We are not wrong, but we should apologize...

But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.” But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed (1 Peter 3:14-16).

Another new year, another new article telling the Church to abandon God’s Word. We shouldn’t be surprised. We have been told that, rather than getting better and better, things would get worse and worse for the Christian Church. I’m not sure what Mark Wingfield, author of “3 words for the church in 2019: ‘we were wrong’”[1] thinks he’s doing. One suspects he is trying to sound modern and enlightened in order to entice “young” people into the Church. Perhaps he just wants to show everyone how woke he is. One thing that is certain, no matter what he seems to say to the contrary, he does not believe that the Word of God is divinely inspired, inerrant, and efficacious; the means by which God creates faith and works forgiveness of sins.

Mr. Wingfield wants the Church to “admit we were wrong” about a host of things. Some of the issues he raises, such as protecting pedophiles, measuring the success of the Church by attendance numbers, and putting our trust in politics to fix all our problems, are legitimate, though there are some straw men lurking in his arguments about these things as well. (Youmay read the entire article here, and I encourage you to do so.) But, fundamentally, Mr. Wingfield’s argument about our wrongness and alleged misuse and idolatrous worship of the Bible are flawed. I don’t know this man personally, but in his article Mr. Wingfield seems to look at Scripture as something men have created to use as a tool to subjugate minority groups. It simply is not. Christianity teaches that Scripture is God-breathed.[2] It has a divine nature as well as a human nature, just as Our Lord Jesus does, who is the Word made flesh who dwelt among us.[3] So, I think Mr. Wingfield is pointed in the wrong direction. We don’t need to say that we were wrong. We do, however, need to apologize. We need to give a defense, as Peter writes in his first letter, of our hope. That hope is, in the words of the hymn, built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.

We also need to repent. We must understand that we live in a fallen creation, and that we must contend with a corrupt nature; we must understand that all of the inclinations of our heart, because of that corrupt nature, are away from God and inward toward ourselves. The inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth. We don’t make mistakes. We sin. We transgress God’s law. We miss the mark. We don’t love God with our whole heart, nor can we of our own will.

Sometimes our sin manifests itself in some of the ways Mr. Wingfield lists. We defy the authorities over us, we hurt and kill our neighbor, we misuse the gift of sex that God has given us, we steal, we slander our neighbor, and we jealously desire the things our neighbor has to the point that we scheme to get them. In short, we do not love our neighbors as ourselves. The call to us from God through His Word is to repentance.

Mr. Wingfield, however, says we are wrong about what God says sin is. He says that we have interpreted God’s Word to say things are sinful and evil which are not; he is saying that we have, because of our worship of the Bible rather than of Jesus Himself, held on to our outdated social standards and prejudices. Society has evolved upward away from the subjugation of women, the exploitation of people of different races, and the marginalization of people of different sexual orientations and gender identifications. Mr. Wingfield’s call, in the end, is not so much a call to renounce the devil, and all his works and ways, but for us to repent from believing that Scripture is the inerrant, infallible, efficacious word of God.

We are not the problem, God and His Word is the problem. And so are those people who believe what God has said. Rather than repenting of our sin and receiving forgiveness, his fix is for us to admit we were wrong about taking God’s Word seriously in it’s condemnation of sin! The second part in this bastardized confession and absolution is for us to redefine sin and reinterpret God’s Word through our current social and cultural context. What you get when you do that is a definition of sin that says anything that makes me feel bad or uncomfortable is wrong; anything that makes me feel warm and fuzzy on the inside is right.

Rather than expend a lot of unnecessary ink rebutting each mischaracterization in detail here, I thought it would be better to give a brief summary of how Scripture addresses the three points on which Mr. Wingfield and orthodox Christianity most profoundly diverge: Slavery and racism, the subjugation of women and misogyny, and the oppression of homosexuals.

Slavery and Racism

Mr. Wingfield says, “The church has been unable to confess America’s original sin – perhaps in part because it was a faith handed down without question from parents and grandparents…” One must wonder if he says this because he is taken in by black liberation theology[4], or if he is really just unfamiliar with slavery in the Bible.

The type of slavery described in the Bible is not the same type of slavery that a 21^st century American social justice warrior has in mind. It wasn’t pleasant, to be sure, but it did not have the same connotations as what we think of regarding slavery today. Each slave kept his divinity as a human being, as demonstrated in the Law of Moses.[5] It was a temporary institution, unless the slave wished to remain with his master after the seven year period of servitude. Lacking social welfare safety nets in antiquity, this type of slavery was a mechanism by which the poor could pay a debt to a creditor; a slave could also buy his freedom.[6] Again, it wasn’t necessarily pleasant; neither is bankruptcy.

This was much different from the type of slavery Americans think of when that word is used today. We think of the western slave trade, which I will refer to as American slavery. Slaves were property. They were exploited indefinitely by their owners for profit. American slavery, rather than being a type of indentured servitude[7], was racist. It was based on the idea that people with dark skin were inferior to those with light skin. It was ended only because of the efforts of Christian men and women, who worked tirelessly to that end in both the British Empire and the United States. In Britain it was legislated out of existence; in America, between 650,000 and 820,000 people had to die in a civil war end it.

Nowhere in Scripture is this type of racism condoned. God makes no racial distinction. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Either we are slaves to sin, death, and the devil, or we are slaves to righteousness.[8] We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves;[9] race is not a mitigating factor, for all who have been baptized have clothed themselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.[10] Therefore, anyone who attempted, or attempts to justify racism and slavery by using Scripture is sinning by twisting it to say something it does not.

