Editor’s Note: In this article, author David Charlton thoughtfully critiques Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans, a commentary on Scripture. It was written by Reconciling Works which advocates “for the full welcome, inclusion, and equity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual/aromantic (LGBTQIA+) Lutherans in all aspects of the life of their Church, congregations, and community.” While independent, Reconciling Works is closely affiliated with the ELCA. 

Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans begins by listing four “common metrics for scriptural interpretation” taken from the writings of Martin Luther.  The list includes:  a) the Law/Gospel Dialectic, b) the Plain Reading of Scripture, c) Scripture Interprets Scripture, and d) Scripture as the Manger that Holds Christ.[1] These are indeed common Lutheran principles for interpreting Scripture.  One principle that I would expect to find, but did not, is was Christum treibt, or “whatever teaches Christ.”   However, I have no objection to the four mentioned.

In general, the description of each is sound.  However, I do have a question regarding the Plain Reading metric.  It seems anachronistic to include the modern historical critical method as part of that principle.  That method would not be developed and standardized for several centuries after Luther’s time.  It is more likely that Luther had in mind what some call the historical grammatical method.  Luther used the best in contemporary textual criticism, Greek and Hebrew lexicons, and knowledge of history.  What would Luther know about source, form, redaction, or narrative criticism?  What would he know of the several quests for the historical Jesus?

The real difficulty with these “common metrics” are how they are applied in interpreting two kinds of texts, labeled “Passages Used to Exclude” and “Passages Used to Welcome.”  I will address each section separately, giving examples of how all four metrics are applied to both kinds of passages.

Passages Used to Exclude

There are eight Biblical texts described as “passages used to exclude.”  The intent is to demonstrate how the four Lutheran metrics clear up confusion about the meaning of these texts.  The question for us is whether the Lutheran metrics are applied correctly, and whether they succeed in the purpose for which they are used.

The Law/Gospel principle is used to address Genesis 1:26-29 and Romans 1:22-27.  In the three pages dedicated to Genesis 1:26-29, there is only one reference to Law, and one to Gospel.  The authors make the dubious claim that the phrase “male and female he created them” cannot be taken as Law because it is not grammatically in the form of a command.[2]  They certainly know better than that.  Lutherans have never limited Law to grammatical commands.  The Law is understood more broadly than that.  While including grammatical commands, it also includes anything that is taken as normative, makes demands, accuses or condemns.  The authors undermine this argument three paragraphs later when they refer to “the Gospel in this passage.”[3]  They do not cite a grammatical promise that serves as Gospel.  Instead, they infer a Gospel promise from the descriptive passage in verse 27, which says that humankind was created in the image of God.  If Gospel can be inferred, then so can Law.  On the other hand, if absent a grammatical command, no Law can be inferred, then absent a grammatical promise, no Gospel can be inferred. 

The discussion of Romans 1:22-27 also fails to apply the Law/Gospel principle correctly.  However, it does so in a different way.  It misconstrues Paul’s use of Law and Gospel in a serious way.  Romans 1:22-27 is part of a longer argument extending from Chapter 1 to Chapter 3.  It culminates in the conclusion that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”  (3.23)  And yet the authors assert that Paul is not describing the Romans themselves, in 1:22-27, but instead describing a sinful and “unnamed people who are set up as a foil.”[4]  He is doing this, it is alleged, to set up his main argument, that “salvation is based entirely on Christ, and not on our own ability to do good works and follow the Law.”[5]  This is a non-sequitur.  That Paul’s ultimate goal is to show the impossibility of salvation by the works of the Law, does not mean that he doesn’t consider the activities he describes to be sinful.  It would make no sense to use things that are not sinful to convict people of sin.  Nor does it mean that Paul doesn’t consider some in Rome to be guilty of those sins at one time or another.  He seems to assume that as Christians, they no longer engage in those activities.  This does not imply that they never engaged in those activities before they came to faith in Christ. 

