A Lutheran congregation in California explains on its blog site why it regards itself as a “progressive” congregation. Here are the standards they strive to uphold:

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who:

1. Proclaim Jesus Christ as our Gate to the realm of God.

2. Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the gateway to God’s realm.

3. Understand our sharing of bread and wine in Jesus’s name to be a representation of God’s feast for all peoples.

4. Invite all sorts and conditions of people to join in our worship and in our common life as full partners, including (but not limited to): believers and agnostics, conventional Christians and questioning skeptics, homosexuals and heterosexuals, females and males, the despairing and the hopeful, those of all races and cultures, and those of all classes and abilities, without imposing on them the necessity of becoming like us.

5. Think that the way we treat one another and other people is more important than the way we express our beliefs.

6. Find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions than in the answers.

7. See ourselves as a spiritual community in which we discover the resources required for our work in the world: striving for justice and peace among all people; bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers

8. Recognize that our faith entails costly discipleship, renunciation of privilege, and conscientious resistance to evil–as has always been the tradition of the church

My friend, Pastor Tapani Simojoki, was reading some comments on another Lutheran forum about the story on the Finnish situation, and offered this by way of response, which I posted there, but which you may find useful as well. There is a Finnish seminary student on the other forum trying to make assertions about the nature of the office of bishop in Finland, which is in error, and thus, Pr. Simojoki begins these comments by correcting this misinformation. The British spellings are a result of Pr. Simojoki being in Britain, serving as a pastor there in our sister church.

What Heikki Repo, aka nordicfox, claims about the episcopacy in Finland is simply not correct. Ontologically, a bishop is a pastor. Bishops are consecrated, not ordained. They remain bishops for a lifetime, but so do presidents and professors in Finland. You don’t cease to be a citizen when you become a president, even though you will never relinquish the title (though you will relinquish the office). Also, despite the Porvoo Agreement, the ‘apostolic succession’ (sic!) is not a sine qua non theologically, although in practice it is guaranteed for the sake of the Anglicans. Some Finnish theologians are keen on it, others don’t care; but it’s not written into the church’s constitution.

As for Luther Foundation, it’s just another independent parachurch organisation, a bit like the Lutheran Heritage Foundation or Higher Things in the LC-MS. In fact, the Dean, Pastor Juhana Pohjola, holds a valid call from the Oulu Diocese for his job, just like Jim Fandrey or Wallace Schulz hold valid calls to the LHF. No difference at all. And, therefore, the relationship between Luther Foundation and ELCF is not ambiguous at all. Nor is Luther Foundation by any means the only official parachurch organisation which has its own non-parochial congregations.

As for Matti Väisänen’s episcopacy, it looks bad if one takes Dave Benke’s line. However, since his episcopacy is not recognised officially by ELCF or its Tampere Diocese, there is strictly speaking no conflict. If I decided to call myself Archbishop of Canterbury and started wearing the paraphernalia, or my wife called herself the Queen and I renamed our house Buckingham Palace, that wouldn’t have any practical effect on anyone at all. It may in bad taste, but all it is is impersonating the real person. So from the point of view of the rule book, Väisänen is at worst guilty of impersonating a bishop – and whether that’s a sackable offence is debatable.

Finally, Heikki’s point about the treatment of notorious heretics does not hold water. There have been very public cases of pastors blessings same-sex unions (including a relative of mine), as well as a lesbian pastor coming out on national TV, not to mention books published. In cases where anything has been done at all (and often nothing has been done, despite official requests for heresy charges to be brought), no action has been taken. For example, the bishop of Helsinki has in several cases (including a case of a book proclaiming universalism, a blessing of a same-sex couple and the afore-mentioned lesbian pastor) simply invited the pastors in question for a private chat and then told the media that he was satisfied with their orthodoxy — without any retractions or undertakings regarding future conduct being given. By contrast, when the issue has been opposition to the ordination of women, for example, the cases have been handled very publicly, with very little pastoral contact, with maximum penalties being wielded.

Finally, the claim earlier on that the ordination of women is not about the Gospel is another way of saying that the office of the ministry and its divine institutions are not about the Gospel. Not very CA 5, I say. Even if one granted that the matter were unresolved, from the point of view of Väisänen et al., it is about the Gospel. It’s not a symmetrical dispute.

If you think any of this is worth putting up on the forum, please do.

In Christ,
Tapani

P.S. It might be worth also dispelling the notion that Luther Foundation is negative and destructive. 99% of their time is spent in ordinary church work: teaching, preaching, administering the sacraments, pastoral care & counseling, as well as extensive publishing (incl. the first-ever Finnish translation of Luther’s Genesis commentary). This negative stuff makes it to the press, but go to their services and you will hear Law and Gospel. In fact, the Foundation is blessed with some of the finest young preachers in the country.

Two new items are not available, the official English statement from the Luther Foundation on the defrocking of Bishop and Bishop’s formal response to the action taken against him. Thanks to Pastor Tapani Simojoki for his work in making these materials known.

