"Forging or Foraging for Fellowship?"

by Dennis Bielfeldt

Is fellowship a production or a discovery?

Listen as Dennis--of the Institute for Lutheran Theology--makes the case.

Forging or Foraging for Fellowship?

"Conversation Among the Saints"
The ALC annual pastors conference is finished.
"Conversation, Consolation, and Confrontation: Forging a Fellowship of Preachers"
Here, John Rasmussen delivers his address on Conversation

The Augsburg Lutheran Churches Pastors Conference entitled:

"Conversation, Consolation, and Confrontation: Forging a Fellowship of Preachers"

has been completed.

Here's the worship service from the second morning.

Vivid preaching, traditional prayers, and harmonious music takes one up with the angels for a foretaste of the heavenly feast!

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4FEC2519506DC6A5

The Law...

again

Gerhardt O. Forde

p. 154-155

"Luther's Ethics"

A More Radical Gospel

http://www.amazon.com/More-Radical-Gospel-Eschatology-Authority/dp/0802826881

So, to conclude, when one is looking for a positive use for law in life and ethics in Luther's thinking, one should look to his understanding of the first use of the law, the political or ethical use, as the means by which the wiles of Satan are to be held in check while we wait for the kingdom of God. It is one of the great misfortunes of contemporary ethical thinking that people seem to know practically nothing any longer of this understanding of the uses of the law. Even in church publications we see all sorts of nonsense about how the gospel is supposed to have something to say about our ethical dilemmas. And the gospel just becomes synonymous with sloppy permissiveness. So sweet Jesus schlock reigns. The gospel does not have anything to say directly about such dilemmas. We must look to the proper uses of the law, and particularly the first use. We have all we need there.

How then does one come to know this law" For Luther, the law is natural to humans. It is written on the heart. He was, it could be said, a kind of "natural law" ethicist. But he was a nominalist, not a realist, That is, Luther did not believe that natural law was just a mimetic copy or imitative reflection of eternal law. In Luther's day most people who theorized about natural law really meant supernatural law, a built-in eternal and unchangeable order to things. For Luther, law is natural in the sense that it was built into the creation, simply a statement of the minimal requirements of daily life, a faithful and practical consideration of what works and preserves human society against the wiles of the devil. Faith frees you to use your head in the battle. the natural law, in that sense, was for Luther, "written on the heart." To be sure, such law may be obscured by the fall. But in any case, for Luther, we have a restatement of such natural law in the scriptures, preeminently in the laws of Moses, Luther assumed, it seems that since the Creator and the author of the scriptures are one, there should be no difference between natural law and the law found in scripture. The touchstone for Luther's understanding of what is natural is therefor not a theory of natural analogy, but rather the Holy Scripture and the doctrine of creation. One cannot trust unaided reason without qualification. But where law understood within and limited by the story of salvation, there it is, so to speak, naturalized. Indeed, the command to love God and the neighbor with all one's heart was for Luther natural law, as was also the Sermon on the Mount. The law is simply a statement of what created life should naturally be. If we don't know what that is, due to our fallenness, we must search scriptures.

So, for Luther, if one is looking for answers to the question what should we do, for the time being, we will not be directed to our own feelings, or the art of learning how to affirm ourselves or one another in our chosen lifestyles, or whatever it may be. One of the things Luther polemicized against most regularly was the idea of self-chosen works--be they ever so pious. Rather, one must look to the commandments of God. the commandments of God are not given to make us pious, Luther insisted, but to lead us into the world of neighbor to take care of it as creation for the time being. In this regard, we must realize that the law was made for humanity, not humanity for the law. Even if it happens, as it often does in this twisted world, that one should have to break one commandment for the sake of another, Luther's counsel would be to sin boldly, but trust in the mercy of God all the more bravely! In other words, go ahead and plant a tree in the garden of hope!

