Where We Stand

Recent studies of Pelagius’ extant writings have questioned his ostracism.[1]    Modern scholars are coming to the opinion that perhaps Augustine attacked Pelagius for teachings that were a corruption of what Pelagius actually taught.  In some instances there is an attempt to integrate the two teachings.[2]   The question seems to be open ended and often the judge and the advocate are the same person, so changing minds is near impossible.

What is more critical is the presents of all forms of Pelagianism in most churches today.    Most modern Christians consider their faith something they themselves have chosen.  This leads to extravagant efforts at church growth, increases in ‘church business’ as the function of the congregations, and the never ending chase for more funding of this or that improvement.  None of which may be the will of God and almost always leaves Jesus out of consideration.[3]

In their introduction, Packer and Johnston ask the following question and make the undeniable argument that:

Do we not stand in urgent need of such teaching as Luther here gives us – teaching which humbles man, strengthens faith, and glorifies God – and is not the contemporary Church weak for the lack of it?  The issue is clear.  We are compelled to ask ourselves: If the Almighty God of the Bible is to be our God, if the New Testament gospel is to be our message, if Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day and for ever – is any other position than Luther’s possible?  Are we not in all honesty bound to stand with him in ascribing all might, and majesty, and dominion, and power, and all the glory of our salvation to God alone?  surely no more important or far-reaching question confronts the Church to-day.[4]

To which can only be added that regardless of it origin what has come down to us as Pelagianism – hard, soft, semi or any form – can not be tolerated.  The fallen person…

…who has not yet practically and experimentally learned the bondage of his will in sin has not yet comprehended any part of the gospel; for this is the hinge on which all turns, the ground on which the gospel rests…[5]

Pastors, above all else, must practically and experimentally learn the bondage of their own wills and that of their congregations in order to be able to preach, teach and believe the gospel proclamation.  The world is in urgent need of that which denies the enlightened anthropocentric narcissism of personal, congregational and community destruction and returns to the Cross of Christ.  To paraphrase St. Paul, the time has,

…come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.  They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.[6]

But pastors must,

keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.[7]

Which is to,

Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.[8]

SDG

[1] Breckenridge, “Pelagius: The Making of a Heretic,” 34.

[2] Haight, “Notes on the Pelagian Controversy,” 39.
[3]  Robert K. Hudnut. “Pelagianism—Wrong as Ever” in America Magazine, the National Catholic Weekly.  accessed April 16, 2014. http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=564
[4]  Luther. The Bondage of the Will
[5] Luther. The Bondage of the Will.
[6]  2 Timothy 4: 3-4
[7]  2 Timothy 4: 5
[8]  2 Timothy 4: 2

Another rustic defends the Church

Despite being continuously rejected by the Church, Semi-Pelagianism (as it was now known) continued to be a source of controversy.  The debate erupted again in a contest between Luther and Erasmus.  Both men hoped to reform the Church of their time.  However, Erasmus, the learned and elegant translator of the Greek New Testament, sought a peaceful, undoctrinal humanistic reform.  Luther, who described himself as “barbarus in barbarie semper versatus,” was the leader of the highly doctrinal revolutionary Augustinian evangelicalism reform.[1]

Again, the two antagonist were cordial at the beginning.  Erasmus approved of much of what Luther had to say.  However, Erasmus was put off by Luther’s rough way of dealing with other in the need to reform the Church.  Pushed by supporters and a dig at his abilities by Luther, Erasmus penned On the Freedom of the Will which pitted him against Luther.  Luther responded with what has become known as the “Manifesto of the Reformation,” the translated title being The Bondage of the Will.[2]

Luther considered Erasmus’ Semi-Pelagianism worse than outright paganism, because it lead weaker Christians to the uncertainty of their own choices.  These wretches would always be trying harder or worrying over their salvation rather than simply accepting God grace through Jesus Christ.  Luther also attacked “Erasmus’s tone of ‘bored detachment’ towards the subject at hand was ‘fundamentally irreligious and in a theologian irresponsible.”[3]   And Luther made it clear that no form of Pelagianism could be true because fallen man can do nothing but sin and any independent meritorious act could not be carried out by fallen man without that act being the will of God.  Even the hint of such power in fallen man would be a denial of Christ.[4]

Stung by the ruthlessness of Luther’s word, Erasmus retreated into the more receptive arms of the Roman church.  Although influential at the time, Erasmus has been lost in the long line of humanist ‘reformers’ of the church in Rome.  Luther on the other hand set a course for the true Church of Jesus Christ.