Statement from the Luther Foundation

Here also is the official English translation of the Luther Foundation statement on this matter:

Bishop Matti Väisänen of Luther Foundation Finland (LFF), the Finnish partner to Mission Province in Sweden and Finland, was defrocked on Wednesday 08/11 by the Cathedral Chapter of Tampere Diocese led by Bishop Matti Repo. The basis of defrocking was the episcopal ordination of Väisänen in last March. Prior to this, Väisänen had served as a pastor in the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland for 46 years, and is a well-known figure in the confessional movement inside the Finnish national church.

Väisänen was called to serve as a bishop in the Mission Province, the care of Finnish pastors and congregations as his primary task. Luther Foundation and Mission Province are reacting to the rapidly increasing liberalism and secularism inside the Scandinavian established churches, the key issues being the ordination of women and – lately – blessing of the same-sex partnerships. For already ten years, it has been practically impossible for candidates refusing to accept female clergy to receive ordination into the pastoral office, while the members of the church with similar conviction find it increasingly difficult to find places to worship in anymore. Luther Foundation has countered this problem by calling and ordaining its own pastors via Mission Province, assigning them with the task of serving new congregations in Finland. Neither these pastors nor the congregations they serve are recognized by the established church.

The Legal Response from Bishop Väisänen

Here is the text of the legal response by bishop Matti Väisänen to the disciplinary charge against him by the Tampere Cathedral Chapter, dated 27 July 2010. As is now known, the Cathedral Chapter decided on 11 August 2010 to divest bishop Väisänen of clerical standing in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, despite the arguments he presented in this document. He continues to serve as bishop in the Mission Province of Sweden and Finland.

UPDATE: The Luther Foundation website now has an English-language statement, which can be read here.

For a PDF copy of the English text, click here. The document can be freely distributed.

TO TAMPERE CATHEDRAL CHAPTER

SUBJECT

Response in a case concerning a disciplinary procedure

RESPONDENT

Matti Väisänen ThD

DISCIPLINARY CHARGE

The disciplinary charge by the disciplinary commissioner of Tampere Cathedral Chapter, Kari Ikonen, concerning my deposing from the pastoral office 9 June 2010

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE

I am opposed to the disciplinary charge. I do not consider myself to have acted contrary to the responsibilities of my pastoral office.

In my ordination oath I have primarily bound myself to remain faithfully and purely in God’s holy word and in our church’s confession founded on it. According to the confession, the church’s highest rule is that all doctrine must be examined and evaluated according to God’s holy word. This biblical principle — sola Scriptura – and commitment to the Lutheran confessions is even today the legally in force in our church and is recorded in the first article of the Church Law, the so called Confessional Article. For that reason, the church’s confession binds not only the pastor but also the church’s order to being primarily obedient to God’s holy word, which is the Bible.

Because shepherds who bind themselves to the apostolic view on the office of the ministry are no longer being ordained in our church, I have received the office of bishop. The justification for this ecclesial emergency right is based on the Holy Bible and the Lutheran confessions. It is not an offence against the ordination oath but in the most profound sense precisely acting in accordance with the duties of that oath.

On the precise basis of the ecclesial emergency right, I refer to the attached article by pastor Anssi Simojoki, ThD.

Arguments

Concerning the episcopal consecration

I have been ordained as bishop by an association called Missionsprovinsen i Sverige och Finland (hereafter Missionsprovinsen). The association is not outside the Church of Sweden but works within the Church of Sweden. However it — any more than any other association — cannot be an actual member of the Church of Sweden. Missionsprovinsen defines itself as a non-geographical diocese in the tradition of the churches of Sweden and Finland.

Also Luther Foundation Finland, in which I am a member and vice chairman of the Executive Council, works within the church. In Luther Foundation, we are concerned about our church’s current theological-spiritual orientation, which is detaching itself from God’s word. We are especially concerned that shepherds who bind themselves to the apostolic view on the office of the ministry are no longer being ordained.

It is my understanding that bishops have begun to impose this ordination block after bishop Olavi Rimpiläinen retired in 2000.

Concerned about the state of our church we have been forced—being guided and obliged by the Confessional Article of our Church Law and the Lutheran Confessions (Treatise, 60ff.), and with their justification—to take action in order to preserve apostolic worship and teaching in our church and our land.

Because Luther Foundation Finland is an associate member of Missionsprovinsen, this relationship has made it possible to begin the founding of an independent Mission Diocese / Mission Province in our church with its own worshipping communities / congregations, pastors and bishops.

Concerning the use of the external marks of a bishop

I have been elected bishop by the provinskonvent of Missionsprovinsen. The consecration was carried out by the Mission Bishop of Missionsprovinsen, Arne Olsson. He was assisted by the Archbishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Kenya, Walter Obare, and Missionsprovinsen bishops Lars Artman and Göran Beijer.

Arne Olsson was consecrated bishop by Archbishop Walter Obare in 2005. Walter Obare was consecrated bishop by the Archbishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania, Samson Mushemba, in 2002. One of the assistants at the consecration of Walter Obare was bishop Olavi Rimpiläinen.

