Amongst all the chaos in our world; the fast moving society, the ever-developing technology, the day-to-day fashion trends, the evolution of music (just to name a few) it brings great comfort to know that each Divine Service on Sunday mornings will begin with "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," invoking the name of the Triune God, (who we come to worship in Spirit and in truth) as well as calling to remembrance the sacrament of Holy Baptism where we were washed clean from our sin by the powerful working of our Lord. This is always followed by some variance of the confession of sins. Whether it be "I a poor miserable sinner plead guilty before God of all sins..." or "Most merciful God, we confess that we are by nature sinful and unclean..." we are reminded of our pathetic condition before a righteous God, but He doesn't leave us there. The proclamation of Christ crucified awakens the new man in order to hear the preached Word, both Law and Gospel, as well as receive the body and blood of our Lord in a worthy manner for the forgiveness of our sins. I give thanks for the structure of our liturgy which provides, with great clarity, the presence of Christ who comes among us to "liturgize" us with Word and Sacrament.
I am afraid there are some among the fold who despise this repetition and seek a way to conform our Sunday morning routine in such a way that it reflects the chaotic culture that we are thrust into every day. Whatever the reason for this is, whether it be the desire to put an individual's talent on display, create a culturally satisfying environment, or attract a few younger people it seems that this wayward fold is missing a serious point in their endeavour. Like the Backstreet Boys or the earliest cell phones, an irreverent, "do whatever you want" Divine Service is going to eventually become dissatisfying to those who's satisfaction is trying to be fulfilled. This will result in yet another renovation and the point will continue to be missed; the happenings of the Church on Sunday morning, namely Word and Sacrament do not appeal to any culture and are a timeless culture in themselves. We can rejoice that the Aaronic benediction has been taking place in the Church for thousands of years, we can celebrate (along with the church catholic) the Word's of our Lord when he says, "This is my body; This is my blood," and we can happily confess, along with Simeon, "Lord now you let your servant go in peace, Your Word has been fulfilled," after receiving forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of the altar. This is only to name a few repetitive things we enjoy in the Divine Service. The "black sheep," if I can be so bold as to call them that, do not offer the same stable, timeless setting. Rather they are looking for new ways of doing things because by all appearances the old ways are not working. All of this is building up to the main focus of this post.
For the sake of privacy I will not use this individuals name (although I do not think he would mind,) but I will use his age because it helps to highlight the blessings that the repetition in our Divine Service bring. To the best of my knowledge this little boy's age is 3-4. Each Sunday his mother brings him and his older sister to the Divine Service at Messiah Lutheran Church in Missoula, MT where (I am happy to say) the "mundane" repetition takes place very faithfully. Over the Easter season I was the crucifer so I would be seated in a little pew on the altar for the entire service. Throughout different parts of our liturgical rites I could hear a little voice (almost in unison with the Pastor I might add) mimicking some of the parts of service. My Pastor's custom is to elongate the "is" during the Word's of institution in order to drive home the point that we are receiving the very body and blood of our Lord. When my Pastor would arrive at "issssssssss my body" I could hear this other voice, when he would say "with angels and archangels" I could hear this other voice, when he would conclude the benediction "and give you peace" I could hear this other voice. Not to mention I could hear this other voice humming some of the collect tunes.
To some this might be a frustration. Due to the sinful flesh they might be thinking "Can someone get this little kid out of hear, or tell him to stop mimicking the Pastor," but what a glorious and God pleasing thing it is when a child is delighted to receive and mimic the Pastor's words, especially when the parts he is mimicking are Holy Scripture. I dare say the same effect could not be attained in a Divine Service that is ever changing. Needless to say I had to abandon my reverence and look over to see who was speaking along with the Pastor and to my heart's delight it was this little boy. Usually I would be seated right behind him and notice him playing with little cars or eating fruit snacks, but it seems even in his distracted state (and mine as well) the Word of our Lord, which is infused into our repetitious liturgical life, is working all the same.
So what is the next step for this little unnamed tike? I pray that he continues to be raised in the faith and the knowledge of the truth as well as the repetitive nature of the liturgy, BUT also that he is taught the importance and significance of the parts of service in our liturgy so that he can be protected against the tantalizing ideas that it is better to abandon such lifeless routines and become more "excited" about worship. This story is just one example of the blessing of repetition, but I'm sure there are many more. There may be some that revolve around those folks who are toward the end of their life and can be comforted by the recitation of Words memorized in our Divine Service. I can say that I have sung the Nunc Dimittis, Kyrie, Gloria Patri etc during frustration, temptation or strife and maybe some other people could say the same. Whatever the uses of the ordinaries/propers a person might have, the point is they can be recalled easily because they are done with such high frequency. And before those contemptuous, "super-pious" people shout "God wants us to be super sincere worshippers who are innovative in our love for him. We have to be diverse and super happy-clappy to show him how much we love him," consider what He did for you to show you his love. By being crucified on the tree of the cross God showed his love for you in Christ. This is not so glorious or flashy and yet Paul, in a repetitious manner says, "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1Corinthians 2:2) Lord's blessings.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Johann Gerhard's Meditations on Divine Mercy.
If you are looking for a good prayer book, which contains solid confessional prayers (meaning that they focus on the true source of justification, namely the crucifixion of our Lord) and point to the source of true hope and peace (namely the providential care of our Lord through Word and Sacrament,) then I recommend you purchase "Meditations on Divine Mercy," written by Johann Gerhard; translated by President Matthew C. Harrison. You can find it at CPH.org or Amazon.com; ISBN 0-7586-0387-8.
I have not really been drawn to a prayer book until I began reading through Gerhard's prayers. It seemed that all the one's I had been reading were written by me. Gerhard does a great job bringing out the sinfulness of man, in light of the Scripture, and pointing to the source of forgiveness. He breaks the "7 rules that every Christian ought to break as often as possible" (another great book; Broken written by Rev. Jonathan Fisk, again CPH.org or Amazon.com) and points you to Word and Sacrament where our Lord is truly present to forgive the sins of his people.
One prayer in particular that I have come to love is titled "Prayer For the Mortification of the Old Man":
O HOLY AND MOST MERCIFUL GOD, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, I beg You in the Holy Spirit, for the sake of Your Son, to powerfully work in me and put to death the old man. I need this every day so I can be made strong in You according to the inner man. Sin dwells in my flesh (Romans 7:17). Give me the strength of the Spirit so I will not allow sin to rule me (Romans 6:12). You set my hidden sins in the light of Your countenance (Psalm 90:8). I ask You to bring them to light in my heart so I may recognize them, regret them, and humbly seek their forgiveness.
I am not yet completely free from the indwelling of sin. Please be gracious, I ask, and grant me freedom from the guilt and condemnation of sin. The law of sin in my members is warring against the law of my renewed mind (Romans 7:23). Give me the grace of Your Spirit so I may take captive the law of sin and not be captive to the old law of the flesh. The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh (Galatians 5:17). Indeed, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak (Matthew 26:41). Give my spirit, therefore, great power and strength so it may overcome the depraved lusts that battle in my flesh. Strengthen my inner man by Your Spirit (Ephesians 3:16) so lust cannot break the inner man's power. How incredibly difficult and hard it is to fight against one's self. When I fight the flesh, I am fighting myself. How difficult and arduous it is to remove an enemy from one's own home.
Unless You clothe me with heavenly strength in this war, I am afraid that I will certainly be defeated by the hidden plots of the enemy. Strike down, burn, cut, and kill the old man so I can flee from this flattering fraud and seduction. Grant that daily I die to myself so the lures of the flesh will not draw me away from the true life that is in Christ. Inflame the fire of the Spirit in my heart so I may offer to You as a sacrifice the beloved child of my soul, which are depraved lusts and my own will. Flesh and blood cannot receive the inheritance of the kingdom of God (1Corinthians 15:50). May they die in me so I will not be excluded from the kingdom of heaven. Those who live according to the flesh will die; those who by the Spirit kill the deeds of the flesh will live (Romans 8:13). Those who belong to Christ crucify the flesh with its desires (Galatians 5:24). Pierce and crucify my flesh, O Christ, You who were pierced and crucified on the altar of the cross for me. AMEN.
