Every student of World War Two history will recognize the dictum written by German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller about the silence of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power. It goes like this:
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Some years later, another writer was inspired by these words to write a poem entitled "Hangman." Its concluding verses are as follows:
Then through the town the Hangman came, Through the empty streets, and called my name -- And I looked at the gallows soaring tall, And thought, "There is no one left at all
For hanging, and so he calls to me To help pull down the gallows-tree." So I went out with right good hope To the Hangman's tree and the Hangman's rope.
He smiled at me as I came down To the courthouse square through the silent town. And supple and stretched in his busy hand Was the yellow twist of the hempen strand.
And he whistled his tune as he tried the trap, And it sprang down with a ready snap -- And then with a smile of awful command He laid his hand upon my hand.
"You tricked me. Hangman!," I shouted then, "That your scaffold was built for other men... And I no henchman of yours," I cried, "You lied to me, Hangman. Foully lied!"
Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye, "Lied to you? Tricked you?" he said. "Not I. For I answered straight and I told you true -- The scaffold was raised for none but you.
For who has served me more faithfully Then you with your coward's hope?" said he, "And where are the others who might have stood Side by your side in the common good?"
"Dead," I whispered. And amiably "Murdered," the Hangman corrected me: "First the foreigner, then the Jew... I did no more than you let me do."
Beneath the beam that blocked the sky None had stood so alone as I. The Hangman noosed me, and no voice there Cried "Stop!" for me in the empty square. (by Maurice Ogden)
The single point of both men's words is quite clear, direct, and simple; namely, that when people see and know that something is wrong, it is their duty and responsibility to speak up about it, raise awareness of it, and thus try to bring opposition to bear and stop it, or at least curtail its worst effects. And this is not only the responsibility of elected leaders and other important or prominent people. This is the responsibility of every person who has knowledge of the truth!
It is the same in the church. Of course, I'm speaking of the confessional Lutheran Church in the United States, and especially that part of it called the WELS.
One comment I hear now and then from brother Pastors in our synod often goes something like this: "Don't you have anything better to do? You should be paying more attention to your own parish ministry, or your family, or getting some exercise, instead of wasting your time on the internet with Intrepid Lutherans. I don't have time to get involved in synodical politics. I'm taking care of my congregation. I'll let God take care of the synod!"
OK, let's grant that perhaps that's a fair question and a legitimate point of view. In any case, it deserves a response. Here goes.
First, in my case, no, I don't have anything better to do, thank you. I usually put in sixty-plus hours a week at my parish ministry and work as a Circuit Pastor, not including private devotions and personal study. I also spend some time with my dear wife every day. My children are grown and out on their own, but even when they weren't, I managed to have some "extra" time for myself nearly every day. It just so happens that history and theology are hobbies of mine, on top of the work I do as a Pastor. So, since I'm going to spend some leisure time reading or on the internet anyway, I spend that time on things like Church History, the Lutheran Confessions, and so on. So, time spent on Intrepid Lutheran is not at all wasted as far as I'm concerned.
Now for the second main assertion sometimes raised - that other Pastors have neither the time nor the desire, nor indeed should they even, be involved in matters beyond the borders of their families and parishes. This involves the whole concept of confronting wrong - whether it be ideas, statements, or actions. Allow me to use another literary example:
No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. (John Donne)
Or perhaps I may be so bold as to answer Cain's inquiry and proclaim that we are all indeed our brothers' keepers. Thus, concerning the Church, and our little corner of it, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that it is the duty and responsibility of every believer to call out false or even questionable doctrine and practice whenever they see or hear it, confront it, test, and if found wanting, oppose it. Period!
And if this is true of every believer, how much more so must it be true of each and every one of those who are blessed with a Divine Call to preach and teach only the pure truth of the whole council of God?! Again, I myself can come to no other conclusion.
Now, of course it is true that we in the WELS have a system in place to oversee doctrine and practice. We have a Synod President, District Presidents, and Circuit Pastors in place throughout our church body, whose task is expressly this. But even if that system works flawlessly - and it is the opinion of a good many that it works much less than flawlessly - but even if it works to the utmost of human ability, I see nowhere in Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, or the doctrinal statements of the WELS that removes or abrogates the responsibility of each and every Pastor to still "test the spirits."
Perhaps I've missed something. Such is not outside the bounds of possibility. But it seems clear to me that any and all of us who are Ministers of the Gospel in the Wisconsin Synod, once we have attended to parish and family duties, do indeed have very little else better to do! In fact, I would go so far as to say that WELS Pastors who don't, in some kind of public and meaningful way, engage in the discussions and debates concerning doctrine and practice now going on throughout our synod, are simply not living up to their calling.
If more of us don't get involved and stand up for true confessionalism in the WELS, then Pastor Niemöller's words might someday apply to us, and they might sound something like this: (with apologies to Niemöller)
First it was said we should make room for those who believe only in a "local" Great Flood, and I didn't speak out because I didn't believe that. Then it was said that "everyone's a minister," and I didn't speak out because that "could be understood correctly." Then it was said we must remove all "manmade barriers to the Gospel," and I didn't speak out because that "sounded kind of ok." Then I was ordered to "Change or Die," and there was no one left to speak out against this with me.
Stand up! Stand tall! Speak out! Do it now! Keep it up! Never stop! Or lose your confessional church. Speak up now else you may not be able to speak up at all! It's just as simple and straight-forward as that.
Allow me to add my reflections to our first year of work. It seems to me that the biggest question about Intrepid Lutherans, indeed about any public forum on which is discussed the deeds and misdeeds of people, pastors, and church bodies, is whether such public discussion including public questioning and even admonition and rebuke, are appropriate and within proper bounds among us. Here are my thoughts on the matter. As is my wont, I will try to be short and succinct.
It can be said without fear of contradiction that we all have a sinful human nature and that this nature of ours is inclined to go astray. This is true of laypeople, pastors, seminary professors, District Presidents, et al.
Those who become the object of admonition very often lose clarity of conscienceless about their errors, and their view of themselves become blurred. This leads to a defensive attitude and the desire to ignore or cover up error. This is also true of their friends, family, and supporters, who can then often turn against the rebukers . Thus, those who attempt the admonition, become targets of attack themselves.
The church's job is not to protect and defend its members or leaders in every situation, but to represent Christ to the world, and this includes demonstrating truth and righteousness. The integrity of Christ's church needs to be preserved, even if direct and painful admonition is required. Let it also be understood from the outset that such admonition must show from Scripture and the Confessions where someone has erred. Such rebuke cannot be based only on some vague complaint that a Pastor or group is "unloving," or "not putting the best construction on things."
One of the most important purposes of admonition and rebuke is to preserve the unity of confession within a church body. This is especially true of a confessional Lutheran church body. It is the Holy Spirit Who by the Means of Grace, regeneration, faith, and the new life in Christ joins us together. Once established, this unity is to display itself in the oneness of confession, and yes, of practice! Please note, the confessional and Scriptural unity is just that – based on the correct teaching of the Bible as delineated and explained in the Book of Concord, not simply what one may THINK is correct doctrine and practice, or even that contained in pamphlets like "This We Believe." Such things are not "normative" for us, but only the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions (in that order, of course).
