Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Hell Yea.

Ok I know, but it was just to get your attention and I suspect it did.  But this post is about Hell.  First The Lutheran Confessions quotes:


AUGSBURG CONFESSION, ARTICLE XVII. [Concerning the Return of Christ to Judgment]

It is also taught that our Lord Jesus Christ will return on the Last Day to judge, to raise all the dead, to give eternal life and eternal joy to those who believe and are elect, but to condemn the ungodly and the devils to hell and eternal punishment.

Rejected, therefore, are the Anabaptists who teach that the devils and condemned human beings will not suffer eternal torture and torment.

Likewise rejected are some Jewish teachings, which have also appeared in the present, that before the resurrection of the dead saints and righteous people alone will possess a secular kingdom and will annihilate all the ungodly.

LARGE CATECHISM: APOSTLES’ CREED / THIRD ARTICLE

These three articles of the Creed, therefore, separate and distinguish us Christians from all other people on earth. All who are outside this Christian people, whether heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites—even though they believe in and worship only the one, true God—nevertheless do not know what his attitude is toward them. They cannot be confident of his love and blessing, and therefore they remain in eternal wrath and condemnation. For they do not have the Lord Christ, and, besides, they are not illuminated and blessed by the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Luther and Melanchthon both wrote believing there is an actual hell with actual people in it.  That has become a very unpopular view these days because, let's face it, it's not nice.  But that has nothing to do of course with whether something is true.

I was curious to see what Jesus said about hell, condemnation, damnation, etc., so I looked it up.  With a red-letter edition of the RSV translation, it didn't actually take that long. If you are going to do it yourself from a concordance, I would suggest not only hell, fire, condemned, but also saved, narrow door / narrow way.  I found 20 references to Jesus talking about hell over the four Gospels.  I did include metaphoric and parable references, but did not include "outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" that Matthew included so many times.  I'll list them at the end so you can take a look if you want.  These do not include the references to "the lake of fire" in Revelation.

The issue of hell has heated up (pun intended) lately with the publishing of the best seller by Pastor Robb Bell, "Love Wins."  I heard that Robb Bell posted on the internet that people really should not judge his book before they read it; but that was self-evident to me, so I read it.  Interestingly I found a version of something I had shared in 1998 in my Master's Thesis.  It has been referred to in the ongoing debates over the years as "second chance."  What if people get a second chance to accept Jesus when they die?  Isn't it possible that everyone at death would accept Him and hell would be empty (at least of humans)?  My Master's Thesis, if anyone would like to look at this more deeply after (or before) reading Robb Bell's book is essentially on the human role in justification from a Lutheran perspective as an argument against universal salvation.  I called it "Free for All?"  (It's a double meaning...nm.)  I believe in a literal hell with people actually stuck there throughout eternity (just as the Augsburg Confession confesses - "agrees with God").

In "Love Wins" Robb Bell posits this speculation. Given infinite opportunties after death, and given the infinitude of eternity (beyond time) doesn't it make sense that eventually everyone will go through the repentance and submission necessary to be in and with Christ in God?  One appropriate response (which Robb Bell makes in his book) is that since God is God and all things are possible with God, then, yes, it's possible that hell will be empty.  I conceed this in my thesis and refer to it as a "universality of hope."  But we can't know that.

I came to faith and into the church a couple months before my 18th birthday.  I was not raised in the church.  Someone thoughtfully asked me recently, "Was it God's love or God's judgment that drew you to Christ?"  Great question, and as most of you can probably guess, it was God's love.  Aye, but here's the rub.  In my opinion, the doctrine of hell is not for ammunition to aim at people to "scare the hell out of them."  In the Formula of Concord, Chemitz wrote that this is really bad preaching / sharing of the Gospel.  A correct doctrine of hell serves a different function.  It is incentive to those of us who already believe to share what we know.

