A recent blog post on the First Things web site 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!

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.

It is true that of all the church bodies which have left the papacy, it is precisely the Lutheran Church which is accused of retaining many papal abuses and of having been the least successful in cleansing itself. It is pointed out, for example, that in our church priestly clothing, church ornamentation, pictures, altar, crucifixes, candles, confession, the sign of the cross, and the like are still apparent. But, my friends, whoever regards these innocent things as vestiges of the papacy knows neither what the papacy is, nor what the Bible teaches. The very fact that the Lutheran Reformation was not aimed at indifferent adiaphora, but retained those things which were in harmony with God’s Word, shows that it was not a disorderly revolution, but a Biblical reformation.

— C. F. W. Walther

This poignant quote from Dr. C.F.W. Walther should be etched on the walls of every Lutheran Church, in some convenient location, so that we never forget that being Lutheran is simply being a Christian in the Western Catholic tradition, and, understood correctly, it is true that we Lutherans are “evangelical” catholics, nothing more, nor certainly nothing less.

Here, again, is my annual Reformation reprint of an article I wrote a number of years ago that has been well received. I routinely receive requests for a copy of it. Feel free to pass it along.

Fifteen Minutes that Changed the World Forever
A number of years ago, I attended a conference on the doctrine of justification in Wittenberg, Germany. There were pastors, presidents and bishops from Lutheran churches throughout Europe, Scandinavia, the Baltics, Eastern and Central Europe, Africa, and various countries in the land of the former Soviet Union. These servants of Christ know what it means to be distinctly Lutheran, often under extremely difficult and challenging circumstances. In many cases, they are walking through fiery trials suffering various forms of persecution for their commitment to Christ and His Word. It was humbling to be with them and discuss the chief article of the faith.

It was also quite a thrill to spend four days in Wittenberg and walk where Luther walked. On the last day of the conference I decided to time how long it would have taken Martin Luther to walk from the door of his Augustinian monastery to the Castle Church to post the ninety-five theses. Another LCMS pastor attending the conference, Bob Zagore, came with me and he counted the steps. Bob counted 2,000 steps. I counted fifteen minutes.As Luther left his monastery on October 31, 1517, turned left, and walked to the Castle Church on the west side of town, I doubt he had any idea just what he was setting motion. Four years later, Pope Leo’s representative, Aleander reported, “All of Germany is an uproar! Ninety-percent of the people are shouting, “Luther!” and the other ten percent—if they don’t care about Luther—at least have “Death to the Roman court!” as their slogan.” (Martin Brecht, Martin Luther The Road to Reformation, Fortress Press: 1:439).Father Martin, parish pastor, was outraged by the Roman system of indulgences and what it was doing to the precious souls he cared for at the city church of St. Mary as confessor and preacher. He was deeply angered when one after another member of his congregation told him about the indulgence that they had walked all day to buy from John Tetzel in the little town of Jütebog, just over the border of Electoral Saxony. They thought they had assurance of grace and comfort, for themselves, or for loved ones who had died. They clung to their indulgence receipt, instead of the crucified Lord. They believed that with their act of penance and contribution to the construction of St. Peter’s in Rome, God would smile on them and make things easier for them after their death.Luther could not remain silent. And so he spoke, and wrote, and preached, and taught, and debated. He posted his theses and he mailed a copy of them on the same day to the Archbishop of Mainz, protesting the indulgences that were being sold within his diocese. In so doing, Luther set an axe at the root of the Papal tree. Enormous sources of revenue were at stake. Papal and imperial politics were involved beyond what Luther fully realized. Luther said after the controversy was under way:

“I never wanted to fight, either with the strongest or the weakest. My single intention was to stay hidden in the corner. But now that I have been, as it were, grasped by the ear, and dragged into the public eye by a single debate placard, I believe that this has happened according to God’s will. . . . I will fear neither the strong nor the loud. . . neither will I despise weak or any other completely unlearned man. Then I would be a truly miserable Luther . . . if I would not fight entirely in the faith of the God who alone works in me.” [Brecht, 1:387]

The uproar caused by Luther’s “debate placard” caused him intense anguish, stress and strain. We catch a glimpse of his inner struggle in these words:

“My heart is so affected that I hope I have begun it in God’s name. But I am not so bold as to pass judgment on it and loudly proclaim that is surely must be so. I do not want to suffer God’s judgment for it. Instead, I crawl to His grace and hope that He has let it be started in His name. And, since I am a sinful man of flesh and blood, if something unclean has mingled with it, I hope He may graciously forgive me and not deal severely with me in His judgment.” [Brecht, 1:378].

The promise and power of the Word of God was Luther’s constant source of strength, hope and confidence. And so for us today. Luther acknowledged his failings, but pointed to the source of His strength, in words that should, and must, continue to fill the heart of all those who want to be, and remain, genuinely Lutheran, that is, who wish to be fully faithful to God’s Word.

“Let anyone who wants to, slander, curse and judge my person and my life—it is already forgiven him. But let no one expect grace or patience from me when he wants to make liars out of the Holy Spirit and my Lord Christ, whom I preach. I am not concerned about myself. I shall defend Christ’s word with a joyful heart and renewed courage, without regard to anyone. To this end God has given me a joyful and fearless spirit, which I trust they shall not harm in all eternity.” [Brecht: 1: 346].

How does the Lutheran Reformation fare in our day? There are those throughout the world who claim the name Lutheran but continue to barter away their Biblical Lutheran birthright through all manner of ecumenical compromises and agreements. What could not be forced on Luther and his courageous allies and defenders, even upon threat of death, is eagerly embraced by world federations and organizations that claim to be Lutheran. What a tragedy!

But what of our own lack of zeal and boldness when it comes to defending, upholding and boldly extending a clear Lutheran identity, which is nothing more or less than holding forth the truth and purity of the Word of God? Read more…

I was reading some comments a person made about what represents Christ’s love best in Lutheranism. He said: “Christ’s love in Lutheranism is represented by the empty Cross…” Ah, no. There’s nothing wrong with a plain cross symbol, but the plain or “empty” cross is not somehow a “Lutheran” symbol, as opposed to the crucifix. In fact, the crucifix enjoys a very long use in Lutheranism. Here’s more information from The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s web site.