As Pastor Rydecki has made clear, a Pastor's membership in the WELS - and by extension, a layperson's membership in their congregation - is an expression of oneness, a confessional act of agreement, based on the Holy Scriptures and a "quia" subscription to the Book of Concord.
To preserve this unity, Pastors and church leaders owe each other brotherly admonition and rebuke. In this, Jesus Christ Himself is working to keep Pastors true to their ordination vows. Consequently, when Jesus leads a fellow Pastor to bring the corrective admonition of His Word to an erring brother, He is doing it for the good of the errorist and that of the whole body, of which He is the Head. Jesus is the "friend of sinners," and desires to salvage every sinner, even misguided or misbehaving Pastors!
We ARE our brother's keeper, and we will want to prevent sin and false teaching or practice from infecting or even overthrowing our faith, or that of our brother. That is Satan's goal, against which we must constantly struggle and fight!
Many times in the history of the church the work of Christ has been hindered or damaged precisely because those in the church have failed to exercise doctrinal discipline. Why? Because of the fear of the reaction to admonition and rebuke. Most church problems begin as a small cancer, and unless detected and treated immediately, they grow to corrupt, mutate, and eventually destroy much of that church's ability to do Christ's work.
God has already given us the means for brotherly admonition. It is the Law - to expose sin; and the Gospel - to heal the wound. The application of the Law is absolutely necessary to make our brother Pastor or denomination leader conscious of his sin. Reluctance to do so - which is natural - will arise, and Satan will remind us to "mind our own business," or "not be so judgmental." It is exactly at such times that God's Word must move us to act, swiftly and surely, to carry out the needed correction of our brother or our church body, and thus preserve even our own faith and that of our flocks and families.
The WELS has machinery already set up for this process of the supervision of doctrine and practice. The office of the Circuit Pastor and that of the District President were created for this purpose. But it would be a great mistake for the church to leave all matters of such discipline only up to these Pastors! Only when ALL assume the duty to be responsible for the doctrine and practice of our church body will we have a healthy and vibrant ministry of the Word and Sacraments!
Simply put, no Pastor should be allowed to teach or act at variance to the doctrinal position of the church. If he is truly convinced he is right and the church of which he is presently a member is wrong; no one is forcing him to stay, and honesty and integrity should move him to resign his Call since he no longer believes in the confessional stance of the church.
Therefore, it should go without saying – but indeed needs to be said: Any Pastor - or Teacher, layperson, or synodical official, for that matter - who challenges and rejects the confessional position of the WELS in a public manner, has the right to expect to be publicly admonished by his audience, however large and widespread that audience might happen to be. In these days when sermons are "streamed" via the Internet, or can be downloaded as a podcast, a minister of the Gospel has both the privilege but also the responsibility of speaking to hundreds, thousands, and even potentially millions. Each and every one of those people has absolutely every right to take issue with anything he says. Period! (Perhaps this should give all us Pastors more than a bit of pause as we upload our wonderful words of wisdom to our church's web page!)
If the church sits in silence to the questioning, challenging, or rebuttal of its confessional position, it is inviting doctrinal deterioration to set in. Anyone who is bold enough to besiege the Confessions or the Bible itself, MUST, repeat MUST, be taken to task publicly by whoever hears him do so, regardless of the forum within which this attack was heard. How else can we possibly understand St. Paul's words in First Timothy 5:20 – "Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that others may take warning."? I say this is irrefutable and unarguable. Period!
Finally, the term "brother" is not simply a polite or sentimental reference, but it is suppose to be an expression of an actual condition of unity in Christ and His Word. As brothers we should expect to serve one another as we carry out our ministry. This brotherhood gives us an incentive for mutual study, sharing of ideas, help in trying times, and yes, even correction through admonition and rebuke. We serve as a check and balance on each other, as well we should. Therefore, we should be willing to accept brotherly admonition and even sometimes harsh rebuke from one another, just as we are also obligated to give it. We should indeed, "take it," but also be prepared to "dish it out!"
Fact: In order to hold membership in the WELS, all pastors, teachers and congregations must subscribe to the Book of Concord of 1580, not insofar as (quatenus), but because (quia) they are a correct presentation and exposition of the pure doctrine of the Word of God.
From the WELS Constitution:
Article II CONFESSION OF FAITH Section 1. The synod accepts the canonical books of the Old and New Testament as the divinely inspired and inerrant Word of God and submits to this Word of God as the only infallible authority in all matters of doctrine, faith, and life.
Section 2. The synod also accepts the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church embodied in the Book of Concord of 1580, not insofar as, but because they are a correct presentation and exposition of the pure doctrine of the Word of God.
Article III MEMBERSHIP Section 3. Membership in the synod shall be restricted to congregations, pastors, and male teachers who agree in doctrine and practice with the confession referenced in Article II.
Fact: Every WELS pastor’s ordination vows include a subscription to the Book of Concord of 1580.
From the Ordination Rite in Christian Worship: Occasional Services:
M: Do you accept the three Ecumenical Creeds – the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian – as faithful testimonies to the truth of the Holy Scriptures, and do you reject all the errors which they condemn?
R: I do.
M: Do you believe that the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is a true exposition of the Word of God and a correct presentation of the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and that the other confessions in the Book of Concord are also in agreement with this one scriptural faith: the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Small and Large Catechisms of Martin Luther, the Smalcald Articles, and the Formula of Concord?
R: I do.
M: Do you solemnly promise that all your teaching and your administration of the sacraments will conform to the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions?
R: I do.
So what do you do when you read through the Lutheran Confessions and wake up to the reality that your church body, while still a great blessing from God and filled with many, many faithful Christians, is looking less and less like the church described in the Book of Concord, in spite of our subscription to the same?
You rejoice, because you don’t think the Book of Concord is terribly relevant for the world of the 21st Century.
You mock and ridicule those who have erred.
You do nothing, pretending that it doesn’t matter, since we’re still “united” on the Scriptures themselves.
You do nothing, not wanting to interfere in “other people’s business,” pretending you don’t actually belong to a synod.
You do nothing, because you believe our synod is already too far gone.
You do nothing, wringing your hands and bemoaning the situation in private conversation, but crippled by fear of the consequences – for yourself or for the synod – if you should take a public stand.
You do nothing, because while you value the Confessions, you’re afraid of being called (or of actually becoming!) a “Pharisee” or a “Legalist.”
You try to do something, because you recognize in the Lutheran Confessions the very faith of the apostles and martyrs, and the Church that has grown out of that faith. And you mourn, because you detect a different spirit, a spirit of the age, a secular spirit, a sectarian spirit creeping in and threatening the unity that once existed around the Lutheran Confessions. So, admittedly weak and frail, yet unable and unwilling to yield to this spirit, you try to do something, including much prayer and intense study of the Scriptures and the Confessions; including conversations in private, at pastors’ conferences and at district conventions; including writing letters to circuit pastors, congregations and district presidents; and yes, perhaps even starting up a little blog to highlight areas of concern and create a forum in which clergy and laity alike can openly discover and discuss if, how and where our practices have drifted away from the norm of the Confessions, in order that we might return to walk together under that light.
