TAUSSIG'S DIABOLICAL NEW NEW TESTAMENT

Over at the Huffington Post, Hal Taussig, a founding member of the infamous Jesus Seminar, a professor of Biblical literature at Union Theological Seminary in New York, and professor of early Christianity at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, makes his that ten more ancient noncanonical texts used by some of the early Christian communities should be added to the New Testament.  Such addition was approved by the self described "Council of New Orleans"--essentially a gathering of the Taussig's friends and colleagues who selected the texts.  In turn, Taussig has put out a book entitled A New New Testament: A Bible For The 21st Century Combining Traditional And Newly Discovered Texts.

It should surprise no one that surprised to find the Seminar's perspective is presented throughout the notes, introductions, and other materials.  The texts Taussig has added to his edition of the Bible are as follows:

The Gospel of Mary

The Thunder: Perfect Mind

The Gospel of Thomas

The Odes of Solomon

Prayer of Thanksgiving

The Acts of Paul and Thecla

The Gospel of Truth

The Prayer of the Apostle Paul

The Letter Of Peter to Philip

The Secret Revelation to John

(It should be noted that some of these weren't even written in Greek.)

The issue that Taussig skates around is that there was a reason the early Church's councils did not include there texts.  A little investigation reveals that all of these texts were at heart Gnostic--a system of belief the early Church deemed a heretical.  A heresy which has been a pain in the neck clear up to this day.

Gnosticism had/has a variety of features found among those distant non-Christian communities and its adherents through history to the present day. Basically, their point is that there is a secret, esoteric knowledge in the universe not revealed in the traditional Christian Canon of the New Testament.  Some go on to maintain that the physical, mundane world is something we must rise above and enter into God's spiritual world.  (Because it is unthinkable that the spiritual would have nothing do to do with the material, Gnosticism often had claim that Jesus was not a true man--only a spirit that appears to be a man.  Therefore Christ could not have two natures as taught within orthodoxy.)  This requires an enlightenment not apparent to ordinary individuals.  There is some minor disagreement as to whether this enlightenment is only available to a select few and is there for all men and women.  Historically, most Gnostics settle on the former.  As with many heresies, most scholars believe Gnosticism actually predates Christ's ministry on earth. 

There is quite a question concerning why some Christian theologians have such interest in advancing the proposition that Gnosticism a legitimate form of Christianity unfairly rejected by the early Church--usually for corrupt reasons.

Perhaps there really no mystery at all as to why these individuals of yesteryear and the present day want Gnosticism recognized to a genuine element of Christianity: a dissatisfaction with orthodox Christianity.  Certainly Gnosticism has an appeal to the supposed secularists and those disaffect from the Gospel as preached in the Church at large.  This includes many who have an visceral animus toward Christianity.  There is nothing better for many than to claim that Christians are erroneous root and branch--we don't even understand our own religion.  And there are those who want to get as far away from the repressive "fundamentalism" of the orthodox Church--and do it with intelligent righteous reasons. aside from the fact they just don't like it.

Since the inception of Christianity, Gnosticism's ugly head pops up here and there.  Again there was a reason the early Church rejected Gnosticism and its ersatz Christian writings.  That these texts did not originate within apostolic tradition was the least of it.  Gnosticism in all its form obscures to Gospel.  Salvation is not be found in the Cross.

The Gnostic Christ is not really the Christ of the Gospels and the Christian Church.  He is someone else unrecognizable to the faith handed down through the centuries..  No matter how mild Gnosticism invades orthodox Christianity, it is harmful to the Gospel.  Faithful Christians--let alone faithful Lutherans--should not give it any consideration.  The bottom line is A New New Testament is a waste of time.

CRABBY'S RECORD COLLECTION SERIES

The first song I remember liking was Walk Right In by The Rooftop Singers.  I was about ten at the time.  Later that year (1963), The Beatles came to America and I never was the same.  Thus I became a living fan of Rock music during the true golden age of Boomer "love, peace and rock and roll".  In the tumult of in the sixties, we believed that music could change to world.

By the seventies, we lost faith in the possibilities of music transforming the world.  What was left was the music.  It was the music we never gave up.  There was not much to recommend in rock to Christian sensibilities truth be told; but there was always a part of us that remained little pagans.

