CATHOLICISM: SCRIPTURE AND GRACE

A few weeks ago, I stumbled across a blog entitled "Lutheran / Catholic Reconciliation and Reunion of All Christians".  It was not what I thought it could be.  Indeed, while it might have been a center for Lutheran and Catholic dialogue, in fact, the blogger, Kathy Suarez, writes quite critically of Lutheranism.  Often she engages in stock Catholic tropes which display no understanding of Lutheranism itself.  The following is an exchange between Ms. Suarez and myself.  Unfortunately, she did not see fit to respond to my last entry.  I thought there could have been more for each of us to say.

Not my best writing.  Maybe I could have been a bit more diplomatic.  But I leave it to the reader to decide for themselves.

Catholicism: Scripture and Grace

November 01, 2014

by Kathy Suarez

3 Comments

One simple way to express the essence of Catholicism is with the words “Scripture and Grace.”  In Matthew 16:18 we read that Jesus founded the Church upon Peter.  “You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”

Some will argue that Jesus changed his mind about founding his Church upon Peter when the disciple questioned Jesus about his prophecy of his great suffering in Jerusalem, being killed and raised from the dead (Matthew 16:21-23).  This argument does not stand up when placed in context with the rest of Scripture.  Peter loved Jesus.  Peter’s statement was not malicious or sinful.  He simply did not understand.  Jesus is God — He did not revoke his solemn pronouncement about the foundation and structure of his Church because of Peter’s inability to understand the plan of God at one particular moment.  Peter’s weakness throughout the Gospel reveals the inherent message that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Immediately after this, in Matthew 17, we read that “Six days later” Jesus took “Peter and James and his brother John” to the mountain of the Transfiguration.  If Jesus had rejected Peter as head of the disciples, why would he take him to the Transfiguration, and why would Peter’s name be listed first in the Gospel account? (Matthew 17:1,2)  This is the full context of the Scripture passage, Matthew 16:13-28.

In Matthew 16:18 Jesus promised that the forces of evil will not prevail against his Church.  He did not say that the Church would not have any problems.  Christ protects the Church down through the ages.  This is Grace.  It takes faith to believe this.  The grand irony of the Reformation is that Martin Luther cried “Faith, faith, faith!” but then lost his faith that God would protect and guide the Church, by Grace, as Christ founded it, upon Peter and his successors.

It is also good to note a second important and foundational Scripture: John, Chapter 6.  Here is proof of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and, interestingly and prophetically, the account of how “many of his disciples” could not accept it and “no longer went about with him” (John 6:66-69).  Luther, besides breaking away from the Church, also altered and diminished the Eucharist.

Jesus is Lord of the Church, and his Church is guided by the power of the Holy Spirit through the successors of Peter, the Magisterium.  This is how Christ established the Church and how he continues to guide and protect it.  Scripture and Grace.  If you cannot believe this, look at the alternative: The chaos of the Protestant movement — thousands and thousands of small churches and denominations each going its own way.

3 Comments

1.     Mick Lee November 25, 2014 at 10:37 pm Reply

Even if (for the sake of argument) Jesus meant that He was to build His Church upon Peter, it hardly follows that there is a straight line from Peter to the Catholic Church as we now have it. Indeed, it is hardly proved that Peter was ever bishop of Rome.

Protestants generally are puzzled at the Catholic obsession with “the Church”. What divides Protestants from Catholics is doctrine–that is their obsession–particularly the Lutheran doctrine of sola fide. Catholic laymen and laywomen are generally loath to discuss doctrine–and Lutherans find there is a lot of ignorance about what Lutherans actually believe. There is a lot of nonsense about “Luther wanted his own church” and Luther “made up his own religion”. As a matter of history, Luther never wanted to leave the Catholic Church: he wanted to reform it. But the Pope kicked him out and had the Emperor put Luther under an order of death on sight. This was followed by a series of persecutions of all who came to be called Lutherans. So, while Catholics cry in their beer about a divided Church. they should remember the blood on their own hands and the part they played in dividing the Church. Catholics should also remember the Church was gravely divided long before the Reformers were born. (Of which the Catholic Church played no small part.)

Aside from all this, it is a wonder why Catholics think the Catholic Church is such an attractive option. When Protestants look at the Catholic Church, they see a mess. Factions at each others’ throats. They see a lot of unholy political intrigue in choosing a Pope. They see a Catholic Church seriously rent by those who listen to it’s Magisterium and those who publicly denounce it. (If one cannot subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church, Protestants are put off by such people who don’t have the integrity to leave it.)

Catholics themselves often are the worst advertisements for the Church. When I was in college, I met many Catholic youth who gone through Catholic schools and resented it. Indeed, they were the bitterest people I had ever met. They said things I would never say about the Catholic Church. It seemed I have more respect for the Catholic Church than these vinegary individuals. And my experience with these miscreants is hardly unique.

What would Christ say about this “fruit of the tree”?

How can one deal with this sort? Once I had invited a Catholic friend to an ecumenical gathering for all Christians on campus. He replied with language unfit to print and then told me he had already had his “God-time”. I thought it was tragic. For the sake of his own soul, I had hoped he would reconcile himself to the Catholic Church. I never attempted to make him a Lutheran–knowing that was just a bridge too far. But he preferred a godless existence to a life of faith.

