Knocking on Doors

An article from Kentucky Today found it’s way onto my Facebook news feed called, “Mythbuster: Louisville pastor triples attendance in 6 months by knocking on doors.” The article features Pastor Mark Bishop, and his efforts for the last six months at Highview Baptist Church – Valley Station Campus, in Louisville, KY. The article read, in part:

“I think soul winning is easier caught than taught,” Bishop said, referring to the newfound evangelical fervor at the church. “When they see it working it becomes contagious.” Knocking on doors has also had a [sic] impact on the friends of new believers who, after seeing a change in their acquaintances, are crossing a church threshold for the first time in their lives.[1]

Regarding evangelism, the article describes Bishop’s efforts in light of the Kentucky Baptist Convention’s efforts and evangelistic philosophy:

“There is nothing better than one-on-one contact when sharing Jesus,” said Kentucky Baptist Convention Executive Director Paul Chitwood. “While I am a firm believer in mass evangelism and pulpit evangelism, both will almost always involve one-on-one evangelism.” Chitwood said plans are underway for a similar evangelistic outreach held in conjunction with this year’s Kentucky Baptist Convention annual meeting in Louisville. Crossover Louisville will involve a massive door-to-door campaign with members of KBC churches across the state coming into city days in advance of the Nov. 14 meeting to share the gospel. The event is a partnership between Louisville Regional Baptist Association, Highview’s Valley Station Campus and the evangelism team of the Kentucky Baptist Convention. “Every Christian isn’t called to preach to the masses,” Chitwood said, “but every Christian is called to share Jesus at every opportunity.”[2]

There are some good things going on here. It is certainly the Christian’s job to “share Jesus” (more about that presently). I’m happy that people are, apparently, becoming Christians. With such fantastic results, it seems as though all the small, struggling LCMS churches should give this pastor a call, pick his brain, and begin their own front porch evangelism efforts.

There was a time when I would have agreed with the evangelism philosophy described in this article as “front porch evangelism.” This is no longer the case. I have come to the opinion that...

Door-to-Door is not the Answer

Door-to-door evangelism goes hand in hand with the concept of the seeker sensitive church. The church that practices these things might not resemble a Willow Creek mega church in outward appearance, but they are much closer to them philosophically than they are to the types of churches Christendom has known since Pentecost. Door to door evangelism isn't actually evangelism. It assumes that the actual evangelism takes place at the church on Sunday morning. The meeting of people on their doorsteps is actually the pre-evangelism. It's the advertisement for the evangelism that they will get if they should accept your offer to come to church. There is no real relationship made, only a pitch. And real evangelism isn't dependent on the quality of the pitch. It is dependent on the working of the Holy Spirit through the means of grace. 

Real evangelism is done through our vocation. Real evangelism consists of the Christian, in his vocation as husband, father, worker, citizen, etc., living their daily lives serving their neighbor, doing the good works which God has prepared before hand for them to do. Through their time living out their vocations, the Christian will make relationships with the people around them. They will talk to these people about God's word, and preach to them Law and Gospel. God will use this to make Christians, according to his will. This is what we think we're doing when we are knocking on doors and giving elevator speeches, but that is not the case.

The Willow Creek study shows that their model doesn't work

Willow Creek conducted a study of their evangelism model, which was published several years ago, called “Reveal: Where Are You?” The study is an interesting read. Christianity Today summarized the findings this way:

The study shows that while Willow has been successfully meeting the spiritual needs of those who describe themselves as "exploring Christianity" or "growing in Christ," it has been less successful at doing so with those who self-report as being "close to Christ" or "Christ-centered." In fact, one-fourth of the last two groups say that they are either "stalled" in their spiritual growth and/or "dissatisfied" with the church.[3]

Russ Rainey, Ph.D., of The Christian Coaching Center, pointed out the following about those dissatisfied members of Willow Creek:

Those who admitted to being dissatisfied seemed to come from the most “Christ-focused” segment of the church.  “They are active evangelists, volunteers and donors to the church.”  They are “also the ones most likely to report that they are considering leaving the church.”  In fact…the higher the level of engagement, the more likely it is that satisfaction with the church will be lukewarm.”  This group makes up about 10% of the total church.  The researchers made two important observations: 1) this mature group of believers were dissatisfied that their church did not “keep them on track” as they tried to lead a Christian life and 2) they were disappointed that the church had not “helped them find a spiritual mentor.”[4]