It’s this final path that many have chosen, including a few of us who, a year ago, started up this website of little consequence called Intrepid Lutherans, a name not intended to boast of what we are, but instead to remind us of what we wish to be.
We do not concede that our efforts have been inflammatory, loveless, unbrotherly, pharisaical or legalistic. We find it almost comical that some (not all!) of our leaders see Intrepid Lutherans as the gravest threat to our synod, and in some cases, the only evil which must be speedily and handily dealt with. And when we are labeled as “Pharisees,” it says much more about the person making the accusation than it does about us. We do admit that our blog is reactionary: it is reacting to this “other spirit” that is blowing in the wind. In any reaction there lies the inherent danger of overreaction, which we are sincerely trying to avoid. Kyrie, eleison!
Where does this “other spirit” manifest itself? It is most clearly evident in worship practice. Why? Because the whole of our theology is present in corporate worship. Every article of doctrine comes into play when the Church is assembled around Word and Sacrament. (The fact that the Church gathers so frequently without the Sacrament is itself evidence of this “other spirit” than the one described in the Confessions.)
It is a “different spirit” that rejects the liturgy of the Church – including the public, weekly celebration of the Sacrament in worship – for being “inhospitable” to unbelievers or “irrelevant” to believers. It is a different spirit that seeks to offer a man-centered, buffet-style worship in order to pander to human preference. “Casual or formal? Traditional or contemporary? Organ or electric guitar? What kind of music can you relate to? How would you like to worship the Lord today? What would be most meaningful (or comfortable or enjoyable) for you?”
The Lutheran Church actually does have a doctrine about worship, and it is not that “it’s all adiaphora.” Are there aspects of corporate worship that are truly matters of adiaphora? Of course. In those cases, Christian love, wisdom and sound judgment must guide our decisions. Are there aspects of corporate worship that are not matters of adiaphora? Of course. The Gospel must be rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered – and that includes maintaining the integrity of the sacramental confession in the Divine Service: that we come together, as the Church, for the purpose of being served by God through the public ministry ("leitourgia" - "liturgy”) of Word and Sacrament. It includes using ceremonies that foster unity, piety, Christian discipline, and reverence. It excludes all frivolity and offense. It excludes the introduction of a secular or sectarian spirit into the Church, no matter how pure one’s motives for introducing them.
Where else is this “other spirit” seen? It’s seen in all the talk about the “effectiveness” of the Means of Grace as if all depended on us presenting the Gospel in a certain way or with the right delivery mechanism. Some have called this a “functional Arminianism.” I think I agree.
It’s seen in those who imagine that the “real” growth of Christians takes place, not in the Divine Service, but in “small group” gatherings during the week.
It’s seen in the fascination with the means, methods and ideas of heterodox churches and teachers, especially those that ascribe free will to man and that deny the necessary and always-effective role of the Means of Grace in conversion, justification and sanctification.
It’s seen in a change in preaching emphasis, away from the sacramental, Gospel-oriented focus that preaches Christ and him crucified for the forgiveness of sins as the goal of the sermon, toward a law-oriented, how-to focus that presents our works (or our good feelings) as the goal of the sermon.
It’s seen in the paradigm shift away from pastor as shepherd of souls and toward pastor as CEO, as well as the shift away from pastor as minister of the Word toward every member as a minister of the Word.
It’s seen in the postmodern redefinition of “Lutheran” to mean “anything that I, as a Lutheran, or that we, as a Lutheran synod, happen to believe or do.”
It’s seen in those who view our Lutheran Fathers as antiquated, irrelevant, tactless and just plain “stuffy,” while others of us have no greater aspiration for our ministry and life than to emulate the likes of Luther and Chemnitz.
It’s seen in the philosophy, “I’m a Christian first, Lutheran second,” while others of us see the relationship as it really is, “I’m a Lutheran because I’m a Christian.”
It’s seen in a misuse of Christian freedom that leads us to change things simply because we can, “and you can’t tell us we can’t.”
It is seen in the bare Biblicism that disregards the history of the Church, that elevates synodical statements above the Confessions, and that effectively relegates the Church Fathers and our Lutheran Confessions to irrelevancy. “You keep your fallible, human-authored Confessions. I have my Bible, and that’s all I need.” This amounts to a functional quatenus (“insofar as it applies to us”) subscription, and is not what the Lutheran Church means by Sola Scriptura. But this “other spirit” plays off the arrogance and the ignorance that dwell in us all, and would happily lead us to introduce novel changes in doctrine and practice, in areas like worship, church and ministry, the roles of men and women, and fellowship, and even in the area of justification.
It is seen in the fact that many no longer subscribe to the Confessions as a description of who we are as Lutherans and Christians: what we believe, what we do and what we reject. To some, it is merely a rule book: what you can and can’t get away with and still call yourself Lutheran. The evangelical spirit of the Confessors is thus lost and replaced by a legalistic spirit, and that which is supposed to serve as our commonly agreed-upon starting point as Lutherans becomes instead a burden that must either be carried, discarded or ignored.
Sigh.
None of this should be construed as a blanket condemnation of our entire synod, nor are we accusing anyone of being an unbeliever or being “possessed” when we speak of this “other spirit,” nor do we suppose than anyone has intentionally embraced it, or that we ourselves are immune to it. On the contrary, all who would be Christians must constantly be on guard against the spirits that do not come from God (cf. 1 John 4).
What solution do we propose? 1) That we all repent of everything, looking in faith to Christ alone for forgiveness for everything, 2) That we all recommit ourselves to study the Scriptures and the Confessions, 3) That we privately, but also openly, publicly and lovingly seek to identify where, individually or collectively, we have imbibed this “other spirit,” and 4) That any pastor, teacher or congregation that still cannot honestly look at every article in the Book of Concord and say, “Yes, that describes me (us). That is exactly what I (we) believe, teach and confess,” do the honest thing and, rather than try to redefine, reshape or change the WELS, simply join or form a church body that does not bind itself so comprehensively to the Book of Concord.
We don’t want to turn back the clock 30 or 100 or 500 years. We want instead to embrace in our time the Lutheranism that is described in the Book of Concord, when the Lutheran Church was not afraid of her own shadow or ashamed of her battered appearance, when Lutherans were comfortable in their own skin (though persecuted, mocked and condemned for it) and content to be both united to the historic, catholic Church and separate from the world, from the papists and from the sects. We want to stand shoulder to shoulder with all those who willingly and gladly hold this common confession and would sooner die than relinquish or redefine the name “Lutheran.” Our goal remains the same as it was a year ago: “For true confessional Lutheran unity in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.” Kyrie, eleison!
Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a popular apologetics ministry that is considered by many Lutherans, as well as other Christians, to be a reliable source of information related to defending the content of the book of Genesis – the most attacked book of the Bible. It is also a popular and well-respected resource among Christian home educators, who are generally concerned with the quality of educational materials that they choose to use, and specifically concerned with the doctrinal integrity of those materials. As a result, AiG founder and CEO, Ken Ham, along with many other well-credentialed AiG lecturers, routinely speak before large audiences, and are highly sought-after by homeschool convention planners due to the interest AiG generates among prospective attendees. Most of these conventions are planned and operated by smaller, independent non-profit organizations. But not all of them are non-profit. One such for-profit organization, Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc., has unwittingly struck the sparks of what has swiftly grown into a raging controversy among home educators, one which includes all the salacious elements of a public scandal: money, influence, truth, censorship, falsehood, and “love.”