So your construction and “proof-texting” for the sole legitimacy of the Church of Rome is useless when Protestants behold the various “fruits” of the Catholic Church. Many Protestants don’t even think the Catholic Church is Christian. (As a Lutheran, I strongly object to this contention.)

The Catholic Church is broken. It has a lot of work to do in its own backyard before it goes off on Protestants.

Kathy Suarez November 26, 2014 at 5:32 pm Reply

Hi Mick — I’m sorry that you feel the way you do about the Catholic Church. Sounds like you’ve had some bad experiences. Just remember that the Catholic Church is very large and there are all sorts of people in it.

I’ve said many times on this blog that Luther was not “kicked out” of the Church by the Pope. Luther was excommunicated. He chose to leave after that. My use of Matthew 16:18 is not “proof-texting.” From the earliest days of the Church, and for 2,000 years, the Church has held that Peter is the Rock, the foundation of the Church, and that the Popes are his successors.

The Catholic Faith is very simple. Try to keep an open mind… and thanks for reading my blog.

Mick Lee November 26, 2014 at 11:32 pm Reply

Sorry. When excommunication is followed by an order for him to killed, I’d say “kicked out” is a polite way to put it. That is why he was “kidnapped” by friendly forces and spirited into hiding as it was unlikely he would make it back to Wittenberg alive by himself. Persecution of Lutherans afterword removed any notion that the Catholic Church regarded them as remaining in the fold.

I have long believed that if the Catholic Church had absorbed Lutheran theology as it had with order challenging movements (perhaps making Lutherans a special order within the Church), the divide could have been avoided. After all, Lutherans are Augustinians at heart.

Indeed, present day Catholic theologians are far more tolerant and understanding of Luther (not that they agree with him) than in the days of old. If the same tolerance had been forthcoming when Luther and his followers were alive, we would be Catholics still.

I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for the Catholic Church and spend a great deal of time dispelling falsehoods common among other Protestants. As you may know, a lot of other Protestants regard the Lutheran Church as essentially Catholic–and they don’t mean that as a compliment. When I am in ecumenical gatherings, I am met with a great deal of suspicion and uneasiness when I talk about the Gospel. To many, I am a “closet Catholic” because I am a Lutheran.

I have considered becoming a Catholic several times; but I was always held back after viewing the Catholic Church as it is rather than in the ideal. Sadly, the Catholic Church is just not all that attractive. I may not like much of the Lutheran Church is its modern manifestations, but it is my home and where I am accepted by others who share the Lutheran faith. When I have attended Mass (my sister is a Catholic), I cannot say the same.

I have met many, many Catholics who feel they have been wounded by the Church in some way (sometimes I don’t think they are being fair). But what is it about the Catholic Church that brings this about?

I believe someday the Lutheran Church and the Catholic Church will be reunited. But, in spite of the warm relations between us, that time is not now.

SO THE ELCA WANTS TO HAVE ANOTHER "CONVERSATION".

So the ELCA wants to have another "conversation".  Sure sign that it wants to institute another change in practice if not theology--although one generally follows the other.  This time, it concerns something euphemistically called "radical hospitality".  I would prefer a conversation over "radical Lutheranism"; but the ELCA's sights are supposedly set a bit lower. 

The trouble with many such conversations within the ELCA is that they follow a set form and (like the 2009 sexuality decision) wind up in the same place:  "Traditionally, Lutherans have believed "X" and many Lutheran still believe.  Meanwhile, other Lutherans in the modern context believe the Scriptures have been misread and thus believe "Y".  Still, others hold a middle ground and believe "M".  Still others take another view and hold "Q"."  There then follows much discussion, much of it employing abstract categories not to be found in classic, historical Christian Scriptural commentary or theology.  In the end, the final "agreement" is slapped on with the appropriate boilerplate of asserting and advocating respect for the spiritual discernment and faithfulness of all parties.  And then, (as with the 2009 sexuality statement) concluding something to the effect:  "Since no consensus exists among us…therefore, we will do what we wanted to do to begin with and change--not that you have to agree with the direction we have chosen to take.  That's OK.  You don't have to agree to belong.  Isn't it wonderful we Christians can be like that!"

As I related several posts ago, I was not born in the Lutheran Church.  I became a Lutheran many of present day Lutherans did:  when my mother was remarried to a Lutheran.  Perhaps because I began as an outsider (originally raised in a fundamentalist church until the age of ten), I still find some attitudes cradle Lutherans have to be a bit…well…odd.  One of those is I am still amused to find how absolutely honked-off many Lutherans get when they are not allowed to take communion in a WELC or LCMS church.  Of course, many don't stop being offended with Wisconsin and Missouri--they also get the noxious vapors when the Catholic Church will not allow them to share the table during mass either. 

"Well. I can go down to the local Baptist (Methodist, Presbyterian or Congregationalist) church and they don't have any problems with me."

Of course, most Protestant Churches do not believe there are such things a sacraments; so their threshold of sensitivity would be quite negligible.   But for the ELCA's champions of hospitality, that is all beside the point.

It always seemed to me that ,instead of being offended, one should give a little deference to the practices of other denominations and congregations out of simple respect.  They have their reasons and they should do what they think is right.  The Orthodox Church practices closed communion in view of the Scriptural reference of the church being the bride of Christ and as in marriage the church must be careful not to let anyone defile the wedding bed.  I myself don't necessarily follow this line of thought; but one has to grant that it is a reasonable one and respect it.  In any case, it doesn't seem our divines see it that way:  hospitality overrules all other concerns.

