Agreeing With The Concordat?
by Dr. Paul Berge*
The ELCA is a young church, not yet nine years old. In just a few months it is being asked to make a decision on the Lutheran Episcopal Concordat of Agreement which would force the ELCA to make constitutional changes that will determine the shape of ministry and theology of the ELCA for the rest of its life. As late as November 2,1996, changes were made in the document. For example, the opening paragraph of the Concordat now reads and calls for "one binding vote"ù "without further vote on the Concordat" by both churches. The word "binding"was added then, and should be a warning of the rigidity of the Agreement.
I was one of the eight members representing the ELCA on the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue. It held 14meetings from December 1983 to January 1991. At the final meeting the vote for approval on the original Concordat was unanimous among the Episcopal members. But the vote of the ELCA delegation was deeply divided – five members for and three opposed. The ELCA delegation was thus one vote from not approving this proposed Concordat. A Dissenting Report was written in response to the original Concordat, in January 1991. Since a Revision of the Concordat was made in November 1996, this Dissenting Report is not a part of the present study document on the Concordat.
The last sentence of the dissenting report indicates the reason our ELCA delegates are gathered here this evening. The Concordat, as the sentence says, has indeed provoked "controversy and division" within the ELCA. May I share four of the objections that have been raised to the Concordat.
NUMBER 1.
The Concordat clearly says that the threefold ministry of bishop, priest-pastor and deacon "will be the future pattern of the one ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament."(Sec. 3). This mandated threefold ministry of the
This LETTER is being circulated in the ELCA, authored by prominent lay persons. We report it as a newsworthy effort to bring a major issue before the Church, an issue with which the Church will deal at its 1997 Church-wide Assembly. The board of the Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans (FOCL) took action to express the belief that its wide distribution is warranted.
The purpose of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is to make Christ known. Will the Lutheran-Episcopal Concordat of Agreement forward us in that mission? We do not think so.
Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions are our guides in this matter. They commit us only to the Word preached and administered in the sacraments, and leave us insistently free in alt else for the sake of mission and ministry. Indeed, they prohibit us from binding ourselves to any form of
Concordat was presented and decisively rejected by an 80% vote of the 1993 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, after a five-year commissioned study of ministry carried on in the ELCA from 1988 to 1993. To adopt the Concordat now would reverse the decision the ELCA has already made on its understanding of ministry.
Wore importantly, there is no warrant in the New Testament for any one particular form of church ministry or government. The Concordat's insistence on its understanding of ministry and order is contrary to the Lutheran view of the Church, as stated in Article 7 of the Augsburg Confession, a primary statement of our Lutheran faith. I know there are those who say that the Reformation took place a long time ago and is now superseded, and that a wooden understanding of Article 7 needs to be replaced.
But I believe that Article 7 was far ahead of its time, that it meant what it said, and that it says clearly what it says to the Church today: "For IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE TRUE UNITY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH that the Gospel be preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it and that the sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word. It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that ceremonies, instituted by men, should be observed uniformly in all places."
NUMBER 2.
Contrary to this Reformation understanding, the Concordat requires that in conformity with Episcopal church practice, only bishops shall ordain all clergy (Section 5). "No persons are allowed to exercise the offices of bishop, priest ordeacon in this Church unless theyare so ordained, or have already received such ordination with the laying-on-of-hands by bishops who are themselves duly qualified to confer Holy Orders." In the Concordat, the Episcopal Church consents to a "temporary suspension" of this unconditioned ordination requirement "in order to secure the future implementation of the [requirement] within the eventuallyfully integrated ministries.'
This section demands that the ELCA adopt a hierarchical and sacramental understanding of ministry. Itassertsthatonlyabishop ordained in the historic episcopate can guarantee apostolicity in pastoral/priestly ordination and administration of the sacraments.
Essentially this says, "When you see the bishop, you see the church." Pastors may participate in the laying on of hands at ordination, but ordination can only be conferred by a bishop in "episcopal" – the so-called "apostolic" – succession.