I recently spawned a discussion of John 3: 16 vs. John 3: 17 online by posting the Focus on the Family 30-second spot of kids reciting John 3: 16.  But check out John 3: 18.  What are the implications of that for those who believe vis a vis those who do not (yet)?  The issue is, "What's the message?"  Pastors and theologians call that Kerigma. Or as actors ask, "What's my motivation?"  The problem with Robb Bell's position is that it basically leaves us in a place where we don't have to risk offending anyone because in the end, they'll be fine.  What if they won't be?

When someone purports to deny the substitutionary atonement of Christ I ask, "Why do you think Jesus died?"  When someone denys "the exlusivity and the universality of the Christ event" (Jesus is the only way to God but He is the way for everyone.) I ask, "Why do you think the Apostles died?"  Why did they go into "pagan" lands and share the "For there is salvation in no one else" Name, knowing that it could and probably would, and actually did cost them their lives by torturous execution?  It was not because they thought, "Oh they'll be fine."  It was because they knew that according to the Word of their Lord, these people would NOT be fine.  Evangelism matters.

I close with the Catch 22.  Notice where this can go in actually sharing Christ and The Good News in our postmodern culture.  Someone might ask you, "Do you believe in hell?"  If you say, "Yes" then they say, "I reject your God as a non-loving God."  (Love of course, meaning "I get to do whatever I want.")  If you say, "No" then they conclude that it really doesn't matter eternally whether they believe or not. 

I confess again that I am a disciple of the writings of C. S. Lewis.  I highly recommend his short but powerful novel "The Great Divorce."  In it he talks about eternal life, eternal death, choice and time.  In the short vignettes he demonstrates how it is possible to choose hell over heaven.  Good stuff.

Here are the verses to check out.
Matthew: 5: 22, 27-30; 7: 13-14, 21-23; 10: 27-28; 11: 20-24; 12: 30-32, 36; 13: 36-43, 47-50; 18: 7-9; 23: 13-15; 24: 9-14; 25: 31-46.
Mark: 3: 28-30; 11: 43-48; 13: 12-13
Luke: 12: 4-5, 8-10; 13: 24-30; 16: 19-31
John 3: 16-21 (18); 5: 22-29

(Please don't bother telling me there are different interpretations to one or more of these passages.  I know.  The point is, Jesus talked as if there is such a thing as eternal damnation.  We ignore that NOT at our own risk.  We ignore that at the risk of others.)

Because I believe in hell, what we do or do not do matters - eternally; what we believe or do not believe matters - eternally.  That it why it is so important to "always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence...." I Peter 3: 15


Monday, January 23, 2012

Jesus died for my sins. (And yours.)

"The first and chief article is this, that Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, 'was put to death for our trespasses and raised again for our justification' (Romans 4: 25).  He alone is 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world' (John 1: 29).  'God has laid upon him the iniquities of us all' (Isaiah 53:6).  Moreover, 'all have sinned' and 'they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, by his blood" (Romans 3: 23-25).  Smalcald Articles, Part II, Article I (Christ and Faith).

"(M)oreover, he suffered, died and was buried that he might make satisfaction for me and pay what I owed, not with silver and gold but with his own precious blood.  All this in order to become my Lord.  For he did none of these things for himself, nor had he any need of them."  Large Catechism, Apostles' Creed, Second Article.

"The content of the Gospel is this, that the Son of God, Christ our Lord, himself assumed and bore the curse of the law and expiated and paid for all our sins, that through him alone we re-enter the good graces of God, obtain forgiveness of sins through faith, are freed from death and all the punishments of sin, and are saved eternally."  Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article V.  Law and Gospel.

This entry took awhile to put together.  I have recently finished Dr. Vitor Westhelle's excellent and deeply challenging book "The Scandalous God."  I have also researched atonement theory in varioius resources.  Having begun, as promised, with quotes from The Lutheran Confessions, I continue with a quote that "started it all" for me in terms of feeling the need to speak out.