The Metaphor of the Manger, is used in interpreting Genesis 2:22-24, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  Its application to these texts is puzzling.  My understanding of that metaphor is that it teaches us to ask, “Where is Christ in this passage?”  It calls for a Christological interpretation of the Old Testament. The problem is that in the discussion of Genesis 2:22-24, this principle is never mentioned.  No attempt is made to show how a Christological interpretation helps us interpret those texts.  Instead the argument relies entirely on a discussion of the meaning of “one flesh.”[6] 

In addressing the texts from Leviticus, only one mention is made of the Metaphor of the Manger.  We are asked to compare these texts with what we know of Christ, to see whether they correspond to him, or whether they are straw.[7]  Is this really what the Metaphor of the Manger teaches us to do?  In fact, in his Preface to the Old Testament, Luther tells us not to despise or be offended by the Old Testament.  It is as precious as the manger that held the infant Christ.[8]  Nowhere in that writing does Luther refer to the Old Testament as straw.  The authors seem to be conflating Luther’s view on the Book of James, found in his Preface to the New Testament[9], with his words about the Old Testament. 

The principle of Scripture Interpreting Scripture is used to interpret Genesis 19 and Deuteronomy 23:1.  They make a good use of this principle in discussing Genesis 19, using multiple references to Sodom in the Old and New Testament to show that homosexuality was not the primary focus when the sin of Sodom was discussed.  In a similar manner, they show that the attitude toward eunuchs changes as we move through Scripture, so that Deuteronomy’s exclusion must be balanced with the inclusion found in other places.  I agree that neither of these texts can be used by themselves to exclude homosexuals or eunuchs.

As for the Plain Reading of Scripture principle, I have the objection that I mentioned earlier.  I think it tends to be anachronistic, as if Luther had the historical critical method in mind.  On the other hand, lexical objections to traditional interpretations seem to be more in line with the tools that Luther had in mind.  In discussing Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, the authors raise appropriate questions about the proper translation of key words.  We should not assume that modern notions of homosexuality or transgenderism are what the original reader would have had in mind. 

Passages Used to Include

The authors use the Metaphor of the Manger to interpret the story of Ruth (1:16-17) and Psalm 139:13-14.  In both cases they interpret the text Christologically.  In Ruth they find a foreshadowing of Jesus’ welcoming of outsiders.  They also imply a connection between Ruth’s loyalty and God’s faithfulness in Christ.  In interpreting Psalm 139 Christologically, they lift up the Incarnation itself, reminding us that God embraces our humanity fully, not just in part.  They rightly highlight the importance of recognizing the many ways that loyalty can be expressed in human relationships, the importance of welcoming and including the marginalized, and of embracing people as they are, following the example of Jesus.

The Plain Reading principle is used to interpret Isaiah 56:3-5 and Acts 10 and 11.  They use the plain meaning of each text to illustrate the way that God breaks down walls of ritual purity that exclude those who were considered unclean because of sexual or gender status, diet, or nationality.  They rightly conclude that such categories no longer apply in the Church.  One is justified and therefore included in God’s family by faith in Christ, not by any outward status or action.  Whether one is circumcised or not, follows dietary laws or not, is male or female, Jew or Gentile, eunuch or not, is not relevant. One is acceptable to God by faith alone.

The sections on Scripture Interpreting Scripture focus on Galatians 3:26-29 and Matthew 22: 34-40.  In both cases, the principle is able to raise questions, but not able to provide answers.  Does the dual commandment of love of God and neighbor help us interpret passages like those in Leviticus 18 and 20?  To some degree. Does Galatian 3:26-29 help us determine which Old Testament laws are no longer relevant in the eschatological community of the Church?  In part.  What complicates things is the fact that the Lutheran confessions put the laws of the Old Testament in three categories, 1) religious or ceremonial law, 2) the civil law of the nation of Israel, and 3) the moral law that applies at all times and places.  Many laws that applied in ancient Israel no longer apply to us today, but some of them do.

This leads us to the final category, Law and Gospel.  This is where things tend to get complicated.  In their discussion of Acts 8 and 1 Corinthians 12, the authors are not careful to distinguish the many ways that Lutherans speak of the Law.  As I mentioned above, Lutherans have distinguished between different kinds of Old Testament laws.  The proper distinction between Law and Gospel does render Old Testament religious or ceremonial laws obsolete.  The laws that once distinguished between clean and unclean, Jew and Gentile, are no longer in effect in the Church.  The same is true for civil laws that applied to the nation of Israel in the era of Moses, the judges, the kings, or the Second Temple. 