The bottom line of this practice of "radical hospitality" is to allow the unbaptized to take communion.  This goes against the long standing practice of the church of insisting that only those within the family of God are acceptable at the table and it is through baptism one becomes a child of God.  True hospitality is with the open invitation to baptism into the Lord's kingdom.  As tradition would have it, this practice goes all the way back to the early church.   Thus the burden rests with our would be "reformers" to not just make a persuasive case but a convincing one.  This is especially essential in view of our ecumenical efforts with the Catholic and Orthodox churches.   There is nothing to be gained by throwing another obstacle in our efforts to unify the entire Christian Church--of which the Catholic and Orthodox Churches comprise the lion's share of Christians in the world.

Nevertheless, the move is to remake the practice of the church according to a modern abstraction.  By their lights, the Lord's table is meant for all and is not the possession of the church:  thus they propose to have a fully "open" communion in which even the unbeliever may claim a place at the rail.  It is under the imperative of "hospitality" that this new practice is mandated.

But in Christian practice, is "hospitality" really to be so all encompassing?  Indeed, in New Testament, the word "hospitality" cannot be found outside of Peter and Paul's instructions to the saints in how to treat one another and qualities to be found in choosing a bishop.  As far as communion is concerned, there is even a warning found in 1 Corinthians 11 of ills which will befall those who "eateth and drinketh unworthily" the bread and cup of the Lord.  One could argue that true hospitality would require the faithful to protect those outside the fold from bringing harm upon themselves by taking communion unfaithfully.

But Paul R. Hinlicky in Lutheran Forum (August 18, 2014) explains the issue much better than I ever could:

The Truth about "Radical Hospitality"

by Paul R. Hinlicky — August 18, 2014  

“Radical hospitality” is the catchphrase given to movements among mainline American Protestants to invite, as a matter of principle, unbaptized persons to the holy Supper. It is already practiced in some ELCA congregations and is reported to be a topic of conversation among the ELCA Conference of Bishops this fall. What is the theological justification for such a move?...

What is the theological justification for such a move? Something that can fairly be characterized as “radical hospitality” is a special emphasis of the Gospel of Luke. Disciples are to “go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled” (14:23). “When you give a dinner or a banquet,” Jesus admonishes, “do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just” (14:12–14). The latter reference to the resurrection in Jesus’ statement is the key to the interpretation of radical hospitality as a strictly theological possibility—that is, a reality created by God’s promise, not by human efforts. This new way in generosity for disciples who follow their Lord is grounded in the gift of God: “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32).

As Luke also makes clear, this gift of God brings with it a corresponding repentance: a transformation of human subjectivity and a reorientation of human activity. John the Baptist declares, “Bear fruits in keeping with repentance!” (3:8). Receiving the radical hospitality of the heavenly Father by the calling of His Son entails transformation by the Spirit: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). As in a climax, it is to the penitent thief, who has identified with the dying Jesus, that He promises in turn, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). That is radical hospitality, according to the Gospel of Luke.

Radical hospitality is forgiveness for the sinner—only the sinner. It is food for the hungry—only the hungry. It is life for the dead—only the dead. It is only our doing insofar as it is first of all and primarily our being transformed as recipients of the Lord’s radical grace: radical (from Latin radix, “root”) like the axe cutting to the root in Luke 3:9.

It would be a very selective and highly distorted reading of Luke to turn penetrating, life-transforming, change-in-direction, divine hospitality into the characteristic cheap grace and sanctified permissiveness of North American liberal Protestantism. But, sadly, that is what is now being proposed under the name of Luke’s radical hospitality, which proposes to revoke the rule of faith from the earliest days of the church: namely, that the Lord’s Supper is for the baptized. In other words, the Lord’s Supper is for those who in principle and often in power know that they are the sinner, the hungry, the dead and the dying, because they have been baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection.

This kind of thing has been tried before. I recall a story that Richard John Neuhaus once told me of the heady days of the late 1960s when “radical” Lutheran pastors went in their vestments onto the New York City subways, offering the body and blood to total strangers. He didn’t quite make it clear whether he was one of them. It is not utterly wrong, to be sure, that idealistic young pastors experiment by pushing the envelope in the direction of outreaching grace. But there is a lot wrong with failing to take note of failed experiments, and with failing to push toward a deeper diagnosis of the presenting problem in the church’s administration of the means of grace.

Repentance in the sense of dying to sin with Christ in order to rise with Christ is not a precondition of grace. It is rather the form grace takes in repossessing a person who has belonged, mind and body, to the sinful world of violence and injustice. Accordingly, our teacher in the faith, Martin Luther, composed the programmatic declaration of the Ninety-Five Theses (the five hundredth anniversary of which we will celebrate in a few short years): “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent,’ he meant for the entire life of the Christian to be one of repentance.”

As generations have since learned from Luther’s Small Catechism, this lifelong gift and practice of repentance by faith in Jesus Christ consists in dying daily to sin in order that “I may belong to him, live under him in his kingdom, and serve him in eternal righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, just as he is risen from the dead and lives and rules eternally.” The gift of a new life is grounded in our baptism into Christ and is nurtured along the way by the communion of the baptized in the holy Supper of the Lord.