The study revealed that the vast majority of the people who were brought in the front door of Willow Creek, ended up leaving quietly through the back door a relatively short time later. There are a lot of reasons for this, as the study indicates. A major contributing factor, however, is the fact that once a person has become a member of the church, they are effectively abandoned. More from Rainey’s summary:

The study found that those who were in the first two categories (exploring and growing – the least mature attendees) actually did benefit more from the church’s programs and ministries.  However, those who were more mature (the close to Christ and Christ-centered members) were often “stalled” in their spiritual growth or “dissatisfied” with what the church was doing to help them grow.  When the stalled and dissatisfied groups were combined, they totaled over 25% of the total membership of the church. Those who admitted to being stalled seemed to come mainly from the “close to Christ” category and they appeared to be “holding back or…somehow blocked from spiritual growth and progress”.[5]

Since, in American Evangelicalism, the church gathering exists primarily to emotionally manipulate people into making a decision to accept Christ, the care and nurture of the Christian through Word and Sacrament becomes of secondary importance. Once they have you, they forget about you, because they're only worried about making the convert.

Door-to-door, or “front porch” evangelism and the American Evangelical view of the church gathering go hand-in-hand. They also don’t work, unless the only thing you’re worried about is getting people’s butts into the pew (or, rather, the stadium-style seats).

I'm reminded of when mega church pastor Perry Noble incredulously “preached” about how the jackass in the church is the person that always wants to go deeper, or wants to worship more.[6] He ridicules that jackass; these are the things that the early Christians, and most Christians throughout the ages, have focused on. The problem is, you can’t go deeper. They are done with you, once you’ve made your decision. Now it’s time to do your work of listening to self-help philosophy sermons, devoid of Gospel, and doing good works to prove to yourself that your conversion was genuine. And giving money. Lots and lots of money. There is not time for growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ, continued repentance, and the receiving forgiveness. After all, as Perry Noble concluded, you are only as deep as the last person you served.[7] Since Pentecost, however, we see that the church, the local congregation (the ecclesia), was for Christians, not non-Christians. That is because...

The church is not primarily for evangelism.

The primary purpose of the gathering of Christians on Sunday morning is not the evangelism of non-Christians. The primary purpose of the gathering which we call “church” is the gathering around Word and Sacrament to receive the forgiveness of sins, won for us by Christ. Secondly, as Luther explains, the Christian Church, and therefore our individual congregations where the Word is rightly taught, and the Sacraments are rightly administered, are the vehicle through which Christ sanctifies Christians:

“But how is such sanctifying done?” Answer, “The Son receives dominion, by which He wins us, through His birth, death, resurrection, and so on. In a similar way, the Holy Spirit causes our sanctification by the following: the communion of saints or the Christian Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. That means He leads us first into His holy congregation and places us in the bosom of the Church. Through the Church He preaches to us and brings us to Christ.” Neither you nor I could ever know anything about Christ, or believe on Him, and have him for our Lord, unless it were offered to us and granted to our hearts by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 12:3; Galatians 4:6).[8]

Luther continues:

Everything, therefore, in the Christian Church is ordered toward this goal: we shall daily receive in the Church nothing but the forgiveness of sin through the Word and signs, to comfort and encourage our consciences as long as we live here. So even though we have sins, the grace of the Holy Spirit does not allow them to harm us. For we are in the Christian Church, where there is nothing but continuous, uninterrupted forgiveness of sin. This is because God forgives us and because we forgive, bear with, and help one another (Galatians 6:1-2). But outside of this Christian Church, where the Gospel is not found, there is not forgiveness, as also there can be no holiness. Therefore, all who seek and wish to earn holiness not through the Gospel and forgiveness of sin, but by their works, have expelled and severed themselves from this Church (Galatians 5:4).[9]

