I'M SICK AND TIRED of hearing about abortion in the church." Thus a world recognized church leader recently unburdened himself privately to me. Well, who isn't? This is the 25th anniversary of the Roe- vs-Wade verdict that wiped out every legal protection for the unborn, and so far has unleashed more than 35 million pre-born deaths ( 171 every hour day and night) in our midst. Who wants that rubbed under our noses all the time when we have so many other problems to confront in the church? "Why can't we all just get along?"
Why do these pro-lifers persist in reminding good church people that God's gift of life is His most precious? Why do they seem so obtuse toward the vision of a world purged of the incompetent, handicapped, unwanted? Why do they agitate our spirits with their incessant clamor that the Church should be faithful publicly to her Apostolic Profession that God alone is both the giver and the disposer of life? On this 25th anniversary year of the beginning of the Holocaust of the Innocents, we look again with Dr. Jean Garton at some of the questions that faithful Christians must tackle as they confrontHIS FIRST AND LAST GIFT
by Dr. Jean Garton*On a June summer night a few years ago a section of Interstate 95 collapsed over the river in Greenwich Connecticut. A young couple was o~ the bridge, behind a trailer truck which suddenly fish-tailed. The young man jammed on the brakes and braced for the inevitable crash. Instead, the truck disappeared into a black hole as the car screeched to a halt ten feet short of the gaping chasm. In his rear view mirror, the driver saw the lights of an approaching car. He ran back along the highway, yelling and frantically waving his arms, trying to warn the oncoming vehicle. But the car, with two young males, never slowed. Instead, the driver made an obscene hand gesture at the lonely figure desperately trying to warn him. It was his last act before he and his passenger plunged over the edge to their death.
Two people - strangers - had messages for one another. One tried to warn the other of impending tragedy. The other responded with disdain, contempt and suicidal cynicism. Sound familiar? It will to those who have attempted to warn this society of the disaster that awaits an individual or a culture that tries to solve social , economic or personal problems by eliminating "problem" people.
That tragic event led me to wonder, "What might have stopped those young people?" We will never know, but we can be sure they were not the only victims of that tragedy.
Their Fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, girl friends and classmates schools, communities, churches - all were affected in some way.
So, too, in the matter of abortion. What is promoted as a private matter has far-reaching public implications, and makes victims of many others like physicians, mothers, fathers, and living children.
Abortion has been promoted among PHYSICIANS as a "treatment." As a result, we have seen an acceptance of killing in the name of healing. Yet what happens to a medical profession engaged in killing unborn children - in staggering numbers - not passionately (as in child abuse); not fanatically (as in the Jim Jones massacre in Guyana); not neglectfully (as through starvation in Somalia); but coldly, detached and very, very lucratively? What happens to Western Medicine, the most compassionate, humane medicine in the world, when it reverts to pagan practice in which a doctor becomes both healer and exterminator at the same time?
In abortion, Nature becomes WOMAN'S opponent. A woman can have an ex-lover or an ex-husband but never an ex-child - only a living or a dead child-but a child, nevertheless, written forever on her biological consciousness. Because abortion - an unnatural act- contradicts a woman's maternal inclinations and instincts to protect her own flesh, it has created a sorority of permanently scarred women. Secular (and often religious) counseling discounts the feeling of guilt which many women experience. The issue, of course, isn't "feeling guilt." It is guilt.
These millions of abortion wounded women are in homes and classrooms today where they are raising tomorrow's children. What will these women pass on to the next generation in regard to self-control, duty, accountability, sacrifice?
Women are the repositories of values. The moral fiber of the women of a country determines the moral fiber of that country. How able are weakened, wounded women to do battle against the barbarism of moral relativism that is knocking on society's door?
MEN in theory have the God given right to beget children. But no man (married or otherwise) has any legal way to secure that right today. Abortion has effectively turned a whole segment of the male population into moral mush, reducing them to the status of the legendary monkeys who are to "see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil," about a "woman's right to choose."
Some men are victims of abortion-abuse and suffer grief, anger and a general sense of impotence about their lives. I received this letter from such a man:
I am at Trenton State Prison for murder. But I have more guilt feelings about an abortion paid for many years ago than for the crime I am now in prison for. I know God has forgiven me for that killing, but I have never been able to pray away the guilt feelings I have about my part in the death of an unborn child."
