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

Heralding the Gospel: The Evangelical Function of the Church Steeple

NOTE: The following article was originally published in May 2010 on the blog, The Finkelsteinery. It is reproduced here by permission, with only minor revision.

---

The Steeple and the Cross
The church steeple is that part of the Romanesque and Gothic church architectures which include the tower – often housing bells for announcing

Cathédrale Notre-Dame-de-Strasbourg Strasbourg, France

Located at the center of European commerce, from 1647-1874 the Strasbourg Cathedral was the tallest structure in the world (466 feet). Lutheran during the Reformation, it alternated between Roman and Lutheran control as the Alsace was exchanged by successive military conquest between France and Germany. One can see how high the steeple rose above the city-scape in the this 19th Century color image: 19th Century Strasbourg city-sccape

Liturgical Hours, the Divine Service, and various other aspects of church life to the countryside – atop of which was often mounted the spire. In congregations not suffering from the poison of iconoclasm, the spire would support a large Cross, visible from the ground and all over the countryside. Here is a technical description from one of my favorite authors, Dr. P.E. Kretzmann:

A tower should never be omitted in building a Lutheran church. And if this is crowned with a spire, the symbolism of which has always been recognized, the effect will be all the greater. There is a certain factor of incompleteness about a mere tower, even if surmounted by slender turrets, which somehow renders it incongruous. The battlemented towers of many churches with Norman characteristics remind one more strongly of a castle or of a fortress than of a church. A graceful spire rising from a strongly-built tower is always a pleasing, and often an inspiring sight. The tower will, of course, be an integral part of the church, although it will not be built flush with the facade, but stand out one-fourth to one-half its width. "The tower, as a sign and summons, stands properly over the chief entrance, at the west..." (Mothes, quoted in Horn, 112). ...In larger churches, two towers of equal height and identical construction are erected at the two western corners. If the work is properly done, the effect is most imposing. The cost, however, is an item which is apt to discourage many congregations, for towers and spires are very expensive. The entire tower must be buttressed very firmly, since in most cases it is intended to include the belfry and must bear the weight of the bells as well as that of the spire. The careful anchoring of the spire in the walls of the tower is an essential point, since the stress to which it is exposed, even in a mild wind, is one whose force is generally underestimated. The belfry of the tower, if it is to serve the purpose well, should be situated above the roof, in order that the sound of the pealing bell or bells may travel without hindrance in every direction. It is hardly necessary to add that the architecture of the tower must harmonize perfectly with that of the rest of the building. It will usually be a strong test of the architect's ability to plan the tower in such a way as to give it the appearance of an integral part of the church and also preserve its solidity and beauty.

The Cross of Christ and the Harvest of Souls
Who is it that Christ has sent us to harvest? Answer: those whom the Holy Spirit has prepared for harvest.

Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth. I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour; other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours (Jn. 4:35b-38).

Those who have laboured before us, making public use of God’s Word to communicate the Gospel’s message to “gather fruit unto life eternal,” have employed the Means through which the Holy Spirit has also begun the work of drawing the unregenerate unto Himself and into fellowship with other Christians in the Body of Christ – that is, in the Church.

Spring Creek Lutheran Church Clarkfield, MN

This old Norwegian Lutheran church, like many others on the Minnesota prarie, stood tall against the barren landscape for over a century, announcing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire countryside. Symbolic of the times we live in, the building was demolished a few years ago.

“He that reapeth” is merely “entering into the labours” of many Christians who have gone before, some whose use of Law & Gospel has served to plant, others whose use of Scripture has served to tend budding faith, until the soul has been fully prepared by the Holy Spirit for harvest. This does not mean that, in the evangelical task, some go planting, some go tending, and some go harvesting. No one knows, after all, where any given person is at in the Holy Spirit's calling and gathering process. Rather, all go harvesting, as these are the tools with which God has equipped us, but such use of the Means of Grace serves to plant and tend as well.

The Cross is the single perfect heraldic icon for the purpose of evangelism, for in the Cross is simultaneously the message of the Law – symbolizing the punishment of death and separation from God that we deserve on account of our sin – and the message of the Gospel – symbolizing Christ’s innocent suffering and death on our behalf and on behalf of all sinners. Mounted high atop the steeple spire for every eye to see and for every soul to consider – upon the highest point in the local landscape – the Cross is seen to cover all. Such a location is the perfect place from which to herald the cross of Christ. Just as the life and work of Jesus Christ was done on behalf of all, the Cross and its full meaning is for all. The repentant sinner, including the soul ready for harvest, is drawn to the Cross and entrance to the Church of Christ. Those who come to the cross, have been compelled to do so, drawn to it by the work of the Holy Spirit who has worked in them by Means of the Message of Good News. They are His work, through the simple message of Law & Gospel.

Over the years, the steeple and Cross has fallen out of favour, ridiculed for being passe, and it seems to me that the decline of Christianity in America has accompanied these opinions. Perhaps truly evangelical churches should once again consider returning the Cross of Christ to a place of prominence in America’s landscape? Using the building as a herald of the Gospel is good evangelical stewardship.