"I don't have any idea why Jesus died, but it certainly was not to forgive our sins." 
That was said to me some years ago by an ordained and serving ELCA pastor.  It took me totally by surprise.  But I have heard the idea if not the words repeated over the past years in leadership meetings throughout the ELCA.  We don't "like" the idea of substitutionary atonement.  It seems "barbaric." 

A few points. First, the measure of truth for a Christian in general and an ELCA pastor in particular is not actually what I "like."  Most of you know that I am a disciple of the writings of C. S. Lewis.  He did a talk to Anglican Clergy in 1945 called "Christian Apologetics" in which he makes this point forcefully.  He says that any priest (pastor) who is unable to continue in the orthodox teaching of the Christian Faith needs to find a different profession.  Honesty demands it.

But C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity makes a finer point that is very helpful in this discussion.  He distinguishes between the "what" and the "how" of atonement.  That Jesus died for our sins is essential to the Christian Faith.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer in "Life Together" wrote, "The Christian Faith is forgiveness of sins; nothing more and nothing less."  But as to HOW this happens, how it applies to us, there are several theories - theories of atonement.  Lewis pointed out that believing (or rejecting) any one particular theory of atonement is not Mere Christianity.  THAT Jesus died for our sins is essential.

"Substitutionary atonement" is essentially the idea that Jesus died "for" us, "in our place."  It includes "sacrificed for our sins."  I was surprised to hear from a DVD presentation of Dr. Tickle of "Emergence" that "Atonement does not appear in the New Testament." Knowing the New Testament as I do, that seemed strange (as in wrong) to me.  So I checked as carefully as I could, given concessions to the shortness of life (as my Constitutional Law professor used to say). What appears to me is that the Hebrew word kaphar which is used in Leviticus for "atonement" is translated in the Greek Old Testament, The Septuigint" using a word not actually found in the New Testament Greek.  From this someone fluent in Ancient Hebrew and Greek (which I certainly am not) could argue that atonement does not appear in the New Testament.  However, there are two other Greek words that are translated "atonement" that are used in Romans 5: 11 (also translated "reconciliation") and a different word in Romans 3: 25 and I John 2:2, and 4: 10 (also translated "propitiation").  So the IDEA or Doctrine of Atonement is certainly present in the New Testament.  Synonyms are not unusual in either the Old or New Testament.  And for substitutionary atonement as blood sacrifice, check out Hebrews 9 and 10.

A pastor said recently that when a child asks "Why did Jesus die on the cross?" what can you answer?

Jesus died to forgive my sins.  And yours.

So where does all this controversy come from?  I can only hope that it is a case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."  If a pastor can't accept a particular theory of atonement, it is a pretty small step to get from there to rejecting atonement altogether, and from there to denying that Jesus died for our sins.  But I suspect that something else may lay behind this.  Perhaps, just perhaps, in our headlong rush to be "ecumenical" not just within denominations as is proper, but outside the orthodox Christian Faith, there is a temptation to minimize what I have called "the exclusivity and the universality of the Christ event."  (Jesus is the only way to heaven, but He is the way to heaven for everyone.)  We don't want to distinguish Christianity from other world religions (although it is distinct).  So we minimize that which sets Christianity apart.  What is the Gospel in light of this?  What is evangelism (good news sharing) in light of this?

"The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."  I Timothy 1: 15.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Jesus AND Religion

I was intending to post on the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and I will. But I felt compelled to reflect publicly on the viral video of Jefferson Bethke.  I won't bother posting it.  If you have Facebook you have seen it - or you can easily.  There have been quite a few responses posted already, but I have been in on enough discussions that I wanted to say something.
On my Facebook profile I posted one of the responses, namely that of Rev. Fisk, a young lutheran pastor and host of Worldview Everlasting.

My main observation about the attention Bethke's video is getting and the very positive and very negative responses, is that it frustrates me when people talk past each other because no real communication is going on.  The controversy, such as it is, has mostly to do with the definition of religion.  Bethke is equating religion with Pharisaical hypocricy masquerading as religion.  Fisk, on the other hand, uses the Webster's definition of "religion" to show that Christianity is a religion and attacking religion is not only attacking Christianity but attacking Jesus.  And so it goes.