Q.  Question: Is the use of crucifixes a Roman Catholic practice? Doesn’t the empty cross provide a better symbol for Lutherans? How does the LCMS feel about using a crucifix in church? [Note: A crucifix is a cross with a statue of the crucified Christ on it].

A.  A common misunderstanding among some some Lutherans is the opinion that a crucifix, or the use of a crucifix, is a “Roman Catholic” practice. The history of Lutheranism demonstrates that the crucifix was a regular and routine feature of Lutheran worship and devotional life during Luther’s lifetime and during the period of Lutheran Orthdoxy. It was also the case among the founding fathers of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. If you were to visit most of the original congregations of the LCMS here in the United States you would find lovely crucifixes adorning their altars, and in addition, beautiful statues on the altar of Christ and the four evangelists, or other such scenes. There is nothing uniquely Roman Catholic about this.  Many Lutherans and Lutheran congregations use crucifixes. Crucifixes are used in the chapels of both of our seminaries.

Lutheranism has always considered the crucifix to be a powerful reminder of the sacrifice our Lord Jesus made for us and our salvation, on the cross. A crucifix vividly brings to mind the Apostle Paul’s divinely inspired words, “We preach Christ and Him crucified”  (1 Cor. 1:23).

Interestingly enough, while there is certainly nothing “wrong” with an “empty” cross, the practice of using an “empty cross” on a Lutheran congregation’s altar comes more from non-Lutheran sources. At the time of the Reformation there was conflict between Lutherans and Reformed Christians over the proper place of pictures, images, statues and the like in the church. Lutherans stood with historic Christendom in realizing that such art in the church was not wrong, and was a great aid for helping to focus devotional thoughts on the truths of the Word of God, no greater truth can be found that the death of Jesus Christ our Lord for the world’s salvation.

The “empty cross” is not a symbol of Christ’s resurrection, as some say, for the fact is that the cross would have been empty regardless of whether or not Christ had risen from the grave. The point to be kept clear here is that both an “empty cross” and a crucifix, symbolize the same thing: the death of Christ our Lord for the salvation of the world. Many feel that the crucifix symbolizes this truth more clearly and strikingly. That has been the traditional opinion of historic Lutheranism, until the last fifty years ago, due to the influence we will now mention.

Some Lutherans began to move away from crucifixes during the age of Lutheran Pietism, which rejected much of Lutheran doctrine and consequently many Lutheran worship practices. At the time, Lutheran Pietists, contrary to the clear postion of Luther and the earlier Lutherns, held that symbols such as the crucifix were wrong. This was never the view of historic Lutheranism.  Here in America, Lutherans have always felt a certain pressure to “fit in” with the Reformed Christianity that predominates much of the Protestant church here. Thus, for some Lutherans this meant doing away with things such as crucifixes, and vestments, and other traditional forms of Lutheran worship and piety. It is sad when some Lutherans are made to feel embarrassed about their Lutheranism by members of churches that teach the Word of God in error and who do not share Lutheanism’s clear confession and practice of the full truth of the Word of God.

Lutheranism has always recognized that the use of any symbol (even the empty cross) can become an idolatrous practice, if in any way people are led to believe there is “power in the cross” or that a picture or representation of a cross has some sort of ability, in itself, to bring us into relationship with Christ and His Gospel. Any of God’s good gifts can be turned against Him in this life and become an end in themselves.

Lutherans have never believed that banning or limiting proper artwork in the church is the way to prevent its improper use. Rather, we believe that proper teaching and right use is the best way, and the way that is in keeping with the gift of freedom we have in Christ to use all things to the glory and honor of God. Thus, many Lutherans use and enjoy the crucifix as a meaningful reminder of our Lord’s suffering and death. It might interest you to know that our Synod’s president has a beautiful crucifix adorning the wall of his office, constantly reminding him and visitors to his office of the great love of God that is ours in Christ Jesus our Lord.

In short, and this is the most important point of all: there is nothing contrary to God’s Holy Word, or our Lutheran Confessions, about the proper use of the crucifix, just as there is nothing wrong with the proper use of an empty cross, or any other church symbol by which we are reminded of the great things God has done for us. We need to guard against quickly dismissing out of hand practices that we believe are “too Roman Catholic” before we more adequately explore their use and history in our own church.

In Christian freedom, we use either the crucifix or an empty cross and should not judge or condemn one another for using either nor not using either symbol of our Lord’s sacrifice for our sins.

Here are quotes from Martin Luther on crucifixes, images and making the sign of the cross:

The custom of holding a crucifix before a dying person has kept many in the Christian faith and has enabled them to die with a confident faith in the crucified Christ.

(Sermons on John, Chapters 1-4, 1539; LW, Vol. XXII, 147)

It was a good practice to hold a wooden crucifix before the eyes of the dying or to press it into their hands. This brought the suffering and death of Christ to mind and comforted the dying. But the others, who haughtily relied on their good works, entered a heaven that contained a sizzling fire. For they were drawn away from Christ and failed to impress His life-giving passion and death upon their hearts.

(Sermons on John, Chapters 6-8, 1532; LW, Vol. XXIII, 360)

[W]hen I hear of Christ, an image of a man hanging on a cross takes form in my heart, just as the reflection of my face naturally appears in the water when I look into it. If it is not a sin but good to have an image of Christ in my heart, why should it be a sin to have it in my eyes?

(Against the Heavenly Prophets, 1525; LW, Vol. 40, 99-100)

Now we do not request more than that one permit us to regard a crucifix or a saint’s image as a witness, for remembrance, as a sign as that image of Caesar was. Should it not be as possible for us without sin to have a crucifix or an image of Mary, as it was for the Jews and Christ himself to have an image of Caesar who, pagan and now dead, belonged to the devil? Indeed the Caesar had coined his image to glorify himself. However, we seek neither to receive nor give honor in this matter, and are yet so strongly condemned, while Christ’s possession of such an abominable and shameful image remains uncondemned.

(Against the Heavenly Prophets, 1525; LW, Vol. 40, 96)

And I say at the outset that according to the law of Moses no other images are forbidden than an image of God which one worships. A crucifix, on the other hand, or any other holy image is not forbidden.