Because I have been called and properly consecrated into the office of bishop, I have not used the external marks of a bishop in any way without justification, for in terms of church law,^† I am a Lutheran bishop.

Concerning the conducting of an episcopal mass

I have conducted an episcopal mass, including the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, as part of the carrying out of the duties of my office on 16 May 2010 in a place not authorised for that purpose.

Our church’s cathedral chapters, which are negatively disposed to those who have an apostolic view of the office of the ministry, do not permit us to celebrate the mass and the Lord’s Holy Supper in church and would not allow us to celebrate it outside the church either. Knowing this, why would we trouble ourselves any more than the cathedral chapters with our applications . In this matter, too, we have had to resort to the rights given to us by the Lutheran confessions and to seek for our congregations alternative premises, trusting that God’s word and prayer consecrate them as sacred spaces.

Concerning the alleged misleading of members of the church

When I accepted the call to become a bishop of Missionsprovinsen, and in serving the congregations that have been born in Finland as a result of the work of Luther Foundation, I am misleading no one, for we have made, and will continue to make, clear to everyone that I am a bishop of Missionsprovinsen, not a bishop according to the our church’s parochial diocesan order.

Nor have I taken a leading role in another denomination or another religious organisation, since Missionsprovinsen is registered as an ideological association. In terms of its organisation, it does not work within the administrative structures of the churches of Sweden or Finland. Rather, it continues the church’s spiritual heritage as a free diocesan structure, serving here in Finland those members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland who have been left homeless because of their traditional view on the office of the ministry.

Concerning the alleged breach of the ordination vows

Therefore, I absolutely deny having broken the ordination vow I swore in 1964. If Tampere Cathedral Chapter deposes me from the office of the ministry, it will take place precisely because I have remained faithful to my ordination vow.

It is characteristic of our church’s current theological-spiritual state of humiliation that the church has increasingly replaced its own ecclesiastical justice^‡ with civil service law and secular laws, seeking again to become a state church. The governing organs of our church have brought our church to a situation where the church’s constitution (Bible + the Lutheran confessions) and the church’s order have come to a conflict. At the same time, the bishops and cathedral chapters demand obedience to church order against the church’s constitution. That which is human takes precedence over that which is divine. Man’s word and man is elevated in our church above God’s word and God. Thus the church, having broken its judicial foundation, changes increasingly into a travesty of a church with its rites and blessings of civil religion.

I am saddened that this distortion leads to oppression against those who consider the Bible the unchanging word of God. Today it looks like holding to Gods word is a crime in our church. By contrast, those who deny Christ’s divinity and atoning work, and even the existence of a personal God, and those who live immorally, are allowed to work in our church as pastors and bishops, destroying our church without any disciplinary consequences, while those who want to be faithful to God’s word are dismissed from their posts.

Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise. So help me God! (Martin Luther, 1521)

DATE AND SIGNATURE

In Ryttylä, on the Ninth Sunday after Pentecost, AD 2010

Matti Väisänen
Bishop
Missionsprovinsen i Sverige och Finland

Jyrki Anttinen
Solicitor
The Bishop’s Attorney

†That is, ecclesiastical jurisprudence (Kirchenrecht), not the Church Law of the Republic of Finland. Tr.

‡See previous note. Tr.

Bishop Matti Väisänen, recently consecrated as assistant bishop in the Mission Province in Sweden and Finland, has been defrocked by the Tampere Cathedral Chapter. There’s an inaccurate English-language report on the matter on the Finnish Broadcasting Corporation’s web page.

Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. (Acts 5:41)

Here is a translation of an official statement from Luther Foundation Finland:

The decision by the Tampere Cathedral Chapter to depose Matti Väisänen from the pastoral office is wrong and contrary to the church’s confession. Matti Väisänen has been a pastor for 46 years – he has come to be known as a profound teacher of the Bible, preacher and curer of souls [pastoral counsellor]. He has not broken his ordination vows by his teaching or his life.

Bishop  Matti Väisänen enjoys profound confidence among the pastors and congregants of Luther Foundation [Finland] — and more widely among members and officials of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland — and the decision of the Chapter does not shake this confidence. On the contrary.

The decision of the Chapter demonstrates that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland does not — contrary to the claim in the decision of the Chapter — “live in normal circumstances”. The justification of the work of Luther Foundation [Finland] is based on the spiritual state of emergency in the church, where the heart the church’s life — the church’s faith — is disintegrating.

The church’s leadership is making ever deeper the chasm between the administrative organs of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and Luther Foundation Finland, as well as other Christians concerned about the spiritual state of the church. Distrust in the spiritual oversight of the bishops of the national church among congregants is growing, whilst among the bishops of the church and in other offices — in spite of appeals — there are numerous people who deny the chief articles of the church’s faith in their proclamation. Väisänen alone is accused of “breaking his ordination vows”. This begs the question: is the only remaining thing demanded of office-holders in the church the unquestioned acceptance of the power of the bishops?

How do we proceed now? Matti Väisänen  is still our bishop. We continue with assurance under his oversight in the work of building congregations in accordance with our church’s confession.