Sorry to say to the younger generations, but rock is over.  You missed it.  It was great while it lasted.  In the last half of the sixties and half way into the seventies, rock was robust with life.  Afterward, however, it began to die a slow and sometimes painful death.  While there were still signs of life, the eighties were terrible for rock as we knew it.  By the mid-nineties, with a few exceptions, it was over.

Every generation is entitled to its own music.  There is little reason for the young to harken back to when dinosaurs roamed the earth.  But, if you are interested in a little musical paleontology, we'll talk about the great albums of yesteryear and consider why they were so great.  The rest of us old-timers will engage in a little rusty nostalgia.  And, no, we won't visit the wonderworks of Justin Bieber or Lady GaGa.

Mick Lee.

 

THE BEATLES (THE WHITE ALBUM)

DARK YET INDISPENSIBLE

Many younger listeners prefer THE WHITE ALBUM above all other Beatles albums. Above even the gold standard of Sgt. Pepper and the highly beloved Abbey Road. I don't share this enthusiasm. I place the afore mentioned SGT. PEPPER and ABBEY ROAD in the top two followed by REVOLVER and A HARD DAYS NIGHT.  Rounding out the top five would be the unjustly neglected MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR.  THE WHITE ALBUM would then come in sixth.

The Beatles never made a bad album. LET IT BE may be the lone exception--a failure so curious that it is difficult to merely tag it as "bad". (So "bad" it's good in a peculiar sort of way.).

Coming after the psychedelic period, THE WHITE ALBUM is a surprisingly dark album--the previous focus of peace and love is missing here. The record anticipated the stripped down production and "confessional" songwriting found in prevalence during the early 1970's. While this was a welcome development for some, THE WHITE ALBUM was something of a let down initially. Most who rushed out to buy the new Beatle album were disappointed in the absence of the Hey Jude and Revolution. The Beatles had a preference for not putting their singles on the albums; but in this case it this was a significant error.

Like most double albums, this one could easily been paired down to a single disc. Many of the cuts are frivolous while others bog things down. Harrison felt on reflection that some of the tracks could have been released as B sides. Still many critics acclaim THE WHITE ALBUM as a celebrated explosion of musicianship in which the Beatles demonstrated that they could play in number of styles--as if such a demonstration was necessary. Still, many listeners like the album precisely because it is so varied.

Whatever else could be said, the wide variety of styles signaled a foreboding and desperation. With the exception of the first side, each song is distant and isolated from all the others. There is a sense of fragmentation and disassociation on THE WHITE ALBUM not found on any of the Beatles previous records. Indeed, now that we know some of the history behind the scenes, it can be seen that The Beatles were fracturing. In retrospect, without the glue of Brian Epstein, their recently deceased manager, each band member was spinning of into separate directions. The Beatles, particularly Lennon and McCartney, had in the past bounced off each other to good effect-- jolting each from their own element.. Collaboration was deteriorating and alongside many flashes of brilliance weaker musical instincts slithered in.

Only side one hangs together in the flow of tracks to form a "whole" which is both pleasing and memorable. Three great songs, even the lesser songs stick with you, fun, humorous and recklessly inventive -and it absolutely rocks. The three remaining sides of the original LP version suffer in comparison.

Side one opens with a great coupling in Back in the USSR and Dear Prudence. Parody is a much overused word--too often meaning a barb thrown at others. In fact the Beatles frequently paid homage to the music they loved from other musicians. Back In The USSR is no more a parody of the Beach Boys or Elvis (both of whom McCartney loved) than Got To Get You Into My Life was of Motown. This is seamlessly followed by Dear Prudence which sounds better with each listening and is far more complex as a song than it seems. The rest is pleasant enough and one song follows another in sharp focus. But the room stops still with While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Harrison's *Guitar* towers over the rest of the album and is the one song that immediately jumps to mind in any discussion of THE WHITE ALBUM. McCartney and Lennon were like the older brothers turning out excellent work. But Harrison is like the little brother who pops out of nowhere with a piece of work that blows the daylights off the competition. The acoustic version found in the Anthology series reveals it is actually a simple song that lends itself to a relaxed and tender presentation. But here it is played with vehemence with the guest guitar solo by Eric Clapton. The Beatles loved silly songs for their own sake. Yet here, following the failure of the age of peace and love to appear, lyrics of unvarnished grief are put on full display.

