Debating the Contemporary -vs- Lutheran Approaches to Textual Criticism: “Textual and Literary Judgments on the Biblical Text – What Happens to the Lutheran Commitment to Scriptural Inerrancy?”

Dr. John Warwick Montgomery Dr. Jeffrey John Kloha DEBATE Textual and Literary Judgments on the Biblical Text What Happens to the Lutheran Commitment to Scriptural Inerrancy? Location: Chapel of Our Lord/Werner Auditorium at Concordia University-Chicago in River Forest Date & Time: 9:30am ~2:00pm CDT, 10/15/2016 Cost: GRATISFor more information, see Debate Announcement at Brothers of John the Steadfast

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 (tomorrow), at the campus of Concordia University – Chicago, will be publicly debated what I consider to be among the most important issues facing Christianity today: whether post-Modern theories of Textual Criticism are valid, and whether they militate against the perspicuity, inspiration and innerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. While readers of Intrepid Lutherans may be well aware of issues regarding post-Modern ideologies of translation, many of which impact the veracity of the NIV (especially the NIV 2011), what most may not be aware of is the nearly two-centuries-old drama regarding ideologies by which the Greek texts of the New Testament are gathered and collated, to produce an authoritative Greek document representing the original texts themselves.

In a series of comments to the July 2015 post, WELS Makes it Official: All WELS congregations shall use NIV2011, following some comments which questioned why the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) refused to even consider use of the New King James Version (NKJV) of the Bible in its recent synod-wide deliberations and adoption of an official translation of the Bible to be used in its publications (and had even refused to answer questions as to why they refused to consider it), I provided a summary of the two-centuries-old drama of textual criticism, as follows:

Lee,

...As for the reason why NKJV wasn’t, and probably won’t ever be considered [by WELS], Dr. Jewel is probably closer to the truth here than anyone is willing to admit. Reread Rev. Brian Keller’s essay, Evaluating Bible Translations: Alle Schrift von Gott eingegeben (I would also point you to his appendices: Appendix A and Appendix B), and take note of how he dances around the issue of “Alexandrian Priority,” almost apologizing for mentioning the NKJV so favorably. “Alexandrian Priority” is shop-talk for the liberal theories of the historical critical method applied to textual criticism. WELS has embraced “higher-criticism,” and will not at all consider a version of the Bible descending from what is today called the “Majority Text”, given the dominant influence of the Byzantine family of Greek texts has on it. But first a little history...

The time of the Renaissance in the West was a return to the classical learning of the Greeks and Romans, and as the works of antiquity were rediscovered, so were the ancient Greek texts of the Bible. Erasmus and others collected them, giving them the title “Textus Receptus” or the “Received Text,” referring to the text generally “received” by the Greek speaking Early Church. It was from these newly discovered texts (which were discovered in monasteries and libraries mostly in the East, or with connections to the East, which had existed under Byzantium), along with the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures preserved by the Jews, that Luther and Tyndale produced their authoritative versions of the Bible in German and English, each of which were “received” (eventually) by the German and English speaking peoples, respectively, as “the Bible”. So highly skilled were Luther and Tyndale in the use of language (and the later editors of the KJV who essentially reproduced Tyndale), that these works are considered masterpieces of their respective languages even today, and remain endeared to the people and engrained in their cultures. These Bibles were translated directly from the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text, and the “Textus Receptus”, which was essentially a Byzantine text form. Over time, as language changed, certain elements within the greater Church considered it advantageous to “revise” these versions of the Bible. In the second half of the 19th Century, the German Bible was secretly revised – no one was told for about two decades, for fear that the German people would reject it out of hand and the publishers would lose their investment in the revision. After the Germans had been using it already for awhile, the publishers admitted the changes and charged their detractors with not knowing the difference anyway. Though the changes were minor, Kretzmann writes in his History of the German Bible that they were not improvements, and that German-speaking Lutherans in America were better off using the Unrevedierte Ausgabe.

The revision of the KJV was not secret, however. Westcott and Hort were assigned the revision task, but took it upon themselves (that is, without authorization) to conduct not only a revision of the English version, but a revision of the collection of underlying Greek texts as well – a task for which they were unqualified, having never collated a single text prior to this. John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester, perhaps the most eminently qualified textual critic in England at the time, and others like him, were excluded – even though they agreed that recent discoveries required a revision the “Traditional” Greek text (or TR). The question was whether classical (i.e, “lower-criticism”) or newer “higher-critical” theories would be used. Westcott and Hort, and those who they surrounded themselves with, were liberal theologians and adherents of German higher criticism. It is evident that they actively excluded and marginalized conservative voices like Burgon’s (nothing new here...). As liberals, they rejected the tenets of classical (or “lower”) textual criticism and conducted their revision of the collection of Greek texts on the basis of higher criticism, in a way that unnaturally elevated the importance of the codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus, by lumping the many thousands of Byzantine texts into a single “family,” or a single representative text. It is from the revision committee of Westcott and Hort that we today have the Nestle-Aland “Critical Text” text published by UBS, that functions nearly everywhere as the standard on which many, but not all, newer translations are based. The problem with these texts, and the objection that conservatives like Burgon had with them is that, according to the standards of “lower-criticism,” they lacked sufficient biographical data (i.e., no one was sure, exactly, what their history was – which is curious given that they are codices, not fragments), there are only a handful of them compared to the thousands of texts that fit within the “Byzantine family” of texts, but more importantly, they were riddled with evidences of corruption. Burgon, being one of the few to have actually physically examined these codices, wrote several books on this affair, and prominently noted this last point, and even suggested the presence of Gnostic fingerprints (which is not out-of-the-question given that Alexandria was the center of Gnostic thought at that time) given a conspicuous reduction in the identification of Jesus, the man, as also God. An internet search will show much on this topic, including the fact that the NIV1984 reflects this reduction.

If interested, one source of Burgon’s collected works that I can highly recommend is Volume One of the series, Unholy Hands on the Bible, which contains the following works of Burgon:

The Traditional Text of the New Testament
The Causes of Corruption of the Holy Gospels
The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark
The Revision Revised
GOD Manifested in the Flesh
The Woman Taken in Adultery
The Secret Spanking of Westcott and Hort
Conflation and the “Neutral” Text


A comparison of Burgon to the likes of Metzger and Robertson (advocates of higher-criticism) can be instructive. For my part, although I am not nearly as widely read on the issue of textual criticism as others are, I have yet to hear or read any argument for retaining the higher-critical method, whether from Robertson, Metzger or anyone else, that is as powerful as Burgon’s arguments for not doing so to begin with. I am deeply suspicious of modern and post-Modern writers who casually dismiss the danger of higher critical theories and their modern descendants, especially given that it has been rejected in practically every field except Biblical studies (literary and historical sciences, for example, generally reject it after empirical evidence has shown that it is unreliable). But my advice is for people to read the material firsthand, rather than accept reports about it from me or anyone else, and come to your own conclusions.

What does this have to do with the NKJV? Well, the NKJV is the ONLY modern version of the Bible published today that does NOT use the higher-critical “Critical Text.” All other translations that I am aware of use the Greek found in the “Critical Text” as their basis. Instead, NKJV uses the “Majority Text,” which does not give unnatural weight to those hokey Egyptian copies. The Majority Text represents a different way of collating the thousands of Greek copies we have now – essentially following the methods of traditional textual criticism by eliminating “families” and giving equal weight to all of the witnesses – as an alternative to the Critical Text. They both use the same collection of copies, it’s just that the bloated influence given to the Egyptian copies in the method of the Critical Text is totally eliminated in the Majority Text. Given equal weighting to all texts individually, given the vast numbers of Byzantine copies compared to those from Egyptian sources, and given the remarkable agreement of the Byzantine witnesses, the result is that the influence of the Egyptian copies is dwarfed, and thus the Majority Text essentially reflects the contents of the Byzantine sources – just like the “Textus Receptus” first collected by Erasmus (though his text was produced from only a handful of Byzantine Texts).

All of this may soon be a moot point, however, as the next edition of the Nestle-Aland “Critical Text” (28^th Edition) will follow an altogether different method than one can learn from Metzger, Robertson, Aland or Burgon. It follows a relatively newly devised “Geneological-Coherence Method” – something which I personally am only just becoming acquainted with. This new Method totally eliminates the idea of “text families,” and of using them as a basis for assigning authority to certain readings, and instead compares every known variant according to a variety of criteria, in order to determine their relationship and ultimately find what would statistically be the “initial copy”. And this is the critical aspect of this new Method. Beginning with the 28th Edition of the Nestle-Aland Critical Text, we will no long have, even in the original languages, anything that could be called “The Original” text, or even a representation of it. This new method is limited to producing what they call an “Initial Text” – which may be representative of a text existing in the Third of Fourth Centuries. A second critical aspect of this new Method is the reality of continuous updates to the Greek text. It is never fixed, nor can it be regarded as even theoretically fixed, but as continuously moving and shifting, dependent on the discovery of new texts, or other historical or linguistic facts that may impact the criteria used to analyze the body of collected texts. Bible versions descending from this Method will likewise be subject to continuous updating – and we’ve already been warned by the CBT (the NIV Committee on Bible Translation) of more frequent updates to the NIV (which reveals how monumentally stupid it is to standardize a hymnal project on the NIV family of translations, assuming the hymnal is going to be around for more than a few years...).

