The Theme was, "Here Is My Family"
Messages at 1990 Assembly
by Pastor Daniel W. Selbo
The 1990 Assembly of the Sierra Pacific Synod was a combination of both a refreshing change from the two previous Assemblies, as well as a disheartening realization that very little has changed in the past year. It may not be obvious how both of these realities can exist at the same time and in the same Assembly, but perhaps a review of some of the highlights will make it more apparent.
The theme of the Assembly was "Here Is My Family," taken from a section in Matthew's gospel where Jesus speaks to a request to allow His mother and His brothers an audience before Jesus. The reply given by our Lord was, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother." It was quite apparent that the theme centered upon the first part of Jesus' statement, "Here are my mother and my brothers," with very little attempt to move into the second part which deals with the "how" and the "why" of what identifies us as "family."
The statement given by Jesus was not simply an invitation nor a declaration that all people share in the family of Christ, but rather an opportunity to speak to that which makes us part of God's family. Our family connection comes in the fact that we are about the task of doing the Father's will and not so much that we share a common identity as human beings. The presentations given by Dr. Roland Martinson, Luther-Northwestern Seminary, were both insightful and inspiring. But, again, perhaps it would have been more appropriate to address the "how" and the "why" of what makes us family.
Secondly, there was great encouragement by both the worship life of the Assembly and the vision and guidance offered by Bishop Miller. This year's Assembly worship was not of the agenda-oriented type that had been experienced in years past. With the exception of one obvious error in judgment on the part of the worship committee, that being the inclusion of an offering of tears on behalf of the Gay and Lesbian communities during the closing worship service; the worship offered the opportunity to do just that: worship! It was exciting to see the changes that took place in just one year's time!
It was also good to note some of the words shared by our Bishop which seemed to indicate the he will not allow any agenda other than the Gospel to direct the life of this Synod. His opening "vision" was powerful and prophetic, and his closing sermon was indeed Christ-centered. He also, on several occasions throughout the Assembly, offered strong words of leadership on some very key issues. The flip-side to this was again found in much of the discussion that took place on the Assembly floor. In several cases, the guiding foundation for discussion was not the Scripture nor the Confessions, but rather our experience and the voices of our society.
This was one aspect of the Assembly that did not change from previous years. The Scriptures, although Constitutionally very much in line with our Lutheran tradition, do not seem to be as normative for our practice as many would wish. This may be the greatest weakness within the Sierra Pacific Synod.
Many left the Assembly with mixed feelings and responses often coming from extreme ends of the emotional spectrum. There were undoubtedly many things which would cause one to rejoice within this Assembly, but there were also, in just as obvious a manner, many reasons for concern. The Assembly was a mixed message to the delegates representing many congregations. Perhaps the question needs to be asked as to whether a mixed message is, in essence, one that is very clear?
Editorial, "How Soon Must God's Mercy Give Way To His Justice?"
AN EDITORIAL BY KNUTE LEE
"Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end to all flesh. The earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth..." Genesis 6:11-13
Today's unyielding question, above all others, has to be, "How soon must God's mercy give way to his justice?" Day after day, month by month, year upon year, reports, anguished accounts, drive godly believers to tears of despair!
Thirty years ago a District President or Presiding Bishop was expected to be, and indeed was, a pillar for biblical truth and pastoral integrity. While admittedly, a good many appointed leaders today struggle to perpetuate centuries of undeniable biblical truth, too many capitulate to the demands for an inclusivity, which has no agenda but openness.
Certainly the bishops are familiar with Romans, chapter I: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. What can be known about God is plain to them... They are without excuse, for although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God..." Granted, this is a brutal indictment, but the cold fact is that the sovereign God has spoken truth!
