theological approaches to ethics?Lutherans agree with Barth’s diagnosis that Protestant liberalism’squest to ground religious ethics in an alleged continuity betweenthe created human spirit and the uncreated divine Spirit iswrong-headed. Lutherans agree with Barth that sinful flesh is dis-continuous with the righteous standards of a holy God. Luther-ans, however, are inclined to say that the issue is not that it isimpossible to locate God in human experiences. Rather, the issueis that the God who is found there is not a God of mercy, but aGod of wrath. It is the God who works an “economy of death”(the alien work of God). It is the hidden God (Deus absconditus).For Lutherans, the proper place to find God as merciful is in hisword of the gospel. This truth does not preclude the possibility ofencountering God in human experience outside of faith inChrist. It only precludes the position that this encounter grantssinners mercy.

Hence it is important to remember Hermann Sasse’s critiqueof Barth. For Sasse, Barth’s denial of a general revelation of God(revelatio generalis) outside of faith in Christ is tantamount to asectarian stance. The issue for theological ethics, as Lutherans seeit, is not merely the question of the knowledge of God or theidentity of God as Barth holds (as important as these questionsare), but instead the question: Is God merciful to me a sinner (ornot)? Lutherans, however, can appreciate and learn from Barth’scritique of liberalism’s attempt to ground Christian ethics withina theology that is based on common human experience (or theexperiences of the socially marginalized) without agreeing withBarth’s proposed ethical or theological solutions.

In these lectures, Barth offers several reasons for why he rulesout the supposition that human life as created has an ontologicalcontinuity with God. For example, he claims that God andhumanity are discontinuous because humans as sinners are hostiletoward grace. Only the Holy Spirit apart from human merit cangive life to sinful humanity, contrary both to Protestant liberalismand Roman Catholicism. In this light, Barth appeals to Luther’sconcept of sinful humanity’s passion against deity (concupiscentiadivinitatis) as a reason for denying continuity between God andhumanity. Barth also claims that God’s futurity is a “Beyond” thatexceeds human existence; it is an aspect of God’s purpose withhumanity that belongs to God alone (p. ).

Two important themes for Christian ethics recur throughoutthese lectures. The first deals with the issue of how to construe the“image of God” (imago dei) in humanity. For Barth, the “imageof God” is not a created property or an attribute of humanity thatbelongs by nature to humanity. Instead, it is a free and graciouswork of the Creator upon his creature as the creature seeks to livein correspondence to God by faith. Only God’s grace (and notnature) can establish a relationship between God and humanity.

Second, the kind of ontological boundary or discontinuitythat Barth seeks to establish between God and humanity tendsto make all human acts, rules, and endeavors relative. Hence, inthis pre-Dogmatik text, Barth’s ethics border on a “situationethics,” unfortunately one not so very different in kind fromthose popular in the mid-s. For Barth, ethical concerns arediscerned only in God’s call as found in each specific situation.Hence Barth writes,

Of course we know what life is at this moment, but whatlife in obedience to God is at this moment—that is to say,our life as created by God—this we do not know. I know,of course, that I am this person, a man placed in this orthe other set of circumstances with their external andinternal requirements, but I do not know at this momentthe specific callings assigned to me by God (p. ).

In this same vein, Barth rejects the ethical relevance of theconcept of the “orders of creation” because they are vacuous forhelping one to discern God’s will in any specific, concrete case.

There are several brief responses I offer with regard to thistext. First, Barth seems excessively dependent on the Reformeddoctrine of the finitum non capax infiniti in order to establish thediscontinuity he wants between the divine and the human. In thequest to undercut liberalism’s assumptions, we need to ask if it isreally necessary to deny the “image of God” as a created propertyof humanity. Is it not sufficient to say that humans are ontologi-cally discontinuous with God due to their finitude, their depen-dence on God for life, and their sinfulness?

Second, in response to Barth’s proposed “situation ethic,”the first use of the law needs to be retrieved. There is a God-wrought ethical rhythm to the cosmos and human life that isnot culture-specific, but is inclusive of all cultures or at leastunderstandable to them. One is hard-pressed to think of a cul-ture where random killing, rape, betrayal of one’s friends,harming children, and the like are praiseworthy deeds. In thisperspective, the “law” functions to pressure ethical agents to dowhat is beneficial to one’s neighbor without regard for how onefeels about that neighbor. In a Lutheran view of ethics, the con-cept of “faith active in love” is the gospel-inspired motive thatcan predominate over this sense of constraint that is a result ofthe law.

Third, Barth has many references to Luther in these lec-tures. This tendency here is reflected in other works of this“middle period” between the Römerbrief and the KirchlicheDogmatik. Even the early volumes of the Church Dogmaticshave more reference to Luther (and in a more positive light)than the later volumes.

Fourth, Barth’s work is important, because it raises the issuesof limits or boundaries for sources and norms of authentic Christ-ian theology. In my perspective, further thought on this issue isneeded by both Barth and contemporary neo-liberal thinkers.

Mark MattesSt. John’s and Arbutus Lutheran Churches

Antigo, Wisconsin

The Revelation of John: A Continental Commentary. By JürgenRoloff. Translated by John E. Alsup. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,. xii + pages. Cloth. $..

■ Among the plethora of commentaries that a pastor can pur-chase on the Revelation, this one by Roloff is worth the money.Here is a commentary that emphasizes the liturgical nature of theepistle and connects its message to the worship, that is, the sacra-mental life of the church. This kind of commentary is hard tofind these days even among Lutheran commentators. After a briefparagraph about some other contents of the book, I will givesome examples of how Roloff demonstrates this.

The book gives a helpful analysis of the structure and organi-zation of the Revelation and a concise commentary on the text.Roloff sees the three series of visions (seals, trumpets, and bowls)as recapitulating the same end-time events described from differ-ent angles of vision; yet a progress takes place until it climaxes withChrist’s return in glory to judge the living and the dead. Roloffcontinually calls the reader’s attention to the Old Testament andintertestamental texts and their imagery, from which are drawnmany of the visions from the Revelation. Roloff ’s comments onchapter , especially the millennium, are provocative. What doeshe mean, however, when he says that salvation “can never only bespiritual and otherworldly; it is always worldly, indeed political”(emphasis added)? I wish Roloff had said more here.

The introduction sets forth the thesis that the Revelation is“a legitimate expression of the gospel.” Through John’s letter theexalted Christ proclaims to the church that “the powers opposingGod will soon have exhausted themselves and that the ultimatevictory of God, which is already in heaven, will also soon be mademanifest on earth.” Roloff remarks further that “the church par-ticipates in the future world by means of the sacraments.”

Consequently, chapters and of the Revelation “form thetheological fulcrum of the entire book.” The turning point in his-tory is in the past, namely, the death and resurrection of JesusChrist, the Lamb who was slain. In the One who hangs dead onthe tree God establishes his dominion in this world. The deter-mining factor of the church’s present existence and her future isthe Lamb’s death and resurrection. Satan, his henchmen thebeasts, and the harlot of chapters :– : (especially :– and:) will try to mimic, destroy, and deceive to take away fromthe church the Lamb’s victory, but they are doomed. The Lion ofJudah, the Root of David, has triumphed.

Christ’s triumph proclaimed in chapter gets delivered inHoly Baptism. Roloff correctly emphasizes that the seal on theforeheads of the , is a reference to baptism. Revelation :says that the sign of the seal on the forehead is the name of theLamb and his Father. Roloff takes the reader back to Ezekiel:–, which is a parallel to Revelation :–. Seal (sphragis) inthe New Testament is a technical word for baptism ( Cor :;Eph :; :). The Christian is sealed. The following judgmentsupon the world that the Revelation relates will not harm thesealed ones (:). The Christian now reigns as a king and priestwith Jesus. His victory is the Christian’s victory. Now it is a mat-ter of faith. Now it is hidden under suffering and oppression.Soon it will be a matter of sight.

The consummation of communion with God is anticipatedin the Sacrament of the Altar. Roloff writes, “Coming to theLord’s Supper now makes the salvation promised by God acces-sible to the church. While Christians at the table of the Lordreceive his body and blood, they are made firm in their livingcommunion with Jesus, who embodies the promise of actual andvisible consummation in God’s new world.” Roloff sees Revela-tion :– as the movement into the liturgy of Holy Commu-nion under the assumption that the Revelation will be read inworship. Just as the church prayed Maranatha (“our Lord,come”— Cor :) before the Sacrament, so too here. Accord-ingly Roloff writes:

In this cry, which every hearer of the reading of Revela-tion is to join, the entire fulfillment of salvation, whichis promised for the future in :–:, is transposed intothe personal sphere and brought together with the pre-sent coming of Jesus in the Lord’s Supper . . . . Wherethe church gathers around the table of the Lord, there itreceives the gift of salvation that God desires to give hisown. Thus, John is not content with pointing to a tem-porally imminent future dawning of salvation (cf. :;:); rather, he indicates where salvation can be dis-covered and experienced in the present.

In this sense the Revelation is a legitimate expression of thegospel, as Roloff contends in his introduction. There is nothingmore practical than the gospel for the parish pastor. EveryLord’s Day is a proleptic yet hidden manifestation of the victoryof the Lamb’s cross and empty tomb that will soon be revealedon the Last Day. The gospel, justification by grace through faith,delivers this proleptic life and salvation in the lowly forms ofwords, water, bread, and wine. Through these means dished outin the liturgy the Judge of the Last Day gives us his gifts ofheaven and life eternal. “Surely, I am coming soon.” Amen.Come, Lord Jesus.

Rev. Brent W. KuhlmanFaith Lutheran Church

Hebron, Nebraska

Preach the Gospel: A Textbook for Homiletics. By Joel Gerlachand Richard Balge. Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House,. pages. $..

■ Some people feel we don’t need any more introductoryhomiletics books. “It’s already been said,” is the contention. Butthis reviewer addresses pastoral conferences on homiletics regu-larly. What many pastors are asking for—and what this homileti-cian believes is needed for our church’s preaching—is a refreshingreturn to the basics.

For too long hearers have agonized over the “plague ofgeneric preaching,” the “what’s the point?” homily, and thebrother who “wings it” because he really doesn’t believe inpreparing for preaching anymore.

This thorough little volume is a valuable aid for men like theFlorida pastor who told me, “I hadn’t taken a hard look at mypreaching in twenty-five years, and I thought it was about time!”It is for experienced proclaimers as well as neophytes. But thetwo authors acknowledge that the book’s primary purpose is forbeginners. They also clearly assert that the text “presupposes aconviction that mankind’s only hope in time and eternity lies inJesus Christ, that His Gospel is God’s power to save, and that theBible is God’s inspired and inerrant Word. It presupposes liberalarts training, biblical knowledge, and the ability to work withbiblical Hebrew and Greek” (p. xii).

Major topics treated are the purpose of the sermon, studyof the text, sermon structure and outlining, sermon types,style, delivery, choice of texts, and data on preaching at specialoccasions and in reference to the church year. The writing istight and clear.

An early emphasis is that the sermon is not an isolatedentity; it is an integral part of corporate worship. Preach theGospel continues with the reiteration of selbstverständlichhomiletical principles—but rubrics sometimes overlooked bythe harried sermonizer:

• The mastery of the text, (pp. ff).

• The critical formulation of a propositional statementthat has a telic note for God’s people, pp. –. (Theabsence of this “one clear idea” cheats the hearers. Likethe man who sat down next to his wife late in the ser-mon, asking, “What’s he talking about?” “He hasn’t saidyet,” she replied.)

• The need for structure, rather than a wandering “freeform,” (pp. ff).

• Outlining: the elements developed here are most help-ful. (After several decades of teaching homiletics, it isthis reviewer’s opinion that the problem behind many a“poor” sermon was simply that there had been no out-line. Students also have confessed to me that sometimestheir computer was a bane rather than a blessing—“Isimply sat down at the keyboard and started writing,”they admitted.)

• Types of sermons. Although the classic analytic, syn-thetic, and homily type of preaching are examined, theauthors happily do not excoriate properly defined “topi-cal preaching.” (This reviewer’s bias is that the type ut”the text continues to torment us. Too little specificity (Ididn’t say jot and tittle) of law-gospel application con-tinues to be missing in our pulpits.) Space limitationshere prevent further reflection on such issues treated as:outline expansion, writing style and delivery, choosing atext, the foci in occasional sermons, and preaching thechurch year. One element that could have been utilizedfar more in the book itself—and treated in the sermon’sdevelopment—is our Lord’s use of story illustrations andthe inductive method.

Summaries of each chapter and items for study and discus-sion enhance the volume. Of particular help also is the Table ofContents. The section titles of each chapter are listed there, oftenwith two items per book page. This provides easy reference to aspecific topic.

In advanced homiletics classes the undersigned regularlyuses one book that examines the theological/methodologicalfoundations (plus a model sermon) of five current Protestanthomiletical “biggies.” Students learn much from their variedtechnical approaches. But they are dismayed—even angered—bythe glaring absence of clear law-gospel in these purportedly“great” homileticians’ work.

Thank God we still have committed homileticians who giveus not only wise technical aids in preparing the sermon but“God’s Word and Luther’s doctrine pure” as well. Preach theGospel does just that.

Donald L. DeffnerConcordia Theological Seminary

Fort Wayne, Indiana

Salt, Light and Signs of the Times: An Intimate Look at the Lifeand Times of Alfred Rip Rehwinkel. By Ronald W. Stelzer. NewHaven, Missouri: Lutheran News, Inc. . pages. $..

■ As the LCMS approaches the th anniversary of its found-ing, this “intimate look at the life and times of Alfred Rehwinkel”perhaps is a portend of other books to follow that will speak ofthe life and times of other colorful figures in LCMS history.Although this book covers only a score of years or so in thesynod’s history, it marks a good beginning by telling the story of afather of the church.

Perhaps the book is not a biography in the sense of mod-ern-day authors. Yet August Suelflow, long time director of theConcordia Historical Institute, states he is “very satisfied” withStelzer’s work. Suelflow maintains that the book could have a“wholesome influence on the entire LCMS.” True. Stelzer him-self says, “not so much a biography, but rather, if I may disem-bark one metaphor and board another, a guided tour throughnature and history as perceived and experienced by my tourhost.” What began as an “independent study,” then a “researchpaper” and finally a “biography” is well worth the price andtime to read.

Stelzer divides his book into three parts: Spring, –;Summer, –; and Fall, –. He attempts to portrayRip accurately. Sometimes he shows Rip as the colorful studentand later professor he was. Sometimes he shows a side of Ripthat is politically incorrect in our day. For example, Rip hadclaimed that he had skated on frozen Lake Michigan from Mil-waukee to Chicago. “From this and other tall tales he came to beknown among his more discerning classmates as the ‘biggest liarin Milwaukee,’ a title which he cherished” (p. ). Or on race-relations the Rip of the Fall years was asked by Stelzer:

“Would you say that blacks are biologically equal to whites?” My aged friend responded without any trace of doubt, reluc-

tance, or passion, and with a minimum expense of his wan-ing energy, “No.”Stelzer: “They’re not equal?”Rip: “Inferior.”Rip: “I know. History proves it.”Stelzer: “Physically inferior?”Rip: “Intellectually.”Stelzer: “How do you explain that?”Rip: “I can’t.”Stelzer: “In your lectures on race relations, you used todenounce the white man’s arrogant assumption of his ownsuperiority.”Rip: “He is superior, but he shouldn’t be arrogant about it.”

Stelzer covers this issue by discussing motives and implica-tions of Rip’s racial revision.

“And as ludicrous as his ‘superior but not arrogant’ preceptmay appear, all indications are that he has lived up to that . . . . Isuppose the most convincing evidence is the Black African ladywho offered to be his wife.” Stelzer, it must be admitted, isintent on showing us the real Rip, not a politically correct plas-ter saint (pp. ff).

Stelzer also does not hesitate to give Rip’s opinions on politi-cal heroes and despots. At first FDR and Hitler are spoken ofhighly. Then as World War II comes to an end, Rip changes hismind regarding these figures.

[Reviewer’s note: In , while in my first year at the St.Louis seminary, seven years after the conclusion of World War II,I still can recall Rip pointing out that one of the main reasons forthe Second World War was the harsh treatment of Germany bythe Peace of Versailles.]

Stelzer also points out that Rip defended Herman Ottenwhen the faculty of Concordia, St. Louis, demanded that Ottenapologize [to the faculty for disseminating information inregards to professors holding and teaching false doctrine]. Thefaculty then refused to certify him as a candidate for the publicministry. Rip urged Otten to apologize on the basis of the fac-ulty’s promise to deal with all aberrations. Rip’s words: “Wehave not time for debate. Love will do the extra!” Stelzer writes,“Obviously, Rip’s defense of Otten was an embarrassment forthe Seminary. Rip did not fit the new breed of ‘union men’ withwhich the Seminary was padding its ranks” (p. ). Stelzer alsocovers the change in direction regarding unionism and biblicalcriticism that took place at the time Rip was in “Summer” and“Fall” years—quite fairly!

Suelflow was on target when he said that this book woulddo a lot for us in the LCMS. In this review I have not touchedon Rip’s writings, especially in the area of creationism andbirth control. Read the book. The cover design by Arla Ander-son, Crookston, Minnesota, is very inviting. (I do believe thatChristian News tilted the St. Louis seminary’s Luther Tower abit on the cover.)

Martin R. TaddeyTrinity Lutheran Church

Campus Pastor at Stanford UniversityPalo Alto, California

The Emperor and the Gods. By Daniel N. Schowalter. Minneapo-lis: Fortress Press, . pages. Paper.