The principle characters in this controversy, other than Ken Ham of AiG, may not be known at all outside of the home education movement. Within that movement, however, the characters are mostly iconic figures: Dr. Jay Wile, who has been well-known as a young-earth Creationist and defender of the literal six-day Creation account, is founder and former president of Apologia Educational Ministries and respected author of many of their science textbooks, he sold Apologia in 2008, was retained as author for a short time, but made the decision to leave in 2009 for what appears to be doctrinal reasons; Dr. Susan Wise-Bauer, a leading proponent of Classical Education, co-author of The Well-Trained Mind (widely considered to be the guide to Classical Education for home educators), author of The Story of the World (a very popular read-aloud, grammar-stage world history curriculum) and The History of the World (a new, rhetoric-stage world history), and owner of Peace Hill Press; and Dr. Peter Enns, author of the book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, and the now controversial religion curriculum, Telling God’s Story, published by Olive Branch Press – the “religious instruction imprint” of Bauer’s Peace Hill Press. There are other individuals involved, of course, but in the interest of keeping things simple so that we can focus on the core issue, these names will suffice.
False doctrine, influence and ministry Ken Ham had a contract to speak at the 2011 Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc. conventions – which are located mostly in the South and East. He delivered his presentation in Memphis as scheduled in early March, but prior to his speaking engagement in Greenville, SC, he was made aware of Dr. Enns, his association with the Biologos Foundation – a group which is aggressively promoting an old-earth “incarnational” interpretation of the book of Genesis – and of Dr. Enns’ contract to speak at the Memphis convention. Understanding that such a view impacts more than just the story of the creation of man and the universe, but also the Image of God in man, man’s fall into sin and loss of that Image, and God’s promise of reconciliation and restoration through the work of the Messiah, Ken Ham resolved to include in his Greenville presentation published statements of Dr. Enns and the Biologos Foundation, along with statements of others, in a regular portion of his presentation in which he provides examples of statements from prominent people and organizations who compromise and reject the Genesis account. Anyone who is familiar with Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis knows that this is what they do. Prior to the Greenville convention, Ken Ham published the blog entry, Another Compromiser—Speaking at Homeschool Conventions pointing out the position of Biologos Foundation, using their published words, as follows:
In my last post I suggested that the Adam story could be viewed symbolically as a story of Israel’s beginnings, not as the story of humanity from ground zero. But some might ask, “Why go through all this trouble? Why not just take it literally? The Bible says Adam was the first man. That’s the end of it.”
It’s not that simple, and if it were, people wouldn’t be talking it about it so much. First of all, reading the Adam story symbolically rather than as a literal description of history is not a whim, and it is certainly not driven by a desire to undermine the Bible. Rather, as we have seen, the Bible itself invites a symbolic reading by using cosmic battle imagery and by drawing parallels between Adam and Israel (to name two factors).
There is also considerable external evidence that works against the “just read it literally” mentality.
The biblical depiction of human origins, if taken literally, presents Adam as the very first human being ever created. He was not the product of an evolutionary process, but a special creation of God a few thousand years before Jesus — roughly speaking, about 6000 years ago. Every single human being that has ever lived can trace his/her genetic history to that one person.
This is a problem because it is at odds with everything else we know about the past from the natural sciences and cultural remains. (http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/)
Further, Ken Ham in his blog entry, linked to the following YouTube lecture – to which Dr. Enns himself proudly links from his own blog – as representative of his teaching, so that readers could draw their own conclusions:
Finally, knowing that they were going to warn conference attendees of false teaching promoted by the Biologos Foundation, and that a representative of Biologos (Dr. Enns) was going to be present at the Greenville convention, Mark Looy of AiG personally spoke to the president of Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc., informing him that Ken Ham and AiG would be doing so, to which the president responded: “We would expect nothing less from Answers in Genesis” (listen to the YouTube interview with Ken Ham, below, for this quote and other details). And this is exactly what Ken Ham did at the Greenville convention.
What do you suppose happened?
Hey! Ken Ham!! YOU’RE NOT BEING LOVING!!!
Dr. Wile, Dr. Enns, and the twin coordinate powers of Church statesmanship And now for the “love.” Aware of Ken Ham’s blog post warning of the teaching of Biologos and Dr. Enns, Dr. Wile, formerly of Apologia, issued a response to Ken Ham’s warning, entitled, An Opportunity for Critical Thinking!, in which he asserts that there is room for disagreement in the interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis and that there are multiple equally valid positions on the “inspiration of Scripture,” and then decries Ken Ham for offering public assessment of Dr. Enns’ published materials and public statements, claiming that such is unloving and unChristlike. Then, two days later during the Greenville convention itself, Dr. Wile published a glowing review of Dr. Enns, following Enns’ lecture, The Dark Side of the Old Testament and What We Must Learn from it. This review focused mostly on ‘how Christian Dr. Enns is’ and early in the commentary section of this post, Dr. Wile defends his public approval of Dr. Enns on the basis of his identification with the man as his “Christian brother,” even though he personally disagrees with Enns’ (apparently) perfectly valid theology.
But this is nothing new for Dr. Wile (formerly of Apologia). Beginning at least since his departure from Apologia, Dr. Wile has been guilty of propping up error alongside the truth, naming the Biologos Foundation and extolling their version of theistic evolution not only as compatible with biblical Christianity, but as equally valid with his own views. For example, in 2009, he writes:
Since the early church was not unanimous in taking the days of Genesis as 24-hour days, I fail to see why the modern church should be. Indeed, given the fact that many in the early church viewed the days of Genesis to be something other than 24-hour days, I think the modern church is free to believe that as well. Thus, if some Christians want to postulate that the days were something else (not an attempt at order, but instead, long ages of time), I can’t see how you can suddenly say they don’t believe the Bible. (Clement of Alexandria on the Days of Genesis)
By 2010, we read such things from Dr. Wile as:
I strongly disagree with the idea that Old Earth Creationists aren't Biblical. Are you really willing to say that people like Norman Geisler, Gleason Archer, and J.P. Moreland aren't Biblical?
The young-earth view of creation is one orthodox interpretation of Scripture, but there are others. Even many in the early church, such as Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria , Basil of Caesarea, Augustine, and Hilary of Poitiers, didn't think the Genesis days were 24-hour days. Why do modern young-earthers believe that they MUST be 24-hour days.
For the record, I am a young-earth creationist. I prefer that term, however, because I think old-earth creationists, as well as some theistic evolutionists, are also Biblical. (Young Earth Creationists or Biblical Creationists?)
or,
...I would agree with you that the philosophical underpinnings of evolution are religious in nature. They end up relying on assumptions that can’t be tested. Thus, that makes them religious. However, I don’t think they are necessarily opposed to the Christian worldview. PZ Myers is clearly opposed to the Christian worldview, and he is VERY religious in that opposition. However, I don’t think his opposition comes from the philosophical underpinnings of evolution. Instead, it comes from his application of evolution. He uses evolution as an explanation for a universe without a Creator. That is clearly opposed to the Christian worldview, but that is just his application of evolution. Others, such as the folks at Biologos, apply evolution differently, and as a result, they do not oppose a Christian worldview.