Side Two does not hang together well and most tend to pick their favorites to listen to rather than the entire side. I'm So Tired is a Lennon downer that ruins this side for me. Much better is Rocky Raccoon--a McCartney nonsense song. I Will is a lovely McCartney romance that remains an unjustly neglected song by even McCartney's diehard fans. Lennon's Julia is one of the sweetest songs he ever wrote--infuriately used as a bit of psychoanalysis into his soul by his biographers (Julia was his mother's name).

Side three was a favorite of early FM rock radio. Birthday just rocks. Me and My Monkey is joyous, free flying a rocker and truly funny. Helter Skelter is one tough hard rocker which some claim is a precursor to heavy metal. Long Long Long anticipates much of ALL THING MUST PASS and the rest Harrison's output in the 1970's. However, here THE WHITE ALBUM really needs a kickass rocker--perhaps Lennon's Bulldog or a reworking of Harrison's own It's All Too Much (both found on the YELLOW SUBMARINE soundtrack).

Side four is a disappointment. The version of Revolution appearing here has its own charm but in the context of the album is slow, plodding, and understated where the excitement and full blast rock and roll of the original is needed. John Lennon later claimed that he preferred the slower version--but like many things he said in the 1970's he was just plain wrong. Harrison's big band Savoy Truffle is quite good.

In view of what was to come after the Beatles broke up, it is interesting to note that the styles of music we now associate with each Beatle are pretty much here. If you separate and group each song according to its author, we find the spiritual and sometimes sarcastic George, the gentle and good hearted Ringo, the acidic yet sometimes sentimental John, and the entertainer Paul with one foot in rock and roll and the other foot in the old English music hall.

Taken as a whole, John's contributions are not his best. Yer Blues is a desolate and pointless barb aimed at the British blues revival. Revolution #1 had none of the exhilaration of the original. Sexy Sadie is just plain tedious. I'm So Tired* makes one uncomfortable and not in a good way. On the other hand, contrary to his common image, THE WHITE ALBUM contains two of Lennon's sweetest and charming compositions: Dear Prudence and Julia. It is tempting to search Revolution # 9 for a deep meaning in the chaos--there is none there. It is only a cut and paste job of various sounds and spoken word. George Martin hated it and opposed its inclusion. It sucks the air out of the room. It would have been much better if Hey Jude took its place.

Absent the earlier psychedelic wash, much of McCartney's work remains charming but devoid of "cosmic significance". This is not to say that much of his contributions to THE WHITE ALBUM aren't truly great. It is just that he has a penchant to write very minor work. As much as many complain of the deteriorating quality of McCartney's work in the 1970's, the truth is it is all found here.

Harrison hits two out of four with My Guitar and Savoy Truffle --making one wish that he caught the fire again in his later work. Ringo Starr remains the "gentle giant" who is more fun than musically significant.

Perhaps one's opinion of THE WHITE ALBUM depends on how one views psychedelic music. If you have an innate understand of the multi-layered, slightly touched noise, THE WHITE ALBUM is a step down. If you feel that psychedelic music is rubbish, THE WHITE ALBUM is a revelation. What is clear is that the Beatles largely began the psychedelic era and then ended it after a few years. Just compare the chronology of the Beatles and the Stones and you'll get a hint of others following in the Beatles wake. THE WHITE ALBUM is dark, yes. But it is also indispensible.

THAT "GLOOMY DANE"

May fifth of 2013 was the two hundredth anniversary of Soren Kierkegaard's birth.  Many scholars have much more intelligent remarks to write about this immense philosopher; so I will confine myself to a few personal observations. 

Along with Blasé Pascal, Kierkegaard is one of the most influential "philosophers" in my life--aside from Luther and St. Augustine themselves.  Each time I reread one of his works, something new appears.  It is said that Kierkegaard was the first existentialist.  Depending on your point of view, this is either a blessing or a curse on what we call Western Civilization.  The fact it was the atheists in the succeeding years who took such intense interest in his writings did not seem to recommend the attention for the more God-fearing bent.  Just the title The Attack Upon "Christendom" disuaded a great many from tackling his corpus--being that it only confirmed what they thought they already knew about him.