However, the moral law, as described in Romans 1:19-20, still applies today.  It has a twofold function, the so called civil use and theological use of the Law.  In its civil use, the Law defines the boundaries that are necessary for any healthy community.  The Law in its civil use finds many forms of expression, but some things remain the same.  Murder, adultery, theft, lying and envy are universally detrimental to community. 

The theological use of the Law is to expose sin and reveal the wrath of God.  In doing this, the Law reveals that all fall short of the glory of God.  It undercuts all attempts to justify oneself through works.  In doing so it drives a person to Christ, who through the Gospel grants forgiveness to all who have faith. 

Clearly, the Law that declared the Ethiopian unclean because he was a Gentile and a eunuch no longer applies today.  He was justified and made part of the Church by baptism and faith, as all Christians are.  In a similar manner, Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 12 that membership in the Body of Christ is not based on which gifts a person has been given, but on the confession that Christ is Lord, i.e. faith.   This faith, in turn, is a gift of one and the same Spirit.  Anyone who confesses Christ as Lord is already part of the Body of Christ, through the power of the Spirit. 

The question remains whether the prohibition of sex outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage is part of the obsolete ceremonial and civil law of ancient Israel, or whether it is part of the moral law, which remains valid today.  If it is part of the ceremonial law, it is no longer mandatory for Christians.  If it is part of the civil law of ancient Israel only, then it need not apply to us today.  However, if it is part of the moral law inscribed in the human heart, then it still applies in both its civil and theological uses. 

If so, then there are two implications.  First, the prohibition of sex outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage remains the standard for leaders in the Christian community. (civil use)  Secondly, it still accuses those who violate that prohibition. In that case, the proper response of the Church is not to abolish the Law, but to preach the forgiveness of sin for Jesus’ sake to those who sin.

Where Are We?

I do believe that Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans makes a convincing case that Old Testament rules of exclusion and punishment need not apply today.  They made a good case that distinctions between clean and unclean no longer apply.  Their Christological interpretation of Scripture is convincing in its argument that all people should be welcomed, and that all people should be treated as whole persons created in God’s image.  No person should be unwelcome in the Church or excluded as recipients of its ministry.

What the authors failed to do was to show that the four Lutheran metrics for interpreting Scripture were able to solve the key question.  Is the prohibition of sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage a part of the obsolete ceremonial or civil law of ancient Israel, or a continuing part of the Law which even today continues in its civil and theological uses?   In the end, we are right where we began.  The ELCA decided in 2009 that it could not decide which was the case.  Instead, it identified four possible conclusions and chose to allow congregations to choose the answer that suited them.  Meanwhile, it called on people to respect the “bound consciences” of others.   

The authors were not able, on the basis of the four Lutheran metrics for interpreting Scripture, to resolve this dispute.  More importantly, they have failed to show why pastors, seminarians and congregations should be required to abandon the traditional position of the catholic Church. 

Final Thoughts

One further Lutheran metric that I believe applies to the question is what I would call the metric or principle of Scriptural Authority.  The principle here is twofold and is related to the understanding of God’s Word as Law and Gospel   The Church may only command what God commands in the Word.  It may only bless that which God blesses in the Word. 

In the Large Catechism, Luther makes the case for clerical marriage based on the fact that throughout Scripture God both gives commands that protect marriage and promises blessings to those who enter into marriage.  Meanwhile, God never commands men and women to take vows of celibacy, to become monks or nuns, or enter monasteries.  Neither does God promise to bless those who do.  The Church does not have the authority to prohibit marriage, nor to require people to keep monastic vows.  

The same is true today.  The Church has no power to require people to enter same sex marriage, or to perform same sex marriages.  It has no authority to bless such unions, nor the authority to require its pastors to bless such unions.  The Church has no authority to exalt a man-made institution, whether celibacy or same sex marriage, to the level of an institution that has both God’s command and blessing.

Pastors, congregations and seminarians who adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage have not violated Lutheran metrics for Scriptural interpretation.  They have not violated their ordination vows or the Confession of Faith of the ELCA.  They should be under no pressure to adopt the position of Reconciling Works on same sex marriage or be under the threat of retribution for failing to do so.