This is a preview of the excellent quality of Gerhard's meditations on divine mercy. This prayer seems to reflect on Luther's explanation of the third petition of the Lord's Prayer. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. What does this mean? Answer: The good and gracious will of God is done indeed without our prayer. But we pray in this petition that it may be done among us also. How is this done? Answer: When God BREAKS and HINDERS every evil counsel and will that would not let us hallow the name of God nor let His kingdom come, such as the will of the devil, the world, AND OUR FLESH."
This is essentially Gerhard's request, that the evil intentions of his own flesh be mortified by our Lord through the death and resurrection of Christ, which also echoes Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." It is a strange paradox that our Lord brings us to life through death. This ultimately happens through baptism where we die to sin and are connected to the death and burial of Christ, but even more to his resurrection to everlasting life (Romans 6:2-4). God bless in the merits of Christ crucified, for you.
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
I have not really been drawn to a prayer book until I began reading through Gerhard's prayers. It seemed that all the one's I had been reading were written by me. Gerhard does a great job bringing out the sinfulness of man, in light of the Scripture, and pointing to the source of forgiveness. He breaks the "7 rules that every Christian ought to break as often as possible" (another great book; Broken written by Rev. Jonathan Fisk, again CPH.org or Amazon.com) and points you to Word and Sacrament where our Lord is truly present to forgive the sins of his people.
One prayer in particular that I have come to love is titled "Prayer For the Mortification of the Old Man":
O HOLY AND MOST MERCIFUL GOD, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, I beg You in the Holy Spirit, for the sake of Your Son, to powerfully work in me and put to death the old man. I need this every day so I can be made strong in You according to the inner man. Sin dwells in my flesh (Romans 7:17). Give me the strength of the Spirit so I will not allow sin to rule me (Romans 6:12). You set my hidden sins in the light of Your countenance (Psalm 90:8). I ask You to bring them to light in my heart so I may recognize them, regret them, and humbly seek their forgiveness.
I am not yet completely free from the indwelling of sin. Please be gracious, I ask, and grant me freedom from the guilt and condemnation of sin. The law of sin in my members is warring against the law of my renewed mind (Romans 7:23). Give me the grace of Your Spirit so I may take captive the law of sin and not be captive to the old law of the flesh. The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh (Galatians 5:17). Indeed, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak (Matthew 26:41). Give my spirit, therefore, great power and strength so it may overcome the depraved lusts that battle in my flesh. Strengthen my inner man by Your Spirit (Ephesians 3:16) so lust cannot break the inner man's power. How incredibly difficult and hard it is to fight against one's self. When I fight the flesh, I am fighting myself. How difficult and arduous it is to remove an enemy from one's own home.
Unless You clothe me with heavenly strength in this war, I am afraid that I will certainly be defeated by the hidden plots of the enemy. Strike down, burn, cut, and kill the old man so I can flee from this flattering fraud and seduction. Grant that daily I die to myself so the lures of the flesh will not draw me away from the true life that is in Christ. Inflame the fire of the Spirit in my heart so I may offer to You as a sacrifice the beloved child of my soul, which are depraved lusts and my own will. Flesh and blood cannot receive the inheritance of the kingdom of God (1Corinthians 15:50). May they die in me so I will not be excluded from the kingdom of heaven. Those who live according to the flesh will die; those who by the Spirit kill the deeds of the flesh will live (Romans 8:13). Those who belong to Christ crucify the flesh with its desires (Galatians 5:24). Pierce and crucify my flesh, O Christ, You who were pierced and crucified on the altar of the cross for me. AMEN.
This is a preview of the excellent quality of Gerhard's meditations on divine mercy. This prayer seems to reflect on Luther's explanation of the third petition of the Lord's Prayer. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. What does this mean? Answer: The good and gracious will of God is done indeed without our prayer. But we pray in this petition that it may be done among us also. How is this done? Answer: When God BREAKS and HINDERS every evil counsel and will that would not let us hallow the name of God nor let His kingdom come, such as the will of the devil, the world, AND OUR FLESH."
This is essentially Gerhard's request, that the evil intentions of his own flesh be mortified by our Lord through the death and resurrection of Christ, which also echoes Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." It is a strange paradox that our Lord brings us to life through death. This ultimately happens through baptism where we die to sin and are connected to the death and burial of Christ, but even more to his resurrection to everlasting life (Romans 6:2-4). God bless in the merits of Christ crucified, for you.
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Fishing With Flashy Lures?
During the last two days of my spring break I got to enjoy some fly fishing with my older brother. Every time I would cast my line up stream I was hoping to attract a fish with the nymph flies I had selected. I wanted to make sure I had the right flow, the right flies, and the right fish. You know, the fish that would be willing to be caught by my flashy trickery. While fishing I was reflecting on the passage where Christ approaches "Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men" (Matthew 4:18-19). The image of two disciples throwing a net into the sea in order to catch fish and likening that image with being fishers of men seems to take on a different idea if, say, the disciples were holding St. Croix fly rods in their hands.
What I mean is this, fly rods and fly tackle are designed to attract fish so that they can be caught whereas a net being cast into the sea is designed, not to attract fish, but to forcibly snatch them up and pull them into the boat. You might even say that the fish are being caught totally against their will. Is it important to look into the imagery this closely? When contemplating the action of the will in our 21st century Christian world I think so. With so many denominations focusing on the correct action of our will in "accepting Jesus as our personal Lord and saviour" it is important to note this subtle yet profound image of how God calls people out of the darkness of sin.
It does not seem coincidental that we have this particular scene recorded for us. In fact the disciples casting their net into the dark sea, forcibly bringing fish out of the water and placing them into the boat is a perfect image of how the Word of God calls people from the darkness of their sin and brings them to repentance and faith in Christ, placing them in the ark of the Church. This action of the preached Word does not involve our will in any way, rather we are passively receiving God's grace. And just like a fish desires to remain in the dark depths of the sea and not be put to death so our sinful flesh desires to stay in the dark depths of sin and wars against the idea of being crucified.
When we consider the richness of this scene (the fact that Christ is paralleling God's work of saving people to the lowly image of fisherman tossing a net into the sea to catch unwilling fish) we can rightly ask the question "Does more need to be added to God's Word in order that the unwilling person be turned to repentance and faith? Should the net of God's Word and Sacraments be cast out to pull people from the darkness of their sin, or should we attempt to utilize flashy lures to catch fish? What are we suggesting when we attempt to make God's word more relevant to the age we live in? If we put bells and whistles on it will more people join the fold? Is our attempt to attach attractants to the Word and Sacraments a silent commentary on what we believe about the will?"
What I mean is this, fly rods and fly tackle are designed to attract fish so that they can be caught whereas a net being cast into the sea is designed, not to attract fish, but to forcibly snatch them up and pull them into the boat. You might even say that the fish are being caught totally against their will. Is it important to look into the imagery this closely? When contemplating the action of the will in our 21st century Christian world I think so. With so many denominations focusing on the correct action of our will in "accepting Jesus as our personal Lord and saviour" it is important to note this subtle yet profound image of how God calls people out of the darkness of sin.
It does not seem coincidental that we have this particular scene recorded for us. In fact the disciples casting their net into the dark sea, forcibly bringing fish out of the water and placing them into the boat is a perfect image of how the Word of God calls people from the darkness of their sin and brings them to repentance and faith in Christ, placing them in the ark of the Church. This action of the preached Word does not involve our will in any way, rather we are passively receiving God's grace. And just like a fish desires to remain in the dark depths of the sea and not be put to death so our sinful flesh desires to stay in the dark depths of sin and wars against the idea of being crucified.
When we consider the richness of this scene (the fact that Christ is paralleling God's work of saving people to the lowly image of fisherman tossing a net into the sea to catch unwilling fish) we can rightly ask the question "Does more need to be added to God's Word in order that the unwilling person be turned to repentance and faith? Should the net of God's Word and Sacraments be cast out to pull people from the darkness of their sin, or should we attempt to utilize flashy lures to catch fish? What are we suggesting when we attempt to make God's word more relevant to the age we live in? If we put bells and whistles on it will more people join the fold? Is our attempt to attach attractants to the Word and Sacraments a silent commentary on what we believe about the will?"