Dr. Francis Schaeffer, before he died, saw clearly that many evangelicals were compromising Scriptural truth. One's thoughts turn sadly to Jeremiah, the weeping prophet Schaeffer had this to say:
"A person can erect some sort of structure, some type of limited frame in which he lives, shutting himself up in that frame and not looking beyond it. Or it can as easily be a theological word game within the structure of today's methodology. That is where modern people, building only on themselves, have come, and that is where they are now..." He goes on to say:
'Today's highly motivating religious words out of our religious past, but separated from their original content and context in the Bible, are then used for manipulation. The words become a banner for men to grab and run with in any arbitrary direction ù either shifting sexual morality from its historic Christian position based on the Bible and Christ's teaching, or in legal or political manipulation..."
This new vogue of accommodation (could we not honestly add the concepts of inclusivity and openness? - Ed.) to the world spirit about us, this step, really a vast leap, is rooted in two groups: those who seem to be willing to accommodate to a lower view of Scripture, and those who no longer take seriously the biblical concept of true, traditional discipline.
With this overwhelming erosion, which began with trickles in the seminaries of the sixties, came secularization of our ELCA predecessor educational institutions. This tragic tale of truth has not even come to be known to many struggling parents who dish out by the thousands to make more yuppies – for what?
At the recent St. Olaf Conference, A Call to Faithfulness, Dr. Carl Braaten thrilled the more than a thousand pastors and laity with his mission call of the Gospel to the nations. His closing remarks say it with poignant realism:
No one should claim that striving for peace, justice and moral denunciation of poverty and oppression need to be purchased at the expense of the uniqueness of Christ and the proclamation of the Gospel. It is precisely the Gospel that frees us to work for a more humane and just world. Because our hope is grounded in God, we can afford to take the risk of losing ourselves so that others may live more fully.
We would have a wonderful conclusion to this conference if we could be assured that our controversy in the church is much ado about nothing, that we do not have a theological problem, that it's all a matter of theology and emphasis. Meanwhile I cannot squelch the conviction that we are engaged in a struggle for the truth of the Gospel and the integrity of the church's mission. We do not know how much more time we will have before God will take the Gospel out of our faithless hands and pass it on to those who will commit their lives as witnesses to its truth.
Dr. Robert Jenson, also at the conference, A Call to Faithfulness, said: 'To whom or what are we to be faithful? We are, at a first step of analysis, to be faithful to a particular God among the many candidates ... This God has an identity; he can be picked out and addressed specifically. A faithful church is one that is careful to do so."
In the Resurrection, this God publishes a new name. And here again, the risen Lord could summarize the whole mission of the church as the initiation of disciples into that name, into "the name Father, Son and Holy Spirit"
A faithful church would be faithful to these names, and so to the particularity of her God.
And so, we of FOCL lift up once again Article I. of our Declaration of Affirmations and Concerns, "The Mystery of God," as the appropriate position of a Confessional Lutheran Church concerned with and dedicated to the mission of the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
1) We affirm the historic position of the Lutheran Confessions that there is one God in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit All three are one divine essence, without division, forming one Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier and Preserver of all things visible and invisible. We believe that this one true and Triune God is a jealous God, demanding exclusive fear, love, trust, worship and devotion.
2) We repudiate any and all attempts to invoke or to incorporate into Christian worship the name of any foreign, mythical or other god or spirit.
Our Lord Jesus Christ asked the plaintive question, referring sadly to himself: "When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?" A somber question indeed, particularly when coming from the Lord of Lords and King of kings. Yet, the Holy Scriptures are laden with promises... Did not even Yahweh, in the book of Jonah, say to the restive prophet that he could change his mind and forgive if Nineveh would but repent? Jonah 4:11 tells us, "And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city . . .?
Promises exude from both Old and New Testaments, to wit, 2 Chron. 7:14 ù "If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."
A Call to Faithfulness
BY PASTOR PHILLIP K. LEE
Some months ago, three independent Lutheran journals - Lutheran Forum/Forum Letter, Lulheran Quarterly and Dialogue - called for a theological conference to initiate dialogue on difficult issues facing the ELCA today. Originally planned for 400 - 450 participants, the conference drew over twice that number. Meeting June 4-6 on the beautiful campus of St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota, the conference quickly established itself as an important event in the life of the ELCA.