(Ibid., 85-86)

Where however images or statues are made without idolatry, then such making of them is not forbidden.

[M]y image breakers must also let me keep, wear, and look at a crucifix or a Madonna . . . as long as I do not worship them, but only have them as memorials.

(Ibid., 86, 88)

But images for memorial and witness, such as crucifixes and images of saints, are to be tolerated . . . And they are not only to be tolerated, but for the sake of the memorial and the witness they are praiseworthy and honorable . . .

(Ibid., 91)

Morning Prayer

In the morning, when you get up, make the sign of the holy cross and say:

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen . . .

In the evening, when you go to bed, make the sign of the holy cross and say:

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

(Small Catechism, 1529, Section II: How the Head of the Family Should Teach His Household to Pray Morning and Evening, 22-23)

Thus has originated and continued among us the custom of saying grace and returning thanks at meals, and other prayers for both morning and evening. From the same source came the practice with children of crossing themselves in sight or hearing of terrifying occurrences . . . .

(Large Catechism, 1529, The Second Commandment, section 31, p. 57)

If the devil puts it into your head that you lack the holiness, piety, and worthiness of David and for this reason cannot be sure that God will hear you, make the sign of the cross, and say to yourself: “Let those be pious and worthy who will! I know for a certainty that I am a creature of the same God who made David. And David, regardless of his holiness, has no better or greater God than I have.”

(Psalm 118, LW, Vol. XIV, 61)

If you should have a poltergeist and tapping spirit in your house, do not go and discuss it here and there, but know that it is not a good spirit which has not come from God. Cross yourself quietly and trust in your faith.

(Sermon for the Festival of the Epiphany, LW, Vol. 52, 178-79)

Large Catechism, 1529, translated by John Nicholas Lenker, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1935.

Luther’s Works (LW), American edition, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (volumes 1-30) and Helmut T. Lehmann (volumes 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (volumes 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (volumes 31-55), 1955.

Small Catechism, 1529, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1943.

There has been circulating in Lutheran circles for some time the term: “evangelical catholicism.” People who are fond of this notion describe themselves as “evangelical catholics.” I have, for years, been asking “evangelical catholics” to define it. Doing so is like trying to nail jello to a wall, or herd cats. It just can’t be done. It has been my observation that many of those who describe themselves as “evangelical catholics” enjoying discussing the minutiae of liturgical ceremonies, rites, rubrics, vestments, and so forth, but they are less comfortable discussing precise doctrinal practice and confession.

I’ve never been sure precisely how to articulate the inherent inability of the “evangelical catholic” movement to be genuinely and truly Lutheran, until today, when I read this comment made by Peter Speckhard on a discussion site. It is precisely, spot-on.

I think the problem for the future of Evangelical Catholicism is its allergy to authority of any kind. It hates inerrancy, infallibility, inflexibility, etc. as though somehow that reaction is one of freedom. The problem is that it leads inevitably to a sort of mushy meaninglessness held together entirely by external ceremonies.    

My good friend Pastor Weedon made a comment on a Lutheran forum and a few of you have drawn it to my attention. So, I’m passing it along to the rest of you. I think Pr. Weedon is making a point that is lost on many Lutherans, or, to be more charitable about it, not clearly understood, neither by Lutherans or non-Lutherans. Lutherans are very hard for Calvinists, Evangelicals, Baptists, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthdoox to figure out. Just when they think they’ve got us nightly shut up tightly into our “denominational” box we go and say something, or do something, that jumbles their well ordered “systems.”

Here then is why this is so, as explained by Pr. Weedon:

We in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod do not accept denominationalism.  We do not believe in the “branch theory” of the Church.  We recognize that our practice of closed communion is exactly what would be appropriate for the entire visible Church on earth.  We believe that what we believe is precisely what every jurisdiction/communion should believe, because it is—we hold—nothing other than what the Scriptures teach.

In other words, we don’t regard those who hold to a different Confession as just “another denomination.”  We regard the other confessions to the extent they differ from ours to be falsifications of the truth.  As offensive and prideful as they may sound, it’s not intended to be anything less than what (until very recent times) everyone believed about their own confession.

So we act in our communion discipline as what we believe the Lutheran confession of the Faith actually is: the legitimate heir and successor to the Catholic Church of the West. That’s a self-understanding derived from our Lutheran Symbols.  We do not claim to be the only jurisdiction in this Catholic Church of the West, purified by the Gospel.  We recognize other particular churches around the globe in whom the same faith resides—from the churches of the Archbishop of Latvia, to the churches of the Archbishop of Kenya and the Bishop of Southern Africa and the President of the Lutheran Church—Canada, and a bunch of others.  Consequently the notion that our altars are closed to non-Missourians is actually not at all accurate.

In the corrupted state of the Church in which doctrine that we cannot but regard as false and dangerous is enshrined in the confessions of other jurisdictions, this leads invariably to acknowledging in them that while members of the Church Catholic may well reside in their midst (in fact, most certainly DO), nonetheless those Churches by the acceptance of various falsehoods alongside the truth of God, cannot be acknowledged as true sister churches on a par with our Synod.  Again, I know it sounds horrific to the ears of those who think denominationally, but if you think confessionally it makes perfect sense:  confessions can be entirely pure, somewhat corrupted, or totally destructive of the Christian faith.  We tend to put almost all the other confessions (Anglican, Reformed, Roman, Orthodox) as “somewhat corrupted.”  Totally destructive would be something like a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness confession.

So back to the assumption that an LCMS person holds the pure confession – that IS the assumption we would make, unless the person in question gives evidence that his participation at our altars is in fact a lie – that he disagrees with our Lutheran confession of the Christian faith as expressed in our Lutheran Symbols.

I’ve probably offended all my ELCA friends and many of my Missouri ones by the above, but I think it’s clear that until we can get the differing ecclesiologies understood, there’s no hope of anyone understanding our practice of responsible communion (my preferred term), which takes seriously into account the nature of one’s public profession at a given altar.