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
The Apostolic Witness & Confessing the Faith
In the up and coming Christian world there is a term that has taken hold, and a more important term that has fallen by the way side. It is often that we hear Christians say, "I'm going to witness for Christ today," or the question, "Have you witnessed to anyone?" In the meantime we have dropped out of our memory the better term, which is confess. To many people this distinction between witnessing and confessing is a mere splitting of hairs. It is to rigid to think that there is a problem with the use of 'witness' rather than 'confess.' The question has probably already arisen, "Why should I confess the faith rather than witness about it?" This question escaped me for a long time. I always thought that it was of no real consequence to "witness" to others. I did not consider the difference between witnessing and confessing as a noteworthy distinction. Being brought to the correct understanding of how these terms should be utilized I now have a deeper appreciation both for the power of the Word and my role as a Christian in the vocation that I have been called to. I believe we disrupt context and begin to lay out a false teaching when we insist on witnessing rather than confessing the faith, especially as it relates to the blessed doctrine of vocation that we in the Missouri-Synod are unique in possessing. To suggest that the term "witness" produces a false understanding of vocation (and ultimately the context of Scripture verses where "witness" is used) is a bold statement, but I'm convinced that it is true based on the results such so called "witnessing" has across the denominational board.
You'll notice that the title of this post begins with "The Apostolic Witness." You might say to yourself, "Hasn't this guy just spent his opening paragraph suggesting that we should not use this term, but rather confess?" This is a good question, and you are right in asking it. It is better for US to confess the faith and allow the Apostles to remain in their rightful role of witnessing about all the aspects of the life of Christ our Lord. Klemet Preus asserts in his book "The Fire and the Staff:Lutheran Theology in Practice," that everywhere the term witness is used in the New Testament it refers to people who have actually seen an event take place. I trust that he has done a proper word search to verify that this is true, but even in our English use of the term "witness" it is defined as follows: "to see, hear, or know by personal presence and perception," so it only makes sense that the Apostles would bear this special role or vocation as the witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord, in turn excluding everyone else who has not witnessed these things, namely everyone but the Apostles. We can see in the book of Acts when the eleven Apostles must choose someone to replace Judas's office that that person has to be "one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection" (Acts:1:21-22). The eleven produced two men who fulfilled this requirement and from the two Matthias was chosen. From this example we can see that certain individuals were chosen for this vocation.
Preus discusses an important reason why we should confess the faith as oppose to witness about it. When you witness you might be tempted to say "'Let me tell you what Jesus has done for me.' No one really needs to know what you think when it comes to eternal life. And we certainly will never be saved by hearing what Jesus has done for you" (Preus, 389). The point is if you become a witness you might be concerned more about telling people how God is working in your life instead of confessing the universal faith that Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world. This is a good point to make, but I'm more concerned with how this false use of a term disrupts our sense of vocation.
What is meant by vocation? The literal definition of the term is a particular occupation, business, or profession; calling. So a vocation could be anything from a witness, as the Apostles were, down to a father or mother, student, blue-collar worker, "black collar" worker (Pastor,) school teacher, husband or wife etc. The key term is called. These various positions are filled when God calls us to them which is a comforting and pleasant way to look at the various stations we hold in life. For one it gives us purpose, but also it does not leave us searching for ways to "do God's will." When we are faithful in our various callings we are being faithful to our Lord. In the Small Catechism of Dr. Luther he has a portion called [IX] Table of Duties. His introduction to this table of duties is as follows: "consisting of certain passages of Scriptures, selected for various estates and conditions of men, by which they may be admonished to do their respective duties" (Tappert, 354). "Various estates," "conditions of men," and "respective duties" can easily be rendered vocations. Luther notes importantly that the following admonitions are "certain passages of Scriptures," so our vocations are given by God and he gives us his Word in order that we carry them out according to His will. In the Large Catechism of Dr. Luther and the fourth commandment he discusses why and how children should honor their father and mother and "in the second place" he says, "notice what a great, good, and holy work is assigned to children. Alas, it is utterly despised and brushed aside, and no one recognizes it as God's command or as holy, divine word and precept. For if we had regarded it as such, it would have been apparent to all that they who lived according to these words must also be holy men. Then there would have been no need to institute monasticism or "spiritual estates" (Tappert, 380).
As Luther shows we all have "great, good, and holy work(s)" assigned to us, but they are in the sphere of the vocations which we have been called to. Why is this important? For most Christians in our modern world "witnessing" is the main role of every Christian. With phrases like "every man a Minister" and "go out and witness" we have turned our faces away from the "great, good, and holy work(s)" only to suggest that somehow this zealous witnessing is something more elevated in the eyes of our Lord than the humble estates which he places us in. Oh how we have fallen into monasticism again by applying this word "witness" to all Christians instead of only those to which it was applied. In Luther's time individuals who entered into the monastic life were thought of as more holy and God pleasing because of this pursuit of God. How often do individuals think, "I'm a much better Christian than Joe because I "witnessed" to five people today and poor old Joe just went to his job, fulfilled his duties no doubt, but did not "witness" about Christ to anyone."
You might be wondering, "Well is this not just a different term with the same understanding as confessing the faith?" In shorthand the answer is no. If we are to confess, or ομολογεώ (homologeo,) than we are to say the same thing that the Scriptures say. By asserting that every Christian ought to witness as the Apostle's did, you are not saying the same thing as the Scriptures. For one you are giving an entirely new meaning to the word "witness," and for two you are placing the Law on the consciences of men where God has not placed it himself. Consider Luther's words about the book of Acts: "Contrary to what has sometimes been the practice, this book should not be read or regarded as though St. Luke had written about the personal work or history of the apostles simply as an example of good works or a good life...Rather it should be noted that by this book St. Luke teaches the whole of Christendom, even to the end of the world, that the true and chief article of Christian doctrine is this: We must all be justified alone by faith in Jesus Christ, without any contribution from the law or help from our works" (TLSB, 1828). It is almost as if Luther saw the day coming when people would read this commission to the Apostles and then proclaim, "I must do just as the Apostles have done, so I will witness to all the world!" You can see how devastating it is to apply this little word "witness" to ourselves. Luther sees that if we utilize the entirety of the book of Acts, and so including this one passage, as a way to set up the Apostles as a guide to right living we lose the true purpose of the book, which is the proclamation of the forgiveness we have in Christ. What a difference. In maintaining the context and so reserving this little word "witness" for the Apostles we can either be burdened by the acronym WWAD (What Would the Apostles Do) to a release from the Law and the acronym WDAP(What Did the Apostles Preach) which is the complete forgiveness of sins in Christ, without any merit or worthiness of our own, before or after our conversion to faith.
The clarification in context between the role of the Apostles and our own, as it concerns witnessing and confessing is important because without it consciences can be burdened by over-zealous spirits who wish to insert themselves into the role which is reserved for the Apostles. The distinction between the Apostles and ourselves lies in the notion that a witness refers to a person who has seen events first hand. The Apostles are this witness to the life of Jesus Christ, not you and I. We should reserve this term for the Apostles in order to separate their very important role in spreading the Gospel and not confuse their vocational task with our own. Let us consider the words of our Lord as he commissions the eleven:
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."(Acts 1:8).
This is a great and glorious comfort to us Christians today, and for all of those who would receive this witness from the Apostles. Christ has assigned a specific task to the eleven, as well as the newly appointed Matthias, and later Saul of Tarsus.