I don’t agree with the folks at Biologos, but I understand where they are coming from. They think God organized the physical laws of the universe so that evolution would produce everything we see today, including people. This keeps God’s hands “clean” of the “messy” business of creation. In their mind, this elevates God. Thus, their application of evolution leads to their Christian worldview. (This Isn’t Evolution – It’s Lunacy)
More analysis of Dr. Wile’s theological incontinence since leaving Apologia can be found here, if the reader is interested.
Indulged in for this time, Error goes on to assert equal rights...
From this point Error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy.
And here, in the case of Dr. Wile, formerly of Apologia, we see this process playing out, as plain as day. The fact is, Dr. Wile attacks Ken Ham and protects Dr. Enns because he has been making propaganda for the false perspectives of Dr. Enns for years now. He attacks Ken Ham as “unloving,” rather than address the content of Ken Ham’s warnings, because he, and those who follow him, have progressed to Krauth’s second stage: truth and error are equivalent. He thus has no basis for criticizing Ken Ham’s content – agreement or disagreement with it is irrelevant – so he resorts to attacking Ken Ham’s “tone” as unloving, and the fact that he fails to see equivalency in mutually exclusive positions as “unchristian.”
As one can imagine, Dr. Wile’s aggressive and public pursuit of “big-tent orthodoxy,” and retreat from the young-earth positions he is well-known for defending, has sent Apologia Educational Ministries into a virtual tizzy. Inundated with letters and calls from deeply concerned home educators, they have had to issue their own reply in an effort to assuage the concerns of current and potential customers. ‘Don’t worry folks, Dr. Wile does not work here anymore!’ But just how much of what Dr. Wile (formerly of Apologia) currently reveals as his true doctrinal perspectives have seeped into the textbooks he has written over the years? We are assured by Apologia that on their face, nothing has, directly. But what about indirect influences? What would he have written differently had he not been wrestling with his own doubt regarding what he had been publicly defending – as we are now forced to presume he was? What about further patronage of those works? By purchasing the textbooks he had written for Apologia, is the concerned Christian home educator, or Christian day-school, financing his continued attempts to stand truth up next to error? These are critical questions for those looking for Christian teaching, or doctrinal reinforcement, from a science textbook, and for those selling such textbooks on this basis.
For the love of... ??? Dr. Susan Wise-Bauer just wants it to go away Dr. Susan Wise-Bauer is considered by many to be the poster-child for the success of home education. Herself a first generation home school student, she’s been referred to as the quintessential whiz-kid, and is regarded today as a high-power intellectual among home educators. Based on the education she received in the home, Dr. Bauer and her mother, Jesse Wise, wrote The Well-Trained Mind, launching Dr. Bauer’s career, and her curriculum publishing business, Peace Hill Press. Like Dr. Wile (formerly of Apologia...), she has been a well-known figure and trusted source within the home education movement for a long time, and today is widely known and respected outside of it, particularly in academia.
Up to this point, Dr. Bauer, who is herself a professing “American Christian” and whose husband is pastor of a rural, non-denominational church near their home, has wisely stayed away from religious issues in her world history curriculum and other publications meant for consumption by home educators. As a result, her curriculum has appealed to a very broad market, and has been very popular.
The connection between Dr. Bauer and Dr. Enns in the unfolding drama briefly outlined here, is her decision to enter the religious publishing market with a new publishing imprint of Peace Hill Press – Olive Branch Press. As stated above, this is the publisher of Dr. Enns' now-controversial Bible instruction curriculum for young children. One may wonder at Dr. Bauer’s decision to publish a Bible curriculum that promotes “big-tent orthodoxy:”
...is this her confession? (it might be...)
...was this merely a business decision, to appeal to the broadest possible religious-publishing market? (maybe... with the implosion of Evangelicalism, it is no longer the profitable religious publishing demographic that it once was... Liberalism, with the aid of the Emergent movement, has replaced it as the new profitable demographic for publishers... the new reductionist, gender-neutral NIV is evidence of this demographic change...)
...or does it have something to do with the professional connections she has with Dr. Enns, such as the fact that he was a professor at the college from which Dr. Bauer received her M.Div, or that she has publicly supported him through other controversial publications? (seems reasonable...)
One is reduced to wondering, since Dr. Bauer has been very reluctant to speak publicly about this issue. However, she did issue at least one public statement in a Well-Trained Mind forum post entitled, With reluctance, trying to set the record straight, in which she quite clearly avoids connection with Dr. Enns and Olive Branch Press – the “religious instruction imprint” of Peace Hill Press – stating among many other things that:
“I have absolutely no connection with Biologos. At all.”
“Peter Enns, who has written a book for the Olive Branch imprint of Peace Hill Press, sometimes blogs for Biologos. To my knowledge, he has a publisher-author relationship with them. He has a publisher-author relationship with Olive Branch Books.”
“I support every parent's right NOT to use the Bible curriculum published by Olive Branch Books. However, it is absolutely untrue to say that this curriculum attacks the Bible. Please read it before making such accusations. That seems to me to be the most basic requirement for critiquing materials.”
Experienced home educator and homeschool blogger, Robin Sampson, is correct to characterize such statements as “sidestepping” in her blog post Homeschool Controversy: Anti-Bible, Bible Curriculum!, and reinforces this characterization by offering several quotes from Dr. Enns' Bible curriculum that is published by Bauer:
“The Flood was an attempt by God to set it right, but it didn’t work.” (Page 70)
“For many parents, the Bible looks a little bit like my child’s room. It’s a mess. Names, places, events are all over the place, and you hardly know where to start cleaning up. It’s such a mess, in fact, that if someone ripped twenty pages out of Leviticus or 1 Chronicles, you might not even notice it was missing. And if your aim is to teach the Bible to your children, the mess isn’t just confusing. It’s stressful.” (page 10)
“If our expectations are modern instead of ancient, we will get ourselves into a bind. Before we can ask the hard questions — for example, 'Is Genesis 1 in harmony with scientific thought? Or does Genesis 1 trump scientific thought?' — we must ask a more foundational question: 'What do we have the right to expect from God’s word as a book written in an ancient world?'” (pages 18/19)
“The issue is that I read him a very complex and intricate biblical narrative — the story of Adam, Eve, and the serpent — as if it were a child’s story. This biblical story was meant to convey something profound, mature, and foundational to ancient Israelites. Sitting down and reading this story with my son set him up to receive it as one tall tale among others. The Garden narrative is deeply theological and symbolic. Despite the neat talking snake, it is not the type of story that we should toss casually to our young children. When, at a more mature age, children are asked to revisit this story and begin dealing with it in earnest, many can hardly refrain from snickering. ('I outgrew talking animals years ago!') Or consider another Bible story commonly taught to children: the story of the Flood. The boat, the animals, the rain, the drama — all lend themselves to videos, snappy tunes, macaroni art, flannel graphs, and furry friends. What is obscured is the simply horrific notion that God would bring down such drastic destruction on the earth, rather than finding some other solution to humanity’s rebellion. And that is a question young adults should ask.” (page 44/45)
Yet, there is more to Dr. Bauer’s connection to Dr. Enns. In 2006, Dr. Enns wrote a book entitled, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, the content of which reportedly resulted in his dismissal from Westminster Theological Seminary. In that same year, Dr. Susan Wise-Bauer wrote a glowing review of Dr. Enns’ book. She titled it Messy Revelation: Why Paul would have flunked hermeneutics. Ken Ham, in a recent blog entry (Susan Wise-Bauer, “Why Paul would have flunked hermeneutics”), reviews several quotations from Bauer’s review, some of which follow:
So how can we claim that the Old Testament — and it alone from all the texts of that pre-Christian age — is divine communication from God to man? It’s an interesting question, but it turns out to be small potatoes compared with the next problem that Enns, professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, sets before us: It seems as though the Old Testament was also puzzling for Matthew and Luke and Paul. In fact, from where we sit, it looks as though the apostles were lousy at exegesis...