“Programs” in Place of the Cross: Harvesting Green Tomatoes?
Yet, these days, many people fret that the simple heraldic preaching of the Cross fails to produce a harvest of souls, fails to adequately “build the Church,” in their opinion. Assuming faithful and rightly divided preaching of the pure Word, why would this be the case?

Hohe Domkirche St. Petrus Cologne, Germany

The dual spires of the Cathedral in Cologne rise to 515 feet.

The answer has already been provided above, but is worth repeating: the souls to whom the message is preached in these cases are simply not ready for harvest. We are equipped with tools of harvest, to reap that which has been prepared by the working of the Holy Spirit. But, if such preaching fails to reap, then, is this preaching in vain? Hardly! Similar to Christ, in the words of John 3, above, Paul explains in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon (1 Co. 3:5-10).

At first glance, it may seem that St. Paul is using essentially the same analogy as Jesus, who was talking about the harvest of souls into the Church. But this is not so. Rather than the harvest of souls, rather than the Holy Spirit's work through the Means of Grace to bring the unregenerate into new life in Christ, St. Paul is here, speaking of the Church and her ministers. He does so using two figures: one, a field, and the other, a building. When St. Paul speaks of planting in this reference, he is referring to planting the Church at Corinth; such planting can be considered roughly equivalent to both sowing and reaping in the analogy used by Jesus in John 3, above. When St. Paul speaks of watering, it is referring to keeping the fruit after the harvest Christ spoke of in His analogy. One man plants, another waters, and God uses this labour to grant the increase. Jesus indicates likewise: one man sows, another reaps. The one who realizes numeric increase has no basis for pointing to something he has done – he has entered into the labour of many labourers who have preceded him, and together they rejoice in God’s work of increasing his Church, Who uses such labour merely as an instrument of the Means of Grace, through which God works to give, and keep, increase. The tools for planting and watering in the example of Paul are the same as they are for sowing and reaping in the analogy used by Jesus: faithful and rightly divided preaching of the pure Word. Indeed, recognition is deserved NOT for “success,” but for the “labour:” every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour

In this reference, however, it is interesting to note that St. Paul transitions from the picture of the minister as gardener, to the minister as builder.

Église Saint-Paul de Strasbourg Strasbourg, France

Originally Lutheran, the Church of St. Paul, was built as a Prussian military church during their last occupation of France. It was finished in 1897. The dual spires rise to 249 feet, and can be seen for quite some distance in the city Strasbourg.

Emphasizing in the first picture that those who come to faith and stay in faith are God’s work not man’s, he shifts in the second picture to give dire warning: how the minister participates in the work of God is no trivial matter. Paul continues:

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is in Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. (1 Co. 3:11-13)

When Christians get impatient with the Holy Spirit, lose trust in the Means of Grace, and begin to doubt the efficacy of the Word, they resort to laying a foundation other than that which is laid in the simple preaching of the Cross, other than the foundation laid in Jesus Christ. In their impatience for the Lord to prepare His harvest, and “grant them their wages,” they exclaim:

– Merely preaching the pure Word does not work!
– Merely telling the message of Law & Gospel to our neighbors does not work!
– Articulating and holding dogmatically to true Scripture teaching does not work!
– Maintaining an orderly, reverent, christocentric liturgy which shows forth the Marks of the Church and elevates the Means of Grace, doesn’t work!
– We must do something different!
– We must do something more!
– We must do something more exciting!
– We must do something more meaningful!
– We must do something more real, more relevant, and more relational!

And so these impetuous Christians busy themselves with laying a foundation other than Jesus Christ, as He is found in the faithful preaching of the pure Word in Law and Gospel. They really have no choice: those not prepared by the Holy Spirit for harvest will not be harvested by these reaper’s tools. To harvest souls not yet prepared for harvest, the reaper must use tools not given him by God for this purpose. He must use his own tools. He must lay a foundation other than Jesus Christ, alone. He must rely, not on the “foolishness of God,” but on the “wisdom of Man.” In doing so, he pick’s fruit otherwise not intended for harvest. He’s intent upon plucking Green Tomatoes. These unripened fruit don’t care about the preaching of the Cross or pure doctrine, nor would they respond to it; they respond to programs for the family and children. They are not drawn as a matter of conscience, by the Holy Spirit’s working, to the Church of Christ; they are drawn by titullating Sunday morning entertainment. The foundation laid by such approaches makes use of man’s tools: popular and common devices used by commercial enterprise to stimulate consumer patronage. But the structure built on this foundation does not look like the Church.¹


The Place of the Cross in Western Society
In a recent lecture I attended, the Rev. Dr. Frederic Baue (LCMS) commented rather poignantly (and I summarize from memory):

The monuments erected by man are an indication of his culture’s priorities.

Lecturing from aspects of his book², The Spiritual Society: What Lurks Beyond Postmodernism?, he was drawing from the recently “rediscovered” writings of Russian-American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin and highlighting the nature of cultural transition as they oscillate from Ideational to Sensate to Ideational modalities.

St. John Lutheran Church Popple Creek, WI

St. John Lutheran Church (WELS), Popple Creek, WI. Still heralding the Cross of Christ.