Having the context in its proper place we can take further comfort in the fact that the spreading of the Gospel does not depend on us, but rather the Apostles. You might say, "How can the Apostles spread the Gospel, they are dead and gone," but I contest because contained within the New Testament Scriptures is the very substance that witnesses to the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord (among other important events). It is this Apostolic witness which is no doubt carried into the world by pastors, missionaries, and other Church workers, but the Apostles are still the ones testifying to the life of Christ. This brings power to the Word. Is the word efficacious in creating faith? Typically those who would advocate for witnessing do not place a whole lot of faith in the power of the Word. Is this a bold statement? Maybe, but I think not because after they are done witnessing they then leave it on the one witnessed to to make a decision as to whether or not they believe what was spoken. The power has thus been drained from the Word and it is merely a listing of facts which a person can either say yes or no to. In his letter to the Church of Rome, Paul seems to speak differently of the Word: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). Maintaining the distinction between the Apostolic witness and our confessing of that witness then trusts in the Word to do its job. To be sure this commission is in part fulfilled from the pulpit when the Lord's Word is read and preached. It is also fulfilled in the sending out of missionaries and other Church workers, but the growth of the people of God still does not depend on these individuals, but rather the power and substance of the Apostolic witness. The second point is something that our pride-filled flesh doesn't seem to swallow so easily. We want to proclaim, "Look at me, I am fulfilling the commission of Christ just as the Apostles did, this is the role for every Christian to partake in!" Sadly this brings a heavy burden upon the consciences of numerous Christians. In the false sense of piety and trust in our own good works we separate the role of the called Apostles, preachers, and teachers and those who are in reception of the gracious gifts of our Lord, namely the laity.
So where does this leave us? If we should extinguish the use of the word witness and it's false emphasis on the idea that all Christians are called to verbal evangelism, does this mean that we should not confess the sacrifice of our Lord to others? In his first epistle the Apostle Peter says, "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1Peter 3:15). Paul speaks in a similar way in his epistle to the Colossians. He says, "Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person" (Col. 4:6). In each of these examples it is important to note that both Peter and Paul anticipate a question or an attack. The confession then is not an evangelistic tool in the way that Evangelical Christianity would force the word witness to be. Rather it is a response or defense which suggests that you, Christian, are being approached by someone else. In the tenth chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew we see Christ addressing the twelve Apostles. He says, "Therefore all who ομολογήσει (will confess) in me in the presence of men, ομολογήσω (I will confess) in him before my father" (Matthew 10:32). He also puts it negatively that all who deny Christ before men, he will also deny before his father. Taking Peter and Paul into consideration we can see that Christ is not commanding that all people go out and confess him, again, as an evangelistic method, rather this confession of Christ is presupposed by a question or an attack by another individual. And then the question becomes, how should we understand these words? Is Christ saying that our work of confessing causes a saving act? We are saved by grace through faith which is not from ourselves so I hardly think that is the case. It is essential for a layperson to confess the faith when they are questioned or attacked, but this is not something that he possesses in himself to do, rather the new man, through the motivation of the Gospel, makes the confession of faith without a thought about it. For from the newly created faith pours forth all the fruits of faith, including the confession of the Apostolic witness.
And this is not done by word only, but rather "Let your light so shine before others, so that they may see your good works give glorify to your Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 5:16). This also pours forth from faith, which again is a gift. We can see too that we are called to a certain vocation in this life, but we are all called to the newness of life in Christ as well, out of which is produced our confession when defending the Gospel of our Lord and walking in the ways of the Law. It is not a compulsion, obligation, or work but rather spontaneous and God given. Will we at times fail at these tasks? The Scripture testifies with a resounding yes! This is not the end though for Christ has given the witness to some, namely the Apostles, and he grants you to confess the one true faith as he nourishes you daily through his Word and Sacraments. Let us give thanks to God that our salvation does not depend on our own self measured piety, but rather on his son who WILL confess YOU before his father even as he causes you to confess him to men when those times come.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit
You'll notice that the title of this post begins with "The Apostolic Witness." You might say to yourself, "Hasn't this guy just spent his opening paragraph suggesting that we should not use this term, but rather confess?" This is a good question, and you are right in asking it. It is better for US to confess the faith and allow the Apostles to remain in their rightful role of witnessing about all the aspects of the life of Christ our Lord. Klemet Preus asserts in his book "The Fire and the Staff:Lutheran Theology in Practice," that everywhere the term witness is used in the New Testament it refers to people who have actually seen an event take place. I trust that he has done a proper word search to verify that this is true, but even in our English use of the term "witness" it is defined as follows: "to see, hear, or know by personal presence and perception," so it only makes sense that the Apostles would bear this special role or vocation as the witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord, in turn excluding everyone else who has not witnessed these things, namely everyone but the Apostles. We can see in the book of Acts when the eleven Apostles must choose someone to replace Judas's office that that person has to be "one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection" (Acts:1:21-22). The eleven produced two men who fulfilled this requirement and from the two Matthias was chosen. From this example we can see that certain individuals were chosen for this vocation.
Preus discusses an important reason why we should confess the faith as oppose to witness about it. When you witness you might be tempted to say "'Let me tell you what Jesus has done for me.' No one really needs to know what you think when it comes to eternal life. And we certainly will never be saved by hearing what Jesus has done for you" (Preus, 389). The point is if you become a witness you might be concerned more about telling people how God is working in your life instead of confessing the universal faith that Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world. This is a good point to make, but I'm more concerned with how this false use of a term disrupts our sense of vocation.
What is meant by vocation? The literal definition of the term is a particular occupation, business, or profession; calling. So a vocation could be anything from a witness, as the Apostles were, down to a father or mother, student, blue-collar worker, "black collar" worker (Pastor,) school teacher, husband or wife etc. The key term is called. These various positions are filled when God calls us to them which is a comforting and pleasant way to look at the various stations we hold in life. For one it gives us purpose, but also it does not leave us searching for ways to "do God's will." When we are faithful in our various callings we are being faithful to our Lord. In the Small Catechism of Dr. Luther he has a portion called [IX] Table of Duties. His introduction to this table of duties is as follows: "consisting of certain passages of Scriptures, selected for various estates and conditions of men, by which they may be admonished to do their respective duties" (Tappert, 354). "Various estates," "conditions of men," and "respective duties" can easily be rendered vocations. Luther notes importantly that the following admonitions are "certain passages of Scriptures," so our vocations are given by God and he gives us his Word in order that we carry them out according to His will. In the Large Catechism of Dr. Luther and the fourth commandment he discusses why and how children should honor their father and mother and "in the second place" he says, "notice what a great, good, and holy work is assigned to children. Alas, it is utterly despised and brushed aside, and no one recognizes it as God's command or as holy, divine word and precept. For if we had regarded it as such, it would have been apparent to all that they who lived according to these words must also be holy men. Then there would have been no need to institute monasticism or "spiritual estates" (Tappert, 380).
As Luther shows we all have "great, good, and holy work(s)" assigned to us, but they are in the sphere of the vocations which we have been called to. Why is this important? For most Christians in our modern world "witnessing" is the main role of every Christian. With phrases like "every man a Minister" and "go out and witness" we have turned our faces away from the "great, good, and holy work(s)" only to suggest that somehow this zealous witnessing is something more elevated in the eyes of our Lord than the humble estates which he places us in. Oh how we have fallen into monasticism again by applying this word "witness" to all Christians instead of only those to which it was applied. In Luther's time individuals who entered into the monastic life were thought of as more holy and God pleasing because of this pursuit of God. How often do individuals think, "I'm a much better Christian than Joe because I "witnessed" to five people today and poor old Joe just went to his job, fulfilled his duties no doubt, but did not "witness" about Christ to anyone."
You might be wondering, "Well is this not just a different term with the same understanding as confessing the faith?" In shorthand the answer is no. If we are to confess, or ομολογεώ (homologeo,) than we are to say the same thing that the Scriptures say. By asserting that every Christian ought to witness as the Apostle's did, you are not saying the same thing as the Scriptures. For one you are giving an entirely new meaning to the word "witness," and for two you are placing the Law on the consciences of men where God has not placed it himself. Consider Luther's words about the book of Acts: "Contrary to what has sometimes been the practice, this book should not be read or regarded as though St. Luke had written about the personal work or history of the apostles simply as an example of good works or a good life...Rather it should be noted that by this book St. Luke teaches the whole of Christendom, even to the end of the world, that the true and chief article of Christian doctrine is this: We must all be justified alone by faith in Jesus Christ, without any contribution from the law or help from our works" (TLSB, 1828). It is almost as if Luther saw the day coming when people would read this commission to the Apostles and then proclaim, "I must do just as the Apostles have done, so I will witness to all the world!" You can see how devastating it is to apply this little word "witness" to ourselves. Luther sees that if we utilize the entirety of the book of Acts, and so including this one passage, as a way to set up the Apostles as a guide to right living we lose the true purpose of the book, which is the proclamation of the forgiveness we have in Christ. What a difference. In maintaining the context and so reserving this little word "witness" for the Apostles we can either be burdened by the acronym WWAD (What Would the Apostles Do) to a release from the Law and the acronym WDAP(What Did the Apostles Preach) which is the complete forgiveness of sins in Christ, without any merit or worthiness of our own, before or after our conversion to faith.