Yes, you read that right, there is a “Lutheran Church—International” and the name proves a theory I’ve had for a long time. The smaller the group, the more grandiose the name. And so, here also, in this case, there is a “church body” that consists of less than fifteen micro-congregations, if that many, and because they have some micro outpost in the Caribbean and in Africa and/or elsewhere, they have decided to use the name “Lutheran Church—International.” To my knowledge, no group of Lutherans have ever taken such an arrogant step and claimed “international” status. But there’s a first for everything. The long history of the Lutheran Church shows that Lutheran Church bodies have always identified themselves linked to their primarily geographical place of existence. As we see the fallout from The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, we’ll continue to see more and more of this kind of micro-church splintering and fracturing. Sad, but that’s how it goes.

A few weeks ago Kevin DeYoung posted an interesting piece on his blog site, “What’s Up With Lutherans?” and it caused, surprise!, a few Lutherans to get a bit upset. I posted a couple comments on the post and as a result he asked to interview me for his blog site. Here are the results.

I like Lutherans, really I do. If I didn’t, why would I be talking to Paul T. McCain. I just met this brother, but I can already tell he’s the kind of guy I want to hang out with. He’s theological, funny, and publishes books. And the title, “Those Dern Lutherans” was his idea.

1. Paul, why don’t you start by telling us a little bit about yourself—your background, your family, your ministry.

I was born and raised in Pensacola, Florida, in the Heart of Dixie, the son of Lutheran day school teachers. I saw my first snowfall and heard my first real Northern accent when I went to college in Chicago at the age of 18. I am a pastor in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. I studied for the ministry at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, where I stayed on for a couple extra years of advance study and served as an instructor in the department of systematic theology. After that I spent about three years as a pastor in Iowa, serving a wonderful little congregation which taught me how to be a pastor.

I came to Saint Louis in 1992 and spent nearly ten years serving two of our church body presidents as their assistant, and from there I’ve been serving at Concordia Publishing House for now nearly ten years, where I serve as Publisher.

I’m married to a great lady, Lynn, for almost thirty years. We have three children–Paul, John and Mary–all of whom are now covered under our car insurance plan. Let the reader understand.

2. As you know, I wrote a post a few weeks ago, “What’s Up With Lutherans?” It wasn’t the finest moment in blogging history. I’m not sure my post did what I wanted it to do. But I think it succeeded in getting Lutherans riled up! Why do you think evangelical Lutherans and conservative evangelicalism seem to be in two different worlds? Or was my whole premise mistaken?

I’m sorry to hear it got Lutheran riled up, but we tend to be easily riled, particularly the Germans. The Scandinavians are much more laid back. I’m Irish and I’m a Lutheran, so that’s an interesting combination.

Your question is intriguing. It does feel at times we are in two different worlds. I think it might be the case that conservative/confessing Lutherans like me are more aware of what’s going on among Evangelicals than Evangelicals are about what’s going on among us, simply because there are so many more of you, than us.

I think that Lutherans, on the whole, tend to go about their business rather quietly and do not seem to capture the public imagination as much as Evangelicals (loosely defined). After all, we are the Lake Wobegon people, who are humble, shy and retiring by nature. Fundamentally, however, I do not think we live in two different worlds. I’d say we are in the same city, but just live in different parts of town, if that makes sense.

3. What is the history of the term “evangelical” for Lutherans? Do most Lutherans think of themselves as a part of American evangelicalism?

Interestingly, the first Evangelicals were the Lutherans. That’s how we chose to refer to ourselves and how we were known early in the Reformation. We published a book a number of years ago and it remains one of our best sellers, by Dr. Gene Edward Veith, titled, The Spirituality of the Cross: The Way of the First Evangelicals. Dr. Veith does a great job exploring these kinds of issues in a clear understandable way.

But then our opponents started calling us “Lutherans.” It stuck and the term “Evangelical” fell away from common usage, particularly here in the USA. The term “Evangelical” now means, in my opinion, just about what anyone wants it to mean. Confessing Lutherans can point readily and easily in fact to a single book when somebody asks us, “What’s a Lutheran?” We pull out the Book of Concord from 1580 and say, “Here, this pretty much covers it.” I think that tends to give us more interest in a clear sense of doctrinal identity and unity.

I do not think that most Lutherans consider themselves to be American Evangelicals. We tend to think of ourselves first, and foremost, simply as Lutheran Christians. I must say in light of the fact that conservative Lutherans do have a single book by which they can identify themselves, doctrinally, we find trying to nail down precisely what “Evangelicalism” is a bit like an exercise in nailing jello to a wall, and that kind of gives us the heebie-jeebies. That’s a technical term.

4. Do Lutherans like Calvinists?

Yes, but only if they pay for the cigars and beer.

5. More seriously, what do you see as the main difference—theological, cultural, stylistic, historical, whatever—between Lutheran and Reformed churches? Big questions I know.

My fellow Lutherans may have different answers, but after all the years I’ve been carefully watching and following American Evangelicalism and interacting with it, I would respond in this way. First, a HUGE disclaimer. I can only speak for the Lutheranism I confess and am a part of: that is historic, orthodox, authentic, genuine, confessional Lutheranism, not the liberal mainline form of it that we find here in the United States (primarily with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America).

So, theological? We are keen on emphasizing the proper distinction between God’s Law, that shows us our sin, and God’s Gospel, that shows us our Savior and we emphasize God’s objective work through both His Word and His Sacraments. The “S” word makes our Evangelical friends very nervous, but we hold and cherish the Sacraments and really believe that God works saving faith by the power of His promising Word through Baptism. We also believe that the Lord’s Supper is our Lord Christ’s own dear body and blood, actually under, with and in the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and drink, and that through it we receive forgiveness and life, and wherever there is forgiveness and life, there is salvation.

Cultural? Wow, that’s all over the map. Lutherans come in all cultural shapes and sizes. Evangelicalism as well. I think we probably share more of a common American culture than we do a common ecclesiastical culture. For Lutherans, Evangelical worship forms and practices have become more popular, but ironically, just when some Lutherans are running after Evangelical “style” we have Evangelicals coming our direction looking for better substance and loving the historic, traditional Lutheran style of worship. It is reverent, dignified and liturgical, with forms dating all the way back to the 16th century. It is anchored in the liturgical life of the Christian Church, the major elements of which can be traced all the way back into nearly the first century, as evidenced in the Didache.

