The following is a small section from the “Corpus Doctrinae” (Body of Doctrine) of the Braunschweig-Woelfenbuettel Church Order 1569, largely written by Martin Chemnitz.

“The little word repentance [busse] is used in many places in the scriptures for the first part of conversion, which has otherwise been called contrition, sorrow and sadness, when repentance, faith and the fruits of repentance are distinguished, Mark 1[15]; Acts 20[21] and 26[18]-20]. In certain places it is used for the whole of conversion: Jer. 18[8]; Ezek. 18[21] and 33[11]; Matt. 4[17]; Luke 13[5] and 15[10]. And thus it is used in the common language of the church in both ways, according to the circumstances of the material [under consideration]. The preacher shall not cause any quarrel over words in this matter, rather simply and clearly explain the sense and meaning. So also, when repentance is named and by it is understood the entire conversion of man, it is common to say that repentance has three parts or pieces : first, sorrow and sadness or terrors of conscience on account of sin; second, faith which in the gospel seeks and lays hold of forgiveness of sins out of grace for the sake of Christ; third, the fruits of repentance, that is, the beginning of a new life or new obedience. And the preacher shall cause no unnecessary quarrel regarding such distinction or recounting of the parts of repentance, rather follow the Apology as it speaks of this matter with fine discretion. If new obedience is numbered and reckoned with sorrow and faith in the doctrine of repentance, we would not have any great opposition to this, provided the matter itself is taught with the proper distinctions, namely that godly sorrow, which works a sorrow unto blessedness which no man regrets, II Cor. 7[10], consists of two parts, contritio et fides, contrition and faith; but new obedience does not belong to it. And thus the question is of how and by what means one may obtain the forgiveness of sin and eternal life. When it is taught that sin is first forgiven through faith, then the fruit follow, good works as God commands, and the suffering of the cross, which God lays upon the old Adam, this is a destructive error which is taught in Papacy that people merit grace by their sorrow and regret. The sorrow must rather come first. For the sick need the doctor, not the healthy, Matt 9[12]. But grace, forgiveness of sin and eternal life have been earned by Christ alone and are laid hold of and received through faith alone. Thereafter, on this basis, and from this source, good fruits then follow. Thus the threefold — repentance, faith and new obedience — are to be truthfully explained and taught. For where there is no repentance, there can be no upright faith. And where no good fruits follow, there is a certain indication that neither true repentance nor upright faith are present. But these three must be taught with due distinction regarding which precede, which follow, which are the office and characteristics of each, and especially, which is the means by which forgiveness of sins, earned and attained by Christ, is obtained, laid hold of, and received.”

— Translation by M.C. Harrison and Jacob Corzine; Unpublished.

Blessed Martin Chemnitz; From the memorial epitaph in St. Martini Church, Braunschweig, Germany. Photo copyright P.T. McCain.

NOTE: My friends over at The Gospel Coalition, a good group of Calvinists (no, really, they are-[smile]), asked me write up an article, as a result of some back forth I had with Kevin DeYoung a while back. It has now been posted and I thought you might like to read it. So, here it is:

What About Those Lutherans?

If God should once more grant us a revival, and with it a renewal of our church, that rests with God’s omnipotence alone.

That which we are able to do is threefold.

First

First of all, we can make ourselves see the status of our church and of Christendom. We must understand, of course, that the question is not how the legendary eighty million Lutherans of the world, who really do not exist but [who] have been invented by exceedingly superficial and thoughtless statistics, can be merged into a powerful organism. We must know, however, how those can be congregated from the midst of that poor, stricken, and feeble Lutheranism for whom the Lutheran Confession is not a mere pretense, but, as it was for Luther and the signatories of the Confessions, a matter of life and death, of eternal life and eternal death, because it is a matter pertaining to the everlasting truth of the Holy Scriptures, which concerns all peoples and all churches of Christendom. Indeed, we are not called to think and act in an ecumenical fashion, looking upon the Confessions as something relative, reducing them to the lowest level and practically doing away with them. We are, like Luther, to search for the one truth of the one Gospel for the one Church. Let us again become confessional Lutherans for the sake of the unity of the Church.

Second

The second thing that we must do to attain this end, and something we can do without difficulty, is that we again study the Confessions, that we again and again compare them with Holy Scripture, and that we constantly learn to value their interpretation of the Scriptures and their scriptural proofs more profoundly. As the Roman Catholic has the daily duty to read his breviary, a tedious and difficult task, our duty must be, next to the thorough study of the Scriptures, the unflagging study of the Confessions. In this manner let us begin prayerfully to read Luther’s Large Catechism. For Luther, though an old doctor, still was not ashamed to pray the catechism daily. The deepest cause for the failure of the German church struggle is none other than that everyone always spoke about the Confessions, appealed to them, but did not really know them. We need this insight not only for ourselves, our teaching, and our preaching but also very much so for our congregations. At the last large convention of the United Lutheran Church in America, an engineer made the statement (by the way, in agreement with the president of the church, Dr. Fry17) that the church is in need of theologians, that it calls for theologians. The Christian congregation of the present day in all lands and of all creeds is tired of the undogmatic, devotional character of the ethical sermon, which changes its theme every year. It demands in a way which we pastors frequently do not understand at all a substantial dogmatic sermon, a doctrinal sermon in the best sense of the word. If our contemporaries do not find it in the Lutheran Church, then the hunger for doctrine will drive them into other denominations. Therefore lay hold of the Confessions, dear brethren in the ministry, by yourselves and together with others.*

Third

The third thing, however, that we must learn anew is Luther’s invincible faith in the power of the means of grace. Whatever the Church still has and still does should not be minimized. But she does not live from mercy, or from political and social activity. She does not subsist on large numbers. When will the terrible superstition of the Christendom of our day cease that Jesus Christ is powerful only there where two or three million are gathered together in His name? When will we again comprehend that the Church lives by the means of grace of the pure preaching of the Gospel and by the divinely instituted administration of the Sacraments and by nothing else? And for no other reason than because Jesus Christ the Lord is present in His means of grace and builds His Church on earth, being even as powerful as ever before in the history of the Church— even if His power and glory, to speak as our Confessions do, are cruce tectum, hidden under the cross [Ap VII– VIII 18]. Oh, what secret unbelief and what little faith we find in the Church that calls herself the Church of the sola fide! May God in His grace eradicate this unbelief and strengthen this weak faith in our souls and renew us through the great faith of the New Testament and the Reformation. That, and that alone, is the manner of overcoming the urgent need of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the greatest and weightiest crisis of her history.

