The Beauties of Concordia (The Lutheran Confessions)

 Earlier, I mentioned this reader’s edition of the Book of Concord earlier: Concordia, The Lutheran Confessions.  As I said, it’s a great read, a great resource to have.  Sometime in the (near?) future, I’ll show some areas of similarity and difference between the Reformed/Presbyterian confessions and the Lutheran ones.  Though there are significant differences, there are also many significant similarities.  Below are a few notes about Concordia, stuff that I’ve noticed and appreciated.

1) This translation of the Lutheran confessions is clear and understandable, yet the reader still gets the “voice” of Lutheranism.  Though I only know some Latin and no German, I understand translation principles, so I agree when the editors/translators changed the long and complex Latin sentences into a shorter modern English style (xvii).  I also like how they updated the tougher words, words that have changed meaning over time – they used the modern-day words that matched the older meaning (i.e. remission and forgiveness; they also updated every Scripture reference to ESV).  I’m a believer that confessions should be in clear, modern language so “modern” people can pick them up and get the gist of them, even if the person isn’t familiar with deep theological language.

2) Speaking of language, I love how the editors explain some of the sharp rebukes of Roman Catholicism – “it leaves little to the imagination” (p. 257).  “When clear confession is necessary, it is wrong to speak in ways that can be interpreted to fit everyone’s opinion.  Faithfulness and clarity demand a precise twofold presentation that (a) rejects error and (b) affirms truth” (ibid.).  Exactly!  Many church struggles would certainly be avoided if we’d use clear, purposeful language that cannot mean different things.  For example, by the end of article IV of the Smalcald Articles, the reader knows exactly why Luther(ans) cannot tolerate the papacy.  It’s not “mean,” it’s Luther standing up clearly for the gospel and speaking clearly against those who distort the gospel.

3) Article IV of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession is one of the best pieces I have ever read on justification by faith alone.  It is quite long and detailed, but it clearly spells out sola fide in terms that cannot be twisted to mean just anything.  Melanchthon is at his gospel-best in this article.  I counted (roughly) over 40x where the term “received” was used in the context of faith - Melanchthon’s way of showing that justifying faith is not faithfulness, but receiving a gift from God.  Here are a few excellent examples.

“Faith justifies and saves, not because it is a worthy work in itself, but only because it receives the promised mercy.”

“By faith alone in Christ – not through love, not because of love or works – we receive the forgiveness of sins, although love follows faith.  Therefore, by faith alone we are justified.”

“Forgiveness of sins is something promised for Christ’s sake.  It cannot be received except through faith alone.  For a promise cannot be received except by faith alone.”

Great stuff.  This article must be read by everyone who considers themselves in agreement with the 5 solas. 

4) I won’t go into it in detail now, but I appreciate how the Lutheran confessions take great pains to protect Christian liberty and freedom of conscience.  The sections in these confessions on human tradition(s) are well worth studying (i.e. AC XV; Ap XV, SA III-IV, FC Ep X, and SD X).  Here are a few blurbs from the Apology XV. “We do not merit the forgiveness of sins or grace by celebrating human traditions…[they are not] necessary for justification.”  Traditions quickly become “traps of consciences.”  “We cheerfully maintain the old traditions made in the Church for the sake of usefulness and peace.  We interpret them in a more moderate way and reject the opinion that holds they justify.”   

I could go on, but I’ll save it for another post.  Though confessional Reformed guys like myself will have quibbles with certain parts of these confessions, I firmly recommend that all serious Christians purchase and study Concordia.  Though it is a big book, it is easy to read and use because it is a good translation and it was written to help readers “use” it more productively.  This is, among other things, a great resource for studying faith, repentance, justification, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, vocation, (truly) good works, and the Apostle’s Creed.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Steinbeck Evaluates A Church (c. 1960)

John Steinbeck wrote a fascinating account of his travels across America around 1960: Travels With Charley: In Search of America.  It is a brilliant piece of literature, especially for American history buffs who also enjoy good writing.  Here’s an account of Steinbeck going to a church in New England during his journey.  This is sort of the same genre of those newspaper reporters who go into a church simply to evaluate it.