---

[1] See Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans, pp. 9-11.

[2] Reconciling Scripture. p. 16.

[3] Ibid, p. 17.

[4] Ibid. p. 23.

[5] Ibid, p. 23.

[6] Ibid, p. 19-20.

[7] Ibid, p. 24.

[8] Lull, Timothy F. Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings (p. 98). Fortress Press. Kindle Edition.

[9] Ibid, p. 96.

Our teachers have been falsely accused of forbidding good works. AC, Article XX[1]

One of the charges that is often made against traditional Lutherans is that they are opposed to efforts on the part of Christians to work for peace and justice. This charge is made because traditional Lutherans criticize the emphasis on political advocacy in the ELCA. This is inaccurate. We no more forbid our fellow Christians from working for peace and justice than the Lutheran reformers forbid the doing of good works. Rather, like the reformers, we are concerned about the blurring of the distinction between Law and Gospel, Faith and Works, Justification and Vocation, and the like.

One way to get at this distinction is to focus on the concept of Vocation. The Augsburg Confession says,

It is taught among us that nobody should publicly teach or preach or administer the sacraments in the church without a regular call. (Article XIV)[2]

What does this mean? It means that although we believe that all Christians are equal in Christ, that in Holy Baptism all are filled with the Holy Spirit, and that all are called to bear witness to Christ through word and deed, no one has the right to take it upon himself to walk into the pulpit and begin preaching. No one has the right to take it upon herself to walk up to the table and preside at the Lord’s Supper. That is reserved for the person who has been called and ordained into the Office of Ministry.

Called by God

What is not as well known is that Lutherans believe there are other offices to which people are called by God. Those other offices include mother, father, husband, wife, son, daughter, sister, brother, and neighbor. These center around the home. In regard to the workplace, people are called into the office of employer and employee, buyer and seller, merchant and customer. People are called into various professions. As Christians, we believe that each office we hold represents an opportunity for faith to be active in love through service to our neighbor. This is what Lutherans call the doctrine of Vocation. (From the Latin word for “calling”.)

The doctrine of Vocation helps clear up the confusion that often arises around the concept of the Priesthood of All Believers. The Priesthood of All Believers does not mean that at any moment a Christian may assume any office he or she chooses. It does not mean that anyone can walk into the pulpit and preach. It doesn’t mean that anyone who feels moved at the moment can preside at the Lord’s Supper. That is reserved for persons called into the proper office.

At the same time, however, it does not mean that I as a pastor can walk into your home and assume the role of father. I cannot walk into your place of business and assume the role of owner or manager. I cannot decide that today I want to practice law and that tomorrow I want to practice medicine. My call is not yours, but in the same way your call is not mine. You serve as priest in your home, office, or place of work.

Confusion and Politics

This confusion of priesthood and vocation is most evident today in the realm of politics. When a person becomes a member of a congregation through Affirmation of Baptism, they promise among other things to “strive for justice and peace in all the earth.” Indeed, the Lutheran Church affirms that striving for justice and peace is the calling of every Christian in baptism. The confusion arises when we think that it is the calling of the pastor or congregation to do this for the individual Christian.

Christians in the United States hold many offices that pertain to justice and peace. The most important office in this regard is the office of citizen. As a citizen, you vote for those who will hold public office and have the power to set policy and administer and enforce laws. The office of citizen is one to which you have been called and for which you are accountable to God. Other offices include elected official, civil servant, judge, juror, police officer, etc.… As Christians, we are to work for peace and justice in every office to which we have been called.

Presuming to Speak

Is the Church called to strive for justice and peace? Yes. It does so through the various vocations that its members have. The problem arises when the ELCA believes that it is the primary work of the Church to do this for its members. More and more, it seems that the ELCA believes the work of justice and peace must be done by synod and churchwide office and assemblies, and through congregations led by their pastors. In effect the church has attempted to usurp the offices and callings of its members, by presuming to speak for them and by using their contributions to fund that effort.

Meanwhile, the proper office of the ministry and the congregation is neglected. While the church attempts to promulgate and administer laws, it forgets to proclaim God’s Word and administer the Sacraments. Rather than being a place of reconciliation, where people with honest disagreements about public policy are united as forgiven sinners at the Lord’s Table, the Church becomes a place of political strife, judgment, and condemnation.

