The righteous will live by faith

Today is remembered as Reformation Day in some Christian circles: the day on which Martin Luther challenged the Roman Catholic church on selling indulgences, among other matters, and advocated the priority of faith. I mean "priority" in more than one of its meanings, so to be clear: both the importance of faith, and the fact that faith comes before the resulting works.

Jesus taught that evil comes from the heart: immorality, theft, adultery, murder, and such begin as internal matters. Before there are works of evil, there are thoughts and desires of evil. Consider the much-neglected commandments against coveting: you shall not covet your neighbor's property, or his wife, or his workers, or anything pertaining to our neighbor. Coveting property leads to theft. Coveting someone's spouse leads to adultery. In some cases, it has been known to lead to murder. The seeds of the evil to come were planted as coveting. The deeds followed from thoughts and desires that were encouraged. 

And the righteous live by faith. It begins as an internal matter. Long before Mother Theresa was a saint, she learned to value compassion and humility -- to see other people through the eyes of faith, as valuable in God's sight. Long before Abraham was anyone's father, he learned faith: to trust that God could keep a promise to bring offspring even from an old man such as he was. Long before we step out in faith, before we find our own calling, we learn the thoughts and desires of the heart that come from faith. We learn holiness and compassion. We learn to trust God's thoughts more than our own. We learn the wisdom of both righteousness and forgiveness. We learn the immeasurable importance of loving our neighbors. We learn what it means to desire mercy rather than sacrifice. It starts as small as a mustard seed, and grows until it is a refuge or sanctuary in this world. 

Faith, hope, and love are closely intertwined. It is hard to have one without having all three. God's love creates our faith. Our faith lives out God's love.

Thesis #2 On Church Unity

2. Scripture is our light in discerning the truth: not because it answers every question that we wish, but because it contains all the words known with certainty to come from God and from Christ, and because no disciple is above his master.

Again, while it is tempting to add some of the more obvious corollaries to that, at this point they might introduce less clarity instead of more.

Thesis #1 on Church Unity

1. Visible, acknowledged unity of all the followers of Christ is desirable: not because the See is infallible, but because fellowship is indispensable.

So tempting to add more right now, but here and now I want to focus on only this thought. 

The Reformation and The Schism

I expect that anyone who looked back at the Western church in the early 1500s would have seen the problems.  There were some newer and questionable doctrines; there was the question of what an ancient church was doing with new doctrines in the first place; there was the question of some fundraising practices involving the doctrine of purgatory and the sale of indulgences.  And there was a theology professor who had completely lost his patience with the abuses.

Lost his patience.  Patience is a Christian virtue.  It's not something we can afford to lose, necessarily.

Somewhere there is a time and a place for righteous anger.  Sometimes the best intentions go wrong. And so the desire to reform the church ended up splintering it.  When Martin Luther posted those 95 debating points, he did not imagine the church was so fragile that it would break.

"Speak the truth with love."  Could things have been different today if Luther had been as gifted at diplomacy as he was preaching?

Not all the schisms traced to Luther, of course. Before Luther, the church was broken into the "Catholic" and "Orthodox", along with Copts and Nestorians who were far more of a presence in the East than is typically known in the West. A general lack of focus on the Holy Spirit made it nearly inevitable that a Pentecostal movement would separate from the church rather than light the whole from within.  The excessive formality of some groups caused their mirror image to form in reaction. The over-reliance on scholastic-style argument may have played a role in the groups that are wary of scholastic argument and systematic theology.

And yet Luther's lack of diplomacy may be one of the most lasting pieces of his legacy, and Rome's insistence on its own infallibility has been inherited by many Reformation churches.

In order to reunite, each group needs not to splinter into ever-smaller factions with ever-narrower interests, which is the current direction and has been for so long. Instead, we would each of us need to broaden our own bases until each group is more catholic in the original sense of the word: a big enough tent, a welcome for all of Christ's brothers and sisters, a place for all true and useful teachings, a welcome for all healthy approaches.

May we see it in our day.

What the studies of Galatians tell us

Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians to remind the people that controversies in general -- and their current controversy over the law in particular -- should not take their focus away from Christ. Paul managed a rare thing: he re-focused the people on what was important, without losing focus himself. In order, the top ten most common words in Galatians are:

1. Christ 
2. law 
3. God 
4. faith 
5. spirit 
6. Jesus (2-way tie between "Jesus" and "son")
7. son (2-way tie between "Jesus" and "son")
8. brothers (3-way tie of "brothers", "gospel", and "woman")
9. gospel  (3-way tie of "brothers", "gospel", and "woman")
10. woman (3-way tie of "brothers", "gospel", and "woman")

The controversy about the law, even as it was being corrected, took a second place to Christ.