Raimo Savolainen, Chairman of the Executive Council, Luther Foundation Finland

Juhana Pohjola, Dean, Luther Foundation Finland

I read this first on Dr. Gene Edward Veith’s blog, who read it at Joe Carter’s blog, who in turn found it on the Internet. OK, now that we have the hat tips out of the way, here is a great interview with Rodney Stark.

Read this interview with sociologist Rodney Stark on how the so-called “mainline” liberal denominations have dwindled into irrelevance: Are Evangelicals the New Mainline?. Among the many interesting points he makes is that the only congregations in those traditions that are doing well are those with conservative pastors. And when “evangelicals” decide to go liberal, as in the emergent church or progressive evangelical movement, they decline too. He goes into the history of this phenomenon and finds that it goes way, way back.

In light of the LWF’s meeeting in Stuttgart this month, these thoughts from Hermann Sasse are eerily and dramatically prophetic:

Dear Brothers in the Office!

Three years have passed since the first of these letters came into your hands. That letter sought to depict, in brief strokes, the situation faced by the Lutheran Churches as it made note of the two-fold tendency in the most recent history of our church: a strong external ascendancy of “Lutheranism,” which is accompanied by a threatening diminution of the dogmatic-confessional substance. Most of you will agree with me that the developments of the past three years have corroborated this viewpoint. It is to be feared that the meeting of the Lutheran World Federation in Hannover will not contradict this view. How pleased would we all be, all of us who are so very concerned for the future of our church, if this meeting would prove us wrong, if it shall have revealed something of an ascendancy of the inner spiritual life of the church, of a renewal of the old faithfulness to the confession of the eternal truth, which once found a home in Lower Saxony. But from what one reads in Lutherischen Rundschau of the preparations in Hanover it appears to be much like the massive marches and manipulating demonstrations which the evangelical churches of Germany inherited from the Third Reich, which satisfy a deep psychological need of modern masses. There is no doubt hat the Hannover session of the Lutheran World Federation will be just as beautiful and enchanting as the Berlin Kirchentag of the EkiD and as the great royal nuptial celebrations of Hannover in previous years. The very same men who in Berlin were so enthused over the unity of the Evangelical Church in German [EkiD] (“We are still brothers!”), will be enthused in Hannover over the Lutheran Church. And they will proudly allow the church banners to stream, among which also is the banner of the LWF with Luther’s seal, just as at royal weddings the old Hannoverian flags suddenly fluttered again and the old uniforms of the Hannoverian army of 1866 experienced a remarkable resurrection. What a testimony of loyalty that was! Only it was forgotten that it was all merely a beautiful show [see note -compiler]. The princes no longer rule. The flag of a state was displayed which has long since gone under. The people passionately celebrated a loyalty, which had long since been violated. That is the genius loci of Hannover. Should it also rule the session of the Lutheran World Federation in August? If not, then it is time to exorcise it. We theologians in any case will remain sober and guard ourselves from the enthusiasm which in every form is the mortal enemy of the true faith. With Lutheran sobriety, which means for us at the same time with constant faith in the reality of the Church of God, we desire to seek to understand the situation of Lutheranism regarding a few essential points at the beginning of this fateful year.

— Hermann Sasse

From Letters to Lutheran pastors No. 22: ‘The De-Confessionalisation of Lutheranism?’(1952); trans. by Rev Matthew Harrison and available in full here: http://www.clai.org.au/articles/sasse/deconfes.htm

Compiler’s Note – Sasse must have had in mind the nuptial celebrations of 5th September, 1951, when Prince Ernest Augustus of the House of Hanover married Princess Ortrud of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. The wedding was attended by many royal figures, including the heads of the houses of Saxony, Hesse, Mecklenburg, Oldenburg, and Baden, all of whom had long since been deposed from their thrones. The wedding was followed with a reception at Herrenhausen, the only part of Hanover’s former palace still intact in the aftermath of World War II. Sasse suggests that the essential meaninglessness of the pomp surrounding such celebrations is comparable to that which surrounds great ecumenical gatherings like the Berlin Kirchentag and LWF Assemblies. It is something which theologians have a responsibility to resist with ‘Lutheran sobriety’.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania adopted a statement regarding decisions being made about homosexuality by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other world Lutheran churches. The statement was posted by the church to the Internet this week. Here is it.

THE DODOMA STATEMENT
(Kiswahili)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1        The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania (ELCT hereinafter), thanks GOD that in His immeasurable wisdom, and through His Son Jesus Christ, all believers worldwide have been joined as one body; thus, making us be in communion. In this way, we can walk together to prosper in God’s mission.

1.2        In our relationship as one body, we have co-operated in many and varied ways through both trying and undemanding issues. We were able to hold together all this time because of God’s favor, and also through our unrelenting devotion in the entire Church, in regular services, where we confess the Creed and believe in God’s Church as being One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic. Therefore any action in any church which is abnormal and non-conforming to the received and affirmed position and teachings of the church over the centuries in the whole Church of God, will inevitably produce shock and varied reaction from other churches around the world.