The clarification in context between the role of the Apostles and our own, as it concerns witnessing and confessing is important because without it consciences can be burdened by over-zealous spirits who wish to insert themselves into the role which is reserved for the Apostles. The distinction between the Apostles and ourselves lies in the notion that a witness refers to a person who has seen events first hand. The Apostles are this witness to the life of Jesus Christ, not you and I. We should reserve this term for the Apostles in order to separate their very important role in spreading the Gospel and not confuse their vocational task with our own. Let us consider the words of our Lord as he commissions the eleven:
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."(Acts 1:8).
This is a great and glorious comfort to us Christians today, and for all of those who would receive this witness from the Apostles. Christ has assigned a specific task to the eleven, as well as the newly appointed Matthias, and later Saul of Tarsus.
Having the context in its proper place we can take further comfort in the fact that the spreading of the Gospel does not depend on us, but rather the Apostles. You might say, "How can the Apostles spread the Gospel, they are dead and gone," but I contest because contained within the New Testament Scriptures is the very substance that witnesses to the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord (among other important events). It is this Apostolic witness which is no doubt carried into the world by pastors, missionaries, and other Church workers, but the Apostles are still the ones testifying to the life of Christ. This brings power to the Word. Is the word efficacious in creating faith? Typically those who would advocate for witnessing do not place a whole lot of faith in the power of the Word. Is this a bold statement? Maybe, but I think not because after they are done witnessing they then leave it on the one witnessed to to make a decision as to whether or not they believe what was spoken. The power has thus been drained from the Word and it is merely a listing of facts which a person can either say yes or no to. In his letter to the Church of Rome, Paul seems to speak differently of the Word: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). Maintaining the distinction between the Apostolic witness and our confessing of that witness then trusts in the Word to do its job. To be sure this commission is in part fulfilled from the pulpit when the Lord's Word is read and preached. It is also fulfilled in the sending out of missionaries and other Church workers, but the growth of the people of God still does not depend on these individuals, but rather the power and substance of the Apostolic witness. The second point is something that our pride-filled flesh doesn't seem to swallow so easily. We want to proclaim, "Look at me, I am fulfilling the commission of Christ just as the Apostles did, this is the role for every Christian to partake in!" Sadly this brings a heavy burden upon the consciences of numerous Christians. In the false sense of piety and trust in our own good works we separate the role of the called Apostles, preachers, and teachers and those who are in reception of the gracious gifts of our Lord, namely the laity.
So where does this leave us? If we should extinguish the use of the word witness and it's false emphasis on the idea that all Christians are called to verbal evangelism, does this mean that we should not confess the sacrifice of our Lord to others? In his first epistle the Apostle Peter says, "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1Peter 3:15). Paul speaks in a similar way in his epistle to the Colossians. He says, "Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person" (Col. 4:6). In each of these examples it is important to note that both Peter and Paul anticipate a question or an attack. The confession then is not an evangelistic tool in the way that Evangelical Christianity would force the word witness to be. Rather it is a response or defense which suggests that you, Christian, are being approached by someone else. In the tenth chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew we see Christ addressing the twelve Apostles. He says, "Therefore all who ομολογήσει (will confess) in me in the presence of men, ομολογήσω (I will confess) in him before my father" (Matthew 10:32). He also puts it negatively that all who deny Christ before men, he will also deny before his father. Taking Peter and Paul into consideration we can see that Christ is not commanding that all people go out and confess him, again, as an evangelistic method, rather this confession of Christ is presupposed by a question or an attack by another individual. And then the question becomes, how should we understand these words? Is Christ saying that our work of confessing causes a saving act? We are saved by grace through faith which is not from ourselves so I hardly think that is the case. It is essential for a layperson to confess the faith when they are questioned or attacked, but this is not something that he possesses in himself to do, rather the new man, through the motivation of the Gospel, makes the confession of faith without a thought about it. For from the newly created faith pours forth all the fruits of faith, including the confession of the Apostolic witness.
And this is not done by word only, but rather "Let your light so shine before others, so that they may see your good works give glorify to your Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 5:16). This also pours forth from faith, which again is a gift. We can see too that we are called to a certain vocation in this life, but we are all called to the newness of life in Christ as well, out of which is produced our confession when defending the Gospel of our Lord and walking in the ways of the Law. It is not a compulsion, obligation, or work but rather spontaneous and God given. Will we at times fail at these tasks? The Scripture testifies with a resounding yes! This is not the end though for Christ has given the witness to some, namely the Apostles, and he grants you to confess the one true faith as he nourishes you daily through his Word and Sacraments. Let us give thanks to God that our salvation does not depend on our own self measured piety, but rather on his son who WILL confess YOU before his father even as he causes you to confess him to men when those times come.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit
Friday, March 22, 2013
The Bride of Christ Dressed in Culturally Relevant Garb
There is a dangerous tendency in our culture-serving 21st century American Christian world to abandon the sacramental way in which our Lord visits us each Sunday as we gather around His means of grace. This is in part due to sin which manifests itself in fear of a shrinking Church, but it also has to do with another aspect of the Old Adam in us which seeks to fight against the way of our Lord. In his constant need of the drug of self-justification, the Old Adam attempts to hop on the bandwagon of American Evangelicalism just as the wagon is about to plummet headlong into destruction. Not only is the Old Adam seeking to throw out from the bride of Christ her modesty which reflects her bridegroom, but he is also replacing her modesty with clothes fit for prostitutes. Let us rename the reasons in clearer terms. One, we fear the decline of our Church, and this is a first commandment problem. Two, we do not want to acknowledge that God desires to come to serve us with Word and Sacraments, thus not only showing us we are incapable of satisfying the law but also pointing to the redemptive act of Christ crucified for us. Our fear leads us to desperate solutions and our desire for self-justification leads us to hell. Can all of this be the effect of such abandonment from the proper form in which Christ comes to liturgize us with Word and Sacrament? Well if you find this hard to believe take a look at an "evangelical" Church's statement about worship:
Romans 12:1 says that our spiritual worship is "to present our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God." So big picture, God wants us. Not our songs, not our music, not our hands raised or clapping. He wants our hearts. To be sure this doesn't seem bad so far. God is not interested in people who can merely perform ritualistic ceremonies or utter heartless prayers and songs. He wants the hearts of His people to love Him and give Him everything (third use of the Law). As Jesus says in Mark 7:6-7 when He is quoting Isaiah, "This people honours me with their lips but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me..." (Scripture out of context). So we, above all, want to be a people who love God with our whole heart, soul, and mind (Matthew 22:37), and because of that love, obey His commands (John 14:21). Then from that place we sing songs of praise, lift up holy hands, and celebrate the glory of King Jesus!(More third use here).
It took me all of two minutes to discover this nugget of dung, now you can imagine what other forms of self-justifying ideas concerning worship are out there. This Church says that their style of worship is "modern rock to folk or pop." And they desire to be "culturally relevant," and I wrote "culture-serving 21st century American Christian world" before I read this Church's stance on worship.
Taking a quick look at the the context of Mark we will discover that Christ is addressing certain traditions of the Pharisees, none of which dealt with worship, but rather self-justifying acts, in this case "walking in accordance to the tradition of the elders," when it came to unwashed hands. Applying this verse to worship is a terrible perversion. It fails to recognize what was being addressed and also ignores the very fact that Jesus of Nazareth placed himself under the worship life of the Jews. He followed the laws according to the command of God and he never spoke out against the worship life of the Jews, but rather the superfluous doctrines and traditions.