The commentaries on that letter do not quite manage to follow that lead. Instead we see how easily our controversies draw us off track, even commentaries on a book that was written to explain how we shouldn't allow things to draw us off track.

The Top Three Spots in the Commentaries

When we limit our view to the top three most common words, our commentators do keep the same top three words as Paul. But not one of them keeps the relative emphasis correct, and so the Bible study becomes to some degree a distortion of the book. (Others would argue it is not a distortion so much as a contextualization inside the larger framework of the Bible and theology. We'll leave most of that question for another day.)

• Luther's top three: Law, Christ, and God. It's particularly ironic for Luther, whose career is known for returning focus to Christ, to make that particular mistake about this particular book by focusing more on the law than on Christ. Did he realize that his enthusiasm to correct overemphasis on "works of the law" had led him to focus more on the law than on Christ? I expect that Luther would have seen this as a distortion, even if it was caused by what he considered legitimate enthusiasm to correct an error. In correcting it, he fell into a similar mistake. It is a fair warning for anyone who corrects an error not to be drawn off-message by it.

• Calvin's top three: God, Christ, and law. I don't think that Calvin would have minded that God ended up emphasized over Christ, or that his priorities there were different than Paul's. That overpowering emphasis on God the Father is the deliberate hallmark of Calvin's theology. Still, it remains out of step with the focus of Paul's letter to the Galatians. Where a Lutheran would see this as a distortion to take the focus away from Christ, I expect that Calvin would have seen his emphasis as a contextualization, and supported it as putting things in their right place in the big picture of the whole Bible.

• Wesley's top three: law, God, and Christ. Wesley is the only one of these major Protestant writers to put Christ -- Paul's top priority -- down to third place. Again, I'm not completely sure that Wesley would have minded that. The writings I've read of Wesley's have a conscious move toward focus on the father, rather than Christ. Again, I expect that Wesley would have seen his change of emphasis as a contextualization, and supported it.

Odd things added or omitted

The word clouds show that some words were emphasized more in the Bible studies than in the original. But some discernment is necessary as to whether these are problems. In a Bible study, it is not too unusual for words like "chapter" or "verse" to have a prominent place in the Bible study but not in the original. This does not by itself mean that the authors are changing emphasis; it means that they are referencing an original. So differences of that kind are not a problem by this reckoning. Likewise "Paul" gets more mention in these commentaries than they do in Paul's writings, because in his own writings he doesn't refer to himself by name. These types of variations are expected in a book written about an original work.

But some variations are more unexpected.

• Luther's other questionable moves: Of Paul's top ten words, Luther gives so little attention to "brothers" or "woman" that they are not in his top 100. Luther also adds an emphasis on "sin" and the "devil" that is out of proportion to Paul. This last is typical of Luther's writings, as many Lutherans would recognize. Luther repeatedly speaks about "sin, death, and the devil" in a way that has more to do with Luther than the Bible.

• Calvin's other questionable moves: Of Paul's most prominent words, Calvin repeats Luther's lack of recognition of "brothers" or "woman", and adds another to the neglected words list: "Jesus". The prominence given in the book of Galatians to "Jesus" -- recognized as a distinct word from "Christ" -- is found in Paul, and Luther, and Wesley -- but is absent from the top 100 words list in Calvin's commentary. This underscores Calvin's intentional and systematic approach to de-emphasizing the role of Jesus Christ. Beyond that, the shift away from "Jesus" (historical, personal, relatable) to only "Christ" (theological) is something we have seen before in other word clouds, where it has been a useful indicator of how far someone is removed from interest in the actual Jesus of history, when they drop the personal name "Jesus" and focus only on the theological title "Christ". Beyond this, Calvin also adds several words at high-emphasis that a study of Galatians doesn't necessarily call for: "doctrine", "Romans", and "power". That refers us straight to themes we have discussed before on this blog, about whether "doctrine" has been put in the place of Christ as what saves you, whether "Romans" as a book is the best touchstone for Christian theology, and whether "power" is over-emphasized in Calvinist circles relative to what is warranted by the Bible. The only minor surprise is not seeing "sovereign" or "sovereignty" in Calvin's list of frequently-used words; it leads me to wonder when exactly that became the identifying badge of Calvinist writings as it is today.