But the ELCA does not have and does not subscribe to such an understanding of ministry. It reaffirmed its own non-hierarchical understanding of ministry at the 1993 Assembly mentioned above. Also,
ELCA bishops are not in "historic succession," and finally, they are elected for term callsùNOT for life. All three of these changes would be required eventually if the Concordat were adopted, and all of them were rejected intheELCA's 1993 Assembly action on the study of ministry.
We should note also that in the revised Concordat, "diaconal ministers" are not to be ordained in the interim before "full communion:" (Section 3, ft.note 7). Over time the ELCA will be asked to ordain "deacons," a new order the ELCA must create, as Section 3, U1) insists. Once more, we have already decisively rejected this in our ELCA ministry study.
Also tucked away infl 4, ft.note 13, is the statement that "Lutheran bishops will (not) have greater authority" or"have powers which they do not now have." But then, what is "greater" authority or power, if not the mandate thaf'only bishops shall ordain all clergy?" The present ELCA practice is that Lutheran bishops may authorize pastors to ordain. It is commonly practicedùas the ordination in which I participated last Sunday. In the revised text of the Concordat, however, it is stated that full communion will be realized in "the achieving of full interchangeability of ordained episcopal ministries (Section 14). The word "episcopal" has been added in the revision. This will require the ELCA to make constitutional changes to accommodate "episcopal" ministryù which will have to be the threefold ministry of ordained bishops, pastors/ priests, and deaconsùthe form of ministry to be required for "full communion."
Roman Catholic theologian, Hans Kung, writes in his book, Christianity, "An uninterrupted sequence of "laying on of hands" from the apostles to the bishops of today, an unbroken chain of succession, cannot be demonstrated historically. Apostolic succession is rooted wholly in the proclamation of the gospel." (p 124-25) Hans Kung is on target. The Concordat has missed it by a country mile.
NUMBER 3.
The Concordat agrees the Episcopal Church can temporarily suspend its 17th century rule of bishop-only ordinations during the interim time so that there might be "full interchangeability and reciprocity" for ELCA clergy before "full communion" is achieved. In turn, the ELCA must give up permanently its confessional heritage, by not requiring Episcopal clergy who might serve in it, to subscribe to the Augsburg Confession.
The Lutheran Church, however, is a "confessional church." It protects its people from false teachings by requiring its clergy to follow the faith expressed in its first public statement of belief, the Augsburg Confession. If clergy of other denominations, like the Episcopal, will be accredited by the ELCA without even a professed agreement with the Lutheran understanding of Christianity, we have not only horse-trading, but bad horse-trading at that!
In terms of church structure and theology, "Lutherans will become Episcopalians and Episcopalians will remain Episcopalians." Lutherans would have to accept the doctrine that the church can only exist where and when a bishop functions, in flat contradiction to their proclaimed Confession; while Episcopalians will be asked for no subscription to any proclaimed faith whatsoever in order to serve in a Lutheran-sponsored witness of the Word.
An Episcopal member of the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue said in a supporting essay to the Dialogue that "Anglicans [the name for the world-wide Episcopal Church] would have serious reservations about the claim that justification by faith is 'the chief article in the Christian life,' or 'the chief teaching in the church.'...Anglicans would be quite reluctant to claim that any one particular article of the Christian faith stands out above all other." (Supporting Essays" p. 137).
Here is a fundamental disagreement which the Concordat seeks to obliterate. In the recent trial of Bishop Righter, for example, the Ecclesial Court of the Episcopal Church absolved him from the charge of heresy with the judgment, "We are not a confessional church."
Anglican self-identity occurs through the use of the Book of Common Prayer. It includes the statementofthe House of Bishops of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, (1886) which identifies four principles that are "essential to the restoration of unity," for Anglicans. The fourth is "The Historic Episcopate."[see Book of Common Prayer, 1979,pp.876-78]
NUMBER 4.
You will hear it widely said by those pushing for acceptance of the Concordat in the ELCA that it will "further our common mission." If you think the merger creating the ELCAa decade ago has drained off missionary energy, wait until you see the effect of this Agreement!
The Concordat has already been divisive in the ELCA, as such agreements have been elsewhere. Most recently the Scandinavian churches divided over this issue with the Norwegian and Swedish Churches splitting with the Danish Lutheran Church.