Due to the immense amount of data, computers will perform the analysis on the texts, while the whole project awaits the massive manpower necessary to enter the data. This eliminates the role of the individual pastor in selecting an authoritative reading during his study – the computer says what it is, and there is no arguing with the computer... But it will take some time to complete – around the year 2030, is what I recall. But already this new method has resulted in some fairly startling changes to the underlying Greek text, and it is expected to impact many of the references used as proof texts in our catechism, not only for Baptism (Mark 16), but also Headship, Church and Ministry, and others. No one really knows what the specific results will be, nor how broad their impact will be, which explains both the ambivalence of the Translation Evaluation Committee (TEC) [the WELS propaganda team for the NIV 2011] toward any specific translation, along with the rapidly changing practices of the WELS with respect to womens roles.

If you want to know more, here is a provocative paper written by a Concordia Seminary Professor on the subject: Text and Authority: Theological and Hermeneutical Reflections on a Plastic Text. To be fair, I think that the author later said his paper was intended for consumption by a select group of his peers, not by the general public, and that he would have written it differently had he known that it would see broader distribution. It’s been passed around. Alot. Some of his points and positions were written to deliberately “stir discussion” among his peers (who are all academics) – but that makes them all the more worthy of discussion.

In the best construction, your WELS pastors aren’t saying anything at all, because they are ignorant. If this is not the case, then there must be something far more sinister going on. If they are not merely ignorant and disinterested, then they are deliberately not telling the truth by choosing to say nothing at all. Perhaps they think they are protecting you. Perhaps there is some other benefit to hiding the truth. The reality is, very serious changes are afoot in Christianity – especially when it can be said of these changes, “Who knows what the Bible is going to say in fifteen years? We’ll just have to wait and see.”

Maybe this was more than you wanted to know... I for one will stick with what have learned, and pray that someone much more intelligent and capable than I am is both equipped and willing to fight this war. Whoever it is, he is likely to have very few allies.

The paper, Text and Authority: Theological and Hermeneutical Reflections on a Plastic Text, noted in the paragraphs highlighted in blue, above, was written in 2013, by Dr. Jeffrey John Kloha (Provost and Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis), and it has created quite a stir among Lutherans of the Missouri Synod: Kloha has since been seated in front of a committee to answer accusations of doctrinal error, and agreed to submit a revision of his paper – which seems to have finally been published earlier this year, included in a collection of essays drawn from the Conference where his paper was originally submitted. The issues at stake being so startling and severe, Rev. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery (LCMS) – a world renowned Christian apologist, and key figure in the effort to uphold an orthodox Doctrine of the Word in the midst of Missouri’s “Crisis of the Word” in the 1970’s – was compelled to investigate the issues, and once again get involved. Two essays he has written in response to Kloha’s Plastic Text paper, are The Problem of a “Plastic Text”: the Kloha Essay on “Text and Authority”, published late the Summer of 2015, and Beyond the “Plastic Text”: the Plot Thickens, published in February of 2016 (note that BOTH essays are included in the single link here provided – the first paper being included as an Appendix to the second).

In the first of Montgomery’s essays, we learn, among other things, that, (a), the issues are NOT linguistic, but a failure to understand and apply the assumptions which underly secularist New Testament scholarship (with which most confessional Lutherans, it seems, have long become enamored) – assumptions, I might add, which are, indeed, accessible to the understanding of average conscientious Christians (whereas the minutia of linguistic theory may not be, without significant training in languages); and (b), that Kloha admits to a significant departure from historic Lutheran understanding of biblical inspiration, as articulated by Pieper as well as by dogmaticians from the Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy (like Quenstedt).

In the second of these two essays, we learn that Dr. Kloha adheres to the theory of “thoroughgoing eclecticism” – a theory espoused and propounded by Kloha's Doktorvater (mentor), Professor J. Keith Elliot. The method of “thoroughgoing eclecticism” does not select either majority or weighted/preferred readings from variant texts, but, in the words of Elliot himself, is a method in which the textual critic “feels able to select freely from among the available fund of variants and choose the one that best fits the internal criteria.” We learn from analysis of this method, that, as a result, the Biblical texts are treated as “constructed literary works,” variants of which are selected according to the critic’s understanding of literary style and organization of the text. Montgomery offers two examples to illustrate:

An analogy or two may make this clear. I deliver a lecture in which I organize my material in the order of A, B, and C. A news article on my lecture appears, in which the writer, out of great respect for me and a knowledge of my other writings, says that I presented my material in the order of B, A, and C – on the ground that this makes more literary sense and is more consistent with my usual style. That reporter has prostituted his journalistic calling: he has not reported what actually occurred, but rather doctored it to fit what he thinks would better have occurred.

Or consider the battle of Waterloo. The standard French accounts of the battle agree that one factor in Napoleon’s defeat was General Ney’s error in thinking that a movement of casualties from Wellington's centre was the beginning of a retreat. Suppose an early Romanian translation of a non-primary, no longer existent French account attributed the error to General Grouchy. Would any competent historian choose that account – on the ground that Grouchy provided a better source of the Napoleonic defeat because his “characterization” is more appropriate to an effective narrative? Of course not: the issue is what occurred historically, not what narrative would be most effective from a literary standpoint.

But suppose one were to argue that to presuppose historicity in the case of biblical materials is gratuitous and that one should instead view them primarily as literary creations? After all, are they not “religious” in nature? The answer to this is that the Gospels themselves claim, again and again, that they are setting forth history. “That which we have seen and heard,” they write,” declare we unto you” (I John 1:3). “We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (II Peter 1:16).

We also learn that according to this Method, revelation has nothing to do with innerancy, thus does not concern itself with textual and content errors in corrupt variants. “As long as the Bible ‘preaches Christ’, it is fine,” Montgomery quotes Kloha (...this sounds very much like the excrement spewed by the WELS Translation Evaluation Committee a few years ago, as they fed propaganda to trusting laymen supporting the wretched NIV 2011, does it not?). “This is, of course, the old Gospel Reductionism of Seminex and of the liberal Lutherans in general,” Montgomery further points out.

From both of these essays, it becomes apparent that “thoroughgoing eclecticism” threatens a renewed Crisis of the Word, as Montgomery also states directly at the head of his essay:

It is the conviction of the present essayist that this approach amounts to the destruction of the [Missouri Synod’s] commitment to scriptural inerrancy; returns biblical scholarship to the subjectivism of the higher criticism; and, if pursued, could cause that conservative church body to face again the theological difficulties that came close to destroying the LCMS in the Seminex controversy of the 1970’s.

The Debate
In an event sponsored by the Lutheran Concerns Association, along with co-sponsors, Balance-Concord, Inc., The Brothers of John the Steadfast, The Association of Confessing Evangelical Lutheran Congregations, Minnesota North Confessional Lutherans, and Texas Confessional Lutherans, Dr. Montgomery and Dr. Kloha will debate the question: “Textual and Literary Judgments on the Biblical Text – What Happens to the Lutheran Commitment to Scriptural Inerrancy?”. The debate will be held on Saturday, October 15, 2016 (tomorrow), at the Chapel of Our Lord/Werner Auditorium at Concordia University-Chicago in River Forest. Starting time for the debate will be 9:30 AM CDT; closing time will be ~2:00 PM. Since both my wife and I regard Dr. Montgomery among our most beloved teachers, since I am seriously delinquent in treating her to a nice little escape from the children, and since Chicago is not unreasonably far from where we live, we plan to be personally present for the debate on Saturday. However, the debate will also be live-streamed and later archived, courtesy of The Brothers of John the Steadfast.

For more information about this debate, please visit the Debate Announcement at Brothers of John the Steadfast. See also their listing of related articles:

• Information from Dr. Kloha
• Information from Dr. Montgomery
• Livestreaming Link, Study Materials
• Lutheran Clarion – Why Dr. Montgomery is Right
• Lutheran Clarion — Theological Problems in Some of Dr. Kloha’s Recent Publications
• Livestream Announcement
• Initial Announcement

NOTE: Portions of this post – the graphic in the header and the final two paragraphs in particular – are Reprinted with permission from SteadfastLutherans.org.