Proposals in the air to alter the ELCA’s understanding of the radical hospitality of God would suspend baptism as the necessary preparation for reception of the Lord’s Supper, in contradiction to the document, “The Use of the Means of Grace: A Statement on the Practice of Word and Sacrament,” adopted by the fifth biennial assembly of the ELCA in 1997. These proposals reflect a genuinely felt pastoral need to welcome and include visitors at the eucharistic worship of the baptized, and this need is not to be dismissed lightly. However, there are better—indeed, far more “radical”—ways to clarify and address the need.

As it stands, this proposal to remedy a supposed feeling of exclusion tells us more about its proponents than about any imagined visitors. As such, it reflects a legalistic misunderstanding of the alleged “requirement” of baptism. It is as if going through the hoops of baptismal preparation and ceremony were a meritorious precondition, rather than the Spirit’s own gracious preparation by the gospel and through the pastoral ministry of visitation, evangelization, and catechesis.

The elephant in the room, if this diagnosis is right, is the utter lack of such ministry between Sundays and its invisibility in the practice of the Supper among those who are baptized. Under these conditions, of course the invitation to the Lord’s Table still “limited” to all the baptized cannot but feel exclusionary.

Yet this feeling is projected upon the visitor. Would I as a Christian feel “excluded” when visiting a synagogue service or a Muslim call to prayer or for that matter a Masonic Lodge or the Kiwanis, if I possessed the minimal self-awareness that I came as a visitor to see, not a believing member to participate? I think not. The feeling of exclusion wells up in those contemporary Christians whose gospel has become pure, abstract inclusivism. It is they who feel awkward and uncomfortable with the non-negotiable presupposition that the gospel’s gift consists in our personal transformation, signed and sealed by holy baptism.

If anything, this so-called radical hospitality at the communion table indicates how empty the theology and practice of baptism have become. Baptism itself is the true radical hospitality: as the Book of Acts illustrates and the Pauline Epistles declare, the washing in the triune name is a relinquishment of every “dividing wall of hostility” (Ephesians 2:14) that exists between human communities, whether they are Greek or Jew, male or female, slave or free (Galatians 3:28). Indeed, our actual congregations may not reflect this baptismal theology very well at all. But the solution is hardly to be found in shelving the intent of the Supper, too.

The logical alternative is not, as some would suppose or accuse, to police the communion table. It has been a step in the right understanding of holy communion to invite all who have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to participate in the Supper, rather than to restrict participation to those in our denominational corner. Rather, a two-part response is called for: a truly evangelistic invitation to the unbaptized to the radical hospitality of the gospel that is the repentant life of baptism itself, and a truly catechetical ministry among the baptized to live out their vocations as the radically hospitable and reconciling presence of Christ in the world.

By contrast, the proposal to invite the unbaptized to the table reflects and perpetuates the legalistic misunderstanding of the rule of faith. According to the true rule of faith, holy communion is for those baptized into Christ’s death, gospel forgiveness is for sinners, gospel food is for the hungry, and gospel life is for the dying. We who are in the tradition of Luther’s pro me should know how grace transforms our self-understanding: I am the sinner for whom Christ lived, I am the dying one for whom He died and rose, I am the hungry one whom He feeds.

How else could the reception of this Lord’s body and blood have any meaning whatsoever? Paul emphasizes that this Supper is not any old supper; it is to be eaten with the whole community that shares in the same repentance and faith of receiving the Lord Himself; it is not to be consumed in an unworthy manner (I Corinthians 11). How unworthy and deceitful it is on the part of Christians to invite the unbaptized to partake of this meal, without first teaching them to which Lord they are thereby binding themselves, whose holy cross they therewith take upon themselves!

The proposal to suspend the rule of faith in the name of radical hospitality wishes, even if unintentionally, to bypass the arduous way of personal transformation by conformation to Jesus Christ in His cross and resurrection. Indeed, it functionally replaces engagement with the person of Jesus Christ and His calling daily to take up the cross with the abstract idea of “radical hospitality” or “unconditional grace,” which then takes on a life of its own. It proposes to market the eucharist as a no-fuss, no-bother, no-cost way of belonging without believing.

Ironically, this is but a new legalism and the sanctimoniousness of the “more-inclusive-than-thou” crowd. After the destructive tumult of the past five years, such proposals are particularly perilous to the fragile unity, not to mention ecumenical responsibilities, of the ELCA.

What is needed to address the pastoral and missiological needs of today is a serious commitment to and training in evangelism, apologetics, and catechesis. It is an abuse of the Supper—not to mention an abuse of the unbaptized—to make the sacrament into a tool of proselytism, taking advantage of visitors with no understanding of these holy things, least of all that their reception entails taking up the cross. It undermines the foundational unity of the church in one baptism. It confuses the radical hospitality of God in the gospel with religiously sanctioned permissiveness in a decaying culture. The proposal to suspend the rule of faith in this case would take the ELCA another huge and fatal step in the wrong direction.

OF COURSE, EVERY CHRISTIAN, IN AT LEAST IN SOME SMALL PLACE PART IN HIS HEART, IS A MONARCHIST

THE QUEST FOR A CHURCH WHICH LOOKS LIKE AMERICA

In the October issue of THE LUTHERAN magazine, Pastor Peter Marty bemoans the fact that the various races in America segregate themselves into the parishes of their choice every Sunday morning.  Martin Luther King made this observation in the 1960's and little has changed since.