According to Sorokin, transitional periods between these modalities are marked by cultural upheaval of various sorts. For example, the First Advent of Christ occurred deep in the sensate Roman Era. As happens in Sensate cultures, over time, they become more sensate as they progress toward their demise, making way for Ideational change. With the fall of Rome, the Roman Era gave way to the Mediaeval Era – the most previous era of Ideational modality, an era dominated by Christian thought. Following this, the Renaissance – a “rebirth” of ancient cultural priorities – was a transitional period back to an era of Sensate modality, an era known as the Modern Era.³

The Rise and Fall of Modernism
Christian influence from the previous era dominating this transition and leaving the distinct mark of Christian thought upon the foundations of Modernism, the Visible church largely oversaw and was an influential participant and contributor to this cultural change; and in nearly every quarter her theology followed suit – with one peculiar exception: the Lutheran Reformation in Germany. While the Roman Church was the primary sponsor of the Renaissance transition, and the forward looking Swiss Reformation under Zwingli, Calvin, Beza and others was responsible for developing distinctly Modern theological systems, the Lutheran Church looked back⁴. The Lutheran Church preserved the teaching of the apostles, which teaching preceded and prepared for the rise of the Mediaeval Era. Resting in conscience, standing on Confession, embracing the mysteries of the Sacraments, the hypostatic union of natures in Christ, and the Holy Spirit’s work through the Means of Grace, the Lutheran Church, in her theology, remained distinctly Mediaeval, distinctly “Ideational,” and preserved this character over following generations, though in ever diminishing influence as the withering onslaught of heterodoxy and pragmatic political machinations worked against her. By the time of the Prussian Union and Evangelical mergers of the early 19^th Century, true confessional Lutheranism, and the mediaeval theological perspectives she preserved, had nearly been extinguished.

The late 19^th Century, however marked the beginning of a transition to a New Ideational Era – and the beginning of the end of Modernism. We see this in the dramatic changes that occurred in the arts, and in political ideology beginning at about this time.

St. John Lutheran Church Hermansfort, WI

The Golden Steeple of St. John Lutheran Church (LCMS), Hermansfort, WI. Drawing all eyes to the Cross of Christ.

We see this in the political and social upheaval that resulted and intensified into the 20^th Century, and in the increasing diffusion of academic focus through this time. The Holocost, while horrifying solely for the sake of the peoples involved, was particularly galvanizing for a larger reason, also: it permanently extinguished any optimism for Modernism, and marked the end of the Modern Era.

We see the result of this upheaval in greater Christianity today. As Christian perspectives based on Modernistic, “sensate-oriented” cultural modalities slink into irrelevancy, we witness among them the marks of flailing confusion. Modern Evangelicalism is one example. The pragmatic clarion call of the pop-church Evangelical, “We must be Real, Relevant, and Relational,” is incoherent nonsense when placed next to the clear teachings of Scripture, and is itself a recipe for failure. And fail it has. Barna Research – a Christian research firm formerly dedicated to the theories of the Church Growth Movement (CGM), whose mission it was to provide Evangelicals with marketing data and analysis to assist congregations in their implementation of CGM – declared in 2005, after a string of very shrill warnings regarding the demise of the American Church over previous years, that the theories of the Church Growth Movement are a statistical failure. Having invested over $500 billion dollars implementing the methods of CGM over the course of 30 years, no evidence of growth was discernible in American Christianity. None. Denominational shift is all that can be observed or attributed to these methods. In an effort to understand and pragmatically react to cultural change, Modernistic Christians, still stuck in the previous cultural era, reveal that they are oblivious to the real and monumental changes that have occurred in the past century, and are continuing to occur right now.


Confessional Lutheranism, Liturgical Expression, and the Rise of the New Cultural Era
We see the beginning of the end of Modernism in the late 19^th Century in two other respects. One is the collection and emergence of organized efforts among Christian remnants of the previous Ideational Era – that is, the return of a forceful and learned articulation of confessional Lutheranism. The Confessional and Liturgical movements we observe today, which, more and more, we Christians are attaching ourselves to, didn’t just begin a few years ago.

St. Nikolai Kirche Hamburg, Germany

A 19th Century church of Gothic Revival5 architecture, The Church of St. Nikolas in Hamburg, Germany was destroyed in the bombings of WWII. Yet, the steeple remains as a monument, elevating the Cross of Christ 483 feet above the landscape.

They are an extension of what was renewed by the Henkel’s (Tennessee Synod), Walther’s (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod), Preuses (Norwegian Synod), Krauth’s (General Council), Bading’s and Hoenecke’s (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) and the Pieper’s (WELS & LCMS) of the 19^th and early 20^th Centuries. In point of fact, “relevant” Christianity in our new Ideational cultural era will be informed by and take its direction from the perspectives of the previous such era, of Mediaeval Christianity, while Modernist systems, outside of the most resilient and tenacious of the Reformed confessions, will mostly just go away⁶. Adopting and incorporating increasingly irrelevant Modernist perspectives into Lutheran teaching and practice is, more than it ever was before, theological suicide.