With a point/counterpoint type of structure, a variety of subjects were explored by chosen presenters during plenary sessions, after which pariicipants could attend small groups for follow-up discussion and action. During the first session, the presenter, Robert Jenson, gave an eloquent address on the subject, "A Callto Faithfulness", with aresponsc by James Kittelson. During the second session, Gerhard Forde and William Lazareth, respectively, presented and responded to the subject, "The Special Ministry."
The third session provided a lively and inspiring presentation on "The Mission of the Gospel" by Carl Braaten, with a response by Paul Sponheim. Thcfourth and final session allowed for another thought provoking presentation by Richard John Neuhaus entitled " To Serve the Lord of All; Law, Gospel and Social Responsibility", to which Larry Rasmusscn responded.
Here are some selections of their respective insights for those of us struggling with this fitful "child" we have named ELCA:
Robert Jenson . . .
"To whom or what arc we to be faithful? We are, at a first step of analysis, to be faithful loaparticular God among the many candidates."
"To whom or what are we to be faithful? Weare.atasecondstepof analysis, to be faithful to that individual person by whom God identifies himself to us, Jesus called the Christ."
"We are faithful to God in that we are faithful to Christ, and that is to say, now at a third level of analysis, we are faithful to God in that we arc faithful lo the gospel. The gospel is not a doctrine, though it requires doctrines. H is not a book, though it generates books. The gospel is a message...A faithful church would see the one purpose of her existence in the bringing of this message to the nations and ages. The church is permanently and greatly tempted to put other commissions ahead of this one..."
"When the church has wished to be faithful, it has been concerned with the precise text of Scripture - and of creed and confession - as with life and death.
Carl Braaten . . .
"We are in the midst of a church struggle whose outcome will decide whether we have much good news from God to tell to the nations. The winds of theological conflict arc blowing throughout the church, its divisions, synods, commissions and seminaries, and they pierce right to the heart of the mission of the gospel."
"Church people sense there is something wrong, but they don't seem to know exactly what it is or what to do about it. A paralysis has seemingly come over the body of the church and its officials. It takes the form of pluralism based on worldly differences, guaranteed by the quota system, and polarization between theological positions, producing doctrinal confusion manifest in all the church's communications."
"It is most certainly appropriate to call Christian people now lo the new frontiers of witness and action in all dimensions of contemporary life. Butwhatis questionable is the way in which talk about evangelism tens to one among many frontiers, perhaps only a ceremonial prologue to gel on lo the more exciting new frontiers of mission. What is wrong is the inflation of the concept of evangelism to mean whatever good works the church plans to do in the world."
"The anti-missionary propaganda of today is mostly a function of the apostasy that believes that the whole missionary idea was misguided from the beginning, in that it announces a message that calls for the conversion of people from other systems of belief to faith in the God of the gospel of Jesus Christ We must be clear that it is the apostolic imperative itself that is being rejected by the growing pluralistic theology of religions. and not merely certain aberrations of the Christian mission."
"The core of the Gospel mission is always Christ. Christ alone is the content and criterion of the message of the gospel."
"This vertical dimension of reconciliation with God is not alternative to the horizontal dimension of social transformation. They are not mutually exclusive. Evangelical Lutherans should be the first to acknowledge that. The verbal proclamation of the gospel must always be accompanied and authenticated by diaconal works of love."
Richard John Neuhaus . . .
"The church is tempted to let its mission be defined by social and political priorities. Again the slogan,'The world sets the agenda for the church; we must insist that God sets the agenda for the church."
"A church renewed is a church renewed in sound doctrine and vibrant faith. A church renewed is a church confidently proclaiming to the principalities and powers of the present time that the kingdom, the power, and the glory belong to our God and to His Christ. A church renewed is a church that has turned away from temporal glory and worldly influence, and is turned in trust to the scandal of the cross, to the Word, to the water, to the bread, to the wine, by which foolishness the Lord of "has made foolish the wisdom of the world." (1 Cor. 1:20)
Surely the reader needs no interpretation from this author! May God bless the experience of "A Call to Faithfulness" lo the end that it may be a genuine catalyst for renewal in the ELCA!