Women and Misogyny

Mr. Wingfield says that the Biblical evidence against women as co-equals is scant. He’s correct, but not in the way he means. Men and women were created by God as equals, counterparts designed by Him to compliment each other even as they serve as an illustration of the relationship that God has with His Church. He goes on to say, however, that the Church’s bias against women is strong. Scripture, however, nowhere advocates the sinful idea that women are essentially inferior to men. Scripture does give a very clear prohibition on women being pastors, i.e. publicly proclaiming the Word in the regular worship service:[11]

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant…And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.[12]

Paul gives this prohibition by the divine influence of the Holy Spirit, and for good reasons. From a cultural perspective, the women of Corinth were accustomed to female priestesses leading pagan worship. As there had been priestesses in the adulterous and idolatrous worship of the sex goddess it was quite natural for them to assume leadership roles in the Christian congregation.[13] From a theological perspective, however, the Holy Spirit leads the Apostle Paul to the creation, and the order established by God in it. In the Garden of Eden, when Eve spoke with the serpent, she took on a role for herself which God had not delegated to her. David Scaer writes:

Adam was given the command and promise and he was responsible for all “theological negotiations.” Thus the woman’s assuming the man’s role and his assenting to this incursion are part of the first sin.[14]

The problem is not that Scripture is vague regarding the status of women, or that there is some question of outdated cultural standards. That question of whether this was just a cultural taboo is easily and definitely answered for anyone willing to investigate the Greek used in the passages, and the surrounding context of the passages themselves. The problem is that we don’t like what Scripture tells us here: Men and women, while equal in terms of their humanity, serve in different roles within the Church. So, rather than repent of our sin, we attempt to cover it over with the fig leaves of social justice and liberal theology.

As for divorce, Jesus tells us that Moses allowed divorce and regulated it because the Israelites were hard-hearted.[15] Wives were not to be simply abandoned on a whim. There were rules to be followed, and responsibilities to be taken by the husband. As for Jesus, He gives us the divine guideline that what God has joined together, let no man tear apart;[16] Jesus tells us that the only legitimate ground for divorce is adultery.[17] Inside the marriage relationship spouses are called to mutual submission and respect; husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and wives are called to respect and submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ.[18] That means that men should love their wives as they love their own selves, and should be willing to die for them, and wives should love, respect, and obey their husbands.

Homosexuality

Certainly Mr. Wingfield is correct when he says that the issue of sexual orientation/gender identity is the most divisive of our time. We must not, however, allow him to misdirect us. The issue in question is not whether we “expel faithful followers of Christ when they reveal who God has made them to be” or not. The issue is whether or not God calls homosexuality a sin, and what is the solution He gives us for it?

We don’t need to spend a lot of time here trying to prove that the Scriptures call homosexuality a sin (they do), or if that that categorization still apples to us today (itdoes). We need to refute the notion that the Church rejects homosexuals and excludes them simply because they are homosexual[19]. This is not the case. As with any sinful human being, regardless of what their particular sin might be, there is one criterion used to decide whether or not they are excluded (read excommunicated). That criterion is faith.  Or more specifically, faith in Christ showing itself, as the person bears fruit in keeping with repentance.

But how can you tell someone to repent (turn away from) who they are? This is crueler than simply kicking them out, is it not? I happen to agree with the author that homosexual desire, and perhaps other dysphorias, have a genetic component, though I would not say that God has “made them to be” that way. We are fallen and corrupt creatures living in a fallen and corrupt creation. We should not be surprised when our defectiveness manifests itself. While I do not know what it is like to be a homosexual, I do understand what it is like to feel overwhelming desire for a behavior which is sinful. Every person deals with this struggle, though we all have different sins.

We have been taught that homosexuals are just born that way and do not choose their lifestyle. Science may have even identified the gene responsible for same sex attraction.[20] But science also tells us that alcoholism is genetic. Yet society recognizes alcoholism as unnatural and destructive. We support groups with tax dollars and tax incentives whose entire purpose is to council alcoholics not to engage in such behavior. Is this cruel and bigoted? Is it alco-phobic? Should we not, applying the same standards to this as we do to homosexuality, encourage alcoholics in their lifestyle, since it is who God made them to be? And, before arguing that alcoholism is detrimental to mental and physical health and homosexuality is not, proponents of it’s acceptance would do well to consider the scientific data to the contrary.[21]

Just because people are sinful doesn’t mean society in general, but the Church in particular, should accept and celebrate sinful behavior. That isn’t being loving or inclusive. It is to reject Christ and to embrace the world. To accept a person into your midst as the Church while embracing and celebrating their sin, whatever that sin may be, is the opposite of love, though it may make people feel good in the short term. It is to withhold the means by which God creates faith in the hearts of men, and by which they receive the forgiveness Christ won for them by His death and resurrection – the efficacious Word of God. Without hearing the Law, they will not know their sin; without hearing the Gospel, they will not know what God has done for them, forgiving their sin, cleansing them by the blood of Christ. Alternately, those who hear the proclamation of Law and Gospel and reject it are excluded from the Church, not to harm or punish them, but to show them the magnitude of their situation and, hopefully, bring them to repentance. The congregation which embraces the impenitent sinner is not the Church.