 — From: Sasse, Herman (2013-01-09). Letters to Lutheran Pastors – Volume 1; Letters to Lutheran Pastors, Number One: “Concerning the Status of the Lutheran Churches in the World Today,” December 1948.  Concordia Pub House. Kindle Edition.

* [Do not use the ELCA's edition of the Book of Concord, which undermines the authority of the Book of Concord by substituting texts never used in either the German or Latin editions of the Book of Concord. Further, it contains intentional mistranslations of the original language to accommodate the feminist and gay/lesbian agenda in the ELCA, and that incorrectly identifies the crypto-Calvinists as "crypto-Philippists," not to mention the insidious and pervasive use of a gender neutered translation style which weakens the clear Christological confession in the BOC].

(This comes from the Missouri Synod’s partner church The Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church [SELK] in Germany by The Rt Revd Dr. Jobst Schöne D.D., Bishop Emeritus, translated by Wilhelm Torgerson, shared by Dr. Al Collver on his blog.)

What is motivating the EKD? How an “ecumenical” project came to grief

A commentary by The Rt Revd Dr. Jobst Schöne D.D., Bishop Emeritus of the Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany (SELK)

A new deluxe-edition of the Luther Bible is on the market, published – surprisingly – by the “Bild-Zeitung”, the tabloid newspaper with the largest circulation in Europe. It was presented to the public on 3 December 2012 in the Castle Church in Wittenberg in the presence of prominent representatives of Church and State. Yet, as things turned out, Bishop Hans-Jörg Voigt of the SELK, who had been scheduled to address the assembly, was not even invited to attend.

All kinds of monkey games had been going on ahead of the event. The original plans called for this special edition of the German Bible to appear under the joint auspices of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the International Lutheran Council (ILC). This cooperation was to be indicated by Forewords written by both the President of the LWF, Bishop Dr. Mounib Younan from Jerusalem (Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Jordan and the Holy Land), and the Chairman of the ILC, Bishop Hans-Jörg Voigt (Bishop of the SELK and member of the Presidium of the Association of Christian Churches in Germany).

Now the Council of the “Evangelical Church in Germany” (EKD, the federation of all Protestant territorial churches in Germany) holds the copyright of the 1984 edition of the text of the Luther Bible. Obviously, the EKD had a hard time granting the permission asked of it. In the end the EKD only gave its go-ahead when the cooperative venture on the part of the LWF and the ILC had been stymied. The Council of the EKD declared it “to be imperative and quite sufficient for the chairman of the Council to write the pre-face.” The Council insisted that pride of place should be given to a new preface by its chairman, President Dr. Nikolaus Schneider of the Union Church (!) of the Rhineland. They insisted also on the removal of the foreword by SELK-Bishop Voigt which had already been submitted. All this despite the fact that the Council of the EKD had not made any contribution to this publishing project; the Council could only insist on its copyright monopoly. On top of this, the introduction I wrote, “On how to get into reading Holy Scripture”, was to be unceremoniously axed. But at this point the Axel Springer Publishing House refused to play along, threatening to stop the entire project if need be.

At the end of the day, the Council of the EKD gave in, at least to some extent. My intro-duction could remain, but only under certain conditions. The head office of the EKD let it be understood that “there is consensus in the EKD that the Old Testament is a book entirely on its own and therefore it cannot and should not be read only and primarily as a witness to Christ…” If the project was to be rescued, a compromise would have to be found, albeit at a heavy price. The EKD would not allow the statement I had made to stand, “that according to the Christian understanding these writings (of the Old Testa-ment) all point to Him who reveals Himself as the Son of God, Jesus Christ….Therefore Christians read and understand the Old Testament in light of the New Testament.” I was informed that “if these sentences were to appear in print, considerable irritation would ensue in our EKD ranks.” Any indication that the New Testament opens up a proper understanding for reading the Bible is something the EKD would “consider most un-usual,” something that could “make absolutely no claim to objectivity.”

We yielded to the EKD’s insistence, simply in order to bring the Bible to people who otherwise would hardly have any access to it. And what could be more important than that?

This new edition of the Bible is now available. But in the process an entirely feasible piece of joint work was thoroughly nixed, and the SELK was cruelly duped. All of this did not display a very “ecumenical” attitude on the part of the EKD, even though President Schneider writes lyrically in his preface that “the Council of the EKD was extraordinarily glad to agree to the request to allow the use of Martin Luther’s translation (1984 revi-sion) in this edition of the Bible.” Who is going to believe him?

Bishop emeritus Dr. Jobst Schöne D.D.
(Berlin, Germany)

All Saints Day…what a mess of superstition and abuse had arisen around it by the time of the 16th century. The “All Saints’ Foundation” at the Castle Church in Wittenberg were the custodians of the Elector of Saxony’s enormous collection of relics, which were put on public display once a year, on All Saints’ Day. I have a facsimile replica of the book published in Wittenberg, and illustrated by Lucas Cranach, documenting each of the major relics in the collection, with bits of bones and whisps of hair and pieces of arms, or legs, from various and sundry saints, and a number of supposed relics even from our dear Lord and His mother.

As Luther says in the Small Catechism, “Good God, what miserable things I have seen!” The thought was, in those days, that by viewing a relic one would receive some special blessing and benefit, and, of course, an indulgence that would reduce the time a person would have to spend in purgatory, being “purged” of his sins, which because they were not mortal sins, would not keep a person out of heaven, but would certainly delay his entry. The “saints” however were viewed as persons who through their lives of higher sanctity, morality and good works had earned a superabundance of God’s grace and therefore deposited this “extra” grace into a treasury of merits that the less-saintly folk on earth could draw upon by invocation of the saints, by viewing their relics, etc. It truly was a tragic system of distracting and covering up the glory and merit of Christ.