The ELCA made it a goal to have more diversity within its membership; but after all these years it has little to show for it.  As in their want, either implicitly or directly, Marty and the ELCA leadership blame the average Lutheran in the pews.  The theory is the Lutheran in the pews is not "welcoming" or accepting.

This is probably true to a degree; maybe largely true.  But is this the major reason?  I have my doubts.

Human nature is that "birds of a feather…".  People do tend to gather with people like themselves.  This is a tough nut to crack--a nut most are not willing to crack for themselves just because the idealists in main-line Churches see diversity as the model they see for the Church.

Marty remarks:  "This tendency to segment into like types stands in sharp contrast to the ethnic diversity that helped make the first-century Christian church so robust. Early Christian leaders managed to form communities that cut across rigid class and ethnic lines, making Christ their chief common denominator."

Marty likes to believe this; but is this in fact historical?  Scripture indicates that the very early Church had congregations had both rich and poor, master and slave.  But how long did that last after the time of the Apostles?  In all likelihood, not long.  Christians in the very least segregated themselves according to doctrine.  And most congregations did not exist in multi-ethnic communities to begin with.  All of us romanticize what the early Church was like.  Nevertheless, the early Church was very disorganized and drew from their local communities.  There is very little to believe that yesterdays Christians were any different from what we are.

The odd thing today is that Churches which advertize themselves as "inclusive" actually have very little diversity within their own congregations.  This contrasts with many denominations Lutherans tend to look down their noses.

Years ago I attended a Jimmy Swaggart crusade in Indianapolis.  (How I got there is a long story for another time.  I should mention that this was before the sex scandals with befell the Swaggart ministry)  One of the things I observed was that without even trying the crowd which gathered itself there was more multi-ethnic and multi-racial than I had ever seen in any mainline worship service. 

Current data also reveals that the Catholic Church in the United States is far more diverse than any other American denomination.  On any given Sunday, a rich man, poor man, black, white, and Hispanic will all stand in the same line to receive the Host.  What does the Catholic Church have to teach us?

I don't know what the answer is.  I strongly suspect that we are not offering what many "non- Caucasians" are seeking.  By my lights, many of those we wish to take into our folds are Biblical literalists at heart.  The "narrative" style in our sermons which is so popular among our clergy is at best confusing and in spite of intention is hardly "relational" to the very people we are trying to reach.  In terms of the "progressive" theology common among us, theologically (and politically) we have little use for people much different from ourselves.

Again, I don't know what the answer is.  I am not even sure we should give a damn what color Lutherans (or Americans for that matter) will be in the future  One thing is for sure.  What we are doing now isn't working.

FAITH AND DOUBT--BE AT PEACE

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey. --Soren Kierkegaard

Doubt is a touchy subject among us.  Christians of all ages.  Those who have been Christians for a long time and Christians who are new to the faith are troubled that they have doubts about the Scriptures, doubts about the existence of God, doubts there is life after death, doubts their prayers are heard, and doubts about the divinity of Christ.  (And there are many other areas of uncertainty they doubt they can actually bring themselves to believe.)  on the one hand, in a certain sense, they know they ought to believe to be a true Christian.  On the other, by learning, reason, or experience, they doubt because many pieces of the faith seem to be far more likely to be the stuff of fairy tales and stale superstition.

Yet, there is an odd nature to doubt a Christian may have.  Most Christian doubters believe in Christ's resurrection--a huge leap of faith.  But then he brings himself to doubt much smaller things.  Things like Christ's miracles, the virgin birth, the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, or the conundrum of grace and free will. With character of belief, once the resurrection is believed, all other beliefs fall into place.  Nevertheless, often there is a quirk in human nature which readily provides the foundation for inconsistency.    One swallows the elephant whole but finds the gnat difficult to stomach.   If one believes in Christ's resurrection, why is his virgin birth so difficult to suppose.

The common wisdom taught to Christians young and old is that doubt is not the opposite of faith.  Doubt and faith are companions in the Christian life.  In fact, doubt can propel one into deeper faith as one explores the meaning of uncertain doctrines of Christianity.  (Although so few actually do.)  Some advise that one can take the deeper meanings of dubious articles without accepting them literally.  Absent that, some even advise that even if one cannot believe wholeheartedly in matters like the Nicene Creed--one should keep them as heirlooms of the faith of the Church--much like buying a home already furnished with antiques.

Personally, I dispense with the word "doubt" and prefer to call it what it is:  unbelief.  Because that is what it is.  Classic Lutheranism holds that experience is no guide to the truth.  Truth is only to be found in the Word of God. This, however, is more than we can accept.  We cannot as mere human beings disregard our treasure of experience.  We don't want to.  We look upon experience as too hard won and precious.  Neither can we abandon reason because surely reason is also too valuable and can be too easily lost by attacks from civilization's enemies.

Faith is the master, and reason the maid-servant. --- Martin Luther

But Luther once used the image of reason as a donkey from which man will fall off on one side only to mount again and fall off to the other side.  Reason has a bad habit of being buffeted about by the winds and notions of our time. What appears to be reasonable at one point is history is seen to be gravely flawed and unsound in another.   But the fact is by its nature reason is too frail weed that cannot bear the weight of the Cross.  The Lord's truth is not discoverable outside His Word.  He does not make it available in any other way.