SDG

[1] Martin Luther. The Bondage of the Will, trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell 1988).  “I am an uncivilized fellow who has lived his life in the backwoods.”
[2] Lee Gatiss.  “The Manifesto of the Reformation — Luther vs. Erasmus on Free Will.”  The Theologian.  accessed April 16, 2014.  http://www.theologian.org.uk/gatissnet/documents/TheManifestooftheReformation_000.pdf.
[3]  Gatiss. “The Manifesto of the Reformation — Luther vs. Erasmus on Free Will.”
[4]  Luther. The Bondage of the Will.

Identify three sacred vestments, when they are worn, and what they represent.  Name at least two ways that the symbol of pastoral vestments may be better understood by the faithful?

Vestments worn by the pastor during the Divine Service have a long history and each has a distinct history and meaning.  Three of the most common vestments are the Alb, the Chasuble and the Stole.  What follows is a brief description and historical meaning of each.

The Alb is the basic undergarment worn by pastors and others during the entire service.  The Alb is named such from the Latin word, albus which means ‘white’.  Historically, newly baptized Christians were dressed in a new white tunic to symbolize there new life in Christ.  Over the years these tunics varied in length with shorter lengths for the young and longer for the mature.  The longer tunic is typically gathered at the waist by a rope-like chord called a cincture or girdle.  Thus, the historic and modern Alb worn by pastors during the liturgy are the baptismal attire.  Given the centrality of baptism to the faith, the pastor wears the Alb to remember his own baptism and to remind the congregation of their baptism.  The cincture/girdle, in addition to securing the Alb and Stole, also denotes chastity and purity and is the girding of the loins with truth from Ephesians 6:14.

The Chasuble began as an loose over garment worn by the plain folk of the ancient Greece.  There is some reference to it being worn by St. Paul and at the time was called paenula.  Paenula were a simple cloak, similar to the poncho of Spain and Latin America, worn over the clothing during the work day and was adopted as a cover for the aristocracy while riding or traveling.  Originally a humble garment, the aristocracy begin to decorate their paenula and began to tailor the fit.  St. Augustine referred to the paenula as a Chasuble in his writings as it was a casula or ‘little house’ for priest and monks when they traveled.  Early versions were full and round typically made of skins or heavy material to keep the wearer warm.  Over time they became smaller being made of lighter materials particularly silk when it became available.  They also became more decorative including woven trim made of fine material or gold.  Much of the elaborate decorations were rejected during the English Reformation yet as time has past the clergy of these Christian churches have returned to more embellishment.  Pastors don the Chasuble for the sacrament of the Lords Supper as a yoke that recalls the love and charity of Christ from Colossians 3:14

The Stole has an even more humble beginning.  Originally, it was a handkerchief called a sudarium.  Over time it became a scarf like garment that was worn around the neck and called a oraria.  The oraria was used to clean cups and eating wear.  They began to be used to clean the cup and plate that held the Lord’s Supper elements.  The modern Stole recalls the prayer shawls that rabbis wear.  There length and narrow design also call back to carrying a weapon strap over one shoulder and a provisions strap over the other, thus the crisscrossing by the pastor as the authority of his office.  It also reminds the pastor to preach God’s Word with the courage and conviction of a soldier of God.

SDG

Soft Pelagianism

As is true of most institutions trends tend to come and go.  In the case of Pelagianism it made a gradual return in a softer form of Pelagianism.  This softer form of Pelagianism seems to have been developed after 428 A.D. in Southern Gaul by monks in an attempt to find a compromise between the doctrines of the Pelagianist and Augustine.  However, rather than denying original sin, this teaching made man and God cooperators in salvation.  In its raw form this concept allowed that man without grace could make the first move toward God and thus aid in his own salvation.[1]

Once again, Augustine lead the effort to quash this new threat to the sovereignty of God.  Augustine referred to this softer form as “the relics of the Pelagianist.”  Beginning on friendly terms with Augustine, the monks of Southern Gaul and there supporters eventually became bitterly hostile to the “Doctor of Grace.”  The dispute continued for over 100 years, then in well after the death of Augustine, the “relics of the Pelagianist” were condemned as heresy in 529 A.D.[2]