What a liberating thing it is to read therefore what our Lutheran Confessions have to say about the saints. Invoking them, and praying to them, is of course rejected, but…we Lutheran do *not* reject recognizing those particularly notable heros of the Faith. That is why we do retain a sanctoral cycle in the Church Year [though, tragically, one would never know it by observing most congregations' practice!].

Here is what Article XXI of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession has to say about the proper manner in which we honor and remember the saints.

Our Confession approves honoring the saints in three ways. The first is thanksgiving. We should thank God because He has shown examples of mercy, because He wishes to save people, and because He has given teachers and other gifts to the Church. These gifts, since they are the greatest, should be amplified. The saints themselves, who have faithfully used these gifts, should be praised just as Christ praises faithful businessmen (Matthew 25:21, 23). The second service is the strengthening of our faith.When we see Peter’s denial forgiven, we also are encouraged to believe all the more that grace truly superabounds over sin (Romans 5:20). The third honor is the imitation, first of faith, then of the other virtues. Everyone should imitate the saints according to his calling. The adversaries do not require these true honors. They argue only about invocation, which, even if it were not dangerous, still is not necessary.

Source: Apology of the Augsburg Confession Article XXI Paragraphs 4-7. Concordia CPH: 2006, p. 202.

Caption L to R: Rev. President Christian Ekong, The Lutheran Church of Nigeria; Rev. President James Cerdenola, The Lutheran Church in the Philippines, Rev. President Gijsbertus van Hattem, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Belgium; Bishop Hans-Jörg Voigt; Rev. President Robert Bugbee, Lutheran Church of Canada; Rev. Dr. Albert B. Collver III, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; Rev. President Jon Ehlers, The Evangelical Lutheran Church of England.

ILC Executive Committee Gathers with Global Confessional Lutheran Leaders

On the 495^th anniversary of the Reformation, ILC Executive Committee members joined more than 120 global Lutheran leaders at the groundbreaking International Conference on Confessional Leadership to discuss the Lutheran Church in the 21^st century. The conference focused on the themes of Witness (Martyría), Mercy (Diakonía) and Life Together (Koinonía), with keynote presenters on each topic and responses from leaders in Asia, Africa, North and South America, and Europe.

Rev. Dr. Jobst Schoene, bishop emeritus of the Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany, speaking on the topic of Koinonía observed, “We are linked to each other as Lutherans who take their confession seriously. To express our God-given Koinonía, we get to take responsibility for each other. There is still a lot to do: more exchange, for instance, of theological discussion, exchange of teachers, of servants in the ministry. Mutual assistance and help in various fields. The practice of intercommunion and intercelebration where there is doctrinal agreement. And if that’s missing: to work for such agreement. Can we any longer afford to let Koinonía at the altar have a minor ranking among International Lutheran Council (ILC) churches?”

Rev. Dr. Albert B. Collver III, newly appointed ILC executive secretary, commented, “Right now we have a unique opportunity among world Lutherans who are interested in a church that confesses the Scriptures and the Book of Concord.And the ILC is composed of churches that take the Scriptures and the Book of Concord seriously. In light of the things that are going on in the world, the social upheavals and unbiblical teachings, Lutherans around the world are looking for a church that takes these things seriously. The ILC is extremely happy to be at this conference representing 20-plus million Lutherans around the world. It is a tremendous opportunity for the ILC to promote its message.”

“We are using the opportunity to meet as the executive committee of the ILC and have the great pleasure to welcome Rev. Collver, our new executive secretary, while we attend the conference as church leaders from all parts of the ILC,” said Hans Jorg Voigt, SELK bishop and chairman of the ILC.

“Of course, the concerns that bring all these people together … really overlap very strongly with the concerns of the ILC, and that’s to try to create a clear profile not only in our churches, but in the world of a faithful Lutheran witness. We all realize that there is a great openness to this sort of thing. It is a challenging time, and so we are very grateful that we are able to be included in this conference and have time to work on our ILC business as well,” noted Rev. Robert Bugbee, president of the Lutheran Church—Canada and North American Representative to the ILC.

The conference is sponsored by The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and funded by Thrivent Financial for Lutherans.

The ILC is a worldwide association of established confessional Lutheran church bodies which proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ on the basis of an unconditional commitment to the Holy Scriptures as the inspired and infallible Word of God and to the Lutheran Confessions contained in the Book of Concord as the true and faithful exposition of the Word of God.

Rev. Dr. Albert B. Collver III
Executive Secretary
International Lutheran Council

c/o The LCMS

1333 S. Kirkwood Road

St. Louis, MO 63122
UNITED STATES

Phone: 636-751-3970
Email: albert.collver@lcms.org

FIRST THINGS, the very decidedly pro-Roman Catholic journal, enjoys posting editorials, by Lutherans, around Reformation Day. When they did this last year, the Lutheran pastor who wrote the piece was whining and wringing his hands that there was a Reformation. And guess what? I’ve learned that he left his Lutheran congregation and accepted a position at a Roman Catholic seminary directing their Lay Ministry program. Go figure. See note below for details.

Well, imagine my disappointment when my friend Russ Saltzmann was roped into this kind of Reformation Day nonsense by FIRST THINGS and wrote an article whining that he can’t receive the Lord’s Supper in the Roman communion. His “justification” for why he should (yes, pun intended) begins with a list of areas of agreement and, yup, sure enough, he asserts that Rome and Lutheranism now agree on justification by grace. Russ should know better. Of course we agree on justification “by grace” but what he leaves out is precisely the point of disagreement “through faith alone.” And that was the whole point of the Reformation, Russ, et al.

He cites Carl Braaten, the man whose dogmatics text has been used for many years in ELCA seminaries to fill hearts and minds with the detritus of liberal Lutheran theology. He asserts that nothing should prevent full communion since a closed altar post-JDDJ “has insufficient theological warrant from Scripture.” What a load of … baloney.

I posted this response to the FIRST THINGS site, which may, or may not, have gone through their system.

My friend, Russ, bless his heart, is just so very wrong from the very start when he begins his checklist of agreement by asserting that Lutherans and Rome have agreed on justification by grace.

Rome knows this is not true, which is why it was quick to issue a “clarification” after the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was announced, making clear that it had not retracted any of its positions on this issue, as set in stone at the Council of Trent.

Further, the Lutheran World Federation “spun” the event to make it seem as though most/many Lutherans agreed, but that “spin” was flatly a lie. Many LWF member churches never signed on to the agreement.