C. S. Lewis taught that Christianity is more a relationship than it is a religion.  But he also referred to it as relgion, and it is certainly generally considered a world-monotheistic (unless maybe you ask a Muslim) religion.  So there is a tension inherent in our definitions that has been magnified by all the crossfire.

My first reaction to Bethke's video was concern, not because of what I understood it to say, so much as what it could be misunderstood to say.  I think that perhaps some over-reaction on the part of professional ministers of Word and Sacrament (pastors) might be attributed to the fact that we have heard one too many times (or maybe 20 too many times) "I am spiritual, not religious."  One of the impacts of postmodernism has been a distrust and even rejection not just of sources of authority, but the concept of authority itself, including the institution of The Church (big T, big C).  That is why in my first Facebook post in response to Bethke's video I wanted to highlight the positive and point out to anyone listening that he does say, "I love the Church."  This is crucial to anyone paying attention because if he means it, then he is NOT attacking the institution of the Church.

"Upon this rock (this confession of faith) I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of Hades will not prevail against IT."  (Not me and Jesus - IT.)  Matthew 16: 18  (additions)

Fisk interprets Bethke's work as an attack against the Church, and reacts in defense.  Fisk makes some really important points.  Jesus instituted Christian baptism.  (Yes, I know there was baptism before Matthew 28.)  Jesus instituted The Lord's Supper.  Jesus established The Church.  And it's tough to argue that the Church of Jesus Christ (not Later Day Saints) is not a religion.  Yes, it is a relationship with God through Christ, but Fisk is correct that "going it alone" is spiritually dangerous and generally spiritually impotent.  We need to be together, and God is worthy of our corporate worship.

So I am prepared to take Bethke at his word, that he does not mean the institutional Church.  I am willing to let it pass that he has over-reached a bit by not limiting his assault to Pharisaical Legalism and hypocrisy - as his Lord did.

I am reminded that it is much easier to criticize how someone else is doing something rather than do it yourself.  (Theodore Roosevelt has a very powerful quote about this. If you're interested, let me know and I will pass it along.)  Bethke is sharing the Gospel in a way that is meaningful to him and obviously quite a few million other believers.  If we stay calm and keep lines of communication open, realizing that the issues can be a bit more complicated than a 4 minute clip, we can stay the body of Christ together and move forward together.  I think that's a big part of the big plan.

Thanks for "listening."  Let's keep communicating.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Jesus is God.  The Nicene Creed.
"(I believe) in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made: who for us men and for our salvation camd down from heaven, was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man...." 
The Nicene Creed, Article II.
(All quotations will be from The Book of Concord, Tappert, Fortress Press, 1959.)

It irks me to have to begin here.  On one hand it is best to begin at the beginning.  On the other hand, most who read this are probably going to say, "Duh.  Of course."  The reason I begin with this "first principle" is that over the past several years I am running into more and more pastors who deny the eternal divinity of Christ!  At first it shocked and appalled me.  Now it just baffles me.  Sometimes it comes from the influence of "the historical Jesus" movement.  Sometimes I think it comes from a desire to be ecumenical across religions.  This is actually fairly astute.  Because in reality most world religions today believe in Jesus.  None (except Christianity) believe He is / was / has always been / always will be eternal God.  So the divinity of Christ actually does set Christianity apart from every other religion "in the history of history."  ("Contact") 

There is plenty of scriptural evidence that Jesus is God.  Books have been written.  I will settle for John 1:1 and the first chapter of Colossians (OK and Hebrews 1). 

Here's another quote from The Lutheran Confessions:

"It is also taught among us that God the Son became man, born of the virgin Mary, and that the two natures, divine and human, are so inseparably united in one person that there is one Christ, true God and true man...."   The Augsburg Confession, Article III.