Are We Throwing Our Babies Out With The Baptismal Water?
BY PASTOR MICHAEL E. MURPHY
Dr. Martin Luther once compared the Church to a drunken man attempting to ride home on horseback from the local Pub. The poor fellow found it difficult staying up on top of the horse. He was continuously falling off one side or the other. Many think that this illustration is still applicable today, especially as it relates to the ELC A. Inrecenttimes, in our zealousness to placate ideological movements, the church has repeatedly fallen lo extremes particularly on the left; and we if not careful may fall again.
I am alluding to the contemporary debate raging within our Church concerning the doctrine of the trinity, trinitarian language and the name (or names) to be utilized in the administration of baptism. This article will restrict itself to the issue of baptism alone.
Is this a real issue wilhin our Church? Yes it is. Indeed, the Secretary of our ELCA himself has said: "One of the serious questions the Church will have to face is whether baptism performed in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier are valid."
For some, this issue is "no big deal." "We are only arguing over words." Remember the childhood rhyme, "Sticks andstones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" The premise of that simple rhyme is a lie. Words do hurt. Words are powerful. They can be creative or destructive. Indeed the Gospel itself is the power of God for our salvation.
For the most part, the intentions of those who advocate for a "change from our traditional baptismal form" arc well meaning, sensitive and pastoral; but all too little serious theological reflection has been exercised in the formation of the proposed alternative "formulas." Karl Donfried in the Winter 1990 issue of Dialog argues that such unrefleciive tampering will only lead us down the path to "utter (theological) confusion." He warns, "one should not lose sight of The fact that metaphorical changes in the structure of language produce substantial changes in thought. This is, of course, what many feminists desire. But, can we do that and still remain faithful to the discourse and normativeness of Scripture? When we start using "birthing" language, however naively, we take the first step into the feminist view of a "bisexual and androgynous deity."
Just what is actually at stake here? Faithfulness to our God. After referring to such deviations (inclusive Trinitarian/God-language) as signs of apostasy, and as "phony linguistically illegitimate substitutes for certain words of sacred scripture," Carl Braatcn in an article entitled The Trinity as Dogma (Winter 1990 issue of Dialog) states:
"The theological problem is whether Lulheranism will follow liberal Protestantism in detaching its God-language from the revealed name of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and be doomed to reiterate all The ancient heresies of modalism and subordinalionism, (and may I add docetismand gnosticism), or whether it will maintain its confessional and constitutional alignment with the Trinitarian faith of biblical and orthodox Christianity.
The practical problem is a matter of Church discipline, how to discourage the blasphemy going on in parish life under the guise of openness and creativity." (and again, may I add -pluralistic sensitivity). But there is even more at stake here, and Leonard Klein says it very well when he asserts: 'The issue is whether the language of Holy Scripture shall govern and shape our talk of God, whether scripture, and in particular, the New Testament's designation of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is dogmatically binding on the church and indeed whether the Bible's language bears any authority and revelation to which we are bound." (Editorial, Lutheran Forum, 1990 issue)
Our ELCA, as George Lindbeck maintains, has entered a period of "confessional indifferentism." Our unreficctivc inclusive zeal is propagating doctrinal anarchism and theological confusion. It is impulsive, over-reactionary and irresponsible to trash hundreds of years of theological underslandingjust to climb aboard the laiest ideological bandwagon without contemplating (he consequences.
As an example, it has been suggested by some that although usage of the common trinitarian substitute, "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier," in the baptismal rite may be theologically unsound, it is an acceptable alternative since "most people (probably) believe that Father creates and the Son saves (not vice versa indeed)."
Recent surveys have reported that many Lutherans have difficulty accepting that a person is justified by grace alone through one's faith in Christ alone, apart from personal works. Would a doctrine of personal works righteousness be an acceptable alternative to our confessional/biblical understanding of justification based on a polemical premise that a majority of our people are leaning in that particular direction anyway?