Furthermore, the Concordat will inhibit our relations with other Protestants, as well as with Roman and Orthodox Catholics, The Anglican "historic episcopate" is not recognized by either the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox who have their own "historic episcopate."
In plain terms, the argument that the historic episcopate is a sign of unity in the church is simply not the case. Thus the issue for U.S. Lutherans is this – "Why turn off the main ecumenical highway into this cul-de-sac?" How can this proposal at all be sensible if it rules out the participation of three-fourths of the Christians of the world in these other communions?"
Evidence accumulates in the United States and elsewhere that agreements like this do not advance, but rather hinder us in mission. The dramatically increasing pluralism of our mission field invites us to diversity and inclusivity, not the circling of the ecclesiastical wagons. We need ministry, not an exhausting fuss over the forms of ministry.
This is a day for the Great Commission and a call for the active apostolicity of a confessional church in mission – centered in what makes Christ known. The only bishop who can guarantee success in mission is Jesus Christ Himself, "the Great Shepherd of the sheep."(Hebrews 13:20)
The famed Lutheran theologian, Conrad Bergendoff, can help us here, as he speaks of the unity Lutherans have already:
"We have not created this unity – we have discovered it. We thank God for it. Because it is there, we feel our separate synodical organizations are not justified as in the past. But, and this is the most important fact in all our discussion, our unity is in our faith, apart from our separate organizations. It is evident that unity is not dependent on organization, but organization depends on unity....Let us not confuse essential oneness in faith with some kind of synodical officialdom.'
The New Testament understanding of the Gospel will not be set forth in any binding legal document that mandates something yet to be achieved. As Bergendoff says, Christians discover their unity. If the Concordat's "full communion" were a term found in the New Testament, it would be expressed solely in the freedom of the Gospel, centered in the God-given unity that is already present with those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord. This is not something we achieve; it is gifted to the Christian community across denominational lines right now. St Paul would tell us what he told the Galatians: "You are all one in Christ Jesus."
* Dr Berge is Professor of New Testament at Luther Theological Seminary, St Paul and a member of the ELCA's team for the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue. His article is substantively the address he gave to the Twin City area delegates to the 1997 Church-Wide Assembly which will act on the Concordat of Agreement submitted to the ELCA for approval.
A Letter To The ELCA
ministry or order, precisely so that we may be free to order ourselves to make Christ known in a variety of ways in different times and places. For this reason.the Augsburg Confession states, "It is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian church that the Gospel be preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it and thatthe sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word." And again, "It is not necessary forthe true unity of the Christian church that ceremonies instituted by men, should be uniformly observed in all places."(Augsburg Confession. Article VIII.
The Concordat of Agreement proposes to bind us to one ordering of ministry and to an episcopal polity as a condition for the unity of the church. To make these things necessary, in either theological or practical terms, is without warrant in scripture and contrary to our confessions.
Further the Concordat presents us with otherspecific problems. It conflicts with decisions already made at the churchwide Assembly of 1993 regarding the understanding of ministry. It has failed to produce consensus in the ELCA, which is essential for any ecumenical agreement. It will complicate Lutheran relations with Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and other Protestants. Rather, it promises to be a source of serious disunity within the ELCA.
We regard a confessional witness to the Gospel as the distinctive Lutheran calling in church and world. In this work of confession, we are eager for every good relationship with other Christians, including our brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church. Our two churches can also cooperate more effectively with other Christians in witness, worship and service, if uniform structures of ministry are not imposed. Ample opportunities for further ecumenical cooperation and progress exist without accepting the Lutheran-Episcopal Concordat of Agreement.
Full Communion: ELCA and The Reformed Churches
by Herbert Schaefer, Ph.D.*
As a missionary in India, 1 was told repeatedly that in our understanding of God we were like seven blind men who met an elephant. One, feeling the leg, said that the elephant was like a tree. Another, holding the tail, said that it was like a snake. Another, patting the side, said it was like a wall. Still another, putting his ear to the belly, said it was like a gurgling brook. Each had a perception that was true, but only partial. My Hindu friends argued, "This is the way religions proclaim God." Each religion is true, but only partially so. Each religion is valid for its adherents living in their context, for each is a way to God.