ERRATA and ADDENDUM (10/16/2016)
In the first paragraph colored in blue, above, I noted that the issues involved in the controversies of our day over textual criticism are “something which I personally am only just becoming acquainted with.” Having attended yesterday’s debate, I can attest to having learned something about “thoroughgoing eclecticism” and the “Geneological-Coherence Method,” which requires me to correct what I stated above: I had conflated “thoroughgoing eclecticism” and the “Geneological-Coherence Method,” when, in fact, they are two separate things. The “Geneological-Coherence Method” is the method being used to collate the New Testament via computer modeling, as described in the paragraphs in blue, above. While this may be an issue (Dr. Kloha seems to beware of it, while Dr. Montgomery seems to think it is a positive thing), this was NOT the issue in yesterday’s debate; the issue of “thoroughgoing eclecticism” was the issue – a very serious issue which has Dr. Kloha admitting in his works statements such as the following:

“If you want to rip Romans 15 and 16 out of my Bible, I can live with that. If you want Hebrews, James, Revelation torn out too, I can live with that. If you force me to look only at p46 or the bizarre majuscule manuscript W or one of the thousands of Byzantine miniscules and use them as my New Testament – I can live with that. Give me only Codex Boernarianus, one of the most poorly copied, misspelled, error filled copies of Paul’s letters, and I can live with that. I could live with or without any of those, because even these poorly copied, corrupted by people, edited, to use Luther’s words, preach Christ. And if they preach Christ, they are of the Spirit, for preaching Christ is the Spirit’s work. And if they preach Christ, they are apostolic, for the apostle can speak nothing other than what he has been sent to speak... I can live without a perfect Bible. I cannot live without God raising Jesus from the dead.”

(Kloha, J. [2010]. “The Authority of the Scriptures,” Concordia Seminary St. Louis 2010 Symposium [“The Scriptures: Formative or Formality?”]. Quoted in J. Montgomery [2016], “Textual and Literary Judgments on the Biblical Text – What Happens to the Lutheran Commitment to Scriptural Inerrancy?”, presented in debate with Dr. Kloha, at Concordia University Chicago on 15 October 2016. pg. 11.)

“How, then is it decided which reading is apostolic and has been received as such by the church? The church has been and continues to be led by the Spirit into all truth as it hears ever again the Word. And the church has always taken the greatest care to ensure that what it teaches and preaches is indeed apostolic. The work continues today, in light of new evidence and historical study... [T]o speak of a single act of inspiration... leaves us vulnerable... God works in history. The Spirit created the church.”

(Kloha, J. [2016]. “Theological and Hermeneutical Reflections on the Ongoing Revisions of the Novum Testamentum Graece” in: Achim Behrens and Jorg Christian Salzmann [eds.], Listening to the Word of God: Exegetical Approaches [Gõttingen: Edition Ruprecht, 2016], p. 180. [This is the revision of Kloha’s “Plastic Text” essay delivered at the Lutherische Theologische Hochschule, Oberusel, Germany, in November, 2013]. Quoted in J. Montgomery [2016], “Textual and Literary Judgments on the Biblical Text – What Happens to the Lutheran Commitment to Scriptural Inerrancy?”, presented in debate with Dr. Kloha, at Concordia University Chicago on 15 October 2016. pg. 9.)

Montgomery, in debate, labels this as “the Roman Catholic solution to textual problems” and “pure Schäwrmerei: the Holy Spirit, instead of working through the objective Word to ‘reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment’ (Jn. 16:8), becomes a deus ex machine to justify the subjective literary judgments of the textual critic as to the proper content of the biblical text” (Montgomery, J. [2016], “Textual and Literary Judgments on the Biblical Text – What Happens to the Lutheran Commitment to Scriptural Inerrancy?”, presented in debate with Dr. Kloha, at Concordia University Chicago on 15 October 2016. pg. 10.).

I plan a more thorough reaction to the debate I attended yesterday, but suffice it to say for now: Dr. Kloha did not come prepared at all to debate the very serious points at issue, refused to be corrected, and toward the end, very disgracefully, angrily and childishly dismissed Dr. Montgomery, repeatedly offering as his only defense, “Dr. Montgomery does not know what he is talking about... read my paper.” Unfortunately, none of those who were not in attendance will be able to read his paper, as he expressly forbids ANY reproduction, in whole or in part, without express written permission from him. His doctoral dissertation remains unpublished. And if one wants to read his revision of the “Plastic Text” essay, it is under copyright in an obscure European academic journal (as are nearly all of his writings) that costs ~$90 to obtain.

(And, of course, later today I learn that on the evening of October 13, soon after Dr. Montgomery had made his debate paper available online [which can be downloaded at this link], only a little more than a full day before the debate, Dr. Kloha provided a data dump on Concordia Theology Online, in order that those attending the debate may prepare themselves with his background material. This was announced on The Brothers of John the Steadfast on October 14, but had not been included on their debate information page when I accessed it that day. I’ve added that announcement to the body of this post, above. Dr. Kloha’s Concordia Theology post is The Text of the New Testament: October 15 Presentation. In that post are links to his paper, to his doctoral thesis, and to other background material. His paper can be downloaded from the link he provides in that post [be sure to note Footnote 2: “Distribution, in whole or part, is not permitted without written consent of author.”]. The site hosting his doctoral thesis can be accessed here [he stated during the debate that it was not yet published]. His internet post supplying further background material can be found here.)

Called to “Test all things”

Eight days ago, we blogged about the opening of Faith Lutheran Church – a new, independant Lutheran congregation in the Portland, Oregon, area, formed by some 17 Lutherans who were recently compelled to leave WELS for a variety of reasons, and have now chosen to be served by pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). We also mentioned that these Lutherans now also feel compelled to provide a public explanation for their departure from the WELS. Last Monday, we posted the first such explanation: No Longer Alone: Perspective of a Confessional Lutheran Woman. Today, we post the second.

---

Called to “Test all things”
by Mr. Vernon Kneprath
The intent and agreement among those who chose to leave our WELS congregation was to leave peacefully and quietly. Concerns had already been expressed to the appropriate individuals over months and years, regarding what was being preached, taught and practiced throughout the synod. Most of those resigning their membership had stopped attending our local congregation weeks or months prior. When our common goal to return to confessional Lutheranism was realized, and a road to that end became available, it was determined to be prudent to resign our membership in our WELS congregation before working toward organizing a new congregation.

A simple, one sentence letter indicated the undersigned were resigning their membership. The letter was sent by certified mail to the pastor and president of the congregation. It was considered by our group to be more kind and considerate to send one letter rather than many, so that those receiving it would not be in a position of wondering when the next letter would arrive.

For nearly two months we generally avoided initiating dialogue. Some of us were contacted by various members and leaders of our local congregation. We listened carefully, and responded respectfully. Out of the communications that occurred during that time, there was a single individual who approached many of us in a respectful manner, and showed genuine care and concern for us.

The previous Intrepid post gave one individual’s reasons for leaving the WELS. While each of us had our own specific reasons for leaving, there were many shared concerns. Therefore, some of what follows may seem redundant. Unlike the author of the previous post, I had been a lifelong member of the WELS. I was instructed and confirmed with the Gausewitz edition of Luther’s Small Catechism, and remain convinced that it properly represents and teaches the truths of Scripture. But it had become increasingly clear in recent years that I was a confessional Lutheran in a Lutheran church body that seemed to no longer appreciate or desire to be confessional Lutheran.

The Bible teaches that we are to point out error where it exists, and to defend the truth of God’s Word at every opportunity.

”Test all things; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21 NKJV)

Over time, and with a great deal of attention to what was going on among Lutherans in this country, it became apparent it wasn’t necessary to accept the deliberate changes being made to the teachings and practices of churches within the WELS. There is an alternative.

New Bible translations that glorify man and his wisdom rather than honoring God’s unchanging Word do not need to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that recognizes the potent efficacy of God’s Word in teaching AND in practice.

Contemporary worship, or blended worship, or whatever the latest worship fad, does not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that unabashedly uses the historic liturgy without change or reservation.

An obsession with money, and a link to Thrivent and Planned Parenthood does not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that focuses on teaching and preaching Law and Gospel, leaving it up to God to determine how and when the saints will be blessed.

Man-made gimmicks to fill the pews and the offering plates do not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that preaches the Means of Grace, and only the Means of Grace, as the way in which God grows the church.

Decisions to remove “Lutheran” from a church name, school or website, or other efforts to distance a church from the Lutheran Confessions need not be accepted or tolerated. There is a Lutheran church body that eagerly teaches the contents of the Book of Concord to its members.

The teaching of objective justification, which proclaims that “everyone has been justified, everyone has been forgiven, everyone has been saved,” does not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that preaches, without hesitation or contradiction, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:31 NKJV)

There is an alternative to a Lutheran church that no longer desires to be confessional Lutheran. The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America, (ELDoNA) is the Lutheran church that I have found to be unapologetically confessional Lutheran, in teaching AND in practice.