So this one should be so easy that no one needs a post about it.  Yet... pastors continue to deny that Jesus is eternal God. 

Remember, we took an oath.  If a pastor does not believe Jesus is God, is he or she teaching what he or she does not believe?  Faithfully?  How is that possible?  If not, then ignoring the teaching is, in my opinion, an equal violation of the oath we took. 

As I mentioned, what a confessing Lutheran actually is has been brought into question by the controversial votes that took place allowing the ordination of homosexual clergy without the vow of celebacy previously required by "Visions and Expectations."  With the subsequent exit of some ELCA pastors and congregations since that vote, there have been frequent opinions stated in my Synod that if a pastor feels that he or she can no longer serve in the ELCA, that pastor should leave, but NOT orchestrate the exit of the Lutheran congregation he or she is currently serving. 
And I agree. 

Now this is the USA and people are free to reject the doctrine of Christ's divinity.  On the other hand, if a pastor has taken an oath to faithfully teach and preach The Creeds and the Lutheran Confessions, and that pastor does not believe them, maybe that pastor should also consider whether, in light of his or her conflict in keeping the oath under which he or she was ordained, that maybe that pastor ought to serve in a Christian denomination that is not "confessional" in its theological approach?

There is a powerful line in the movie LUTHER where the Cardinal confronts Luther at his trial at the Diet of Worms. 
"You wait in vain for a disputation over matters which you are obligated to believe."
Now in Luther's case, of course, those matters were not only unscriptural, but in some cases anti-scriptural.  In the case of an ELCA pastor, however, The Creeds and other Lutheran Confessions ARE a faithful exposition of the doctrines of scripture because we all agreed that they were when we took the oath at ordination.

The purpose of this blog is to take another look at those matters which under the oath of our ordination we are "obligated to believe."

Jesus is eternal God.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Why is this important?  Two things.  First: to confess means "to agree with God."  We do this when we confess our sins (because God knows them already) and when we confess what we believe about God.  A confession is a series of truth statements about God.  The Augsburg Confession, written by Philip Melanchthon (a colleague of Martin Luther) sets forth the truth statements upon which The Reformation was based.  The Augsburg Confession is only one of 10 documents that make up The Lutheran Confessions. 
Second: ELCA pastors (all Lutheran pastors I assume) take an oath during the Rite of Ordination.  Here is one pledge of that oath.

The church in which you are to be ordained
confesses that the Holy Scriptures are the word of God and are the norm of its faith and life.
We accept, teach, and confess the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds.
We also acknowledge the Lutheran Confessions
as true witnesses and faithful expositions of the Holy Scriptures.
Will you therefore preach and teach in accordance with the Holy Scriptures
and these creeds and confessions?
Each ordinand responds: I will, and I ask God to help me.
So The Lutheran Confessions are actually a pretty big deal because every Lutheran pastor promises to preach and teach consistently with what they teach about God.  So that is what I will be doing here, looking at what we as pastors have promised to preach and teach.



First a bit about me.

About me.  I am the pastor of St. John's Lutheran Church in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin.  I have been serving there since May of 2006.  I have been a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America since my ordination in June of 1998.  In May of 2006 I received a Doctor of Ministry degree in Preaching from Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago (where I also received my M.Div.). I called this blog Confessing Lutheran partly because a colleague of mine already had the name Lutheran Confessions (The longest running Lutheran blog in North America.)  But the main reason for this blog is that since the controversial vote of the ELCA at its 2009 Assembly there has been a great deal of discussion from those leaving the ELCA, and from LCMS, regarding what is a confessing Lutheran.  What are The Lutheran Confessions, and what is written in them?  The purpose of this blog is simply to lift up a portion of The Lutheran Confessions (by quoting from an English translation) and reflecting on the meaning of that particular passage.  Do these provisions written so long ago have any relevance for us today?  That should keep me busy for quite awhile before I would have to think about moving on to something else.