1.3      Currently, one such abnormal incidence, as viewed by ELCT, is the one associated with some churches – especially in Europe and America – deciding to accept same-sex marriages. The respective churches give several reasons in an effort to justify their decisions; and here we briefly make mention of only a few of such reasons.

1.3.1 They claim that church teachings on marriage, according to the Holy Scripture, are directed to “man and woman” – giving them room to decide; as opposed to the age-old interpretation, meaning that marriage is only for “man and woman”. In this way they erode the foundation, bit by bit, to weaken the authentic Biblical truth that marriage is between “man and woman” only. They introduce these “new and misguided” interpretations which negate long-held Church teachings and understanding of the Word of God dating from time immemorial. Some of the verses in the Bible that fall prey to the pundits and supporters of same-sex marriages are as follows: Gen.1: 27-28, 2:24; Mt.19:5-6a; Rom.1:26-27a and Gal.3:28.

1.3.2   And that, what is essential in marriage or other forms of matrimony is love. Provided the two love each other, they claim, such relationship is correct and legal.

1.3.3 And that the circumstances nowadays, they claim; are different from conditions and settings in biblical times as regards what is, and what is not legal in love and marriage. They further claim that the question of values, virtues and morals changes with time, places and circumstances. Such claims distort what is classified as sin to depend on where and how it is committed. In this connection they want the whole Church to adopt their view regarding love and marriage especially between same sex partners as having evolved over time. Furthermore, they claim that the church is not changing with the times; and that it is “old-fashioned” to reproach and reprimand same-sex lovers and proponents. They insist that the whole Church should shake up and move with the times, like them, in the contemporary circumstances!

1.3.4 They further claim that, marriage laws in the countries where same sex marriages are taking place have changed so much that churches in those countries would have been in dire straits if they did not follow suit to the changed laws. It is our understanding that churches in these countries fear the backlash from political or authoritative vendetta. This will imply that churches in those countries might lose their perks with authorities if they continued in this stance – refusing and rejecting legalization of same-sex marriages.

1.3.5  They further claim that the issue of relationships – marriage, love-making and other forms of copulation – is the prerogative of the affected two individuals. And that they are free to make their own decisions in these matters; and should be left alone to do so – thereby stressing personal freedom as the virtue. So, there are many reasons such as enumerated above that have surfaced through word of mouth, writings and even actions from the churches that have legalized same-sex marriages.

Read more…

Dr. Jack Kilcrease, a former member of the ELCA, had a great blog post recently, talking about his reading in the word by Werner Elert titled The Christian Faith. It has never been formally published, but a translation done years ago has been available for quite some time. Dr. Kilcrease makes some great points, well worth pondering. How did liberal Lutheranism in this country reach a point where they eschew Trinitarian language, and embrace deviant human sexuality, all in “light of the Gospel.” Here’s how:

“I’m in the process of re-reading Werner Elert’s The Christian Faith. It’s a bootlegged translation done back in the 70s (I have the manuscript from Luther Seminary, which I still have borrowing rights from). From what I heard (and Pr. McCain can correct me) CPH bought the rights and then found that a lot of it was heretical. So they translated the non-heretical parts and then not the rest. I will grant that a great deal of it is heretical. It is interesting and insightful at certain points though.

“This brings me to one of the points where Elert fails seriously, namely the doctrine of inspiration. He makes a series of weird statements about the authority of the Bible. First, he thinks that all Scriptural authority is based on the gospel. I don’t even know what that means. When I was in the ELCA, I had professors claim this- but I never really bought it. The difficulty with this that the gospel makes no sense if you don’t have the law. Both together don’t make any sense if you don’t have them within the context of salvation history. So, saying “the gospel” is the thing that makes the Scriptures authoritative, doesn’t make any sense, since the gospel makes no sense without things that aren’t gospel. Consequently, they must also be authoritative and then logically a subset of a larger phenomenon known as the “Word of God.”

“What I think is really going on is his existentializing and psychologizing tendency. This leads us into the next weird claim, that it’s the content of the Scriptures, not the Scriptures themselves which are authoritative.

“What? How can the content be authoritative, without the thing itself being authoritative? In other words, are you claiming that the Lutheran scholastic authors claimed that if the Scriptures were stripped of their content their would be something left over which would be authoritative? Certainly not. The content and the thing itself is no different.

“What he’s really getting at is this: he thinks that a person denigrates the authority of the gospel if you ground it in a prior theory of inspiration. In his way of thinking you’re saying “I believe the gospel, because I believe in a theory about inspiration.”

“But of course, not one really says this. David Scaer has consistently pointed to the Christological basis of the doctrine of inspiration particularly in his early work The Apostolic Scriptures. The Scriptures are authoritative because they are inspired. This inspiration is anchored in the authorization of the Old Testament (“the scriptures cannot be broken…) and the authority of the Apostles who wrote the New Testament (“those who hear you, hear me…” “I will send you the comforter, who will lead you into all truth…”) by Jesus.