The irony of this is that no one cares what I, as an ELCA pastor, have to say about public policy. I can ascend the pulpit Sunday after Sunday to lecture the governor and president, state and federal legislators, judges, and juries about how things ought to be done, but it will have little effect. They don’t really care about what I think.

Things only get worse if I lack expertise on a subject but presume to give policy speeches anyway. The teachers in my congregation know more than I do about education. The doctors and nurses in my congregation know more than me about medicine.  Engineers know more about engineering. The active and retired military people know more than I do about national defense and foreign policy.  They don’t come to worship to hear my opinion on matters about which they know more.

Called to Be Their Pastor

Instead, they expect me to use my theological education and parish experience to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments. I have been called to be their pastor. They want to hear the Law that convicts them of sin, and the Gospel that sets them free. They want to receive the body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. They want me to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit so that they, their children, and their grandchildren may receive the salvation that God has promised. That is my office. They expect me to fulfill that calling to the best of my ability with God’s help. The ELCA is in danger of neglecting the one thing that only the Church can do, namely, preaching the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. We run the risk of being ashamed of the Gospel, thinking that our political advocacy will accomplish more. That would be a fatal error. As Paul says, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith.” (Romans 1:16, NRSV)

---

[1] Theodore G. Tappert. Augsburg Confession (Kindle Location 141). Kindle Edition.

[2] Ibid, (Kindle Location 109).

For it is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian church that the Gospel be preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it and that the sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word.

(Augsburg Confession, Article VII)[1]

Maintain Unity

One of the most difficult and important tasks of pastors and
leaders in any congregation is to maintain unity. It is no easy thing to keep a
group of several hundred people united around a common vision of mission and
ministry. Many of you have experienced how painful and destructive conflict
within a congregation can be. Friendships are broken, people become
disillusioned with the Church and therefore with the Gospel itself. Some just
drift away and stop going to church altogether. Even when things seem to be
resolved, distrust can continue to simmer below the surface.

Politics are Divisive

One of the things that seems almost certain to cause
division and distrust in 2020 is politics. The division between Red State and
Blue State, conservative and progressive, Democrat and Republican is as wide
and deep as it has been in a long time. Just begin to discuss immigration, LGBT
rights, war, abortion, gun control, religious freedom, Israel/Palestine, global
warming, and a host of other issues, and the conversation will quickly become
heated. Express the wrong opinion and you might be shunned, or unfriended on
Facebook. In some cases, you may even lose your job or be sued. This is as true
in the family and the church as it is in the workplace or social media.

As a pastor, I have always worked carefully and diligently
to make sure that people of all political stripes feel welcome in my congregation.
I encourage each person to live out his/her vocation as citizen by voting,
volunteering and advocating for those causes that he/she believes are in accord
with God’s will. However, I have made it clear that the congregation and its
ministries cannot be used as a platform to advance partisan causes. For
instance, the congregation does not pass out voting guides or endorse amendments
to the state constitution.

And yet at the Synod Level

You can understand my dismay then, when I have seen the
annual assembly of my synod used as such a political platform. Several years
ago, members of St. Paul were shocked when they listened to a report given by
our synodical VP. They expected to hear about how the synod planned to proclaim
the Gospel. Instead, they heard a laundry list of political tasks the VP
insisted the Church must undertake. To add insult to injury, the VP suggested
that those who were skeptical of or opposed to her agenda were in the same
moral category as Nazis and White Supremacists. This same pattern of behavior
has continued for at least four years, if not longer. I can imagine the voting
members to the synod assembly thinking to themselves, “But pastor said that the
Church is not to be used as a political platform for one’s favorite political
causes. Was he being untruthful when he said that?”

Where Does the ELCA Leadership Stand?

The bottom line on all of this is that it is no longer clear
whether the leadership of the ELCA agrees with what the Augsburg Confession
(AC), Article VII, says about the true unity of the Church. It seems that many
believe that the true unity of the Church is found in a common socio/political
agenda. Those who do not share or will not support this agenda are anathematized.
 

A further problem arises when we consider what the AC,
Article V, says about the Ministry:

To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel.