Cultural Change marked in the Monuments of Man
A second respect in which we can see the beginning of the end of Modernism, is revealed in the increasingly “sensate” nature of the most prominent monuments of Modernism. From the late Mediaeval Era forward until the beginning of the close of the Modern Era, the largest, tallest and most impressive structures built by man were monuments to God: Christian Churches, with steeples reaching as high as 525 ft, atop of which were mounted the Cross of Christ, as a herald of Law & Gospel to the entire countryside, and an announcement that the Word of Peace and Reconciliation with God could be received, along with all of its eternal benefits, in His Church.

But what happened in the late 19^th Century? The most impressive of man’s monuments, far from being reserved for the special honor of God, were instead directed to man himself, boasting of his achievements, and proclaiming that his priorities were no longer his faith in God and his acknowledgment of gratitude toward God, but of accumulating wealth and honor for himself.

St. John Lutheran Church Emerald, WI

Located along a well traveled highway, the building of St. John Lutheran Church (LCMS), Emerald, WI, though sparsely attended on Sundays, continues to remind sinners of their need for forgiveness, and to point them to Christ.

From A.D. 1311 to 1884, the tallest, most adorned, and most impressive structures in the Western world were churches. In 1884, the Washington Monument became the tallest structure, and then in 1889 the Eiffel Tower was built to kick-off the World’s Fair in Paris, completely dwarfing all other structures in the Western world. From 1930 onward, the worlds tallest and most impressive structures have been office buildings – monuments of man to the priority of commercial enterprise and the accumulation of wealth and power⁷. Accompanying the dramatic decline of Modernism in the 20^th Century, we see that man’s priorities became dramatically more “sensate.”

Today, throwback modernistic Christians consider the church steeple to be passe, impractical, and more expense than it is worth – and then boast of their stewardship. Yet these same Christians will line up to throw away $500 billion dollars over thirty years on worthless entertainments and other human inventions, to build anthropocentric organizations on a foundation of hedonism. They call it “church” but what is it really? Emptied of Scripture teaching, shunting aside the Marks of the Church, rejecting the straightforward preaching of Law & Gospel and reliance on the Means of Grace, removing Christ from His central position and replacing him with the priorities of man, these organizations look and sound nothing like “the Church.” Their work is being tried, and revealed for what sort it is: after a generation of trying to pluck “Green Tomatoes” using tools contrived by man, and succeeding mostly in just robbing “harvest fruit” from other church bodies, while little by little depriving it of preservative preaching of Law & Gospel, Christians find they have indigestion. Thus, these church-like organizations are now in dramatic decline – precipitous decline – as spoiled fruit oozes out from the organizational structures they have built.

And yet the old stone church buildings remain. Even though some are emptied of people, and others are emptied of sound teaching, these monuments to God continue to herald the Cross of Christ, to focus the eyes of all on Him and His Gospel message, and to draw people to Christ and His Church. The people may be mute, but the stones still conspicuously cry out, publicly assigning worth to God.

St. John Lutheran Church Milwaukee, WI

An historical landmark listed in the National Registry of Historic Places, Evangelische Luth. St. Johanneskirche in Milwaukee, WI, was a congregation formed in 1848 and led by Rev. Johannes Bading – the second President of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and the leader responsbile for bringing WELS out of doctrinally ambivilant pietistic ecumenism, into a strong Confessional stance. Symbolic of the times we live in, St. John's now lies dormant, as intrigue and corruption seem to have conspired to dispossess the congregation of its building. Nevertheless, the building itself continues to witness to the city of Milwaukee, lifting the cross of Christ for all to see at almost 200 feet.

Built on the Rock the Church doth stand,
Even when steeples are falling.
Crumbled have spires in every land,
Bells still are chiming and calling
Calling the old and young to rest,
But above all the soul distressed
Longing for rest everlasting.

Grant then, O God, wher’er men roam,
That, when the church bells are ringing
Many in Jesus’ faith may come
Where He His message is bringing
“I know mine own, mine own know me,
Ye, not the world, my face shall see:
My peace I leave with you, Amen”

Built on the Rock, v1&7
TLH 467, ELH 211, CW 529, LSB 645

------------
Endnotes:

1. Indeed, see the following Intrepid Lutheran posts for vivid examples of this: The Catechesis of the Lutheran Worshiper: An antidote to the “itching ears” and “happy feat” of CGM enthusiasts? and Real? Relational?? Relevant??? O THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!!
2. This book is necessary reading for any Christian who would be a student of culture.
3. This is, of course, Sociological theory, which, in the end, probably holds about as much water as Psychological theories. There are so many different theories because of the difficulty in testing hypothesis, each theory is found wanting by observation. Nevertheless, the recent “rediscovery” of Sorokin’s writings has generated much interest in his ideas, and given a boost to Social Dynamic theories, which for the most part have been based on demographic rather than cultural/ideological criteria. He is considered a “giant” of 20^th Century sociological research.
4. See the following Intrepid Lutheran posts and resources, for more details on the Differences between Reformed and Lutheran theological systems, and how the past functions as a very real and necessary foundation of Lutheranism
5. All of the structures featured on this page were constructed either in the late Mediaeval Era, or are structures built in the late 19^th Century during the later Gothic Revival, coinciding with “Ideational” influences as they are thought to have been showing their influence.
6. Once again, indeed. As one example, New Life Church, a Colorado megachurch formerly led by Ted Haggard, recently began their return to historical, Christocentric practice. Read New Life After the Fall of Ted Haggard in Christianity Today, and A New Era in American Evangelicalism? by Martin Noland on Steadfast Lutherans.
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_tallest_structures#History_of_record_holders_in_each_CTBUH_category
   