“The service did my heat and I hope my soul some good.  It had been long since I had heard such an approach.  It is our practice now, at least in the large cities, to find from our psychiatric priesthood that our sins aren’t really sins at all but accidents that are set in motion by forces beyond our control.  There was no such nonsense in this church.  The minister, a man of iron with tool-steel eyes and a delivery like a pneumatic drill, opened up with prayer and reassured us that we were a pretty sorry lot.  And he was right.  We didn’t amount to much to start with, and due to our own tawdry efforts we had been slipping up ever since.”

“Then, having softened us up, he went into a glorious sermon, a fire-and-brimstone sermon.  Having perhaps proved that we, or perhaps only I, were no damn good, he painted with cool certainty what was likely to happen to us if we didn’t make some basic reorganizations for which he didn’t hold out much hope.  He spoke of hell as an expert, not the mush-mush hell of these soft days, but a well-stoked, white-hot hell served by technicians of the first order.  This reverend brought it to a point where we could understand it, a good hard coal fire, plenty of draft, and a squad of open-hearth devils who put their hearts into their work, and their work was me.”

[This reverend] “put my sins in a new perspective.  Whereas they had been small and mean and nasty and best forgotten, this minister gave them some size and bloom and dignity.  I hadn’t been thinking very well of myself for some years, but if my sins had this dimension there was some pride left.  I wasn’t a naughty child but a first-rate sinner, and I was going to catch it. …It gave me a lovely sense of evil-doing that lasted clear through till Tuesday.  I even considered beating [my dog] Charley to give him some satisfaction too, because Charley is only a little less sinful than I am.”

I realize Steinbeck jests, even from an unbelieving point of view.  But this is not only humorous – it is amazing that Steinbeck could call out the “fluff” in the church back then (cf. the “psychiatric priesthood” and “mush-mush hell of these soft days”).  Of course, there are other things this brings to mind, which is why it is good literature!

NOTE: This is “PG-13″ type reading, in case you were wondering.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Thomas Murphy on using Greek and Hebrew in the Pulpit with Care

In seminary, we would frequently debate and discuss whether and how we should “show our language work” in our sermons.  After all, so often in our exegesis, we find that the pew-Bibles (whatever translation they be) do not emphasize something or translate a text as well as the original.  When this happens, how do we deal with the discrepancy?

One the one hand, we do not want our people to forget that the English versions they have in front of them are just translations and carry the strengths, weaknesses and translational-presuppositions of any translation.  On the other hand, we do not want our people to think that their English Bible is insufficient to comfort their hearts with the gospel and reveal God’s will to them truly and sufficiently.  In his Pastoral Theology: The Pastor in the Various Duties of His Office, Thomas Murphy offers wise words that neither neuter the minister from teaching his people about the original languages via his preaching, nor give him free-reign to become a Gene Scott and teach his people that they cannot truly understand God’s word apart from his linguistic expertise:

A much-needed caution should here be given to all preachers: it is, to avoid the habit of correcting the ordinary English version of the Scriptures in the pulpit.  There are some ministers who are constantly doing this.  Sometimes the conviction can hardly be avoided that it is done as a display of learning; and a poor weak one it is.  Sometimes, no doubt, it is honestly done to impart a clearer understanding of the word.  But it is nearly always unwise, hardly ever in good taste.  It is always unwise if not done in a very guarded manner.  Its tendency is to weaken, and ultimately destroy, confidence in the Bible as it is in our hands.  Instances could be given where preachers have assailed the English version so often that some of the best of their hearers have declared that they did not know what to receive, for they could not tell whether any particular passage was correctly or incorrectly translated.  It should be made a matter of conscience not to trifle in this way with the word in its present venerable form.  Its meaning may be explained to the fullest extent, but the version should ever be touched with a very delicate hand.