Against this reasoning stand the words of Jesus. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me" (John 14:6). "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not, shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). One position is inclusive; the other is exclusive. One argues that it does not make much difference what you believe, just as long as you believe in God. The other insists it makes a world of difference what you believe about God, for there is only one true God, and Him only shall we serve.
The debate on whether or not the ELCA should establish full communion with the Reformed Churches follows much the same line. Those who favor full communion maintain that the Reformation language is passe, no longer appropriate forthe 20th century. They argue that whether or not Christ is actually present in the Lord's Supper physically, spiritually, or symbolically, really makes no difference, just so long as one believes that He is present. They maintain that whether or not one believes that Christ in his resurrected body is an indivisible whole, integrally united in spirit and body, or whether Christ's spiritual body is everywhere present (omnipresent) while his physical body is bound in heaven, actually makes no difference. The important thing is that one just believes in Christ.
WHAT THE WORD SAYS
But the Word of God is quite specific about this issue. Christ says, "This is my body...this is my blood." This is not a spiritual or symbolic presence that He proclaims, but an actual physical presence. Christ's body and blood are broken and given for me. At Christ's ascension, the angel said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the sameway as you saw him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11)
Yet, at the same time we have the promise of Christ himself when He said, "Lo, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matt.28:20). Eitherwe take seriously the Word of God and believe what it actually says or we interpret it in terms of what we want to believe or what seems logical. Eitherwe stand firm as a church on Holy Scripture or we are like the blind men and their interpretation of the elephant, interpreting on the basis of our own experiences and what we want to believe.
Is this a splitting of hairs, a purely semantic argument that has no validity in today's world; or is it a matter of being faithful to Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessionsfor the salvation of souls, my own included? Holy Scripture is very specific and very clear in what it says. Its witness is good for all times and all placesùfor every nation and tongue, for every society and for every generation within societies. But we have to hold to it, cherish it, treat it with respect, and honor it.
Every ELCA pastor publicly accepts the normative guidance of Holy Scripture in his ordination vows. I cannot understand, therefore, that there should be any debate on it in our circles.
In the third paragraph, I have stated a charge. Let us now look at the reason.
THE CONDEMNATIONS
Recommendation 2 in A Common Calling, the document supporting full communion reads, "that they [the signature churches] withdraw any historic condemnations by one side or the other as inappropriate for the life and faith of our churches today."
Notice the words, "withdraw" and "inappropriate." Withdraw means to take back, retract or revoke, and, therefore, not meant. Inappropriate means unsuitable, not applicable. Are we really prepared as Lutherans to revoke or withdraw what we believeùthe scriptural teaching and doctrine concerning the person of Christ, his presence in the Lord's Supper, predestination, etc? To say that we withdraw the statements of faith made at the time of the Reformation, is to say that we no longer believe they are true. But how can we say this?
I wonder why we were never told to which articles of faith or condemnations this resolution pertains? We may assume that the resolution to lift the condemnations against the Reformed churches refers to Lutheran doctrines in the Formula of Concord, which the ELCA Constitution "accepts as [a] valid interpretation^] of the faith of the Church." Chapter 7 of the Formula deals with the Lord's Supper, Chapter 8 with the person of Christ and Chapter 11deals with predestination.
DOCTRINAL IMPASSE
Can we in any way go back on or deny the actual physical presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, which the Formula of Concord, Chapter 7 affirms? Can we deny the perfect melding of the two persons of Christ into one holy being who is both God and man, indivisible, who is able to be simultaneously present with the bread and wine whenever the Lord's Supper is partaken, as the Formula of Concord, Chapter 8 affirms? (The Reformed churches teach that the physical body of Christ is localized in heaven but the spiritual body is capable of being omnipresent.) Can we deny that God wills all people to be saved and cannot and does not want anyone to be damned, as the Formula of Concord, Chapter 11 affirms?