There are two primary arguments for changing the church's liturgical baptismal language: 1) it is maintained that "all our addresses for God are inadequate," and (2) "the language that addresses God in male images is idolatrous."
First, it is asserted that, "all our names for God are inadequate." In what way arc they inadequate? Now, if in the usage of the liturgical formulation, we are attempting to "convey a glimpse of the Divine," or if we arc attempting to define the mystery of the Godhead, then, yes indeed, we would need to conclude that "all language (even names) ultimately fail to represent God fully." But, in our baptismal liturgy, this is not at all what we are attempting to do!
The words spoken: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" arc both invocatory and proclaimatory in nature. The phrase should not be understood as mere formula. There is no precise evidence that we have Jesus' ipsissima Verba in Matthew 28:19, and even less evidence that the Apostolic church understood Jesus' command as a specific baptismal formula. As late as the writing of the Didache (A.D. 90-110), baptism "in the name of Jesus," and baptism, in the name of the trinity, coexisted side by side, apparently indicating that the two terms of meaning (to be baptized into union with Christ is to be baptized into union with the entire Godhead.) conveyed the same essence.
The Church, it would seem, did not understand Jesus' command in terms of formula, as much as in terms of proclamation. Therefore, the phrase does not mean merely invoking the name and under the sanction of the name, but something much more significant than this. The "in" or "into" proclaims to the candidate the end and aim of the consecration of baptism.
The "name" of God is that by which he is known to us through personal self-disclosure. So being baptized into the name of God proclaims the reality of being placed in subjection to and communion with the revealed God – the God from whom one had been estranged.
The phrase then not only invokes God to action, but also connotes the reality of that action in a proclaimatory sense. It announces that by this sacramental act, God the Father becomes our father adopting us as his children. (Gal. 3:16-27); the Son becomes our redeemer, for we are baptized into union with his death (Rom. 6:3), putting on Christ (Gal. 3:27), so that his righteousness becomes ours; and that the Holy Spirit has entered our lives and we have become his temple in which together with the Father and Son he dwells (1 Corinthians 3:10).
The essence of this baptismal action is instilled in adult candidates during their catechismal and pre-baptismal instruction and it is conveyed to believing parents wishing to have their child baptized that they might understand baptism's significance.
So then, does this view open the way to formulaic flexibility and creativity? Those who argue for this support their position by quoting Luther's argument in "The Babylonian Captivity."
"Others again, sticking rigidly to their pedantry, condemn the use of the Words, "I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ," although it is certain that the Apostles used that form in baptizing... (Acts 10:28). They refuse to regard any as valid except: "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen."... The truth is that no matter in what words baptism is administered, as long as it is not in a human name, but in the Lord's name, it surely saves."
Luther is not arguing here in favor of unrestricted formulaic flexibility. He articulates very precise limits; "as long as it is... in the Lord's name, it surely saves."
Luther is arguing here in defense of those wishing to use the liturgical baptismal phrase, "I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ," and, indeed, other possible phrases not in conflict with the Gospel and which utilize the "Lord's name."
To baptize substituting the phrase "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier," is to use no name at all, only functions and this formulaic substitution is a mild deviation from biblical language compared to, "Mother, Lover, Friend" or "Wisdom, Word, Breath of Life," or "The three in one and one in three," etc. Who arc these gods? With whom is one entering into communion?
The aim of such formulations we are told is to enable us to catch "a glimpse of God who is female and male " ù but God by nature is neither (John 4:24). And when this God, who is Spirit by nature did choose to reveal Himself lo humankind he did not, as Carl Braaten writes, "meet us anonymously within the ambiguities of the world process. The church is not called to minister in behalf of some anonymous Christ, or some unfleshed deity eminently directing die course of history incognito" (paper entitled, The Mission of The Gospel To The Nj
This revealed God, has revealed Himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The names are of God's choosing.