Faith is a gift of God; do not believe that we said it was a gift of reasoning. Other religions do not say this of their faith. They only gave reasoning in order to arrive at it, and yet it does not bring them to it.  (Pascal, Pensees, 279)

The life of every Christian is plagued by unbelief.  Unbelief often raises its ugly head

in spite of ourselves and undermines the kind of man of God we want to be.  Many times unbelief appears in our thoughts and desires we do not understand--but are known unto God.  The good news is that God's grace is more than enough to cover our imperfect faith.  The Lord will save us as we are--unbelief as well as our sins.  Instead of feeling guilt and unease in our doubts, we should find peace in His loving grace.  He takes us to Himself in His righteousness and Truth with all our imperfections.   Battling our unbelief is often our desire to justify ourselves.  Beware, dwelling upon our unbelief can turn into a festering poison which can kill and destroy.

So, as Luther wrote and preached, when faced with our unbelief and confusion, trust Christ's promise.  He loves us still.

And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;

¹⁸ And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.

¹⁹ He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.

²⁰ And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.

²¹ And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.

²² And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.

²³ Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

²⁴ And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

²⁵ When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

²⁶ And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.

²⁷ But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.  (Mark 9: 17-27)

A JOYOUS GOODBYE: EAT A PEACH THE ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND

There exists up to this day a friendly argument as to whether EAT A PEACH or THE ALLMAN BROTHERS LIVE AT THE FILMORE EAST is the best album the Allman Brothers ever made. The argument, while friendly, is also at bottom quite pointless. Every man, woman, and child should have both--at the very least. Every Allman Brothers album from the best to the worst always had something to say. The triumphs and trials (yes, sometimes quite literally "trials" in the legal sense) wrenched and warped the band into non-existence during the 1980's. Suddenly, with the appearance of the box set, DREAMS, (a damn good box set at that), interest in the band peaked once again and the band reformed with the remarkable success of SEVEN TURNS followed by an excellent string of albums through the 1990's. But EAT A Peach represents the end of the classic lineup featuring Duane Allman--one hell of a guitar player. Unfortunately, Duane would never see the success he had been working so hard to achieve for his band and for himself. As both volumes of THE DUANE ALLMAN ANTHOLOGY show, Duane offered his services to just about anyone could who use him: Wilson Picket, Herbie Mann, Delaney & Bonnie, Boz Scaggs, Aretha Franklin, Lulu (!?Lulu?!) and a host of others. But it was with the appearance of THE ALLMAN BROTHERS LIVE AT THE FILMORE EAST and LAYLA AND OTHER ASSORTED LOVE SONGS (sort of a "side project" with Eric Clapton that burnt out Clapton's fire for some time) that his mastery and greatness was recognized. This edition of EAT A PEACH is the very best one to have. The first disc contains the entire original two LP set of EAT A PEACH. It marked an expansion of the band into new writing and mood. What strikes me even after all these years how joyous EAT A PEACH IS. The lyrical themes cover all the class "blues" subjects of giving up on a woman, sweet memories of a woman lost to the singer, cheating lovers and avoiding angry husbands. But the actual music is one glorious romp filled with excellent singing and hot guitars. "Ain't Wastin' Time No More", "Melissa", "One Way Out" are stand out tracks that bear all the sweetness and smoke of Southern country boy blues. "Melissa" has been a particular favorite that is so perfect it almost makes you cry that nothing like it was ever to be made again. "Melissa" is simply one of the most beautiful songs in the rock catalogue. Dicky Betts' "Brers in A Minor" begins with a dive into the blue waters of atonal jazz that establishes the band's musical credibility if not quite everyone's cup of tea. But, keeping with the Allman Brothers' true spirit, "Brers" turns into a duel between Dicky Betts and Duane Allman that just rocks. "Blue Skies" is joyous and uplifting song of the country side and the wonders of loving a good woman. "Trouble No More" and "Stand Back" stand more in the vein of "Ain't Wastin' Time No More" if a little less artful but memorable nonetheless. "Little Martha" ends the album as Duane Allman's instrumental farewell. It sweet and glorious if a sad "goodbye" from a genius who died too young. Strangely, the core of EATA PEACH is the extended "jams" or "boogies" called (of course) "Mountain Jam". Based loosely on Donavon's "There Is A Mountain. "Jam" is so long that it had to be broken into two LP sides on the original 1972 release. Here it presented as one piece without the separation of the original LP. When EAT A PEACH was first released in 1972, it didn't take the college boys very long to realize that "Mountain Jam" was a continuation of "Whipping Post" from THE ALLMAN BROTHERS LIVE AT THE FILMORE EAST. In other words, as performed at the actual performance, all the pieces fit together in one long 56 minute song/instrumental fest. It had everything from Gregg Allman's wrenching vocal lamentation, guitars switching leads, guitars in duets, changing melodies, and drum solos. Thousands labored hard with their cassette recorders to put all the parts together in one seamless stream. Those born after the heydays of the first half of the seventies may question "why"; but long instrumental performances were quite popular at the time. The "long versions" of what were originally three minute songs marked the difference between juvenile "hits" and serious rock music lovers. Tastes have changed and long "boogies" are no longer done; but they were wonderful to behold. In any event, in these days of the CD, the entire "Mountain" performance is presented in its entirety on the Chronicles version THE ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND: THE FILLMORE CONCERTS. Like the deluxe edition of Santana III, this edition includes a second disc of the band's complete last performance at the Fillmore East as Bill Graham was closing the venue to build larger concert halls. This disc is every bit as good as THE ALLMAN BROTHERS LIVE AT THE FILMORE EAST. The song list is jumbled up in a little different order and included three extra songs: "Don't Keep Me Wondering", "One Way Out" and "Midnight Rider". Fun in its own way. The Allman Brothers would move on to a new phase with BROTHERS AND SISTERS the following year which marked a brand new success for the Allman "family". It began to disintegrate after that as fame, drugs and in-fighting took their toll. A new generation of rock bands rose up and, as they say, the rest is history. If music is important to you in the spiritual sense of the art and not just a kind of background soundtrack in your life, then it is time to drink the water from this well. This is the real thing.