It was only in the twentieth century that most of Kierkegaard's works became available in English.  Since then, a more accurate and sober picture of the “gloomy Dane” has taken place.

The truth is Kierkegaard was not so much a philosopher as he was a religious essayist.  Just a brief scan reveals such Christian meditations as Two Edifying Discourses, Fear And Trembling. The Unchangeableness Of God, , Training In Christianity, Two Discourses At The Communion On Fridays, and (my personal favorite) Edifying Discourses In Various Spirits.  These can only be understood with Kierkegaard's Lutheranism in the background.  Indeed, unfamiliarity with Lutheranism can and has lead to profound,mistaken misreadings.

I will end with a quote from his journals.  Some believe Kierkegaard was referring to himself.  No.  His contemplation was about Jesus Christ--our Risen Lord.

 

"THE SACRIFICE,"  THE CORRECTIVE

As a skilful cook says of a dish in which there are already a great many ingredients: "It still needs just a little pinch of cinnamon" (and we perhaps could hardly tell by the taste that this little pinch of spice had been added, but she knew precisely why and precisely how it affected the taste of the whole mixture); as an artist says with a view to the color effect of a whole painting which is composed of many, many, colors: "There and there, at that little point, it needs a touch of red" (and we perhaps could hardly even discover the red, so carefully has the artist shaded it, although he knows exactly why it should be introduced). So it is with Governance.

O, the Governance of the world is a vast housekeeping, a grandiose painting. Yet he, the Master, God in heaven, behaves like the cook and the artist. He says: There must be a little touch of spice here, a little touch of red. We do not understand why, we are hardly aware of it, since that little bit is so thoroughly absorbed in the whole. But God knows why.

A little pinch of spice! That is to say: Here a man must be sacrificed, he is needed to impart a particular taste to the rest.

These are the correctives. It is a woeful error for the one who is used to apply the corrective to become impatient and try to make the corrective the norm for others. That is an attempt to bring everything to confusion.

A little pinch of spice! Humanly speaking, what a painful thing, thus to be sacrificed, to be the little pinch of spice! But on the other hand, God knows well the man he elects to use in this way, and then he knows also, in the inward understanding of it, how to make it a blessed thing for him to be sacrificed, that among the thousands of divers voices which express, each in its own way, the same thing, his will also be heard, and perhaps especially his, which is truly de profundis, proclaiming: God is love. The birds on the branches, the lilies in the field, the deer in the forest, the fish in the sea, countless hosts of happy men exultantly proclaim: God is love. But beneath all these sopranos, supporting them as it were, like the bass part, is audible the de profundis which issues from those who are sacrificed: God is love.

THE HAZZARDS AND DOWNFALLS OF WASTED VIRGINITY

Over at Salon, Jessica Ciencin Henriquez writes article titled My Virginity Mistake.  Subtitled " I took an abstinence pledge hoping it would ensure a strong marriage. Instead, it led to a quick divorce".  The subtitle basically tells you everything.

Ms.Henriquez tells the tale of taking the vow of abstinence as young teenager at an Baptist youth camp.  "Married to Jesus", Henriquez is convinced to save herself for marriage on the promise that honoring the marriage bed would bring about a whole marriage between her future husband and herself.  She succeeds in keeping herself pure until her wedding night and that is where her relationship with her new husband fell apart.

Engaged at nineteen, at the moment she puts on her wedding dress, she suddenly gets cold feet--realizing she didn't really know the groom.  Under familial pressure (the cost of the wedding by golly!), she exchanges vows.

Henriquez confesses that she long been terrified of sex.  It is not uncommon for virgins to be apprehensive and fearful of sexual intercourse; but for Henriquez it seems it was taken to glorious heights.

That night, with a great deal of hesitation, she submits to consuming her marriage.  The experience is vastly underwhelming--a dispiriting disappointment.   Henriquez explains:  " This was not lovemaking. There was no bond, no sanctity – this was not the amazing sex I was promised from the pulpit. This was disappointment three to four times a week."

From there, she details the rapid dissolution of her marriage..During her wifely duties, she composed shopping lists in her head and faked the thralls of intimacy.  Six months later, it was all over.