Now it is argued that the terms to address God as Father and Son are sliictly metaphoric, seeking toexpress what is potentially one of the deepest of human experiences.
Robert Jenson, in an editorial article entitled "How Long?" (Winter 1990Dialog)refersto such teaching as "...heresy in the precise sense." In the same editorial, Dr. Jenson has even more to say about this argument: "Jesus instructed his followers, When you pray, pray so..." is perhaps the deepest foundation of the faith, and in such prayer, "Our Father," is precisely not a metaphor or any other sort of figure... and when Jesus prayed and said, "Father," no more was that. The dogmatic struggle of the ancient church, through all the controversies and councils that created the doctrine of Trinity and of Christ, was over the very point:
When Jesus addressed God as "Father," was this a metaphor? The whole substance of the creeds and christological doctrines can be summarized: NO, it was not, and when Jesus taught us to pray, it was precisely His invitation, "Come, address God as I do." When an adopted child says, "Father," is this a metaphor?"
The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language Encyclopedic Editors, revised 1987, defines "metaphor" as a figure of speech in which a name or quality is attributed to something to which it is not literally applicable."
This brings us to the issue of authority. Essential to the Lutheran understanding of sacrament is the derived authority of their existence and administration. In the large catechism and in reference to the Great Commission, Luther writes: "Observe, first, that these words contain God's commandment and ordinance.
You should not doubt then, that Baptism is of divine origin, not something devised or invented by men . . ." In the small catechism, Luther asks the question: "What is Baptism?" Then he answers, "Baptism is not merely water, but it is water used according to God's command and connected with God's word."
It would behoove us also to contemplate Luther's caution that "Baptism is not a human plaything"(LC) As to the charge that language utilized to address God in male images is idolatrous, I would maintain that the essence of true idolatry is found in the concept that the church has the authority to countermand the specific commands of her Lord.
The Mystery of the Tri-Unity
BY DR. GEORGE H. MUEDEKING
In my early ministry, I incurred the displeasure of a catechumen's father and mother. I had asked the class to enlist their parents in the search for those verses in the Bible where the word "Trinity" was used as the name for God. After spending a whole evening in this fruitless search, and even combing the Enclyclopcdia Britanica. the girl's parents were less than enthusiastic for the educational methodology of their young pastor. Especially was that so when he confessed at the next class session that indeed the Bible did not at all know this name for God.
If it isn't even in the Bible, why has the Christian Church insisted on this definition for the God that it worships: one God in three persons, or in church shorthand: God is Trinity, Tri-unity? Lutherans to this day announce their faith with the words of the Athanasian Creed.
That document goes so far as to say that "whoever does not keep the true Christian faith whole and undefiled will without doubt perish everlastingly." Strong medicine! And that "true Christian faith," this Creed goes on to say, "is that we worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God."
Christianity came ultimately to this statement of its understanding of our mysterious God, not because the truth was laid out in a number of Bible verses as such, but because the biblical references lelling what God is like, compelled the Church to fashion its doctrine of God as Trinity. The name was first used by the church father Teitullian, around 200 A.D.
We begin this pathway to Christian understanding with the repeated and emphatic pronouncements in the Bible that there is only one God ù not 333 million gods, as the Hindus say. No, just one God. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one." (Deut. 5:4). By contrast, "AH the gods of the nations are idols." (IChron. 16:26). God is unity, oneness. To underline this truth wcoften speak of Christianity as a"mono-theistic" religion, a "one-God religion."
But, the Bible has more to tell us about God. It also calls and describes Jesus Christ as God. It does the same for the Holy Spirit. And for the Father. Shall we then fly in the face of Holy Scripture, and say that there must then at least be three gods, as the Mormons do?
Or could we explain away the problem by saying mat the one God appears to us in three different forms or modes, as Father, Son.andHolySpiril? Thisreadysolution, called "Modalism", which one sometimes hears repeated these days even in Christian circles, will not help, however. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Father, do not appear successively.