A Brief Explanation of Lutheran Hymnody: For the Lutheran who asks regarding the Beautiful Hymns of His church

Three weeks ago, we published a lengthy post entitled, An Explanation of Lutheran Worship: For the Lutheran who asks the Meaning of the Beautiful Liturgy of His church. The body of that post contained a full Explanation of the Common Service — the order of Divine Service beginning on “page 15” of The Lutheran Hymnal which was published by the Synodical Conference in 1941. An English-language harmony of sixteenth century Lutheran liturgies published in 1888 by the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, it still serves as a benchmark of liturgical excellence. Indeed, in our recent post, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts: Dr. P.E. Kretzmann and the Necessity of Continuing Catechesis, we quote Dr. Kretzmann referring to the Common Service as “unsurpassed in the entire history of the Christian Church.”

The Explanation we published two weeks ago was taken directly from catechetical materials developed by the General Council for the distinct purpose of educating Lutherans regarding the doctrinal integrity and catholicity of genuine Lutheran worship. Indeed, this Explanation of the Common Service, published in 1908, was dedicated to the “Young Lutheran who asks the meaning of the beautiful liturgy of the Lutheran Church.” In our introductory remarks preceding the explanation, we marveled at this. Lutherans these days don't educate their youth about Lutheran worship, and if they do, they don't do so in a way that extolls it's beauty as a work of Fine Art, nor do they do so in a way that reinforces its doctrinal integrity, nor do they do so in a way that embraces its catholicity. One of the bright shining exceptions to the lamentable reality that contemporary Lutherans no longer value their heritage of worship enough to bother passing it down to their youth, is the LCMS-affiliated organization, Higher Things. Outside of this organization, the best one can hope for is a one- or two-lesson explanation of Lutheran worship which neither extolls its beauty nor places value on its doctrinal integrity and catholicity, but uses the opportunity to deride our heritage by vaunting its status as “an adiophoron” and setting it on equal footing with just about any form of Sectarian Worship imaginable – as long as one wears the appropriate set of blinders as he goes about imagining. Yeah, sure, you can do it, but why would you want to? In answer to this one needs but a “reason,” and in the world of adiaphora that merely means “opinion.” Thus one “reason” is as good as another, and anything one can “justify” has open license attending it.

But we further asked the reader to notice the use of language this Explanation employed. It was not written for functionally illiterate Lutherans who find reading and understanding anything written above the sixth-grade reading level to be a hopeless struggle. On the contrary, being dedicated to the “Young Lutherans,” it was written to Lutheran Youth, and plainly assumed that they had command of their own language. If it was written above their level, then it served the noble purpose of lifting them out of their immature literacy and colorless task-oriented-use of language, through the rich vocabulary and precise grammar employed in the distinctive and enculturating language of the Church. Contemporary Lutherans, it seems, no longer value the uplifting qualities of higher literacy, either.

Regardless of what the so-called wise-men of contemporary times insist upon, I am not ready to succumb to such disrespect for others that my operative assumption is that they are all functionally illiterate. I don't think all, or most, or even a significant minority of educated Lutherans are just a bunch of dumb-dumbs who can't read. Some very-well may refuse to read anything more complex than a comic book, but that is a separate matter – a matter of sinful obstinacy, and perhaps even rebellion. It is not a matter of literacy. So today, we are going to continue our use of materials having high-literary quality to provide a brief explanation of Lutheran hymnody.

What is a Hymn? A Canticle? A Carol? An Anthem?
We begin with the source pictured at the top left: The Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal, by W. G. Polack – who was the chairman of The Lutheran Hymnal committee. This work first appeared in 1942, essentially accompanying the publication of The Lutheran Hymnal, and went through several revisions thereafter. It is a book which catalogs all of the hymns used in The Lutheran Hymnal, identifying their authors and sources, providing a history of the circumstances under which the hymn was written (if notable), reproducing the hymn in its original language alongside the English version which appeared in the hymnal and identifying (sometimes justifying) alternate readings from the original composition. It is considered a classic in the field of hymnology.

“What was missing in my life was Absolution”: One Christian's Journey from Evangelicalism to Confessional Lutheranism

On Tuesday, we published a short blog post highlighting the research of Rev. Matthew Richard (CLBA), who is working on a doctoral degree at Concordia Seminary - St. Louis, entitled, 'Crucible Moments' and 'Becoming Lutheran'. Afterward, while perusing his blog, PM Notes: Evangelizing Moral Therapeutic Deists; Comforting Post-Evangelicals; Strengthening Monergists, I stumbled across one of his posts from last December: Confessions Of A Former Evangelical (Encore). It is a brief post, featuring only a broadcast from Chris Rosebrough's Fighting for the Faith, regarding which he comments:

A wonderful message from Chris Rosebrough on his journey from Evangelicalism to Lutheranism. A close friend and Baptist blogger posted this sermon on his blog saying that it was "Perhaps the Best Defense of the Gospel You'll Ever Hear (From a Lutheran)". Please listen, it is well worth your time.