The term Semi-Pelagianism in reference to the “relics of the Pelaginaist” was not developed until the 1500’s when it began being used as the moniker for the teachings of this softer form of Pelagianism by scholars and theologians.  The term Semi-Pelagianism is used explicitly in the Epitome of the Lutheran Formula of Concord in the confessional documents rejection of such teachings.   However, before the Epitome of the Formula there was a brilliant contest of these ideas between Martin Luther and Desiderias Erasmus.

SDG

[1] Joseph Pohle.  “Semipelagianism” in The Catholic Encyclopedia  ed. Charles G. Herbermann, Ph.D., LL.D., Edward A. Pace, Ph.D., D.D., Conde B. Fallen, Ph.D., LL.D., Thomas J. Shahan, D.D. and John J. Wynne, S.J. (The Encyclopedia Press, Inc.1913).  accessed April 16, 2014. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Semipelagianism

[2] Pohle.  “Semipelagianism”

The Pelagian Controversy

The stage was now set for two of the most influential men in the Christian Church to come to loggerheads over the issue of theological anthropology.  To be clear, Pelagius was in Rome and the heart of the degraded Church.  Augustine was in a far corner of the empire and in the midst of true believers.[1]   Much has been written concerning the views of each of the protagonist.

It is not at all clear that Pelagius held firmly to the doctrine of free will with regard to salvation.  But there is no doubt that he preached that a person had to make a choice of radical conversion in order to begin the new Christian life.[2]   As his message and followers spread it appealed to all who were looking for a different way of life than the degraded pagan existence most endured.[3]

However, once Pelagian teachings were brought to North Africa they were received by a intelligent and ultimately hostile Bishop of Hippo.  The North African church was well established and Augustine’s doctrines had eventually dominated in a long resistance of Donatists.  It was from here that an entirely different interpretation of man, of sin and of grace would wage a long distance struggle with Pelagianism.[4]

Pelagianism, with its Stoic motif that the freedom to do good was an essential anthropomorphic characteristic, collided with Augustine’s determination that the good was a gift from God and not intrinsically constitutional of fallen humanity.[5]   While both men preached God’s gift of divine grace, they were divided on the capacity of fallen man to contribute toward his own salvation.  Haight makes the distinction clear:
For Augustine, while free choice remained, the desire and affections of man were locked in a web of sin. The custom and habit of personal sin imprisoned free choice within the narrow confines of sensible self-seeking. For the Pelagians, religion and Christianity was mainly an affair of adults, and it meant conversion to and baptism into a radically new life. The Christian should steadily advance in perfection through his asceticism.[6]

The contrast is based upon the different views of Christian life before God.  For the Pelagians, man was free to chose to be Christian.  Whereas, for Augustine, God made men Christian through His grace, from His own will and for His own purposes.  This contrast continues to be at the heart of the distinction between the Church and the various in-name-only Christian sects.

In time, Augustine’s views held sway in the Church and as a result Pelagius was branded a heretic and his teachings were officially condemned by several councils of the Church.  However, since Pelagius had been so influential and he had followers throughout the Church, their teachings would continue to be a source of controversy.  Pelagius himself left Rome under duress and eventually died in Palestine.  Pelagius’ teachings , modified by the denial of original sin, remained real force for years after his death.  Of course, Augustine became a doctor of the Church and a saint whose influence formed and continues to guide the Church today.

SDG

[1] Haight, “Notes on the Pelagian Controversy,” 29.
[2] Haight, “Notes on the Pelagian Controversy,” 29.

[3] Haight, “Notes on the Pelagian Controversy,” 30.
[4] Haight, “Notes on the Pelagian Controversy,” 30.
[5] Breckenridge, “Pelagius: The Making of a Heretic,” 33.
[6] Haight, “Notes on the Pelagian Controversy,” 30.