Abortion goes beyond the rhetoric of "a woman's right to choose." Abortion, fundamentally and terrifyingly, is about the decline of human significance. Women have long sensed that in pregnancy the child they carried was theirs to protect. Abortion, instead, leads women and society to a sense that THE CHILD is theirs to possess. The result is a view of unborn children as property. Not surprising, then, that abortion has become a significant factor in the escalating epidemic of child abuse.
In the U.S. in 1993 there were four deaths a day from child abuse. Startling, shocking, certainly, but not surprising, given the implications of abortion for the well-being of all children whether born or unborn.
Abortion can produce a deep, subtle (and often permanent) fracture of the trusting relationship that once existed between a child and parent. When children are aware that their mother has had an abortion, some of them struggle with two unspoken questions. The first goes, "If I had been unwanted (handicapped, inconvenient, economically burdensome or whatever reason given by the mother to justify the abortion), would mother have done that to me?" The second question, logically, is, "If I become unwanted (handicapped, inconvenient, economically burdensome, or whatever), will mother do that to me?"
For some parents, even, abortion has become the ultimate weapon of discipline. While abortion cannot physically destroy the life of an already-born child, it can destroy his or her quality of life and even his or her will to continue that life. After I finished a slide presentation on life in the womb, the first hand to be raised with a question was that of a girl about twelve. "My mother," she announced, "had two abortions. Why was I allowed to live?"
After the program the girl's step-mother expressed her gratitude for my answer. She told me that the girl had already attempted to commit suicide twice, wanting to be with her aborted brother and sister. She explained that in the girl's early years she had lived with her biological mother, and whenever she did something that annoyed or upset the mother, the mother would say, "I wish to hell I'd aborted you, too."
Self-esteem and self-worth (especially of children in their formative years) can be shattered. With more than thirty five million abortions in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade in 1973, can we even imagine the impact that abortion has had on the psyche of a whole generation of children who escaped their own abortion only to find they are secondary victims of the abortion of their unborn brother or sister?
An ideological cause like "prochoice" tends to evaporate common sense. An overabundance of nonsense gets promulgated under the most socially impeccable auspices. I was, for example, involved in a debate with three pro-choice church professionals. They dominated the discussion with a defense of women's "rights" and "choices." At one point, I asked them to respond to the question," When does individual human life begin?"
The pastor said, "We can't talk about individual life - only about a life principle that began back in the Garden. Life is a continuum and cannot be discussed in terms of individuality." That, in the face of DNA! We now have the most reliable test in the world for establishing the ! individuality of each human life. The chance of someone else in the world having the same genetic makeup as you is one in one hundred millionth of one percent or, put another way, one in ten billion chances. It is obvious that each human life is wonderfully unique, irreplaceable and individual.
The next to answer was a clergyman serving in full-time Christian counseling. He said that individual human life begins when the mother accords personhood to the child; when she accepts "it" as part of the human family. Such a subjective view would be laughable if offered in any other than this ideological context. As a mother who has survived four teenagers, there were times I was quite convinced they were not members of the human family.
If personhood is mine to bestow, ought it not also be mine to withdraw? If "it" is mine to accept at some point, ought "it" not be mine to reject at another point? (The "terrible twos" or the tempestuous teens come
to mind.) Both the law and society rightly reject such a view after birth, while countenancing its intellectual wrong-headedness before birth.
The third professional was a hristian ethicist. "Doctor," I asked, "when does individual
human life begin?" He responded by declaring that individual human life begins in the minds of a man and woman when together they plan to bring a child into the world. Individual human life begins with their plan to create human life.
The pastor said, "profound ... very profound." The counselor said "deep ... very deep." I said, "Nonsense!
Doctor, I have four children, and by your standard the last two had no beginning."
If individual human life does not begin when the male sperm fertilizes the female egg, then the whole concept of biological fatherhood is an arrogant male myth. At no other point - except at that point - does a man contribute anything to the "beingness" of a child.
We are seeing the end of Christendom - not the end of Christianity, not the end of the Church - but the end of the influence of the Judeo-Christian ethic on the primary institutions of Western civilization.
Christians in every generation are called to forge a counterculture. Instead. many have manufactured a counterpart, living in the aura of Christianity but denying its substance.
For instance, a Bible Church provided the seed money for an abortion clinic. Since there have been abortions throughout human history, said the pastor, obviously, God has "ordained" abortion. A Lutheran gynecologist defends doing abortions by saying that children who die from abortion return to heaven and are reborn to another mother. An Episcopalian clergy woman says that abortion should be a sacrament. Indeed, she already knows people who are celebrating it as such.