Further, most of the most prominent Lutheran scholars in Germany and other countries issued a public statement saying, “Wait a minute….” and explained why the JDDJ was not some sort of marvelous break through.

And of course, those Lutheran church in the world that self-identify as Confessional Lutheran Churches, those that, unlike the ELCA and its sister churches in Scandinavia and elsewhere, still actually insists that Lutherans should confession that is in the Lutheran Confessions (I know, crazy, huh?) came out very loudly, clearly and publically asserting all the reasons why the JDDJ was not a breakthrough, but merely and only a liberal mainline Lutheran sell out, as usual, on this, the key teaching of Holy Scripture.

I’m sad to see that my friend Russ played right into the hands of the First Thing pro-Roman agenda by offering this piece around Reformation Day. I recall a year ago we had another such anemic effort by a young man wringing his hands over the fact that the Church was reformed. No surprise that the young man has left the Lutheran Church and “Poped.”

So, let the record show that the assertion that Rome and Lutheranism are in agreement on the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone is simply not true. NOT. TRUE.

Happy Reformation Day!!

Here we stand, still.

[Note: The author of the other FIRST THINGS blog post to which I refer is Rev. Joshua Genig. He is listed on the roster of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod as a pastor but has accepted the position of Director of Lay Ministry at St. Cyril and St. Methodius Roman Catholic Seminary in Detroit. I have no idea how this is possible, and have sought further information from Rev. Genig. Here is what I asked: “How can this be? If you  are a Lutheran pastor how can you in good conscience serve as a director of Lay Ministry at a Roman Catholic seminary? Can you please explain?” He has not responded. Some have told me that RC institutions do not require their professors to be RC. I am well aware of that, but mind you: this is a seminary, and he is director of a program preparing people to be lay ministers in Roman Catholic parish settings. Quite a big difference there, folks.]

Greetings in Christ, and a blessed and happy Reformation day to all.

Dear Christians One and All Rejoice

by Martin Luther

Dear Christians, one and all, rejoice,
With exultation springing,
And, with united heart and voice,
And holy rapture singing,
Proclaim the wonders God hath done,
How His right arm the victory won;
Right dearly it hath cost him.

2.  Fast bound in Satan’s chains I lay.
Death brooded darkly o’er me.
Sin was my torment night and day.
In sin my mother bore me.
Yea, deep and deeper still I fell.
Life had become a living hell,
So firmly sin possessed me.

3.  My own good works availed me naught,
No merit they attaining.
Free will against God’s judgment fought,
Dead to all good remaining.
My fears increased till sheer despair
Left naught but death to be my share.
The pains of hell I suffered.

4.  But God beheld my wretched state
Before the world’s foundation.
And, mindful of His mercies great,
He planned my soul’s salvation.
A father’s heart He turned to me,
Sought my redemption fervently.
He gave His dearest Treasure.

5.  He spoke to His beloved Son:
‘Tis time to have compassion.
Then go, bright Jewel of My crown,
And bring to man salvation;
From sin and sorrow set him free.
Slay bitter death for him that he
May live with Thee forever.

6.  This Son obeyed His Father’s will,
Was born of virgin mother.
And God’s good pleasure to fulfil,
He came to be my Brother.
No garb of pomp or power He wore,
A servant’s form, like mine, He bore,
To lead the devil captive.

7.  To me He spake: Hold fast to Me,
I am thy Rock and Castle;
Thy ransom I Myself will be,
For thee I strive and wrestle;
For I am with thess, I am thine,
And evermore thou shalt be mine.
The foe shall not divide us.

8.  The foe shall shed my precious blood,
Me of My life bereaving.
All this I suffer for thy good
Be steadfast and believing.
Life shall from death the victory win.
My innocence shall bear thy sin;
So art thou blest forever.

9.  Now to My Father I depart,
The Holy Spirit sending
And heavenly wisdom to impart
My help to thee extending.
He shall in trouble comfort thee,
Teach thee to know and follow Me,
And in all truth shall guide thee.

10. What I have done and taught, teach thou,
My ways forsake thou never.
So shall My kingdom flourish now
And God be praised forever.
Take heed lest men with base alloy
The heavenly treasure should destroy.
This counsel I bequeath thee.

A blog post on the First Things web site some time ago was drawn to my attention by a couple colleagues as we were eating lunch the other day. A perceptive remark was made about it. The article, by a LCMS pastor, is rather typical of what the Roman Catholic journal, First Things, loves to publish: hand-wringing articles by Lutherans over the Reformation.

In the article, the pastor opines that the better color for Reformation Sunday would be a color of mourning, rather than a festive red. He laments the Reformation as a tragedy. He is correct, but for the wrong reason.

Must we lament our sin? Indeed. Must we lament our human pride? Yes! Is the Church always in need of Reformation? Absolutely. Is God, by His Most Holy Word and Sacraments constantly reforming you, me and the whole Christian Church on earth? Amen, Amen, may it ever be so! But, should we lament the fact of the Reformation? No, unless we wish to lament God’s gift of the Gospel, which came breaking through with great clarity once more at this time.

Ironically, though, the author of the article misses the actual tragedy of the Reformation; namely, that it was not wholly successful. The Roman Catholic Church, as such, was formed as a direct result of the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent. And at the Council of Trent the door was slammed shut on the very Gospel itself, the good news that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone. What was at least an option before Trent, was pronounced to be a damning error.

This is the tragedy of the Reformation!

UPDATE: The author of the FIRST THINGS blog post, Rev. Joshua Genig, is listed on the roster of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod as a pastor but has accepted the position of Director of Lay Ministry at St. Cyril and St. Methodius Roman Catholic Seminary in Detroit. I have no idea how this is possible, and have sought further information from Rev. Genig. Here is what I asked: “How can this be? If you  are a Lutheran pastor how can you in good conscience serve as a director of Lay Ministry at a Roman Catholic seminary? Can you please explain?” He has not responded.