The Lutheran Hymnal - Hymn 260 verse 2 (verse omitted from the WELS hymnal, Christian Worship)

With fraud which they themselves invent
     Thy truth they have confounded;
Their hearts are not with one consent
     On Thy pure doctrine grounded.
While they parade with outward show,
They lead the people to and fro,
     In error's maze astounded.

 

No Longer Alone: Perspective of a Confessional Lutheran Woman

Yesterday, we blogged about the opening of Faith Lutheran Church – a new, independant Lutheran congregation in the Portland, Oregon, area, formed by some 17 Lutherans who were recently compelled to leave WELS for a variety of reasons, and have now chosen to be served by pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). We also mentioned that these Lutherans now also feel compelled to provide a public explanation for their departure from the WELS. Today’s post is the first such explanation.

---

No Longer Alone
Perspective of a Confessional Lutheran Woman
I felt so alone. Not from God. God had adopted me into His family at my baptism when I was only days old. My faith had been nourished and strengthened regularly with His Word and the Sacrament of Jesus’ body and blood. I knew God would never leave me nor forsake me. But I missed the fellowship of like-minded believers.

God’s House no longer felt like a sanctuary. It had the look and feel of an auditorium, the altar area dominated by a large screen. A steady stream of “announcements” and “not-so-hushed” conversations over cups of gourmet coffee made it difficult to prepare my heart for worship.

The historic liturgy had been deemed old fashioned. The use of hymnals was considered out of date. Music and text changed weekly, printed in “service folders” of greater and greater length.

It seemed that we had grown uncomfortable with God’s teaching on Holy Communion. So afraid to offend, we chose to forego Holy Communion on Easter Sunday out of fear that the Bible’s teaching of close/d communion would make us “look bad” to visitors.

Mid-week Bible studies became less frequent, then absent all together.

Vacation BIBLE School was marginalized with talk of replacing it with a soccer camp because “that’s what a lot of other churches do.” “The B-I-B-L-E” was replaced with songs about pinching cheeks and other things WE do.

A special “Mafia Night” activity was held for our youth on the night before Easter.

Sunday School was “updated,” and no longer focused on a Bible lesson and the memorization of Scripture. There was no offering basket with which to teach about stewardship.

Some things were worse.

Teaching justification by faith as “just as if I’d never done it” was replaced with the child-friendly terms of “objective justification” and “subjective justification.” If I finally understand it, “objective justification” means that everyone is declared “not guilty” regardless of faith, and “subjective justification” means that I believe I am part of everyone. Of course we need a special term to say that “I” am part of “everyone.” And never mind that this doesn’t fit with Scripture, “IT’S OUR SPECIAL MESSAGE THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS!!”

A special Reformation Sunday School lesson includes the text, “God’s Word says that all people are saved.” Where does the Bible say that?

A gender-neutral translation of the Bible is promoted for use in our churches because “no translation is perfect.” Yes, but some are less perfect than others.

I felt so alone. But I wasn’t silent. With each change, God provided the courage to express my concern to pastors, elders, and presidents of two congregations over the past 15 years. I wish I could say that I received assurance that my concerns were valid. I wish I could say that I was commended for “searching the Scriptures” for God’s will in my life. Instead, I was characterized as old fashioned, too critical, or as one simply refusing to appreciate our “Christian freedom.” The decisions had been made, and there was no turning back.

I felt so alone.

It wasn’t the first time. I had journeyed through the synods, each time moving toward one that was smaller, and in my viewpoint, more consistent in practice with what God’s Word taught. But I was at the end of the alphabet; seemingly, the end of the road. Where else was there? What was I supposed to do?

There are faithful Lutheran pastors who provide sermons and even conduct services online. But I wanted to meet together with like-minded believers. I wanted my children to keep the habit of attending church every Sunday.

God is so faithful.

Sometimes, when your faith is challenged, your eyes are opened to things you would not have otherwise seen. Through some of the issues mentioned above, I became aware of others in my congregation who felt the same. We connected with a group of confessional Lutherans who had traveled the same path prior to our experiences. They reached out with love, encouragement, support, and especially the promises of God’s Word as we organized as an independent Lutheran congregation. Pastors of the group made commitments to fly in for weekends of Bible study, instruction, visitations, and services.

God’s goodness and faithfulness is overwhelming. Thank you, God, for Your infinite grace, and thank You for the pastors and members of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA).

“The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He makes me to lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside the still waters. He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; You anoint my head with oil; my cup runs over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.” Psalm 23 (NKJV)

WELS Makes it Official: All WELS congregations shall use NIV2011

If they intend to use the new hymnal, that is.
As pointed out by commenters earlier this week, in our post Washington Post Editorial: “The trick isn’t to make church cool; it’s to keep worship weird.”, by Dr. Jackson late yesterday on his blog, Ichabod, the Glory has Departed, and to me personally by concerned WELS laymen, the WELS Hymnal Project has standardized the new WELS hymnal on the NIV 2011. The Spring 2015 Director’s Update of the WELS Hymnal Project, issued May 10, 2015, by Project Director Michael Schultz, states this directly in the section entitled “Scripture Committee (SC)” – a committee of the Project chaired by Rev. Jonathan Schroeder – in the following words:

[T]he Scripture Committee drafted a translation rubric that was approved at the first meeting of the XC [“Translation Committee” – which is also the “Scripture Committee” according to this update] in September of 2013. Their rubric followed the eclectic choice method which was approved at the 2013 synod convention. The primary working translation of the project is NIV2011, with NIV1984 serving as the backup choice where there are weaknesses or deficiencies that require changes. Since the time that resolution was approved, it has been established that NIV1984 won’t be available as a backup choice, so the committee will be bringing an updated recommendation for a backup translation... The SC reviewed all scripture references or strong scriptural allusions in the CW line of products (not including psalms). Of just under 200 instances, it identified four instances where it recommended replacing NIV2011 with NIV1984. Similarly, the PC has compared both of the NIV translations of all CW/NSS/CWOS/CWS psalmody, marking those places where changes may be necessary.

For those readers wondering what the term “eclectic” might possibly mean when applied to a Synod publication project, the statistic presented here, in Schultz’ Spring Update, ought to make that clear. Firstly, “eclectic” means either NIV2011 or NIV1984. Period. Recall, however, that the NIV2011 was touted by the Translation Evaluation Committee (TEC) – not to be confused with the Translation Committee (XC) mentioned in the Update – as being “92% identical to the NIV1984”; so, one has every right ask “How ‘eclectic’ is it, really, to limit oneself to these two choices?” (and for more helpful statistics on NIV2011 vs NIV1984, look at the Slowley and Dyer links under the ISSUES WITH NIV 2011 resources in the right hand column).

But secondly, “eclectic” apparently requires that, if the balance is cited entirely from NIV2011, only four out of 200 “scriptural allusions” contained in a Synod publication need to be cited from NIV1984. Let’s see... if only (4 ÷ 200) x 100 = 2% of all “scriptural allusions” come from a non-NIV2011 source, even the same non-NIV2011 source, well then, the “threshold of eclecticism” has been reached, and thus also full compliance with the resolutions of Synod in Convention. Yes. Two Percent is, without a doubt, manifest eclecticism according to WELS publishers... And it is very consistent with the “eclectic choice method which was approved at the 2013 Synod convention” – which turned out to be only the first step toward eliminating choices other than NIV2011 altogether. Literally. Five percent is the general threshold of statistical significance. Two percent, however, isn’t statistically significant at all. In fact, it might just as well be zero.

Thus, for those congregations choosing to use the new hymnal (apparently estimated at around 95% of WELS congregations, according to the Update), there will be no way to avoid using “Today’s” NIV2011 as a basis of their worship, even if they want to.

To be fair, the Update didn’t exactly say that only four verses would be sourced from NIV1984 instead of NIV2011, it said that of the 200 verses used in the current hymnal, NIV2011 did such an unacceptable job translating four of them, that, out of the gate, they recommended a different translation be used in those specific cases. They are apparently ambivalent about the rest, so, perhaps, of the remaining 196 verses, maybe they will cite 50% from NIV1984 and 50% from NIV2011. Again, given that NIV1984 and NIV2011 are “92% identical,” how eclectic would a 50/50 split be, in reality?

The Missional Hymnal. It's already been done...