Henriquez explains that because they did not engage in premarital docking procedures she didn't have a chance to learn the she and her husband to be had no chemistry.  What followed was a series of relationships where she learned how to enjoy intercourse.  Sex could be wonderful.  Today she is married to "the right guy".  Henriquez concludes by saying that for good marriage sex is important enough not to wait.

There is a lot to say about Henriquez's experience.  She seems not to take any account of the fact she married so young.  Exactly how mature was she really?  Young marriages have a bad track record in the first place.  She does say so, but she would not be the first teenager who got married so she could have sex and her raging hormones could be contented.  Needless to say, she also would not be the first teenager sex at such an early point in their live find sex is not all it's cracked up to be.  Whether within the confines of marriage or after a series of assignations, knowledge and experience is usually decisive.  One can also wonder if she gave her first occurrences with sex a chance.  Being terribly scared of physical intimacy didn't help either.

Finally, she can be faulted for marrying a man she didn't really know as a person--sex aside.  Her instincts that she was making a mistake as she put on her wedding dress should have told her a lot more than she thinks.

Throughout essay Henriquez has nothing good to say about her Baptist upbringing.  This more or less confirms the prejudices of the typical Salon reader--which likely played no small part in Salon choosing to publish her piece.  The statistics that premarital sex is a horrific influence on a future marriage (these marriages have a greater divorce rate) is never taken into account.  We are simply expected to take Henriquez's story as proof positive for her conclusion.

Baptist theology isn't my cup of tea.  But the preaching to callow teenagers in favor of waiting for sex is a pushback against the scandalous incidence of divorce in the Church.  Regarding the prevalence of teenage sex, the problem isn't really the substantial probably of unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease--although these are tribulations in their own right.  The problem is teens are having sex.  The emotional and spiritual damage of adolescent sexual intercourse is real; but is difficult to explain to a hyper-sexualized culture.

The tragedy is that in a post-Christian America, we have lost the language to speak about the spirit--much less listen.  Many adults will tell you about all the good that came about in their lives after bedding the objects of their desire and engaging in a series of hook-ups.  How can it be wrong when so much good came out of it?

This misunderstands evil.  Sin very often is the illicit use of something the Lord intended for good.  The amazement isn't that good came out of such transgressions.  The real surprise would have been if nothing good came out of it at all.

A REVIEW OF CARL BRAATEN'S IN ONE BODY THROUGH THE CROSS

In One Body Through the Cross

Carl Braaten

I greatly respect Dr. Braaten and keep several his books ready at hand.  Thus I feel a bit of a traitor for being negative toward this volume.

In seems this is a generational preoccupation, the ecumenical institutional unity of the Christian Church. There have been endless meetings and drafts of papers on just how the Christian Church (or "Churches", if you will) will put aside centuries of differences and join into one mighty throng to witness to the whole world. As I said, this seems to be a generational thing. Those born before the Korean War seem to take this task as the be all and end all for the Christian Church. On the other hand, it may be simply an enthusiasm of those in the ministry. Those in the trenches-the laymen-take it as a positive sign that Christians of all stripes are more and more civil and friendly toward one another. It is this overwhelming desire to see "the mating of the mammoths" that is out of place and ill considered.

As a baby-boomer Lutheran, I have attended more ecumenical gatherings than I care to remember. Most were great. Some absolutely stunk. Most laymen come away from these experiences with love and respect for our "separated" brothers and sisters-yet deep down we come to know just what we are. I never realized how much of a Lutheran I was until I discussed the faith other Christians. In the end, I am not going to change for them nor will they change just to suit me.

Ecumenists love the quote Jesus petition to the Father in the Garden "that they all be one". I hope it is not mean-spirited to point out that Jesus also asked that "this cup pass" from Him. That request was not granted and it seems evident that "may they be as one" was not granted either. Indeed, a close examination of any proposal to unify all the Christianity usually entails several "someones" ceasing to be what makes them what they are. This is why some Churches see ecumenism as theological aggression by other means.

That the various Christian Churches have come to treat one another with generosity and respect is no small accomplishment. That most Lutherans no longer take it as a doctrinal certainty that the Pope is the Antichrist is a vast change from the past. That Lutherans and Catholics see themselves as being on the same side in a hostile world would have been inconceivable not that long ago.