In this Church's understanding of worship they have in fact set up a tradition not found in the Scriptures, beginning with the notion that the people of God, the body of Christ, the bride of the holy bridegroom, ought to make herself culturally relevant. This notion is in no way found in God's Word. If in fact it were I dare say that John the Baptist would have been committing a grave sin, and the Jews would have done even worse by being faithful to God's Word and observing on the Sabbath as he had prescribed. Not only that but they have turned the Divine Service into a work of their own. They begin with the law, namely "giving God everything." This giving to God everything has now established the right relationship with the Lord. Forget about the sin that separates us from God and the justifying act that our Lord submitted himself to by being crucified for us, for YOU. Forget about God giving YOU EVERYTHING, no give God everything instead. Disregard the fact that he has brought you to faith through the power of his Word, you must first give yourself to Him. After being beaten with this portion of the Law you get exactly what you always wanted. No, not the Gospel of Christ, not the proclamation of free justification, NO. You have much more to do, "So we, above all, want to be a people who love God with our whole heart, soul, and mind, and because of that love, obey His commands. Then from that place we sing songs of praise, lift up holy hands, and celebrate the glory of King Jesus!" After being beaten blue with the third use of the Law you either walk away in despair or become like the very people that our Lord rebukes in Mark 7.
Take heart. Christ has overcome the world, he has put to death your Old Adam, he has taken the punishment that you rightly deserve for lacking fear, love, and trust in God above all things. He has bore your iniquities for fighting against the operations of our Lord in the search for self-justifying acts of worship. His very gruesome death, a death which places before you not an empty cross but one which his holy body inhabits because of your sin and FOR your sin. This is what Paul calls, "folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1Corinthians 1:18).
In speaking of the corrupt practices of his day Melanchthon writes: "Thus in our own time the wise men are reasoning: what is wrong with the idea that Christ is offered by many and by individuals? Or that we offer prayers for the living and the dead? Or that a part of the Sacrament is carried out? The prayers of the people are increased and the Sacrament given more honor" (Christian Freedom p. 178). These questions could just as easily be "What is wrong with the idea that we believe and practice like worship is our work to God? Or that we ignore that the main reason we are here is to receive God's service? Or that we play culturally satisfying music? The attendance in the congregation is up and God is being given more praise."
Melanchthon continues: "But these lovely rationalizations and specious arguments lead people away from the Word of God. Indeed, games of this kind are forbidden by God. For with the same audacity they dream up their heretical errors--some, one kind, and others, other kinds. Indeed, despite their conscience struggling over the remission of sins and the will of God in times of great calamities, they become so accustomed to following these rationalizations and opinions that they lose the true consolations which have been given to us by God" (178). I would argue that "these lovely rationalizations" given to us by our liturgy-abandoning brothers are leading people away from the Word of God. And it seems that Melancthon is connecting worship with doctrine when he says that "with the same audacity they dream up their heretical errors." Doctrine and practice are intimately intertwined and so one cannot justify "culturally relevant practice" by the misuse of the Augsburg Confession Article XV, even if he is a Pastor. When we embrace practices littered with "evangelical" Christianity's false notions about worship we endanger the pure doctrine that we should rather be fighting for.
Finally Melanchthon writes, "Men in civil life tell us that conflicts which are destructive for inexperienced people are often caused by very simple things. Discords hang on and increase by reason of zeal and hatreds of factions. Men do not disagree with moderation. Therefore, they say, why do you stir up such sad tragedies about things like milk, eggs, and the eating of meat? Why do you not put the public peace and tranquillity ahead of these minute things?" Today we might be asked "Why do you stir up such sad tragedies about things like praise bands, culturally relevant music etc.?" Melanchthon's answer to this, "The answer is true and SOLID. We are not contending about unimportant matters, but about many very important things, namely, the true knowledge and worship of God, which must be put ahead of our very life, all our physical comforts, governments, and the public concord, so that we do not look for opinions about God and His will outside of the Word which he has given us, as the Gentiles have done and all fanatic spirits" (178-79). Whether you agree with how I'm applying Melanchthon or not there is no denying that he valued correct worship so we should at least be discussing these "very important things" instead of hardening our hearts against the historic practice of the Church, the Lutheran Confessions, and above all the Holy Scriptures which proclaim a sacramental and God-serving Divine Service.
"Faith is the divine service that receives the benefits offered by God. The righteousness of the Law is the divine service that offers to God our merits. God wants to be worshipped through faith so that we receive from Him those things he promises and offers" ( Apology of the Augsburg Confession Article IV line 49).
So let us not be blinded by the fact that "happy-clappy" styles of worship demand "the righteousness of the Law which is the divine service that offers to God our merits," and have our eyes opened to the grace, mercy, peace, forgiveness, and justification given through Jesus Christ and him crucified through "the divine service that receives the benefits offered by God," namely faith.
"There is a common assumption today that the liturgy must reflect the language and the ethos of the current culture. If this is true, then liturgies will veer toward the pop culture in which we live. These culturally devised liturgies are at times exciting and entertaining, but are not transcultural. At most, they will give only immediate satisfaction. These liturgies then become just another expression of the culture's malaise, a feel-good, shallow, artificially uplifting sentimentality" (Heaven on Earth The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service, Rev. Arthur A. Just Jr., p. 28-29) And let us extinguish our desire for a theology of glory, a theology that seeks God in ourselves, a theology that tells us to search for God outside of the cross. We cannot continue to concern ourselves with what our culture deems as relevant otherwise the LCMS will be the lamp placed under a table and not a lamp that shines in the darkness. Christ has shed his blood for us, for you, he has won the victory that we could never hope to win, he has attached this victory to you in the waters of Holy Baptism and he feeds you with his body and blood each weak. He will not allow the pure confession of faith to fail and even though we, yes you and I, fail to "fear, love and trust in God above all things," Christ continually had "fear, love and trust in God above all things," for you. And when your flesh fights against the Words and will of our Lord, Christ submitted himself perfectly. He has collected us as his body and will not let the gates of hell prevail against us. God bless.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Romans 12:1 says that our spiritual worship is "to present our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God." So big picture, God wants us. Not our songs, not our music, not our hands raised or clapping. He wants our hearts. To be sure this doesn't seem bad so far. God is not interested in people who can merely perform ritualistic ceremonies or utter heartless prayers and songs. He wants the hearts of His people to love Him and give Him everything (third use of the Law). As Jesus says in Mark 7:6-7 when He is quoting Isaiah, "This people honours me with their lips but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me..." (Scripture out of context). So we, above all, want to be a people who love God with our whole heart, soul, and mind (Matthew 22:37), and because of that love, obey His commands (John 14:21). Then from that place we sing songs of praise, lift up holy hands, and celebrate the glory of King Jesus!(More third use here).
It took me all of two minutes to discover this nugget of dung, now you can imagine what other forms of self-justifying ideas concerning worship are out there. This Church says that their style of worship is "modern rock to folk or pop." And they desire to be "culturally relevant," and I wrote "culture-serving 21st century American Christian world" before I read this Church's stance on worship.
Taking a quick look at the the context of Mark we will discover that Christ is addressing certain traditions of the Pharisees, none of which dealt with worship, but rather self-justifying acts, in this case "walking in accordance to the tradition of the elders," when it came to unwashed hands. Applying this verse to worship is a terrible perversion. It fails to recognize what was being addressed and also ignores the very fact that Jesus of Nazareth placed himself under the worship life of the Jews. He followed the laws according to the command of God and he never spoke out against the worship life of the Jews, but rather the superfluous doctrines and traditions.