I recall this episode from Fighting for the Faith, and agree: It is well worth your time. I've included it in this post, below. Give it a listen.

Incidentally, that post, linked to from Rev. Richard's blog to his Baptist friend's blog, is no longer there. Perhaps his Baptist friend was just cleaning up old posts, but nothing before January 2013 is available. However, maybe this following fact is pertinent. On February 28, 2013, his Baptist friend, a Baptist minister, announced that he has left the Southern Baptist Convention. He has many very interesting, and familiar, reasons for doing so. Please read his post: Why I’ve Left the Convention.


A Journey From Legalistic Pietistic Evangelicalism to the Cross
delivered at the First National BJS Conference, February 2009
by Chris Rosebrough

 

Quotes from Chris Rosebrough's “Plenary Speech” compiled for those of who won't listen to the podcast, who haven't been through the transition of “Evangelical” to “confessional Lutheran,” who don't know what a genuine Worldview Crisis really is (See our recent post, 'Crucible Moments' and 'Becoming Lutheran' for more information on “transition” and “Worldview Crisis”.) They've completely transformed the church service. It's no longer a pastor who is an undershepherd of the Good shepherd, feeding God's sheep with God's Word, making disciples, giving them Word and Sacrament, proclaiming and announcing the forgiveness of sins won by Jesus Christ on the Cross. Instead, it has been turned into a psychological freakshow. How about this from Saddleback Church: “When you're running on empty, learn the ancient secrets from God's Word for a less stressful, more relaxing, lighter and free-er lifestyle.” Now here is the fun part about it. All of these churches... when these guys launch -- four, five or six hundred people. They are marketing experts, they are running circles around us. And the people coming to their churches, are they hearing the Gospel? Not at all... All of these guys "claim" that they are doing these things to reach the lost for Jesus Christ, and to give them the Gospel, and that they are not compromising. HOGWASH! What are the results of all this? ...After 20 years, 40% of their people don't believe in salvation by Grace... 57% don't believe in the Authority of the Bible... 56% don't believe Jesus is the Only Way to Eternal Life. Former Evangelicals, they're like ex-smokers... So you can say that, at that time, I was "On fire for the Lord!" -- and you bet I was, because I was told if I wasn't, I was going to burn in Hell. There was no Grace. There was no forgiveness. Only an endless rat-wheel of good works with no assurance that I was even meeting the lowest standard necessary for me to be saved. That's the thing about the Law: How do you know when you've done it enough to please God? I did everything I could to stand out as a Christian among Christians, and at the time if you were to ask me if I was going to heaven when I died, my answer would have been. “I hope so... I hope so.” Beneath the Christian facade was a young man who was struggling with his sin, and who knew he wasn't winning that battle. And I knew that I was not good enough to be saved. “We believe that 'Entire Sanctification' is that act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made 'free from original sin, or depravity,' and brought into a 'state of entire devotion to God', and 'the holy obedience of love made perfect'. It is wrought by the baptism with the Holy Spirit, and comprehends in one experience the cleansing of the heart from sin and the abiding indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, empowering the believer for a life of service. 'Entire Sanctification' is provided by the Blood of Jesus, is wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration into this work and state of Grace, the Holy Spirit bears witness. This experience is also know by various terms representing its various phases, such as 'Christian perfection', 'perfect love', 'heart purity', the 'Baptism of the Holy Spirit', the 'Fullness of the Blessing', 'Christian Holiness', and 'Second Blessing of Holiness.'” Perfection... and that's really the Material Principle of Pietism... Modern day Evangelicals, the center of their preaching is 'the changed life', and, their Formal Principle is 'The Bible as Guidebook for Living.' That's what they preach for. Life change. I was literally fed a steady stream of tactics and practical methods for 'living a God-pleasing life'... But there was no peace for me, no assurance, no hope, my sin problem wouldn't go away, and I knew that I would face shame and rejection if I had to stand before Jesus and give an accounting of my life. Because that's all they were preaching: an Accounting. “Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” Yeah, but I wasn't... I obviously didn't love God... I came to [my pastor] for Grace, and he gave me more Law. Looking back on it I now realize, the teaching and preaching of my church literally cut me off from all hope of salvation. I diligently searched God's Law for little shreds of hope and tiny crumbs of sunlight that could tell me that I would be okay. But there is no comfort in God's Law. There is no forgiveness offered in God's Law. A person can only live under despair for so long. And that is what this kind of teaching produced in me: utter despair. I was literally withering under the heat of God's Law. But what I didn't know, is that that is exactly what God's Law is supposed to do to us. What was missing in my life was Absolution. There's no way he can make it into heaven, he's not even trying! He comforted me with Christ's shed blood on the Cross, he told me over and over again that Jesus' Blood was shed for me, for my sins, all of them, FREE, even the one's I've committed today. I'd never heard a Christian talk this way before. And I'm telling you, there are millions of Evangelicals who've never heard a Christian talk this way before. They don't know the Gospel! He openly confessed his overwhelming need for a Saviour and his utter dependence on Christ's shed Blood on the Cross for his sins. “But now the righteousness of God has been made manifest apart from the Law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe, for their is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are Justified freely by His Grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” I had stopped my incessant worrying about whether I was good enough, holy enough, or perfect enough to be saved. Instead, I was asking a far more important set of questions: “Was Jesus Christ good enough?” “Was Jesus Christ holy enough?” “Was He perfect enough to save me?” “Did Jesus' Blood, which He shed on the Cross, cover all of my sins? Or just some of them?” These texts show that it is all about Jesus Christ [not ME]. His obedience, His ministry, His perfection, His righteousness, His taking my sin and suffering my punishment for me, on the Cross!

