Monday, September 21, 2009

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



Saturday, September 05, 2009

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.

Friday, September 04, 2009

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

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.

Thursday, September 03, 2009

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.