This has been the way Christians have understood the function of the church since Pentecost. They were not knocking on the doors of random, unknown pagan Romans, making some doorstep presentation, and inviting them to come to their next communion service. This model of “church” was unknown in Christendom until the rise of revivalism. No, Christians from the very beginning were gathering around Word and Sacrament, not to serve God, but so that He could serve them with the gifts he had promised – the forgiveness of sins won by Christ. Hear how a puzzled Pliny the Younger described Christians and their worship to the Roman Emperor Trajan:

However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal, which they had left off upon that edict which I published at your command, and wherein I had forbidden any such conventicles. These examinations made me think it necessary to inquire by torments what the truth was; which I did of two servant maids, who were called Deaconesses: but still I discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and to an extravagant superstition.[10]

Justin Martyr describes Christian worship in his “First Apology”, which is the oldest non-New Testament record extant with such information:

On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a given city or rural district. The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader ceases, the president in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers. When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent, saying the “Amen.” A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person, and to those who are not present they are sent by the deacons. Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He provides for the orphans and widows, those who are in need on account of sickness or some other cause, those who are in bonds, strangers who are sojourning, and in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need. We all make our assembly in common on Sunday, since it is the first day, on which God changed the darkness and matter and made the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior arose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on the day before Saturn’s day, and on the day after (which is the day of the Sun) he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught these things, which we have offered for your consideration.[11]

The Scattered Seed and the Pelting Rain

All of this reminds me of the parable of the Sower, and something Luther said about how we see the Gospel working in this world:

Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”...“Therefore hear the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty” (Matthew 13:3-9; 18-23).

But we don't know what kind of ground people are. We don't know how God is going to work on them. We don't know all kinds of things, and we don't need to know. That is God's job. 

Kretzmann, commenting on this passage, says that God, once the seed is planted, sends his sun of righteousness to warm and nurture the seed, causing it to grow:

Only the fourth class of hearers present soil ready for a crop and fruit that is well-pleasing to the Lord. They are they who hear and heed the Word in fine and good hearts. In this instance the soil of the hearts has been well prepared by the plowing of the law, which incidentally weeded out all earthly love and care of this world, and selfishness and self-righteousness. Then the Master has sowed His good seed, the Gospel of His mercy. He also sends the fountains of his grace and the sun of his righteousness. And, behold, there is good fruit, though the measure depends upon differences of gifts, of disposition, and of the capacity for receiving and spreading the kingdom of God.[12]

Luther observed that the Gospel appears to us as a pelting rain storm. It sweeps in, saturates the ground, and sweeps out again. And just like we can't make the rain come, or go away, neither can we do so with the Gospel. Furthermore, the same sun which warms and nurtures the seed to grow and produce good fruit, will also, once the rain has passed, dry and parch the ground:

Secondly, he indicates the danger of neglecting the grace of God. Thereby he certainly intimates that the preaching of the gospel is not a constant, permanent, and continuing proclamation. The gospel is rather like a pelting rain that hurries on from place to place. What it hits it hits; what it misses it misses. But it does not return nor stay in one place; the sun and heat come after it and lick it up. Experience also teaches us that in no section of the world has the Gospel remained pure and unadulterated beyond the memory of a man. On the contrary, its stood it's ground and flourished as long as those who remained who had brought it to the fore. But after they had passed from the scene, the light also disappeared. Factious spirits and false teachers immediately followed.[13]

No one likes to see any institution of which they are a part fall to pieces. The sad reality, however, is that they sometimes do. Church denominations, as institutions created by man, are no exception. My family has been a part of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod since they arrived here from Germany in the 19th century. My grandfather was the sixth baptism at Immanuel evangelical Lutheran Church, Hodgkins, Illinois. My family has worshipped at that place since it's founding in 1911. In addition to the all important gathering around Word and Sacrament, most of the parishioners at Immanuel have strong emotional ties to that place, because their family history is similar to mine. They want Immanuel to continue to exist as a beacon of light in their little corner of this dark world just as much as I do. And, they are willing to do what is necessary, so long as it is in their power, to keep the doors of the church open.