• Wesley's other questionable moves: Of Paul's most prominent words, compliments to Wesley on not dropping the priority of "brothers" as Luther and Calvin did; Wesley has it as "brethren" which looks like it matches the Bible translation he was using. The only one of Paul's top ten words that Wesley drops from his top 100 is "woman". Wesley, like the others, emphasizes several words that the book of Galatians itself does not call for. In Wesley's case, some noteworthy insertions are: "dispensation", "power", "doctrine", and "glory". We touched on "power" and "doctrine" when looking at Calvin. I am in no position to comment on Wesley's involvement with, or later reference by, theologians who promote a dispensational view, or the prosperity gospel with its focus on glory. The focus on "power" is less in keeping with their general reputation. (Wesley also brings in "Genesis" often enough to register, or its abbreviation "Gen.". But this happens in his notes on what Paul said about Abraham, so isn't out of place.)

The point

I'd like to close with two main thoughts:

1. People writing commentaries generally insert their own concerns and viewpoints into the commentaries, as we have seen with Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. I should mention: if we keep in mind that this happens when someone writes a commentary, we would almost want each author to insert his own concerns and viewpoints into his commentaries. It's part of why we read them, after all. The problem comes when we take them as "what the Bible really means" instead of "what it meant to this man at this time and place, that may have insight for us too". Unless we recognize the risks and take preventive measures, our sectarian Bible studies may lead us farther apart from each other -- and from the Bible.
   
   Even if the authors have no intent to be misleading, the final effect can still be the same. If someone would say that changing the emphasis simply brings it into the context of their theology as a whole, that begs the question of exactly how sound is their theology as a whole. Our Bible studies teach more than just the Bible; they teach the preconceptions of those who wrote them. That was the reason for those tedious word clouds; I hope the readers can pardon the brief rounds of tedium in exchange for the undistorted view we got of each author. The authors were allowed to pick their own priorities, and I did not invent an emphasis where none existed, instead taking an objective measure. The biggest potential flaws here are the translators and, in Luther's case, the abridger since apparently his original was so long that it was not translated in full.
   
2. On a hopeful note, there is substantial agreement on some important things. The first point of agreement is that we should be studying the Bible. All of these authors thought it well worth their while to study such a book in detail, and centuries later we still think the same. It seems that we are in agreement that studying the Bible can advance insight, wisdom, and knowledge of the truth. It seems that we also agree that we should be faithful to the message given us in the Bible, diligent about seeking exactly what the original writer was trying to tell us, open to growth and insight, willing to correct our own views if needed. We all desire to understand the fullness of God's word. It seems that achieving such an understanding would necessarily unite us.
   
   One question is whether we can be united now, while we still see in a glass, darkly. Another question is how much our current sectarian system causes the glass to be darker. But if unity can be reached, it will be because we are all still earnestly to this day listening to the words of Peter and Paul and John and all the apostles, and most of all to Jesus Christ.

The Great Commission: What Kind of Foundation?

Go therefore make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. (Jesus, Matthew 28:19-20)

Jesus' words sent his followers out into the wider world and began the worldwide outreach that is our mission as Christians. The great commission is vital to the foundation of the church. But vital in what way? We have been looking at "axioms" -- how we place something at the beginning of a logical system. Consider two different ways the Great Commission could be viewed as a foundation for the Christian movement:

Possibility #1: The Great Commission is the starting point for our actions as Christ's followers.
Possibility #2: The Great Commission is the whole purpose for our actions as Christ's followers.

Under the first possibility the Great Commission is where we begin, but it does not limit us. From that beginning, we branch out into other questions of theology that may occur to us, or seem important to us. We search out more mysteries. We have a healthy curiosity about God, and we do our best to read between the lines of Scripture to find answers to questions that were never directly asked or answered in those pages.

Under the second possibility, all of the above is well and good but shouldn't be mistaken for what Jesus asked us to do. Under the second possibility, the Great Commission is the whole purpose of the church. If Christ said to teach everything he taught, then that is what we are to teach. If he said we are to obey everything he commanded, then that is what we are to do. If we are teaching something else or doing something else, it's not what he asked us to do. A teaching or belief or action cannot be required if nobody in the apostolic church showed it coming from Christ. Teaching other things may be interesting but it's not any essential part of Christianity.

Looking at the history of Jesus' followers, we can see that the Great Commission was definitely a starting point. It is not a controversial thing to call it a starting point. The question I mean to raise is this: when Jesus spoke those words, what was it that he meant to start? The commission calls us to be taught, and to do, and to teach everything that Jesus taught to those first disciples. Are we commanded -- or invited, or permitted -- to teach things besides that?

The issue is not necessarily simple. At what point does not knowing fully, not understanding fully, interfere with our ability to teach and to follow? At what point does seeking other answers distract us from what Jesus said?  And each person sees one topic as more vital than others. But the questions I mean to raise are these: At what point are we no longer teaching what Jesus actually taught us? At what point have we hijacked the church and used it as a license to teach our own theories? At what point does Jesus' commission no longer control what the church is doing?