■ Of the sixty Roman emperors between Augustus and Con-stantine, no fewer than thirty-six were deified by a subservientSenate. What, exactly, did this mean for the religious climate ofthe Empire in general, and its relationship to Christianity in par-ticular? In another of the Harvard Dissertations in Religion (No.), Daniel N. Schowalter, Associate Professor of Religion atCarthage College, provides specific answers from the time of Tra-jan that are firmly anchored in two principal sources: the Pane-gyricus of Pliny the Younger, and evidence from the literature,coinage, and monuments from the reign of Trajan (AD –).

Pliny regularly appears in early Christian history because ofhis famous letter of inquiry to Trajan (ca. AD ) regarding theChristians that were indicted before him in Bithynia, the provincehe administered at the time. Trajan’s moderate—almost toler-ant—response is well known: Don’t seek out the Christians forpersecution, although the law must take its course in the case ofthose properly indicted.

Rather than limit himself to another commentary on thesedocuments, Schowalter focuses instead on the panegyric for Tra-jan that Pliny delivered upon assuming the consulship in AD .This address proves most revealing in reflecting senatorial opin-ion of the relationship between the emperor and the gods ofGreco–Roman paganism, at least in the city of Rome during Tra-jan’s administration.

In briefest summary, the emperor is not yet on a plane ofequality with the gods, since the Panegyricus “emphasized amutual relationship in which Trajan recognized his indebtednessto the gods, and the importance of displaying that indebtednessby acts of piety” (p. ). While Pliny claims that Trajan was cho-sen by the gods and intercedes with them on behalf of his people,sacrifices are offered in behalf of the emperor, not to him, at leastin Rome. Apotheosis, nevertheless, attended thirty-six of theemperors after death, as noted. In the provinces, however, wor-ship of a living emperor was permitted, and certainly one deifiedafter death. Schowalter’s greatest credit is to discredit sweepingidentifications of an “imperial” or “Jovian theology” that somescholars have unjustifiably foisted on second-century Rome.There was no unified theological system in the Empire:

the relationship between the emperor and the gods wasnot a static thing. The portrayal of the relationshipchanged from emperor to emperor, and even within thereign of a single emperor (p. ).

Accordingly, Schowalter argues that many generalizationsabout the Caesars and the deities are less than helpful, and oneought instead to pursue time-specific and emperor-specificresearch on their relationships. I would further suggest that theybe also location-specific, since any pagan “orthodoxy” at Rome inthis regard was not always emulated in the Roman provinces,some of which inclined toward earlier and fuller deification of theRoman emperors, as noted.

On a critical note, Schowalter’s extremely late datings forseveral New Testament documents may well be questioned.

Peter he relegates to the age of Trajan—as do Perrin, Koester,and some other scholars—and he seems to imply that the Pas-toral Epistles are associated with the reign of Hadrian (AD

–)! To date, no convincing evidence has been adduced thatthese documents were not written in the first century.

Another objection is more in the nature of a quibble: in thehandsomely illustrated Appendix , it would have been muchmore helpful to the reader if the respective captions had beenplaced under each of the coins, reliefs, arches, and columns pic-tured there, rather than in one inaugural listing, which necessi-tates much thumbing back and forth. Otherwise, this is a meticu-lous study. Some sections easily transcend the thesis format, andthe subject matter certainly suggests its own importance forunderstanding the relationship between early Christianity andthe Roman Empire.

Paul L. MaierWestern Michigan University

Kalamazoo, Michigan

Jonah. By James Limburg. Old Testament Library. Louisville:Westminster/John Knox Press. . pages. Cloth.

■ The author of this stimulating commentary, is Professor ofOld Testament at Luther Theological Seminary in St. Paul, Min-nesota. The volume is a welcome addition to the Old TestamentLibrary, which to date contains commentaries on more than halfof the books of the Old Testament.

Limburg combines thorough scholarship with a clear, flow-ing style. His well-chosen bibliography includes the names of thegreat reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin along with manyreputable contemporary scholars. The numerous footnotes arehelpful not only in identifying his sources, but also in further elu-cidating statements in the commentary. The twenty-five-pageappendix contains interesting comments about the book and thetitle character from Old Testament apocryphal books, the histo-rian Josephus, Jewish rabbis, the Koran and other sources ofIslam, and the reformers Luther and Calvin. From those sourceswe are reminded that Jonah has fascinated people from ancienttimes to the present.

In his research Limburg also visited churches, art museums,and other locations that contain paintings and sculptures repre-senting Jonah. In the preface to this volume he says: “The inci-dent involving the prophet and the great fish has captured theimagination of poets and novelists, painters and dramatists,sculptors and song-writers, architects and toy makers, to a degreematched by few stories in and out of the Bible.”

Of the many commendable features of this book thisreviewer will mention only a few. The author’s own translation isvery good. He communicates the message of the Hebrew text inclear, modern English. He points out the range of meanings ofcertain Hebrew words that occur repeatedly: “proclaim,” “evil,”“great,” and “appoint,” to mention a few.

His outline of the book is very helpful. He divides it intoseven parts as follows, according to the numbering of the Englishversions: The Runaway (:–), The Storm (:–), The Fish (:

– :), The Reassignment (:–a), The City (:b–), TheConfession (:–), The Question (:–).

Limburg’s comments throughout the book are very helpful.He draws interesting parallels between Elijah and Jonah. Eachwas sent on challenging missions to proclaim God’s word, and atthe time of disappointment each asked the Lord to take his life( Kgs :; Jon :–).

In his comments on Jonah :, in which Jonah confesses hisfaith in God while a runaway on the ship, Limburg pertinentlyremarks: “Somehow his quite correct confession of faith ringshollow, coming from one who has been neither praying norpitching in and who in fact admits that he is on the run from hisGod!” (p. ).

Regarding Jonah’s prayer from the belly of the big fish inchapter two, the author points out numerous passages from thePsalms that Jonah quoted as he prayed. Those verses give evi-dence of Jonah’s familiarity with the Old Testament.

The author emphasizes God’s active role in the activities anddestiny of the Gentile nations as well as the people of Israel. Healso stresses that God loves all people and wants them to repent oftheir sins and be saved. The author also accepts the many mira-cles in the book of Jonah. In his comments on the three New Tes-tament references to Jonah (Mt:–, :– and Lk:–) hemaintains that Jonah’s three-day stay in the belly of the fish is asign prefiguring the death and resurrection of Jesus. Many mod-ern commentators will not admit that.

While this reviewer finds himself in agreement with a greatdeal in the book, he finds himself in disagreement with some ofthe author’s findings.

Regarding the historicity of the events related in the book ofJonah, Limburg states in the introduction: “Jonah should beunderstood alongside the story about the trees told by Jotham(Jgs :–) or the story about the lamb that Nathan told David( Sm ) or the parables that Jesus told. None of these storiesever ‘happened’ but each of them carried—and continues tocarry—a powerful message. The book of Jonah may be describedas a fictional story developed around a historical character fordidactic purposes” (p. ). But didn’t Jesus Christ accept the his-toricity of both the character and the events? If Jonah’s experiencein the belly of the fish was only fictional, how could Jesus refer toit as an event that actually took place? What comfort can wederive from Jesus’ reference to that incident as a sign of his ownbodily resurrection, if that event did not take place?

Limburg also gives a late date for the authorship of Jonah,partly based on what he calls “postexilic vocabulary” (p. ). Theargument from vocabulary is rather questionable. He later doesconclude that “determining the date” is “such an elusive andprobably impossible task” (p. ). He clings to a late date ofauthorship, however, which would eliminate Jonah as the author.

This reviewer finds himself in disagreement with that posi-tion. As one of the twelve minor prophets, Jonah was includedalong with the other eleven, from Hosea through Malachi. In theHebrew Bible the twelve are counted as one book, just as Isaiah,Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are each one book. In the case of each ofthe other eleven minor prophets, it is clear from the openingverse that the prophet is the author. Why then should the book ofJonah be an exception? Although the opening verse of the book

of Jonah reads differently, we can conclude from the expression“the Word of the Lord came to Jonah” that it applies to the bookitself as well as to the mission to preach to Nineveh. Further, thatJonah speaks of himself in the third person is not unusual. TheGreek author Xenophon and the Roman author Julius Caesaralso did so consistently in their accounts. This reviewer acceptsJonah himself as the author of the book.

In his comments on Jonah :b (“Yet forty days and Ninevehwill be overthrown!”), eight words in English but only five inHebrew, Limburg draws the common conclusion that thosewords constituted Jonah’s entire message. That would indeed bean extremely short sermon! Wouldn’t it be preferable to regardthose words as his theme, rather than the entire message? Hesurely must have said more than those few words. Whether hespoke in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Akkadian, such a short sermonwould be highly unusual!

In spite of the reservations expressed in the last few para-graphs, this reviewer highly recommends James Limburg’s vol-ume on Jonah as an excellent addition to the reader’s library.

Rudolph E. HonseyBethany Lutheran College

Mankato, Minnesota

St. Paul at the Movies: The Apostle's Dialogue with AmericanCulture. By Robert Jewett. Louisville: Westminster/John KnoxPress, . pages. Paper.

■ “This book,” claims Robert Jewett, “makes a case that Paulinetheology in the American scene should now begin to take accountof the movies” (p. ). Whether or not Jewett actually makes thatcase is another matter. He seems weak in his grasp of both Pauland the cinema.

Jewett points out the dominance of movies in Americanculture, and argues that Christianity should be in dialogue withthe culture. While current attendance in cinema theaters islower than its peak of ninety-five million per week in , thecombined figures for attendance plus video rentals is signifi-cantly higher today, demonstrating that the motion picture is areal influence in American popular culture (p. ). Recent NewTestament scholarship has shown that St. Paul was in tune tothe popular culture of his day, and did much of his evangelizingin and around the workshop, in dialogue with men and womenin familiar settings. From this Jewett envisions an America ofsmall-group discussions with people sitting in living rooms orcoffeehouses, struggling to interpret their lives in the context offilm-and-Bible studies (p. ). He says, “A serious encounterwith movies allows contextual forms of truth to emerge fromthe dialogue itself ” (p. ). Don’t ask me what a “contextualform of truth” is, but it sounds suspicious. It is suspicious. Jew-ett sees truth not as established by either Scripture or confes-sions, but as something that is evolving into new forms for newgenerations, something that can be perceived by the elite. Suchas, we assume, himself. Hence, as he looks at the “texts” ofmovies and Scripture, “the Pauline word is allowed to stand asprimus inter pares ” (p. ).

Things do not improve much when Jewett comments on thefilms themselves. He selects eleven films that were widely viewedwhen first released and then were also popular as videos. Theseare: Star Wars, Amadeus, A Separate Peace, Tender Mercies, GrandCanyon, Tootsie, Ordinary People, Empire of the Sun, Pale Rider,Red Dawn, and Dead Poets Society. How anyone can take up thesubject of religion and the movies and overlook Woody Allen isbeyond me. Broadway Danny Rose, for example, is about graceand forgiveness from beginning to end.

In his discussion of Star Wars, Jewett equates “the Force”with the power of the gospel. In fact, he includes his own trans-lation of Romans :: “For I am not ashamed [of] the gospel: itis the force of God for salvation to all who have faith”(p. ). St.Paul uses the word dynamis. Jewett’s translation seems to be,well, forced. He describes the ritual the film has become forviewers who have seen it twenty or thirty times. Obviouslysomething in the movie has touched a chord in many moviego-ers. Jewett wants to see Star Wars people as potentially attractedto the force of the gospel. But really, some people go out everySaturday midnight to see The Rocky Horror Show. What are theygetting? People make cults out of all sorts of things. A majorflaw in Jewett’s argument appears in this section when he showsno perception whatsoever of the Manichean elements in theGeorge Lucas film. “Come to the Dark Side, Luke,” wheezesDarth Vader in his best melodrama villain’s voice, “I am yourfather.” The three episodes of the Star Wars saga could conceiv-ably run to a thousand and more as the yin and yang of TheForce revolve, first one in ascendance, then the other, good andevil in eternal equipoise.

This combination of prooftexting and missing the point ofboth Scripture and films goes on for the next nine chapters. Ten-der Mercies, for example, the wonderful Horton Foote film thatwon Robert Duvall a long-overdue Oscar, merely serves Jewett asan illustration of the “mercies of God” referred to in Romans :.But what kind of mercy? Jewett says, “The message of the film isthat we have no final assurances, any more than Abraham did.But we can respond in faith to the tender mercies we havereceived” (p. ). Sounds pretty existential to me. The film itselfshows divine grace at work in the life of a washed-up countrysinger/songwriter named Mac Sledge. The famous church scenewhere Mac is baptized is realistic and understated; the Christianwidow who helps Mac reform is portrayed as a sympathetic char-acter. It’s a good story. Sadly, for Jewett it is merely a “text” toillustrate his ideas. The writings of St. Paul are treated the same.The critic is supreme. He absorbs, contains, dominates, and con-trols the word. The art of the movie is not allowed to work itsmagic and surround the critic. Likewise Holy Scripture is kept ata safe, critical distance.

Jewett’s true colors are unfurled most clearly in the finalchapter, in which he looks at Dead Poets Society. In this filmRobin Williams plays a free-spirited English teacher at a stuffy,authoritarian New England prep school. “Carpe diem,” he says,and inspires his adolescent charges to find themselves in therepressive but innocent pre-’s world. “Those of us who areattempting to reinterpret Paul in response to contemporary cul-ture,” says Jewett, “find in this film an example of the conflictbetween ancestral tradition and charismatic gifts” (p. ). Paul is

like the rebellious kid in the movie who wants to be an actorinstead of a businessman like his uptight father. Paul is the revo-lutionary, overturning the establishment orthodoxies of adher-ence to fixed standards of truth and obedience to authority(p. ). We need to cut loose, says Jewett, and “move beyond tra-dition” (p. ).

When is somebody going to make a movie about the coura-geous young confessional Lutheran pastor who struggles to healthe lives of all those poor, shattered people who moved beyondtradition and then reaped what they had sown? I don’t know, butwhen they do, don’t look for a sympathetic review from RobertJewett. He seems not to be really into either the movies or St.Paul. He stands rather within the circle of a kind of bland, mod-ernist theology that keeps the dangerous and unmanageablenatures of both art and Scripture at a safe remove. The result is abook that keeps the reader likewise at a distance. What shall wesay, then? Two thumbs down. I read the book, but the movieswere better.

Frederic W. BaueMessiah Lutheran Church

Tucson Christian Artists’ FellowshipTucson, Arizona

The Contemplative Pastor: Returning to the Art of SpiritualDirection. By Eugene H. Peterson. Grand Rapids: William B.Eerdmans, . pages. Paper.

■ Pastors, put this book on your reading list for next Lent—orany time you feel the pressure is on, when you are confused bythe compromising voices of our culture, when you are tempted tothink the congregation couldn’t exist without you.

Eugene Peterson is not out to make his mark in the world byproviding a “how-to” guide to spirituality. Readers expecting astep-by-step path to spirituality will be disappointed. The authorhas a higher aim and desire. Not enough can be said of thisauthor’s desire to put before the reader the Shepherd and GreatPhysician of our souls, the one whose word gives us boldness topray and authority to declare sins forgiven.

Peterson calls attention to “the naked noun.” Pastors arecalled to a ministry of word and sacrament, not “flurry andworry.” For Peterson, “busy” is not necessarily a flattering adjec-tive to describe the pastor. His reasons bring to mind the timesparishioners have said, “Pastor, I didn’t expect you . . . I knowhow busy you are.” (It is not often that a pastor hears, “I knowhow contemplative you are.”)

Being contemplative or staying on a spiritual course is diffi-cult in our world. All have fallen short, all need the encourage-ment to stand up to the world (the “big, the multitudinous, thenoisy” foe). This book encourages the pastor to be devoted to theproper work for which he has been ordained ( Tim :–). Pas-tor Peterson, observing how culture has damaged the “healthy”title, suggests three strengthening adjectives (not to mention theone used in the book’s title). Peterson calls for the refusal of thedefinitions of pastor conceived by the culture and oftentimesmembers of the flock. The first four chapters of the book clarifythe unbusy, subversive, and apocalyptic pastor.

The pastor’s appointment calendar should not be used toimpress parishioners how little time there is; rather, it is “the toolwith which to get unbusy” for praying, preaching, and listening.Peterson implies that without good planning of time the pastor islikely to concentrate on “getting the job done.” This comes closeto the prophet Haggai’s warning (Hg :). Five biblical passagesare chosen to bring the subversive pastor into focus, and readerswill learn the two reasons they are frequently and easily dis-carded. The apocalyptic pastor is not one who stands around onSunday morning “filling the time with pretentious small talk onhow bad the world is and how wonderful this new stewardshipcampaign is going to be.”

The second part of the book underscores how the Lord’s Daydefines and energizes our lives by means of our Lord’s resurrec-tion and gives a resurrection shape to the week. Prayer cannot beindependent of God’s continuous action in word and sacrament,neither can it be forgotten “between Sundays.” Chapters areintroduced with the author’s well-crafted verse; the final chaptergives space to more poems under the heading “The Word MadeFresh.” In whatever style Peterson writes, God’s objective grace isclear—his spirituality is anything but subjective. In the Foreword(part of an interview given during his sabbatical), he offers hisunderstanding of Divine Service: “I’m gradually learning thatprayer is not conditioned or authenticated by my feelings.” ManyLutherans need to learn this and why it is important to say it aswe live in, but not of, the world, which often translates the gospelinto a theology of glory.

Despite the author’s indirect acceptance of women’s ordina-tion, he provides excellent supplemental reading for pastorsinterested in developing and maintaining a structured devotionallife. Peterson steers pastors toward growth in the word, faithfulpreaching, and listening. Taking time in these will leave time foreverything else. Pastors have more to do than “run the church.”

This book is sure to bring a refreshing perspective as you goabout your law and gospel task, as you keep your spiritualgrowth, faithfulness, and practice in check. Elders may gain atruer perspective of the pastoral office after you take themthrough this book.