What Mr. Wingfield is really calling for is abandoning an interpretation of Scripture which takes seriously the fact that it has both a human and divine nature. He is trading that for the more intellectual human-centric higher critical approach. He is also, perhaps without realizing it (though I suspect he does realize it), calling for gospel reductionism, a Christianity that says all you need is love.

The love of God is indeed what man needs. That love comes to us in the Word made flesh, Jesus. He won salvation for mankind by dying on the cross, and conquered death by rising from the grave. He comes to create faith in us by the power of His Spirit through the means of His Word, whether preached, read, or coupled with the physical elements of water, bread and wine in the sacraments. He calls us to repent of our sins, to turn away from them. A Christianity that tries to redefine sin out of existence and make God’s Law nothing more than some outdated customs which are no longer applicable because culture has evolved isn’t honest or sincere. It isn’t woke. It isn’t being loving, or socially conscious, or even doing anyone any good. It is simply a Christianity that no longer believes in God’s Word. That Christianity does not hold God’s Word sacred, no matter how much it gives lip service to the contrary. It is no Christianity at all.

If the Church is to be “relevant in its mission and agents of God’s reconciling love,” to quote Mr. Wingfield, the solution is not to be found in preaching social justice. The solution is to preach Christ crucified and risen from the dead. It was for the forgiveness of all our sins that He died, and it was for our justification that He rose from the dead. The solution is to repent, and believe the Gospel. The problem is, preaching Christ will not make us relevant; it will make the world hate us more. To all those who find themselves in such relevant church bodies, where the heretical social gospel masquerades as the Word of God, I am so sorry.

---

[1] Wingfield, Mark. "3 Words for the Church in 2019: 'We Were Wrong' – Baptist News Global." Baptist News Global. January 04, 2019. Accessed January 10, 2019. https://baptistnews.com/article/3-words-for-the-church-in-2019-we-were-wrong/?fbclid=IwAR2Pb-2V78qBwnvPVrvWH0_GlNORjPFlne4AVuzgfhaTIKSBGy5-BKwXwXo#.XDcRoIpMHmr.

[2] 2 Timothy 3:16

[3] John 1:1-14

[4] "Black Theology." Wikipedia. September 30, 2018. Accessed January 10, 2019. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology. Black theology seeks to liberate non-white people from multiple forms of political, social, economic, and religious subjugation and views Christian theology as a theology of liberation—"a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ," writes James H. Cone, one of the original advocates of the perspective. Black theology mixes Christianity with questions of civil rights, particularly raised by the Black Power movement and the Black Consciousness Movement. Further, Black theology has led the way and contributed to the discussion, and conclusion, that all theology is contextual - even what is known as systematic theology.

[5] Klotz, Joseph. "The Hodgkins Lutheran." Slavery in the Bible. March 13, 2016. Accessed January 10, 2019. http://hodgkinslutheran.blogspot.com/2016/03/slavery-and-thin-blue-line.html. This section on slavery in the Bible is condensed from an earlier article which dealt with the topic in more detail.

[6] Ibid.

[7] An indentured servant was a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance. "Indentured Servant." Merriam-Webster. Accessed January 10, 2019. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indenturedservant.

[8] Romans 6:15-23

[9] Mark 12:30-31

[10] Galatians 3:27-28

[11] Scaer, David P. "May Women Be Ordained as Pastors?" In Women Pastors? The Ordination of Women in Biblical Lutheran Perspective, 227-52. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2009.

[12] 1 Corinthians 14:33-38; 1 Timothy 2:12-14

[13] Scaer, David P. "May Women Be Ordained as Pastors?" In Women Pastors? The Ordination of Women in Biblical Lutheran Perspective, 227-52. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2009.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Matthew 19:8

[16] Mark 10:9

[17] Matthew 19:7-9

[18] Ephesians 5:21-33

[19] Throughout the article I use the term “homosexual” to refer to everyone who identifies as some gender or sexual orientation, other than their biological sex. In popular culture today, this is most commonly referred to as LGBTQ, or more recently QUILTBAG. Since the acronym seems to constantly change, I have chosen to use the term homosexual as shorthand to standardize the language in this article; it is not intended as a sign of disrespect. I have tried, rather, to be as inoffensive as possible when speaking of people who are struggling with a particular sin, such as homosexuality. This task which becomes more precarious each day when discussing these topics, no matter what precautions one might take.

[20] Knapton, Sarah. "Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds." 13 02 2014. The Telegraph. 12 06 2014. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html. A study found that, while gay men shared similar genetic make-up, it only accounted for 40 per cent of the chance of a man being homosexual. But scientists say it could still be possible to develop a test to find out if a baby was more likely to be gay (Knapton).

[21] It is increasingly acknowledged inside the LGBTQ community that there are strong indications of elevated risk of suicidal behavior in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and there is an increasing problem with domestic violence as well. Additionally, homosexuals of both genders, as well as bisexual men, are at a higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. LGBTQ activists tend to blame these problems on the facts that they are marginalized in society and discriminated against by the mainstream.

Haas, Ann P et al. “Suicide and suicide risk in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations: review and recommendations” Journal of homosexuality vol. 58,1 (2011): 10-51.

Shwayder, Maya. "A Same-Sex Domestic Violence Epidemic Is Silent." The Atlantic. November 05, 2013. Accessed January 10, 2019. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/a-same-sex-domestic-violence-epidemic-is-silent/281131/.

"Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2017." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. July 24, 2018. Accessed January 10, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats17/toc.htm.  A fact sheet summarizing the relevant data may be found here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/std-trends-508.pdf.

Hodges, Mark. "Government: STD Rates among Homosexuals 'alarming,' 'troubling'." LifeSiteNews. November 23, 2015. Accessed January 10, 2019. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/government-std-rates-among-homosexuals-alarming-troubling. This article quotes the 2017 Centers for Disease Control report on sexually transmitted diseases previously cited.

Thou Shalt Not Kill... but why not?

Derek was a British television series starring Ricky Gervais.

Derek says to be good, and I agree. How does one do that? By what standard does he measure his goodness?

Some New Atheists will rely on convoluted arguments to try to prove that man can have absolute morality (right and wrong) without an absolute source (God). One might suspect that the argument behind this meme is not quite so complicated. Ricky Gervais, whose character Derek gives us the sage advice to “just be good,” seems to be like so many average people who are de facto atheists; they say they don’t believe in an absolute system of right and wrong, but live as though they do. This standard of “good” which Derek calls his fellow man to live up to is supposed to be understood by all people. Indeed, I believe it is understood by all people; I simply disagree with the New Atheists regarding the reason why that is the case.

This is one of the problems with New Atheism that people don’t seem to want to acknowledge: We are supposed to accept the conflicting ideas that 1) there is no absolute truth or morality, decreed by God and built into mankind, and 2) everyone automatically knows what “good” is. For all the talk of the irresolvable paradoxes of Christianity, this problem of morality is significant for the New Atheists. If there is no absolute standard by which to judge morality, then all morality must be relative to the culture out of which it arises. Even if there are similarities between cultures, one cannot claim that there is an absolute standard. How, then, can one say that a given thought, word, or deed is good inter-culturally? How can one society apply its standard of “good” to another society, absent a universal standard? At least the Christian points to God, and says that He ultimately understands the religious paradoxes, if we cannot.

Or, looked at another way, how can we judge any given thought, word, or deed as “bad” if there is no absolute standard of morality? New Atheists like to point this out to Christians who condemn sin and call people to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of those sins; the point applies equally to them. And, contrary to how it may seem based on the circulation of internet memes, the New Atheists condemn quite a lot as bad. Christianity, for starters. Richard Dawkins believes it is child abuse to teach children the Christian faith;[1] so did the late Christopher Hitchens. In fact, they despise all religion as evil. This includes Islam.

Their hatred of religion made for some strange bedfellows during the war on terror. After the September 11^th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center some leftist atheists, like Christopher Hitchens, supported aggressive war against Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside the likes of, well, me. This was because terrorism is bad. The oppression, abuse, and subjugation of women is bad. Murdering political and religious minorities is bad. Oppressing and murdering homosexuals is bad. All these things are bad according to the New Atheists, and I agree. I must again, however, ask the question: by what standard? Clearly, the Islamic terrorists don’t think those things are bad. Why is their standard different? Where did it come from? Do they not have the innate sense of right and wrong, good and evil, which all men are supposed to have? Absent a universal standard of right and wrong, what makes them evil?

The Christian has an answer: the God who created the universe has set an immutable standard of right and wrong for mankind and expects us to keep it. We cannot. In fact, we ignore and suppress it. We turn away from God and His moral standard. We fail to keep it. And, when we do not keep it, that is called sin. And, because we cannot keep this moral standard perfectly, He took on human flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, so that He could destroy sin, its inevitable result – death, and the one who brought it into the world – the devil, once and for all. He accomplished this by the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. He did it by living up to the standard, and dying as the sacrifice for sin on man’s behalf. Then, after dying on the cross, He rose up from the dead. We benefit from this sacrifice when we are brought to penitent faith in Christ for the forgiveness of our sins, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the means of God’s Word and Sacraments. That is our explanation. What is theirs?

Their explanation for morality seems to be that morality has developed in man’s psyche as a product of evolution. The late Christopher Hitchens said:

I think our knowledge of right and wrong is innate in us. Religion gets its morality from humans. We know that we can’t get along if we permit perjury, theft, murder, rape. All societies at all times, well before the advent of monarchies have forbidden it. Socrates called it his daemon; it was his inner voice that stopped him when he was trying to take advantage of someone… Why don’t we just assume that we do have some internal compass?[2]

This view is almost comically simplistic. We just all should know what good is, because good comes from inside man. I see much evidence in man’s history that, far from being innately good, man is innately evil. Mr. Hitchens sets up this straw man: religion teaches that men only do good things, return lost property, give blood transfusion, etc., because they fear divine punishment and, if they didn’t have that threat hanging over them, they would act like the worst psychopathic criminal.[3] Perhaps other religions teach this idea; Christianity does not. In fact, Christianity teaches that, outwardly, and because of the conscience, men can and do live outwardly good and decent lives. Men can choose not to steal, rape, or murder their fellows, but this civil righteousness does nothing to justify a man before God. The Book of Concord has this to say on the issue:

Our churches teach that a person’s will has some freedom to choose civil righteousness and do things subject to reason. It has no power, without the Holy Spirit, to work the righteousness of God, that is spiritual righteousness… This is what Augustine says in his Hypogonosticon, Book III: We grant that all people have a free will. It is free as far as it has the judgment of reason…It is free only in works of this life, whether good or evil. Good I call those works that spring from the good in nature, such as [sic] willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself… For all of these things depend on the providence of God. They are from Hm and exist through Him. Works that are willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, and so forth, I call evil… Although nature is able in a certain way to do the outward work (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder), yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, and so on.[4]