In this Church's understanding of worship they have in fact set up a tradition not found in the Scriptures, beginning with the notion that the people of God, the body of Christ, the bride of the holy bridegroom, ought to make herself culturally relevant. This notion is in no way found in God's Word. If in fact it were I dare say that John the Baptist would have been committing a grave sin, and the Jews would have done even worse by being faithful to God's Word and observing on the Sabbath as he had prescribed. Not only that but they have turned the Divine Service into a work of their own. They begin with the law, namely "giving God everything." This giving to God everything has now established the right relationship with the Lord. Forget about the sin that separates us from God and the justifying act that our Lord submitted himself to by being crucified for us, for YOU. Forget about God giving YOU EVERYTHING, no give God everything instead. Disregard the fact that he has brought you to faith through the power of his Word, you must first give yourself to Him. After being beaten with this portion of the Law you get exactly what you always wanted. No, not the Gospel of Christ, not the proclamation of free justification, NO. You have much more to do, "So we, above all, want to be a people who love God with our whole heart, soul, and mind, and because of that love, obey His commands. Then from that place we sing songs of praise, lift up holy hands, and celebrate the glory of King Jesus!" After being beaten blue with the third use of the Law you either walk away in despair or become like the very people that our Lord rebukes in Mark 7.
Take heart. Christ has overcome the world, he has put to death your Old Adam, he has taken the punishment that you rightly deserve for lacking fear, love, and trust in God above all things. He has bore your iniquities for fighting against the operations of our Lord in the search for self-justifying acts of worship. His very gruesome death, a death which places before you not an empty cross but one which his holy body inhabits because of your sin and FOR your sin. This is what Paul calls, "folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1Corinthians 1:18).
In speaking of the corrupt practices of his day Melanchthon writes: "Thus in our own time the wise men are reasoning: what is wrong with the idea that Christ is offered by many and by individuals? Or that we offer prayers for the living and the dead? Or that a part of the Sacrament is carried out? The prayers of the people are increased and the Sacrament given more honor" (Christian Freedom p. 178). These questions could just as easily be "What is wrong with the idea that we believe and practice like worship is our work to God? Or that we ignore that the main reason we are here is to receive God's service? Or that we play culturally satisfying music? The attendance in the congregation is up and God is being given more praise."
Melanchthon continues: "But these lovely rationalizations and specious arguments lead people away from the Word of God. Indeed, games of this kind are forbidden by God. For with the same audacity they dream up their heretical errors--some, one kind, and others, other kinds. Indeed, despite their conscience struggling over the remission of sins and the will of God in times of great calamities, they become so accustomed to following these rationalizations and opinions that they lose the true consolations which have been given to us by God" (178). I would argue that "these lovely rationalizations" given to us by our liturgy-abandoning brothers are leading people away from the Word of God. And it seems that Melancthon is connecting worship with doctrine when he says that "with the same audacity they dream up their heretical errors." Doctrine and practice are intimately intertwined and so one cannot justify "culturally relevant practice" by the misuse of the Augsburg Confession Article XV, even if he is a Pastor. When we embrace practices littered with "evangelical" Christianity's false notions about worship we endanger the pure doctrine that we should rather be fighting for.
Finally Melanchthon writes, "Men in civil life tell us that conflicts which are destructive for inexperienced people are often caused by very simple things. Discords hang on and increase by reason of zeal and hatreds of factions. Men do not disagree with moderation. Therefore, they say, why do you stir up such sad tragedies about things like milk, eggs, and the eating of meat? Why do you not put the public peace and tranquillity ahead of these minute things?" Today we might be asked "Why do you stir up such sad tragedies about things like praise bands, culturally relevant music etc.?" Melanchthon's answer to this, "The answer is true and SOLID. We are not contending about unimportant matters, but about many very important things, namely, the true knowledge and worship of God, which must be put ahead of our very life, all our physical comforts, governments, and the public concord, so that we do not look for opinions about God and His will outside of the Word which he has given us, as the Gentiles have done and all fanatic spirits" (178-79). Whether you agree with how I'm applying Melanchthon or not there is no denying that he valued correct worship so we should at least be discussing these "very important things" instead of hardening our hearts against the historic practice of the Church, the Lutheran Confessions, and above all the Holy Scriptures which proclaim a sacramental and God-serving Divine Service.
"Faith is the divine service that receives the benefits offered by God. The righteousness of the Law is the divine service that offers to God our merits. God wants to be worshipped through faith so that we receive from Him those things he promises and offers" ( Apology of the Augsburg Confession Article IV line 49).
So let us not be blinded by the fact that "happy-clappy" styles of worship demand "the righteousness of the Law which is the divine service that offers to God our merits," and have our eyes opened to the grace, mercy, peace, forgiveness, and justification given through Jesus Christ and him crucified through "the divine service that receives the benefits offered by God," namely faith.
"There is a common assumption today that the liturgy must reflect the language and the ethos of the current culture. If this is true, then liturgies will veer toward the pop culture in which we live. These culturally devised liturgies are at times exciting and entertaining, but are not transcultural. At most, they will give only immediate satisfaction. These liturgies then become just another expression of the culture's malaise, a feel-good, shallow, artificially uplifting sentimentality" (Heaven on Earth The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service, Rev. Arthur A. Just Jr., p. 28-29) And let us extinguish our desire for a theology of glory, a theology that seeks God in ourselves, a theology that tells us to search for God outside of the cross. We cannot continue to concern ourselves with what our culture deems as relevant otherwise the LCMS will be the lamp placed under a table and not a lamp that shines in the darkness. Christ has shed his blood for us, for you, he has won the victory that we could never hope to win, he has attached this victory to you in the waters of Holy Baptism and he feeds you with his body and blood each weak. He will not allow the pure confession of faith to fail and even though we, yes you and I, fail to "fear, love and trust in God above all things," Christ continually had "fear, love and trust in God above all things," for you. And when your flesh fights against the Words and will of our Lord, Christ submitted himself perfectly. He has collected us as his body and will not let the gates of hell prevail against us. God bless.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen
Yes I am a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and yes I make the sign of the cross. Does this seem odd to some of our Lutheran brothers and sisters? Should it? Do you, as a member of the LCMS view certain practices of orthodox Christianity as Roman Catholic and therefore suggest they should be avoided? We as Lutherans, all of Christendom for that matter, should not be afraid to embrace certain practices that are associated with Roman Catholicism. In fact I believe that the move in the opposite direction of certain, supposedly, Roman Catholic practices has actually produced negative results. So why make the sign of the Cross? Making the sign of the Cross is in fact adiaphora (neither commanded nor forbidden in the Bible so left to Christian freedom and choice) but we should not treat these practices, when understood correctly, as something to be avoided.
In our hymnals, as we open the service with the invocation, we read in red letters that all can make the sign of the Cross in remembrance of their Baptism. What happened to baptized Christians at the font should not only be something that is desired but also one that is lived in and remembered. As Colossians 2:11-12 reveals to us, baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, which to the Israelites was a covenant promise between God and the people of Israel. This covenant was made on God's part not of man's and the same is true in baptism. Man did not invent this institution but rather it was given to the Church by Christ. A profound reality exists in the waters of Baptism which should be remembered and celebrated and this “washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” can be brought back into the mind of all those who have received this life giving flood by making the sign of the Cross.
We need to realize as well that we are not only remembering what took place in our Baptism but by who it was taken place through. By making the sign of the cross we are confessing who we are gathering together to be fed spiritual food by. The Trinity is being confessed when we say “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” and they all certainly play unique roles in our coming to faith. God the Father has created us and by his gracious will and mercy uses the Church to proclaim the message of Christ where the Holy Spirit is present to bring us to faith. Jesus is the foundation of this proclamation and gives us this washing to renew us steadfast in the faith. The Apostle Peter confesses “baptism now saves you”, not just a past act that occurred in time, but an on going reception of salvation so it is only proper that we remember and confess it.
Again it is in our Christian freedom to make or not make the sign of the Cross but I say do or do not for the appropriate reasons. Don't do it if it is out of self centered Christian piety (in which case learn the theological reason behind it, which only enriches the experience) and don't avoid it because its Roman Catholic. Luther himself implores us to make the sign of the cross, not that Luther is the rule over Christ but it is testimony that this tradition exists outside of Rome. In the Small Catechism, evening and morning prayers, Luther writes "In the morning when you get up, make the sign of the holy cross and say:In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen
Friday, April 29, 2011
“Given and shed for you..”:The Sacrament of the Altar
“Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread,
and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to the disciples
and said:'Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you. This do in
remembrance of Me.' In the same way He also took the cup after supper,
and when he had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying:'Drink of it, all
of you; this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for
the forgiveness of sins. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.'”