Rev. C. David MoserConover, North Carolina

BRIEFLY NOTED

The Daily Exercise of Piety. By Johann Gerhard. Translated byMatthew Harrison. Fort Wayne: Repristination Press, .

■ Thanks to the diligence of Matthew Harrison, one of the gemsof classical Lutheran devotional literature is now accessible for Eng-lish-speaking Lutherans. Written in by the arch-theologian ofLutheran Orthodoxy, Johann Gerhard, The Daily Exercise of Pietyprovides a window into the piety that was shaped by confessionalLutheran theology after the Reformation. Gerhard arranges hismanual in tour parts: () Our sins, the forgiveness of which is to beasked on account of Christ; () The benefits from God, for whichhumble thanksgiving is to be offered; () Our need, wherein we are

to pray for preservation in the faith through the Gospel; () Theneed of our neighbor, where we are to intercede for him in regardto those items that pertain to temporal and eternal life.

Gerhard’s piety is shaped by Luther’s assertion that theChristian lives outside of himself by faith in Christ and love forthe neighbor. Here we see a piety that is grounded in the incarna-tion and atonement of Jesus Christ. It is a piety that draws its lifefrom the Divine Service. Sacramental imagery abounds. Unlikelater Pietism, Gerhard’s piety is a churchly piety. In The DailyExercise of Piety we see a piety of the cross informed not by the“cross mysticism “of the Middle Ages but by the word of the crosspreached and received by faith for life and salvation.

For All the Saints: A Prayer Book by and for the Church (Vol-ume —Year : Advent to the Day of Pentecost). Compiled andEdited by Frederick J. Schumacher with Dorothy A. Zelenko.Delhi, New York: American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, .

■ For All the Saints takes its place alongside John Doberstein’sThe Minister’s Prayer Book, Herbert Lindemann’s The Daily Office,George Kraus’s The Pastor at Prayer, and Robert Sauer’s DailyPrayer as a book of daily prayer. While Doberstein, Kraus, andSauer prepared their books specifically for pastors, the compilers ofFor All the Saints intend their book for the laity as well as the clergy.The book is attractively bound with a brown imitation leathercover, and its appearance is enhanced with illustrations by JeffreyLarson and reproductions of icons from the Orthodox tradition.The book itself is modeled after the Roman Catholic The Liturgy ofthe Hours. Unlike most other devotional manuals, For All the Saintsprints out all the material needed under one cover.

An opening prayer, Scripture reading, and a devotional read-ing are provided for each day of the year. The Scripture readings aredrawn from the “Two Year Daily Lectionary” from the LutheranBook of Worship and are printed out in full from the Revised Stan-dard Version of the Bible. The daily devotional readings are gath-ered from a wide variety of sources ranging over every period ofthe church’s life. The editors were widely ecumenical in their selec-tion of readings: C. F. W. Walther, George Washington, RudolfBultmann, and Walter A. Maier are among the authors incorpo-rated into the book. Unfortunately, the volume makes no provisionfor the use of hymnody. The entire Psalter is included, as is the textof the Small Catechism and the orders for Morning Prayer, EveningPrayer, and Compline from Lutheran Book of Worship.

Against the Protestant Gnostics. By Philip J. Lee. New York:Oxford University Press, .

■ This is a paperback reprint of the original, published in

but out of print for the last few years. Against the Protestant Gnos-tics is a must read. Lee, a minister in the United Church of Canada,asserts that North American Christianity in both its “liberal” and“conservative” forms has departed from the concretions toembrace gnosticism. Lee sees such seemingly diverse movementsas feminism and the Church Growth Movement as manifestationsof gnosticism. Creativity is elevated over faithfulness: “As the

A CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS

The editors of LOGIA hereby request manuscripts, book reviews and forum material forthe following issues and themes:

ISSUE THEME DEADLINE

Epiphany Communio in Sacris—Church Fellowship August ,

Eastertide Lutheranism in America September ,

Holy Trinity Office & Offices—Ministry & Diaconate December ,

Reformation Theology of the Cross & Justificaiton May ,

Send all submissions to the appropriate editors and addresses as listed on the insidefront cover. Please include IBM or Macintosh diskette with manuscript whenever possi-ble. (Specify word processing program and version used.)

ancient gnostics celebrated ‘every form of creative invention asevidence that a person has become spiritually alive’ in certain cir-cles of American Protestantism anything goes as long as it is cre-ative, liberating, and expressive of individual freedom” (p. ).Church leaders have become unable to distinguish between gnosisand faith; therefore Jesus is reduced to “Jesus the experience” (p.). Lee concludes, “Given the strong resurgence of the gnosticmovement in our own day, it becomes the burden of all who cher-ish the positive tradition of Protestant Christianity and long for arenewal of its witness, to clarify the distinctions between gnosti-cism and the faith of the Church. For every teacher, preacher, andlay leader within the church the need is to make plain the differ-ence between infinite claims and earthly gratitude, between gnosisand faith, between escape and pilgrimage, between self and com-munity, between exclusive and the inclusive and between the neb-ulous and the concrete” (pp. –). Lee’s book contains awealth of insights relative to the church’s liturgical life, catechesis,evangelization, pastoral care, and Christian ethics. It deserves aplace at the top of your summer reading list.

The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. By Mark Noll. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, .

■ Mark Noll notes that “this book is an epistle from a woundedlover. As one who is in love with the life of the mind but who hasalso been drawn to faith in Christ through the love of evangelicalProtestants, I find myself in a situation where wounding is com-monplace” (p. ix). The author writes not as a dispassionateobserver but as one who lives and moves within Evangelicalism asa professor at Wheaton College. Noll traces the history of Evan-gelicalism’s engagement with learning and asserts that “the scan-dal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evan-gelical mind” (p. ).

Fit Bodies—Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think andWhat to Do about It. By Os Guinness. Grand Rapids: Baker BookHouse, .

■ Guinness does on a popular level what Noll does on a moreacademic plane in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Accord-ing to Guinness, American Christianity retreated from the classi-cal Christian mind in the period from to the Civil Warthrough eight damaging trends: polarization, pietism, primi-tivism, populism, pluralism, pragmatism, philistinism, and pre-millennialism. The Christian mind was eclipsed by “a ghostmind” that left Christianity vulnerable to “the idiot culture” inwhich the church now lives, and in all too many instances thisculture is shaping the life of the church (through entertainmentevangelism and the like).

Martin Luther, Theologian of the Church: Collected Essays ofGeorge W. Forell in Honor of his Seventy-fifth Birthday. Edited byWilliam Russell. St. Paul: Word and World, .

■ George Forell has devoted his career to the study of Luther,primarily Luther’s political and ethical thought. This birthdayvolume is divided into two parts. Part is entitled “On Luther”and contains twelve essays by Forell on Luther ranging from “Jus-tification and Eschatology in Luther’s Thought” to “Luther’s The-ology and Foreign Policy.” Part has as its theme “On Churchand Theology.” This section is comprised of fourteen articles onconfessional and contemporary themes. Although Forell spentmost of his professional career on the faculty at the University ofIowa, he has remained a theologian intensely committed to theol-ogy for the sake of the church, as his writings in this volumedemonstrate. All of the entries in Martin Luther, Theologian of theChurch first appeared in other publications, mostly in journals.

JTP

THE PROBLEM WITH A MIGHTY

FORTRESS

“A side-splitting spoof” and “tongue-in-cheek” are words found onthe dust jacket to describe How to Become a Bishop WithoutBeing Religious, by Charles Merrill Smith, then the pastor of Wes-ley Methodist Church in Bloomington, Illinois (©1965 by CharlesMerrill Smith). Thirty years later, the text is almost too true to befunny. This excerpt is from pages 79–85 in the chapter entitled“Conducting Public Worship: An Exercise in Nostalgia.” Used bypermission of Doubleday, a division of Bantam Doubleday DellPublishing Group, Inc.

One hymn which is sung with great frequency in manychurches is Luther’s A Mighty Fortress. It is high on the sacred hitparade among seminarians, theologians and the musically edu-cated. This fact alone is enough to make the parish pastor questionits acceptability in his congregation, but there are other sound andcogent reasons why it is a bad hymn. Notice the text. It says:

A Mighty Fortress is our God,A bulwark never failing;Our helper He, amid the floodOf mortal ills prevailing:

Or this:

Did we in our own strength confideOur striving would be losing;Were not the right Man on our side,The Man of God’s own choosing:

LOGIA ForumSHORT STUDIES AND COMMENTARY

The hymn has four stanzas, all in this same lugubrious vein,stressing the power and greatness of God in contrast with themiserable helplessness of man left to his own devices. This is anobjective hymn. Its weaknesses are as follows:

() It gives all the attention and praise to God and none to theworshiper. It talks incessantly about the Almighty and Hisbattle with the powers of darkness—a theological conceptremote from the thinking and experience of the goodChristian souls under our pastoral care, and too vague forthem to grasp or to interest them. It speaks in very uncom-plimentary terms of man, and not many people get anyspiritual uplift from being told they are miserable and inef-fective creatures.

() It lacks any warm, human, comforting, inspiring sentiment.In one stanza, for example, it advises us to “Let goods andkindred go, this mortal life also.” You could scan a thousandcongregations with radar and go through them with aGeiger counter without detecting even one Christian who iseven faintly inclined to follow such advice.

() “A Mighty Fortress” is not sung in any but Lutheran SundaySchools, and was not in the repertoire of the small rural andtown churches in which most of your congregation wasraised. Therefore, it has no connection with any previouspleasant experience of theirs. Therefore it has a nostalgia-evoking rating of absolute zero.

() The music to which it is set (Ein’ Feste Burg—also by Mar-tin Luther) is not a good tune. It has no lilt or bounce to it,no blood-quickening rhythm, no soul-soothing strainswhich linger in the heart. It is, for your purposes—and inspite of the high esteem in which it has been held by musi-cal and theological highbrows for over four hundredyears—a bad hymn. . . .

The Greatest Hymn Ever Written Perhaps the greatest hymn ever written, judged not by the

limited and unrealistic standards of professional church musi-cians but by the tests of usefulness, popularity and effectivenessin our battle to promote and encourage the Christian life at thelevel of the parish ministry, is C. Austin Miles’ masterpiece In

ARTICLES FOUND IN LOGIA FORUM MAY BE REPRINTED FREELY FOR STUDY AND

dialogue in congregations and conferences with the understanding thatappropriate bibliographical references are made. Initialed pieces arewritten by contributing editors whose names are noted on our mast-head. Brief articles may be submitted for consideration by sendingthem to LOGIA Forum, N. Eighth St., Vincennes, IN –.Because of the large number of unsolicited materials received, we regretthat we cannot publish them all or notify authors in advance of theirpublication. Since LOGIA is “a free conference in print,” readers shouldunderstand that views expressed here are the sole responsibility of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the editors.

the Garden. Since it is almost a perfect model of what you arelooking for in the hymns you select for public worship, we quotethe entire text.

Stanza I come to the garden alone,While the dew is still on the roses,And the Voice I hear Falling on my earThe Son of God discloses.

Refrain

And He walks with me,And He talks with me,And He tells me I am His own;And the joy we share As we tarry there,None other has ever known.

Stanza He speaks and the sound of His VoiceIs so sweet the birds Hush their singingAnd the melody That He gives to meWithin my heart is ringing.

Refrain

Stanza I’d stay in the garden with Him,Though the night around me be falling,But He bids me go; Through the voice of woeHis voice to me is calling.

Refrain

You will notice that the personal pronouns are italicized.When the hymn is sung through with refrain after each stanza,the personal pronoun is used twenty-seven times. This is a mea-sure of the surpassing skill of the writer and tells us that he was aman not only of extraordinary spiritual sensitivity and insight,but knowledgeable in the tastes and religious needs of the kind ofgood Christian people you will be serving.

For one thing, he never lets their attention stray from them-selves, which is the subject, he knows, in which they are mostvitally interested. In the second place, he throws the switch acti-vating the nostalgia mechanism in the first five words, “I cometo the Garden . . . ” Everybody has had a garden, or has been in agarden. “Garden” is a word associated with beauty, pleasure,peace, retreat from the world, man’s original innocence before itwas spoiled by sin, etc. Then the hymn writer nails down thisidyllic memory picture with the line “While the dew is still onthe roses . . . ” A lovely rose dampened by pure atmosphericmoisture (who thinks of atomic fallout or belching chimneysbefouling God’s good clean air at a time like this?) is a symbol—to the average man scratching out a living five days a week at ajob he despises, surrounded and saturated with the ugly, thedirty, the unlovely things of life—of created perfection, of com-plete separation from this sordid, wicked world, of bliss beyondany happiness his earth-bound human imaginings are capableof encompassing. Indubitably, these few words alone are enoughto do the job we want done. Limitations of space do not permitus to analyze it further, but use the hymn often, about everyother Sunday or so.

It will strike you as you pore over your hymnal, that the pre-ferred subjective-type numbers in most cases have texts whichare little short of gibberish. What does it mean, for example,when that grand old favorite of the years, “Sweet Hour of Prayer,”has us sing,

Till, from Mt. Pisgah’s lofty heightI view my home, and take my flight:This robe of flesh I’ll drop, and riseTo seize the everlasting prize,And shout, while passing through the air,Farewell, farewell, sweet hour of prayer?

If you didn’t know this is part of a hymn which has com-forted countless Christian souls, you might take it for a messagein code which defies all efforts to break it. Nor can you escape theconclusion, as you segregate the good hymns from the bad ones,that very few modern, prosperous, comfortable and contentedChristians can sing these precious old religious ballads and meana word of what they are saying.

Picture, if you will, the successful, hard-nosed executives inyour congregation arriving at the church in their Cadillacs andLincolns dressed in Society Brand suits with their wives in minkstoles joining in,

Others may choose this vain world if they will,I will follow Jesus;All else forsaking, will cleave to Him stillI will follow Him

or imagine the president of the local bank chanting,

Take my silver and my gold,Not a mite would I withhold . . .

or a wealthy bachelor with a stable of comely lady friends and ataste for exotic foods and rare wines solemnly intoning,

Earthly pleasures vainly call me . . . Nothing worldly shall enthrall me . . .

or the average collection of Christian saints who know full well thatthe church is split into denominational segments too numerous tocount pooling their enthusiastic voices in,

We are not divided, all one body we,One in hope and doctrine, one in charity.

Whenever someone takes a poll to determine the most popu-lar hymn of all, it invariably turns out to be “The Old RuggedCross.” On the whole, it has probably generated more religioussentiment, more holy horsepower in more people than any othersacred music. Yet it has four stanzas, plus refrain, which affirm thatabove all else I love that old rugged cross, nothing else has nearly somuch attraction for me, so I’ll cherish it as my dearest possession, astatement which practically nobody in your flock can make and beeven in the general vicinity of the truth. But Sunday after Sunday,they make it. And when asked to name their favorite hymn replywithout hesitation “The Old Rugged Cross.”

Here is a mystery. How can relatively sane, intelligent peoplehappily sing what amounts to nonsense, or claim through song,to believe what they obviously do not believe, or promise via

hymnody to do what they haven’t the faintest inclination to do,and would be stunned if, after the amen, were told to go and dowhat they just finished saying they were going to do (“Take mysilver and my gold, Not a mite would I withhold” for example).As you ponder this paradox, your confidence in the author’scounsel may be weakened.

But we urge you to respect our long experience in these mat-ters. And the explanation of the phenomenon is obvious. It isthat people hardly ever pay any attention to the words when theysing hymns. It is as if they know, in advance, that the words don’tmean anything anyway. If they like the tune, if it is associatedwith pleasant experiences, if the music falls agreeably on theirears they make no demands on the text of rationality or poeticquality or anything else.

Though the late H. L. Mencken claimed no one ever wentbroke underestimating the taste of the American public, there is alevel of taste and quality (quite low, to be sure) below which youshould not descend when you classify a hymn as good. Theauthor advises against the use of such numbers as “Life Is Like aMountain Railroad,” “That Old Time Religion,” and “There Ain’tNo Flies on Jesus,” no matter how soul-stirring they may be.Also, as you make your way upward in the grade of churches youpastor, you should remember to throw in one bad (objective)hymn each Sunday as a sop to the minority of culture vultures inthe congregation. This protects you against any possible accusa-tion that you are a man of low tastes and insensitive ear.

THE LWML PLEDGE

The International Lutheran Women’s Missionary League(LWML), an official auxiliary of the LCMS, has been serving mis-sions with many labors of love for over fifty years. It is appropri-ate that we remember this organization in our prayers of thanksto the Lord. Yet we also pray that this auxiliary is not given overto beliefs that are at odds with the faith.

The emphases found in published LWML prayer servicesand “LWML Sunday” liturgies often end up more Reformed thanLutheran. The accent falls more on what we are to do for Godthan what God has done for us in Christ. Take, for example, theLWML Pledge.

In fervent gratitude for the Savior’s dying love andHis blood-bought gift of redemption, we dedicateourselves to Him with all that we are and have; andin obedience to His call for workers in the harvestfields, we pledge Him our willing service whereverand whenever He has need of us. We consecrate toour Savior our hands to work for Him, our feet togo on His errands, our voice to sing His praises,our lips to proclaim His redeeming love, our silverand our gold to extend His kingdom, our will to doHis will, and every power of our life to the greattask of bringing the lost and the erring into eternalfellowship with Him.