The Update also said that these numbers only accounted for “scriptural allusions” in the hymnal, and specifically excluded the Psalter. Now, this is something worth salivating over. Perhaps they are actively debating the return of the greatest poetry ever published in the English language to contemporary Lutheran hymnals? Perhaps they will shock the Lutheran world by actually rendering the Psalms in the memorable cadences and phraseology of the mighty King James Version? Now THAT would be eclectic, would it not? Perhaps... But, alas!, it shall never be. The Update, under the section entitled “Psalmody Committee (PC),” indicates that NIV1984 and NIV2011 are the only two versions they are inclined to consider for the Psalter:

[T]his review has included looking at all the differences between NIV2011 and NIV1984. Beyond that, the thinking of the Psalmody Committee has been shaped to the point that the members have come to a general consensus as far as their approach is concerned... The PC’s consensus is to [retain] the musically stronger refrains and tones and “[freshen] up” (tweaking or replacing) refrains and tones that have perhaps become tired or haven’t gained much traction.

At the same time, the Update, under the section entitled “Scripture Committee (SC),” suggests that a Psalter may not even be included with the new hymnal:

Something that has not been determined is how much of the scriptures will actually be published in connection with the hymnal project. If a complete Psalter is published... then all the psalms would be in play.

Finally, it should be noted (again, according to the Update), the publication of the new WELS hymnal is planned to roughly coincide with the 500^th Anniversary of the first Lutheran hymnal ever published – a collection of eight hymns, canticles and a Psalm, four of them by Luther – as some sort of commemoration, one would suppose. A hymnal based on a gender-inclusive post-Modern translation of the Bible that cannot be quoted throughout because of its apparent deficiencies. A hymnal that may or may not include a Psalter. A hymnal that will include who knows what else... I guess the Lutheran world will just have to wait and see.

What do you do with a Certified Letter? Here is one idea...

Certified Letter to Faith Church

The following letter was sent, Certified Mail, in response to the receipt of a Certified Letter from a Lutheran Congregation. While such letters are an official way for a congregation to terminate relationships with individuals and families they are releasing from membership, and an entirely appropriate form of rebuke when an estranged member cuts himself off from the congregation and refuses to respond to their overtures of evangelical concern, they are nothing but a callous expedient for the congregation which makes no attempt whatsoever to reach out to its members (who up to that point were supposedly considered their brothers/sisters in Christ) or to otherwise contact the intended recipient ahead of time to determine with certainty what their situation is; thus, such Certified Letters belie the congregation’s evangelical confession. That is what happened to the family, below. So perturbed were they with this callous expedient, that they returned the Certified Letter, unopened, along with a personally handwritten letter of their own that extended nine full pages of legal-sized paper. They had much to say, which they found important enough to deliver to their former congregation via Certified Mail. It is worth reading. As many readers may find it difficult to read human handwriting, rather than posting images of the handwritten letter, it has been transcribed, below (edited, of course, for public consumption).

---

Lxxxxx
1234 Anystreet Road
Nowhere, WI 54000

Faith Church
5678 Anyotherstreet Road
Next to Nowhere, WI 54000

To Whom It May Concern:

We received a piece of certified mail from you, postmarked March 11, 2015. We are returning it to you, unopened. We have very little interest in hearing what you may have to say in such a letter, that you could not preface with a demonstration of evangelical concern, or even basic courtesy, by making a simple phone call or sending an email. But, to be honest, it would have been difficult for us to imagine that you would have done otherwise.

At one point in time we were considered by the members of Faith Church to be Christian brothers. At least, we are pretty sure that we were. Feeling welcomed when we first joined, we were immediately drawn by them into the ministry of the congregation and put to work, and labouring closely with them, had established what we had considered to be close and meaningful relationships. This all came to an end after nearly seven years, when, in mid-2007, without explanation, we were shunned by the congregation. It was difficult to discern precisely, at first, as Mr. Lxxxxx was heavily involved with Church leadership, and was in constant communication with many of those who are now counted as our former friends. But by the end of 2007, his final year in any leadership capacity at Faith Church, it had become clear that the only communication being initiated by those “friends” was strictly related to church business. Beginning in 2008, the reality was unmistakable. Not just a few people, but everyone, including the Pastor, remained mysteriously aloof. He waited week after week for his friends to initiate with him some form of personal conversation. Weeks turned into months. Months turned into years. Nothing. All the while, the women of the congregation pretended to carry on as normal with Mrs. Lxxxxx, but she saw very clearly what was going on, and refusing to be socially separated by them from her husband, remained by his side. She was quickly disfavored, as well. By the time Pastor Sxxxxxxxx passed away in 2009, those former friendships were regarded by us as completely severed. As the years continued to pass, however, we once again began to enjoy some social involvement in the congregation, as other marginalized members of Faith Church recognized our situation and reached out to us in various ways. We also enjoyed conversation with new members, who had not yet been fully received into the labours of the congregation.

Accordingly, Mr. Lxxxxx’s last face-to-face meeting with the Rev. Wxxxx was unfortunate, but predictable. Having had to travel for work, he was unable to attend the October 2013 Voters’ Meeting, but discovered some weeks afterward – quite by accident – that there was some concern regarding the issue of Bible translations, and that the Board of Elders had been asked by the congregation to look into it. There was no hint that this was intended as any kind of formal investigation. Nevertheless, having himself been rather notoriously engaged in research and writing on the topic, he forwarded to the Rev. Wxxxx a number of articles and resources for the Board to consider. When, at the following Voters’ Meeting in January 2014, Mr. Lxxxxx was surprised to see that the issue of Bible translations was on the agenda, he enquired of the Rev. Wxxxx regarding the nature of the Elders’ report – as he was again unable to to attend due to business travel. He was stunned to learn that the Elders would not only be reporting their findings, but would move to officially adopt the NIV 2011. “Did the Board study any of the documents I forwarded to you, for them to consider?” he asked the Reverend.

“What documents?” was the reply.

Mr. Lxxxxx, realizing that he had been marginalized yet again, then clarified, “The documents and links I sent to you in an email not long ago.”

“Oh,” then after a long pause, “No. We only considered the documentation provided by Synod.”

“But that documentation was biased in favor of a single conclusion!”

“Yes, I know it was biased. It was biased on its face. But I don’t know why it was biased...”

Now incredulous, Mr. Lxxxxx proceeded to make clear, in sharp and conclusive terms, that he would allow neither himself nor his family to knowingly sit under teaching that proceeded from a document descending directly from post-Modern philosophies known to be perverting human language, and, along with it, human thought patterns; a document which is nothing more than the translators’ paraphrasing of the original languages (paraphrasing which is further edited downstream in the publication process by “readability committees”); a document which deliberately twists thousands of words of Scripture in ways that purposely accommodates liberal theology (feminism, in particular); and a document which, rather than clarifying the Scriptures for English readers, ultimately obscures their meaning by intentionally gutting the Bible of significant vocabulary and grammatical forms found in the original languages – that do have English parallels, if translators care to take into consideration not just the limits of “conversational English,” but the full capacity of the English language to carry objective meaning – making it ever more difficult for the English reader to find and rely on “direct positive statements of Scripture,” and thus also statements that are, by definition, clear. Such translation ideologies gravely endanger the Perspicuity of Scripture in the name of making it accessible for the marginally literate English reader, they threaten to drive the laity of the Church ever deeper into a general illiteracy and intellectual incapacity such as was common in medieval times, and they certainly ought not be vaunted in Christ’s Church as the standard English form of Holy Writ in all teaching and publications.

Nevertheless, Faith Church proceeded to officially adopt the NIV 2011 as the congregation’s translation.

This was not the reason we left Faith Church and the WELS, however; it was merely the straw that broke the camels back.

A few months prior, we were warned by the Rev. Wxxxx to “prepare” our sixth grade boy, who had just entered Catechism, for a discussion of the Sixth Commandment. Finding it a bit ridiculous to rush him through “sex-ed” just to prepare him for Catechism class, we refused to go to such lengths, insisting that such matters need to be handled delicately with children his age, that discussion of sexual activity in any direct terms would be entirely out of bounds, and that there is very little basis for understanding the Sixth Commandment anyway, without a thorough positive grounding in biblical courtship and marriage – deviation from which would itself serve as a glaring example of something that is sinful.

Then we read the catechism that would be used by the Reverend to instruct our young boy, which was written by one Rev. David Kuske. In comparison with the catechism resources we afterward recommended he use instead for the Sixth Commandment lesson (Gausewitz or Koehler), Kuske goes into excessively lurid detail of sexual intercourse, including what kind of sex to have, when to have it, and how enjoyable it should be. The Rev. Wxxxx forcefully rejected use of the alternative resources we suggested (which were, in our opinion, better by orders of magnitude, without all of the direct sex-talk and associated imagery), and when we opted to keep our son home rather than attend his lesson, were indirectly criticized by him for our parenting decisions. In retrospect, given all of the sexual scandals in WELS that have been made public over the past year, and the many more that are roiling just under the surface, we wonder now whether Kuske’s catechism might have something to do with it – whether, in our over-sexed day and age, introducing direct sex-talk with sixth-grade boys and girls is a bit premature for these youngsters, and puts images in their minds that they might otherwise be inclined to struggle against, had their pastor not been the one who put them there using Synod materials that carry the approval of the Church. Given this, it is no wonder the current generation of WELS theologians prefers the NIV 2011’s use of the phrases “make love” (Ge. 4:1,17,25; 29:21,23,30; 38:2; Ru. 4:13; 1 Sa. 1:19; 2 Sa. 11:11; 12:24; 1 Ch. 2:21; 7:23; Is. 8:3; etc.) and “have sex” (Ge. 19:5; Jud. 19:22; 1 Co. 6:9) – phrases and imagery thought in previous generations to be far too indelicate to implant in the minds of pious Christians, who were probably also averse to using such terms for fear that they would indirectly reinforce immoral standards cherished by the world and ignite fleshly desires, against which Christians already struggle.