Free Will in the Early Church

There is ample evidence that many in the early church held that humans possessed the capacity to chose good and/or evil.  Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus all wrote comments that indicating that human free agency existed and therefore could chose to be good or bad.[1]   It also appears that the precise timing of the inclusion of the Gospel of James in to the canonical Bible seems to be a point of controversy.[2]   Specifically, the question of James is due to the abundant use of verses from James by Pelagius and there limited use by Jerome and Augustine.[3]   This would have implications later when Martin Luther responds to Desiderius Erasmus.  However, Pelagius or his name sake followers seem to have the backing of some in the early church and did not make up the doctrine of free will from whole cloth.  Theological and philosophical speculation was what dominated the late Roman Empire and so the die was cast for the principal protagonist of the doctrine of free will to clash.

Two rustics visit Rome

Rome and its empire had been in an advanced state of decline since the death of Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus in 180 A.D.  Although it would be some time before Alaric and the Visigoths would sack the city, Rome was decaying from self inflicted political and social disregard.  Stoicism seemed to dominate the philosophical climate of the times.[4]   As a result, at least within the elite, there was a resignation to accepting as inevitability of events and actions.  Stoicism had also found its expression in the Christians of the times.[5]

Into this environment came Pelagius in 380 A.D. and then Augustine in 383 A.D.  Both came from areas on the edge of the Empire, Pelagius from Britain (or perhaps Brittany) and Augustine from Thagaste, North Africa.  While they both had come to Rome looking for civil careers and they both were appalled at the pagan morality of Roman life, their life journey before visiting Rome and after were decidedly different.[6]    Most importantly for our purposes is that for their time both men were Christians.  Also significant is that they came Rome during the evolution of the Church from a persecuted hole-in-the-wall affair to becoming the State religion.

Uncertainty exists about Pelagius’ early life due to the lack of records and the destruction of his works after he was branded a heretic.  However, it is clear that he was from the northwest of Europe, perhaps Britain, as he was referred to as Pelagius Brito or Britannicus.   Pelagius was well educated, may have been a monk and possibly studied law as well.[7]   Once in Rome, Pelagius became the leader of a reform movement.

Haight describes Pelagius’ as being:
Closely associated with the aristocratic class, he preached, against the pagan morality that had infiltrated into the Church with the conversions of convenience, a life of authentic Christianity, of Christian perfection, one that appealed to the first families who wanted to stand out above the crowd.[8]

These elite Roman Christians may have more to do with the formation of what is called Pelagianism, than Pelagius himself.

Augustine’s early life was decidedly different than Pelagius.  We are acutely aware of Augustine’s life because of his prolific writing, which most has been preserved, and specifically to his self-penned Confessiones.[9]   He was born in Thagaste into family which had been full Roman citizens for about 100 years before his birth.  His father was a pagan and his mother a Christian.  His mother, Monica, had great influence upon his life because she prayed for him constantly.  He was early educated was in Latin literature, pagan beliefs and customs.  In his teens he went to Carthage to continue his studies.  Although Monica had raised him as a Christian, during his Carthage years he began to follow the Gnostic cult of Manichaeism.   This lead to a debauched life style, which distressed Monica greatly.  A long affair with a woman resulted in the birth of a son, Adeodatus, who was greatly loved by both Augustine and Monica.

Augustine moved back to Thagaste to teach grammar then back to Carthage.  Back in  Carthage, Augustine became a well respected teacher of rhetoric.  However, he became appalled by the behavior of the students and began to drift away from Manichaeism.  Shortly after this, he won the highly visible and well placed position of professor of rhetoric to the imperial court of Milan.

While in Milan, Augustine was impressed with the local bishop, Ambrose.  Influenced by Monica and Ambrose, Augustine had a conversion experience and became a Christian.  This lead to his returning to his families property near Hippo in North Africa.  It was during a rare visit to Hippo that Augustine was convinced of the need for a bishop of the Church and thus was ordained as Bishop of Hippo.  In the position of bishop, Augustine preached and wrote a tremendous amount.  Letters, books, documents all directed at either clarifying the doctrines of or in defense of the Christian Church.

SDG

[1] Breckenridge, “Pelagius: The Making of a Heretic,” 31.
[2] Jonathan P. Yates, “The Canonical Significance of the Citation of James in Pelagius,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 78 (2002): 482-89.
[3] Yates, “The Canonical Significance of the Citation of James in Pelagius,” 487.