Dedicate. Pledge. Consecrate. These are stout words. Theymust not be taken lightly if they are ever to indicate truly whatthey say. This is no place for naïveté. In other words, don’t say

them unless you mean them—and don’t “mean” them if youcannot accomplish them. As Ecclesiastes :– reminds us:

Guard your steps when you go to the house ofGod. Go near to listen rather than to offer the sac-rifice of fools, who do not know that they dowrong. Do not be quick with your mouth, do notbe hasty in your heart to utter anything beforeGod. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so letyour words be few. As a dream comes when thereare many cares, so the speech of a fool when thereare many words. When you make a vow to God, donot delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure infools; fulfill your vow. It is better not to vow than tomake a vow and not fulfill it. Do not let yourmouth lead you into sin. And do not protest to thetemple messenger, “My vow was a mistake.” Whyshould God be angry at what you say and destroythe work of your hands? Much dreaming andmany words are meaningless.

We take note in the Scriptures of those who made pledgesthat were more grand than their abilities: the Israelites who said,“We will do everything the LORD has commanded us” (Ex :),just before they commissioned Aaron to build the golden calf;Jephthah, who vowed, “If You give the Ammonites into myhands, whatever comes out of the door of my house, I will sacri-fice,” (Jdg : ff.) before he realized that his own daughter mightbe first from that door; and Peter, who pledged, “Lord, I amready to go with You, both to prison and to death,” (Lk :)sometime prior to denying his Lord three times. What was theresult of the zeal that made such grandiose pledges?

What would happen if we were judged by the pledges wemade? In practice, what evidence do we have to show that thosewho take the LWML pledge have actually dedicated all that theyare and have? Do contribution statistics testify to this? If we wereto note the response when the church bulletin calls for volun-teers, would every woman who takes this pledge really be able tohelp “wherever and whenever”? Do we actually see them bring-ing “every power of their lives” to work in the congregation? Thatreally would be something! Or do members of the LWML believethat we shouldn’t be so picky about taking the words of thepledge literally? Why then, speak them in the first place?

Whenever pledges have been based on human sincerity,dedication, zeal, or fervor, the end result falls short. As Corinthians : says, “For it is not the one who commendshimself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord com-mends.” Words on the lips of Christ’s people do not commendthemselves to God, but rather confess that God has commendedhimself to us in Christ: his dedication to us through the forgive-ness of sins for Jesus’ sake, his pledge to us through Holy Bap-tism, his consecrating us through the means of grace.

These are the gospel by which we are made alive to do theworks of service that are well-pleasing in his sight. He can hold usaccountable if we pledge something but fail to accomplish it, butwhere he has pledged himself to us, we live in joy and peace. Heis faithful and he will do it. He will not fail or disappoint us. Hebreaks and hinders every evil counsel and will such as the will of

the devil, the world, and our flesh that would not let his name behallowed nor let his kingdom come. We, therefore, will not com-mend ourselves and all that we have to God by our ferventpledges. Rather, he commends himself and all that he has to usthrough Jesus Christ our Lord!

The LWML has worked the synodical logo into its own—why not also reform the pledge in such a way that incorporatesthe blessed words from Luther’s Small Catechism? The pledgethen takes on the nature of a confession of faith: “Being purchasedand won from all sins, from death, and from the power of thedevil, we rejoice that we have been called, gathered, enlightened,and sanctified to live under Christ in his kingdom of faith—toserve him with everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessed-ness. He has provided all that we need for this body and life evenas he gives his Word to be taught in its truth and purity with theresult that we lead godly lives. He defends us against all danger,guarding and protecting us from all evil without any merit orworthiness on our part to thank and to praise, to serve and obeyhim until he gives eternal life to us and all believers.”

JAB

THE OF ’ IN ’A “Statement” of protest was made by forty-four influential mem-bers of the Missouri Synod in . This document decried “allman-made walls and exclusivistic traditions which would hinderthe free course of the Gospel in the world,” and insisted that “fel-lowship [is] possible without complete agreement in details of doc-trine and practice which have never been considered divisive in theLutheran Church.” Dr. Jon Diefenthaler’s article in the Novem-ber/December issue of the Southeastern District of the LCMS,SED News (p. ) commends the spirit of the Statement of theForty-four. Is it possible that the subscribers of the Statement accu-rately described what the LCMS was to become in the fifty yearsthat followed?

On September –, , a group of men assembled at theStevens Hotel in Chicago. The group included five seminary pro-fessors, at least one district president, circuit counselors, andnumerous prominent pastors of the Lutheran Church—MissouriSynod. The meeting included such notables as: Theodore Graeb-ner, William F. Arndt, O. A. Geiseman, Richard R. Caemmerer,Oswald Hoffmann, O. P. Kretzmann, and many others. ColoradoDistrict President E. J. Friedrichs called the meeting. The statedpurpose was:

(To study a) pernicious spirit characterized by bar-ren, negative attitudes, unevangelical techniques indealing with the problems of the individual and theChurch, unsympathetic legalistic practices, a self-complacent and separatistic narrowness, and anutter disregard for the fundamental law of Christ-ian love.

Furthermore, the meeting was intended to be “sane andsoundly Lutheran, evangelical, positive, and constructive.” Theresult of this meeting was a document commonly known as the

“Statement of the Forty-Four” (named after the original signers),or the “Chicago Statement.” In the months that followed, thenumber of signers went up to over . The “Statement” con-sisted of twelve theses, with the corresponding rejections. Thedoctrine of the church was the central question of the Statement.

The official response to the Statement was quite negative.The President of Synod, Dr. John Behnken, protested against itsissuance, and requested that it not be mailed to the ministeriumof the Missouri Synod until he could discuss the matters with thesigners. This request was denied. In February of the Praesid-ium and District Presidents met with the “Statementarians” (asthey came to be known) in order to hear twelve supporting essayspresented on behalf of the signers, later published as Speaking theTruth in Love. They then agreed to set up two committees (the“Ten and Ten”) to discuss the document with an effort towardreconciliation. Dr. Behnken made it clear to his committee thathe believed there was false doctrine in the Statement.

The two committees met in joint session for a total of elevendays. Most of their time was spent discussing the exegesis ofRomans :–. The rejections under Thesis argued that theabove verses did not apply to the situation in the LutheranChurch of America, and that there could and should be unityamong the various Lutheran bodies in the United States.

Before all of the issues could be brought to light, however,the project was cut short. Dr. Behnken reached an agreementwith the Statementarians that they would “withdraw the State-ment as a basis for discussion.” This was not in any way a retrac-tion. The President’s committee protested at some length toDr. Behnken, with no success. Ten of the thirteen members of thePresident’s Ten (there were three alternates) submitted a memor-ial to the convention, protesting this withdrawal and sub-mitting five declarations which could have been used as a basisfor dealing with false doctrine. The memorial was bypassedbecause the Statement had been withdrawn as a basis for discus-sion, thus effectively ignoring the entire purpose of the memorialin the first place. Several of the President’s committee objected sostrenuously to the Statement and related issues that they later leftthe Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. The Springfield Semi-nary issued a condemnation of the Statement. It was also one ofthe last straws in Dr. P. E. Kretzmann’s long controversy with theMissouri Synod.

As for Missouri, Dr. Behnken consistently held that therewas false doctrine in the Statement, but the Statementarians wereneither reprimanded nor commended. Officially, it is as if it hadnever happened. Rather than deal with the Statement throughnormal synodical channels, from the very start it was handled inan extraordinary manner. Both committees agreed that the lackof honesty and forthrightness on the part of the synod set a badprecedent. One Statementarian later lamented that the wholeprocess could only be described as “Machiavellian.” Reconcilia-tion took precedence over truth. The doctrine and practice of thesynod was changing, but the outward appearance was that thesynod was still the monolithic bastion of Lutheran orthodoxy ithad always claimed as its birthright. The events of the next thirtyyears proved that to be less than the truth.

The two committees spent the overwhelming amount oftheir time discussing the exegesis of Romans :– and its

modern application. As the Statement approached the question,there were two alternatives: either complete fellowship with alland sundry who claimed the name “Lutheran,” or no prayer fel-lowship with anyone outside of the Synodical Conference. Forthe Statementarians, it was enough that the various Lutheranbodies subscribed to the same Confessions, and that this was thebasis for fellowship. This of course was the view of the ULCA. Byway of contrast, the historic Synodical Conference position wasthat church fellowship existed when both bodies were in agree-ment over the actual doctrine taught and practiced, not in theuse of the Confessions as merely a convenient nametag.

All of this talk about the basis for church fellowship bringsus to the fundamental question that the Statement raises: what isthe church? It is clear from the supporting essays and later writ-ings of these same men (and their supporters) that there weretwo seemingly contradictory perspectives emerging in the synodconcerning the doctrine of the church. The first was that thechurch was essentially visible, and the second that only the localcongregation could be regarded as “church.” Thesis of theStatement is perhaps the pivotal thesis, although it was barelymentioned at the time:

We affirm the historic Lutheran position concerningthe central importance of the una sancta and thelocal congregation. We believe that there should be are-emphasis of the privileges and responsibilities ofthe local congregation also in the matter of determin-ing questions of fellowship.

We therefore deplore the new and improperemphasis on the synodical organization as basic inour consideration of the problems of the Church.We believe that no organizational loyalty can takethe place of loyalty to Christ and His Church.

As they later explained it, groups such as the synod, Germanterritorial churches, the World Council of Churches, and theLutheran World Federation are external organizations, and notchurches. It is certainly true that the external trappings of theseare of human organization. The danger is the phrase organiza-tional loyalty. If membership in a synod is equated with mereorganizational loyalty, then we are free to shop around until wefind the organization that offers the most benefits. Congregationswhose loyalty is to a common, orthodox doctrine and practiceand whose synodical affiliation is a reflection of this primary loy-alty, become diluted into hopeless congregationalism or evenindividualism. While this tendency certainly sounds American, itis hardly biblical or confessional. Who would die out of loyalty toIBM, AT&T, or McChurch?

Twenty years later Martin L. Kretzmann, an ardent sup-porter of the Statement, wrote a document entitled the “MissionAffirmations,” which was accepted by the Missouri Synod at theDetroit Convention in . In this document Kretzmann calledthe Evangelical Lutheran Church a “confessional movementwithin the total body of Christ.” Calling the Lutheran Church areforming or confessional movement is “church talk” for whatboth Schleiermacher and Barth called a “theological school ofthought.” When the Lutheran Church is relegated to the place of

a reforming movement, there is no longer room for suchanachronisms as Augustana VII or the Formula of Concord,Article X. These become museum pieces from a bygone age.“Lutheranism” then becomes a sort of churchly cheerleader fortruth, making a lot of noise, but never on the court. The marks ofthe church, namely, the gospel rightly preached and the sacra-ments rightly administered, become lost in a dazzling array of“ecumenical” slogans and pious words about unity and love.

What is lost in all of this is the understanding of the churchhidden under the cross. It is common nomenclature in Missourito use the terms visible and invisible church. Some of the State-mentarians later rejected these terms. At the same time, however,there are not two churches. As Herman Sasse put it: “the churchis always both an actual concrete gathering of people whom wecan see, and also the communion of saints, the people of God,the body of Christ which we must believe” (We Confess theChurch, p. ). We confess that there is one holy, catholic (Christ-ian), and apostolic church in the Nicene Creed. This is an articleof faith, not of sight. So where is the church to be found? Likeevery other article of faith, it is hidden. We believe in Christ’s truepresence in the Holy Sacrament, in spite of what our eyes maytell us. In the same way we believe in Christ’s holy church. Whenwe seek the church, we must go where he has promised to befound, namely, in the notae ecclesiae, the marks by which we canrecognize the church. Any definition of the church that blurs thisis blurring the heart of the objective gospel. That is why we cancall the Lutheran Church the true visible church. It is not becauseof bigness or the outward sanctity and piety of its members, butbecause here the gospel is purely taught and the sacramentsrightly administered.

The Statement has exerted a tremendous influence on TheLutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Twenty-five years after itsissuance, signers claimed that the principles of the Statementwere standard doctrine and practice in Missouri. “Yesterday’s‘heresy’ has become today’s ‘orthodoxy,’” as one signer put it. It was also hailed as one of the guiding documents for the AELCconstitution. Its influence can still be felt today in Missouri. The“fundamental law of Christian love” is often repeated as one ofthe prime arguments against closed communion.

Were there problems in Missouri? Most certainly. Therewere many cases of absurd rigidities, particularly in the missionfield. At this time in Missouri there was also a theologicalinbreeding that excluded the work of such men as Herman Sasse,William Oesch, and many other confessional Lutheran theolo-gians from abroad.

More important than these problems, however, was a seriousshift in emphasis. Herman Sasse argued that the major concernwith the Statement was that it used an ethical approach ratherthan a dogmatical one. The Statement concerned itself with theparticular case of Lutheran union in America. Dr. Behnken madeit clear that he believed there was heresy in the Statement, but thatunity was more important than truth. In this sense both sideswere in agreement. Somehow it was unloving to be overly con-cerned with truth. Perhaps what was needed was a study of thebiblical and confessional doctrine of the church.

True unity will not be found in flirting with the EcumenicalMovement, or in seeking after principles and guidelines in the

hopes of creating a visible universal church. If we look for thetrue church with the naked eye, we will only find dry bones anddeath. The answer, as always, must come by looking to JesusChrist where he has promised we will find him: in his word andin his holy sacraments. Christ’s church can only have her longingfor unity fulfilled in him.

Todd PeperkornFort Wayne, Indiana

CONSTITUTIONAL HORROR

Walther writes to Sihler in , as quoted from the ConcordiaTheological Monthly, May , vol. , no. . What kind of free-dom is meant and what kind of freedom is excluded? Which ofthese finds itself manifested in our churches?

I must confess that I have a kind of horror of a real representa-tive constitution [einer eigentlichen Repraesentativverfassung]. I donot find it in Holy Scripture. Now, it is true that we Christians mayexercise our liberty as regards our constitution, but I cannot ridmyself of this opinion: the more freedom a church government ina free state like ours affords, the more efficient it will be, providedthat the Word is preached in all its power in the congregations.

On the other hand, everything coercive that does not flowimmediately from the Word easily causes opposition by refusal tocomply and lays the foundation for frequent separations.

Hitherto I have not viewed a synodical organization as aconcentration of ecclesiastical power. I thought that it was only toexhibit the ecclesiastical union of the separate congregations,unite its resources and forces in a war upon the oncoming ruin indoctrine and life, and for carrying on operations for the commonwelfare of the church, for preserving and advancing unity in faithand love, for setting up a court or arbitration for preachers andcongregations to which recourse might be had, or not, etc. I wasof the opinion that all matters pertaining to the internal adminis-tration of individual congregations should not be subject to thedisposing and judicial power of the synod.

THE TYRANNY OF THE FAMILIAR

The March issue of The American Organist features aninsightful piece by the Reverend Richard F. Collman entitled, “TheTyranny of the Familiar: Critical Reflections on the Church GrowthMovement,” pages –. We include this snippet in hopes that thoseinterested will pursue the entire article. Copies of this issue and sub-scription correspondence should be directed to The American Guildof Organists, Riverside Drive, Suite , New York, NY .One year subscription: $ US, $ all other countries.

If the church roots itself in marketing and consumerism, itwill always seek to please the customer. Worship planners willseek to use the “immediately familiar.” The result will be the“tyranny of the familiar” that changes every few years even whilewe ignore our own traditions. The long-term implication will bethat we can cut ourselves off from deeper and longer lastingChristian roots and even our own unique denominational roots.

For example, the salvation story can be diluted to “specialSundays” as in United Methodist promotion Sundays, while thefuller story (such as in a lectionary or in a wider thematicpreaching) can be ignored. United Methodists lump the Christ-ian Year and their Special Days together, such as the First Sundayin Lent followed by One Great Hour of Sharing. Every Sundaymust be “special” so as to draw more people, and this canbecome an oppressive burden if the only goal is to draw morepeople to worship.

Musically, we can end up with a generation no longer famil-iar with historic and time-proven hymns because people havenever learned or sung them. They might only be familiar withcurrent popular songs in religion. What the customer wants isnot always what the customer needs.

THE STATE OF DENOMINATIONS

The Reverend Dr. Roger Pittelko, president of the English District of the Missouri Synod, composed the following in his January

letter to the English District.

At the December meeting of the Council of Presidents, afull day was spent looking at the state of American denomina-tions and the place that the Missouri Synod fits in the “grandscheme” of denominationalism. If you read the first sentenceyou may be thinking to yourself, “He’s going to talk about‘denominations’ and we’ve heard that before.” You are right. I’vetalked about it before—and you are also right that I’m going totalk about it again.

As I heard the conversation at the Council meeting, led byoutside experts, I was again convinced that we are not a denomi-nation. While we appear to the casual observer to be a denomi-nation, the fact is that the defining characteristics of a denomina-tion are not our defining characteristics.

We believe that each congregation is fully the church.Denominations see the congregation as the local branch officewith the pastor as the local branch manager. We believe that theone building block mandated by our Lord is the congregation.The synod and district structures are inventions of the congrega-tions to do what the congregations cannot do alone. The synodand the districts are to promote doctrinal unity, to educate pas-tors and teachers (and all other commissioned ministers) for ser-vice in the ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and mis-sion work (both foreign and domestic). The congregation is notthe tail the denominational dog wags. The congregation is thedog that wags the synod and district tail.

From where I sit, it seems to me that we need to do twothings. First, we need to resist firmly and to affirm positively thatwe are not a denomination but a synod. A simple thing such asnot using “denominational language” when we speak about our-selves is a first step. I would suggest that using the call lettersLCMS is not helpful since it moves us away from the explicit useof the word “synod.” Better simply to say that we are the MissouriSynod. Secondly, I think that we need to scale back synod to itsclassical functions of doctrinal unity, education of clergy, andmissions. That will not be easy to do, but for the good of theentire synod I think it needs to be done.

I suspect that many readers of these words will say that itreally makes no difference or that I am protesting too much or thatit is too late and we are in fact a denomination. It may be true thatI am protesting too much. It may also be true that we have becomea denomination. But I do believe that it makes a difference. Do weconceive of ourselves as a synod with the God-mandated actionbeing at the congregational level? Or are we a denomination withthe action being at the national and district level?