Christianity also teaches that this innate morality is objective and immutable, created by God. It is perfect, and requires perfection. And, no matter how many good deeds one may do, no matter how “good” a person may be in the eyes of the society, it is impossible to keep this moral standard perfectly, as God requires. Our relationship with God, therefore, must be repaired in some other way than by being good, or doing good deeds. On the contrary, our relationship with God is repaired by the death and resurrection of Jesus, who died as the propitiation for the sins of the world; and we receive those gifts of forgiveness and life eternal through the gift of faith, which God creates in us through the means of His word.

I see man, when left to determine what is right and wrong for himself, holding his neighbor to a separate, higher standard than the one to which he holds himself. This phenomenon manifests itself from the individual level to the societal level. The Godless [sic] principle that the strongest is always right has been openly declared as recently as the twentieth century in Mussolini’s Italy and operated in practice in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and many other states.[5] The evidence shows us that, unless man’s moral code is instituted by an authority higher than himself, he will, when it is advantageous to himself or his societal group, alter it. The unregenerate individual says to himself: it might be wrong when other people perjure themselves, steal, murder, or commit rape, but when I did those things, I had a good reason, and am therefore justified. Man can always reason out why their bad deed was not bad, but his neighbor’s was. Christopher’s brother Peter Hitchens, makes this point:

Left to themselves, human beings can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities, the mass deportation – accompanied by slaughter, disease, and starvation – of inconvenient people, and the mass murder of the unborn. I have heard people who believe themselves to be good defend all these things and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions committed by different countries, often with great vigor.[6]

You see, morality cannot be absolute and relative at the same time. We cannot say that the sense of good and evil it is innate in all of humanity, and at the same time, say there is no absolute source of that morality other than ourselves. If all morality is relative to the individual and to the individual’s culture, and there is no absolute standard for it set by God, the only way to determine right and wrong, good and bad, is ultimately by the sword. Might makes right, as they say. And why shouldn’t it? Why shouldn’t the unarmed give way to the lightly armed, and the lightly armed give way to the heavily armed?[7] Should not all societies, from the primitive to the advanced, decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong? Should not every individual decide for themselves their own religious beliefs (which is just another way of saying the same thing as morality)? This all sounds high minded and enlightened until you put it into practice. If what was just described was actually the type of world in which we lived, on what basis can one group of people condemn another group of people for, well, anything?

We look back at the Nazis and their systematic, state run genocide of the Jews and call it horrible. It was horrible. But on what basis can we condemn Nazi genocide of the Jews if there is no absolute truth that, “Thou shalt not kill”?[8] There is none. You may appeal to the innate sense inside of man that it is wrong to murder all you like; the Nazis would not call what they were doing murder. The only alternative that remains is that their actions were no better or worse than any other actions; we were simply stronger than they, and wanted to end their social, economic, and cultural system because it conflicted with our own, and so we did.

But it is wrong to murder people, especially on account of their race! Why? Says who?

Our culture takes a dim view of killing a person, generally speaking, unless one has a reasonable belief that one is in imminent danger of receiving great bodily harm, or death from them. In Nazi Germany, Jews were considered to be sub-humans, and therefore exempt from “normal” moral considerations. To turn a Jew in to the state, and thus mark him for persecution and death, was, in that society, to do a good work. But who are we to judge the society that has a different view of this matter? The National Socialists (Nazis) were quite deliberate in creating their society and culture, all based on the philosophical beliefs of Adolf Hitler. Are those beliefs, and the resulting consequences, not just as valid as our society’s contention that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights? If you say they are not equally valid, you must answer why, and relative morality does not help your case. If you say they are equally valid, you are ignoring that impulse inside of mankind that does tell us that murdering another human being is wrong, and that we should do unto others as we would have others do unto us. It isn’t so much that religion gets it’s morality from man, as Christopher Hitchens contends; rather, the New Atheism, living as it does in the afterglow of the western Christian society, benefits from the fact that Judeo-Christian morality has served as the foundation for western society and culture and remains, for the time being, dominant and familiar to the vast majority of people.

In the afterglow of western Christian society, Peter Hitchens writes, where God’s moral standard served as the basis, it is convenient for the New Atheists to speak of an innate morality, which has its origins in man through evolutionary processes.[9] Morality is indeed imprinted on the heart of man. It is there because God put it there. It is His law, or at least a shadow of it; it convicts us of our sin when we transgress it, but it has no power to help us live up to its rigorous, unalterable standards. If we, as the New Atheists do, usurp God’s place as lawgiver, we become the one who sets the standard, if only in our own deluded mind. And, if we set the standard, we can change the standard. We can set the bar just high enough that it looks rigorous to other men. We can set the standard to define our behavior as good, and change it when we deem it expedient. We can do nothing, however, to hide our deficiency in living up to God’s moral standard from He, who is the true and only judge between right and wrong. We can only repent of our sins, because God has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.[10]

---

[1] Hitchens, Peter. 2010. The Rage against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[2] “Christopher Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist.” 2007. Broadcast. Uncommon Knowledge. PBS. https://youtu.be/b6DW0e70DF0.