Such a perverted witness is surely evidence that the human mind is never more clever or resourceful than when it is involved in self justification. The result, in the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, is that, "The 20th century has been sucked into the vortex of atheism and self destruction. The social theories that promised so much have demonstrated their bankruptcy, leaving us at a dead end."
Certainly there have been signs along the way that we are heading toward the degeneration of both American society and Western civilization. While abortion is but one sign, it is the most disturbing sign. Not only does it claim its monstrous numbers of victims, but it has evolved, in just 25 years, from being rejected to being tolerated, to being accepted, to being celebrated.
The cultural impact of abortion includes "fallout" for a future society. It sets into motion sequential processes that make their way into the ordinary "nuts and bolts" matters of every day living. Consider these examples.
Even the official views of those church bodies with pro-life policies have been seen as a matter of "choice" by some of their members. Abortion has been a major factor in the diminishing loyalty and faithfulness of members to their denominational teachings. Even more tragic are those members who are pro-life by conviction but pro-choice by apathy. It is terrible for Christians to have convictions without courage (Romans 14: 22-23).
Having sloganeered the "right" to have abortions into a multimillion dollar industry, the pro-choice people (and all of us) will soon experience an unavoidable economic reality-fewer growing children. While the missing generation can be calibrated in terms of missing income and missing productivity, there is an intangible that cannot be measured, only mourned. Who will mourn the cures never discovered, the wisdom never taught, the inventions never developed, the champions never honored because of a society that fails to see potential in what it dismisses as "blobs, tissue or products of conception."
It is hard to reveal the magnitude of death-making in our society. We are all involved somehow, however unwillingly or unwittingly, and we cannot, as a nation, escape the tragic reality of solidarity-in-guilt.
The millions of unseen, unheard, unwanted, unborn human beings who are no more, stand as witnesses against us. History has shown that God will not be mocked. God will have His children but in such a way that they are a judgment on us.
Additional groups are at risk of being "made dead." Societies have always set boundaries around themselves and, depending on the prevailing values of that society, have classified various groups of people as non-members.
History is replete with examples: the Supreme Court that excluded Dred Scott from personhood, the Egyptian pharaohs who excluded the Israelites, the Third Reich that excluded the Jews, the Canadians who excluded the Indians, the Australians who excluded the Aborigines. Disenfranchising some members of the human family from basic human rights and moral consideration, as is done in abortion, can lead to justifications for marginalizing, oppressing and even eliminating other classes of people.
How precious life must be to God! It is His first gift to us. Without that first gift, the other gifts of faith, hope and love would not exist. Yet life is not only God's first gift to us, it is also His last. If we are faithful, He says, He will give us a crown of life.
Abortion, at its core, is idolatry. Abortion grounds the identity, security and meaning of human life not in the God who is Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, but in self. Abortion constitutes the primary spiritual and moral crucible of this age. Abortion says to the culture that God can't provide and the Church can't help. The culture, in turn, says to the Church that while abortion may not be a good thing, it is usually the lesser of two evils.
But why should we offer women an evil of any kind?* Dr. Garton is co-founder and National President of Lutherans For Life, with its 650 chapters nationwide, and author of the best-selling book, "Who Broke the Baby?" She was named in 1985 as one of "The Ten Most Influential Lutherans in America," by the Religious Heritage Foundation. Her article is adapted from Post-Abortion Aftermath, A Comprehensive Consideration, a collection of writings generated by various experts at a "Post-Abortion Summit Conference" and edited by Michael 1. Mannion in 1994, Sheed and Ward, Kansas City, MO
The Genesis of the Problem
by William H Smith*
[ Ed. note: "Creationism" or "Evolutionism" persistently appears as a topic of concern to Christians. We offer this essay as a contribution aimed at dampening the decibles. ]
The question of the antiquity of man has of itself no theological significance. It is to theology, as such, a matter of entire indifference how long man has existed on the earth. The question of the antiquity of man is accordingly a purely scientific one in which the theologian as such has no concern."
Who said that? The latest evangelical to capitulate to the pressures of unbelieving science? No, it was the greatest defender of biblical inerrancy in the history of the American church, Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield, who also wrote, "The church is bound to confess all that God has lovingly revealed to her as his truth. What the Bible teaches, not what is convenient, undisputed, or likely to put us to the trouble of defending, is the proper measure of the contents of our credo.