[2]

The Holy Spirit Gives Faith in Jesus Christ

The primary calling of the pastor and the primary mission of
the congregation is to preach the Word of God, in Law and Gospel, and to
administer the Sacraments.  The Lutheran
Church confesses that it is through these means that God gives the Holy Spirit.
It is this Holy Spirit that gives the gift of justifying faith in Jesus Christ.
In turn, it is faith that becomes active in good works for the neighbor. (See
Article VI on the New Obedience.) You might say that through the faithful
ministry of the pastor and congregation, God brings about true change in persons,
communities and the world.

Lost Confidence in the Gospel?

One of my primary concerns with the current emphasis on
political advocacy and engagement in the ELCA is that it suggests we have lost
confidence in the power of the Gospel to change the world. It is often
suggested that the mission of the Church is to be transformative. It is our
calling to change the world. And it is through engagement in the issues of the
day and in the promotion of certain political causes that the Church truly
makes a difference. This turns the Augsburg Confession on its head.

Political Advocacy Is ELCA Pastoral Duty?

Of more concern is the notion that, within the ELCA, it is the
duty of pastors to promote the political causes and agendas endorsed by the
larger denomination. Wording in the standard letter of call in ELCA synods says
that a pastor shall “impart
knowledge of this church and its wider ministry though distribution of its
communications and publications.” When the focus of the ELCA was primarily on
Word and Sacrament ministry, this was not problematic. When the majority of the
communications and publications of the ELCA focus on political advocacy,
however, it turns the pastor into a political operative or press agent.

Unity via the Gospel and the Sacraments

The current
direction of the ELCA in regard to political engagement and advocacy presents a
serious challenge to the ministry of pastors and congregations as outlined in
the Augsburg Confession. It encourages and sometimes insists that we welcome a
major cause of division into our congregations at a time when the political
divide is at its worst. It would prevent us from finding the only unity that is
necessary, namely unity through the Gospel and the Sacraments.

---

[1]
Theodore G. Tappert. Augsburg Confession (Kindle Locations 88-89). Kindle
Edition.

[2]
Theodore G. Tappert. Augsburg Confession (Kindle Locations 79-81). Kindle
Edition.

When John heard in prison what the Messiah was doing, he sent word
by his disciples and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to
wait for another?” Jesus answered them, “Go and tell
John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight,
the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and
the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is
anyone who takes no offense at me.” (Matthew 11:2-6 NRSV)

There goes the Son …

These days, there are many who are offended by the God revealed in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Scriptures.  The primary offense is caused by the name Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Others take offense at the masculine pronouns that the Bible uses for God.  As a result, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in its hymnal Evangelical Lutheran Worship, worked diligently to reduce the use of masculine pronouns to refer to God. This was particularly true in the translation of the Psalms. In addition, they provided an alternate invocation for the beginning of the liturgy that enabled congregations to avoid saying Father and Son.  Many of the Prayers of the Day and all of the Proper Prefaces, were changed so that prayer was addressed to God in general rather than to the Father.  Over the years, Sundays and Seasons, the electronic worship resource from Augsburg Fortress, has offered a variety of alternatives for those who are so offended. Finally, at the 2019 Churchwide Assembly, a social statement was passed calling for an even greater use of “gender-inclusive and expansive language for God.”

The Trinity

The Augsburg Confession, on the other hand, affirms the doctrine of the Trinity in the strongest terms, saying:

We
unanimously hold and teach, in accordance with the decree of the Council of
Nicaea,’ that there is one divine essence, which is called and which is truly
God, and that there are three persons in this one divine essence, equal in
power and alike eternal: God the Father,
God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.[1][emphasis mine]

What’s at Stake?

So what is
at stake?  Is this just quibbling over
words?  Are we as Lutherans bound to the
language used in the Augsburg Confession? 
Will it really make a difference if we use expansive language for God?

The answer
is, “Yes!”  What was at stake at the
Council of Nicaea was far more than a quibble over words.  The Council was not engaged in an esoteric
debate about a doctrine that few lay people would ever understand.  What was at stake was the Incarnation
itself.  Is the Son divine, or only the
Father?  Was God truly incarnate in Jesus
of Nazareth, or did it only appear to be the case?  It was the position of the orthodox that the
Gospel and salvation itself were on the line. 
Rejection of the Incarnation was a rejection of the Gospel. The Lutheran
reformers would have agreed. 