My colleague, Rev. Edward Engelbrecht, penned this powerful little post and how appropriate for Lutherans to read it on Reformation Day. And no, he did not literally “pen” it, ok? I know what some of you in Intertube land are thinking. When you read this, please do yourself a favor and do not think immediately of excuses or justifications, just let it sink in a bit. I’ve read far too  many types of comments that go something like this, “We are being faithful so people will find us.” Or “We are being faithful, numbers don’t matter, we are not about numbers, but about being faithful.” Or, the worst of the latest thinking yet on this: “God has elected some to salvation and they will get there because God has elected them, therefore, we should not be caught up in any sense of urgency about the Lord’s mission.” Yes, I’m serious. That’s the latest foolishness floating around on subjects like this.

Faithfulness AND outreach, always a both/and, never, ever, every an either/or.

Here then is the article.

The Last Lutheran

“Grandpa, what’s a ‘Luth-ran’?”

The computer reflected in the boy’s dark eyes as he squinted, pondering his own question.

“Have you tried searching the internet?” grandpa said, looking back from the Skype portal on the computer screen.

“No. I thought you would just know.” The boy reached out, touched the screen to draw up the search engine. Then said, “Luth-ran.” The results screen listed various links to online encyclopedias but no sites for congregations. The boy’s eyes searched the links, wondering which to open.

“Mom said you were a Lutheran, grandpa. I thought you would just know. I have to do a report on how things used to be and the teacher said we could ask questions of our grandparents.”

“I was a Lutheran. That was a long time ago. There was a Lutheran church in town and I went there. But now it’s a recycling center. You know, the one where we turn in our plastics for credit?”

“That place was a church? It’s a mess. . . . Why did people go to church?”

“Everyone went to church then. Well, not everyone. But many did. Church was important. The churches were the biggest buildings in town. You saw your friends there and they taught you about the Bible,” grandpa said.

“There’s a church in our city, grandpa. We drive by it. But it’s not really big and the people speak Spanish there. Do you think it’s a Lutheran church?”

“No. I don’t suppose so,” grandpa said. “You don’t pass Lutheran churches anymore. Was a time when every town had one, or at least an old one boarded up for sale or turned into a museum. You don’t even see that much anymore.”

“So, what happened? Why are you the last Lutheran? The internet articles have a lot about ‘Jesus.’ Is that a Lutheran thing?”

Grandpa hesitated. “I don’t think I can say. That’s kind of a personal question, honey—not one you ask. People have their own beliefs and ideas. Everyone can think what he wants. So, it’s best not to ask about it.”

The Reformation Is Cancelled

In 2017 the Lutheran church in North America will observe the Reformation by closing hundreds of its congregations and preaching stations. We love the purity of our pulpits and quiet of our sanctuaries, which grow every quieter.

I am writing this because of something I saw the other day. Recently, CPH introduced an easy to use Outreach Kit, which some Lutheran congregations have picked up. Most congregations are taking one copy of the kit, which equips them to reach out to 50 households.

What struck me yesterday was when I saw members of another conservative protestant church snap up twelve copies of the kit, intending to reach out to 600 households—shocking contrast in behavior and an indictment of our passive, Lutheran culture.

Some reasons other conservative Protestants are growing while Lutherans are not can be explained as simply as follows:

•  Outreach is an on-going priority for them. They build it into their members’ thinking while Lutherans do not.
• They plan for it and budget for it while we plan for the best sausage supper.
• They will work with all the messy, confused, needy people who respond to the outreach. We find such people annoying.

Our congregations tend to be slower or even totally negligent on these points. This is perhaps because we are a 500 year old church and they are more spry by comparison. Be we have got to address this cultural issue.

A New Reformation

Our congregations need to learn to sow the Word liberally while teaching the Word conservatively. Anything else implies a lack of confidence—a lack of faith—in the Word of God we profess. As we believe, teach and confess the life-giving Word, outreach will become our highest priority. That is what I would like us to celebrate in 2017. Lord, have mercy.

I’ve invited the leadership at Concordia Publishing House to consider what we can do to change the passive culture of our churches and turn us outward toward the community with the Gospel.

I invite my readers to consider the same and raise the same questions in their local churches.

”We beg of You, bless, oh bless, the work of spreading Your written Word. . . . You know how listless our hearts are and how easily our zeal grows cold. Grant us therefore genuine glowing love, a love that will never grow cold or weary.” Amen.

—C. F. W. Walther, For the Life of the Church, p. 30.

Luther’s seal, or as it is sometimes called, Luther’s rose, is the most widely known symbol of Lutheranism. It’s origins are interesting. Luther was  invited to create a personal symbol to summarize his faith in the 1520, as his writings became increasingly popular, there was a desire on the part of the Wittenberg printers somehow to try to indicate what was an authorized publication of Luther’s works, and so they asked Luther to tell them what he would like to have as his personal mark on his published works. I put a copy of the first known printed version of the seal, further down in this post.

It was very common in Luther’s Day for public servants, theologians, political rulers, and others of some public note, to have a personal seal. In 1530, Prince John Frederick wanted to give Luther a gift of a signet ring, as an expression of his appreciation, love and respect for Dr. Luther. The gift was personally presented to Luther, by Prince John, at the Coburg Castle on September 14, Holy Cross Day, when the Prince stopped at Coburg while travelling back from the meeting in Augsburg. The Coburg Fortress was the southernmost fortified property in what was then Electoral Saxony.  Luther could not attend the Diet of Augsburg, but had to remain behind in Coburg, since he was still considered by the Emperor, Charles V, to be a public criminal, not to mention the fact that he was also considered a heretic and excommunicated by the Roman Church.  Lazarus Spengler, of Nürnberg, [see note below about Spengler], apparently helped to have the ring prepared, he asked Luther for an explanation of the seal. Luther offered both an explanation and also an indication of the colors it should contain. This was somewhat unusual, for full color seals were very rare, in these early years of printing. Any four-color image in a book would have to be provided by hand. The ring was a thank you from John Frederick to Luther, in return for Luther having dedicated his translation of the Book of Daniel, to the Prince. Johann Frederick was, in my opinion, the greatest lay-hero of the Lutheran Reformation. You can read more about him here.