The action is mandated by our Lord. It is preaching, baptiz-ing, absolving, gathering in the Lord’s Supper, making disciples.That happens in the congregation. That is not to say that thework at district and synod level is not important. But it is to saythat we need to keep our understanding straight.

OUT OF AFRICA

As the LCMS commemorates one hundred years of overseasmission work, it is interesting to look back at those early mission-ary heroes, give thanks to God for their labors, and compare whatwe are doing one hundred years later. From our humble mission-ary beginnings, Synod has branched out into “all the world,” as itwere, to many countries and all the inhabited continents of ourLord’s Great Commission, striving to bring the timeless gospel topeople in spiritual darkness, including “darkest Africa.”

According to the LCMS Board of Missions official campusministry publication, InterConnections, August , we are doingcampus work in Africa, but, to borrow from InterConnections’preface about Nigerian campus ministry, “some things are verydifferent in Africa.”

InterConnections describes the work at Victory Chapel, UyoUniversity, Nigeria, as “fresh and exciting” [sic]. No doubt for thisreason InterConnections makes a monetary appeal for support ofthis mission program, with gifts to be sent to LCMS world mis-sions, designated for Victory Chapel—Nigeria. But what is it thatis so “fresh and exciting” and “very different”?

For one thing, the new name, “Victory Chapel,” replaces themore sedate “Protestant Community.” Those who hear overtonesof independent fundamentalism in the name “Victory Chapel”are not hearing things. InterConnections reports that membersare drawn from among thirteen denominations, some recogniz-able main-liners like Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, unidenti-fied Lutherans, Presbyterians, and the Church of Christ. Add tothat list: “Revival Valley Ministries,” “the Fourth Ground,” andthe “Qua Iboe Church.” This conglomeration, we are told in thisissue, is being “all things to all students.”

Attendance runs an average of – per Sunday, where asimplicity of liturgy includes hymns, prayers, dancing, drumming,clapping, and loud hallelujahs. Celebration of a “Lord’s Supper” isheld once a semester, as are mass baptisms where candidates arebussed to a river. Speaking in tongues “is not discouraged” andInterConnections assures us that “deliverance,” while not central inthis campus ministry, is an important feature. “Powerful andcharismatic” preachers assure a “jam-packed worship venue.”

Why would our LCMS Board for Missions give such a glow-ing report and solicit funds for an obviously un-Lutheran campusministry program? Why and how is our LCMS in any way inter-connected with Victory Chapel? Other questions beg asking: Is this

au courant thinking representative of our Board of Missions for theLCMS mission field overall? If campus ministry is the exception,why is it? Have we a double standard for doctrine and practice—inNorth America, orthodoxy, but overseas, heterodoxy?

In addition to the offense given our North American cam-pus pastors, who labor at great cost to be faithful Lutherans, oneponders the reaction of faithful, if uninformed, laymen, whosemission dollars are being solicited for synodical mission work,including campus ministry at home and overseas.

It is unfortunate that while InterConnections recognizes onone level that “some things are very different in Africa,” the par-ent Board of Missions fails to see that some things are different inAfrica. When the difference is between Lutheran and non-Lutheran doctrine and practice, why are heterodoxy and union-ism worthy of approval or financial support?

The Reverend J. Barclay BrownRedeemer Lutheran Church

Jackson, Wyoming

THE OFFENSE OF CLOSED

COMMUNION

The votes are in, and have been for some time. The term“closed” in reference to the Sacrament of the Altar is not popu-lar in the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. It would seemthat the majority of laypeople, ordained clergy, district and syn-odical officials in the Missouri Synod dislike it. For that matter,neither do the above-mentioned groups like the practice ofclosed communion. It’s not loving. It’s not friendly. It’s notevangelical. It’s discriminatory. It’s not conducive to growth. It splits up families. It doesn’t fit well with rural communities. It doesn’t fit well with urban communities. It ruins FriendshipSundays. Who are we to deny the sacrament to anyone whotruly feels a need for it? Jesus invited people to come to him; hedidn’t turn people away. We should be very sensitive in specialcases of pastoral care. We should be more open-minded. Weshould be more evangelical. We should invite all baptizedChristians. We should at least commune other Lutherans. Weshould make exceptions for people in other denominations,especially if they were baptized and confirmed in MissouriSynod congregations. We should commune those who belongto other churches if they really believe the same way the Mis-souri Synod teaches.

The above arguments are not bad. In fact, they are very con-vincing. But that’s the problem, they are too convincing. They areconvincing especially to those who may rely respectfully butblindly on their pastor, district, or synod for guidance and cor-rect exposition of Scripture concerning Holy Communion. Theyare convincing to those who will not see Holy Communion forwhat it is. The arguments are very convincing to those who willnot do their proper scriptural and confessional homework.

To those offended by closed communion, the list of objec-tions is long, many of which are stated above. Conversely, for vis-itors to the communion rail, the admission requirements bythose who dislike closed communion lack quality and integrity.

It would seem that a person meeting any one of the following cri-teria would be allowed to commune: you probably should believeand confess Christ as your personal Savior; you might need to bebaptized; you might need to give assent to the real presence; youmight need to speak to the pastor unless you’ve communedbefore; you probably should be a member in another Lutherancongregation; you only need to see communion as a meanstoward fellowship; the “d” must be missing from your personalcollection of alphabetical letters. Translation: we must obey menrather than God.

To those who believe, teach, confess, and practice scripturaland confessional closed Communion, there are no objections;the burden of proof is not on them. In fact, contrary to theclaims made against the seemingly faithful minority, those whoteach and practice closed communion are motivated by the sumof all the commandments: love. It is a love for God’s holy Wordas the only source and norm for faith and life. It is a love for theLutheran Confessions as a correct exposition of that Word. It is alove that does not knowingly or willingly encourage the slightestpossibility of someone communing to his or her detriment. It is alove that recognizes and respects both the blessings and thewarnings associated with Holy Communion. It is a love andmotivation that goes much deeper than personal or family ties. Itis a love that is broad-shouldered enough to accept full responsi-bility for right distribution and reception. It is a love that criesout from within for an opportunity to teach and practice thetruth, to administer the sacraments rightly. It is a love that hasthe biblical and confessional strength, motivation, conviction,and integrity to say no.

There are no exceptions to closed communion; that isinherent in the term. “Close,” which is really “open,” is firstand foremost a mistranslation from the German and is a termwhose meaning has undergone a slow, deceptive, and degener-ative metamorphosis over the years. (For an excellent presenta-tion of this argument, see “Closed Communion: In the Way ofthe Gospel; In the Way of the Law” by Norman Nagel, in Con-cordia Journal, January , footnote on pp. –.) “Close,”which initially was understood to mean “closed” nowimplies—even demands—exceptions; it implies and encour-ages levels of fellowship; it fractionalizes the gospel; it allowsfor special cases of pastoral care, pastoral care that does notultimately take the high road. Of the numerous citations fromwhich to choose on this matter, one of the clearest must be thisby Martin Wittenberg:

There is no emergency situation which demandsmixed communion. And so we maintain that therecannot be any such situation. Emergency knows nocommandment; but it knows the Commandmentof God. God’s Word is above emergency. God’sWord prohibits Altar Fellowship with those whohave different teachings and will not desist fromthem; it prohibits such a narrow fellowship withthem (Martin Wittenberg, “Church Fellowship andAltar Fellowship in the Light of Church History,”translated by John Bruss, LOGIA , vol. [Octo-ber/Reformation ], p. ).

In terms of a “door,” the communion rail is open to some,closed to others. The communion rail is open to those who meetall of the following criteria: those baptized Christians who havebeen instructed in the Missouri Synod Lutheran faith and whohave made public confession of that faith as expressed throughmembership in a Missouri Synod congregation; those who trulyare sorry for their sins, confess Christ as Savior from sin, and faith-fully accept his forgiveness given in the sacrament; those whobelieve by faith that Christ is really and truly present in, with, andunder the elements of bread and wine; those who have examinedthemselves; those who intend to make amends of their sinful lifethrough the power given in this sacrament; those whose commu-nicant memberships are in good standing in a Missouri Synodcongregation. In the same terms, the communion rail is closed toanyone whose communicant membership in a Missouri Synodcongregation is not in good standing. This includes, of necessity,anyone belonging to other denominations and other Lutheranchurches not in official altar and pulpit fellowship with the Mis-souri Synod. Period. Case closed. Rail closed.

Closed communion will not go away, neither will it cease tooffend. It must remain. And it will remain for a very good reason,the same reason God gave in Isaiah :: “The grass withers andthe flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.” It willremain for the same reason Jesus gave in Matthew :: “Heavenand earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”Closed communion will remain simply because it is the only bibli-cally and confessionally correct communion practice; it is the veryexpression and confession of complete unity in doctrine. Closedcommunion will remain because it has the power and support ofGod’s holy Word backing up every teaching and practice of it. Aslong as there is sin in the world there will be misuses and abuses ofGod’s Word and sacraments. But precisely because there is sin inthe world, we must strive all the more to be as faithful as possibleto God’s Word. Of necessity and by the authority of God’s Word,this includes faithfully teaching and practicing closed communion.

The Reverend Gregory J. SchultzLeon and Mt. Ayr, IA

HAVE GIFT, WILL TRAVEL

An idea prevails that if a person has been given a gift byGod himself (authenticated indubitably by some spiritual giftsquestionnaire), then it is a sin to impede or prohibit that personfrom using that gift. The reasoning may run as follows: “Sincethe Lord has given me certain gifts, I must be allowed to usethem.” Hence the sometimes not-too-veiled implication herecaricatured: “Don’t you dare get in the way of my using my spir-itual gifts. God gave them to me and I’m going to find some wayof using my gifts whether you like it or not! If not in this church,then somewhere else.”

Compare this to a trio of siblings in which the oldestobserves the second getting an opportunity to cut the grass withDad on the riding lawnmower. Dad asked the second child, notout of favoritism, but from that arbitrary manner that love spillsout to this one and to that, not being compelled to meet certaincriteria, quotas, levels, and the like. The eldest then says to the

youngest, “See, Dad likes him better than he likes you because hegot to sit with Dad on the riding lawnmower.”

The youngest child may initially break out in tears, may har-bor fears that she is not loved as much, or may insist in the futurethat she gets equal time and opportunities with Dad because sheis just as good at doing the lawn as number two son—all ofwhich attitudes are harmful and destructive to the manner inwhich love can give gifts freely. Satan is certainly no stranger tosuch games in which the sinful ego is all too willing to engage.

The Lord gives gifts when and where it pleases him. He willnot be bound to our fears that insist on congruent treatment orbestowal of gifts and offices as an indicator or measure of his lovein Christ Jesus. The acknowledgment of a gift received might bestbe considered not in terms of what is felt in the heart but interms of what is called forth by others.

Spiritual gifts are called out of people vocationally. Spiritualgifts must not be set at odds with vocation, even if one’s gifts seemto precede one’s call. This is a fundamental aspect missing fromC. Peter Wagner and other church growth spiritual gift inventoryfolk such as Kent Hunter, Carl George, Alan Klaas, and others(whose “gifts” may be had for a healthy stipend or retainer of tensof thousands of dollars. An examination of such stewardship mayinquire whether the offerings of God’s people or the benefices offraternal organizations end up being wages worthy of the worker.It may be that the synod and its districts are not getting theirmoney’s worth—but they are getting what they paid for).

Spiritual gift inventories hope to encourage people by show-ing them that they have gifts. The identification, acknowledg-ment, and utilization of these gifts, in turn, offer some sense ofmeaning and purpose in life—some self-worth, some self-esteem. To boost self-esteem or to stir up more volunteers forprograms. Their self-worth is identified with their charismata.No wonder they are offended if they and their gifts are refused!But they ignore one’s vocation—or they claim a heavenly callingthat out-trumps any earthly ratification.

People need not always be aware of their gifts in order forthem to be used (“When did we feed you?”). Those who thinkthey have certain gifts—is it possible that they may be mistaken,that their ego has come to a conclusion not matched by reality? Is there some incontrovertible natural postulate that states that agift once given is always given—or do we recognize phenomenasuch as superhuman strength manifested in a dire emergency (aDeborah or a Huldah or Phillip’s daughters) that do not establisha norm or that cannot later be repeated?

Are all spiritual gifts “spiritual”? What is so spiritual aboutspiritual gifts? Is there both a non-spiritual hospitality and a spir-itual hospitality? Is there a distinction between non-spiritual wis-dom and spiritual wisdom, worldly virtue and spiritual qualities?If so, is there also the danger of sinful human beings mistakingone for the other?

Perhaps a spiritual gift can be described in the same way aslove, because it “suffers long and is kind; does not envy, does notparade itself, is not puffed up, does not behave rudely, does notseek its own, is not provoked.” Those having (or claiming tohave) spiritual gifts need not be offended if they are not immedi-ately made use of nor called forth. There is no evangelical dictumthat says, “Have Gift—Must Use.” If such were the case, would

not the Penthouse pinup be right after all to state that “God hasgiven me the gift of such a wonderful body—it would be wrongof me not to share it to the pleasure of many”?

Cast in the light of “have gift, must travel,” the issue of theordination of women or other roles of women in the church can beseen as having less to do with gender and more to do with theunderstanding of sanctification. The implicit idea is that womenhave certain gifts given by God such as speaking, leading, and allthe rest. The thinking is that God would never give such gifts towomen if he did not intend for them to be used. This argument isthe mirror image of “If God had wanted people to fly, he wouldhave given them wings!” The reflection appears equally ludicrous.

Much remains to be learned and applied with regard tosanctification in synods and congregations. One very helpfulresource is Koeberle’s Quest for Holiness, which is on its way tobeing reprinted by Ballast Press. In the meantime, we pray thatspiritual gifts will not be overwhelmed by felt needs, but that theHoly Spirit will continue to gather and enlighten us with Hisgifts, sanctify the whole Christian church on earth, and keep itwith Jesus Christ in the one true faith.

JAB

THE SERVICE IS DIVINE

“Divine Service” is the way many English-speaking Luther-ans have translated the Lutheran Confessions’ German wordGottesdienst, literally, “service of God.” But who’s serving whom?

In the Old Testament, it was clearly the Lord who was servinghis people. He gave and revealed his name to Moses (Ex ) and soled his people from Egyptian captivity and on through one crisisafter the other. Apart from the living God and his service of theword, they were dead; with his word, they were made alive.

In the New Testament, Jesus’ whole purpose was to “serveand to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mt :). Calvaryaccomplished that service. Today he gives out the forgiveness andgifts earned there through his word and sacraments, the means ofgrace. The “Divine Service” is the central, concrete locationwhere the Lord gives out his gifts. His “servants of the word” arenecessary instruments toward that end (AC V). Thus God isclearly the one who serves us in his “Divine Service.”

And yet faith responds to God’s service. Its chief response isto receive what the Lord gives in his service—to hear God’s wordand believe it (Ap IV, ). God’s word, then, flows forth in faith’ssacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Faith always rejoices in thegifts given and extols the name of the Lord. Music is enlistedtoward that end. God’s gifts given in his Divine Service then pushhis people out into their callings where his gifts bear rich fruit inservice toward God and toward one another.

The way the Divine Service is ordered and conducted is inte-grally bound to the confession of faith that a congregation makes(fides quae creditur) and ultimately to the personal faith of theindividual believer (fides qua creditur). In other words, what issaid and done on Sunday morning confesses to all the worldwhat the congregation as well as its individual members believe,teach and confess.

The way the Divine Service, commonly called the liturgy, isordered, is not uniform in every way throughout the Christian

church, nor should it be (AC VII, ). And yet as Lutheran Chris-tians we stand within a stream of the church catholic that seeks toresource the treasures of the past as well as integrate any gifts thatthe Lord may give through contemporary modifications of theDivine Service (AC XXIV, –). This calls for pastors and musi-cians to stand with one foot in the rich treasury of what has gonebefore them, and the other foot in the present, fertile environ-ment—ever aware of and ready to use both the musical and litur-gical resources of the church catholic as well as to receive any newgifts of music and liturgy that the Lord may give in our own era.In other words, we are not the first ones in the service of theDivine Service, nor will we be the last.

Unlike the Reformed communions, which have traditionallybanished from their churches ceremonies, rites, and liturgiesresembling those of their predecessor, the Roman Catholic Church,our Lutheran Church retains from its past all that is serviceable tothe gospel; it discards only that which is contrary to the Hauptar-tikel (SA II/I, ; II/II, ). This conservative approach—“if it ain’tbroke, don’t fix it”—has traditionally been a hallmark of authenticconfessional Lutheranism. It also underscores the claim that liturgi-cally (doctrinally!) the Lutheran Church sees itself as “the RomanCatholic Church gone right,” so to speak. This is the original claimof the Augsburg Confession (AC Conclusion, –) and theLutheran Confessions in general. We did not break from Rome.Rome broke from authentic, evangelical, liturgical catholicity!

Thus, when pastor and church musician sit down to discussthe coming Divine Service, neither may say, “OK, what do youthink would be nice to do this Sunday?” as those with a Baptistmindset might be inclined to do. This is the Lord’s service! Onlythe Lord may have his say! In the Divine Service, he speaks to usaccording to the life and work of our Lord Jesus Christ (Propers),and as well “the sound pattern of words” ( Tim :) that has pre-ceded us in liturgy and song (Ordinary). As evangelical-catholicLutherans, we therefore stand within that “great cloud of wit-nesses” (Heb :) who testify to the living God in the “one holy,catholic and apostolic church” of all space and all time.