[4] Breckenridge, “Pelagius: The Making of a Heretic,” 30.
[5] Breckenridge, “Pelagius: The Making of a Heretic,” 31.
[6] Haight, “Notes on the Pelagian Controversy,” 27.

[7] Catholic Online.  Catholic Encyclopedia. (New York: Robert Appleton Company).  accessed April 16, 2014.  http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9115.

[8] Haight, “Notes on the Pelagian Controversy,” 29.
[9] Augustine.  The Confessions of Saint Augustine. trans. Edward B. Pusey, D.D. (Christian Classics Ethereal Library) accessed April 16, 2014. http://www.ccel.org.

The question of human agency in salvation has been a continuous question within the Church from an early period.  Many of the early church fathers wrote that humans had a choice over good and evil and therefore could work with God toward their own salvation.  Pelagianism, the principle that original sin was had not completely ruined humanity and thus humans had some capacity for merit with out Divine support, became well defined in the late fourth century.  Although it bears the name of Pelagius, evidence has been gathered that indicates that Pelagius himself may not have held firm to the principle.  Nevertheless Pelagius became the bitter theological nemesis of St. Augustine.  As a result Pelagius was branded a heretic and the theological principle that bears his name was denounced.

However, Pelagianism and its softer spawn Semi-Pelagianism have continued to be part and parcel of the Christian Church.  The Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian teachings were denounced in two church councils in the fifth century, again by prominent theologians in the 14th and 15th centuries.  Perhaps the best renunciation of these teachings was by Martin Luther in his opus De Servo Arbitrio in late 1525.  Despite being continuously renounced Pelagianism in harder and softer forms continues to be present in the Church and in non-Trinitarian sects.

Therefore, historically Lutherans have agreed with Augustine’s theological anthropology and are sensitive to Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.  This is evident from the writings in the Concordia; The Lutheran Confessions.*   Both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism were labeled heresies within the Western Church.**    Publications and research have brought into question the role of Pelagius in the early church.***   The central question for this paper is the lack of a concise synopsis of the information that is needed to make decisions concerning the Pelagius’ accountability for the controversy that bears his name.   A concise synopsis is needed to clarify the teachings of the Lutheran Church that will enable Lutheran pastors and laymen to develop an appreciation for how the challenges for the early church remain challenges for today and the future.

SDG

*  Triglot Concordia 1584
**  James Breckenridge, “Pelagius: The Making of a Heretic,” Evangelical Quarterly 42.1 (1970): 30-34.
***   Rodger D. Haight SJ, “Notes on the Pelagian Controversy,” Philippian Studies, Vol. 22 (1974): 26-48.

This is a letter that many pastors need to write to their congregations as we slip down the slope……

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ;

As you all are aware there is currently a push by some progressive members of the congregation to replace the liturgy used in our Sunday services. It appears that there are two views of how this replacing of the liturgy should happen. One approach is that the liturgy be entirely replaced with what is called a ‘contemporary praise and worship’ service. The second approach is that we continue to have two services keeping the liturgy in the early service and changing the second service to this ‘contemporary praise and worship’ style. I would like to point out that there is, in fact, another way to approach the question of how our services are ordered.

Recalling that the Church[1] is the bride of Christ. The primary function for the Church is for God’s people to worship Him. The fact that we can gather is a divine miracle. That is why in our Small Catechism we confess that it is the Holy Ghost that ‘… calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith…‘[2]

I view the Church as God’s garden. Through the life, death and resurrection of our Lord, God creates his garden, the Church. Through care and nurturing the Church began to bloom and blossom in worship. Over the ages this mutual nurturing of God and organic response of the Church has resulted in the liturgy we use today.

In His mercy and through baptism in Jesus, God plants you and me in the Church. In the Church, Jesus promises that each of us will receive the nurturing of God’s holy Word and the Church responds in liturgy. Even as we worship, our bound wills seek to delude us into believing that we are pious, righteous and devout toward God. We turn our backs on God and begin to think that worship is our doing something for God.

With this pride, come our most precious religious, political, economic, and patriotic dreams. Myths we tell ourselves and one another; and to which we retreat so that we do not have to take care of our fellows and the good earth.[3] Once we are snared by these myths, we begin to see our personal wants, needs and desires as being the measure of all things. This leads us to think that praise and worship are things we do once a week in church for God.