These are not doctrines that are matters of indifference! (adiaphora). They are at the very heart of, yes, they are the quintessential qualification for church unity, as the Augsburg Confession, Article 7 says. (This is the Satis Est principle.) That is, pulpit and altar fellowship is to be recognized when within respective communities of believers the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity and the sacraments are rightly administered. When the Gospel of Christ is so taught that by God's grace through faith salvation is proclaimed to the sinner and Christ's body and blood are received for the forgiveness of sins, then and only then can there be full communion. Otherwise, the unity we proclaim is a sham, forthere is no real unity.
presence? R.C. Sproul, in his book, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, states in simple, clear language the current teaching of the Presbyterian Church based on the Westminster Confession and Catechism. He writes concerning Christ's presence in Holy Communion:
It is clear that Luther insisted on the real physical and substantial presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. He repeatedly cited Jesus words of institution, "this is My body," to prove his point. Luther would not allow the verb is to be taken in a figurative or representative sense. Luther ... adopted the doctrine of the communication of attributes by which the divine attribute of omnipresence was communicated to the human nature of Jesus, making it possible for His body and blood to be present at more than one place at the same time ...
Zwingli and others argued that Christ's body is not present in actual substance at the Lord's Supper. The supper is a memorial only, with Christ's presence no different from His normal presence through the Holy Spirit ... Calvin, on the other hand, .. when he addressed Roman Catholics and Lutherans, used the term substantial to mean ''physical.'' He denied the physical presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. When he addressed the Anabaptists, he insisted on the term substantial in the sense of "real." Calvin thus argued that Christ is really or truly present in the Lord's Supper, though not in a physical sense ...
[Calvin, and so also the Presbyterian Church today, insists that]. .. the human nature of Jesus is presently localized in heaven. It remains in perfect union with His divine nature. Though the human nature is contained in one place, the person of Christ is not so contained because His divine nature still has the power of omnipresence ... Calvin taught that though Christ's body and blood remain in heaven, they are spiritually "made present" to us by Jesus' omnipresent divine nature. Wherever the divine nature of Christ in present, He is truly present (Sproul: pp.231 -33).
WHO CHANGED POSITIONS?
This is Reformed doctrine, held and taught within the congregations of the Reformed Churches. The three Reformed Churches can in no way be expected to back down on it. The Lutheran Confessions condemn this teaching. Now we Lutherans are asked to withdraw these teachings, these confessions. Are we to accept the Reformed teaching that Christ is really present in the Lord's Supper, but his presence is a spiritual presence, not actual physical presence?
Who has changed its doctrinal position? The Presbyterian Church? The Reformed Church? The United Church of Christ? Or is the Lutheran Church being asked to close its eyes to the differences that exist under the principle of a "complementarity of mutual affirmation and admonition," as the proposed Formula of Agreement has it, whereby these different theologies are to be made fruitful to each other and the church at large? But is it not much more realistic to recognize that our mutual witness will be stronger if in honesty we see ourselves as a church seeking full communion rather than as churches-despite these unresolved differences-already in full communion?
Between the ELCA and the Reformed Churches there simply is no true agreement as yet in our teachings on the Gospel, the person of Jesus Christ, or the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
On what basis then can we vote for full communion? How would a declared full communion help the mission of the church when, for example, I am told one Sunday that I partake of the real body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Lutheran Church, and the next Sunday that I partake of only the spiritual presence of Christ in a Reformed Church? I am left confused, questioning and doubtful that any of the churches knows what it is teaching.
This is NOT splitting ecclesiastical hairs. Nor is it holding to a Reformation theology and language which is not appropriate today. When Christ says, "This is my body, this is my blood," He means just that. He is really present. If we admit any other position we are like the blind men and their experience of the elephant.
OTHER TROUBLING ISSUES
The resolution on full communion contains six sub-resolutions. If taken together, they call for far more than pulpit and altar fellowship. The authors of the resolutions say that they do not mean merger. They go as far as they can, however, without meaning merger. But can we be certain that merger will not be forthcoming as the next step?
These resolutions call for pulpit and altar fellowship, recognition and exchange of pastors, provision for consultation and decision making, theological study and dialogue, and provision for common planning and action in evangelism, witness, and service.