Such a catholic outlook toward the Divine Service is likewisegermane to sound catechetical principles. Just as repeatedly teach-ing biblical principles in Bible study and catechetical formulationsin confirmation instruction and elsewhere leads to a solid, sub-stantive spiritual formation and foundation among God’s people,so also is a liturgy and hymnody that has stood the test of timeand carried the faithful from font to funeral essential to the ongo-ing spiritual growth of God’s people. What better way to“impress” (literally, “repeat” [Dt :]) God’s word upon the heartsof his people than through the words of the church’s time-testedliturgy and hymnody; those words will be there to stay!

Therefore, it has been sound pastoral practice in the LutheranChurch to proclaim and promote the word of God in the congrega-tion through a threefold usage: the Holy Bible, the Small Cate-chism, and the hymnal. Ideally, every Lutheran should have these“word-filled” books on his shelf at home and use them with hisfamily. This is an ideal that every Evangelical Lutheran pastorshould be firmly and fervently committed to encourage and pro-mote. But, of course, the use of a hymnal in Divine Service at homebegins with its consistent and salutary use at church. Iesu, iuva!

JDV

GRACE-FULL USE

A Short Consideration of “The Grace-full Use of the Means ofGrace: Theses on Worship and Worship Practices,” also known asthe Valparaiso Theses.

In the era of later Orthodoxy and Pietism and thereafter, theliturgical traditions of Lutheranism, together with its customaryliturgical usages and the classical hymnody of the Latin Churchand the Reformation era, largely ceased to serve as a livingexpression of the faith. Although revised and adapted to conformto the particular contours of the new piety, the tradition nolonger served to form and inform piety and was not honored foreven its tutorial value—indeed, there is little or no catechesismaking use of that tradition. The liturgy is not yet abandoned,however; it is maintained and employed—mainly as anartifact/symbol of Lutheran self-identification. Indeed, where the tradition disappears, it is precisely among those for whomLutheran identification has negative significance or has simplylost significance altogether.

This same phenomenon can be observed in the formativeperiod of American Lutheranism. Except among the more radi-cal pietists, the liturgical usages and hymnody of the motherlandcontinue in use, in the beginning in the native languages of theimmigrant groups, later in English translation. In the twentiethcentury, national identification gives way to a new “AmericanLutheranism” quite different from that proposed by the old Defi-nite Platform; here German, Norwegian, Swedish, and other “oldcountry” traditions and usages give way to the “Common Ser-vice” and its “reconstructed” version of classical GermanLutheran liturgies, modeled on the English Prayer Book tradi-tion. Most often there was little or no point of contact betweenpreaching, catechesis, and liturgy. The use of the Common Ser-vice was simply a tradition, something Lutherans did.

The acceptance of the Church Growth Movement amongLutheran pastors, congregations, and synodical personnel hasbrought with it the assertion of a new identity that is self-con-sciously “Evangelical” or “Free Church” rather than Lutheran.Such an identification finds much of traditional Lutheranism oflittle value or use. In its place a new style of purposeful, perhapseven willful preaching, new forms of revivalism to replace tradi-tional catechesis, and the advocacy of forms of community “wor-ship experiences” tailored to the “felt needs” of congregants andprospective users are offered. All these are classified as “style.”

“The Grace-full Use of the Means of Grace. Theses on Wor-ship and Worship Practices”—called the Valparaiso Theses—canbe said to be provoked, at least in part, by worship practices asso-ciated with this Church Growth Movement. At the same time, italso reacts against the systematic conformation of Lutheran wor-ship to the norms of generic North American Protestantism, aprocess at work throughout American Lutheranism since theFirst World War, and the notion that formal, sacramentalLutheran worship is little more than an expendable tradition.The theses are addressed to the Lutheran churches by a numberof Lutheran members of the North American Academy ofLiturgy both as their response to the current worship situation inLutheran churches and as a catalyst for further discussion.

Although the theses themselves include no details concerning theparticular worship forms and practices that have provoked theirformulation, an examination of the theses and the commentaryprovided with them indicates that those concerns are focused onthe adoption of theologies of the church and ministry prevailingin generic Protestantism and American Evangelicalism and thenotions concerning worship associated with them.

The five introductory theses indicate that their central con-cern has to do with the means of grace (understood to includethe proclamation of “the story of Israel and Jesus,” Baptism, andthe Eucharist). These are described as “sure and concrete bearersof God’s mercy toward us in Christ.” What is of particular con-cern is the integrity and the fullness of their use. How they areused is, according to Thesis , an indication of their significanceto us as “signs” that call us to faith. Here reference is made toLuther’s treatises Eyn Sermon von dem heyligen hochwirdigenSacrament der Tauffe and Eyn Sermon von dem HochwurdigenSacrament, des heyligen waren Leychnams Christ. Und von denBruderschafften. Lutheran Christians will rightly encourage eachother to re-appreciate this heritage and act upon it in a worshipsetting in the church (which is understood in both Lutheran Wor-ship and Lutheran Book of Worship, according to the framers andsigners, to be the “liturgical assembly for the means of grace”),served by an ordained minister, with the assistance of membersof the assembly who are appropriated, gifted, and trained forsuch service. In that assembly the preaching and teaching ofGod’s Word (as story), Baptism, and the Eucharist serve as “pri-mary liturgical actions.” It is the purpose of the assembly that bymeans of these “primary liturgical actions” all people areempowered by the Holy Spirit to come to trust what Godpromises concerning life and salvation.

The assembly gathers on the first day of the week, the daythat bears witness to creation and to the resurrection, in orderthat Supper and Word might bear their witness to creation andresurrection, the theses remind us. In the view of the Theses, thismakes it crucial that “Word and table” should now regain theircentral place as the principal service of every congregation, everySunday. Baptism is remembered weekly as the means by whicheach member of the assembly has entered the gathering. The sea-sons and Feasts of the church year are understood as times of cat-echesis and preparation for Baptism and for its administration(principally on Easter, Pentecost, All Saints’ Day, and Epiphany).In architectural plans, the place of assembly should make clearthe centrality of proclamation of the Word, Baptism, and Supper.

The Theses are meant to be provocative, and that is theirchief value. It is to be hoped that they will indeed provide theoccasion of a fresh and faithful consideration of corporate wor-ship and its significance. It is regrettable, however, that the spe-cific program recommended by the Theses is fully as alien toEvangelical Lutherans as that being offered by the “anti-liturgi-cal” Evangelicals. Evidently, in the view of the Theses there is infact no essentially Lutheran understanding of worship and thenature of the centrality of the means of grace.

In terms of its initial perception of a widespread misunder-standing in our churches concerning that centrality, the Val-paraiso Theses are on center: the proclamation of Christ and theadministration of the sacraments do indeed occupy the central

point in the characteristic Lutheran definition of the church andits life. The decision to concentrate attention on the sign-natureof the means on the basis of Luther’s writings is disquieting,however. At this point Luther is at the beginning of a process oftheological development that comes to maturity only after anumber of treatises have sharpened his thinking. Here the sign ofBaptism is the sign of the water—death by drowning, and thesign of the Supper is the sign of the use of bread and wine—fel-lowship with Christ and his saints; by the signs point beyondthe elements to Christ’s words, and later references to the sign-nature of the earthly matter in the sacraments are simplydropped. The later Luther (in the Large Catechism) uses alto-gether different language. There is no more sign-talk building onthe natural elements; now it is the body and blood of Christ inhis Supper that occupy the central place—as a seal (pignus) ofGod’s goodwill toward us.

Granted that there is a predilection these days to quote theearly, Augustinian, “ecumenical” Luther, we should expect amore thorough and thoughtful examination of Luther’s sacra-mental theology by Lutherans who devote themselves to thestudy of worship. When Luther is quoted, due attention ought tobe given to his own theological development.

We face problems as well in the elucidation of the individualcomponents (Baptism, word of God, and Holy Communion) intheses – as acts performed by the assembly. True to theemphasis articulated in the introductory theses, these are pre-sented chiefly as “primary liturgical actions,” that is, as ritual actsof the gathered assembly or congregation. This appears to subor-dinate the activity of the Spirit to the activity of the congregationin a way that, though thoroughly in line with the worship theol-ogy of Vatican II, has no precedence in Lutheran theology.

It is important to Luther, and confessional Lutheranism, thatno Christian be in doubt concerning the gospel he has heard, theBaptism with which he has been baptized, the Absolution thathas been spoken over him, and the Supper of Christ’s body andblood he has eaten and drunk. When questions are raised withreference to whether preaching and sacramental participationinclude within them the proper degree of “fullness” or“integrity,” room is made for doubt whether what we have doneand our manner of doing it is such as to guarantee that what theLord has said has indeed been accomplished. This is reflected inthe enclosed commentary statements about proper baptismalceremonies, the amount of water needed, the proper time ofBaptism, the scope and content of preaching, the use of addi-tional bread and wine in the Supper, aural and olfactory factors,the place of the Great Thanksgiving, and so forth

We share fully with the framers of these theses in the concernsabout the theology and worship practices of our churches. Weregret, however, that they have wed their analysis and recommen-dations to theological methods that are not ours and that in factmay serve to undercut the real genius of Lutheran liturgical theol-ogy. Like the writers and signers of the Valparaiso Theses, we areconcerned that worship in many places does not conform in anydegree with the confessional description of it in our confessionalwritings or Luther’s own classic statements on the subject in thegreat Word and Sacrament treatises that were initiated by hisAgainst the Heavenly Prophets (). Included among these are also

The Abomination of the Secret Mass (), The Sacrament of theBody and Blood of Christ—Against the Fanatics (), That TheseWords of Christ “this is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm against theFanatics (), Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (), Admo-nition concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord(), The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests (), andBrief Confession concerning the Holy Sacrament ().

Concerning the water used in Baptism, Luther’s classic state-ment from his Ten Sermons on the Catechism () is basic:“Don’t look at the water, and see that it is wet, but rather that ithas with it the word of God.” Those who deign to “reform” theliturgy by making such matters as the wetness of the water amajor concern would do well to consider what Luther thought tobe first principles. Otherwise, we will simply be replacing onealien approach with another approach fully as alien and inappro-priate, and remain uninformed about the core of Lutheran sacra-mental theology.

The Reverend Charles J. EvansonRedeemer Lutheran Church

Fort Wayne, Indiana

COMMUNITY OF JOY?One of the most recent contributions to the ever-growing

library of church growth literature is a book by Tim Wright, oneof the pastors at the ELCA’s Community Church of Joy inPhoenix, Arizona. In his book, A Community of Joy: How to Cre-ate Contemporary Worship (Abingdon, ), Wright attempts toanswer the question, “How can we use worship to attract andhold irreligious people?” (p. ). Wright finds the structures ofLutheran liturgy to be a roadblock to the evangelistic task. At thevery least, Wright urges us to “warm up the liturgy” with a visi-tor-friendly campus, name tags, careful directions, and a corps ofwell-trained greeters and ushers.

But more is needed. The confession of sins will have to go.Wright says, “Some congregations begin the worship service witha time of confession and forgiveness. Long time churchgoers mayappreciate opening with this important liturgical rite, but start-ing the service with confession and forgiveness says to the guests:‘You are sinners!’ For years, some people have stayed away fromchurch, fearing such condemnation. Finally, having the courageto come, they hear from the start how bad they are—that theycannot worship until they confess their failures and shortcom-ings” (p. ). And while you’re at it: “Watch out for religiousphrases in hymns” (p. ).

All this talk about “cherubim and seraphim bowing downbefore Him” and a “bulwark never failing” will only confuse visi-tors. Preachers, remember: “in preparing a message, the questionis not, ‘What shall I preach?’ but, ‘To whom shall I preach?’ (p.). Therefore preachers are given this advice: “The how-to sec-tion of a bookstore provides a great resource for relevant sermonideas. The psychological and self-help sections prove especiallyhelpful. Written to meet the needs of people (and to makemoney), the authors focus on sure-fire concerns” (p. ).

And when it comes to the Sacrament, listen to Wright’sadvice regarding closed communion: “This policy will not workin a visitor-oriented service. ‘Excluding’ guests will turn them

off. It destroys the welcoming environment that the churchtried to create” (p. ).

Wright is an articulate and honest spokesman for the posi-tion that the church’s worship is primarily for unbelievers, whoare in his mind “worship consumers.” The appearance ofWright’s book is timely as it gives us evidence of what is in storefor the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, if the July conven-tion puts the Commission on Worship out of commission.

The Conference of Congregational Services has submitted anoverture to the convention urging that “worship be one of the ser-vice areas in the new Board for Congregational Services.” In theFebruary and April issues of the Reporter, we learn that theConference of Congregational Services is making available scholar-ships for Missouri Synod Lutherans to attend a conference called“Reaching the Unchurched” at the Community Church of Joy inPhoenix. Featured speakers at the Arizona meeting include, amongothers, the Reverends Mary Ann Moller-Gunderson and TimWright. The Reverend Ms. Moller-Gunderson will be leading thedaily devotions (“family devotions,” we presume), and Wright willbe lecturing on—you guessed it—contemporary worship.

It does not necessarily take a Lutheran to point out the defi-ciencies of this approach. The July issue of The Horse’s Mouth,published by the Christians United for Reformation (CURE),notes in an article “What Happens When the Shepherds Get Lost”:

What happens when over Evangelical pastorsgather to discuss the future of the church? If youimagine that any discussion of doctrine, specificallythe role of Law, Gospel and the Sacraments was notpart of the discussion, you guessed right.

Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Commu-nity Church in Mission Viejo, California, recentlyhosted a four day conference on “How to Build aChurch.” Warren is the key figure in what is nowknown as the “Saddleback Strategy.” He encouragespastors to focus on issues such as time managementbecause this makes preaching “more practical.”

Warren says we need to illustrate biblical pas-sages “with examples and apply them to real life.Simply interpreting and explaining the Scripturesno longer works.” So much for proclaiming the

Gospel and being committed to the clarity andavailability of Holy Scripture.Warren concludes, “Sermons that teach peoplehow to live will never lack an audience.” Thus Jesusis a new Moses, our moral example who tells ushow to live. Jesus, the Savior of sinners, who diedfor all those times when we did not and could notlive the right way, may not be relevant to thisgroup. The shepherds need new shepherds.

It may thus become apparent why the Conference of Congre-gational Services is so eager to have the Commission on Worshipdisbanded when they are promoting conferences led by the likes ofWarren and Wright. As it presently stands, the Commission onWorship is a self-standing commission appointed by the synodicalpresident. Among the tasks assigned to the Commission on Wor-

ship is overseeing the doctrinal integrity of liturgical practice in thesynod. With the production of Lutheran Worship: History andPractice and the sponsorship of the recent “Real Life Worship Con-ferences” it is clear that the commission is advocating an under-standing of worship that is at odds with A Community of Joy: Howto Create Contemporary Worship. It is essential that the delegates tothe St. Louis convention retain the Commission on Worship. Ifthey fail to do so, the Missouri Synod will find itself a communitysubject to Wright’s ploys instead of Christ’s joys.

JTP

EXCEPT FOR RITUALS

I was baptized May , , at Grace Lutheran Church inHayward, California. It wasn’t until , however, that I wasdrawn into the Lutheran Church, largely due to what had tran-spired several years prior to this time. Prior to Lutheranism, myexperience was in a “generic” evangelical church. It was duringthis time I first came in contact with the writings of MartinLuther and, to be honest, came to see Christ in the full sense. Forwith Luther, you never lost track of Christ; he was at the center ofLuther’s work.

While attending a church-related Bible study on the book ofRomans, I came across a paperback copy of Luther’s commen-tary on this epistle. As I read, I began to understand somethingnoticeably revolutionary to what I had experienced in evangelicalcircles, namely, Christian freedom. This freedom came through inLuther’s own personality as well as his emphasis on justification byfaith alone. It was this emphasis that provided freedom. You wouldthink that such clarity in doctrine would be understood andapplied with anything bearing the name evangelical, but this wordhad, apparently, lost its meaning somewhere in this country’s pop-ular religion. I may have attended church and Bible study regularly,but I could not tell you what justification meant. As for the wordfaith next to the word alone, I don’t recall their ever being men-tioned in the same sentence. The doctrine of fellowship alone wasthe creed most directly or indirectly referred to.

The word evangelical was initially used when referring toLuther’s followers at the time of the Reformation. This has alwaysstruck me as funny, since Luther himself would most likely havepreferred the name Evangelical (people of the gospel) over thename Lutheran. The proper teaching of the gospel was Luther’smain thrust. One cannot read something like the following, espe-cially one who is spiritually burdened, without a sigh of relief:

To fulfill the law, however, is to do its works withpleasure and love, and to live a godly and good life ofone’s own accord, without the compulsion of the law.Hence it comes that faith alone makes righteous andfulfills the law; for out of Christ’s merit, it brings theSpirit, and the Spirit makes the heart glad and free, asthe law requires that it shall be. . . . Those who are ofthe law say to God, as he speaks in the law: “We havedone what thou hast commanded us.” On the otherhand, those who are of faith say: “We cannot do it, norhave we done it; but grant us grace that we may do whatthou hast commanded us.”

Man is sinful and beyond the ability to save himself. Youhave to understand that the evangelical church in our time hasblurred the distinction between law and gospel to such a pointthat this has become, for many, another gospel. They have posi-tioned themselves so far against Roman Catholicism, with itsemphasis on grace plus works, yet never realize that they them-selves have made a work out of what it means to be a Christian inthis world by separating justification and sanctification and mak-ing them attainable through human effort. There is no clearerexplanation of sanctification than that of Luther on the thirdarticle of the Apostles Creed:

I believe that I cannot by my own reason orstrength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord, or cometo him; but the Holy Spirit has called me throughthe gospel, enlightened me by his gifts, and sancti-fied and preserved me in the true faith; in likemanner as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and sancti-fies the whole Christian church on earth and keepsher with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In thisChristian church he daily forgives abundantly allmy sins, and the sins of all believers, and will raiseup me and all the dead on the last day, and willgrant everlasting life to me and to all who believe inChrist. This is most certainly true.