When Martin Luther started the original Reformation, he had not meant to divide the church but to curb some abuses, and so he posted some debating points. His 95 Theses were largely about purgatory and indulgences. Those 95 Theses might have been summed up like this: "Where did you get a license to teach that?" The point here is not to pick on the church of Rome. Instead I'd invite us all to ask, for everything we teach: Is that something that Jesus taught?

As we head back to the anniversary of the Reformation, I think instead of 95 Theses, I'd invite people to consider one axiom: The church exists to fulfill Christ's commission.

Have Protestants missed the point of the Reformation?

Most Protestants are familiar with the traditional account of the Reformation: how a German monk posted debating points on the church door, challenging a corrupt system. And the church of that day plainly was corrupt. The 95 Theses generally focused on particular aspects of the sale of indulgences and fund-raising practices centered around purgatory, with some notable other comments on the general way that forgiveness was being taught and practiced.

Protestants have taken to heart that the sale of indulgences was wicked and corrupt; no risk of repeating the same mistakes there. But were those the only mistakes we're at risk of repeating? The most radical challenges of the 95 Theses tend to be missed; they aren't actually in the text, but in the act of posting debating points to challenge the church:

1. The church is not infallible.
2. True orthodoxy traces its roots to Christ and his witnesses.
3. The church exceeds its authority whenever it teaches on God's authority anything it has not received on God's authority.

The Reformation in its small beginnings was not intended as a schism or a blame game, but as a house-cleaning. The minute it becomes an opportunity to feel smugly superior to Rome, it becomes a religious corruption in itself. This becomes a temptation when we are sure that the problems needing reform are unique to the Church of Rome. That may be so for the 95 Theses posted for debate that day. But the deeper message should be considered posted on every church door every day.

1. The church is not infallible.
2. True orthodoxy traces its roots to Christ and his witnesses.
3. The church exceeds its authority whenever it teaches on God's authority anything it has not received on God's authority.

Since the Reformation, we do not owe allegiance to a supposedly infallible hierarchy that cannot imagine the possibility of error. But do our churches have the same spirit? I cannot think of a single church body without at least one teaching that is beyond what we have on Christ's authority, nor one that does not demonize its would-be reformers on the unspoken assumption of their own group's infallibility in at least one matter.

If we want to celebrate Reformation Day, I hope we do it by admitting the fallibility of the church and by listening to our own reformers.

Christianity: The Sequel

Many people have pointed out that sequels are rarely as good as originals. National Treasure 2 wasn't quite as good as the original National Treasure. Don't even get me started about the 2nd and 3rd installments of Pirates of the Caribbean.

I think the reason this happens is that in the original, people are trying to capture the ultimate: best treasure-hunt movie ever, best pirate movie ever. Whether they succeed in being the best is one question, but their high goal leads to high results. Sequels often aim lower. They do not want to be the best ever; they just want to repeat the first. The same players come out to take another bow. They end up with the quality of stale leftovers, warmed over and not quite fresh.

The sequels that break this pattern are the ones that again seek to be the ultimate instead of being mere encores.

In the early days of Christianity, followers of Christ were breaking new ground. The territory was the whole world. Teaching monotheism to pagans -- or a loving God to those who sacrificed their children -- was a bold move. Love of enemies was a bold move, still original in the history of religion. Forgiveness on a radical level challenged the standard compromise of love with resentment. And above all, the living memory of Christ fueled the growth of Christian thought and teachings. The true "first quest for the historical Jesus" was the one that put away Marcion and the Gnostics as those who preached a non-historical Christ. The origin of orthodoxy was loyalty to the realities of Christ.

As much as I'm a fan of orthodoxy, an advocate of getting our teachings right, I have a caution: If we define "right teachings" in terms of Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, we become a sequel. Please bear in mind that this "sequelizing" happens even if every word from those councils should be proved true. We end by trying to hold on, not to the original revelation of God in Christ, but to decisions about what that meant. The age of the early theological giants of Christianity is largely the age of people who looked directly to Christ. By all means we should read them: but in order that with their insights we may surpass them in their knowledge of Christ, not that we should see them as the upper limit and so continue to fall short. The sequels that break the pattern of mediocrity are the ones that again seek to be the ultimate instead of being mere encores.

"Pagan Christianity", eager audiences, and some legitimate criticisms

I am an advocate of staying faithful to our ancient Christian roots. I have spent some time researching early Christianity, not only back to the days of the apostles but even back to the synagogue and Temple. As I have mentioned before, I would like to see today's church retrace its steps from the beginning to double-check its work.