[3] “Christopher Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist.” 2007. Broadcast. Uncommon Knowledge. PBS. https://youtu.be/b6DW0e70DF0.

[4] McCain, Paul Timothy., et. al., eds. 2005. Concordia: the Lutheran Confessions: a Readers Edition of the Book of Concord. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Pub. House. AC XCIII 1-9

[5] Hitchens, Peter. 2010. The Rage against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. p. 145.

[6] Hitchens, Peter. 2010. The Rage against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. p. 141-142.

[7] Hitchens, Peter. 2010. The Rage against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[8] In the Fifth Commandment, thou shalt not kill, God forbids us to take the life of another person, or our own life. This includes murder, abortion, euthanasia, and suicide.

[9] Hitchens, Peter. 2010. The Rage against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[10] Acts 17:31-32

Blue Nose Theology

Luther vor Cajetan

I had an intensely interesting conversation-turned-debate with a delightful Roman Catholic friend at a local brewery recently regarding religion, particularly the differences between Roman Catholic and Lutheran teachings. I suspect that my friend had not met, or at least had an extended theological conversation with, a Confessional Lutheran, because she appeared to hold me as a curiosity. We had a great time discussing the deep thoughts of drunken philosophers and theologians (though I held the advantage as I was working, and therefore, sober). By the end, though, it sort of turned into a Rome vs. Wittenberg debate, with each of us vigorously defending our positions. It was almost like a modern day Luther meets Cardinal Cajetan[1] (Except, Cajetan was a Roman Catholic laywoman, Luther was a cop, and it took place at a hipster brewery. Also, I didn’t answer her questions on my knees so, not like Luther and Cajetan at all, I guess).

I wanted to pursue the conversation because, having many friends who still allow themselves to be subject to the antichrist pope[2], I have suspected for quite some time that there is a disconnect between what many laymen believe about Christianity and what their church actually teaches. This disconnect is not peculiar to the Roman church. It exists in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, and in most other flavors of Christianity as well. It is most stark to me, however, when observed in Roman Catholicism.

The reason is because they have one guy who is the head of their church. Not only that, this guy claims for himself the title Vicar of Christ. He says that he is Christ's only representative on earth. Moreover, when he makes doctrinal pronouncements regarding faith and morals, his pronouncements are viewed by the church as infallible so, what he says goes. That, one would think, should be the end of it. It seems to me that Roman Catholic laypeople should not be as confused about the doctrines taught by their church as, perhaps, the laypeople of other denominations. I certainly wouldn’t expect there to be any instances of Roman Catholic laypeople flat-out denying their own church’s doctrines (I mean, if you knew what your church taught and disagreed with it, why would you remain a member?). Of course, the Roman church has had to contend with the same challenges as every other church body in America. This includes the church growth movement and the rise of post-modern thought. These two innovations will certainly always obscure biblical truth whichever denomination they infect.

I don’t chronicle our interaction to demean my friend in any way, or to flaunt my skills as a debater or theologian. I am in the lowest grade in both of those categories, and I think we genuinely had a fun time with our discussion. I write this to examine the danger post-modern thinking poses to God’s people. I will try to demonstrate the curious circumstance it causes for those who think in a post-modern way but still maintain an allegiance to a church body that professes absolute truths.

We didn’t begin with post-modernism, though. We started with…

The main difference between Catholics and Lutherans.

Right out of the box she asked my opinion regarding the main difference between the Roman Catholic Church, and the Lutheran Church. My “Cajetan” preemptively offered that the difference could be boiled down to… Consubstantiation[3].

My friend said that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, and her church believes that the bread and wine at communion are actually the real body and blood of Jesus. I explained to her that, Lutherans do not in fact believe in consubstantiation. I pointed out to her that this is an area where Roman Catholic and Lutheran theologians are closer to agreement with each other than Lutherans are with evangelicals, who believe the Supper is merely symbolic.

Rome teaches that Jesus’ body and blood is present in the supper, so do the Lutherans. We do, of course, disagree regarding the particulars of what actually takes place when the elements are consecrated. My explanation of the doctrine of the Real Presence, however, was completely misunderstood. When I said that in, with, and under the bread and the wine are Christ's real body and blood as he has promised to give us, for we Christians to eat and to drink, I was met with an incredulous stare. "Yes, like I said" came the reply, "you believe in consubstantiation!" Then she showed me a Google definition of the word Consubstantiation on her phone that mentioned Lutherans.

Such are the perils facing the Lutheran theologian. We have to navigate down the narrow road of God's word and avoid falling off into the ditch of popery and philosophy on one side or the ditch of Calvinism and rationalism on the other. The result is a nuance in our teaching that is difficult to grasp when one has imbibed beyond one’s limit. It's a good thing that I keep a copy of the Augsburg confession with me in the car. I fetched it and explained what Confessional Lutherans believe, Google notwithstanding.

We then moved to the matter in question. For a Confessional Lutheran the main difference separating Rome and Wittenberg is obviously the doctrine of Justification. Justification is the teaching upon which the church stands or falls. The explanation of Luther’s Small Catechism asks the question: How is it possible for a just and holy God to declare sinners righteous? God declares sinners righteous for Christ’s sake:

For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him…even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus…It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 3:22-24; 4:25).