At least since the days of Augustine the church has wrestled with how to interpret Genesis 1 and 2. To be sure, tlie questl'on has become more acute and the debate more intense since Darwin, as is evident in the writings not only of Warfield but of his fellow Princetonians Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, and J. Gresham Machen. But the difficulty has faced the church always.
There are three approaches to Genesis 1 and 2 among evangelicals: The "literal" view, which takes the days to be six consecutive 24-hour
days. Suppose you took a seven-day vacation and reported it in a book of seven chapters, each devoted to a single day. Your report makes it clear that your vacation lasted exactly seven ordinary days and that, while you may not have reported every detail, you did follow a strictly chronological sequence both from day to day and within each day. This is the "literal approach."
Its strength is its reading of the creation account in a way that strikes many Christians as the natural way to read it-as a straightforward historical account of how the world was created.
The "day-age "view, which takes the days to be equivalent to successive ages of undetermined length. Suppose you took a long vacation and reported it in as book of seven chapters, each devoted to a phase of your vacation. Your concern is to report your vacation in an orderly fashion.
Thus the chapters are in roughly chronological order, but the chapters do not necessarily record periods of equal length. Nor can any more be said of the material in each chapter than that it belongs to the period reported. This is the "day-age" approach.
The strength of this view is that it records creation as a chronologically ordered account, while allowing for the earth to be as it appears to be to most scientists.
The "literary" view or "framework hypothesis," which takes the days to be "snapshots" of God's multi -faceted creative work. Suppose you took a long vacation and reported it in seven chapters. Your theme is "a good time was had by all," but the chapters are organized around beach experiences, mountain experiences, amusement park experiences. So the "literary" approach reads Genesis as a polemic against polytheistic paganism organized around the theme, "the Lord God made them all," but unconcerned about sequence or chronology.”
The strength of this view is that it reads these two chapters of Genesis in a way that to many Hebrew scholars as well as ordinary readers seems to fit Moses' purpose and style and removes Genesis from certain aspects of the alleged "Bible-science conflict" as not having been written to settle those questions.
The point of this brief review of the views is to say that all are held by theologians and Christians who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, infallible and inerrant in all it teaches. We need an ongoing, open discussion of three questions: What does the text teach? What does science seem to show? How are theological and scientific insights to be integrated? My theology professor of 25 years ago has written regarding the days of creation, "Though we may have strong convictions regarding this question ... we do not have enough information to settle it definitively. We should refrain from judging fellow Christians who differ with us on this particular question."
What we need, to turn the words of a country song, is "a lot more talk and a little less action." More discussion, less defensiveness. More debate. less denouncement.*The Rev. Mr. Smith is a minister at First Reformed Presbyterian Church, Pittsburgh, Pa. Reprinted with permission from WORLD magazine, Asheville, NC 289802 (800) 951-NEWS Readers may wish also to consult the website of REASONS TO BELIEVE, a continuing survey of the latest scientific research and its relation to Holy Scripture: www.reasons.org
Who Broke the Baby?
''The distance between life and death can be as small as a word," said Paul Greenberg. A single word fashioned my own personal journey through the doublespeak of abortion. I joined an organization of abortion advocates. It was the word "right"-as in "a woman's right to choose"that shaped my views. I learned never to give humanity to what was in the womb of a pregnant woman. "Don't use the words 'child' or 'baby,''' we were told. Talk instead about "a mass of tissue" or ":the product of conception." If what we aborted is NOT a human being entitled to legal protection, why couldn't we defend abortion with less generic words? I realized I either had to change my mind or continue to change reality by disguising the truth.
Joan Beck wrote, "Obstetricians understand better than anyone else that an unborn baby isn't a blob of tissue or a growing tumor or an unnecessary appendix. Whatever the euphemism, they know it is living, human, unique, and that abortion kills it." Children know it too, and they know it instinctively.
Late one night as I viewed an abortion slide, my youngest child, then a sleepy three year old, unexpectedly entered the room. I heard his sharp intake of breath as he saw the body of a three-month-old, dismembered by a D & C abortion. With great sadness in his voice, he asked, "Who broke the baby?" Here was a child too young to have his sight clouded by semantic subterfuge, and with a wisdom that often escapes the learned, he could mentally assemble the body parts and call what he saw a broken baby.
The words of Scripture are clear and precise when they say of a pregnant woman simply that she is "with child." That is why, after 25 years, the Supreme Court's decision that was touted as having "settled" the abortion issue has not-because those who oppose it think in terms of reverence rather than rights.