Part 1: The environment and the suspicions
Anyone looking at today's church can tell that it has gone off the tracks at a few points. However, that does not mean that everyone who sets to rework their way through the problem will get it right. People both within and without Christianity have dived into the gap with different agendas, different levels of attention to detail, different levels of knowledge of the available historical sources, and so forth. Unfortunately, a certain percentage of these books have tended towards the sensationalist end of the spectrum.

One such book titled Pagan Christianity? has recently come to my attention (h/t: Kevin at Familyhood Church, who referred to a book review at Kruse Kronicle, which in turn led to a web site where a sample chapter was available).

Let me be plain: I do not intend this post to be a critique of this particular book, or even to be a discussion of this particular book. I am more interested in the general trend of people uncritically accepting nearly any claim against Christianity in the current atmosphere. Here I am more interested in the reception of the book than in the book itself, much like the reception of The Da Vinci Code was more telling than the book itself.

Focusing on the reception of the book, we find people willing to believe that Sunday school and organ music have a place in a book titled Pagan Christianity -- as if there were any connection between paganism and Sunday school or paganism and church organs, both things developed by Christians long after paganism had lost its force in the world. We find people willing to believe that a pastor's white robes were a late development based on pagan Greek practices, overlooking both that robes were the common dress of the people in the ancient world and that the faithful wearing white robes have several mentions in the New Testament.

I have to wonder if the reviewer (or the book's authors) had ever attended services at a synagogue. If so, they would have recognized the traditional Christian liturgy as a direct descendant of the Jewish order of service, complete with Scripture readings and sermon. They would have recognized the clerical stole as a direct descendant of the Jewish prayer shawl that is worn to this day. These things were already in place in the synagogue, and can be seen in the New Testament references to then-current Jewish practices. Which brings us directly to the idea that a dedicated building was a late and pagan innovation. I again find myself wondering what they made of all the mentions of synagogues and the Temple in the Bible, all dedicated buildings, all in use by Jesus and the apostles.

In addition to the rampant distrust of anything related to an established church, some part of the suspicion traces back to the low level of Biblical literacy that is current. There are suspicions that paid church staff may be a late corruption, despite a couple of references to paid church workers in the New Testament. And do you remember when Paul wrote to the church of Corinth to correct their practice of combining communion and the love feast? Here, some would want to revert to communion as potluck since it was mentioned in the Bible an early practice, overlooking the fact that it was mentioned as something that needed to be corrected. Paul wrote to criticize this practice and to create a separation between communion and potluck, ensuring a separate remembrance of Jesus' last supper with a solemnity bound to be forgotten at a feast.

I am not sure whether the dates given in the book review for the various practices come from the book or the reviewer, but they are often off by centuries and occasionally by more like a thousand years. If there is one most-repeated mistake, it is overlooking the fact that Christianity traces its ancestry and the lion's share of its practices to Judaism.

Part 2: Historical criticisms that could be made more legitimately
I do not want to spend an entire post looking only at the sensationalists discussing Sunday School and church organs under the heading of "Pagan Christianity". (Maybe they've heard one of the less talented organists play; there have been days when I sympathized.) I'd like to take the opportunity to re-frame some of the more legitimate criticisms that I saw offered in the book review linked above, whether from the reviewer or from the original book.

For example, the fact that clergy now wear different clothes than the laity was framed as if the criticism were due to the fact that pagan Greek scholars also wore white robes. The badly-formed criticism detracts from a legitimate complaint: originally, sermons or commentaries on Scriptures were not the exclusive province of trained clergy.

I wish everyone who discussed Christian history would attend synagogue services at least once in their lives. All the full adult members of the congregation wear prayer shawls (stoles), not just the rabbi. Any full adult member of the congregation can lead prayers and readings in the services -- and has done so at least once at his bar mitzvah. Granted that there has also been change in the practice of Judaism over the centuries, still the most ancient form of the bar mitzvah may have been simply the first time at which the newly-adult young man was called to read the Torah during the services.

Again, the objection to a dedicated building is bound to be dismissed when it is framed as if a dedicated building itself were the problem. The synagogue and the Temple are too-obvious examples to the contrary; worshiping solely in houses is never commanded but is likely a response to persecution. Still, the kernel of truth is that worship should still be attached to home, family, friends, neighborhood, and hospitality. It has roots in all of these, and a dedicated building was never meant to be the sole place of worship or study, just as a public school was never meant to be the sole place of a child's learning. Reserving worship, Bible study, and prayer for a church building leads to an unhealthy segregation of "religion" from "real life".