I tend to view the problem of Christian unity through the lens of my own extended family. My family has nearly every Christian expression currently available in America. It has "holy-rollers", Evangelicals, staid mainliners, Catholics and several types of apostates. We get together for holidays and we get along well with each other. A few insults are traded-but ...hey...what do you expect.

I wish them all well. May their houses be in peace and prosper. That doesn't mean we can all live together under the same roof.

It may be a little curish to point out since IN ONE BODY THROUGH THE CROSS was published Dr. Braaten was one of the leading individuals to leave the Evanglical Lutheran in America to establish the new North American Lutheran Church.  I greatly approve his actions in building this new Lutheran body; so I find no fault with him in this regard.  On the other hand, since other Lutheran Churches over the world have broken off relations with the ELCA, perhaps the North American Lutheran Church will find they can take up the task of ecuminism where the ELCA dropped the ball.

PRAYER AND PARKING SPACES

I don't remember where I first heard this story; but it is all too human.  Maybe you can relate.

A young Irishman was racing his car to get to the hospital where his wife was about to deliver his first child.  Once there, the parking lot and the surrounding streets were jam packed with parked cars—not an empty space in sight.

After twenty minutes driving outside the hospital, the young Irishman still had not found a parking space.  In desperation, he began to address the Lord:

“Oh God, ya know I’ve not been much of a prayin’ man.  It’s been quite a while since ya last heard from me.  But I need your help right now.  I don’t want to miss out on seeing my little girl bein’ born.  So Lord, if you could just see your way to help me out, I promise I’ll be to Mass every Sunday without fail.  I promise to bring me wife and little girl with me, too.  And, Lord, you know much I like me Guinness.  If ya can help me out I’ll give up the drink….Oh!!!!!!”

At that very moment, an elderly lady got into her car and drove away—leaving a parking space at the very front door of the hospital. 

“Never mind, Lord!  I got this one!!!”

THUNDER IN THE PEWS

 

For years I have objected to the felt need of many in my congregation (or any other congregation) to applaud when the choir or the handbell choir give a "recital" (not the right word but you know what I mean) during the liturgy.  Hymns and music are supposed to be acts of worship of God--not an entertaining performance for the assembled.  I do believe it’s the human honorees who are being applauded more than the Spirit in most of the actual cases.

This battle had long been lost before I came along so I am under no illusions this will ever change.  When the subject does come, my fellow members of our parish will pat my head and dismiss me as a eccentric crank.  I love it when the children sing their little hymns during worship; but, when I do not clap when they have finished, I am regarded as some sort of heartless Grinch.

As I said, the battle has long been lost.

Still, it is nice Pope Benedict agrees with me. This comes from an article titled Tidings of Discomfort And Liturgical Abuse:

Applause and praise to individuals at Mass during the Mass (directed at my own family, which was even more embarrassing). Here’s a quote from Pope Benedict on this practice (with my emphasis): “Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attraction fades quickly — it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation.” I was chastised by a parishioner for bristling at this and was told that the applause was to God. However, we were the only ones asked to stand and if the applause was directed to God, me and my family should be added to the ranks of the Blessed Trinity. I really do appreciate the sentiment — it was honoring and sincere — but if it is necessary or appropriate, please, please, please do this after Mass or some other time. The Mass is to bring us to worship Christ, not us.)

The retort can (and will be) "that is why I am a Protestant". OK. But really…

I am all for ecumenism (ecumenism, that is, with a small "e").  But there is something odd when a Lutheran has to have the Pope to commiserate with him!

THE LUTHERAN FAITH: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED

Martin Luther is one of those historical figures well-educated people have strong opinions but don’t necessarily know anything about. He often serves as either an angel or devil depending on one’s enthusiasms or antagonisms; and Luther is credited with championing beliefs he actually spoke strongly against.

The significance of Martin Luther for Lutherans is also widely misunderstood. While Lutherans revere Luther and closely identify with his personal story as mirroring their own spiritual journey, very few regard him as a “saint”. Indeed, any attempt to put Luther on a high moral pedestal misses the point. Luther’s value derives precisely in part in the fact that he was an ill-tempered and intemperate man who was given to dark moods, made grave mistakes, and fell far short of what we expect from “saints”.