About a month after Mr. Lxxxxx’s final face-to-face conversation with the Rev. Wxxxx, he was called by the Reverend on the telephone. Mr. Lxxxxx made clear that he meant what he had said in January, and that we were looking for another congregation. He told him that we were, at that time, investigating other WELS congregations, along with LCMS congregations. The Reverend assured him that we remained members in good standing, that if we found a suitable WELS congregation he would be glad to transfer us, and if not, then we would be simply released from membership. We never heard from him again. In all of this time, we were contacted by no one from the congregation out of evangelical concern, or even curiosity, over our extended absence, save one person. We received from the congregation what we had come to expect since 2008: near deafening silence.

We quickly found that there were no suitable WELS congregations within reasonable traveling distance. In the end, we found that among those WELS congregations which seemed intent upon demonstrating their Confession through a wholesome liturgical practice, seemed uncorrupted by ambitions of glory, seemed unwilling to give place to worldly entertainment standards in their worship chambers, seemed confident in the Holy Spirit’s work through the Means of Grace to Call, Gather and Enlighten His Elect, and seemed content to allow Him to work in His way, through His Means, in His time, unaugmented by their own innovations, Faith Church was to be most commended in regard to its NIV 2011 deliberations: where Faith Church actually had the courage to at least publicly identify “Bible translation” as an issue, and to go through the motions of publicly addressing that issue (although, with a predetermined outcome, given that a single source of admittedly biased materials was all that they consulted), all of the other WELS congregations we visited simply started using the NIV 2011 without discussion, without the people even knowing it – when we asked, we learned that the new Bibles just showed up in the pews one Sunday, and no one knew the difference. We could not abide such cowardice.

Of all the other options in our area, there was one ELS congregation and two LCMS congregations that were in many ways very suitable. But we ultimately decided that we were unwilling to dance around the issue of Universal Justification, merely for the convenience of attending those congregations.

“Universal Justification” is the teaching espoused by name in the WELS, and with one name or another by ELS and LCMS, as the centerpiece of Christian teaching – the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. It asserts that all mankind, including every individual, is righteous before God, and forgiven of his sins, whether he has faith or not. The natural, and fully accepted and confessed, consequence of this teaching is that those who die without faith, though they are righteous and forgiven by God, nevertheless spend an eternity barking in hell – not as punishment for their sins (since no one bears sin before God under the teaching of Universal Justification), but merely for their lack of faith. Thus they are willing to accept the teaching that righteous and forgiven saints spend an eternity in hell. The doctrine of Universal Justification, however, is nowhere named, described, or articulated in the Scriptures. It is a purely derived doctrine, without a single word of direct positive attestation in the entirety of Holy Writ.

In all, however, according to the Rev. Dr. Siegbert Becker in his essay Universal Justification, there are a total of three distinct doctrines of Justification taught by WELS. The first is Universal Justification. The second distinct doctrine of Justification, which is merely a corollary of Universal Justification, is “Objective Justification.” It teaches that God, and not man, is entirely responsible for man’s Justification. Such a teaching is not peculiar to WELS, or to Lutherans for that matter; for even the Calvinists do not deny that Justification is objective in this sense. However, WELS, ELS and LCMS seem to assert that Objective Justification also defines “faith” as “man’s work”, and therefore insist that claiming Justification comes by faith is thus to assert a doctrine of synergism. Normally, Universal and Objective Justification are conflated by them, and referred to as “Universal Objective Justification,” but, Becker makes clear, they are, in fact, distinct doctrines, with Objective Justification merely a happy consequence of Universal Justification.

The third distinct doctrine of Justification espoused by the old Synodical Conference Lutherans is so-called “Subjective Justification” – the only doctrine of Justification spoken of and articulated in the Scriptures, and the doctrine identified in the Lutheran Confessions as the main doctrine of Christianity. Except, the Scriptures don’t name it “Subjective Justification”; the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions refer to this doctrine interchangeably as “Justification” and “Justification by Faith Alone.” According to WELS, “Subjective Justification” is entirely superfluous. All of mankind is already righteous and forgiven before God (they say); Justification does NOT come though faith, since that is man’s work, and to suggest that faith is in any way the cause of Justification (even an “instrumental cause”, as it was defined by Leyser and Gerhard) only robs God of the glory He is due for the work He has already accomplished. Subjective Justification (they say), isn’t “Justification” at all, properly speaking – it’s merely “the reception of faith,” and with it merely “receiving the benefit” of the righteous and forgiven standing they, and all men, have had in the eyes of God since the time of Christ’s death and resurrection. Prior to faith (they say), all of mankind is already Justified – fully righteous and forgiven before God – but individuals are denied “enjoyment” of this Justification until God gives them faith.

According to the Bible and the Confessions, however, “Justification by Faith Alone” is the only doctrine of Justification that is taught; mankind (including every individual) is NOT already Justified before God, he is already Condemned; the unbeliever is NOT already righteous and forgiven before God, but stands before God in the filth of his own sin, in need of righteousness and forgiveness; this Justification was earned by Christ in His Passion, and is now offered to mankind in the Message of the Gospel, via which the Holy Spirit works to produce faith; and a person is said to be Justified when the promise of Salvation has been appropriated to himself through the faith God gives him, and not before.

Frankly, it was a shock to us to learn that WELS, ELS and (it seems) LCMS all believe, teach and confess a doctrine of Universal Justification. This fact was withheld from us during Bible Information Class (adult catechism). The fact is:

• We reject the doctrine of Universal Justification as without a scintilla of Scriptural or Confessional support;
• We reject as Scripturally unfounded and as entirely fallacious reasoning the assertion that Justification must be Universal in order for it to be objective, or to be accomplished entirely outside of man;
• We, rather, fully embrace and confess the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone;
• We, further, confess and insist that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification taught by the Scriptures in direct positive terms, and that it is therefore the only Scripturally defensible doctrine of Justification that Christians may confess;
• We fully reject the assertion that faith is in any way man’s work (the Scriptures directly forbid this notion), and we therefore reject the assertion that Justification by Faith Alone is a doctrine of synergism;
• We reject the assertion that “Objective Justification” is a doctrine of Scripture which is taught in distinction from Justification by Faith Alone, and find it impermissible to define “Objective Justification” as any kind of justification at all;
• We, rather, confess that the objectivity of Justification is a defining attribute of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, and insist that Justification by Faith Alone does, indeed, constitute a fully objective Justification – that is, our Justification is accomplished fully outside of us, without any merit or participation of our own in any sense;
• We confess with confidence and rejoicing that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit;
• We reject as flippant hyperbole the assertion that saving faith, under the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, is reduced to merely “a profound hope that man conjures within himself”;
• We further confess in this regard, that it is fully biblical to speak of faith being active (i.e., receiving, appropriating, trusting, etc.), without it also being considered volitional and thus synergistic;
• We recognize that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification confessed in the Lutheran Confessions, and was the only doctrine of Justification directly named and taught by the orthodox Confessors and Concordists;
• We further recognize that a form of Universal Justification was asserted by a heterodox member of the Wittenberg Faculty, a teacher whose doctrine was roundly condemned by his orthodox peers, and who was dismissed in 1595 for clinging to his false doctrine – for denying that Justification is restricted to believers;
• We therefore reject as unfounded fiction and utterly preposterous all claims that Universal Justification is “implicitly taught in the Lutheran Confessions,” that it was understood, embraced and taught by the Confessors and Concordists without ever being named or articulated by them, and that it must therefore bind the consciences of any Christian today who would lay claim to an orthodox confession;
• We recognize the introduction of Universal Justification and its corollary teachings in American Lutheranism, as a biblically indefensible innovation of the old Synodical Conference.

Putting the best construction on our experiences, and despite any appearances that might cause some to conclude otherwise, we assume, Faith Church, that you are, in fact, possessed of great evangelical concern over our plight, and though, over the course of a full year, you exerted no effort to find out from us directly, we also assume that you are nevertheless deeply interested to know how we fare today.