Instead they are all present at once, as can be seen in a biblical account like that of the baptism of Jesus. So this differentiation between the three "persons" must somehow lie in the very beingness of God Himself.
To be faithful lo the biblical witness, Christians have therefore said: "One being, God ù yet three underlying realities ("persons") that are named and described equally as God. Three-oneness. Tri-unity. Trinity."
Can our minds in any way resolve this mystery? Wehaveall heard analogies that try to help us. One that is often used for children is: "Snow, ice and water; three different things: yet only one."
This analogy fails us however. Any single given appearance of snow, ice or water, cxcluses the other two. This faulty analogy is based on the "modalistic" theory of the Trinity.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity says, by contrast, in the words of Jesus, that if one sees the Son, one has also seen the Father (Jn. 14:9). And the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. To see, to speak, to pray, or to listen to one person of the Godhead is to see and speak and listen to all.
Or, triangles arc often used in church art as an analogy of the Trinity. Again, insufficiently. For if one removes one leg of a triangle, the triangle isno more. But, if the believer takes hold of Jesus, or the Father, or the Spirit, that soul has grasped all the God there is. One can not extricate one-third of God from the Godhead.
We must therefore reject out of hand the glibly uttered reproach thatLutherans tend to be "Second-person Trinitarians," that is, that they pray and pay more attention to Jesus than they do to God. Or the equally shortsighted reproof that the charismatic movement in the Church is "Third-person Trinitarianism."
Nor must we delude ourselves that we have safely escaped into ecumenical religiosity by invoking only the name of God, rather than that of Christ, when we utter prayers at public functions like jointly sponsored Memorial Day services. No, as the Apostle says, he who denies the Son, denies the Father also, and he who has the Son, has the Father also (I Jn. 2:23).
To take hold of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, is to take hold of God entirely. Conversely, to reject any single person of the Trinity is to reject all the God there is.
Perhaps it is best to agree humbly that the mystery of the Godhead can never be adequately comprehended. To be able to understand fully this majestic Being we call God, would be to be as God. But that is a prospect already ruled out of humanity's grasp from the days of the the Garden of Eden.
Yet we can push our search for understanding at least one more step, walking along with the great church father, St. Augustine. He said to himself, "The Bible tells me that God made man in his own image. That must mean that there is in me something analogous to the being of God. And if God is Trinity, then in me there must be something akin to that"
When Augustine looked within himself, he saw the ego, the I, the thinking, feeling, willing soul. But of course. Here was the human image of the Trinity!
We are one mind, one ego, one soul. Yet our will, our reason, and our emotions are all equally our actual and entire self. They are not part of, not each one third of, our self. Nor are there three selves, three individual persons inside my head. There is only the one self.
Nor, is it accurate to say that this one self that is me is simply functioning in three different modes or forms (modalism). For reason, feeling and will are completely distinguishable. My will, for instance, stands around waiting for my reason to convince my emotions that I should pursue a prospective goal, to get out of bed and go to work, for example. Or my emotions try to catch up with my reason, so that I can feel good about the task my reason insists I must will to undertake, for instance, to enjoy the broccoli that my mother puts on my plate. It is as though three persons, three underlying realities, were within my head. Yet there is only one ego, one mind, one soul, one "I."
St. Augustine'suseof the human egoas an analogy or image of the Trinity has been helpful to many Christians. It may also enlighten us. In this limping and faltering way, you and I can appreciate that we too are an image of that Tri-unity we know and worship as God.
Best of all, however, it is to bow reverently with the Apostle and say with him in Romans 11: "Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor? O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!"
The Uniqueness of Christ
By Rev. Gordon Selbo
It has been said that all religions of the world have three things in common:
(1) Belief in a Supreme Being.
(2) The hope of a life beyond death.
(3) A moral code.
Each of the three may be defined in varying ways and in some cases quite vaguely. But they're present in some form or other.
This being the case, it has led many into an unacceptable relativism and an easy "tolerance," if not indifference, toward most or all religions. It is an attitude particularly prevalent among the uncommitted (acop-outontheirpart?) and some universalists from within the various religions.