These words are recorded for us by the Apostle Paul in 1Corinthians 11:23-25, an institution made by Jesus Christ himself, for all of Christendom. They are of great comfort for us as Christians and the Lord's Supper is described as a means of grace or a sacrament. A sacrament is simply a sacred institution of God for the purpose of grace to those in reception of it. The names given to the Lord's Supper would be communion, Holy communion, the Eucharist, Sacrament of the Altar, etc. The big question surrounding the Sacrament is “Is Christ's body and blood truly present in the bread and wine or did he institute this for us for symbolic use only?” Most of the Christian world would say that this institution of Christ is merely a symbol, nothing more. They would say that we receive no benefit from the Lord's Supper other than partaking of the elements and in so doing we remember Christ. Some other explanations would be more simplified namely: “This is what Christians do.” And with little to no self investigation of Scripture and the beliefs of the Church throughout history the idea of Christ's body and blood being truly present in the Lord's Supper is thrown out the window. Seemingly our Lord and Savior would simply institute something of this magnitude on the night of His betrayal for no reason and when He says “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” evidently he was just using word play of some sort.
Despite Christ's clear words, “this is my body, this is my blood”, most of the modern Christian world choose to accept the teachings of men on this issue of communion. Man in his blind reason cannot fathom why we would need to partake of the very body and blood of Christ. “Faith in Christ is sufficient enough!” they would proclaim in all their excellence, and I would agree but if you have faith in Christ than you should have faith in Christ's words and make your reason subservient to the Scriptures. The reason I partake in the Eucharist with the hope of being strengthened in faith through the Holy Spirit is directly correlated with faith in Christ and should not be separated by any means. If we apply the same logic of the deniers of the sacrament to the Scripture we can say the same thing. “Faith in Christ is sufficient enough! So why do I need the Scriptures? All I need is faith in Jesus!.” But you see that the Word is a means of grace just as the Sacrament is. The Word brings to us faith, forgiveness of sins, strengthening of faith, life, and salvation. For through the Word we hear of Christ and there the Holy Spirit is present to create faith in the heart's of men as it is written:
Romans 10:17
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
In the same way the Holy Spirit must be present in the Eucharist because not only was it established by Jesus, attached with it is God's Word. And if Christ tells us that forgiveness of sins comes through the Supper that he instituted then surely strength in faith, life, and salvation follow. If we step out of Christ's own word when instituting Holy Communion, which in itself is sufficient enough, we can see that the apostle Paul testifies to what Christ said, we see Christ confirming His words early on in the book of John, and there are Old Testament foreshadows of the Lord's Supper as well.
John 6:53-56
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food an my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.”
In these verses we hear Christ talk in bold terms and this is exampled in the reactions of the Jews and the very disciples of Christ who were present when he said this. Some people would refute that in this area Christ is speaking about the Lord's Supper but rather he is speaking about faith in Him in general because Christ was comparing himself in the beginning part of the chapter to the manna that came down from heaven to the Israelites. But it is an interesting note that not only the Jews became very disgruntled with Christ's word after Jesus says in verse 51 “This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” but also his disciples did as well for we hear their response in verse 60:
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
The reason I want to point this out is that it seems whenever Christ's disciples misunderstand something that Christ says figuratively He addresses it with them instead of having them continue in their misunderstanding. We see this in Matthew when Jesus warns his disciples against the “yeast” of the Pharisees.
Matthew 16:5-12
When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”
They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn't bring any bread.”
Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
So we see that with a sharp rebuke Jesus gets His disciples thinking on the right track about the message he is trying to convey. Now there are other places where Jesus talks in potentially confusing terms of His body and does not explain. In the case of John chapter 2 when Jesus is speaking with the Jews about the temple. Christ says:
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
We learn of course that Jesus is speaking of His very body not the actual Jewish temple and here he doesn't go into an explanation. But if we examine the attitudes of the people in each account we see that Jesus' disciples were acting in ignorance where as the Jews were speaking in arrogance and demanding that Jesus would give them a sign and for Christ to speak plainly to the Jews wouldn't have served his purpose because we know that Jesus was speaking to unbelievers in parables instead of literal terms so that they might ponder what Jesus was trying to say instead of hearing Him plainly and rebuking Him on the spot, as they do when Jesus is speaking of his body and blood in this account in John. We know that these Jews didn't have faith in Christ but the disciples did and we also know that Jesus tells his disciples that they will have the secrets of the Kingdom of God revealed to them. Furthermore we see some of Jesus' disciples leaving Him because of this issue and if he was speaking in figurative terms we would have to assume that Jesus wouldn't just let those who had faith in Him walk away because of the misunderstanding of words.
Briefly, another account in John where Jesus goes to raise Lazarus from the dead we hear:
John 11:11-15
After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.” His disciples replied, “Lord if he sleeps, he will get better.” Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”
I moved away from the issue of the Lord's Supper but I think these serve as good examples for the point I'm trying to make. When Christ speaks of His body and blood in this account in John, I have no reason to believe He is speaking figuratively. Clearly he would have set His disciples on level ground so that they could understand that this hard teaching wasn't meant to be taken literally.
Now lets see what Paul has to say concerning this issue. I already wrote the words of Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper so what does Paul have to say after he records these words of Christ. We hear in 1Corinthians 11:27-29:
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgement on himself.
Paul tells us that if we eat of the bread and drink of the cup unworthily we will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of Christ! Now how can that be if the only thing contained in the supper is merely bread and wine. How can we sin against Christ's body and blood if they are not truly present. And how is that we drink in an unworthy manner? Paul talks about self examination which makes me believe that we should be repenting of sin and recognizing that we are sinful. He also says that if we do not discern the body of the Lord we eat and drink judgement on ourselves! So Christ wants us to be repentant and trust in his words “this is my body, this is my blood given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.”
My question to those who would deny this blessed sacrament is, if God can create from nothing what we see today, if he can drown the sinful world in a flood and save Noah and his family in an ark, if he can keep Jonah in the belly of large fish for three days, if he can heal the sick and cast out demons, walk on water and be raised from the dead, then why on Earth could you not believe the words that He speaks during the Passover meal with his disciples? Nothing that I write can convince the unbelieving Christian of this merciful reality but I will say that I find pardon and peace in this sacrament. And its not because I trust in the ceremony or the bread and wine its because of Christ's own words “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” I don't share these things out of boastful pride but rather out of love. I would have all Christians experience this institution of our Lord. Christ has left this behind for us as a visible means of grace, along with the Scripture and Holy Baptism. The Triune God is present in these things to bring us to faith and keep us strengthened in that same faith.
Again, like every other useful tradition or legitimate institution of God, the modern Christian world has abandon God's own word on this issue because of its perceived association, namely, the Church of Rome. Christians today want so badly to flee from anything that appears Roman Catholic that they manage to throw out things that aren't Roman Catholic but Scriptural. And a lot of these Churches like to quote ancient Church fathers such as Augustine, Ambrose, Irenaeus, Justin, and Polycarp as well as Martin Luther all the while ignoring the fact that these men believed in the very bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For in Justin's own words:
“This we receive not as common bread and common drink. We receive them as Jesus Christ, our Savior, who through the Word of God became flesh. For the sake of our salvation he also had flesh and blood. So we believe that the food blessed by Him through the Word and prayer is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
I don't write this to suggest Justin Words are above Christ's or Paul's but to show that they are in agreement with them. So if the words of Christ, “this is my body, this is my blood”, are to be understood literally by the ancient Church all throughout her history then why would we stray from the agreement of the Church? Again I say it is to separate ourselves from the Roman Catholic Church and this is ignorance because Martin Luther himself recognized the false teachings of Rome even to the point of excommunication and the fear of death but held onto the sacraments because of Christ's Word.
How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?:
“It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words, which are given here, “Given...and shed for you, for the forgiveness of sins.” These words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, the chief thing in the Sacrament. The person who believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.”
-Martin Luther
Small Catechism
VI. The Sacrament of the Altar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)