Pastoral Theology, pgs. 134-35.

I think Murphy offers some important wisdom on this front.  I would add to this that should this be done “to impart a clearer understanding of the word” or “explain its meaning to the fullest extent,” ministers do well to treat the pew translation fairly.  Rather than teaching the congregation that this is a difference between “right” and “wrong” or “faithful” and “unfaithful” translations, he should explain it in terms of a difference in translational emphasis.  I find a helpful method is to say, after reading from the pew Bible, “another way of wording this is ….”

While there are no doubt many ways of handling this reality with which we wrestle as ministers, Murphy’s words offer us sufficient leeway, though also wise caution.  His language of using a “very delicate hand” can hardly be stated better!

___________
Andrew

The Art and Jewel of Contentment

 Working through Burrough’s Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment has been a great exercise.  I’m not quite finished with it, but so far I’ve been making many little notes based on Burrough’s wisdom.   There are some aspects of it I probably wouldn’t capitalize on, but others I am trying to etch in my memory and on my heart.  One thing I’m committing to memory is that Christian contentment is indeed a precious jewel – and that it is also an art.  Here are a few quotable quotes, ones that are worth getting onto your “hard drive,” so to speak.

“So this is the art of contentment: not to seek to add to our circumstances, but to subtract from our desires. …The best way to be rich is not by increasing wealth, but by diminishing our desires” (p. 47).

“A contented man, though he is most contented with the least things in the world, yet he is the most dissatisfied man that lives in the world” (p. 43).

[The contented man says] “The Lord knows how to order things better than I” (p. 36).

Burroughs also says the reason that things in this world do not give us contentment is “because they are not things proportionable to that immortal soul of yours that is capable of God himself” (p. 91).  What does that mean?  It means that trying to find contentment in the things of this world is like trying to get a full stomach by opening your mouth on a windy day (Ibid.).  It means that finding contentment in the things of this age is vanity – foolishness akin to saying more wind will fill my stomach while staying open-mouthed in the wind longer.  Sounds like Ecclesiastes 5.10-16!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Role of the OT Tabernacle and Temple in NT Worship

A comment Richard made sent me down a thought-tangent which ended by reminding me of a conversation I had a few years back with a friend about art in worship.

My friend was reminding me of how excellent and beautiful was the craftsmanship that went into the materials of the tabernacle and temple.  In light of this, he suggested not simply that our church buildings should be built beautifully, but that this gave warrant for the artists in the congregation to best utilize their talents in worship; i.e., they should be given a venue as part of the worship service to display their paintings, sculptures, clothing-design, fabric work, etc.  To be fair to my friend, this would not be an exhibit, rather these pieces of art would be a part of the worship service.

Though I find myself parting ways sometimes with how he works out what truly is and is not a circumstance according to the regulative principle of worship, Scott Clark has a really great quote regarding the role of the Temple that touches on what my friend was mentioning to me a few years back:

[I]t is ill advised to use the temple as the pattern for Christian worship, for the temple was instituted under Moses as part of the typological system that was temporary by divine intention.  It was at the center of the cultus that Paul describes as “fading” (2 Cor. 3:7-11).  Given the history of Christian worship and the language of the New Testament, it is hard to imagine a compelling reason for us to use the temple as the paradigm for Christian worship.  It is beyond dispute, of course, that the New Testament uses temple imagery to describe the new covenant people (e.g., 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; 1 Peter 4:14).  It is true that in Christ the temple, Christians are now said to be the temple of God.  It does not follow, however, that therefore we ought to pattern Christian worship on the temple in any but metaphorical ways.  The New Testament draws theological and moral, not liturgical consequences from our status as the temple.

Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety and Practice, pg. 244

Clark totally nails it!  The NT does not draw upon Temple worship in the way most evangelicals do.  A great reminder for us who seek God’s will from his word in our worship as pilgrims between the already and the not-yet!

_________________
Andrew