This brings us to the day and the evil therein. There are three groups of stewards in the garden of the Church. In our congregation all three are present, that is not unusual. Each steward has a different idea of how to care for the garden and as such a dispute has arose as to which is the better steward.[4]

One group of stewards would like to have the liturgy be entirely replaced with what is called a ‘contemporary praise and worship’ service. They are the radical progressives. Radical in that they want to strike the root.[5] They would have the congregation tear out and burn out the existing garden, up root the young and the mature blooms and blossoms and start over with a fallow garden.

These radical progressives are not without seed for the fallow garden. They bring with them the seeds of ‘what everyone else is doing,’ ‘what is popular,’ and will ‘make the church grow.’ These seeds are ‘new’ in that they would introduce to our services songs that we hear on the radio, except with CINO[6] words in place of the original verses. They would bring in ‘new’ readings from the latest top sellers at the local CINO book store. They would replace the existing congregation with ‘new’ people from the un-churched and those that ‘do not have a personal relationship with Jesus.’

A second group of progressives would continue to have two services keeping the liturgy in the early service and changing the second service to this ‘contemporary praise and worship’ style. These liberal progressives want to keep the liturgy for themselves, but are willing to give liberty to another group who wish to have a ‘modern’ service. They wish to only fallow part of the garden in order to experiment with the seeds of ‘what everyone else is doing,’ ‘what is popular,’ and will ‘make the church grow.’

The liberal progressives do not have new seed for the garden. Rather they view the matter of worship as pure contingency. Through their view of Christian freedom, they are willing to let the radicals have a ‘go at it’ not realizing that the seeds of radicals will soon over grow the liberals part of the garden. They turn their backs on the other side and wish them good luck, only to be surprised with how the liturgy will change over time.

These ‘new’ seeds grow well in fallow ground and slowly expand to other parts of the garden until the entire garden has changed. The hymns will be replaced with ‘cover songs.’ The organ will grow dusty as guitars, tambourines, drums and other bar-band instruments become the standard. The symbols of the Church will be replaced with symbols of the people: butterflies and modern art wall hangings, blue jeans and flowered shirts, ‘come to Jesus’ expressions and Hallmark card sentimentality. The processionals will be replaced with ‘liturgical dance’ and children’s performances.

The great travesty of this move is that eventually even the sacraments of the Church will be changed to reflect the progressive vision. The divine gifts of baptism and the Lord’s Supper will become symbolic and reenactments of the life of Jesus. Baptism will be a ‘cleaning up’ of the people who have chosen to be better. The Lord’s Supper will become a drive-trough with the bread served as you pass by the pastor and the wine, now grape juice, will be served in plastic ‘Jesus jiggers.’

As you can tell by now, I count myself out of either of these two groups. However, before you discount me a some stick-in-the-mud old fogy, hear me out. As a fallen and sinful man, I recognize the need for the church to all ways be reforming. I stand by organic reformation rather than quick or slow revolution. Our existing fellowship hall has a stage for songs, ‘praise band’ music, a more relaxed setting for ‘wall art’ and ‘dressing down;’ and a perfect place for dancing and performing by young and old.

This is what we should do after services on Sunday morning. Enjoy each other and the gifts that God has given us. The ‘pot-luck’ meal where we share the life abundant with one another. Yes, we should let ourselves relax and bask in the glow of what our God has done for us each day, but especially on the Lord’s day.

As for the liturgy, it is constantly reforming with ever the eyes toward keeping it God-centered and Christ-centered. All changes to the liturgy are slow, deliberate and ordered as to not introduce chaos into the church or congregation. Concerning the sacraments, it would be a violation of my vows to allow changes in our ancient practices. There are certainly new hymns to be considered, new prayers to be written and new ways of preaching and teaching the Law and Gospel.

So it is, that, the historic and mature liturgy that has flourished in the Church for two-thousand years, will continue to be the standard for our church and congregation. In recognition that this may not be what some want to hear and that some will decide to leave our congregation, I realize this to be real possibility. To those for whom this continuation is uncomfortable, I remain open for conversation. To those for whom this continuation is unacceptable, it is more Christian that we part company than to become bitter attempting to abide one another. I will continue to pray for you and wish you well, should you decided to leave.