This leads straight to the next point about Sunday school. There's historically nothing pagan about the origins of Sunday school, and it seems to border on the irresponsible to discuss it under the heading of "pagan Christianity". Once again the framing of the argument threatens to rob it of its legitimate point. Sunday school is a great help for students whose parents are not Christian; I was first introduced to Christianity as a guest of my friend at her Sunday school. Still, for the Christian parents, it is a great loss not to be involved in the Christian education of our own children, both for their sake and for our own. It makes the parent somewhat less responsible for the bond between the child and church (i.e. the assembly of faithful believers). It may deprive the child of the chance to hear his own parents discuss religion at any length, since the parent may not recognize the need. The parents, in turn, may not develop or mature in their own ideas in the same way as if they held onto their primary responsibility for teaching their children. At some times and places in Christian history it was considered the parents' responsibility to teach the children at home.

Perpetual Reformation
I would be glad to see reform in the church -- not a renouncing of church buildings but a welcome of family worship and Bible study back into the home, not a renouncing of communion but a comparable dedication to fellowship, not a renouncing of Sunday school but an involvement of the family in the work and life and knowledge of the kingdom of God. I would be glad to see, not a renouncing of the more admirable part of the special training of clergy, but wider-open doors to lay leadership in the service. If there is one common thread to the complaints, it is that it takes following Christ out of our personal hands and puts it into someone else's hands. It should be no surprise when people feel less involved, are less likely to come, and are less likely to teach their children.

Scripture and the bounds of certainty

Mark over at Pseudo-Polymath has a question for Sola Scriptura adherents. He names a variety of doctrines and asks how does a Sola Scriptura adherent decide what is in bounds and what is out of bounds.

Generally, I expect to find that someone who trusts the New Testament accounts will believe a thing if Scripture teaches it, disbelieve it if Scripture teaches against it, and is open to discussion and even varying opinions if Scripture is silent or is not explicit. In those "gray area" cases, if an early and unanimous opinion exists among the early church fathers I would expect to give that opinion the benefit of the doubt without quite holding it with the same certainty as Scripture. That's why we (Lutherans) hold to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Scripture teaches it) but not to transubstantiation, and why most of us do not hold to Mary's perpetual virginity though some do.

I don't think this next was your main question, but I think the quote from Pelikan had an interesting salvo. He implied that the usual explanation for the Scripture "The Father is greater than I" amounted to "manipulation of the Scriptures". I have to agree on this much: the usual explanation of that is disappointing at least and may even cross the line to manipulation of Scripture. That particular text is often explained away as meaning that when Christ acknowledges the Father as greater he does so "according to his human nature"; yet when else is he said to speak according to human nature alone? I have always believed this interpretation to be an unnecessary and possibly misleading move. To speak in Trinitarian language, the Father is the only member of the Trinity who has no other origin but is self-existing; the Word and the Spirit both derive from the Father. "The Father is greater than I" seems a natural thing to say even for a Trinitarian: that the Word, Christ, has his origin in the Father but the Father alone is self-existing. As the self-existing source of the Son, the Father is greater than the Son. Now I will also speak bluntly: I think that such a questionable exegetical move was mainly made to defend the Trinitarian formula. I consider some parts of the Trinitarian formula to be an intellectual syncretism between the revelation of God and Greek philosophy. I know "intellectual syncretism" may be seen by some as fighting words, so let me explain what I mean. The relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit is not cleanly understood or expressed with complete clarity in the common formulas used for the Trinity. Granted that nobody has yet done better expressing the nature of God using the categories of Greek philosophy, and the standard Trinitarian formula may well be the cleanest fit possible between the nature of God and Greek philosophy. Still, certain things we know about God seem to have been squeezed a little bit to fit into those categories, and it has created a tension in Christian theology ever since. I expect the day will come when we Christians rethink the Trinity in terms more native to Scripture and that, when complete, we will still have the Trinity but not one so determined to see things through the lenses of ancient Greek thought categories. At the time the Trinity was formulated, much of the Christian world was still deeply enamored of Greek philosophy, and may have overestimated Greek philosophy's capabilities towards expressing the realities of God. Until such a day as we retool our understanding of the Trinity to go beyond that kind of intellectual syncretism, certain passages of Scripture will show their tension with how God has been fit into those pre-existing schools of thought.

The AntiChrist: Call for Discussion Among Lutherans

Generally, I refrain from posting pieces on this blog that are not applicable in some way to all Christians everywhere. This post is different in that it is intended only for those who are, like me, members of confessional Lutheran churches. This post re-opens old controversies and is nearly guaranteed to raise tempers among both Lutherans and Roman Catholics. I have to respectfully ask the Roman Catholics to pass over this conversation as a matter internal to Lutherans. It is surely not news that Lutherans view the church of Rome as needing reform. This call is for Lutherans to maintain our witness to Christ while re-evaluating the idea that it is proper to identify the papacy with the antichrist; as such it will surely have more effect as an internal conversation among Lutherans (or at least Protestants). For that reason, comments coming from outside the intended target audience may be deleted for the sole reason of keeping the conversation within that intended target audience, contrary to my usual practice of letting a pertinent comment stand regardless of author, view, tone or helpfulness. Your understanding is appreciated.