Forging a Fellowship of Preachers

Forging a Fellowship of Preachers

This conference explores the practical implications of establishing preachers as a fellowship held accountable to one another by the “mutual conversation and consolation [AND confrontation] of the saints;” who practice a “theology of friendship” as declared by Jesus: “I call you friends because I have revealed all things to you.” Jn. 15:15; and among whom authority is exercised by the preaching of Word in such a way that the Gospel’s good news establishes the Law within its appropriate boundaries.

Conversation, Consolation, Confrontation: Forging a Fellowship of Preachers

The Lutheran Church

"Lutheran," just plain "Lutheran" that has a rather delightful, roll off the tongue sound: "The Lutheran Church."

What would be the "bare minimum" needed to provide a big enough tent to encompass the variety of "lutherans" self-identifying today?

Thanks to Debbie Hesse for the question get regarding the "Lutheran Bare Minimum."

Three facets to this BARE MINIMUM:

(these "facets" would describe the 'big tent' which, like the host site of a bazaar, has a variety of "tables" or "shops" catering to people's preferences--some of them quite bizarre by their neighbors' standards)

1) A confession of faith in which one would find a) expression given to the reformer's "sola"s; and, b) subscription to the Lutheran Confessions, or at least a part of them.

2) A formal and operative use of the Wittenberg Reformer's understanding for the exercise of authority in the church--
a) the final, ultimate authority is the preaching of the Gospel, the radical Gospel, in such a way that it is both "telos" and "finis" of the law and maintains the paradoxical tension of these two declarations: "Christ is the end of the law for all who believe" AND "Do we by these means abolish the law? By no means! We establish it!"
b) Proper exercise of the "sola scriptura" principle which would recognize
--the external clarity of scripture and its necessity for public use
--the internal clarity of scripture and the necessity of its personal exercise
--that "scripture interprets scripture" is actually the process by which scripture becomes the "acting" subject and becomes the "interpreter" of the interpreter who has become the "passive" object

3) The non-recognition of "rights" as they would be claimed by, or granted to persons, in the church. No one has a "right" to anything before their neighbor or especially in expectation from the "church"--with the exception being the expectation of hearing the gospel and receiving the sacraments. There can be no "self-defense" in the church, only submission to what might be called "oppression" or a denial of so-called rights--submission with the declaration of forgiveness upon the "oppressor." The protest of this "mistreatment" must come from a neighbor or group of them who call attention to the plight of their oppressed neighbor, do what they can personally to relieve the oppression, and call for structural changes, if necessary.

see this post for a fuller treatment:
http://whitemountaintheology.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-on-repentance.html

PS
This principle was terribly violated during the sexuality wars. Dozens of homosexual people "told" their stories, pleaded their case, and demanded their rights.

AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH: THE LUTHERAN REFORMATION

by Gerhardt Forde

A More Radical Gospel by Gerhardt Forde

edited by Mark C. Mattes and Steven D. Paulson

2004 Wm. B. Eerdmans

http://www.amazon.com/More-Radical-Gospel-Eschatology-Authority/dp/0802826881/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1

In this fine eassay, Forde takes on the issue of authority in the church and the Lutheran Reformers address of it. They struck down the authoritarianism of the papacy only to be innundated by the relativism of inspired individuals. Quoted here is the concluding paragraph, plus the sentence immediately preceding it.

...The church is the community called into being by the hearing of the Word whose reason for being is to speak that Word in all the world.