 

'Crucible Moments' and 'Becoming Lutheran'

Becoming Lutheran
It is very likely that most readers of Intrepid Lutherans have not been following this research, if they even knew about it, but Rev. Matthew Richard (CLBA), who is working on a doctoral degree from Concordia Seminary - St. Louis, has finished the research stage of his dissertation. The title of his dissertation is Becoming Lutheran: Exploring the Journey of American Evangelicals Into Confessional Lutheran Thought, and the research consisted of three surveys whose participants were once active Evangelicals that have made the transition to confessional Lutheranism, or those who are in the process of making that transition. I was one of the survey participants (along with hundreds of others).

The first two surveys (quantitative and qualitative surveys, respectively) have been published:

Results of Survey #1 (quantitative)
Results of Survey #2 (qualitative)

It is unknown to me if he will be publishing the results of the third survey, which concerned advice for Lutheran pastors with respect to prospects or parishioners who are going through the transition.

Rev. Richard has been compiling the results of his research on his Research Journal blog. In addition, he was the subject of a very interesting interview on Worldview Everlasting TV after the results of the first survey were released last February.


Having personally been through the lengthy transition from “Evangelical” to “confessional Lutheran,” and having done so reflectively (that is, I wasn't just jumping from one Evangelical church to another, like so many Evangelicals tend to uncritically do), I find that his results describe very well the process that we endure, and that they also help explain why many of us who've made the transition as adults (again, reflectively and deliberately) cling so tenaciously to sound and genuine Lutheranism and warn so vigorously against anything that smacks of contemporary Evangelicalism. Indeed, both Rev. Richard and Rev. Fisk discuss this very thing in the interview, above. Unlike those Lutherans who have become enamoured with sectarianism and adjure their brothers to “just give it a chance,” we've already “given it a chance,” already know very well the ruin to which it leads, and, rejecting it, urge others not to even dabble in it. Just as there are no non-smokers like former smokers, there are no non-Evangelicals like former Evangelicals. I'm one of them. I highly recommend looking at his research.

Crucible Moments
In the first survey issued by Rev. Richard, “Fear” and “Anger” emerged as two themes repeatedly observed. These two emotions were explored in the second survey – certainly for the sake of gaining a deeper and more objective understanding of these two factors, but, it seems reasonable to think, perhaps also seeking a way of “easing the process.” With the results of the second survey now published, however, I think it is pretty clear that these “emotions” are necessary aspects of the process, and that if a person does not endure them then it seems difficult to say whether a genuine transition to confessional Lutheranism has been made (assuming they actually believed the Evangelical teaching they had previously imbibed over the years).

Worldview Change is Repentance from Falsehood

This result (which may be surprising to some) reminds me of a statistic reported by Josh McDowell in his book, Right from Wrong: 90% of one's values are developed by age 13, while the rest develop mostly between the ages of 13 and 18, and remain essentially fixed through the rest of his life – barring what McDowell called “crucible moments” during adulthood, or moments of ideological or worldview crisis. These “crucible moments” force a person into deep reflection, like no other kind of life experience can, and often result in either a change to, or a significant reinforcement of one's worldview. For any such change to occur in adults, whose values are essentially fixed, worldview crisis is necessary for the change to occur.

As the rest of Rev. Richard's research seems to show, the journey from contemporary pop-church Evangelicalism to genuine confessional Lutheranism is a very definite worldview change. I can personally attest to this fact. If “alleviating” or “easing the process” means hiding distinctive Lutheran teaching and practice in order to avoid “offending” prospects, or to soft-pedal the Second use of the Law in order to avoid “offending” the unregenerate, or to hide the Sacrament for fear of “offending” visitors, then the only effect “easing the process” might have is to attenuate the genuine change itself. That would be unfortunate. Perhaps it is best to simply be aware that individuals making a journey from “Evangelicalism” to “confessional Lutheranism” are struggling through internal conflict, and merely receive it as an explanation for what a given pastor observes as he brings disaffected Evangelicals through adult catechism? Perhaps it is best for a pastor to simply offer direct Scriptural support for every doctrinal claim he makes during the process, instead of trying to practice some form of “armchair psychology,” and leave the prospects to wrestle with the clear statements of Scripture on their own and arrive at their convictions through the Holy Spirit's working? I ask these questions rhetorically, of course, while agreeing with Rev. Richard in the interview, above, that, at the very least, confessional Lutheran pastors ought to patiently stick with disaffected Evangelicals who are in the midst of a worldview crisis.

Anyway, I think that the final product of Rev. Richard's research (which won't be published for several months it appears) will make for interesting reading – as will the many journal articles it will no-doubt produce. For now, I hope our readers will use the links above to give his raw research a look, and I hope that they find something interesting or beneficial in it.