Also, writing something in a recognizable call-for-debate format is tedious. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, really. But for all that, I think this is a necessary conversation and so here goes.

---

One of the foundational marks of Lutheran Christianity is its loyalty to Christ, especially its devotion to the cross of Christ and the mystery of the humble God, to the gentle yoke and easy burden of the gospel, the determination to lift high the cross and to trust Christ alone. We have an instinctive dislike for speculative theologies and for Bible interpretations involving artifice; the further a dogma drifts from the cross of Christ, the more certain we are that it is bad theology. We have a deep and abiding love for forthrightness and plain talk. We also believe that questions of Reform should be matters for open discussion in the church; we've even been known to nail our theses to church doors.

To this end, I have to ask:

• Given that Lutherans reject Rome's decree "that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff"¹, first because it is at the name of Jesus that every knee should bow, and second because Christ called leaders among his people not to lord it over others as Gentile rulers did, but taught plainly that the greatest among the apostles should be the self-humbling servant rather than the self-exalting ruler;
• Given that Lutherans reject Rome's dogma that our works merit the attainment of eternal life², in that eternal life is a gift beyond our earning, and eternal life cannot be attained apart from forgiveness of sins and is therefore is not attained by our merit;
• Given that the antichrist is said to be known for his self-exaltation and his enmity for the Gospel of Christ;

Does it therefore follow that we are justified in identifying the office of the papacy with the antichrist?

Consider these points:

• That not everyone bearing any similarity to the final and ultimate antichrist is truly the final and ultimate antichrist, since the sins and rebellions of the antichrist (self-exaltation and devaluing Christ) are common;
• That even those who have gone so far as to rightly earn the name antichrist are not always the final and ultimate antichrist, as John taught that "even now many antichrists have come";
• That we do not call everyone the antichrist who exalts himself, who claims that every human creature owes him submission; though we condemn self-exaltation as contrary to the spirit of Christ, and affirm that the one with all authority in this world is none other than God's Messiah, the true Christ;
• That we do not call everyone the antichrist who teaches that our works merit eternal life, though we condemn the teaching that eternal life is merited by human works.
• That those who have declared that the final and ultimate antichrist of history is none other than the office of the papacy have rendered a historical judgment without having seen all of history and so have reached a verdict without hearing all the evidence;
• That the antichrist will only be known with certainty on the Last Day;
• That the right judgment to reveal the antichrist rests with God alone;
• That if before the Last Day we say that we have identified the antichrist, we may be proved wrong; and if proved wrong then we will have been teaching falsely;
• That if before the Last Day we say that we have identified the antichrist and are proved wrong, we will have borne false witness;
• That likewise if proved wrong, we will have sowed discord among brothers;
• That if we present something as truth without knowing for a fact that we are truthful, then morally it is as if we had been false witnesses because of our lack of knowledge, even if at the Last Day we should be proved correct.
• It follows that even if this criticism against the papacy is vindicated we cannot know that now and therefore cannot rightly teach it now;
• That even one who speaks the truth finds himself in the wrong if he speaks without love -- this is not to say that strength and certainty and condemning wrong are to be faulted, but only to say that even these things rightly have the ultimate aim of bringing about repentance and reform;
• That if we speak without love, we prevent ourselves from being heard except as an annoying and senseless sound;
• That if we have become an annoying and senseless sound then we will not be heard even when we teach Christ's humility and Christ's merits;
• That portraying the office of the papacy as the anti-Christ presupposes the impossibility of repentance or humility on the part of the papacy and hinders true love (if not precluding it altogether);
• That associating the papacy with an unreformable character causes us to neglect preaching Christ's humility and Christ's merits in those places where Christ's humility and Christ's merits would be a message of greatest blessing.

With that in view, I would like to call for open discussion on whether it is acceptable to continue permitting the identification of anyone or any institution (including the office of the papacy) as the antichrist before the Last Day when the truth of the matter becomes known. In the spirit of reform, I would hold that we cannot rightly answer this question solely in terms of loyalty to doctrines derived in the Middle Ages, but must first and foremost consider our loyalty to Christ, to his call to make disciples of all nations, not to bear false witness, and to speak the truth in love. I would contend that refraining from calling the papacy the antichrist is right for our own sakes and for the sake of righteousness, and also makes us more effective witnesses of Christ's humility and Christ's merits. I would also contend that refraining from calling the papacy the antichrist will allow the church of Rome to hear our voice as something other than a clanging gong or resounding cymbal, and instead hear our objection: that supremacy belongs to Christ in such a way that there is no human office which can obligate us, and that salvation belongs to Christ in such a way that we do not earn it but receive it as an unmerited gift.