Enns gives us a number of startling New Testament passages that use the Old Testament by wrenching the original words violently out of context and even altering them … In other words, Matthew is shamelessly proof-texting, in a way that would get any student enrolled in Practical Theology 221 (Expository Skills) sternly reproved...
Changing the words of Scripture to suit your own purposes? Paul wouldn’t get past the first week of New Testament 123 (Hermeneutics) like that. He is breaking every rule of thoughtful evangelical scholarship, which holds that the proper way to approach inerrant Scripture is with careful grammatical-historical exegesis: painstaking analysis of each word of the Scripture and its relationship to other words, the setting of the sentence in the verse, the verse in the chapter, the chapter in the book, and the book in the historical times of its composition.
Of course Paul breaks those rules, Enns says; they are our rules, not Paul’s. Inspiration and Incarnation offers us passages from such extrabiblical texts as the Wisdom of Solomon and the Book of Biblical Antiquities in order to show that, far from doing something extraordinary and super-apostolic, Paul and Matthew were doing exactly what most of their contemporaries did. Both apostles had been trained by the scholars of their day, the so-called “Second Temple” period, to come to a text looking for the “mystery” beneath the words: the deeper truth that an untrained reader might not see. Both of them came to the Old Testament already convinced that they knew what that mystery was: the incarnation, death, and resurrection of God in Jesus Christ...
For the interested reader, more analysis of Dr. Bauer’s connection with Dr. Enns and its impact on AiG and Ken Ham, along with links to additional resources on this topic, can be read here. Regardless of such further analysis, at this point we are left to speculate what her true motivations for publishing Dr. Enns’ bible curriculum are. But three things are certain:
there is a definite theological resonance between Bauer and Enns,
their theology is not to be trusted by any Christian who desires to be orthodox,
her “reluctance” to be forthright with her customers and her apparent desire to struggle against those who would publicly critique her published materials and those of Dr. Enns is very suspicious – and has nothing whatsoever to do with a concern over “being loving”.
“Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc.” to Ken Ham: We reject your spirit! Affirming their agreement with Ken Ham and his position, Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc. nevertheless folded under pressure – presumably from Dr. Jay Wiles, Dr. Peter Enns, Dr. Susan-Wise Bauer and other interested parties – officially terminating their contract with Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, and permanently prohibiting him and AiG from any further involvement in any future conventions that they may host – and this after the president of Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc. was informed by Mark Looy of AiG that Ken Ham would warn conference attendees of compromises and error in Dr. Enns’ materials, and affirmed to Mark Looy his support for Ken Ham: “We would expect nothing less from Answers in Genesis”.
In announcing their termination last week, AiG published the email they received from Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc., along with their own response, in this blog post: Kicked Out of Two Homeschool Conferences. In their letter, Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc. equated AiG’s public critique of Dr. Enns’ published materials with terms such as “slander” and “attack” – but most peculiarly, as having an “unScriptural spirit.” In the public announcement on their own web site, Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc. state as much directly: “Ken Ham was removed for his spirit, not for his message” – whatever that means.
In their commentary, Answers in Genesis quite correctly observes:
We often find today that if we speak against someone’s theological compromise, we are accused of being “un-Christian” or “unloving.” This is a bigger topic for another time, but for the moment let us state that we need to understand what the Bible means by “love.” It does not mean one doesn’t publicly stand against error.
Being kicked out of these conventions is sad, but AiG notes this is not the major issue here. What is troubling is that more and more churches have been infiltrated by academics who compromise God’s Word, and many Christians are simply unaware of the danger.
Indeed, getting “kicked out” for issuing public critique of published materials and public statements, is a sad thing – but it is a trivial concern next to the soul-killing error that is spewed by false teachers, and the obligation of Christians to sound the warning. And it is likely to happen to most Christians who are thus filled with Truth’s conviction. Many, as in the case of Ken Ham and AiG, will be the object of “organizational solutions,” of political retaliation floating on cockamamy foundations like “We agree with what you say, but reject your spirit” – and this rather than to show the fortitude to engage the debate publicly, rather than to take a public position and defend it.
Todd Friel of WRETCHED Radio interviews Ken Ham Interveiw begins about 1:45 into the recording...
Our Conclusion The situation with Ken Ham and AiG is not unique, and it is quite illustrative of situations we all face. It is unfortunate, but more often than not these days, the phrase, “Speak the truth in love!” is levied as a threatening warning against those who, with hearts full of love and gratitude for what Christ has done for them, do the hard work of actually speaking the difficult truth. Such threats warn of impending retaliation from rivals or organizational authorities; or they warn that, ultimately, the value of truth is only proportional to the subjective standards of behaviour which accompany it.
And this is what has happened to this perfectly good phrase. Repeated ad nauseum and used as a weapon, the thrust of this phrase is no longer that Truth flows from a foundation of love, but that Truth has no objective value and that it is only as effective as the “method” employed by the truth-teller. Often, it seems, the pious theologian who gives arbitrary instructions concerning “loving discourse” is only posing as a psychologist or sociologist as he points the truth-teller to the results he desires from speaking the truth, rather than to the value of the truth itself, and insists that the truth-teller observe certain rules of discourse if he would be effective. Thus, the perfectly good phrase, “Speak the truth in love” has been ruined.
The fact is, speaking the Truth is love. That is what has made the other well-known, and much older phrase, “The truth hurts,” so poignant; and it is especially the case when the Truth exposes cherished falsehoods and demolishes the strongholds of Satan. For this reason, speaking the Truth "in love" should never have anything to do with whitewashing the Truth, or remaining silent, in order to avoid ‘hurt feelings’; all it means is that we don't offend for the sake of offending, or for the sake of sport. Furthermore, the impact of standing on the Truth and sounding warnings against error should never be an object of anticipated measure, but of trust in God’s providential working. Each person has been given unique characteristics by God. Personality, for instance, is a product of God’s genetic gift to the individual and of His gift of life experiences through which that individual’s character is developed, for His hidden purposes. Likewise, an individual’s conviction comes from God’s gift of faith to that individual, where the individual's portion of faith meets his personality and is expressed accordingly. Such expression has the impact God desires, and has already planned.