To subscribe to a salvation formula that puts a low emphasison grace and then directs a poor soul into some type of programto keep him on track is to return to the law and “works” right-eousness. This is combined with shallow worship practices con-sisting of the most artificial, bland, and pious declarations popculture has to offer. It is fair to say that pop or contemporaryworship is to true worship what the thirty minute sitcom is totrue cinema.

Still a part of the evangelical church, I began to investigateLutheranism from left to right, literally. After four months ofquestions and answers from various sides, I left the evangelicalchurch and eventually found a home within Lutheranism. I wasfortunate to come in contact with a Lutheran pastor who was far-reaching in his thinking as well as open to the arts and who trea-sured the liturgy.

RitualsThe reaction to my leaving was suspect. The one that I recall

the most came from the local Christian bookstore clerk whom Ihad talked with from time to time over the years. She asked, “So,Jeff, where are you attending church these days?” knowing of myformer church association. I said, “I’m attending a Lutheranchurch now.” It was then that I received the response that to thisday pushes me to study: “Oh, they’re okay—except for their ritu-als.” After all, this was a Lutheran church, a mainline denomina-tion that has surely departed from the teachings of the originalchurch of the first century. This, of course, coming from a evan-gelical church ignorant of its own history prior to maybe BillyGraham, a church that views the Lord’s Prayer as not personalenough for use in worship. I came to the conclusion that what Isaw in today’s Evangelicalism was just another lodge with a cross

inside. I came away with the impression that there may be a zealto win the unchurched, but little evidence of a zeal for the gospel(good news) that Christ lived and died and still lives for. Thedepth was not present to cut across its own boundaries and intothe outside world.

What she meant by rituals was the presence of Christ in theLord’s Supper, the Lutheran emphasis that you are “born again”at baptism: “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdomof God without being born of water and Spirit” (Jn :), and“Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death,so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of theFather, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom :NRSV). This emphasis is foreign to our utilitarian reasoning, andlogically will position itself against the liturgy, which so beauti-fully supports these “rituals.”

Through my personal study and artistic involvement, I cameto see the Lutheran church as the one holy catholic (universal)church. Reformed in the sixteenth century out of necessity, it wasnot a break from the Roman Church simply out of stubbornhuman will, but the exact opposite. It should be noted thatLuther himself refused his own name sake: “I ask that men makeno reference to my name and call themselves, not Lutherans butChristians. What is Luther? After all, the doctrine is not mine,nor have I been crucified for anyone.”

The fruits of Luther’s theology can be found in the arts withthe visual work of Cranach and Dürer, and in the music of Bach.My pilgrimage had brought me, an illustrator and musician, to aplace where all seemed right. But the devil never attacks what healready owns. He is most fierce where the Word is proclaimedmost clearly, as I soon discovered.

Familiar SoilI remember my first experience with a contemporary wor-

ship service in a Lutheran church, standing in reverence forcampfire chants and sentimental sweet songs. It was all too famil-iar to my evangelical experience. I was unaware that the move-ment to usher in this music over and against the liturgy had beengaining ground in the Lutheran Church for years. I was fortunateto have a pastor there who had liturgical sensibilities, but the faceof this church was being shaped by evangelicals who kept thename Lutheran to please their parents or possibly those who pre-fer stained glass to solid walls, yet seek a multitude of changesfrom within or, understandably, those frustrated with what theysee as dead orthodoxy, seeking out anything new because they seeit as progress in the face of decay.

It’s not always cut and dried, and the blame can fall on allsides. Whatever the case, I quickly saw the intentions to usher inwhat I had left behind. I was on the defensive within my ownchurch and drawing close to apathy. The evangelicals hadinvaded the camp. The elders in the Lutheran church followedthe pop-Christianity of the day because all they knew of Chris-tianity was what the popular images gave them. In sincerity, theybit because they saw this as relevant. They saw success in num-bers and not in meaning. “Do not be deceived; God is notmocked, for you reap whatever you sow” (Gal :, NRSV). Thisfact will prove costly to a church that is called to be separate fromthis world in the distinction of its values.

What Is at StakeThe best way I can make sense of this is to try to outline the

reasons why I am a Lutheran and what is at stake when we seekto change things with blinders on.

The Means of Grace—in a horizontal relationship, we seek toknow each other in the full and not in part. It is the same in thevertical relationship. We love Christ; therefore, we seek to knowhim in all fullness through his word in Scripture and through hismeans of grace that he has provided. As St. Paul writes, “He savedus, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done,but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth andrenewal by the Holy Spirit. This spirit is poured out on us richlythrough Jesus Christ our savior, so that having been justified byhis grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternallife. The saying is sure” (Tit :–, NRSV).

We also seek to know him through his presence in the Sacra-ment of the Altar, where Jesus says: “‘take, eat; this is my body.’Then he took the cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them,saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the newcovenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness ofsins’” (Mt :–, NRSV). These are the means of grace, wordand Sacrament, the means by which we know him.

Christian Freedom—Christian freedom is not Christian license,but in contrast to the pietistic tendencies of American Christian-ity, and Evangelicalism in particular, most of the Reformation-based churches stand alone in many regards. I can remember aBible study leader at my evangelical church apologizing for hav-ing a drink of wine occasionally at dinner, and there were actu-ally stares from the group. I have even heard a popular TV evan-gelist say that the wine of biblical times was more like the grapejuice of our own time. This, of course, does not explain Noah’svineyard and recorded drunkenness. Such is the bondage onefinds when we add to Scripture rather than speak the truth.Nothing is forbidden unless the Scripture specifies. We are obe-dient in love, not out of law. And we are free in Christ for thesame reason.

The Loss of Depth—From what I can tell, the Lutheran Churchhas been especially blessed with great theological depth. Theinflux of marketing methods, however, bypasses this theologicaldepth in an attempt to get on with the business of saving souls. Inthis case, one might ask the question: What are we saving themfor? When we seek to sell the gospel at the cost of the fullness ofChrist, the world isn’t fooled. We only get those who fit the samerecycled pattern. We may sincerely win back some who havestrayed from Lutheranism, but really we are still fishing out of thesame stocked lake. To downplay the depth of the theology and allthat flows from it (such as liturgy and the arts), and replace itwith shallow pop songs and sanctified slogans, only sends themessage to this world that we are only interested in taking care ofour own and catering to the wants of the congregation even ifthose wants are without substance and out of line with all thathas gone before. What ever happened to giving the people notwhat they want, but what they need? This echoes Luther, and onestep further, it echoes Christ.

SummaryThis is not meant to be an inconsiderate broad brush at all

that is called evangelical, for in the true sense, I am one. I canonly hope to raise a flag and make a sound. Many Christians havethe frustration of answering to this world what passes for Christ-ian witness by those who trivialize the faith. The name evangeli-cal has grown weightless as it looks to the next century. It is nowonder when you distance yourselves from the world by sancti-fying leisure, tattoo every trend to make it your own, make Christa mere policeman for your insecurities, and, worst of all, justifysanctification to make it a human work. With this, the churchthrough the ages can only say: they tried, and would have beenokay, except for their rituals.

Jeffery LarsonFremont, California

PROMISE KEEPERS, LOSERS WEEPERS

A spark has come to a dry and thirsty land: Promise Keepers. Thissummer the spark will once again hit our nation—a land madedry and thirsty by the weak resolve and strong impulse of the sinfulflesh. Should such flames be fanned or should they be quenched?The following article attempts to address some of the key concerns.Part I is composed by the Reverend Rodney E. Zwonitzer andPart II by the Reverend Joel R. Baseley, all of which is edited andprefaced by the Reverend Joel A. Brondos. Both Zwonitzer andBaseley serve Emmanuel Lutheran Church in Dearborn, Michigan.Some of the introductory material was also gleaned from an articlein the South Dakota District Newsletter written by The ReverendPresident Raymond Hartwig.

PrefacePromise Keepers was organized in by the University of

Colorado football coach Bill McCartney, together with othermen who were members of the Vineyard Fellowship, an associa-tion of churches formed in . A core group of menexpanded to a gathering of , men in , a national rally of, men in , and a total of over , men gathered inassemblies across the country in . A number of gatheringsare scheduled for , many of which were already sold out byApril. Under the leadership of its president, Randy Phillips, theorganization has grown rapidly in recent months and is nowserved by full-time employees. Plans are being made for agathering of one million men in Washington DC, in . Theorganization publishes a bimonthly magazine entitled New Man.

No mere tent revivals, Promise Keepers (PK) use stadiums tofan into flame the best efforts and emotions that men can musterfor being good husbands and brothers and fathers and sons. Inthe summer of , PK drew some , men to the Indi-anapolis Hoosier Dome. This past April, , men filled theSilverdome in Detroit. LCMS pastors and laymen alike havereturned from such events proclaiming, “This is what our wor-ship should be like! This is what we should be hearing all themore from our pulpits!”

Surely our world could use more virile morality. Surely menneed the best models and advice to follow when it comes to beinga husband, brother, father, son. And couldn’t our members use

more vim and vigor in Bible study and praise in worship? PKseems to offer these things in zestful abundance, but are theseofferings in accord with the gospel?

An investigation into PK source material reveals some eccen-tricities that are not promoted during the main events. Some of thematerials are rather radical and are perhaps not part of the main-stream beliefs of most of the participants. For example, one bookthat PK has endorsed and defended, Robert Hicks’s The MasculineJourney, makes statements like: “Samson is a high testosterone,manly kind of man. He is zakar to the core. But apparently henever grew beyond the phallic stage,” (p. ), and, “I believe Jesuswas phallic in all the inherent phallic passions we experience asmen” (p. ). Hicks also writes, “For men to survive their wound-ing, I believe they need to feel safety among men who have alsosuffered pain. The pains we experience as men are our bar mitz-vahs, our tribal bondings, our marks of manhood” (p. ).

Those who have attended PK events respond that they hearno such things at their sessions. The organization itself, while notdenying such extreme views, has provided a six-page reinterpre-tation of such excerpts available at no cost to all inquirers so thatnone need be offended, but the commending of such Freudiananalyses to Christian men to recapture their “maleness” as menof God remains highly dubious. Some may pass off these exam-ples as being the result of one crackpot in every bunch.

One need not, however, parade sensationalist eccentricitiesin order to provide a word of caution. One has plenty to considersimply in addressing the Reformed platform upon which PKstands. Case in point: the Reverend Dr. John Maxwell, senior pas-tor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, gave a stirring pre-sentation at the June –, , PK gathering at the HoosierDome in Indianapolis. He claimed that he wanted to talk about“moral integrity.” He said that “Promise Keepers are to have holyhearts . . . a holy head . . . holy hands. This should be the businessof Promise Keepers: to be holy men.” Ah, to be holy. What doesDr. Maxwell propose to the enthusiastic crowd for being holy?Ten guidelines on how to handle sexual temptation.

The ten guidelines are: Run. Accept responsibility. Beaccountable. Listen to your wife. Be on guard. Determine to leada pure life today. Realize that sexual sin assaults the lordship ofJesus Christ in your life. Recognize the consequences of sexualsin. Think about your children. Get a new definition of success.

We are all for such things. Such goals and guidelinesappear—shall we say—godly. Yet we note that those who use theterms “moral” and “Christian” congruently would say that thegoals of this organization are Christian. Where the means of gracedefine the Christian church, however, one would say that themeans of Promise Keepers are woefully inadequate.

This disparaging remark may bewilder or even perturb somewho believe that any fervent use of the Bible is a good use of theBible; any fervent prayer is a good prayer. Fervor, however, mustnot be equated with faith, quantitatively or qualitatively. Thequestion must then be put to those who would be promise mak-ers and keepers as to whether they are faithful.

The Lord is faithful. He makes promises and keeps them.We would not worry ourselves with Maxwell’s ten guidelines ifwe could keep the Lord’s Ten Commandments, but neitherguidelines nor commandments are the means by which we

arrive at holy and happy lives. Neither of these are the means bywhich we come to be sons of God.

Can law and gospel be distinguished clearly enough so thatthe hearers can see the inadequacies of PK propaganda for them-selves? This is, in fact, what we need all the more to be preachingfrom our pulpits instead of clever stories and illustrations—oreven holy laughter. We must not take it for granted that law andgospel are so quickly distinguished or applied. Thus those would-be Promise Keepers ought to begin by noting that men do notachieve holiness by making promises that they cannot keep.Rather, their lives are hidden in Christ, who makes and keeps hispromises. The following two parts attempt to put his words ofgrace on our lips so that we may see the dry fields of our desic-cated society drowned in Holy Baptism and drenched with thesweet dew of his gospel word instead of seeing parched landsimmolated with misguided zeal.

Part ICan Lutheran men participate in good conscience? By resist-

ing participation, are we resisting a movement of God? PromiseKeepers touts itself as such a movement, a revival of the HolySpirit seizing the moment under God’s favor to unite men of allsocio-economic, racial, and denominational categories into onebody under the leadership of Jesus Christ. These serious claimssmack of phraseology and theology of the Vineyard movementand John Wimber.

Founder Bill McCartney is rumored to have come out of hisRoman Catholic upbringing to join a Vineyard church andjoined with Vineyard pastor James Ryle to form Promise Keepers.They speak of the movement as an army fighting a war. This isprominent imagery of third wave theologians who believe theLord has revealed to them that he will establish a growing armyof anointed believers who will be invincible in their fight for thekingdom. Wimber has spoken of this army: “those in this armywill have the ‘kind of anointing . . . his kind of power . . . anyonewho wants to harm them must die’” (Discernment , no. , Octo-ber-December , Lapeer, Michigan). McCartney gives anotherexample in the final session of Promise Keepers ’: “We havebeen in a war but not at war” (Seven Promises of a PromiseKeeper, ed. Al Jansen, Focus on the Family Publishing, ColoradoSprings: , p. ). Revelation outside of Scripture has beengiven (they declare) to these individuals to know and express thatGod’s Spirit is behind the effort. Promise Keepers’ presidentRandy Phillips claims he was convinced during dining “in aunique and unmistakable way. The words were not audible, butthe impression was clear. The sense of the Lord’s urging was thatwe were experiencing a sovereign move of his Spirit to restore thespiritual identity of his sons . . . to make the most of every oppor-tunity” (Seven Promises, pp. –).

The apostle John wrote, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit,but test the spirits whether they are of God; because many falseprophets have gone out into the world” ( Jn :). Thus we wouldexamine and test what PK claims to be: “a sovereign move of hisSpirit” which led the founders to say: “We believe the Lord is nowextending to us his kairos, an opportunity to make a difference. Buthis sons must respond and make the commitments that we believewill seize the moment—the seven promises of a Promise Keeper!”

[Seven Promises, p. ]. Notice their choice of words here: “make adifference . . . must respond . . . make commitments.”

This is immediately followed by an important box entitled:“Are You Sure You’re A Christian?” The inference itself of thispointed question points to the fact that this movement continu-ally looks for certainties of salvation outside of the means ofgrace. It continues: “You need to do five things to become a partof God’s family.” These then are listed (here shortened): ()Admit your sin. () Repent, to be willing to turn from your sin.() Believe Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. () Receive,through prayer, Jesus into your heart. () Tell a believer and apastor about your commitment.

If in fact these five steps are necessary for salvation, thenprayer most definitely must be a means of grace—step four is thecrux of the matter, the decisive clincher. Against this the confes-sors speak:

Accordingly, we believe that after the Fall and prior tohis conversion not a spark of spiritual powers hasremained or exists in man by which he could makehimself ready for the grace of God or to accept the prof-fered grace, nor that he has any capacity for grace byand for himself or can apply himself to it or preparehimself for it, or help, do, effect, or cooperate towardhis conversion by his own powers, either altogether orhalfway or in the tiniest or smallest degree, “of himselfas coming from himself,” but is a slave of sin (John:), the captive of the devil who drives him (Eph :; Tim :). Hence according to its perverse dispositionand nature the natural free will is mighty and activeonly in the direction of that which is displeasing andcontrary to God (FC SD II, ).

This must be at the center of orthodox Christianity’s con-cerns about Promise Keepers, these Pelagian or at best semi-Pelagian attempts to place Christian men back under the law. IfLutheran men have Christ as the foundation of faith, itremains to be seen what PK would build on that foundation. Corinthians :– states, “Now if anyone builds on thisfoundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it,because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test eachone’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he hasbuilt on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work isburned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet soas through fire.”

Admittedly, every Christian man is guilty of not fulfilling theChristian duties assigned by God: leaders of the church and home.But in our sins against him, what is the remedy? PK says “Com-mitment!” and expects men to answer with moral effort. God says,“Repentance!” and answers with absolution. This is a major dis-tinction. Rather than give men pep talks about their negligence intheir male duties under the lordship of Christ, the church shouldbe directing them to the gracious gifts of life in Holy Absolutionand Holy Communion. Granted, most of PK’s leaders do not andwill not tolerate such an emphasis on the means of grace. These arenot what they want—they are not on the application-oriented

checklists of ideas for daily living that they feel their spiritual livesneed to feed on. On the contrary, they need the law and the gospelministry, confession, and absolution.

The response can already be heard: “But you are badly mis-taken! We are talking here about the third use of the law.”Harold Senkbeil sums up the wide gap of understanding herebetween true sanctification and this brand of Evangelical sanc-tification that the Promise Keepers so vigorously promote:“There are, after all, only two places to look for God: in yourheart or in his gospel. I hope I have demonstrated that the heartis the wrong place to look. For all of its zeal and enthusiasm forJesus, most of American Evangelicalism ends up pointing peo-ple to their hearts to find God. Jesus may have saved us, butnow it’s basically up to us to live for him. If we commit our livesto him, if we surrender control to him, if we have victory oversin—only then we may be sure that we are his. But there isanother place to look for God. The gospel is actually the onlyplace God has promised to be found. This gospel comes to us inmany ways: in preaching, sacraments and absolution. In eachcase, however, the gospel has one content, and one contentonly: Jesus Christ and him crucified (Harold L. Senkbeil, Sanc-tification: Christ in Action [Milwaukee: Northwestern Publish-ing House, ], pp. –.)