---

1 - Unam Sanctam, see concluding remarks.
2 - Council of Trent, Canon XXXII

Continuous Reformation: Imagine A Seminary Course Catalog

Do you believe the church should always be in reform? Imagine a seminary with graduation requirements and coursework that looked like this:

Semester 1

• The Fear of the LORD
  
• Humility and self-control
  
• Torah studies
  
• Proverbs and Psalms (musicians encouraged to bring instruments on Fridays)
  
• Stewardship
  

Semester 2

• The Prophets
  
• Knowing God: images of God, presence and promises of God
  
• Gifts of the Spirit 1. A seven-part course on wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, knowledge, fear of the LORD, and joy in his presence.
  
• Prayer and contemplation
  
• The great laws: love of God and neighbor. Required term project: participation in a Matthew 25-originated hands-on ministry.
  

Summer Practicum: hospitality

Semester 3

• New Testament: Gospels. Focus on knowing God through Christ.
  
• Gifts of the Spirit 2. A three-part course on Faith, Hope, and Love.
  
• Repentance and Forgiveness
  
• Leadership 1. Spurring others on to good work. Building fellowship.
  
• The Grace of the Lord
  

Semester 4

• New Testament: Acts through Revelation. Focus on showing God to the world through following Christ.
  
• Leadership 2. Delivering rebukes with gentleness and respect. Delivering encouragement. Forming Christ in your listeners by means of the Word. Feeding your sheep.
  
• Work of the Holy Spirit 3. Main emphasis on knowing God, on love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. A basic overview of other gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit.
  
• Perseverance and persecution
  
• Proclaiming Christ as evangelism
  

Final Practicum: Shepherding with wisdom and compassion.

Problem In Seminaries: Follow-Up

To gauge from the amount of discussion around the blogosphere, the Internet Monk really touched a nerve with his recent piece on questionable methods of recruiting pastors and the harm to the pastors' families, their churches, and themselves. I promised I'd follow up with some thoughts on how to improve the situation.

Even churches founded on the Reformation often have a mistaken idea that "Reform" (in any major sense) is something that only the Roman Catholics need to do. But given Murphy's Law, reform is for everyone, and must be continuous. Humility, confession, and repentance are spiritual basics for churches and church bodies, not just for individual Christians.

When it comes to Christian ministry, I have to wonder, in general:

• Was the person's maturity really evaluated when they sought to come into the ministry?
  
• Has the shortage of ministers made us ask fewer screen-out questions, even if they are important ones?
  
• How do you remove a well-intentioned person who lacks the ability without humiliating them? Without stigmatizing them when it comes to finding a different line of service?
  
• How perfect does a pastor have to be? Are we setting standards that nobody can meet?
  
• Which flaws should we bear with patiently, and which are over the line?
  
• Are there more ministry options than full-time for life, overworked for life, or marginalized for life?

Without claiming to have answers for all of those, I'd like to suggest a few things as a place to begin:

1. Churches should ask for a commitment from the pastor that their first ministry is to their own family. Pastors should expect the churches to respect that.
   
2. Churches should support their pastors in their family time (and spiritual wellbeing) by designating regular days off for their pastors. No Bible studies, no prayer meetings, no special services, no council meetings. Genuine rest. An elder or spiritually mature member should be able to handle most emergencies -- and should have the "church emergency" cell phone for the day.
   
3. A church cannot be a one-man show. The Bible speaks of a variety of offices or positions in the church. There should be those who help visit the sick, those who teach, those who help the needy with material needs, even those who can preach.
   
4. The pastor should seek out and encourage spiritually mature members to consider a sort of apprentice pastorship in their area of interest. This would build the congregation's strength, allow those who are not fully-fledged pastors a wider range of opportunities to serve, and provide a rest for the pastor when needed. Jesus sent out people two by two, and I think the pastor should question himself if he finds himself performing many of his duties alone instead of with a fellow-worker.

This just scratches the surface -- but I think scratching the surface is exactly the right place to start. Grand sweeping changes take an entire reorganization (such as the Reformation, or the new "Emergent" scheme) before they work. Churches that don't reform when needed find themselves splintering -- but so do churches that change too drastically. As small as these changes are, as obviously incomplete as they are, they are also one more thing: workable. That makes them a candidate for "where to start". The time to take the next step is after we take the first one.