Historically, of course, Calvinism and Lutheranism have come to blows, sometimes literally, over very important subjects like: predestination, the Sacraments, and Christology. This is too big an issue for this brief interview, but I would trace the cause of our differences to fundamentally different understandings of the doctrine of the Incarnation and its implications for all our theology.

6. What are some good resources to read on Luther or Lutheranism?

Well, of course, anything published by Concordia Publishing House! Seriously, though, I would recommend the volumes in the Essential Lutheran Library. We put this collection together as a “core” library for Lutherans to use in their personal daily devotional life and to inform and shape their confession of the Christian faith. Here’s the link to it.

7. What are some of your favorite Lutheran authors/books? What about non-Lutheran favorite books or authors?

Favorite Lutheran authors? Of course, number one, is Martin Luther. I just love the guy. His writing has a vibrancy and relevancy unmatched by few others. After Luther, I enjoy the works of Martin Chemnitz, John Gerhard, C.F.W. Walther and Dr. Gene Edward Veith, to name but a few Lutheran authors.

Non-Lutherans? That’s easy: Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. I love the Lord of the Rings, and am very keen on any of Lewis’ non-fiction. I just find him to be one of the most articulate and eloquent Christian writers in the English language. I must confess however I do not like Chronicles of Narnia. I’m sorry!

8. Have you ever been to Lake Wobegon?

Yes. Take my advice. Do not want to go during the Lutefisk festival. Nasty stuff that, and the Lutheran church ladies will make you eat it. You have been warned.

9. Anything else you think the world needs to know about Lutherans?

I would say this: I think Evangelicals often find themselves searching for something they feel might be a bit “missing” in their Christian walk, and think that Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy may fit the bill, while all the while Lutheranism is there, right around the corner. Often when they find a traditional Lutheran Church they are surprised to find a robust, rich worship life, rooted in the Scripture (which is what the liturgy is, in its entirety). They find a rich focus on Christ and the Gospel–Lutherans are adamant that Christ is the heart and center of everything, and they also find a tangible experience with God, not based simply on feelings or emotions, but on a concrete and objective experience with God’s grace through the sacraments. And all this is wrapped up in such a vibrant passionate love for Jesus. We Lutherans combine the best of what is Evangelical, with the best of what is truly catholic about the Church, with the rich heritage of the Lutheran Reformation. I think it is a winning combination, but of course, I’m kind of biased.

A word of caution though: Lutherans are usually the ones most shy about Lutheranism. I suspect this is why you, Kevin, rightly asked, “Hey, where are the Lutherans?” You actually made a good and valid point. We suffer often from an inferiority complex and sometimes think that only Lutherans would care about Lutheranism and sometimes some of us are tempted to ditch our heritage to try to go with the “new” and “flashy” stuff, when all the time, the sturdy trustworthy Word of God is there, and it is from that inerrant and inspired Word that we know the Holy Spirit is working powerfully in our lives, as he is in your life!

Thanks Paul for an insider’s look at Lutheranism, presented with the sort of vim and vigor Luther would be proud of. But, of course, conscience (a good Lutheran word) compels me to add that if anyone reading this blog is looking for a sturdy, robustly theological Christian heritage that prizes faithfulness over flashiness, is evangelical and catholic in the best senses of those two words,  and is wrapped in a vibrant passion for Jesus Christ–feel free to try the Reformed faith too!

A very fine statement released by the leadership of the Lutheran Church—Canada in response to the ELCIC’s decisions at their churchwide assembly this week.

July 18, 2011

Many Lutherans still support traditional marriage

Responding to a vote by delegates at the convention of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC) meeting in Saskatoon, July 15 and 16 which authorizes its pastors to conduct same-gender marriages and finds sexual orientation no longer an issue for ordaining pastors, the leaders of Lutheran Church–Canada (LCC) issued a statement noting that the ELCIC does not speak for all Lutherans in the country.

The statement at www.lutheranchurch.ca/marriage notes that the ELCIC is the only Lutheran church body in Canada “that has approved such a departure from accepted Christian teaching.” While the ELCIC is the largest Lutheran body in Canada, statistics available online show that nearly 40 percent of Lutherans worshipping each week belong to congregations outside the ELCIC.

Noting the words of Jesus who spoke of marriage in terms of a man leaving his father and mother, being united to his wife, and the two becoming one flesh, LCC’s presidents (bishops) declared the church body’s continuing witness to “Christ’s clear teaching that God designed marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.” They further stated that LCC will not ordain pastors who do not support this position.

At its 2002 convention Lutheran Church–Canada affirmed the historic biblical definition of marriage and at its most recent convention in June 2011 agreed that the Bible’s qualifications and standards for a pastor include a heterosexual orientation.

LCC’s position is one held by the Church for the past 2000 years and supported by millions of Christians worldwide including the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and a rapidly growing number of Lutheran churches in Africa. “LCC is not speaking from the margins,” the statement notes.

The statement also rejects any notion that holding to “historic Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality constitutes ‘homophobia,’ an irrational fear and hatred of people with same-gender orientation.” LCC’s leaders refuse to defend those who take a threatening or insulting approach to the issue, but instead “repent of such sin and ask God to help His people overcome it wherever it occurs.”

After noting that there are Lutheran Christians in Canada “still deeply committed to the Bible as the authoritative Word of God and still dedicated to its clear witness on human sexuality, marriage and standards for ministry” the leaders pledge prayers for those within the ELCIC for whom their church body’s decision is troubling.

Further information:
Ian Adnams
communications@lutheranchurch.ca

I was recently in India and during one of the meetings I attended, which was a gathering of various Lutheran church leaders from the state of Andra-Pradesh, the question came up about how they answer the question, “What is a Lutheran?” It led to quite a fascinating conversation. Finally, it came down to this answer: a Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the Christian faith as it is explained by the Lutheran Confessions. That got me to thinking about this little piece written some years ago, by the way, you’ll find these and other goodies over at the Book of Concord web site.

What is a Lutheran?