We have found a Lutheran congregation. It is a congregation affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). Of this congregation, we are happy to say:

• They are confessional – that is, they understand the dire need for a clear Christian confession in a sinful world where otherwise well-meaning believers, as victims of sin’s corruption, everywhere misunderstand and pervert the Scripture’s teaching;
• They fully subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions, as articulated in the Christian Book of Concord, not insofar as they are a correct presentation and exposition of the pure doctrine of the Word of God, but boldly confessing before the world and other Christians, that they are so;
  
  in particular:
  
  
  • They positively reject the doctrine of Universal Justification, and instead, believe, teach and confess the single Scriptural and Confessional doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone – the very doctrine for which Luther and his fellow confessors struggled so mightily, risking their lives that it would be preserved to the Church for the eternal benefit of mankind;
  • They do not confuse laity with clergy – that is, laymen are NOT considered Ministers of the Word, and are NOT tasked with carrying out the functions of the pastoral Office;
  • They fully trust the Holy Spirit to work through His appointed Means, and being confident in the efficacy of those Means and content with His timing, do not feel compelled to augment His work with their own innovations;
  • Not merely mouthing the words of their confession, they endeavor to make manifest this confession, maintaining in the Divine Service a wholesome liturgical practice that unmistakably demonstrates Lutheran catholicity, rather than supplanting it with the obnoxious sectarian practices of pop-church evangelicalism.
  
  
• They are conservative – that is, rather than dispose of their Lutheran birthright (which, in order to keep it, requires much honour, trust, patience and a keen awareness of the past) for an immediately satisfying bowl of sectarian and worldly porridge (which, if it satisfies at all, does so merely for the moment, soon afterward requiring the satiation of new and different cravings), they endeavor to carry into the future that great deposit of wisdom wrought of Christian experience over the millenia. Thus they endeavor to conserve the past, rather than discard it as quaint, passé and irrelevant in favor of the wisdom of the day;
  
  in particular:
  
  
  • They reject (as far as we can tell) the post-Modern philosophies of contemporary times, which represent a full frontal attack on the very morality of language itself, mightily threatening the Church, not by changing the words She confesses before the world, but by dramatically altering that Confession in place – altering the meaning of Her Confession by altering the structures of language employed to express it;
  • They have chosen to use and promote a wholesome translation of the Scriptures which not just theoretically, but manifestly honours the doctrine of inspiration, retaining in English as much as practicable, both the grammatical forms and the vocabulary found in the Greek and Hebrew originals, and which honours the tradition of English ecclesiastical thought and expression by maintaining continuity with the English translation Received by English speaking peoples over 400 years ago as the Bible in English, and that continues to this day as a dominant Bible translation preferred by English speakers;
  • They hold that it is wise practice for the Church to maintain a sharp distinction from the world in Her practice, including the use of terminology in their catechesis and during the Divine Service, which maintains a continuity with the past and which reinforces the “other worldly” reality of the believer’s citizenship in the Kingdom of Grace.

And to top it all off:

• They – like Lutherans across the globe (in our experience) – are just plain nice folks.

Unfortunately, this congregation, being a two-hour drive for us, is not very conveniently located. We are not able to attend weekly, as we would like, but endeavor to attend at least twice monthly. When we are unable to attend, however, we do take time to worship as a family in our home, following a modified form of “The Order of Morning Service” from The Lutheran Hymnal (pg. 5), and reading from Luther’s Postils for the Sermon. This works very nicely.

If the truth be told, however, we started this practice of home worship years before finally leaving the WELS. We began to notice that there was a consistent dearth of Law in the preaching and teaching, not only of Faith Church, but in every WELS church we visited. The emphasis on the Gospel was so smothering that the Law, if present at all, was virtually indiscernible. While both of us had grown up within pop-church Evanglicalism and among confessing Pietists, were fully acquainted with the Law, and personally found Law-less Gospel preaching a sufficient (and welcome) balance to the smotheringly Gospel-less Law preaching we had been reared with, the impact on our children, who, over a decade had only become familiar with the Gospel, was unmistakably negative. Having literally no acquaintance with the Law, they failed to place any real significance on the Gospel, taking for granted that they were already forgiven and righteous regardless of what they do, as if they were entitled to it. The result was behaviour issues of various kinds, a general disregard for God’s Word, and a failure to respond to correction which was drawn from it. We appealed at various times to our WELS pastors for more Law in their preaching, so that there would be a more discernible balance between Law and Gospel, but when our requests were dismissed – sometimes with ridicule for being “lovers of the Law” – we realized that there would be no changing their nearly Law-less Gospel preaching. Mrs. Lxxxxx had finally grown so fed up with the fact that our children had not imbibed the Law in any significant way from our association with WELS, that she began taking them through the Book of Proverbs every month, and visiting with them other sections of the Bible that emphasize Law – like the Book of James. This had quite an impact. As the the older children would read the Proverbs, they would stop, read it again, gulp, and say things like, “Oh, boy...” They had no idea. At one point, Mrs. Lxxxxx even suggested, somewhat facetiously, that we leave Lutheranism entirely, and go back to Pietism, just so that our children could be acquainted with the Law through the teaching of the Church, and finally come to appreciate the Gospel. Needless to say, that is not what we did. Instead, we started reading Luther’s sermons for semi-regular family worship, in place of attending Faith Church every Sunday. Luther is very direct in his preaching of the Law, and equally so in his preaching of the Gospel, nearly every sermon being very well balanced between the two. It is unlike any preaching we had heard over the past four decades, including the last fifteen years of association with WELS. Acquaintance with the Law has helped with discipline in the home, too, and improved our family’s appreciation for the Gospel.

Finally – you may be interested to know – there is informal, though very serious, discussion of opening a Lutheran mission congregation in our area (River Falls, Hudson, New Richmond, Baldwin, etc.), of confessional and conservative character similar to the congregation in which we currently enjoy membership. The intent would be to use our family, and perhaps other interested individuals, to seed this mission. Efforts are underway, now, to investigate possible meeting places.

Ta Ta for Now,

Lxxxxx

“I need a poor person in my life, so that I can grow in holiness...” --AND-- A Nice Story about the Efficacy of the Word from an Historic Lutheran Source

Frequent Travel and Christian Radio in Wisconsin
In contrast to the past four or five years, which had me working with clients primarily from my home office, these days are filled with a great deal of travel – I put nearly one thousand miles on my car, per week, mostly between Chicago and Minneapolis. To keep me company during my travels, I do have an iPod filled with the finest music, and with many edifying podcasts, lectures and readings from important Christian works (like the Bible, of course, and the Book of Concord). However, use of this type of gadgetry seems to be more of a distraction and frustration for me while I am trying to focus on driving, so I find myself doing what I learned to do before the advent of Satellite Radio, iPods and even CDs: flipping through radio stations. With only one button required to advance to the next station, it is easy to do and there is very little to think about while doing it; and if I rest my hand on the shifter (as I often do), that button is within the lazy reach of my index finger.

And, of course, there is alot of variety on the radio between Minneapolis and Chicago. There is always plenty of pop, rock and country of various flavors, most of which I can hardly tolerate for more than a few minutes at a time (although there is a local station in the Black River Falls area that plays old Country Western and Polka music as I am passing through at about 4am – that’s kind of fun to listen to). Unfortunately, there is a great gaping hole in Wisconsin, between Eau Claire and Madison, with no radio stations dedicated to Classical Music programming. However, one can travel virtually the whole distance with continuous Christian programming of one kind or another. From Minneapolis to Eau Claire, and picking up again in Madison, there are the Evangelical stations – strategically placed, of course, as with their suburban church-plants, to reach out to a target audience with the highest numbers of wealthy middle-to-upper class listeners – while between Eau Claire and Madison, there are at least a couple of Fundamentalist stations.

Fundamentalist Radio
I like listening to these latter stations, as the music tends to be far more tasteful and reverent (even if it is Baptist), and the preaching is nearly always from the King James Version of the Bible. In fact, the language of the KJV falls so naturally from the experienced lips of these Fundamentalist preachers, that one hardly recognizes that it is Elizabethan language they are using. Contrary to what our post-Modern NNIV defenders would require us to think, it’s not those Pastors who habitually use the KJV that have a problem reading and using it in public, it’s the dunderheads with limited literary exposure who stumble and bumble over fine language as something completely foreign to them, and so torture themselves and others in their public use of it as to draw negative attention to the Word of God. I remember thinking this many years ago, as my then-future-wife and I were investigating the peculiarities of the various Christian confessions, and found ourselves visiting Fundamentalist churches for awhile. While we found ourselves “fundamentally disagreeing” with many of their doctrinal positions, we were delighted by their use of English, and their effortless and very natural use of the King James Version of the Bible in their preaching.