“Lutheranism” suffers from similar misconceptions. For many Lutheranism is a “generic” Protestantism from which all other Protestant Churches improvise and elaborate their own theologies. As a matter of academic theology and history, this is patently false. Lutherans are “Protestants”; but most other denominations left the Catholic Church or dissented from other Protestant bodies at different times for much different reasons. Many Protestants view Lutheranism as the “next thing” to Catholicism. This is close to the truth and many Lutherans view themselves as a reforming movement within the Catholic Church--although most Catholics would be bewildered by such a depiction.

The central doctrine by which the Lutheran Church “stands or falls” is “justification by Grace through faith alone”. By “central’, it is meant that all other doctrine and theology are subservient and guided by it. If this doctrine is “false”, then the whole Lutheran movement is mistaken.

Most other Protestants claim the same doctrine as their own as well; but they are positively allergic to what it actually means. Modern Catholicism accepts “justification by Grace through faith alone” as doctrine; but elaborates that it is one doctrine among many and so must be harmonized by “the rule of faith”. Thus both “Protestants” and “Catholics” approach “justification by Grace alone” in ways totally antithetical to its authentic meaning. This is complicated by the fact that some Lutherans in the pews themselves misunderstand it.

Many Lutherans tell personal stories of laboring for years under mistaken understandings of the Gospel and then having sudden epiphanies or “Luther experiences” to what “God’s Grace” means as if hearing it for the first time after years of worship and instruction. This has lead some to remark that Lutheranism is actually a special form of Christian mysticism. But Lutherans reject any suggestion that it is like the perennial heresy of Gnosticism in which salvation requires a special, esoteric knowledge. Instead, they assign human resistance to God’s message of “justification” to the deviousness of man’s heart. Moreover, Lutherans are quick to assert, God’s saving accomplishment does not depend on human understanding.

Another signpost to understanding Lutheranism is that it is “Christo-centric”. What is meant by this is that the secret of life is not a special wisdom, a set of ethics or a mysterious knowledge. The secret of life is a person and that person is Jesus Christ—God Himself. All man and women do not naturally want to believe this. To the extent we take Jesus seriously, we want to believe that Jesus was pointing to “something” beyond himself and He came to reconcile mankind to “that”. All the descriptions of Jesus being a “teacher” and “example” are true but misleading by themselves apart from the certainty that Jesus is the purpose of life. More astonishingly, Lutherans claim that everything we really know about God was revealed to us on the Cross.

Where Lutherans separate themselves most from both Evangelicals and Catholics is in the area of salvation. Lutherans hold that Christ is the One who saves—in no measure does the individual save himself. One cannot “choose” to follow Jesus because one cannot and will not do any such thing. Instead, it is God who breaks in and pulls the person to Himself. Similarly, with Heaven’s demand “be ye perfect as your Father is perfect”, men and women are incapable be fulfilling this requirement. As a means of salvation, “right living” is doomed before we begin because by committing the single smallest sin one commits all sins for all time. The hope of the Christian lies in standing before the throne of God clothed in Christ’s own righteousness. This means that Christ’s righteousness is credited or imputed to the believer. Thus to the enormous question “how do know you are saved?” the response is not “because I lived a good life”, “because I did many good things for others” or “because I have great faith”. The answer is “I know I am saved because God Himself said so.”

Lutherans do stress becoming more like Christ and doing acts of love in His name. But this comes under the subject of “sanctification” which Lutherans hold to be totally apart from “justification”. As important as it is to perform charitable acts and become more like Christ, these things are not a means of salvation. Salvation is solely the work of God.

All the above is a lot to digest in such a short space. The life of the Christian consists of continually hearing God’s word and being reminded of His saving work again and again. Because the desire to save ourselves on our own terms never goes away, we must be confronted with the Gospel often and every day. The Christian lives his whole life finding out what all this means. Yet whether one is the simplest child or the wisest sage, a moral exemplar or “the worst of sinners”, one’s hope and certainty is Christ Jesus.

“When Christ calls a man, He is calling him to die.” If not today, may you someday greet these words with joy.