We are called to live by conscience, and this means speaking and acting according to our convictions as we have been equipped by God to do so. As a wise man, caught in a difficult situation, once said, It is never safe to go against conscience. And in giving advice for living according to conscience, this same man recommended that Christians Sin Boldly! – that is, that they do what they do because they are convinced as a matter of conscience that it is the right thing to do. Even if it turns out that in the end it isn’t the right thing to do, that’s ok, because we can deal with that – it’s called repentance and forgiveness. But a fear of possibly being wrong should never prevent us from confessing and living according to the convictions of conscience, indeed such fear robs us of conviction; and it is never safe to violate conscience at the behest of those issuing threats and demands, or to attenuate Truth and squelch warnings of error because someone declares that in merely doing so “YOU’RE NOT BEING LOVING!!!” In this sense, we at Intrepid Lutherans will continue to speak and live according to conscience, to “sin boldly,” and encourage our fellow confessional Lutherans to do the same.
Word is now coming out that a letter has been discovered that was written to St. Paul, in response to his letter to the churches in Galatia. Here is an English translation.
Parodios, a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, to our brother Paulos.
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Our church recently received a copy of the letter that you sent to the church of Galatia. We hope you will not mind hearing our humble concerns. In the past we have noticed you are more interested in confronting people rather than conversing with them, but we hope you will receive this letter as an invitation to further dialogue.
First of all, we are uncomfortable with your tone throughout the correspondence. We know it is difficult sometimes to discern tone of voice from written communication, but you should keep this in mind as well. One could gather from your careless use of words that you are losing your temper. You certainly sound angry. This is unbecoming a spokesperson for the faith. As you say yourself, one of the manifest fruit of God’s Spirit is gentleness.
Aren’t you being a hypocrite to preach grace but not show it to our Judaizer brothers? They may not worship as you do or emphasize the same teachings you do, but our Lord has “sheep not of this fold,” and there is certainly room within the broader Way for these brothers. Their methodology may differ from yours, but certainly their hearts are in the right place.
You yourself know that our Lord required personal contact when we have a grievance against another. Have you personally contacted any of these men? Have you sat down to reason with them personally? Have you issued a personal invitation? Some of them may even reconsider their viewpoints if you had taken a different tack. We know that your position is likely that public teaching is open to public criticism, but we can do better than what is expected, can’t we?
In one portion of your letter, you indicate you don’t even know these persons! “Whoever he is,” you write. Our dear Paulos, how can you rightly criticize them when you don’t know them? It’s clear you haven’t even read their material, because you never quote them. We implore you to see that they are plainly within the tradition of Moses and of the Prophets. They understand the context of the covenant in ways you appear deaf to.
Similarly, we find your tone and resorting to harsh language not in keeping with the love of Christ. “Foolish Galatians.” “Let him be accursed.” “Emasculate themselves.” Really? Can you not hear yourself? You think this is Christlike? Does this sound like something our Lord would say? Do you think this flippant, outrageous, personal, vindictive manner of speech speaks well of God’s love or the church? It is clear you are taking this way too personally. Indeed, you ask the Galatians if you are now their enemy. Does everything have to be so black and white to you?
Paulos, what will unbelievers think when they read this letter? Do you think this will commend the gospel to them? This kind of harsh language just makes us look like a bunch of angry people. They see we can’t even love each other, and over what? Circumcision? This is a terrible advertisement for God’s love to an unbelieving world. You have given plenty of people permission now to disregard Jesus, if this is what his mouthpieces sound like.
We hope you will reconsider your approach. We know that you catch much more flies with honey than with vinegar. We are concerned that your ill-worded letter signals a divisiveness that threatens to fracture the church. We beg you to reconsider how important these minor issues are, and how in the future you may speak in ways that better reflect God’s love.
The grace —and the love!— of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brother.
The foregoing was posted on Rev. Paul T. McCain's blog, Cyberbrethren, last week. When we read it, we thought it appropriate as an object of discussion on our own blog, and sought permission to cross-post his blog entry on Intrepid Lutherans. Of course, this piece is satire. We feel compelled to state as much before the reader comments, given that a number of the Cyberbrethren commenters didn't get it.
But what of these criticisms of St. Paul? Face to face communication is required in all circumstances? Really? Is St. Paul's position that "public teaching is open to public criticism" at variance with the teaching of Christ? Really? Is St. Paul not being Christlike when he displays indignance in the face of attacks on the Gospel and pure doctrine? Really? Or, are those who overshadow references like 1 Tim. 5:20 with references like Mt. 18:15, rather than balancing them, in fact pitting Scripture against itself? Wouldn't the natural result of this be a criticism of St. Paul's use of language in the book of Galatians? Or criticism of his "naming of names" in I Ti. 1:19-20, II Ti. 4:14-15 and elsewhere, when, in letters meant to be read in public, he excoriates by name members of the congregation as false brothers? Or even St. John – the "Apostle of Love" – who in III John likewise names Diotrephes, an apparently influential figure in the congregation, as a false teacher? Would the result of such an imbalanced understanding of Scripture's testimony be a confusion of the two Tables of the Law, of placing temporal concerns for one's neighbor ahead of God and His Word?
God’s Word is a weapon against the devil. It is the gladius Spiritus, the “sword of the Spirit,” as the Apostle calls it in Ephesians 6. By it, the Holy Spirit gives new birth to those first born in the devil’s kingdom. By it, the kingdom of God comes and the kingdom of the devil falls. God’s Word, rightly used, is the devil’s undoing.
But God’s Word, twisted and perverted, is the devil’s tool. We know that our enemy, the devil, is a master at misusing God’s Word. “Did God really say…?” he queried Eve. “Throw yourself down! For it is written: ‘He will command his angels concerning you…’” he taunted the famished Lord Christ from the highest point of Jerusalem’s temple. “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone,” the Adversary whispered, influencing the “adversaries” of the Lutheran Church to cite James 2:24 as proof that faith and works must be combined to bring about man’s justification before God.
Our Lutheran forefathers were able to handily untwist God’s Word (Apology, Art. V) by interpreting it in context and by using the whole of Scripture to harmonize the passages which seemed to contradict one another.
Distribuite tempora, et concordat Scriptura, Augustine said. “Distinguish the times (when each Scripture passage applies), and the Scripture agrees with itself” (Sermones, LXXXII). He said this in reference to two passages of Scripture – one oft quoted in our times, the other oft forgotten. He was speaking about the apparent contradiction between Matthew 18:15 and 1 Timothy 5:20.
Actually, he began the discussion talking about the Septuagint (Greek) translation of Proverbs 10:10b, “He that reproves openly makes peace.” Lest anyone should make the argument that the New Testament (Matthew 18) trumps the Old Testament (Proverbs 10), Augustine put the argument on an unquestionably even plain: Christ against Christ, that is, Christ’s words in Matthew 18 vs. Christ’s words in 1 Timothy 5:20 (spoken through his apostle).
Matthew 18:15 – “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you…” (NIV).