The Whore of Babylon - Woodcut by Cranach from
the Lutherbibel, 1534

Going along with this would be Rome’s insistence upon papal authority over the Church by divine right. Luther asserted, rightly, that the Bishop of Rome was a pastor of God’s people in Rome and of all those who voluntarily attach themselves to him and nothing more (McCain, et al. 2005). He also asserted that the pope was the Antichrist[4]. The pope claims, however, his authority over the whole Christian Church by divine right and the Roman Church explicitly teaches that all those who are outside of Rome are outside of the one true faith. At this point our discussion took an interesting turn when my friend began making the point…

Your religion is true for you, mine is true for me.

This is where things got interesting. At one point I said that, in order to be saved, one must repent and believe in Jesus. My companion replied, "That's fine for us, but what about all the other people who have different religions?" I asked her to explain what she meant. She said, "What about Muslims?" Who are we, she continued, to say that they are wrong, necessarily? Their religion is true for them and our religion is true for us.

This type of postmodern thinking it's quite pervasive in American Christianity in particular and American society in general. I explained that, as Jesus teaches, no one comes to the Father except through him; anyone who does not have penitent faith in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins is lost. This would include Muslims, or Jewish people, or anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus. Just because you have many religions, doesn't mean you have many right choices. Other religions may have a shadow of the truth in them, and some more than others, but in the end there is right and wrong, good and evil, yes and no. Jesus explains this to us and gives us no other choice:

[Jesus said] Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it… I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me… Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Matthew 7:13-14; John 14:6; Acts 4:8-12).

My friend was shocked that I would assert such an insensitive, unenlightened idea. Imagine her surprise when I explained to her the dogma of her own church – that the only true Church of Christ is the Roman Church:

The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it…This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him (Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994).

And also, that salvation comes through this one Catholic Church alone:

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God” (Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994).

I can understand why she was surprised. The supreme pontiff of the Roman church has made statements which have led many people to believe that the pope is OK with salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Francis made several, now infamous, statements that seemed to say atheists may be able to make their way into heaven by obeying their conscience[5]. Messy statements like those made by Pope Francis promote the idea of a kinder, gentler, Roman Catholic Church when reported by secular media who have little understanding of these things. They give the impression that the Roman Catholic Church has a “you go your way, I’ll go mine, we’ll all get there in the end” attitude. Liberal Catholic laypeople and post-modern American secularists believe the Roman Catholic Church is embracing the ideas of post-modernism in its doctrine because of this type of reporting: There is no “truth;” everyone has a shot at redemption with their own personal Jesus.

Except for Lutherans. We just can’t catch a break, and this I explained. Rome has been, and continues to be, clear on that point. Canon nine of the Council of Trent, which has never been rescinded by the Roman church[6], explicitly states that anyone who teaches the doctrine that man is justified by the grace of God alone, through faith in Christ alone without works[7] is anathema.

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema (The Council of Trent 1547).

Anathema: That means cursed. So, while their laypeople are given the false impression that their church has changed its teaching so that atheists and other noble pagans have a shot at working their way into heaven, the fact remains that all is as it was in the 16^th Century. Rome still anathematizes the Gospel.

Needless to say, we never did come to a mutual understanding. There may not be absolute truth, but I was wrong, nevertheless. I was, however, able to get some sympathetic brewers to smuggle me out of the brewery inside a disused beer barrel and safely back to my patrol car[8].

The bottom line 

But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:10-17).

Christ Among the Lampstands -
Woodcut by Cranach from
the Lutherbibel, 1534.

I believe the reason that Lutherans are strange to other Christians (not to mention pagans), and misunderstood, comes down to this: We confess the truth of God's Word, even where we don't necessarily understand it, or like it. The only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone[9]. This flies in the face of both the secular world, and Rome. Moreover, we interpret Holy Scripture using the Historical-Grammatical method[10], which respects and recognizes Holy Scripture for what it is – the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God. The secular world has embraced post-modernism and asserts the truth that there is no such thing as absolute truth; The Roman Catholic Church claims that the church and its tradition is the divine authority, superior to that of even Holy Scripture, since the church existed before, and “created,” the Bible. To put it in a nutshell – church traditions preceded the Bible. Take into account the decades-long infiltration of post-modernism into the colleges and seminaries of the Roman Catholic Church and the result is a church body with doctrine that asserts it is the only true church and the only access God while its laity proclaims that all paths lead to the top of the mountain – I’m ok, you’re ok.

The Scriptures tested everything. This is the viewpoint of the authors of the New Testament, and the early church fathers. However, at the council of Trent, it was proclaimed that tradition was equal in importance and authority with the Bible. When the apostles preached the Gospel, the people who heard them tested what they said against the Scriptures they knew to be from God (the Old Testament)[11]. This happened before the New Testament was collected or the organized church existed. The Bereans tested the Gospel message and the apostles praised them for it.

Using the Historical-Grammatical method of biblical interpretation, an interpreter seeks the literal or intended sense of the text. He derives the meaning of the text from the text and allows Scripture to interpret Scripture. In order to discern God’s intended meaning, the Scriptures must be read as historical, literary documents. The meaning of Scripture is to be found in the text itself, not from some special revelation or extra-biblical source. The interpreter must also recognize that the Holy Scripture is the written word of God. It is not a primarily human witness to revelation, and thus not subject to human failings. In the historical-grammatical approach, the interpreter must always remember that Scripture, like our Lord, has two natures – the human and the divine – and has them equally and fully.