The image in this post is a colorized version of the original version of the Luther seal, as it first appeared in print, originally in black and white (see image below). It is one of the best presentations I’ve seen of it, in color. And this is why I say this. Generally, in color versions of the seal, the blue is too dark and deep. Luther’s concept was that the blue stands for a blue sky. This is more accurate. The image was found on Wikipedia and is in the public domain. I removed the Luther initials “M” and “L” which appeared on it when it was first printed. If you click on the image, you will be taken to the original size of the graphic. As I said, this image is in the public domain and you can use it as you wish. I thought I’d mention this image and talk a bit about this famous symbol for Lutheranism. The other symbol for Lutheranism, is the stylized letters of the motto Verbum Domini manet in aeternum, [The word of the Lord endures forever], which I’ll describe and explain in a future post.

Here is how Luther explained his seal, when he was asked about it by the man who was preparing the ring for him, at Prince John’s request:

“Grace and peace from the Lord. As you desire to know whether my painted seal, which you sent to me, has hit the mark, I shall answer most amiably and tell you my original thoughts and reason about why my seal is a symbol of my theology. The first should be a black cross in a heart, which retains its natural color, so that I myself would be reminded that faith in the Crucified saves us. ‘For one who believes from the heart will be justified’ (Rom. 10:10). Although it is indeed a black cross, which mortifies and which should also cause pain, it leaves the heart in its natural color. It does not corrupt nature, that is, it does not kill but keeps alive. ‘The just shall live by faith’ (Rom. 1:17) but by faith in the crucified. Such a heart should stand in the middle of a white rose, to show that faith gives joy, comfort, and peace. In other words, it places the believer into a white, joyous rose, for this faith does not give peace and joy like the world gives (John 14:27). That is why the rose should be white and not red, for white is the color of the spirits and the angels (cf. Matthew 28:3; John 20:12). Such a rose should stand in a sky-blue field, symbolizing that such joy in spirit and faith is a beginning of the heavenly future joy, which begins already, but is grasped in hope, not yet revealed. And around this field is a golden ring, symbolizing that such blessedness in Heaven lasts forever and has no end. Such blessedness is exquisite, beyond all joy and goods, just as gold is the most valuable, most precious and best metal. This is my compendium theoligae [summary of theology]. I have wanted to show it to you in good friendship, hoping for your appreciation. May Christ, our beloved Lord, be with your spirit until the life hereafter. Amen.

A note on the text of this letter:

Martin Luther, Letter to Lazarus Spengler, July 8, 1530, as included in the translation by Amy Marga from “Luthers Siegel: Eine elementare Deutung seiner Theologie,” in Luther 67 (1996):66–87. Translation printed in Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. XIV, Num. 4, Winter 2000, pg. 409-410. The text used for this translation is from Johannes Schilling, Briefe, Auswah, Ubersetzung und Erlauterungen in Vol. 6 of Ausgewaehlte Schriften/MartinLuther. The text of Luther’s letter is also found in the Weimar edition of Luther’s Works, Briefe Vol. 5:444f and in English translation in Luther’s Works: American Edition, Vol. 49:356-359).

Read more…

We are fast approaching the Festival of the Reformation and each year when we do folks ask me for this article, so I thought I’d get ahead of the requests and post it today. Feel free to copy, use, share. Please do not change the contents (unless you notice a typo!).

There seem to be three responses to the question, “Does being Lutheran still matter?” One is, “Are you kidding me? You better believe that it matters. Let me tell you why.” Another response is a sort of “mental shrug” to the question, “Well, of course we want to be and remain Lutheran, that goes without saying, there’s no real need to talk much about it though.” And then, sadly, there is this response, “It doesn’t matter. All that matters is being a Christian. We need to focus on what unites us rather than what divides us.” As I watch and analyze events and trends in Christianity and Lutheranism, both in this country and around the world, I am increasingly convinced of two things: first, being and remaining genuinely Lutheran matters more then ever, and second, the reasons why this is true are unclear at best to many people, including many Lutherans.

To be Lutheran is to be a person who says, “This is what God’s Word, the Bible, teaches. This and nothing else is true and correct. The Lutheran understanding teaching and confession of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most accurate and most faithful to God’s Word. Nothing more, and nothing less, will do, for this is the truth.” In our day and age these sorts of bold assertions are often met with angry responses, such as, “How dare you insist that Lutheranism is actually the true teaching of God’s Word. How can you think you have the truth? All that matters is if a person is sincere about their faith in God.” We live in a time when truth is viewed as something relative, impossible to know for sure. The attitude common today is reflected when we hear things like this, “I have my truth. You have your truth. As long as we respect our differences, that is all that matters.” It seems today that the most important “truth” for many people is their profound doubt that truth can be known, and the conviction that those who claim to know the truth are wrong.

There is a very common misunderstanding and misconception about the great hymn writer, Paul Gerhardt.

Non-Lutherans, and liberal Lutherans, have for years been picturing Paul Gerhardt as a free spirit held captive to stodgy old Lutheran orthodoxy. They have attempted to suggest Gerhardt was merely “playing along” with traditional orthodox Lutheranism, while meanwhile Gerhardt the “inner pietist” was more concerned about poetry than doctrine. The Calvinist types who like some of his hymns, have tried to play down his staunch Lutheranism. Well, the real Paul Gerhardt was a rock-solid orthodox Lutheran. My colleague at CPH, Rev. Benjamin Mayes, kindly translated a letter from Gerhardt to his prince in which he, in the most painfully polite tones possible, tells the Elector what he can do with the job that he had been re-offered after being fired the first time for refusing to promise to drop the Formula of Concord, which is of course always the litmus test for genuine Lutheranism vis a vi Calvinism. Here is Gerhardt’s letter, which I think you will enjoy and be impressed with.

Letter of Paul Gerhardt to Elector Friedrich Wilhelm (1667)

Most majestic elector, most gracious lord!

In most obedient subjection I wish for your electoral majesty that the grace, kindness, and mercy of God may be upon your electoral, majestic, high person, your beloved spouse, all the most noble electoral princes and upon the entire electoral and royal house of the Margraves of Brandenburg, for good, constant health, successful governance, and all self-wished well-being of body and soul.

Read more…

It often seems that when a person who has been a part of Evangelicalism/Reformed traditions/Calvinism becomes frustrated and weary of forms of worship that are rather hollow and lack much by way of rich artistry and visual images, or when they recognize that they are hungry for a genuinely sacramental life by which they can experience the very “up close and personal” contact with the Creator of the Universe who does give Himself in the bread and wine of the Sacrament — (phew, long sentence, sorry!) — they often think they have to run over to the Eastern Orthodox Church, or to the Roman Church.