1 Timothy 5:20 – “Those [elders] who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning” (NIV).
Augustine - “Brothers, let us then listen to these two precepts in such a way that we may understand them, and let us be at peace between them both. Let us be in agreement with our own heart, and Holy Scripture will in no part disagree with itself. It is entirely true, both precepts are true; but we must make a distinction, that sometimes the one, sometimes the other must be done; that sometimes a brother must be ‘reproved between him and you alone,’ sometimes a brother ‘must be reproved before all, that the others also may fear.’ If we sometimes do the one, and sometimes the other, we will maintain the harmony of the Scriptures, and in doing and fulfilling them, we will not go wrong.” (translation mine)
When does the admonition in Matthew 18:15 apply – for a brother to rebuke a brother privately or secretly? When the sin is known only between the two of them. In that case, it would unnecessarily harm the reputation of the sinner to alert others to it. When does 1 Timothy 5:20 apply? When the sin is committed in the presence of other witnesses. Ergo ipsa corripienda sunt coram omnibus, quae peccantur coram omnibus: ipsa corripienda sunt secretius, quae peccantur secretius. “Therefore, those sins are to be reproved before all that are committed before all; those sins are to be reproved in secret that are committed in secret.”
In addition to the different circumstances in which Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5 apply, they also emphasize different purposes. Matthew 18 focuses on the repentance of the one who has sinned, while 1 Timothy 5 focuses on the effect the public rebuke is to have on “the others.” In context, Paul is speaking of the “presiding elders” in the congregation, “especially those who preach and teach.” No accusation against one of these elders ought to be entertained lightly, because they hold that noble office of the ministry and are worthy of “double honor.” Two or three witnesses are required for any accusation to be entertained against them. But where these witnesses are present, Paul calls for a public rebuke of the elder (in our context, “minister”) who has sinned, “so that the others may take warning.” Literally, “so that the rest may have fear.”
The public nature of the rebuke of an elder is to serve as a warning to anyone – layman or clergy – who might be tempted to sin in a similar way. Whatever an elder does, whether good or bad, has tremendous influence on the beliefs and actions of others, because an elder is supposed to be trustworthy. His life is supposed to be an example, a pattern for others to follow (Phil. 3:17). If that pattern has been sinful in some area and has gone on without rebuke, then others may easily be tempted to conclude that the pattern is, in fact, an acceptable one, and so may be tempted to follow it. For this reason, a public rebuke is called for, so that everyone may be warned against following the sinful pattern set for them by the elder.
The rest of the Scriptures support this same distinction in the use of Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5. When Jesus rebuked the Pharisees as hypocrites, there is no indication that he approached each one individually first to rebuke them in private (though they were, at that time, still his “brothers” in the visible church called “Israel”). Paul rebuked Peter “in front of them all” (Galatians 2:14) because Peter’s public actions had led others astray. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about the man in their midst who had openly taken his father’s wife to be his own (1 Cor. 5:1), he didn’t call on the Corinthians to “begin the steps of Matthew 18” with this man. Paul’s instruction to them was clear: “When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan” (1 Cor. 5:4,5).
Likewise, Paul did not hesitate, at times, to “name names” of those individuals who had sinned publicly. “Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme” (1 Timothy 1:19-20). “For Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica” (2 Timothy 4:10). One wonders if, in our synod today, Paul would be accused of “breaking the 8th Commandment.”
Speaking of the 8th Commandment, Lutheran theologians, starting with Luther, have uniformly observed the distinction between private and public sin. Luther writes in the Large Catechism,
The true way in this matter would be to keep the order in the Gospel. In Matthew 18:15, Christ says, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.” Here you have a precious and excellent teaching for governing well the tongue, which is to be carefully kept against this detestable misuse. Let this, then, be your rule, that you do not too quickly spread evil about your neighbor and slander him to others. Instead, admonish him privately that he may amend his life. Likewise, if someone reports to you what this or that person has done, teach him, too, to go and admonish that person personally, if he has seen the deed himself.
But then he adds,
All this has been said about secret sins. But where the sin is quite public, so that the judge and everybody know about it, you can without any sin shun the offender and let him go his own way, because he has brought himself into disgrace. You may also publicly testify about him. For when a matter is public in the daylight, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying. It is like when we now rebuke the pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. Where the sin is public, the rebuke also must be public, that everyone may learn to guard against it.
As we distinguish between Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5, it is not as if we are being required by God to choose “love” in some cases (Matthew 18) and to choose “lovelessness” in other cases (1 Timothy 5:20). Both actions – rebuking in private when called for and rebuking in public when called for – are commands of God, and therefore, both are perfectly loving. (A person’s attitude for doing either may or may not be motivated by love, but that is a separate question.)
But here is where the devil perverts the Holy Scriptures and reverts to his ancient temptation to turn man into God. He would make us to be gods who judge what love is or isn’t. “How can it be loving to publicly rebuke someone? That will harm their reputation. God tells you to guard your neighbor’s reputation, and therefore, it’s never appropriate to rebuke him in public. Remember, Jesus said, ‘…just between the two of you!’”
The devil would have us remember Matthew 18 while forgetting 1 Timothy 5. This is no different than what he did when he tempted Jesus. He wanted Jesus to remember Psalm 91:11-12 while forgetting Deuteronomy 6:16. (Thankfully, the Word incarnate didn’t forget Himself inspired.)
Then the devil inserts the following argument, “Besides, if you rebuke this man publicly, then it will hinder his preaching of the gospel and bring turmoil to his congregation, which will also hinder the work of the gospel. And since spreading the gospel is the most important work of all, you shouldn’t do anything that might hinder it. Surely discipline in the Church is a lesser work than spreading the gospel!”
Thus, Satan would convince us that one work of God is to be pitted against another. That is, the goal of “evangelism” is more important than following God’s commands for dealing with the one who has publicly sinned. The trouble is, of course, that the God who calls on his Church to preach the gospel is the same God who calls on his Church to rebuke public sins publicly, and this God never works against himself.
What does the devil accomplish when he succeeds in misquoting Matthew 18 in our ears? Several tragedies result:
Our definition of “love” supersedes God’s definition of “love,” and our purposes in “evangelism” trump God’s commands regarding public sin. We, therefore, make ourselves to be gods, and leave the First Commandment lying in pieces.
Public sins go publicly unreproved. God’s command to reprove publicly has the loving purpose of warning others. When the devil gets his way, others are not warned, but rather emboldened to commit the same sin, knowing that there will be no public consequence for it.
Those who act appropriately according to God’s command in 1 Timothy 5:20 are threatened with acting out of line with Matthew 18:15, and may even be censured for acting in line with God’s command.
If a sin is committed publicly by one pastor, but the rest of the pastors refuse to address it publicly, then the people of God lose trust in all their pastors.
The name of God is “blasphemed among the Gentiles” when elders of God’s Church commit well-known sins, without there ever being any well-known rebuke for those sins. If the sin is well-known but the rebuke is only private, then the world’s suspicions of “clergy cover-up” will not be entirely without merit.
Matthew 18:15 is God’s Word. 1 Timothy 5:20 is God’s Word. The devil can quote either one against the other, and in our time, he seems to be having a great deal of success pushing Matthew 18 when Matthew 18 does not apply. Distribuite tempora, et concordat Scriptura. Distinguish the times, and the Scripture agrees with itself. Fail to distinguish when Matthew 18 applies, and it becomes another weapon in the devil’s arsenal.
Note: Intrepid Lutherans cannot endorse all the content found at the following links, and expects that the visitor accessing them will exercise mature Berean judgment in assessing and making use of them.