NINE OUT OF TEN RAPTURE THEOLOGIANS AGREE: LUTHERANS WILL BE "LEFT BEHIND"

Among Lutherans, the theology concerning the Second Coming was relatively simple.  It consisted and can be summed up in two lines from the Apostles Creed:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

In other words, Lutheran eschatology teaches that on the Last Day Jesus will return in glory and judge all who are and all who have ever been--unbelievers will be condemned and believers will be received into His wonderful kingdom of Heaven.  The theology is rather short and sweet.  In this fashion, Lutheran eschatology mirrors historic Catholic and Eastern Orthodox eschatology.

Today, thousands of Christians have come to believe in something summed up in the term "The Rapture".  the long and short of it is that Jesus will return (the first time) and catch up all who believe in Him and leave those who are not Christ behind to face a tumultuous age of disasters and tribulations on earth.  After a time (various theologians differ how long this age will be), Christ will return (a second time!), the earth will be destroyed, and the final judgment of mankind will be done.

One of the central images of the Rapture is one day during every day events some people (the true believers) will suddenly disappear and cars will be suddenly driverless, out of the blue planes may be without pilots, and those (left behind) will abruptly not be able to find their spouses and children.  (Rapture theologians differ on whether all children who had not attained "age of reason" will be taken or whether only believing children will be united with Jesus.)

Another common feature is a focus on prophecy.  While Jesus Himself said that even He did not know the day nor the hour of the End of Days--only the Father knows--( Matthew 24:36), Rapturists strongly believe God provides signs for believers to discern and predict the time of His Return.  Much verbal diarrhea among Rapturists about the End occurs in relating current events to passages in the books of Daniel and Ezekial along with the Revelation of St. John.

In reality, Rapture theology is of relativity vintage.  John Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher, developed the Rapture end-times theory during the 1830s  which was widely popularized in the 20th century by footnotes in the Scofield Reference Bible.  It must be noted that many if not most Rapture theologians hold that various forms of teachings about the Rapture in pre-date Darby.  Nevertheless, popular present day Rapture theology originates directly from Darby. 

Principle Rapture teaching centers on two Biblical passages. 

Thessalonians 4:17:  After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

And Matthew 24: 37-41:  As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸ For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; ³⁹ and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰ Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. ⁴¹ Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

By entwining these two passages, one has almost the entirety of Rapture theology.  The first objection to Rapture theology one may note is that in Protestantism it is commonly taught that no major doctrines should be derived from less than three Biblical passages.  Another objection, of course, is that, with their original contexts in mind, these two passages cannot and should not be so interlaced.

As to Thessalonians 4:17, a closer reading of the entire forth chapter--particularly verses 13 through 18, shows that the real subject is about believers who had died before Christ's return.

Post resurrection, first century Christians had often expected Christ's return within their lifetimes.  Soon, however, Christians all over the known world were met with death.  The fear was that believers who had died would miss Christ's return and then would dwell forever in Hell or some sort of oblivion because they were not present to meet Christ on the Last Day.

The concern which persuaded Paul to write to the Thessalonians was the grief they were suffering for the loss of their Christian family members, friends as well as those of churchly fellowship who had died often in martyrdom from the hands of violent persecutors. 

In his epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul wrote that the Thessalonians anguish was misplaced:   But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.

The dead will be released from their graves.  On the Day of the Lord: …since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁵ For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord^] that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁶ For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷ Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them [the dead] in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.  (Thessalonians 4:14-17)

Thus Paul affirms that those in Christ--both the living and the dead--will be received into Christ's kingdom.

The image Paul uses (…will be caught up together … in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord…)  was derived directly from contemporary Jewish apocalyptic literature--imagery in which the Messiah would come like a rightful king or a triumphant military general into Zion.

Given its full context and Paul's intended message, the contemporary notion of the Rapture is at best fanciful and does not bear scrutiny.  This. of course, will not satisfy advocates of Rapture theology; but within historic Lutheranism it has no Biblical standing.  It least as far as this passage is concerned.

But what about Matthew 24: 37-41?  It reads:  As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸ For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; ³⁹ and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰ Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. ⁴¹ Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

Boy.  Look on the web and you will find tons of commentary on this passage.  Quite a lot of it very intricate with a myriad of references to Bible passages one would not normally associate with the End of Days let alone with The Rapture.  Many commentaries are absolutely dizzying in their complexity--particularly those which put forth the "Pre-tribulation" theology.  There are commentaries which are convinced the Church will suffer the tribulation along with the rest of mankind.  Others hold that the Church will be taken from the world before the tribulation.  Some believe only the "righteous" Christians will be taken in The Rapture.  And many assert that Christ's return will not be a single event but will occur in two stages.  (I am sure I'm leaving out many others.)