The Gospel

Why is the Gospel at stake?  To explain this, let me introduce a couple of terms with which you may not be familiar.  The terms are general revelation and particular revelation.[2]  General revelation refers to the knowledge of God that is available to all people.  Romans 1:20 says:

Ever since the creation of the world his eternal
power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and
seen through the things he has made. (NRSV)

Some knowledge of God is available to all people.  For instance, through the use of reason we can come to know that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.  If we look at nature, at the beauty and precision that it contains, we can catch a glimpse of the Creator.  If we pay attention to the moral law that is written in our hearts, we know that God is holy and righteous.  Some of us have even felt God’s presence in our lives.  Reason, nature, the moral law, and our feelings can give us some idea of what God is like.

What none of them can do, however, is enable us to know that God is a gracious God.  Knowing that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent doesn’t tell me whether God cares about me.  What nature reveals about God is too ambiguous to tell me whether he is good.  For every beautiful sunset, perfect snowflake and cuddly puppy, there is a hurricane, earthquake or an incurable disease.  The moral law tells me that God is holy, but it doesn’t tell me whether God is merciful to sinners like me.  My feelings about God are ambiguous as well.  One minute I may have a sense of God’s love and peace, but another moment I feel abandoned or condemned by God.  General revelation can take us no further.  Luther says:

I
answer that there are two ways of knowing God. One is general, the other
particular. Everyone has a general knowledge—that is, that there is a God that
created heaven and earth, that He is righteous, and that He punishes the
wicked. However, regarding what God thinks about us (His will toward us), what
He will give or do to deliver us from sin and death, and how to be saved (for
certain, this is the true knowledge of God), they don’t know any of this. In
the same way, I may know someone by sight but not thoroughly because I don’t
fully understand that person’s feelings toward me; that is how people by nature
know there is a God. But what is His will and what is not His will, they have
no idea![3]

The God We Meet in Jesus Christ

Particular
revelation, on the other hand, which refers to God incarnate, Jesus Christ,
does.  When we encounter God in the baby
in the manger and the man on the Cross, then we do know that we have a gracious
God.  It is the God we meet in Jesus Christ
who enables us to have faith, to trust that we are loved and forgiven.  Again, Luther says:

Christ
is the only means, and as you might say, the mirror in which we can see God and
by whom we can also know His will, for in Christ, we see that God is no cruel
and demanding judge but a Father of extremely goodwill, loving and merciful. In
order to bless us—that is, to deliver us from the law, sin, death, all evil,
and to grant us grace, righteousness, and eternal life—He “did not spare his
own Son, but gave him up for us all.” This is the true knowledge of God, the
divine persuasion that does not deceive us but paints us a trustworthy picture
of God, other than this there is no God.[4]

Offended by the Incarnation

This is
why traditional Lutherans are alarmed by the call for more “gender-inclusive
and expansive language for God.”  It is
not because we oppose inclusive language in general, as is often alleged, or
that we want to subordinate women to men. 
Something more is at stake.  When
we are offended by the very words that Jesus used to name God, when we are
offended by his masculinity, as in the past some were offended by his
Jewishness, when we are offended by the claim that Jesus is the way, the truth
and the life, we are offended by the Incarnation itself.  In that case, we are offended by the only
thing that makes it possible for us to know and trust that we have a gracious
God.  The Gospel, justification by faith,
and salvation itself, are at stake.  Instead
of being offended, we give thanks, as we do in the proper preface for
Christmas:

In the wonder and mystery of the Word made flesh you have opened the eyes of faith to a new and radiant vision of your glory: that beholding the God made visible, we may be drawn to love the God whom we cannot see.[5]

---

[1] Theodore G. Tappert. Augsburg
Confession (Kindle Locations 58-59). Kindle Edition.  

[2] Luther,
Martin. Martin Luther’s Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians
(1535): Lecture Notes Transcribed by Students and Presented in Today’s English
(p. 350). 1517 Publishing. Kindle Edition.

[3] Ibid., p. 350.

[4] Ibid., pp. 346-347.