 

An Explanation of Lutheran Worship: For the Lutheran who asks the Meaning of the Beautiful Liturgy of His church

Last week, we published an article entitled, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts: Dr. P.E. Kretzmann and the Necessity of Continuing Catechesis. It stood in stark contrast against the depraved junk being pushed by the Church Growth Movement (CGM), which, though vaulting the latest in “scientific methodology”, nurtures anti-intellectualism as much as it promotes mediocrity, turning its back on the preaching and teaching of sound doctrine and repudiating the hard work of rigorous catechesis in order to make Christianity more outwardly attractive to the unregenerate who despise Christ and the teaching of His Word. Another term for this among CGM advocates is, “Evangelism.”

But most importantly, that post emphasized the need not only for rigorous catechesis, but of a broad catechesis that includes more than just Bible study. In that post, Dr. Kretzmann and the Walther League strongly encouraged complementary catechesis in areas of Church History, of Christian Missions, of Distinctive Lutheran Doctrines, Customs and Usages of the Lutheran Church, of Church Art, of Science, and of Literature. And within the category of Church Art was included the very important topic of Liturgics.

In fact, the catechesis of the Lutheran Worshiper was the topic of another recent post on Intrepid Lutherans, The Catechesis of the Lutheran Worshiper: An antidote to the “itching ears” and “happy feat” of CGM enthusiasts?. In that post we drew the distinction between those who favor so-called “contemporary worship,” as those who Congregate before Entertainers, with those who retain a wholesome catholicty and still embrace the distinctive practices of historic Lutheran liturgy, as those who Congregate before the Means of Grace.

But what is such “wholesome catholicty”? What is the “distinctive practice of historic Lutheran liturgy”? Do American Lutherans of the 21^st Century even have such a thing? If so, is it at all in general use? Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but one thing is for sure: they certainly had such in the 19^th and 20^th Centuries, AND they had catechetical materials to go along with it for the purpose of teaching successive generations about Lutheran worship.

Lutherans of these bygone times highly valued the wholesome catholicty of their historic Lutheran worship practices, that served to starkly contrast them with the American sects which surrounded them — which had in many cases been given over to the evangelical revivalism of Charles Finney, and to practices emanating from the Holiness movements within American Methodism (as discussed in our recent post, The Church Growth Movement: A brief synopsis of its history and influences in American Christianity). Even in confessional Lutheran churches in America, the allure of the Anxious Bench became increasingly difficult to resist, and Methodist hymnals were, distressingly, in growing demand (as Dr. C.F.W. Walther laments, in our post, C.F.W. Walther: Filching from sectarian worship resources equals “soul murder”). It was within this environment that the confessional and liturgical movements of the 19^th Century grew, and worked toward the establishment of confessional unity among Lutherans in America, and to distinguish and insulate American Lutheranism from the poison of sectarian influences.

In 1908, the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America published an Explanation of the Common Service – a harmony of sixteenth century Lutheran liturgies published in 1888, in the English language. This is the same Common Service found in The Lutheran Hymnal, which was published by the Synodical Conference in 1941, and which is still used in many Lutheran congregations even today. It is my understanding that, in many circles, this liturgy of the Divine Service is still referred to as a benchmark of liturgical excellence. Indeed, in our recent post, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts..., Dr. Kretzmann refers to the Common Service as “unsurpassed in the entire history of the Christian Church.” Sadly, however, though many Lutherans still use it, most Lutherans, and nearly all young Lutherans, are completely ignorant of this fine and beautiful liturgy, having never had the privilege of being consistently guided through worship under the rubrics of this Common Service.

Interestingly, the Explanation published in 1908 by the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, was dedicated to this very group of people, to the “Young Lutherans who ask the meaning of the beautiful liturgy of the Lutheran Church.” As you read this Explanation, notice its use of language. Consider the fine education and catechesis “Young Lutherans” must have enjoyed a century ago, which was deliberately reinforced by the church in books such as this. Do Lutheran publishing houses have such respect and concern for the youth of today? Certainly, they target young people with a great deal of material, so concern unquestionably exists — but does the quality of these materials generally rise to this level? Does it specifically advocate and reinforce Confessional practice? Does it refer to the liturgy as something “beautiful” and as something to be valued? I don't believe I've seen this sort of thing coming from the main Lutheran publishers.

Therefore, in the interest of those who would otherwise never have the opportunity to know, the following Explanation of the Common Service is offered. It explains Lutheran worship according to what has been considered the definitive Lutheran liturgy yet produced – a liturgy which is nevertheless disappearing under the short-sighted tyranny of “contemporary relevance,” and an explanation whose need has long been disregarded as counterproductive to progress and to the future of Evangelical church practice.

Note: the reader may recognize this Explanation as having appeared on Intrepid Lutherans in the past. In fact, it was published as a series in the Summer of 2010, as follows: Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 1 Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 2 Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 3 Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 4 It is offered, below, in a single unbroken post. Note also that this explanation, though long out of print, is now available in book form from Emmanuel Press, one of the fine confessional Lutheran publishers listed in the right-hand column of this blog.

---