The Higher criticism method[12], on the contrary, favored by enlightened post-modern liberals, examines scriptural writings like witnesses in a court of law. Scripture must be “interrogated” and evaluated rationally. Following this method, Scripture is treated as any other human writings, subject to human failings. Higher criticism gives the individual interpreter, not Holy Scripture, ultimate authority and is incompatible with the “Sola Scriptura” principle of Lutheranism. Rome has begun to interpret Scripture according to this method in recent years. Main Line Protestantism and much of American Evangelicalism have been lost to Higher Criticism long ago.

What is disconcerting is that post-modernism is seeping more and more into those denominations which hold Scripture to be the divinely inspired, inerrant, efficacious Word of God. The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod has dealt with this in the 1960’s and 1970’s in what culminated in the seminary walk-out and Seminex[13]; we are still affected by it today.

We few who hold Holy Scripture in such esteem appear to be getting to be fewer.

Time to have a beer.

  

Works Cited

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html#top (accessed December 4, 2016).

Day, Michael. "Pope Francis assures atheists: You don't have to believe in God to go to heaven." Independent. September 11, 2013. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-assures-atheists-you-don-t-have-to-believe-in-god-to-go-to-heaven-8810062.html (accessed December 4, 2016).

Fields, Ligonberry. "7 Times Pope Francis Was Misquoted." BuzzVine. January 16, 2015. http://www.christianpost.com/buzzvine/7-times-pope-francis-was-misquoted-132679/ (accessed December 4, 2016).

Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Cathechism of the Catholic Church. New Hope, KY: Urbi et Orbi Communications, 1994.

Lueker, Erwin L., ed. Lutheran Cyclopedia: A Concise In-Home Reference for the Christian Family. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1984.

McCain, Paul Timothy, Robert Cleveland Baker, Gene Edward Veith, and Edward Andrew Engelbrecht, . Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions. Translated by William Hermann Theodore Dau and Gerhard Friedrich Bente. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005.

Reformation 500. "Luther meets with Cajetan at Augsburg." Reformation 500. http://reformation500.csl.edu/timeline/luther-meets-with-cajetan-at-augsburg/ (accessed December 4, 2016).

"The Council of Trent." EWTN: Document Libraries. 1547. http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm (accessed December 3, 2016).

Wikipedia. "Martin Luther." Wikipedia. December 4, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#cite_note-59 (accessed December 5, 2016).

---

[1] In the summer of 1518, legal proceedings in church courts began against Luther for his criticism of indulgences…As a result, an order was issued for Luther to stand trial in Rome. However, Rome lifted that requirement, paving the way for his interrogation on German soil. The counselor appointed for that case was the Dominican cardinal and papal legate Tomas de Vio, named Cajetan…Cajetan was a theologian and ecclesiastic of high standing…Frederick the Wise… had arranged for the accused’s safe conduct to Augsburg and a fair hearing from Cajetan…Cajetan was directed by Rome neither to debate Luther, nor make a final judgment on his theology, but rather to insist that he recant by saying the simple word revoco—“I recant.” Upon arrival, Luther followed the advice of his colleagues and prostrated himself before Cajetan, then rose to his knees to answer the cardinal’s interrogation. Luther, however, refused to recant his positions and instead pressed Cajetan for clarity on where he was in error. Over the course of the three meetings on consecutive days from October 12-14, the theologically erudite cardinal was unable to resist debate with Luther (Reformation 500 n.d.).

[2] SA II, iv, 14.

[3] Consubstantiation is the view, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form one substance (a “third substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present like bread and wine, in a natural manner (Lueker 1984).

[4] SA II iv 14: Finally, the papacy is nothing else than the devil himself, because above and against God the pope pushes his falsehoods about Masses, purgatory, the monastic life, one’s own works, and false worship. (This, in fact, is the papacy.) He also condemns, murders, and tortures all Christians who do not exalt and honor his abominations above all things. Therefore, just as we cannot worship the devil himself as Lord and God, so we cannot endure his apostle – the pope or Antichrist – in his rule as head or lord. For what his papal government really consists of (as I have very clearly shown in many books) is to lie and kill and destroy body and soul eternally (McCain, et al. 2005).

[5] The Pope wrote, “God's mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience” (Day 2013). He also said, “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!” These statements are vague and confusing regarding the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on Justification and RC apologists and theologians were forced to run some heavy duty damage control to clarify that Pope Francis was not, in fact, subverting centuries of church dogma (Fields 2015).

[6] The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it. This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council. Paul VI affirmed it and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith n.d.).

[7] Ephesians 2:1-10

[8] The hearings degenerated into a shouting match. Cajetan's original instructions had been to arrest Luther if he failed to recant, but the legate desisted from doing so. Luther’s supporters got wind of this, and helped Luther escape the night on October 20^th Luther slipped out of the city at night, unbeknownst to Cajetan (Wikipedia 2016).

[9] Galatians 1:8; FC, Ep. 1.

[10] The historical-grammatical method is a Christian hermeneutical method that strives to discover the Biblical author's original intended meaning in the text.

[11] Acts 17:11-12

[12] Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of literary criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the world behind the text".

[13] Seminex is the widely used abbreviation for Concordia Seminary in Exile (later Christ Seminary-Seminex), an institution for the training of Lutheran ministers that existed from 1974 to 1987. It was formed after a walk-out by dissident faculty and students of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis (LCMS).