Given the recent Bethke video, Jesus>Religion (see post here), many have expressed concerns which suggest that we Lutherans should refrain from pointing out Bethke’s theological errors because of his good intention to share the gospel of Jesus Christ.
This is nothing new.
The claim will always be put forward against the Lutheran Church: “Why must we be so different from everyone else? Why must we take issue with every little bit of false theology? We all believe in Jesus don’t we? Why insist on a confession that separates us from other brothers and sisters in Christ?”
Such is the cry of false humility.
These types of questions will continue to arise, for heterodoxy will continue to pit true orthodoxy against the gospel. In the name of Christian love, false teaching will lay claim to the true confession of the faith, attempting to suggest that we don't really need to have pure Gospel, and leading us down the path of universalism.
However, and this is key, Lutherans never argue doctrine for the sake of showing ourselves to be in the right. We never argue doctrine to put one in his place. The task of arguing over doctrine is always for the sake of the very thing which is central to the Christian life: the justification of the sinner through faith alone. For every single error, no matter how seemingly minor, is an assault on this central article of the Christian faith.
As Luther points out:
This is nothing new.
The claim will always be put forward against the Lutheran Church: “Why must we be so different from everyone else? Why must we take issue with every little bit of false theology? We all believe in Jesus don’t we? Why insist on a confession that separates us from other brothers and sisters in Christ?”
Such is the cry of false humility.
These types of questions will continue to arise, for heterodoxy will continue to pit true orthodoxy against the gospel. In the name of Christian love, false teaching will lay claim to the true confession of the faith, attempting to suggest that we don't really need to have pure Gospel, and leading us down the path of universalism.
However, and this is key, Lutherans never argue doctrine for the sake of showing ourselves to be in the right. We never argue doctrine to put one in his place. The task of arguing over doctrine is always for the sake of the very thing which is central to the Christian life: the justification of the sinner through faith alone. For every single error, no matter how seemingly minor, is an assault on this central article of the Christian faith.
As Luther points out:
Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls [Mark 13:31]. For there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). And with His stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:5). Upon this article everything that we teach and practice depends, in opposition to the pope, the devil, and the whole world. Therefore, we must be certain and not doubt this doctrine. Otherwise, all is lost, and the pope, the devil, and all adversaries win the victory and the right over us. (SA II, I:5)And again:
This doctrine can never be urged and taught enough. If this doctrine is overthrown or disappears, then all knowledge of the truth is lost at the same time. If this doctrine flourishes, then all good things flourish, religion, true worship, the glory of God and the right knowledge of all conditions of life and of all things. (Introduction to LW 26)
A Christian cannot give up any ground on this article of justification for, very simply, it is always why we say what we say. It is the heart and soul of everything we believe, teach, and confess, even the Gospel itself. That God justifies us wretched sinners by his grace alone, through faith alone, by freely reckoning to us the righteousness of Christ, forgiving all our sin for His sake alone.
Thanks for reading.
Anthony - you are a gentleman and a scholar...not to mention a good friend and brother. Thank you for sharing these thoughts.
ReplyDeleteJust yesterday I had a healthy conversation with a Lutheran Pastor about bible knowledge and the huge gap many people have. It's a problem.
ReplyDeleteI think your post has in it something talked about too rarely. The word you used was argue. The words you quote from Luther were taught, practice, urged. These are two very different groups of things. This is especially true in this current cultural context.
I remember a sermon from a few years back (at St. Matthew) where one of the pastors noted that when you start an argument you draw a line in the sand and people take to defending their sides. In the church this is a far cry from what we want as we want to make disciples (and doing that through teaching for one).
On the other side there's teaching. When we teach (or attempt to) we are trying to share something we know. We may disagree with what someone already says. But, there's a difference between arguing against something and teaching someone what you know and see. The latter is taken to much better in our society.
To better understand the meaning of the word teaching used in the Great commission I looked it up, the definition, other usages, etc. I like the way it was described as meaning 'to cause to learn' or 'to cause to know'.
I was chatting with someone about the response to the Jesus>Religion video. I saw a number of church workers like the response. This person felt the video lacked love (1 Corinthians 13) and it was arguing against. This is a far cry from teaching. This person agreed with the points but called out these two issues.
You are right that we need to do what Luther said. We need to urge and teach. Arguing doesn't do that. If our actions aren't loving we aren't teaching by our actions how important love is. Our actions won't cause someone to know Christs love. This is something to keep in mind when we teach and a hard lesson I've had to learn (being I'm an excellent arguer).
My reaction to your post is lengthy. It can be found here https://mengelhardt.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/the-world-is-watching/
ReplyDeleteMarc, blessings to you brother! Thanks for reading and thanks for your comments. I think your words are important. You pointed out something that might need clarification, for I believe you misunderstood the post.