While there are a variety of ways one could answer this question, one very important answer is simply this, “A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.” The Book of Concord contains the Lutheran confessions of faith.

Perhaps you have attended an ordination of a pastor and heard him promise that he will perform the duties of his office in accord with the Lutheran Confessions. When people are received into membership into a Lutheran congregation through confirmation they are asked if they confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as they have learned to know it from the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true.

These solemn promises indicate to us just how important the Lutheran Confessions are for our church. Let’s take a look at the various items contained in the Book of Concord and then we will talk about why the Lutheran Confessions are so important for being a Lutheran.

What are the Ecumenical Creeds?

The three ecumenical creeds in the Book of Concord are the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. They are described as “ecumenical” [universal] because they are accepted by Christians worldwide as correct expressions of what God’s Word teaches.

What is the Augsburg Confession and Apology of the Augsburg Confession?

In the year 1530, the Lutherans were required to present their confession of faith before the emperor in Augsburg, Germany. Philip Melanchthon wrote the Augsburg Confession and it was read before the imperial court on June 30, 1530. One year later, the Lutherans presented their defense of the Augsburg Confession, which is what “apology” here means. It too was written by Philip Melanchthon. The largest document in the Book of Concord, its longest chapter, is devoted to the most important truth of the Christian faith: the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

What are the Small and Large Catechisms?

Martin Luther realized early on how desperately ignorant the laity and clergy of his day were when it came to even the most basic truths of the Christian faith. Around 1530, he produced two small handbooks to help pastors and the heads of families teach the faith.

The Small Catechism and the Large Catechism are organized around six topics: the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, Holy Baptism, Confession, and the Sacrament of the Altar. So universally accepted were these magnificent doctrinal summaries by Luther, that they were included as part of the Book of Concord.

What are the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope?

In 1537, Martin Luther was asked to prepare a statement of Lutheran belief for use at a church council, if it was called. Luther’s bold and vigorous confession of faith was later incorporated into the Book of Concord. It was presented to a group of Lutheran rulers meeting in the town of Smalcald. Philip Melanchthon was asked to expand on the subject of the Roman pope and did so in his treatise, which also was included in the Book of Concord.

What is the Formula of Concord?

After Luther’s death in 1546, significant controversies broke out in the Lutheran Church. After much debate and struggle, the Formula of Concord in 1577 put an end to these doctrinal controversies and the Lutheran Church was able to move ahead united in what it believed, taught and confessed. In 1580, all the confessional writings mentioned here were gathered into a single volume, the Book of Concord. Concord is a word that means, “harmony.” The Formula of Concord was summarized in a version known as the “Epitome” of the Formula of Concord. This document too is included in the Book of Concord.

What is the connection between the Bible and the Confessions?

We confess that, “The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9). What the Bible asserts, God asserts. What the Bible commands, God commands. The authority of the Scriptures is complete, certain and final. The Scriptures are accepted by the Lutheran Confessions as the actual Word of God. The Lutheran Confessions urge us to believe the Scriptures for “they will not lie to you” (LC, V, 76) and cannot be “false and deceitful” (FC SD, VII, 96). The Bible is God’s “pure, infallible, and unalterable Word” (Preface to the BOC).

The Lutheran Confessions are the “basis, rule, and norm indicating how all doctrines should be judged in conformity with the Word of God” (FC SD RN). Because the Confessions are in complete doctrinal agreement with the written Word of God, they serve as the standard in the Lutheran Church to determine what is faithful Biblical teaching, insofar as that teaching is addressed in the Confessions.

What is the main point of the Lutheran Confessions?

The Lutheran Reformation was not a “revolt,” but rather began as a sincere expression of concern with the false and misleading teachings, which, unfortunately, even to this very day, obscure the glory and merit of Jesus Christ. What motivated Luther was a zealous concern about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Here is how the Lutheran Confessions explain what the Gospel is all about:

Human beings have not kept the law of God but have transgressed it. Their corrupted human nature, thoughts, words, and deeds battle against the law. For this reason they are subject to God’s wrath, to death and all temporal afflictions, and to the punishment of the fires of hell. As a result, the Gospel, in its strict sense, teaches what people should believe, namely, that they receive from God the forgiveness of sins; that is, that the Son of God, our Lord Christ, has taken upon Himself the curse of the law and borne it, atoned and paid for all our sins; that through Him alone we are restored to God’s grace, obtain the forgiveness of sins through faith and are delivered from death and all the punishments of our sins and are saved eternally. . . . It is good news, joyous news, that God does not want to punish sin but to forgive it for Christ’s sake (FC SD, V, 20).

What is a “confessional” Lutheran?

The word “confession” is used in a variety of ways, but when we speak of a “confessional” Lutheran we mean a Lutheran who declares to the world his faith and most deeply held belief and conviction, in harmony with the documents contained in the Book of Concord. You will catch the spirit of confessional Lutheranism in these, the last words written in the Book of Concord:

Therefore, it is our intent to give witness before God and all Christendom, among those who are alive today and those who will come after us, that the explanation here set forth regarding all the controversial articles of faith which we have addressed and explained–and no other explanation–is our teaching, faith, and confession. In it we shall appear before the judgment throne of Jesus Christ, by God’s grace, with fearless hearts and thus give account of our faith, and we will neither secretly nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it. Instead, on the strength of God’s grace, we intend to abide by this confession (FC SD, XII, 40).

What is an “unconditional subscription” to the Confessions?

Confessional Lutheran pastors are required to “subscribe” unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions because they are a pure exposition of the Word of God. This is the way our pastors, and every layman who confesses his belief in the Small Catechism, is able with great joy and without reservation or qualification to say what it is that he believes to be the truth of God’s Word.

Dr. C. F. W. Walther, the Missouri Synod’s first president, explained the meaning of an unconditional confessional subscription in words as clear and poignant today as they were then:

An unconditional subscription is the solemn declaration which the individual who wants to serve the church makes under oath that he accepts the doctrinal content of our Lutheran Confessions, because he recognizes the fact that they are in full agreement with Scripture and do not militate against Scripture in any point, whether the point be of major or minor importance; and that he therefore heartily believes in this divine truth and is determined to preach this doctrine.