Where are the Lutherans?
I’ve found myself re-appreciating the sound of the King James as I’ve listened to these radio preachers over the past months make use of it in such a natural way that I don't even realize that “Nobody talks that way anymore.” There is no occasion to realize it, since, despite the fact that such words are not part of vulgar everyday-parlance, they are nevertheless simple, very easily understood English words. One preacher that seems to be on the radio as I am normally passing into the signal of that particular station, is Dr. J. Vernon McGee. It is always nice to hear a pious Christian speak directly from the text of the Bible in a way which makes it plain that he has the utmost respect for the inspiration, authority and perspicuity of God’s Word, and rather than suggest, through use of clever syllogisms or analogies, that the Bible is inadequate or unclear by preaching what it does not plainly say, merely relies on the text in front of him. In this respect, McGee’s Through the Bible series, though far from perfect, is alot of fun to listen to. He’s not trying to make the Bible sound or speak any differently than how it plainly reads. And so it had me wondering, “Confessional Lutherans, with all of the lip service they pay to the importance of the Word of God, and their utmost reliance upon it, surely must have produced a ‘Through the Bible’ audio commentary series, much like McGee did, for use on Lutheran radio.” So I looked. Not only have I not found any such thing produced by Lutherans in a wholesome Bible translation like the KJV, NKJV or even the NASB, I couldn’t even find any such thing in the wretched NIV.

Of course, maybe it is actually because Lutherans have done market studies and SWOT analyses and, calculating the ROI of such an effort, reasoned that the return on broadcasting the Bible simply wouldn’t justify the expense. How could it? In a route traveled along interstates and major state highways, cutting a path from Minneapolis, between Madison and Milwaukee, and into northern Illinois – the “Trail through the Lutheran Fatherland of the mid-western United States” if there ever was one – not a single Lutheran voice can be heard on the radio in any segment of the route. Not a one. Of course, I may be mistaken. Maybe one of the “Evangelical” stations I usually skip past is actually a Lutheran station, but I just don’t recognize it as Lutheran based on its programming. Yes, that’s entirely possible.

Roman Radio
But there is another category of Christian radio which can be heard, nearly continuously, from Eau Claire to Chicago – which brings me to the quote in the title of today’s post: Catholic radio. It’s everywhere. It’s as proliferate as all of the protestant stations combined, and it isn’t weak-kneed, bland, “ecumenical,” soft-peddling-the-message-to-win-converts programming. It’s full-throated high-church, even creepy at times, Roman Catholicism. Most often, I find myself listening to one of these stations. Why? Because they have the best music, for starters. It’s the only source of classical music from Eau Claire to Madison, and they also frequently play hymns and even allow the organ to be heard over the airwaves (Baptists and Evangelicals don’t use organs). They also have the most interesting commentators. Nearly always very conservative, they feature keenly insightful political pundits and intelligent scholars. Interestingly, one of the programs dedicated to disaffected Catholics who have wandered through Protestantism and are now returning to Rome, frequently features laymen and clergymen who have returned to Rome and speak the language of Evangelicalism and of Rome very well. This is in contrast to Roman priests, who’ve always been nothing but Roman priests, who think they understand Evangelicalism and venture to lecture or even merely question these (former) Evangelicals on Evangelicalism: they have no idea what they are talking about, and are usually called to account and corrected by the laymen and clergymen who know better.

One program I heard last week featured the quote in the title of today’s post: “I need a poor person in my life, so that I can grow in holiness.” The priest who said it was quoting a Cardinal, who offered this as an explanation to the priest after returning to the dinner table following an interruption from a beggar who routinely visited asking for handouts. “Why do you always give this man money?” the priest had asked.

As I heard the answer I thought, “What? Poor people are for the use of the clergy to gain merit in their own minds before God and/or man?” As I was thinking this, the priest, practically swooning with admiration for the Cardinal, commented further, “But you have to be a Valliscaulian to truly understand and appreciate his wisdom here” (Hmmm... contextual theology again. Well, I’m not a “Valliscaulian,” thank you, so I’ll take his words as they stand). His fellow commentator, a nun, let a little air out of his bag, however, when she replied, “Only if you love the poor can they forgive you your gifts to them.”

Again, I thought, “What?”, and was immediately joined by the priest, who asked, “Uh, what? Can you repeat that please?”, which request the nun obliged, adding (and I paraphrase): “The Right to Food is a Natural Right, all of humanity is entitled to food. If the rich have it in abundance, they are obligated to give it to the poor. It is the Right of the poor to have food, so it is a sin to withhold it from them. And it is a sin for anyone to think of their obligation to give as merely a gift that they voluntarily give. But if given in true love and concern for the poor, and no other motivation, the poor can, and should, forgive them this sin.”

There is a need for Lutheran Radio in the Midwest
This exchange brought to mind a story I had recently read in an old edition of the Lutheran Witness. It is a story about the efficacy of the Word, and its simple, yet central message of the forgiveness of sins and peace with God. Offered in the manner and language in which the old Lutherans used to speak, it is a reminder of the need for the Lutheran message, the true simple message of the Scriptures, to once again be heard.

---

The Story of a Bible.
from The Lutheran Witness, Vol. 6, No. 6. August 21, 1887

      “Did he leave any message for me?”
      “Yes, and he cursed the day he ever saw you.”
      This was the answer given by a nun to a lady in London under the following circumstances, which were related to me by a gentleman of culture and piety, as we were sailing along the coast of Norway, from Trowdhjem to Bergen, in and out among the beautiful fjords and snow-capped mountains: Monsignor Capel was asked by a lady of position in London, “How can I find peace of mind?” Instead of pointing her to Christ and telling her that He atoned for our sins on the cross, he bade her dismiss such unwelcome thoughts and attend places of amusement. One day she followed a crowd of people into Exeter Hall, expecting to have her mind diverted from serious thoughts about the future by a musical entertainment. She was surprised when she found herself in a great religious meeting. Annoyed at this, she attempted to get out, but in doing so she knocked some umbrellas on to the floor, and abashed took her seat. Her attention was soon riveted upon the speaker. He explained our relation to God, as under condemnation already, and spoke of Christ’s suffering on the cross as an atoning sacrifice, of God’s willingness, for His sake, to pardon us. She was deeply moved, and at the close she said to some one near her. “Can I speak to the gentleman who has just addressed us?”
      Soon after, in conversation with her, he said: “You will find the truth which I have mentioned often repeated in the Bible.”
      “But I have no Bible,” she replied.
      He quickly handed her his own, saying: “I have pleasure in giving you mine.”
      Some time after this the high Catholic dignitary, remembering the advice he had given this lady, sent the priest to inquire about the state of her mind. Instead of needing his help he soon found that she was able to direct him in the way of life. Before leaving she gave him the Bible that had been given her at Exeter Hall, and begged him to read it with prayer, and to trust alone in Him who “bore our sins in His own body on the tree.” Some time after she received a note from the priest asking her to call upon him. As she was about to take her son to Eton College, she did not accept the invitation at the time.
      When she called some weeks after, she was shown into a room where there was a coffin, and in it the body of the priest. Beside it a nun was kneeling in prayer. The lady approached and asked: “Did he leave any message for me?”
      “Yes,” was the reply. “He wished me to say, if you called, that he died in the full faith of the Catholic Church, and that he cursed the day he ever saw you.” The poor lady turned away, greatly distressed, saying to herself: “If I had gone to his bedside when he sent for me, I might have pointed him to Christ, and he might have been saved through faith in Him, and now, alas! it is too late, I fear through my negligence he is lost forever;” This reflection produced such an effect upon her that it destroyed her peace of mind, which she sought to overcome by foreign travel. One day in Rome a lady approached her and said: “Do you remember standing by the coffin of Father -—-—, and the dreadful message delivered to you?”
      “Yes,” she replied, “and it has followed me night and day.”
      “But it was not a true message. The words he bade me deliver to you were these: ‘Tell her that I bless the day I ever saw her, and that I die in the full faith of Jesus Christ. Tell her that the Bible she gave me was the means of leading me to trust alone in Him for pardon. Tell her I shall meet her in heaven.’ And then,” added the nun, “he gave me that precious Bible, which has also been the means of leading me to see myself as a lost sinner and Christ as my only Saviour. Will you forgive me for telling that falsehood?”

      Dear reader, are you a Christian? If so, may the recital of these facts strengthen your faith in the promise of God, “My word shall not return to me void,” and lead you with more faith and determination to assist in putting the Bible into every sinner’s hand. If you are not a Christian, I pray that these striking incidents may lead you to feel your need of Jesus, and that you can never have lasting peace and joy till you come as a lost soul and believe in Him. He has suffered that dreadful death on the cross in your stead that you might be forgiven and fitted for heaven. Will you confess your sins, and believe in Him? “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:6). You see how he saved this lady, this priest and the nun. He is willing to save you.