As much as Evangelicals/Reformed/Calvinists love to talk about Luther, it is the really “Lutheran” bits of Luther that they seem to want to overlook and even push away; namely, Luther’s firm commitment to the Biblical means of grace: the Word and the Sacraments.

[Now, if we can only help Lutherans understand and appreciate the right treasure that is their spiritual birthright and stop hankering after the flesh pots of non-denominational Evangelicalism! Another post there.]

Dr. Gene Edward Veith, himself a convert to Lutheranism, and author of one of the most influential books that lead many to Lutheranism, titles, The Spirituality of the Cross, shared this “testimony” from a person coming out of a Protestantism heavily influenced by Calvin, who thought he had to go over to Rome or elsewhere, but then he discovered Lutheran spirituality and theology. Here is Dr. Veith’s post:

Daniel Siedell is a Christian art critic and curator, the author of God in the Gallery: A Christian Embrace of Modern Art. In a recent post on his Patheos blog Cultivare, he describes how frustrated he became with evangelical and Reformed scholarship on the arts, leading him to turn to Catholic and Orthodox theologians. But then he discovered Luther and Lutheranism, who were not at all the way he had assumed. McCain note at this point: I’m going to post all of Dr. Siedell’s post from his blog:

“Modern and contemporary painting is the heart of my theology of culture. It is not the kind of cultural practice, however, that receives any positive attention from evangelical cultural theologians and critics, for whom art is irrelevant at best and harmful at worst. But painting is much more than meets the eye, as both the tradition of icon painting within the church and the history of modern art outside the church testify. But a theology of culture that cannot offer a positive account of the arts in practice—not in theory—is ultimately deaf to the diverse and unexpected sounds of grace in the world.

“While finishing my doctoral dissertation and teaching modern art at a state university in the mid-1990s, I read Francis Schaeffer’s Art and the Bible and H.R. Rookmaaker’s Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, and I was shocked. Their conclusions about modern art  bore no resemblance to the work I had devoted years of my life to understanding from within the history and development of modern art.

“In response to Schaeffer and Rookmaaker, I began to develop a more robust theological account for my interest in modern and contemporary art, which didn’t begin in the seminar room but where I live my professional a life as an art critic and curator: face to face with a work of art in an art museum, gallery, or studio. My goal was not to develop a “theology of the arts” that gets “applied” like a cookie-cutter to particular works of art or hovers abstractly in the ether, but to give a theological account for my interest in and love for particular artifacts of an especially despised and misunderstood cultural practice, which as an evangelical, I had been called to serve. One of the results was God in the Gallery (Baker Academic, 2008), in which I moved outside the operative Reformed worldview framework, which I found too limiting, toward the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions of the faith, to bring a more robust aesthetic, sacramental, and liturgical mindfulness to modern and contemporary art.

“The outlier in my aesthetic evangelical resourcement was Luther, whom I had simply lumped into the Protestant tradition as a “pre-Calvinist” and a “post-Catholic,” shaped as I was by the biases of Catholic and Reformed interpreters, and art historians like Joseph Leo Koerner, who blamed the Reformer for a privatized, relativized, and disenchanted Protestant faith. But things changed when my family and I became members of a confessional Lutheran Church (LCMS), and I discovered through the weekly practice of the preached Word and Sacrament, that Philip Cary is right: Luther is not quite Protestant. And for the sake of enriching evangelical cultural thought, that is a very good thing, as even Reformed historian Mark Noll observed in his classic essay, “The Lutheran Difference,” published in 1992 in First Things. But, unfortunately, as Kevin DeYoung admitted last summer, Luther and the Lutheran tradition remain virtually unknown to conference-circuit evangelicalism.

“Although I practiced the Christian faith in the Lutheran tradition for almost eight years, it was not until I encountered Luther, liberated from a confessional tradition that had domesticated it and non-Lutheran thinkers who had distorted it, and interpreted through sensitive readers like the Hamann scholar Oswald Bayer, Steve Paulson, Gerhard Ebeling, and Gerhard Forde, that he came alive for me, presenting to me a Luther I never knew. And a Luther evangelicalism desperately needs.

“What I discovered is a Luther whose thought offers fertile ground for a desperately needed re-evaluation of evangelical approaches to art and culture, from his understanding of the distinctions between the letter and the spirit; law and gospel; theology of the cross and theology of glory; the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world; the human being as simultaneously sinner and saint; God hidden and revealed; and nature and grace. In addition, in his revolutionary understanding of vocation and through his emphasis on the sacramental nature of the preached Word, Luther opens up space to think freely and creatively about modern art, without expectations for what art should look like. For Luther, it is not what we see, but what we hear from paintings, when the bullets are flying, when push comes to shove, as we live and feel the pressure of life and the strained relationship between God and neighbor.

“And so I find Luther a welcome and helpful companion on visits to art museums and art galleries, especially when I am confronted by work that looks different, that frustrates my expectations, and distracts me by its strangeness. Luther is teaching me to wait in faith, and listen, with  love.”

It has come to my attention that there are some laypeople who read my blog, and follow my Facebook page, who have had the unfortunate experience of stumbling across very negative and harmful discussions on the Internet of what is called the doctrine of “objective justification.” There is a former Lutheran pastor who has made it his life’s mission to attack this comforting doctrine. I urge and warn all those who read this blog and my Facebook page to avoid any such discussions and to flee from any false teachers who would rob you of the comfort of the Gospel. They like to insert themselves everywhere they can on various forums where justification is discussed. Pray for their repentance and restoration to a true and living faith. They are the very kind of persons whom the Apostle warns us about when he urges us to make sure we are “keeping Faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith” (1 Timothy 1:19). Mark and avoid anyone who casts doubt on the doctrine of objective justification, and particularly mark and avoid any pastor who does so Do not be deceived. Cling to the truth.

Rejoice in this beautiful explanation of the doctrine of objective justification written by the Rev. Dr. Robert Preus, in 1981.