ReplyDeleteThe two extremes of the slippery slope argument you refer to (I assume) are that of universalism and the orthodox Christian faith. But if you study the structure of my post, universalism is a side issue. It’s a consequence of continuing to accept false theology under the pretense that we don’t want to offend someone by pointing out their error. I assume you don’t disagree with this for you are loving trying to point out my error. If you like, take out the line “and leading us down the path of universalism.” My point remains.
Notice, I'm not talking about "Christians who try to approach differences in the Church with humility and love." I’m not saying “In Christian love, false teaching will lay claim to the true confession of the faith,” rather, “In the name of Christian love,” as in pretending, as in a false pretense, as in giving the impression that one is acting out of Christian love when he is only using it as an excuse to tolerate falsehood, not causing offense, instead of speaking the truth in Christian love even though that truth might cause the other individual to not love you.
Those who suggest that we should not waste our time making a confession of the faith that separates us from other Christians, i.e. being unloving, are pretending to act pious and according to the Gospel, when in reality they just don’t want to take the narrow lonely road. They are acting in false humility.
If I’m not mistaken, you may have misunderstood the post. Maybe I should have been clearer. Yes we must act in Christian love at all times. But, to use your example, Paul was not suggesting that we don’t really need to have pure Gospel. Paul was not shying away from confronting errors in the church by hiding behind Christian love. My point was not to lift up universalism as the negative example, rather that “A Christian cannot give up any ground on this article of justification” even under the false pretense of Christian love.
Anthony, thanks for the clarification! I thought your article had a great premise, but for me, it needed clarification. As I said, I agree with your stance on pure Gospel, it is actually unloving of us to not promote a pure Gospel to those in error. However, how we approach doing that is just as important as the act.
DeleteThis points out one of the difficulties of the written word, you know, the whole "intention of the author/reception of the reader" stuff. If we were talking face to face, the fuzziness in the discussion would likely not be there. And that is my point in saying that the world is watching, we need to pick our words carefully because people will judge us and the Church by what we write.
Another good example is your exchange with Matt in the comments. I understand what you mean by 'argue' but Matt appears to read argue with the connotation of heated apologetic debate mixed with a sense of unapplicable academia. Once he explained that, I can see from where he is coming. That doesn't mean we can't use the word 'argue', we may just need to give it some definition first.
I pray for blessings on you, your family, and your ministry. Keep up the good work and keep writing about it!
Matt, I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word “argue.”
ReplyDeleteAnthony, there are two parts to the word argue. There is straight dictionary definition. Then there is how arguments are carried out between people within our culture.
DeleteIt would be one thing to argue a case before a judge where convincing another party arguing a different standpoint was not a goal. This is how courts, debates, and those types of things happen.
But, in our current culture it is often that when we argue to share something with someone they are the person arguing the other side and since they are the person we want to convince they are also the judge. Even when it's polite on the surface it can often turn into quarrels or disputes.
In all of this I'm reminded me of something I read in a book recently on learning. We often have this idea in our culture that learning leads to understanding which leads to doing. That this is the case with things like faith, doctrine, the bible, knowledge about God, and even how to do jobs in our economy. But as I learned with jobs, my education didn't teach me enough to understand what I would do as an engineer in the workplace. But, that's what internships are for and mentoring of new people to show them the ropes. I didn't understand until I was able to mix doing with learning.
As I've learned, you need to learn while doing/living it to understand it. And sometimes that can take a long time.
This is often how it is when learning about God, what he expects from our, and so much more. For example, I was recently discussing helping the poor with someone who has a great deal of knowledge about the scripture. In our conversation about helping the poor we talked about what the bible says in the old and new testament. I let this person lead me through scripture being the one with more expertise. Then I asked, what would this look like in today's culture in us. This person didn't have an answer.
Arguing points would not have had an effect and didn't in the past. This person still doesn't get what it means to serve the poor. This person simply got a taste that they don't really understand what God calls us to do with the poor. And, that is a great step in the learning process.
My point is that to "to cause to know" is not "giving reasons for or against" (argue definition). Giving reasons to someone who doesn't share them and that person is the one you are trying to convince doesn't work. It often leads to quarreling or, in my experience, gossip. Minds are not changed. Christ is not shared.
Well, I would hope that no one reading this post in context would think that my intention was to suggest that Lutherans SHOULD quarrel or gossip over doctrine instead of approaching differences in humility and love. But since you took it that way, it's good to clarify for others who might also misread the post. Thanks for your words gentlemen.
DeleteThis whole discussion stems out of the original Bethke video, but the response here http://allbeggars.blogspot.com/2012/01/jesus-loves-religion.html is well played. Check it out!
ReplyDelete