PK confuses law and gospel, in a peer pressure mode per-suading Christian men to turn to commitments rather than tothe means of grace for their lives lived out under grace. Further-more, they are promulgating the deleterious proposition that alldenominational barriers must come down so that biblical unityand its power can be demonstrated (author’s italics). It is true thatGod wants his church to be one, united. But the question thatremains: How? PK answers: “There’s only one criterion for thiskind of unity: to love Jesus and be born of the Spirit of God”(Seven Promises, p. ). This is a sharp departure from God’sWord! Scripture clearly teaches that the oneness of believers is tobe in all the words that Christ gave to His people (Jn :–;:–, Mt :). Here we see that the context of this desiredunity of God’s people is established by all his words given to us.It is not a matter for reductionist tendencies.

This well-intentioned desire to identify the differences thatseparate us as hampering Christ’s witness in the world (and Icommend PK for denouncing racial discrimination) is professedby Promise Keepers. To reduce unity to a simple gospel reductionstatement such as: “Love Jesus and be born of the Holy Spirit,”however, is not biblical truth. Furthermore, thousands of years ofconfessions exist to articulate just what it means to love Jesus andbe born from above; these delineate real differences in under-standing the very gospel itself!

Our Lutheran Church has never believed and confessed suchan unbiblical and false unity. It continues fervently to pray andstrive towards unity based upon all of God’s precious deposit ofteaching (doctrine) found in Holy Scriptures. It is a sin to holdfalse teachings as the heterodox churches do. To counter thatthere are members of the una sancta among them, so we shouldconsider them members of Christ’s body and participate in spiri-tual activities with them at certain levels, has been contrary toour confession of the faith. Lutheran doctrine in detail on thisunity has long been taught us from Pieper: “The Fathers of the

Missouri Synod declare it a calumny when the Lutheran Churchis accused of identifying the Church of God with the LutheranChurch. They taught: If a person sincerely clings to the cardinaldoctrine of the Christian faith, if he believes that God is graciousto him because of Christ’s satisfactio vicaria, he is a member ofthe Christian Church, no matter in which ecclesiastical camp hemay be. By denying this truth one would overthrow the cardinaldoctrine of the Christian faith, the article of justification” (Christ-ian Dogmatics, vol. [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, St.Louis: ], p. ). Pieper, however, clarifies the doctrine per-taining to our views of heterodox denominations: “It is commonknowledge that the presence of children of God in heterodoxchurches is urged to prove that it is right, even demanded bycharity, to fellowship heterodox churches. This is the exact oppo-site of what Scripture teaches, for Scripture says, ‘Avoid them’.”(Rom. :; Tim. : ff.; John –; etc.) (Christian Dogmatics,vol. , p. ).

Again we may hear the cry for unity for the sake of love andcharity of brethren. Pieper responds: “To say that love demandssuch a practice is a misuse of that word. Love of God and love ofthe brethren rather requires the opposite practice. He who lovesChrist loves Christ’s Word, and Christ commands us to avoid allwho teach anything that is contrary to His Word. And whoeverreally loves the brethren refuses to participate in their erring andsinning, seeking rather to deliver them from error and sin. More-over, the Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament stateexplicitly that God permits false teachers to arise in order thatChristians may show their obedience by avoiding them, not in orderthat Christians may fraternize with them (Dt :; :; Cor :).If Christians, against the divine prohibition, fellowship false teach-ers and tolerate false doctrines, they commit the sin which theChurch calls ‘unionism,’ ‘syncretism’” (Christian Dogmatics, vol. ,p. ). This is facilitated in Article VI, Number of the Condi-tions of Membership of the LCMS Constitution, to which mem-bers have without compulsion bound themselves: “Renunciationof unionism and syncretism of every description, such as: c. Par-ticipating in heterodox tract and missionary activities” (

Handbook: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, p. ).We must contend against such unionistic outreach efforts

that misappropriate God’s word, especially when they attempt tocome into our midst and encourage our sheep to follow.Although the worthy topics of honoring Christ with purity of liv-ing, healthy Christian fellowship with other men, building strongfamilies and marriages, honoring the churches and pastors whereone receives the holy things, breaking racial barriers, and savingour dark, sinful world are all, every one of them, worthy and cor-rect for Christians of the male and female sexes to be about, thequestion remains: How and where to be about it?

We must be about it in a confession of holy ones who meetto receive the holy things, a church where the gospel is preachedin its purity and the sacraments are administered according tothe Scriptures. We must without faltering discredit PK when itpurports to be a movement of the Spirit of God to gather menwho wish to do this outreach fellowship the way of God’s Word.The clearly published evidence testifies that they do not wish toacknowledge or follow all of God’s words for his children. Theychoose to place Christian men not under grace, but under the

law, under human ways of thinking. Their worship is in vain (Mt:). They do not correctly handle God’s holy word, for theyconfuse law and gospel ( Tim :), thereby endangering theprecious gift of salvation that comes by grace alone through faithalone through Scripture alone. They also misrepresent sanctifica-tion, encouraging men not to turn to the cross and gospel, but totheir heart. To such things we cannot say: “This is most certainlytrue,” nor can we append a hearty “Amen.”

Part IIWhy are Lutherans enchanted by the Promise Keepers

movement? Whenever this author has encountered pastors andlaymen discussing Promise Keepers, the debate soon turns heatedand divisions have often resulted. Although theological concernsare raised, they are answered with two common pragmaticrejoinders: () It fills a need, and () Our people can hear it withLutheran ears. The purpose of this part is to examine both ofthese points.

While this author admits flat rejection of the movement, Ibelieve these utilitarian responses are too pressing to be ignored.If there is a felt need, it is real to those who feel it. Does theirhunger come from something legitimately lacking in theLutheran word-and-sacrament ministry? Does their hungercome from being ignorant of what we have confessed in theLutheran Church regarding the beneficial use of the means ofgrace? Or is it possible that people are simply being misled bytheir itchy ears?

Filling NeedsThe Need for Spiritual Leadership. Gathering , men in

a coliseum to hear a sermon and dedicate themselves to a noblecause can be most impressive. This is especially so when theycheer for the Lord Jesus—when they are emotionally moved andapproach the stage to make a commitment to the Lord. All of thistakes place in a society where one man doesn’t seem to make adifference, whether in the home, oval office or pulpit. But when, gather together, the sense of potential grows correspond-ingly. Their voices unite. This is power the American way, theTim Taylor Home Improvement way (Hoo, hoo, hoo!). It breedsconfidence by sheer volume that here is a voice that will be heard.And every man who feels weak in his home, office, or church nolonger feels alone. He has comrades.

Promise Keepers claims to meet the desire for spiritualleadership in a society that no longer feels that one man canmake a difference. This is the Rush Limbaugh movement of theecclesiastical scene, where every man at the PK meeting mightwell stand up and cheer because “what that guy said up there iswhat I’ve always thought.” Well, Rush is a majority-maker. Andso might be the Promise Keepers organization. And if one is ofthe opinion that culture both conditions and informs the mes-sage (an opinion I do not hold) this movement is right on tar-get. In a society where one man cannot make a difference andthe majority wave is “where it’s at,” this could easily be identi-fied as a movement of God, for it fits society’s notions ofauthority and leadership.

The Lutheran churches in the United States have neveraspired to the heights of a national movement seeking to make

an impact on society the way PK is doing. How could we havebeen satisfied with being so small and obscure all these years?It is because our focus has not been on reforming a nation buton caring for individual souls. Our church is not a mass move-ment seeking to build a spiritual tower of Babel into the heav-ens. Our pastors preach God’s word of law and gospel andexercise the office of the keys, binding and loosing—to care forthe hearts and to comfort the troubled consciences of thosepeople around us. We trust the Lord to work according to hisinstituted means through those called and ordained servants ofthe word. Such a confession is foreign to a mainstream Protes-tantism that has steadily grown into a symbiotic relationshipwith American life. Sometimes influencing opinion and some-times being influenced by opinion, this Protestantism hasbecome so identified with “the American way” that Americansin Lutheran congregations may easily imagine that it is theonly way to go.

The Need for a Response from God. Men must feel lonely andhave a sense of being alienated in order to crave this kind ofbonding with other men that purports to help them be men ofGod. Promise Keepers offers a solution that is finding scores ofsympathetic men within our church body. It seems as thoughmembers in Lutheran congregations are now looking for God towork and speak in some dynamic way other than through themeans of grace.

Is it possible that we could “have a form of godliness” whiledenying its power ( Tim :)—doing lip service to “preachingthe gospel purely and administering the sacraments rightly”while actually placing our confidence in statistics and human zealto further the kingdom of grace? Is it possible that God couldabandon us to our own devices as a curse to our faithlessness ifwe do not cherish the keys of the kingdom, applying them andtrusting the Lord to work through them? The words of the Lordrecorded in Isaiah may resound again: “Just as they have cho-sen their own ways and their soul delights in their abominations,so will I choose their delusions and bring their fears on them;because when I called, no one answered and when I spoke, theydid not hear, but they did evil before my eyes and chose that inwhich I do not delight.”

Some of those whom I most respect in our church bodyhave said that the solution to the problem is a generation offunerals—people dropping off like flies during a forty-yearwilderness trek. Deferring to the natural law to do its stuff sug-gests that we have lost confidence in the means our Lord hasinstituted and through which he works. This lost confidenceleads people to seek other means for discerning God’s will or forpetitioning him to intervene in this world.

Now, as much as ever, our people need the Lord’s action inthe proper distinction and application of law and gospel—something the Promise Keepers message and methodology failto do. Those who fail to see have succumbed to a methodismthat seeks the Lord’s actions and the Holy Spirit in themselvesand outside of his word. They will seek a gracious God in placeswhere he has not promised to be. They hope to feel his presencein coliseums filled to the top rows with sweaty, hairy-chestedmen instead of in a congregation gathered for word and sacra-ment before the pulpit and altar. We may have won a skirmish

for the Bible in the ’s through the fiat of synodical resolution,but we have lost the battle if we no longer trust in that LivingWord, the canonical Scriptures, so that our efforts are concen-trated on properly distinguishing and applying law and gospel—no mere child’s play to be taken for granted.

The Need to Do Something. In descriptions of PK Rallies it issaid that men are moved during the presentations even to thepoint of tears! It is certainly hoped that those tears are tears ofremorse and repentance for what they have done wrong as men,husbands, fathers, sons, brothers. Tears are one appropriateresponse to our sin. But how will those tears be wiped away?Instead of drying eyes flooded with the hot saltiness of guilt andgrief with absolution and forgiveness, PK proposes altar calls,promising some sort of “counseling” in the time that follows.After answering such a call (note the altar calls where no altar isto be seen) the penitents may receive some sort of “gospel” butwill most likely be left with some form of the law. They will hearsome words of loving reassurance in the name of Jesus, but thenthey will be challenged to go out there and try harder. They willbe pointed to promises that they must keep.

A Lutheran would like to see absolution proclaimed to trou-bled souls, but that is not likely to be the case. Even with a bit ofoptimistic constructive thinking, if brokenhearted men were tohear a pure and sweet absolution with no strings attached, wherewould they seek ongoing comfort once the rally had moved on tothe next town? Would they be directed to nameless churches, tochurches that commend social friendships as the means of com-fort, or to churches that obscure the gospel with their zeal?

What Needs to Be Done? If not Promise Keepers, then what?Do we simply withdraw from the world—or is there somethingto be done for our society in general and the plight of men inparticular? Our Lutheran symbols under the locus on the thirduse of the law (FC SD VI, ; Tappert, p. ) distinguish betweenself-chosen works of service and truly good works. Hear what theconfessors say:

Believers, furthermore, require the teaching of thelaw so that they will not be thrown back on theirown holiness and piety and under the pretext ofthe Holy Spirit’s guidance set up a self-elected ser-vice of God without his Word and command, as itis written, “You shall not do every man whatever isright in his own eyes, but heed all these wordswhich I command you. You shall not add to it nortake from it” (Dt :, , ).

Under what word of God does Promise Keepers find itsbreath? The goal statement for this movement is: “Promise Keep-ers is a Christ-centered ministry dedicated to uniting menthrough vital relationships to become godly influences in theirworld.” Now, where in the Bible does it say that God wants tounite men through vital relationships with each other to becomegodly influences in their world? Nowhere. It says that God wantsto unite men into his church with the one Man, Christ, throughbaptism and teaching, living their lives in his promise and will.And yes, there are some other words of God. The writer to theHebrews says in chapter :

And let us consider one another in order to stir uplove and good works, not forsaking the assemblingof ourselves together, as is the manner of some, butexhorting one another, and so much the more asyou see the Day approaching. For if we sin willfullyafter we have received the knowledge of the truth,there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but acertain fearful expectation of judgment, and fieryindignation which will devour the adversaries.Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies withoutmercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose,will he be thought worthy who has trampled theSon of God underfoot, counted the blood of thecovenant by which he was sanctified a commonthing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

Is Scripture here describing a Promise Keepers convention?No. Just Christ’s church. And here is a warning that our help(sanctification/holiness) is in the blood of the covenant (techni-cal term for the cup of the Lord’s Supper), which most people atthe Promise Keepers convention call a common thing, “wine,”instead of an uncommon thing, the blood of Christ. We are to begathered and encourage each other in that communion with anuncommonly good thing, the unity in the one Lord, one faith,one baptism.

And from whom does the Lord want us to receive these giftsfor spiritual care? “Obey those who rule over you, and be sub-missive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must giveaccount. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for thatwould be unprofitable for you” (Hebrews :). Do the “minis-ters” of the Promise Keepers have a call to preach to and teachand nurture the members of Christ’s body? No. They were notregularly called. They took it upon themselves to do this, beingmoved by the imaginations of their own heart. It is a self-chosenservice—an addenda to God’s Word. A sin.

We Can Listen to it Through Lutheran EarsSome have said that Lutherans will not be harmed by this

experience since they have been trained as Lutherans and thuscan appropriate what they hear in a Lutheran way. But how is thispossible when the leaders of this movement are Pentecostaldespisers of the Lord’s sacraments? Can Lutherans distill some-thing profitable from this when they at the same time participatein that which is contrary to the Lord’s gracious will?

As noted above, Lutherans have the command and promiseof God to receive Christ himself in his testament, his true bodyand blood for forgiveness, strength, and preservation in the onetrue faith unto eternal life. What does Promise Keepers have thatcan match that? Lutherans have the command and promise fromthe Lord to give ear to their overseer, who will have to give anaccount of them before the Lord; pastors who take heed toChrist’s doctrine to save both themselves and their hearers ( Tim:). Lutherans are ecclesia, called out and away from “those whocause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which youlearned,” (Rom :). These are the commands of the Lord—and when they are followed from a willing spirit, they are good

works flowing from faith. But it is a curious phenomenon whenLutheran men (and even Lutheran ministers) can put aside thesecommands, assuming that nothing detrimental is likely to resultfrom immersing themselves in the Promise Keepers program andBible studies.

SummaryIt is not surprising that many people have become enamored

of the Promise Keepers organization. It certainly addresses a per-ceived need. We admit weaknesses in the faithfulness of our owncongregations and ministerium that have grown over the years,perhaps brought on by complacency or naïveté, that have aggra-vated or even propelled people into the arms of this Reformedzeal. Now, however, is not the time to capitulate to the Wesleyantheology presented by Promise Keepers or other mass move-ments of American Protestantism. The theological concerns havebeen articulated by President Hartwig as follows:

The studied avoidance of mention of the sacraments asthe divinely established means by which God createsand nurtures faith in effect denies the very means whichare centrally important in enabling Christians to liveChristian lives.

The predominant emphasis on obedience to thelaw in language which suggests that such obedience isitself the means for achieving greater purity in one’s liferuns contrary to proper understanding of law andgospel which recognizes that obedience to the law doesnot work inner spiritual transformation or enableChristians to follow Christ’s example.

The emphasis on external unity among Christiansbased upon the “one criterion for this unity: to love Jesusand be born of the Spirit of God” (Seven Promises of aPromise Keeper, p. 161) fails to take into account that

external unity in the church is constituted by agreementin the faith that is confessed rather than faith in the heart.Lutheran Christians must take care lest the impression begiven that God’s truth may be compromised.

The stress on masculinity, while seeming to addressa particular societal need, also includes the danger thatgender becomes an object of attention—even idolatrouspride—contrary to the biblical focus on male andfemale both carrying out their functions in obedienceto God and in the relationships into which God hasplaced them.

The name “Promise Keepers,” while offering anemphasis which may be desirable, is still a lesser empha-sis than the one which our Lord gave to his church inhis commission, commanding that the primary work ofthe church and its people, male and female, is to bepromise bearers.

Instead of yielding to the effervescence of an instant grati-fication that by the law soon goes flat, it is high time that weoffer the Christ who is confessed in our Lutheran symbols whocomes through his means of grace to give life and light—whohimself makes promises and keeps them for our sakes. In fact,this is what the Lutheran Laymen’s League ought to have overagainst Promise Keepers instead of merely conducting work-shops about “boomers” and “seekers.” Perhaps there are thosewho would transform the Lutheran Laymen’s League into abranch of Promise Keepers, in style if not in fact. PromiseKeepers, however, has infinitely more to gain from Lutheransthan they have to offer to Lutherans if they would hear andreceive the Christ who comes by his gracious means. May theLord grant us such hearts and lips to know and proclaimChrist aright to the true joy and edification that he aloneworks to his glory and praise!