Jean Garton.Reader Responses
Dear Editor:
Keep up the excellent work.
[Governor] AI Quie, Minnetonka, MNDear Editor:
It was so refreshing to read Dr. Rogness' article (spring 1997). Too many of our clergy and laity just seem to shrug their shoulders on these issues as if they had never heard or read the [ Lutheran ]Confessions and Apology, and go on "playing church." Perhaps too few took it seriously enough to study the matter through. Even though the vote in Philadelphia was "too close for comfort," it gave me hope that some Lutherans are taking time to pray, study, and vote.
Now that the present version of the Concordat has lost, I believe that God has given us a blessed opportunity to do some education and missionary work on what it means to be a Christian Lutheran. Let's not "blow it" this time.
As soon as I get my taxes paid, I will try to send a contribution to keep FOCL going. God bless you. Keep the truth coming!
Pastor Robert H Logan, Montoursville, PADear Editor:
I appreciate the intelligent comments regarding the position of the church. I have chosen as a pastor to be "confessional." My concern is that that choice is being tampered with by others in controlling positions. God bless you. Pastor John W Henricks, Ellijay, GA.Dear Editor:
Without FOCL-POINT being mailed to the 900 delegates we would have lost-so your sending them copies turned the tide. The question is indeed Hierarchy vs. Congregational Authority." The Concordat was so vague it was concealed from the delegates until FOCL-POINT, LUTHERAN COMMENTATOR and LUTHERAN FORUM pointed out the full impact of implementation. It took your help to win. God bless your work.
Roger H Martin, Brenham, TXDear Editor:
I find your publication very informative. I believe it would also be of value to our congregation, especially members of the church council. Please forward information on how they might be included on your mailing list.
[Editor's Note: Send the names; FOCL will send the newsletters]Robert Stark, D.O. Brenham, TX
Dear Editor:
The title "President and CEO" for the head of a Synod would better describe the privileges and responsibilities of the office. That officer is accountable to the congregations and Pastors as servant and helper.
We were assured that when the title of Bishop was adopted, it would be nothing more than a change in title. Those who had knowledge and experience in the functioning of the Church questioned the motives for the new title.
Experience since then has proven that the wish was father to the thought. Among those carrying the title there has been continuing acceleration toward self-assumed authority. Bishops are taking authority and proudly relishing honors which are not prescribed. The effect of intimidation being felt by pastors and congregations should not be. It has no place among those described as shepherds. The word of our Lord comes constantly to the fore, "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant." Mt. 20:26.
Bishops have taken positions and actions favoring and promoting the Concordat and other ecumenical issues recently confronting our Church in Assembly. Their behavior is disappointing. It assumes the character of betrayal of ordination and the firmly held positions of our Lutheran Church.
News accounts in the public press, in Dec. 1996, for example, reported a gathering of ELCA and Episcopal bishops at a resort at White Haven, Pa. One Lutheran bishop commented, in response to this gathering, "It is of paramount importance that we take this step and declare there are no dividing differences in our doctrine and in our faith." His statement reflects either ignorance on the part of bishops or assumes ignorance on the part of our people. A corollary to this is the stance taken by the bishops in not encouraging discussion of the Concordat, or withholding informed discussion, because "They don't understand" or "The delegates wouldn't understand."
A chain of consequent results follow. Trust on the part of the people has been damaged. No amount of "painting it over" can make it disappear. No "spin" can be devised to make it disappear. What has been done is done.
But the more the people find out about what has been going on, the more often we hear responses similar to, "We were brought up to trust the pastors. It seems we can't do that anymore."
Our bishops were like chiefs galloping down the trail without bothering to see if the warriors were following. At the time of the ELCA merger there was celebrating, planning and spending before counting the money. So, in recent time, there was celebrating by the bishops and others before the results of the Concordat vote were in.
It is time for bishops to be servants and helpers, not rule makers and enforcers. It is evident that the future of the Church lies with the laity.Theodore J.C. Schuldt, Ret. Synod President
The defeat of the Lutheran-Episcopal Concordat last summer left those who desire a demonstrable unity in the body of Christ-but who know that true doctrine cannot be surrendered without peril-with a responsibility to inform the Church and to seek solutions that do not compromise the faith the ELCA professes. FOCL-POINT will offer a number of articles toward that end., The first is:
The Concordat and a Universal Priesthood by Walter Wietzke, Ph.D.*
Luther has been criticized by those who say, "He made all priests laymen," an opinion countered by more who answer, "No, he made all lay persons priests" At the very heart of Lutheran Christianity and the Lutheran Reformation is the man from Wittenberg's emphasis-and ours-on 'the priesthood of all believers' .