The proposal for pulpit and altar fellowship totally ignores our doctrinal differences. We have already dealt with this problem above.
The sub-resolution on the recognition and exchange of pastors involves all kinds of problems. For example, if the ELCA also votes at its coming Assembly for full communion with the Episcopalians and thus elects to initiate the "historic episcopate and apostolic succession" for the ELCA, [see Paul Berge's article, "Agreeing with the Concordat", p. 1] how could a Presbyterian or United Church of Christ pastor serve in an ELCA congregation? He or she is not exempted from having the required apostolic succession – as would be the ELCA pastors under the Concordat's "temporary suspension" concession which would grandfather-in the ELCA's presently ordained. Will his/her service in an ELCA congregation not negate the intent of the Episcopal exemption of ELCA pastors?
If a Reformed Church of America pastor is called to serve a Lutheran congregation ora Lutheran pastor is called to serve a Reformed congregation, what doctrine does he/ she preach, since that pastor does not need to subscribe to the other church's confessions? The requirement for ordination to the ELCA clergy is subscription to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. The proposal forfull communion says that a pastor is not required to accept the other church's confessions. Yet, in the same breath, the documentation says that pastors from the otherchurch will be subject to the call procedures and disciplines of the second church concerned.
AND STILL ANOTHER COMMITTEE!
A sub-resolution says that provision is to be made for the orderly exchange of pastors. Inevitably, this will mean a committee. A committee will have to have something to do. Resolutions will be passed, and the ELCA and Reformed Churches will be saddled with actions and structures none of the churches want and which may not be in accordance with current needs.
Another sub-resolution calls for the establishment of "appropriate channels of consultation and decision-making within the existing structures of the churches." What does this mean? What channels, what decision-making bodies and on what issues will action be taken? This could mean committees to further future doctrinal dialogues, but it may also mean inter-church committees that have a life of their own which, in effect, takes ministry still another step farther from the congregation. These committees may become almost super churches.
What is meant when the Formula of Agreement pledges to "foster common expressions in evangelism, witness and service?" Does this mean joint planning for mission, for witness, or for service? Will it mean following agreements as to which church does what in terms of new mission starts, conduct of service projects, etc? Will it mean merging Lutheran World Service with Reformed programs?
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons and even more so, for the doctrinal issues involved in the sub-resolution on withdrawing the condemnations, we conclude that the proposal to establish full communion with the Reformed Churches is premature. More dialogue on doctrine is imperative, and different recommendations should be brought to the Lutheran and Reformed Churches concerning what is meant by full communion and how it is to be implemented.
As with full communion with the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., here too the ELCA is being pushed into a position similar to the blind men, and away from adherence to the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions.
God's mission is not served best by the ELCA's becoming bigger in the hope that its voice will be heard more easily. Faithful adherence to God's Word and Sacraments as taught by the Lutheran Confessions, is the better way to mission. -f
Dr Schaefer, former ELCA missionary in India, founder of the Mekane Yesus Church in Ethiopia, Hong Kong seminary professor, and Education Director for the Lutheran World Federation, is president of FOCL, the Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans.
What a Prayer!
Last February Pastor Joe Wright of Wichita's Central Christian Church was invited by Ihe Kansas State Legislature to give the invocation. The prayer was no more than concluded when three Kansas legislators were at the microphones protesting: "He can't talk like that about us. It's divisive, sanctimonious, overbearing, blasphemous, and ignorant." His prayer;
"Heavenly Father, we come before You today to ask Your forgiveness and to seek Your direction and guidance.
We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.
We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word in the name of moral pluralism.
We have worshiped other gods and called it 'multiculturalism'.
We have endorsed perversion and called it 'an alternative life style.'
We have exploited the poor and called it 'a lottery.'
We have neglected the needy and called it 'self-preservation.'
We have rewarded laziness and called it 'welfare.'
In the name of 'choice' we have killed our unborn.
In the name of 'right to iife,' we have killed abortionists.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it 'building self-esteem.'
We have abused power and called it 'political savvy.'
We've coveted our neighbors' possessions and called it 'taxes.'
We've polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it 'freedom of expression.'
We've ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it 'enlightenment.'