But from a Lutheran point of view, every one of these make an crucial mistake--an error so foundational that it renders all them entirely a waste of time.  The mistake concerns just who is it Matthew says will be "left behind" and what Matthew means by "left behind".

The reading of "⁴⁰ Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. ⁴¹ Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left." by Rapture theologians is that those righteous in the Lord will be taken and the unrighteous will remain.  The fact they-- the men and women--Matthew refers to are doing normal activities gives rise to these images of cars careening over roads and highways because the drivers are suddenly gone and planes flying aimlessly and possibility crashing because no one is at the controls.  And by inference, many will not be able to find family members because they were inexplicably secreted away supernaturally.

But one has to read Matthew 24:40 in the context of the whole passage and that context is that Matthew is comparing the Day of the Lord to Noah and the flood:  As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸ For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; ³⁹ and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away.

In Matthew, Christ talks about the Last Day by comparing it to the day the rains came and Noah and his family were saved through the Ark God commanded him to build.  The "they" who were taken away were not Noah and the those in the ark--it was the unrighteous.  Noah was "left behind".  It was those who were saved from the flood who were not taken..It is when we understand that Christ is speaking of His return "as in the days of Noah" that we understand the true import of the rest of what He is saying.  Being saved from the waters of the flood and being saved from the wrath to come are exactly corresponding to each other.   His return "as in the days of Noah" that we understand the true import of the rest of what He is saying.  Being saved from the waters of the flood and being saved from the wrath to come are exactly corresponding to each other.  return "as in the days of Noah" that we understand the true import of the rest of what He is saying.  Being saved from the waters of the flood and being saved from the wrath to come are exactly corresponding to each other.  His return "as in the days of Noah" that we understand the true import of the rest of what He is saying.  Being saved from the waters of the flood and being saved from the wrath to come are exactly corresponding to each other. 

Thessalonians and Matthew are not related the way Rapture theology assumes.  Nor is there a hitherto secret link between them the Church did not see nor understand before modern times.  From the Scriptures and from the consistent teaching of the Church (from the apostles in Jerusalem, the ecumenical councils, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, through the Churches of the Reformation, the Second Coming of Christ will be a singular event.  It will be an event , sudden unmistakable and seen by all:  So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. ²⁷ For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ²⁸ Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

 

²⁹ “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. ³⁰ Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ³¹ And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.  (Matthew 24: 26-31)

Many "orthodox" theologians believe Rapture theology is closely related to the Chiliastic heresy condemned by the The Second Ecumenical Council in 381.  While the Council did not specifically address Rapture theology (the Council rejected the literal interpretation of thousand-year Kingdom of Christ found in Revelation), all contemporary versions of Rapture theology are deemed heretical by implication. 

Nothing annoys Rapture theologians as bringing up The Second Ecumenical Council.  Which is a little odd since they belong to that branch of Christianity which assigns no value or standing to the traditional teachings of the Church.  As a matter of course, many such Protestant denominations have nothing but contempt for the Catholic and Orthodox Churches--more than a few times that disdain extends to Lutherans and Anglicans as well.  They even will teach that these historic Churches are not Christian at all.  Thus one would think they wouldn't care whatever the early Church and these "apostate" denominations have to say about the matter.  But they are rather touchy when authorities they don't regard as really Christian in the first place return the favor and pronounces many of their favorite doctrines as heretical.  After all, as they see it, the pronouncement of doctrinal heresy concerning The Rapture as such isn't directly made by Scripture itself.

While Lutheranism holds to the Scriptures as the sole authority in matters of faith, it is not that it assigns no value to tradition.  When the teachings of tradition are consistent with Scripture, it provides guidance into how the forbears of the faith read the Scriptures and believed.  As with such doctrines as the Trinity and the full humanity and divinity of Jesus, the early Councils brought these Biblical doctrines into sharper focus--either rejecting as in error or accepting as definitive the various and often disputed doctrines found among the diverse community of the faith.  (No Council condemned any Christian who believed an erroneous doctrine in ignorance--only those who still hold to those errors in malice after being instructed in the Church's faithful correct teaching.)

As heresies go, The Rapture is relatively harmless.  It is difficult to see how any belief in modern doctrine of The Rapture would endanger any Christians salvation.  But faithfulness to Scripture is not a trifling matter.  How one reads and uses Scripture in any dispute establishes how one reads and uses Scripture for others. 

Heresies have a way for leading to other heresies.  Churches who separate themselves from "historic" Christianity at times have become critical of the central doctrines such as the Trinity and the two natures of Christ--refusing to subscribe to the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds--and teaching that all these are false man-made traditions the Bible appears to warn against.  Such destructive developments have a long "rap-sheet" within the history of Christianity.

Lutheranism had long found that many Churches are allergic to what the doctrine of "saved by grace alone" really means.  Indeed, such is our fallen, sinful nature, all of us (including Lutherans) have to be reminded again and again we are not saved by our works, thoughts or feelings.  We know we are saved because God tells us we are.  We are saved because God saves us.  Without the intervention of the Lord, we cannot choose such a God.  Even if it were possible, we would not choose such a God. 

The proclamation of the Gospel is more than enough for the Church to carry to our fallen world.  Like many things, an obsession with the Last Days has a way of obscuring our mission to go out into the world and make disciples.