[5]
Lutheran Book of Worship: Ministers Desk Edition.  1978 Augsburg Fortress, p. 209.

Life Together?

“The Model Constitution is how we have agreed to live together,” she said.  “No,” I thought to myself, “the Augsburg Confession is how we have agreed to live together.”  The conversation arose because the synod office had asked me to update my congregation’s constitution.  I began work on it, but had a concern about a part of the Model Constitution that seemed to require me to violate the Augsburg Confession.  When I shared concern with the synod office, that was the reply.

One of my greatest frustrations serving as a pastor in the ELCA is the feeling that the Augsburg Confession has been eclipsed as the standard for how we will live together.   A perfect example of this is a video greeting given by Bishop Guy Erwin for the Southwest California Synod at the beginning of the 2019 Pride Month.  He said, “Lutherans believe that God’s love and mercy accepts us as we are, with no prior conditions, and then teaches us to love each other in return.  This is what we call the Gospel.” 

Now why get worked up about a message of acceptance to those who often feel unwelcome and condemned?  It is not the idea of acceptance or the audience that causes me concern, but the message.  I only mention Bishop Erwin’s summary of the Gospel, because I have been hearing the same message for several years and in multiple contexts.  I have heard it from bishops, teaching theologians, and churchwide staff.  You might say that it has become the official definition of the Gospel in the ELCA. 

Article IV Defines the Gospel

What is the problem?  There is no mention of sin and forgiveness.  Article II of the Augsburg Confession defines our problem as sin.  This sin separates us from God and one another and leads to eternal death.  Article IV defines the Gospel as the message of forgiveness of sins for Jesus sake that is received by faith.  Article III connects Articles II and IV by speaking of what God has done in Christ to reconcile us to himself and save us from our sins.  A message of welcome and acceptance is surely appropriate, but it is not the Gospel.  The Gospel is about redemption through Jesus Christ from sin, death and the devil.

I can remember a time in my life when I was acutely aware of
my sinfulness.  I would be horrified by
the dishonesty, selfishness, self-righteousness and ill will of others, only to
realize again and again that it was my own sin that I saw reflected in
others.  If you had told me at that time
that God accepted me the way I was, it would have been of little comfort.  I wanted forgiveness, reconciliation and a
new beginning.  That is what the Holy
Spirit, working through the Gospel and the Sacraments gives.

Later on, in the same message, Bishop Erwin says, “We oppose
all efforts to use our ancient scriptures to condemn others or separate them
from us.”  I certainly have no desire to
use the Scriptures to condemn others or separate them from us.  There is only one qualification for those who
would seek God.  That is to be a sinner
in need of forgiveness.  If the Church
took a page from Alcoholics Anonymous, it might look something like this: “Hi,
my name is David.  I’m a sinner.”  “Welcome, David.” 

However, the statement that we do not use the Law to condemn
others sounds strange coming from a leader of the ELCA.  First of all, while we do not use Scripture
to condemn others, we are to use the Scriptures to proclaim the Law.  This Law reveals our sin and makes us aware
of our need for Christ.  It is the
business of the Church to proclaim the Law and the Gospel.

Condemned by the ELCA

What makes that statement stranger still is that the ELCA
has become quite good at condemning others and making people feel
unwelcome.  If you happen to be a person who
isn’t convinced about Global Warming, doesn’t believe Scripture sanctions same
sex marriage, is a police officer, a member of the armed forces, is a supporter
of Israel, supports enforcement of immigration laws, or who opposes abortion,
you are quite likely to feel condemned by the ELCA.  Although I myself am more of a political
moderate than a conservative, I am quite aware of how it must feel for a
conservative member of my congregation to listen to what is said at synod
assemblies, in print and in various messages from this church.  When I raise these concerns, I do not always
get a sympathetic ear. 

What is most disappointing about all of this, is that in all the condemnation of those with wrong political and theological views forgiveness is seldom offered.  The strange, and I assume unintended result, is the loss of the central mission of the Church. In the midst of talk about acceptance, we are a church that is quite good at condemnation. What we fail to offer to either those we accept or those we condemn is the forgiveness and new life that come through Jesus Christ. The Augsburg Confession, which for Lutherans is “how we have agreed to live together,” points us to a better way.