Search us, o God, and know our hearts today. Try us, and show us any wickedness in us. Cleanse us from every sin, and set us free.
Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent here by the people of Kansas and who have been ordained by You to govern this great state.
Grant them Your wisdom to rule, and may their decisions direct us to the center of Your will.
I ask it in the Name of Your Son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen."
– Reprinted from Evangel, May, 1996 ª
PERSPECTIVES
GRADUATE-LEVEL SCHOLARSHIPS:
The annual FOCL board meeting in February determined to set up a graduate-level theological scholarship for pastors who have been in parish ministry for at least three years. It will be called "The FOCL STATIS EST Scholarship" Address inquiries for eligibility and terms to FOCL President Dr. Herbert Schaefer, 3099 Island Dr., Redding, CA 96001.
New Business Office for FOCL
FOCL business has moved to 333 El Molino Way, San Jose, CA 95119-1616. Treasurer Alan Waite, Carmichael, CA, had to relinquish his volunteer tasks as FOCL treasurer. Rev. Daniel Selbo of San Jose will serve in ste4ad. Hereafter also, editorial correspondence may be addressed to Dr. George Muedeking, 4414 Springwood Dr., Napa, CA 94558.
Pope on evolution
Clear the record. The pope did not say that "evolution is more than just a theory," or that "the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis," as reported in the mass media this winter. He was speaking in French, and the English translation was incorrect. In the sentence at issue, according to the official publication of the Holy See, L’Osservatore Romano, he said, "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical Humani Generis, new knowledge has led t6o the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution." Los Angeles Times columnist Cal Thomas remarked, "It is clear that the pope was not watering down or liberalizing the church’s view that the origin of man remained open to debate. He said that there are several theories of origin within the scientific community.
A REAL STRAIGHT WHITE MALE
Imagine a city so far down along the pathways of deviancy that its major afternoon daily paper thought it a strange enough news feature to headline its front page on 2/3/97, "City Supervisors’ Board Gets a Straight White Male." Yes, it was the San Francisco, where the Straight white male quota on its Board of Supervisors has been met, as announced by the San Francisco Examiner. Do we wonder why Bible-confessing Christians have such an uphill task in the Bay Area? Or why some congregations in the area have fallen so easily for the "Reconciled in Christ" mantra that welcomes behavioral homosexuals without pleading with them to hearken to the Lord's warnings regarding such activities, and to turn instead to the help He offers them for freedom?
"PERPLEXED, BUT NOT DRIVEN TO DESPAIR:"
That's what Christians of the Bay Area testify as they sense their kinship with the Apostle Paul's little congregation at Corinth. It too was at the vortex of a notoriously decadent city where a straight and celibate male might have been a wonder to behold.
Bay Area Christians have banded together to celebrates gigantic three-pronged Billy Graham Campaign this fall. He will speak at each of the three largest convention centers in the area; in San Jose at the San Jose Arena (Sept.26-28), San Francisco Cow Palace (Oct. 9-11) and Oakland Coliseum (Oct. 18-19). Praise the Lord for the faithfulness of these Christian sponsors and join them in earnest prayer that many may accept the full Lordship of Jesus Christ through this specialized ministry.
SPEAKING OF MATTERS FOR PRAYER:
According to syndicated columnist Linda Chavez, at least 75 million Christians live in China, who cannot freely organize the practice of their religion. Millions must attend religious services in underground "house churches" to avoid detection. In Zheijiang Province alone, 15,000 religious sites were destroyed in the first six months of 1996. Strangely, the National Council of Churches has been reluctant to respond, dismissing the reports of persecution in China as simply "the overzealousness of local cadres,"
Legislation is being drafted to limit aid to and trade with China unless it stops these persecutions. This follows the successful pattern of sanctions passed by Congress at the behest of American Jews in the 70s and '80s to put a stop to Russia's emigration discrimination against Soviet Jews.
Meanwhile, FOCL supporters can pray that these buffeted Christians may "be faithful unto death so they may obtain the crown of life." We can pray also that the US State Department will follow its new Secretary, Madeleine Albright, who promised a their inaugural press meeting to "tell it like it is."