To this tendency to lump all religions together in a "what's the difference?" attitude, the Christian faith speaks a resounding, "No!" The Christian truth is unique. It stands alone among world religions as essentially different, whether it be the well-known historical models (Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.), the unsophisticated man-on-the-street variety, or the more intellectual and philosophical types.
Is the distinction between Christianity and "religion" proper or is it too presumptuous? Is it unbecomingly and unjustifiably narrow to say that world religions can be divided rightly into two classes:
(1) Christianity and (2) All others.
How basic, how crucial, is our uniqueness? Is there a particularity about the Christian message which has caused, and continues to cause, the Church to proclaim its truth to all, to seek to win over any who do not acknowledge its claim? What is at stake here?
At the heart of these questions is the Person of Christ Himself as expounded in the Scriptures and stated succinctly in the Creeds, in Luther's explanation to the 2nd Article, in Article III of the Augsburg Confession, and elaborated on throughout other confessional statements of the Lutheran Church. It's the truth which the early church defended and defined in the great Arian controversy of the fourth century.
In reality all doctrines of thechurch point toward and emanate from the central fact of the Incarnation, God became man. One could explore at length the ramifications of the doctrine of Christ in its relation to other prominent Biblical themes such as sin, redemption, justification, regeneration, etc. All are integrally related, inseparable. Christian truth is one. Without Christ it disintegrates. "In Him all things hold together." (Col. 1:17).
Is it thus the person of Christ that best defines the singularity of the Christian faith. One could call literally hundreds of Scripture passages to the witness stand in support of this truth. The entire letter ot the Hebrews, for example, is an argument for the "superiority" of Christ and the urgency of settling for nothing less that the work He alone accomplished on behalf of all humanity. Man-made religions just don't cut it. The early chapters of Ephessians and Colossians assert unequivocally the cosmic scope of Christ and His work.
The church today is in no need (nor has it ever been) of a timid and insipid approach to other religions under the guise of an inane "inclusiveness." We are called to name the Name and claim the Claim with boldness and without compromise. How else do we read the book of Acts?
In a recent issue of Word & World, a quarterly theological journal, Dr. James Burtness of Luther-Northwestern Seminary mentions the plea that is often heard today for "a greater toloeration on the part of Christians toward other religions and a more active participation in a common quest and a common spiritual life with those of religious traditions other than our own."
He goes on to mention the popular Matthew Fox as a modern example of one who tends to merge all world religions into one and who must therefore be repudiated. This, Burtness points out, does not make us intolerant, not any more than a teacher is intolerant who maintains that 2 plus 2 are 4 and not S. This breed of so-called tolerance is subchristian and is of help to no one.
There is a finality about Christ in which everything the church confesses is at stake. To quote Burtness again, "It is finally the specifics rather than the generalities that matter ù and matter absolutely. To reject the finality of Christ is to make one's position intolerable as an expression of Christian faith, confession, and witness."
That word, "tolerance" is a tricky one (just as the word "inclusivity"). It can be a virtue or a fault, depending on context. Mathematicians and scientists, even historians and sociologists, cannot tolerate error. Neither can Christians. Tolerate people in a spirit of kindness, acceptance, civility? Of course. Tolerate error? Never.
As a church, it is stating the obvious when we assert that to lose the utter uniqueness of Christ is to lose our identity. We then may be something else, but we are no longer the church. Fortunately our liturgy preserves this testimony to Christ in public worship. Our proclamation must do the same, explicitly and forcefully. And the error of omission is also fatal in this case.
Our preaching must be judged not only by the nice things it says, but by what it sometimes fails to say. A vapid and generalized, "God loves you," is simply not enough.
To neglect, misinterpret, or dilute the message is to compromise the mission mandate of our Lord. Could this be the underlying cause of the Lutheran Church's dwindling membership. Let's hope not.
The question Jesus posed to His disciples is equally relevant 20 centuries later: "Who do you say that I am?" And so is His answer: "On this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:15,18).