So what is it to be a Lutheran?

Being a Lutheran is being a person who believes the truths of God’s Word, the Holy Bible, as they are correctly explained and taught in the Book of Concord. To do so is to confess the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Genuine Lutherans, confessional Lutherans, dare to insist that “All doctrines should conform to the standards [the Lutheran Confessions] set forth above. Whatever is contrary to them should be rejected and condemned as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith” (FC Ep. RN, 6).

Such a statement may strike some as boastful. But it is not; rather, it is an expression of the Spirit-led confidence that moves us to speak of our faith before the world.

To be a confessional Lutheran is to be one who honors the Word of God. That word makes it clear that it is God’s desire for His church to be in agreement about doctrine, and to be of one mind, living at peace with one another (1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 13:11). It is for that reason that we so treasure the precious confession of Christian truth that we have in the Book of Concord. For Confessional Lutherans, there is no other collection of documents, or statements or books that so clearly, accurately and comfortingly presents the teachings of God’s Word and reveals the Biblical Gospel as does our Book of Concord.

Hand-in-hand with our commitment to pure teaching and confession of the faith, is, and always must be, our equally strong commitment to reaching out boldly with the Gospel and speaking God’s truth to the world. That is what “confession” of the faith is all about, in the final analysis. Indeed, “It is written: I believed; therefore I have spoken.’ With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak” (2 Cor. 4:13). This is what it means to be a Lutheran.

For Further Study:

Robert Preus, Getting into the Theology of Concord: A Study of the Book of Concord (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1977).

David Scaer, Getting into the Story of Concord: A History of the Book of Concord (St. Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1977).

Where can you purchase a copy of the Book of Concord?

“In America no denomination has suffered any deeper fall than this fellowship that is called “Lutheran.” All the sects of this land are more zealous to preserve the false doctrines upon which they’ve been founded, and that give them their unique character, than the present so-called Lutherans intend to hold fast to the holy and pure doctrine which is founded upon the clear Word of God, that was entrusted to her through God’s unspeakable grace. Yes, we see the American Lutheran Church is not only dominated by negligence and indifference, but even by enmity against the true Lutheran Church. She has retained nothing but the name. She has lost the ancient truth and the ancient spirit of witness. Yet we also see that we have no reason to despair over the condition of the Lutheran Church in America. God has obviously once again picked up his winnowing fork to beat his threshing floor and to sift his wheat. God has obviously resolved to no longer sit back and watch the hidden mice, those false saints, those fish in muddy waters. God has once again begun to open eyes here and there, who fearfully acknowledge the apostasy of which the Lutherans have become guilty. Here and there God is awakening men who are loudly demanding those who have abandoned their first love to return. God be praised! After a long winter the turtledoves are again heard in our land. (Song of Songs 2.11-13)

“Rise, get up then dear brothers! Let us not idly watch as false brothers band together ever more tightly to bury the foundation of our church and create another beside it. Since these do all this while still fraudulently fighting under our name, they are more dangerous than our declared enemies. They are their compatriots even while they bunk in our camp. He who dwells in heaven surely laughs at them and the LORD mocks them, for “even if the sea billows and rages, and the mountains erode in their storm, yet the city of God remains vibrant and well with her fountains, where are the holy dwellings of the Highest. God is with her, so she will remain well. God will help her early.” But as impossible as it is for Luther’s doctrine, that is, God’s Word to be driven out of the world, yet it is just that easily possible, if we do not hold on tightly to it (Tit. 1. 9–11) and fight for it (Jude 3) to lose this gem, (2 John 8.9) and someday be rejected as unfaithful stewards.

“Therefore , if we do not wish be called hypocritical Lutherans, but want to be and remain Lutherans in deed and truth, let us walk together and again gather around the banner of the ancient, unchangeable doctrine of our church; pleading together that the LORD awaken and create help that comfort again be taught; together fighting against all deceptions with the sword of the Spirit and together bearing the shame by which the LORD strives to designate his servants. We dare not hope that the church in these latter, horrible times will be established again in a condition of glorious bloom, yet we may also not abandon hope that our witness and our battle will not be completely in vain, but rather will give way to praise of the LORD and convert many souls from the errors of their way.”

Source:
C.F.W. Walther
Der Lutheraner
Volume 2, Number 11
January 1846, pg. 42-43
Translated by Joel Baseley

From time to time there erupts on the Internet some pretty heated conversations over the place and propriety of small groups in Lutheran congregations. Some would advocate an “all or nothing” approach to the issue, while others, including me, think there is a more nuanced approach that is more helpful. Some take the approach that either “small group ministry” is essential to the growth and well being of a congregation, or the position that under no circumstances can small groups ever be used appropriately in Lutheran congregations. When discussing these issues it is easy to let emotions get the best of better judgment when expressing points of view. I’ve seen this in others. I’ve seen this in myself. I think it is therefore important for us to understand precisely what we are talking about and lay out cautions, concerns and opportunities when it comes to the use of small group studies in Lutheran congregations.

Cautions

In the history of the Lutheran Church there arose a movement known as “Pietism,” which was a reaction against some legitimately bad practices that had arisen in the Lutheran Church by the late 17th century, but…as is usually, no make that, “always,” the case: Pietism was an over-reaction. Pietism wanted there to be a more personal understanding of the impact of salvation in our life and as a result, it did not work at recapturing a strong vibrant sense of the centrality of the Word and Sacrament for our assurance of God’s grace and mercy, but rather turned inward, on subjective emotional experiences. A key part of the Pietistic movement was creating little “conventicles” or “churches within the church.” What were these? These were small groups of people, usually led by laity, who set themselves up over against the local pastor and congregation and emphasized their meetings and their emotional prayers and singing of amazingly bad hymns, striving for emotional encounters with God’s grace. They ended up actually despising the Lord’s appointed means of grace and the office of the holy ministry. Today the legacy of this kind of thinking is seen when small groups in congregations become more important than the gathering of God’s people around the Word and Sacraments and when the “what does this mean to you?” approach to God’s Word takes a higher priority than a careful study of God’s Word under the careful supervision and leadership of the ordained pastor in the congregation. The “churches within the church” were set up to oppose the local congregation’s ministry and even to offer an alternative spiritual life and worship experience, as opposed to the Sunday morning Divine Service which came to be held in contempt and treated with disdain.