“If I believe in Jesus, I will believe in the inerrant Biblical Word that he authorized. In fact, I will no other access to his person and work than to that witness. So, by believing in him and his trustworthiness, I will automatically believe in the trustworthiness of his Bible. This is what was often referred to by the Lutheran scholastics as the inner testimony of the Spirit regarding the authority and infallibility of the Scriptures.

“In the end, what Elert wants is to place authority in act of believing in Christ and his gospel and then to exclude a doctrine of inerrancy and Scripture inspiration on this basis. No one is disputing that faith comes first and this faith leads one to acknowledge the Scriptures. What Elert’s move does is in fact internalize authority in a psychological event of coming to faith. It takes the locus of authority away from the external Word and places it within the individual and their faith in Jesus.

“In the end, as we can see, this is a false decision of either/or. Faith in Christ automatically means both/and. Ultimately Elert’s reductionism gives us the current LWF and the ELCA. For this he and his companion at Erlangen have much to account for.”

From my friend, Pastor Tapani Simojoki:

Dear Paul,

I don’t know if this crosses your news threshold these days — bad news in the Church are two-a-penny these days — but it’s a significant piece of news anyway, which I thought I ought to share:

+++++ Irja Askola was today elected as bishop of Helsinki, the first woman to become a bishop in Finland. She replaces Dr. Eero Huovinen, who retires this year after 19 years in office.

Having been ordained in 1988 (as one of the first women to be ordained in Finland) Askola is currently diocesan secretary in the diocese of Espoo, and has previously worked as an assistant pastor in Helsinki and in the European Conference of Churches. She has previously never held a leadership position. She will be consecrated on 12 September 2010.

English news source: http://newsroom.finland.fi/public/default.aspx?app=803&newsid=24739 ++++++

It was depressing watching her, during the ‘campaign’, squirm and prevaricate when asked about the Virgin Birth: “Well, it’s in the Creed and I happily say the Creed in church, but it’s not a doctrine that’s central to me. I’m not really sure what it means.” (My paraphrase) Then again, none of the candidates (2 women and 5 men) was able to recite the Nicene Creed from memory when cold-called by a journalist. Dark times!

Last Saturday I was having a thoroughly enjoyable conversation with Rev. Dr. James Voelz, Dean of Faculty at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. He was telling anecdotes from his fascinating and varied academic experiences. He said what really impressed him was when he was a  young man studying in Cambridge, the famous liberal theologian, JAT Robinson, came in to lecture. Somebody asked him about something in Romans, a key passage, and without blinking an eye, Dr. Robertson simply said, “Oh, yes, of course Paul said that, but Paul was wrong.” Dr. Voelz pointed out what a completely honest response that was.

But what so often happens among liberals, particularly those in mainline protestant churches, is that they do not have the personal integrity to say simply, “Paul was wrong” or “Christ was wrong” but they play all sorts of games trying to explain how, well, that was what Christ said, or what Paul wrote, but the words don’t mean what they say, or appear to mean, or they did not really say what we think they said. In other words, they indulge in fundamentally deceptive ways of getting around the plain meaning of the text.

We see this all over the place in the recent ELCA decisions regarding homosexuality and we saw it all over the place in the days of Seminex in our own Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. I shared with Dr. Voelz one of my favorite stories about the Seminex days in our Synod, told me by an eye/ear witness. One of the Seminex professors, when asked if he personally believed that the account of Christ walking on water was true and if Christ did in fact walk on water paused for a long time and said, “Well, I certainly would not want to say Christ could not have walked on water.”Dr. Voelz, who was a student at the time during the years of the Seminex crisis confirmed that this kind of duplicitous way of approaching the issues was standard operating procedure among the pro-Seminex theologians on the campus of Concordia Seminary.

Most recently, on this blog site, when I posted something about why it is so important to maintain that there was a real Adam and a real Eve, a liberal theologian popped on and asked me where Christ ever said there was a real Adam and Eve. He is indulging in the kind of passive-aggresive, dishonest game playing that characterizes so much of American liberalism in many of the mainline protestant denominations. Liberal theologians know that, in varying degrees, the rank and file members of their congregations still believe the “old myths” they were taught as children, and so they dance around and play with the text of Scripture, trying to cover over their own utter disbelief in what the Bible clearly asserts.

Years ago when I was a young pastor, a neighboring pastor friend of mine who visited a newly installed ELCA Lutheran pastor told me about his conversation with her. When he asked her what she personally believed about the resurrection of the dead and Christ’s own bodily resurrection, asking her this question as they stood in the grave yard of her church, she said, “Oh, of course, I don’t believe in all that anymore.” And when he asked her, “Well, what do you preach about then?” She quickly said, “Oh, I preach what I know my people want to hear about these things.”

This is the kind of game-playing that goes on constantly; tragically, through these kinds of games, many are deceived. But God is not mocked. (Galatians 6:7)

What the worldwide Anglican communion has been experiencing; namely, an outcry from more conservative members of its fellowship in Africa, is now happening across the Lutheran World Federation. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania is the latest very large Lutheran church body in Africa to speak out very boldly against the positions on homosexuality being adopted across North American and Western European Lutheran church bodies. Here is a recent ELCT press release on the subject. Please note that the ELCT has 5.3 million members.