Today we are caught in the backwash of an ELCA assembly that voted against a concordat with the Episcopalians. Reduced to basics it was a vote once again affirming the concept of the church as a universal priesthood, and a vote against Episcopal obsession with the non-biblical teaching of and adherence to 'apostolic (i.e. episcopal) succession'.
I agree with that vote for reasons expressed at the convention and delineated in the perceptive writings of honorable theologians. Therefore, I do not want to restate what many colleagues have articulately argued. However, the invitation to share my opinion allows me to comment on elements which may not have been part of the debate. My response has been conditioned by the teaching of scores of Lutheran professors and, especially by one who started out as a tutor in Systematic Theology at Handsworth College, Birmingham, England, viz., Philip S. Watson [ One of England's foremost Luther scholars].
While in America he embraced Lutheranism, at least emotionally. Lecturing to a graduate study group in Chicago, 1961, he said, " ... there continues to be confusion between the general priesthood and the pastoral offices .... The universal priesthood has not been adequately maintained .... (A kingdom of priests is what Old Testament Israel was meant to be) ... The task of a priest (in Old Testament times) was twofold: I) he was to speak in the name of God, teaching the divine will, 2) he was to offer sacrifices to God on behalf of the people .... However, offering sacrifices in the Aaronic and Levitical communities was not the sole prerogative of the priest - even the head of a household could do this .... In later times, as ritual became increasingly complex and as the transcendence of God was emphasized, the sacrificial aspects of the priesthood became disproportionately prominent. Teaching was neglected, sacrificial practice was expanded.
"It is very important for us to note that the New Testament virtually ignores the singular use of the term 'priest' in relation to the church. There is no separated priesthood in the church. There are legitimate functional offices - but no priests. The whole church is meant to be a priestly community serving the world .... As for sacrifice, Christ has made the critical and unique sacrifice, once for all."
Now where does the present preoccupation with priestly and episcopal authority come from? Why this impassioned reversion to sacerdotalism? There are psychological reasons we could explore, but the earliest historical roots can be traced to church fathers like Clement of Rome and Eusebius. They opened the door.
Eusebius, e.g., used priest' as a category distinct from 'laity'. But the real mischief maker was one identified as pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite who utilized a Platonic style construct to make this differentiation - as the angels are the lowest of the celestial hierarchy going in ascending order up to God, so the bishops are the highest of the terrestrial hierarchy (coming down in descending order from bishop to priest to deacon, and finally reaching lay people).
The church in the Middle Ages adopted this uncritically (as can be seen in the expanded treatment given the subject in the older editions of The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, but considerably modified in the more recent editions.) Luther's reformation gave such thinking the coup de grace, yet now it arises once again. The Reformation did not only deal with items like faith and grace, it had volumes to say about ministry, ministry as practiced in the church, ministry as the church impacts the world.
So what are we faced with?
Regrettably we must in our generation once again resist an expanded effort to perpetuate distinctions foreign to the New Testament and counter to the heritage of the Reformation. We must oppose an un-Lutheran passion on the part of some clerics to 'play priest,' on the part of some pastors and uninformed lay people to accede to 'apostolic succession' and the endowing of bishops with life-long status.
Yet, some will surely say, "the Lutheran Church in Sweden accepts the idea of the historic episcopate and 'apostolic succession,' doesn't it?" And we must answer, it does, it does indeed. However, let them honestly answer this question, "How would you describe the life and vitality of that church?"
Mr. Watson's droll admonition puts 'apostolic succession' in the right perspective for us in the ELCA - "I hope you Lutherans are never smitten with that disease."Dr. Wietzke is the retired Director of Theological Education for the American Lutheran Church. Under his impulse and supervision the first seminary of the Lutheran Church in America and of the American Lutheran Church were merged, previous to the formation of the ELCA.
We deeply apologize for the late arrival of the last issue. A new printer, post-office snafu, and serious illness among our volunteer staff forced the delay. In the rush of Christmas you may have inadvertently laid aside our accompanying annual solicitation letter. Please use the contribution blank at the bottom of page 5 to enable, God willing, another year's publication of FOCL-POINT.