Concerns

The challenge with the use of small groups in Lutheran congregations today is found precisely in the fact that, sadly, small group “ministry” in some Lutheran congregations and movements, particularly those movements associated with the Church Growth Movement, have ended up replicating the same errors experienced in the history of the Lutheran Church during the age of Pietism. Challenges arise when small groups in a local congregation are lead by well meaning but unprepared laity who are allowed simply to pick and choose whatever materials they want to use in their small group. When a small group is not about studying God’s Word in the context of an orthodox, confessionally faithful curriculum, under the close, personal supervision of the parish pastor, it sets up a potentially very dangerous situation whereby small groups can spin off into a whole host of bad theology and bad practices. The focus of small groups can be turned toward subjective, emotional encounters and eyes can be taken off of Christ and His Word and put rather on the emotional experiences of small group members. When materials are used by small groups that come from non-Lutheran sources the concerns are only heightened. When small groups are allowed to take a place in the life of God’s people that only the Divine Service of Word and Sacrament must have, that is a deep concern. A significant concern, rightly raised, arises primarily with small groups that are not structured around study of God’s Word, but rather are structured more to be social experiences in the congregation that only lightly touch on some aspect of God’s Word. When a small group drifts free from a focused study around God’s Word there arises even more potential for abuses of small groups. When small groups are taught by a layman, that is, a layman is entrusted with the task of actually teaching the material, rather than leading the group through a pre-defined curriculum and discussion guide, there is where the problems come. There have been cases, unfortunately, where these kinds of unstructured small groups in Lutheran congregations have led to factionalism and very bad theology. For instance, an intrusion of the charismatic movement and other such false doctrine and practice. It is particularly harmful, wrong and dangerous when a Lutheran pastor simply permits a small group to be formed in his congregation and allows it to use whatever material it wants to use as the basis for their small group experience.  Another major concern arises when small groups are put forward in our congregations as the “be all and end all” of a congregation’s ministry. We can never allow ourselves to think that small groups are better than than the fellowship we have together, in and round and through, the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments, which goes on in the Divine Service. Everything in a Lutheran congregation must flow from, and in return, flow back into, our regular gathering together around Word and Sacrament, where the one who hold the office of the ministry exercises that office publically in our midst through preaching and teaching the Word, and administering the Sacraments [their is no difference!] from the pulpit and from the altar.

Opportunities

In reaction to the cautions and concerns, here only briefly summarized, there are some today who believe that there should never be any small groups used in a Lutheran congregation. On the other hand, there are many who, like me, believe that an effective small group program can be used in a faithful Lutheran congregations, but it does require careful pastoral care and diligent teaching and supervision, and the use of orthodox, confessionally Lutheran materials in the small groups. What would this look like in a Lutheran congregation? Here is but one scenario: A pastor organizes a program of study of a book of the Bible, or organizes a comprehensive walk through a doctrinal topic, or series of topics, or the Lutheran Confessions. He identifies lay leaders in his congregation who can be entrusted with teaching responsibilities and he works closely with these men to train them and help them understand the content, the goals, the purpose and the objective of the curriculum that will be put into place in the congregation. The program meets in a large group format once a week, or whenever is deemed most appropriate. The pastor leads the large group session, teaching the major content of the week’s lesson. Laity then meet in small groups between sessions to go over the material and to explore and study the given week’s curriculum, with carefully prepared study questions and discussion guides. They do so in these groups with a lay leader appointed and taught carefully by the pastor. I see this as a helpful and workable way of using small groups in a Lutheran congregation. Now, having said this, I want to make it clear that I do not believe there is any essential need for small group Bible studies. I reject the idea that studying the Scriptures in a “small group” is somehow “better” in, any meaningful theological sense, than a large Bible study in the congregation.

Final Thoughts and Observations

Now, I recognize that there are those who still, for the sake of conscience, believe that there can never be, nor should ever be, any kind of small group program in a Lutheran congregation, for the reasons stated above. I do not agree with this position. I think there can be a responsible use of small groups in a congregation. My major concern is how much, and to what extent, the pastor serves as the chief teacher and how well he trains the lay small group facilitators that may be used, along with what materials are being used. Frankly, there would be no need for any “Bible classes” to begin were we to return to a strong doctrinal and exegetical sermon that lasts 45 minutes or more in our congregations, as was the norm throughout the entire history of the Christian Church, and particularly the Lutheran Church, until only the last thirty or forty years. Now I’ve seen way too many pastors preaching ten minute sermons in order to cram the service of the Lord’s Supper into a sixty minute window of time. How about that for a radical proposal?

Professor John Pless forwarded this information to me. I encourage you to consider attending this conference, being held in July. More details here. Remember that Dr. C.F.W. Walther said that Wilhelm Löhe is rightly considered to be the father of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

Our Lord Christ tells us that when we fast we are to do so without making a show of it, or big deal about it, nor to disfigure our faces, nor to make sure others know we are fasting, but simply just to do it.Tomorrow, Ash Wednesday, begins the Lenten fast.

Christ assumes we do fast “when you fast,” he said, not “if you fast.” If this is so why did fasting fall out of favor among Lutherans? Probably, like most things like this, out of fear of Roman errors associated with it, and of course there are many such errors lurking and skulking about, but as the old saying goes, “Abuse does not negate use.”

And so, friends, let’s consider that in our Lutheran Church we do still confess that fasting is a “fine outward bodily discipline” as we say with Small Catechism. In fact, the Lenten season has been known since the Reformation with the word “Fastenzeit” which means, “Fasting time.”

And, while “giving up something for Lent” has become a popular substitute for fasting, let’s be sure we are clear on what fasting is. Fasting means not to eat as much. To forego a meal, or a portion of a meal, and to do so with intentionality and to let that time of hunger pain remind us to watch and pray, to remind us that our hunger should not be for bread alone, but every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Fasting is simply to be an aid for our devotional life in the Word and prayer.

Here is a great article on the Lenten fast from Pastor Weedon.