ELCT Press Release
Date: April 29, 2010
Press release No. 004/04/2010

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania (ELCT) has reiterated her opposition to same-sex marriage and stated that those who are in such unions are not welcome to work in the ELCT because such practice is incompatible with Biblical teaching.

The ELCT Executive Council meeting, held in Moshi on April 27 to 28 this year, received and approved “The Dodoma Statement” prepared in January this year by the ELCT Bishops’ Council. The bishops met in Dodoma to discuss in details steps to take after the decision of some European and American churches to recognize same-sex marriages.

The Statement says: “Those in same sex marriages, and those who support the legitimacy of such marriage, shall not be invited to work in the ELCT. We further reject their influence in any form, as well as their money and their support.”

“This church affirms that love is the essence of a relationship between two people who live, or who want to live, together in marriage. But, with regard to married spouses, this is the love between two people of the opposite sex.”

“This church does not accept reasons offered by advocates of same-sex marriage and its legitimacy unless it is based on the Word of God and Biblical teaching; therefore, we reject inappropriate and false interpretations of scripture produced to justify the marriage of people of the same gender.”

“This church encourages and supports all those around the world who oppose churches that have taken the decision to legalize same-sex marriage.”

“We appeal to those of like-mind with us to continue to be salt and light in our relationships. We should direct our energy into maintaining the unity and cooperation between us. Such unity will help us avoid falling into a state which would further injure the body of Christ, that is, the Church.”

“We urge every believer in the ELCT to be very careful, alert and discerning lest they loose their faith in the face of this strange doctrine that could easily seduce people in this age of globalization.”

“Those supporting same-sex marriages have started to do all they can to destroy one Biblical passage after another in order to legalize homosexuality and affirm that marriage is not necessarily between a man and a woman. They do so by putting forward their new and wrong interpretation – one which displays an attitude and understanding which differs from that which has existed for many years in the Church regarding the meaning of marriage in accordance with the teachings of the Word of God.”

Some Bible passages that have been misused and given another interpretation to defend same-sex marriage are the following: Genesis 1:27-28, 2:24, Matt. 19: 5-7, Rom. 1:26-27, Gal. 3:28, etc.

The statement goes on to say: “The ELCT and other people worldwide who support our stand on the issue of opposing same-sex marriage believe that the Bible cannot be interpreted according to people’s wishes or according to other authorities or to culture. Rather, the Bible is self explanatory and is merely translated into various languages without altering the meaning.”

“The ELCT accepts that moral values may change among people as their situations change; however, ELCT believers know and believe that there are some things that cannot change, such as people having noses, ears and mouths.”

“This church believes that, based on the teaching of the Word of God, there are values that cannot be adjusted even under the pressure of changing conditions and locations. One of these unwavering values concerns the issue of marriage and its meaning.”

Issued by:
Office of the Secretary-General, ELCT

###

==================================================
Elizabeth Lobulu
Communication Coordinator,
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania
Box 3033, ARUSHA, Tanzania.
Phone: +255-27-250-8856/7
FAX: +255-27-254-8858
E-mail: Elizabeth Lobulu

ELCT voices a big `no’ to same-sex marriages

By Mkinga Mkinga

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania (ELCT) has distanced itself from the recognition of same-sex marriages by Lutheran churches in the US and Sweden.

The head of the ELCT, Bishop Alex Malasusa, said during his Easter Mass sermon at the Azania Front Church in Dar es Salaam that the local church did not support the decision because it was against God’s word.

He said Lutheran churches in the US and Sweden had strayed from the Scriptures, and it was up to Africa to bring them back into line.

“ELCT has refused to recognise the decision to allow same-sex marriages because it is against the Holy Bible. It is in direct contravention of God’s word, which has not changed,” Bishop Malasusa said.

He added that Tanzania and Africa had taken a common stand on the issue and would not waver.

“It’s time Africa preached to the rest of the world and remind them of God’s word because it seems they have forgotten what the Bible says,” Bishop Malasusa said amid cheers from worshippers who attended the Mass. To avoid undue influence from the US and Sweden, Bishop Malasusa urged the church in Tanzania and across Africa to strive for financial and economic independence.

“We should be independent so that they don’t use their money and wealth to threaten us…we should leave them with their money and stick to the word of God,” he said.

Source

A guest post by Rev. Dr. Holger Sonntag. Since Dr. Sonntag is from Germany and very familiar with the ecclesiastical situation, I asked if he would have any thoughts on the resignation of Dr. Margot Käßmann, who was the head of the EKiD and the bishop of the largest territorial Lutheran church in Germany recently. She is an advocate for homosexuality and, of course, the liberal theology of the state church in Germany. Here are Dr. Sonntag’s comments:

On February 24, 2010, Dr. Margot Käßmann, the chairperson of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany and the bishop of the largest Lutheran territorial church in Germany, resigned from all her offices. She had been a bishop for a bit more than ten years and at the helm of the ECG for about four months. Prior to becoming a bishop she had held a parish pastorate for only a few years; instead, she had spend much of her time holding various functions in the global ecumenical movement.