But now, even though much more would need to be said, it is apparent that we have come full circle. We started by insisting that the preaching of the gospel was the highest exercise of suthority in the church, and that is where we arrive again at the end. But that is, I hope, all fitting! So I will close by making some concluding observations. First, last, and always, the preaching of the gospel of Jeus Christ crucified for our sins and raised for our justification is the highest exercise of authority in the church. But second, if this authority is to be exercised today, it shall have to be preached much more radically as the end, both telos, and finis, of the law which actually establishes it for the time being. From the Reformation perspective, the problem in the church is not finally to be traced to a lack of nerve in asserting the law, but rather in the failure to preach the gospel in all its radicallity. There is absolutely no way that the proper authority and uses of the law are going to be established in the church's message without that radical gospel. This call for a more radical gospel is the raison d'etre for my teaching. Since the Reformation, beginning even with the Saxon Visitations (the "graveyard" of the Reformation?) where Melanchthon tried to shore up the sagging enterprise by preaching the law more strenously, just about all the remedies have been tried. We have about used up all our coupons. We have only one left. We should try it--a more radical gospel. If the tree does not bring forth good fruit, spread it on a little thicker! And wait! Have a little patience! Yes, the pope is right in quoting St. Paul, "Woe is me if I preach not the gospel!" But it better be the gospel and not just another confusing mixture with law. The church has no right and no call to flex its authoritative muscle if it is not going to preach this gospel. Furthermore, if the analysis suggested here is right, it will not work--and is not, as a matter of fact, working. To see that , all you need to do is read the statistics. If we are not prepared to preach a radical gospel we can just as well enter into competition with the Kiwanis Club. No doubt we do need to find ways to exercise more discipline. But why should people accept the discipline if we have nothing to offer that they cannot get elsewhere! If they want to escape the discipline, they can just go down the street to some other religious sideshow or support group. If we do not preach the gospel in such a radical fashion that it ends the law, then there will be no establishment of the law either and the role of authority in the church will disappear altogether.

The Error of Their Ways
(commentary on the ELCA's sexuality decisions)

The two sides of the sexuality debate nominally defined as the sets of "bound consciences" named in the documents are both wrong!

First, the writers of the sexuality documents, in claiming the adherents to positions "for" or "against," possessed something that could be labeled "consciences bound to a particular interpretation of scripture," did us a GOOD service by naming the idolatry present in each of those positions. Namely, the "in curvatus in se" inherent with every interpretation of scripture.

Luther, before emperor and pope, declared his conscience bound to the Word of God--that is, Jesus Christ! He was not "curved in" on himself. In fact, his words were another way of confessing with the Apostle Paul: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me!" Or, even as the Apostle gave to the Philippians: "Have this mind among yourselves which was in Christ Jesus." To be "bound" to an interpretation--something of our own doing--is to make an idol of ourselves and our ability to "know" scripture. We DO NOT interpret scripture. Scripture INTERPRETS us!

Secondly, the two sides--no matter the actual words used--were arguing about the authority of the "letter," that is, the Law. The "for" position is really nothing more than a refurbished Antinomian argument. The "against" position puts forth a Nomian argument in guise of scriptural authority. The Antinomians seek to free themselves from the Law in this creation (the world) just as they are free from the Law in the New Creation (heaven). The Nomians desire the Law to reign in the New Creation (heaven) just as it is established in this creation (the world).

Both sides, then, do not actually represent "sides" of an argument at all but merely positions on the same moral continuum. As such, there is really no difference between them, only a matter of degree. Neither one has Christ categorically.

Thirdly, when one has Christ categorically--that is, as THE Way, THE Truth, & THE Life, then one is no longer concerned with the moral continuum and its illusory sides of "Nomian" and "Antinomian." Instead, one has the Law as it's held in the paradoxial tension between these poles: "Christ is the end of the Law for all who believe!" AND "Do we thereby abolish the Law? By no means! We establish it." Living within this paradox is to engage God's two-fisted rule of creation: both Justice AND Mercy. Neither one can rule alone.

This, then is error of our ways: we are busily careening between ruling by justice or ruling by mercy without realizing that in doing so we are only substituting one tyranny for another.

Thanks be to God that, in HIS LOVE, he does hold Justice AND Mercy together so that we can have life in both this creation and the next.

And...
Thanks be to God that he sends a preacher so that in hearing God's Word both justice and mercy will be done to me.