“The doctrine of objective justification is a lovely teaching drawn from Scripture which tells us that God who has loved us so much that He gave His only to be our Savior has for the sake of Christ’s substitutionary atonement declared the entire world of sinners for whom Christ died to be righteous (Romans 5:17-19).

“Objective justification which is God’s verdict of acquittal over the whole world is not identical with the atonement, it is not another way of expressing the fact that Christ has redeemed the world. Rather it is based upon the substitutionary work of Christ, or better, it is a part of the atonement itself. It is God’s response to all that Christ died to save us, God’s verdict that Christ’s work is finished, that He has been indeed reconciled, propitiated; His anger has been stilled and He is at peace with the world, and therefore He has declared the entire world in Christ to be righteous.

THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT
“According to all of Scripture Christ made a full atonement for the sins of all mankind. Atonement (at-one-ment) means reconciliation. If God was not reconciled by the saving work of Christ, if His wrath against sin was not appeased by Christ’’ sacrifice, if God did not respond to the perfect obedience and suffering and death of His Son for the sins of the world by forgiveness, by declaring the sinful world to be righteous in Christ -–if all this were not so, if something remains to be done by us or through us or in us, then there is no finished atonement. But Christ said, “It is finished.” And God raised Him from the dead and justified Him, pronounced Him, the sin bearer, righteous (I Timothy 3:16) and thus in Him pronounced the entire world of sinners righteous (Romans 4:25).

“All this is put beautifully by an old Lutheran theologian of our church, “We are redeemed from the guilt of sin; the wrath of God is appeased; all creation is again under the bright rays of mercy, as in the beginning; yea, in Christ we were justified before we were even born. For do not the Scriptures say: ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them?’’ This is not the justification which we receive by faith…That is the great absolution which took place in the resurrection of Christ. It was the Father, for our sake, who condemned His dear Son as the greatest of all sinners causing Him to suffer the greatest punishment of the transgressors, even so did He publicly absolve Him from the sins of the world when He raised Him up from the dead.” (Edward Preuss, “The Justification of a Sinner Before God,” pp. 14-15)

OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
“The doctrine of objective justification does not imply that there is no hell, that God’s threats throughout Scripture to punish sins are empty, or that all unbelievers will not be condemned to eternal death on the day of Christ’s second coming. And very definitely the doctrine of objective, or general, justification does not threaten the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ. Rather it is the very basis of that Reformation doctrine, a part of it. For it is the very pardon which God has declared over the whole world of sinners that the individual sinner embraces in faith and thus is justified personally. Christ’s atonement, His propitiation of God and God’s forgiveness are the true and only object of faith. Here is what George Stoekhardt, perhaps the greatest of all Lutheran biblical expositors in our country, says, “Genuine Lutheran theology counts the doctrine of general (objective) justification among the statements and treasures of its faith. Lutherans teach and confess that through Christ’s death the entire world of sinners was justified and that through Christ’s resurrection the justification of the sinful world was festively proclaimed. This doctrine of general justification is the guarantee and warranty that the central article of justification by faith is being kept pure. Whoever holds firmly that God was reconciled to the world in Christ, and that to sinners in general their sin was forgiven, to him the justification which comes from faith remains a pure act of the grace of God. Whoever denies general justification is justly under suspicion that he is mixing his own work and merit into the grace of God.”

THE REALITY OF OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION
“Objective justification is not a mere metaphor, a figurative way of expressing the fact that Christ died for all and paid for the sins of all. Objective justification has happened, it is the actual acquittal of the entire world of sinners for Christ’s sake. Neither does the doctrine of objective justification refer to the mere possibility of the individual’s justification through faith, to a mere potentiality which faith completes when one believes in Christ.

“Justification is no more a mere potentiality or possibility than Christ’s atonement. The doctrine of objective justification points to the real justification of all sinners for the sake of Christ’s atoning work “before” we come to faith in Christ. Nor is objective justification “merely” a “Lutheran term” to denote that justification is available to all as a recent “Lutheran Witness” article puts it – although it is certainly true that forgiveness is available to all. Nor is objective justification a Missouri Synod construct, a “theologoumenon” (a theological peculiarity), devised cleverly to ward off synergism (that man cooperates in his conversion) and Calvinistic double predestination, as Dr. Robert Schultz puts it in “Missouri in Perspective” (February 23, 1981, p. 5) – although the doctrine does indeed serve to stave off these two aberrations. No, objective justification is a clear teaching of Scripture, it is an article of faith which no Lutheran has any right to deny or pervert any more than the article of the Trinity or of the vicarious atonement.

THE CENTRALITY AND COMFORT OF THE DOCTRINE
“Objective justification is not a peripheral article of faith which one may choose to ignore because of more important things. It is the very central article of the Gospel which we preach. Listen to Dr. C. F. W. Walther, the first president and great leader of our synod, speak about this glorious doctrine in one of his magnificent Easter sermons: “When Christ suffered and died, He was judged by God, and He was condemned to death in our place. But when God in the resurrection awakened Him again, who was it then that was acquitted by God in Christ’s person? Christ did no need acquittal for Himself, for no one can accuse Him of single sin. Who therefore was it that was justified in Him? Who was declared pure and innocent in Him? We were, we humans. It was the whole world. When God spoke to Christ, ‘You shall live,’ that applied to us. His life is our life. His acquittal, our acquittal, His justification, our justification….Who can ever fully express the great comfort which lies in Christ’s resurrection? It is God’s own absolution spoken to all men, to all sinners, in a word, to all the world, and sealed in the most glorious way. There the eternal love of God is revealed in all its riches, in its overflowing fullness and in its highest brilliance. For there we hear that it was not enough for God simply to send His own Son into the world and let Him become a man for us, not enough even for Him to give and offer His only Son unto death for us. No, when His Son had accomplished all that He had to do and suffer in order to earn and acquire grace and life and blessedness for us, then God, in His burning love to speak to us sinners, could not wait until we would come to Him and request His grace in Christ, but no sooner had His Son fulfilled everything than He immediately hastened to confer to men the grace which had been acquired through the resurrection of His Son, to declare openly, really and solemnly to all men that they were acquitted of all their sins, and to declare before heaven and earth that they are redeemed, reconciled, pure, innocent and righteous in Christ.”

Source:

CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
NEWSLETTER – Spring 1981
6600 North Clinton
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825