What caused her to resign? On February 20, at 11 p.m., the Saturday after Ash Wednesday, she had been caught running a red light while intoxicated. The police established her blood alcohol content as .154%. While her fellow council members assured her of their ongoing trust in her in a telephone conference on February 23, but left the final decision up to her, she resigned nonetheless on the following day. As she put it once, she wanted her “personal power to convince” to be “unhampered.” And this public moral failure was apparently seen by her as a major hindrance to such authenticity.

The reactions in Germany range from dismay (not so much about her drunk driving, but about her resignation) to respecting her integrity. Many saw her as a dynamic, honest leader who made the church credible again in the eyes of non-members. Others, however, saw her as a divisive figure who felt constrained to comment on any number of social and political issues, even without (or against) God’s clear Word, and who personalized her office as probably no one had done before in recent history.

What can be said about this major event? First of all, it was perhaps providential that she resigned from her offices on the day of St. Matthias, the man who was chosen to replace Judas. Important are these words in Acts 1: “For it is written in the Book of Psalms, May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it; and Let another take his office [episkopee, same word use for bishopric]. So one of the men [andres, males] 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.” All apostles, thus, ought to be males; accordingly, all pastors ought to be males as well. This is what God’s Word here and elsewhere teaches. Therefore, even though Dr. Käßmann had occupied her episcopal office for over ten years and women’s ordination is seen by many in the Protestant church as normal, it bears repeating that she should not have held this office in the first place. What is more, not only did she hold this office illegitimately, she also, during her tenure as bishop, ensured that those objecting to women’s ordination would not be allowed to enter into the ministry in the first place. The fact that this totally unscriptural practice did not cause an outcry in Germany and around the world speaks volumes about the level of indifference and ignorance regarding the deformation of an institution of the Lord of the church.

Read more…

(HANNOVER) In a vote that has stunned both Lutherans and Protestants across Germany, the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKiD), published on Monday, September 28, 2009 its decision regarding one of the most critical documents to emerge from the Reformation. The Commission for Theology (Kammer für Theologie), the official theological advisory board of the EKD, voted to reject accepting the Augsburg Confession of 1530 as one of its fundamental documents.

The decision had been referred to the Commission by the Council of the EKD who, after several years of scholarly discussions on the question involving both Lutheran and Reformed theologians, had requested a final vote. The Commission considered three questions in making its decision which it presented in a document titled, “Should the Augsburg Confession become the primary confession of the Evangelical Church in Germany?” The Commission asked 1) “What purpose does the acceptance of handed down confessional texts have for the fundamentals and understanding of the individual evangelical churches in general?” 2) “What is the relationship of the fundamentals of the EKD, as a fellowship of individual evangelical churches, to the fundamentals of her member churches?” 3) “What would it mean to accept the text of the Augsburg Confession into the fundamentals of the EKD?”

Known simply as “Number 103,” in a series of EKD texts available on line http://www.ekd.de/download/ekd_texte_103.pdf, the concluding statement reads, “The Commission for Theology advises the Council of the EKD not to accept the Augsburg Confession as a primary confession in the EKD fundamentals.” The Commission is co-chaired by Michael Beintner (Münster) and Professor Dorothea Wendebourg. The vote was unanimous and agreed to by the EKD Council, which affirmed its readiness to continue strengthening the bonds of the EKD. Instead of accepting the Augsburg Confession, a document that both Lutherans and Protestants in Germany agree “has been the core confession of all of German Protestantism from 1530 to 1806″ (Prof. Dr. Wolf-Dieter Hauschild, Münster), the Council referred dissenters to its 2001 adoption of “Church Fellowship in Evangelical Understanding” (KneV). There it states that the EKD does not seek to form “a canonical church, like her member churches,” since the EKD already is [the] church in the fullest sense of the word. Perhaps mindful that KneV was German Protestantism’s response to the Vatican’s August 2000 document “Dominus Iesus,” which affirmed the primacy of the Roman Church over all other “ecclesial communities,” EKD President Hermann Barth stated, “Measures by which the EKD must first become the church are not necessary, since she is already it in the theological sense, since church fellowship is church.” The EKD reaffirmed it’s continuing commitment to the Leuenberger Konkordie.

In addition to serving on the Commission for Theology for the EKD, Professor Wendebourg also serves on the Theological Advisory Board (TAB) of the WordAlone Network (WAN), a group within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). In 2002, Wendebourg, coauthored a document for WAN in opposition to the Lutheran – Episcopal agreement “Called to Common Mission” entitled “Admonition for the Sake of the True Peace and Unity of the Church.” In it, Wendebourg and others call, among other things, for ordinations “of equal standing,” whereby episcopal and presbyteral ordinations are equally recognized. The “Admonition” cites the Augsburg Confession throughout.

Written by Pastor Kris Baudler
St. Luke’s Lutheran Church of Bay Shore, NY
Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Brentwood, NY