Yours in Christ,

SDG

[1] The capitalization of the word Church indicates the mystical body of the Communion of the Saints, both the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant. The lower case word ‘church’ indicates the bricks and mortar building in which we gather. Additionally, I use the word ‘congregation’ to mean the people who gather in a ‘church.’

[2] Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921). SC.

[3] after Gerhard O. Forde. Where God Meets Man: Luther’s Down-To-Earth Approach to the Gospel. (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972). p. 107.

[4] after Luke 22:24.

[5] The etymology of the word radical from Latin radix (genitive radicis) meaning “root.”

[6] Acronym for Christian In Name Only – CINO.

Choose one of the following theologies and explore how they are emphasized both in historic liturgical forms (i.e., the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours) and in the German Lutheran Messe: theologia cruces, sola fide, the Real Presence of Christ.

My interest in this question stems from the fact that we have only one theology, that of the Cross.  Particulars such as sola fide and the Real Presence of Christ are part and parcel of the Theology of the Cross (theologia cruces).  Critical to this is that in his writings, specifically the Heidelberg Disputation, Martin Luther focuses three theses (19, 20 & 21) on defining who is and who is not a theologian.  Only later does Luther set forth the Cross as “our theology.”  Thus, it is that theologia cruces defines the theologian, but also the praxis of our theology in liturgy forms.

The medieval Mass retained many elements of the theologia cruces, including the penitential Kyrie, the laudatory Gloria, the confessional Credo, the laudatory Sanctus and the penitential Agnus Dei.  Because these parts of the Mass remained focused on Christ’s work and our creaturely position, Luther kept them in the Messe.  As such these should remain as part of any modern liturgical forms.

All liturgical forms should remain focused upon ‘suffering and the Cross.’  Recently, two threats to the Lutheran liturgical form of proclamation have returned, these are the ‘decadent pietism’ identified by Forde and ‘functional Arminianism’ identified by Curtis.  These threats can be qualified as personal affirmation (of oneself and of others) and ‘making a decision for Christ.’  Each are a danger to true worship and are a degradation of the liturgy.

As theologians of the Cross and responsible liturgists, we should be on guard against these threats as we consider what is included and excluded from our services.  Over the years older hymns (chorales) and modern hymns that focus on God and His Christ as the actors and we as the passive recipients of His actions can and should continue to be included.  Modern and camp meeting (gospel music?) songs should be view critically before inclusion as they tend to affirm us and reinforce our own idolatry.

We must continue to teach and preach that all of us should be very cautious of what is brought into our congregations.  Very few, if any, resources found at the local ‘Christian’ bookstore have been seriously vetted as meeting the standard of ‘suffering and the Cross.’  All pastors and teachers should use the theological analysis that was discussed in class.  Although our class focus was on hymn analysis, these points seem to be a good starting point for what should or should not be included in the liturgy.  The points were: 1. Is the form about God’s grace and thanksgiving?; 2. Does the form include works righteousness?; and 3. Is the Cross central in the form?

Additionally, one could add that the forms should be true and beautiful.  Ultimately, those historical and modern liturgical forms that give all might, majesty, dominion, power, and all the glory of our salvation to God alone, have and will stand the test of time.  No other forms are more important and far-reaching than standing firm in the theologia cruce.
SDG

I should like to note that I believe that the true lost sheep are part of the elect[1] or remnant.[2] These are not potential converts or seekers or any of the other modern terms for the unbeliever. Rather, the elect are those who respond when the light of the Gospel is turned on. They know the master’s voice and they follow. The remnant are always present. They are listening for the Word.

Pastors would do well to remember that the elect/remnant are the people of God and His Church. As Pastor Curtis explained, ‘we serve the one people of God, his elect from every nation. And what the elect want, what the Church wants, is the Word of God, and worship that flows ceaselessly from the Word of God and is immersed in the imagery of the Word of God and is connected to the people of God of all times and places.'[3] This is and remains most certainly true.

SDG

[1] Triglot Concordia. FC SD XI.

[2] Isaiah 10:21, 11:16; 2 Kings 19:31; Romans 9:27, 11:5 and elsewhere.

[3] H.R. Curtis. Freed From the Shopkeeper’s Prison Series. Presented General Pastors’ Conference of the North Region of the IN District, LCMS, May 9, 2011.