The issue is, however, it is not within their control. It is in God's control. We are called to be salt and light, and we do that, as previously discussed, through our vocations. We watch our life and doctrine closely. We gather around Word and Sacrament. We call faithful pastors to preach, teach, and administer those Sacraments. We raise our children so that they grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We do good works for our neighbor, especially those of the household of faith, because we have been crucified with Christ in our baptism and made a new creature. God uses these things how he wills. There is no magic formula for us to say, or work out, that will ensure we are always successful in converting people to Christ, or in keeping our parish doors open. Those things are up to God, whether we wish to acknowledge it, or not.

So, I think it is important to ask ourselves: are we concerned about The Church, or are we concerned about our church? If we are concerned about The Church, we can be certain that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, no matter how bad things may look to us.[14] If we are worried about our church, there are some things we are called to do, in our vocation as parishioner: We should pray for it, attend it faithfully (because that is where we receive what Christ has promised us - the forgiveness of sins), and give of our time, talent, and treasure for its upkeep. We should encourage our fellow parishioners to do the same. If you want to knock on doors, visit those friends and family members who don’t understand the importance, and the benefits, of gathering regularly with their fellow Christians around Word and Sacrament. But remember: You are not in control of the outcome, God is. The Lord may bless our work and cause it to grow; He may cause the rain to move on.

---

[1] Cornetet, Robin. "Mythbuster: Louisville pastor triples attendance in 6 months by knocking on doors." Kentucky Today. August 27, 2017. Accessed September 02, 2017. http://kentuckytoday.com/stories/mythbuster-louisville-pastor-triples-attendance-in-6-months-by-knocking-on-doors,8782?preview_key=8c0393d24c442eb881a27022a602b525&ts=1503858541.

[2] Cornetet, Robin. "Mythbuster: Louisville pastor triples attendance in 6 months by knocking on doors." Kentucky Today. August 27, 2017. Accessed September 02, 2017. http://kentuckytoday.com/stories/mythbuster-louisville-pastor-triples-attendance-in-6-months-by-knocking-on-doors,8782?preview_key=8c0393d24c442eb881a27022a602b525&ts=1503858541.

[3] "Editorial: What Willow's Reveal Reveals." ChristianityToday.com. February 27, 2008. Accessed September 02, 2017. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/march/11.27.html.

[4] Rainey, Russ, Ph.D. "Willow Creek Reveal Study - a Summary | The Christian Coaching Center." The Christian Coaching Center. Accessed September 02, 2017. http://www.christiancoachingcenter.org/index.php/russ-rainey/coachingchurch2/. All quotes in this summary are from Reveal: Where Are You? and Follow Me: What’s Next for You?, Greg L. Hawkins and Cally Parkinson, Willow Creek Resources, reveal@willowcreek.com

[5] Rainey, Russ, Ph.D. "Willow Creek Reveal Study - a Summary | The Christian Coaching Center." The Christian Coaching Center. Accessed September 02, 2017. http://www.christiancoachingcenter.org/index.php/russ-rainey/coachingchurch2/.

[6] Vimeo. 2014. Accessed September 02, 2017. https://vimeo.com/88595325.

[7] Vimeo. 2014. Accessed September 02, 2017. https://vimeo.com/88595325.

[8] McCain, Paul Timothy., ed. Concordia: the Lutheran confessions: a readers edition of the Book of Concord. Translated by W. H. T. Dau and F. Bente. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005. LC II 37-38

[9] McCain, Paul Timothy., ed. Concordia: the Lutheran confessions: a readers edition of the Book of Concord. Translated by W. H. T. Dau and F. Bente. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005. LC II 55-57

[10] "Letters of Pliny the Younger and the Emperor Trajan." PBS. Accessed September 02, 2017. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/pliny.html. From The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston, Hendrickson Publishers, 1987

[11] "How We Christians Worship." Christian History Institute. Accessed September 02, 2017. https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/how-we-christians-worship/. Translation and Commentary by EVERETT FERGUSON Dr. Everett Ferguson is professor of Bible at Abilene Christian University and editor of Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (Gardland, 1990).

[12] Kretzmann, Paul E. Popular commentary of the Bible. Vol. 1. New Testament. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1921.

[13] Luther, Martin, and Ewald M. Plass. What Luther says: a practical in-home anthology for the active Christian. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1986.

[14] See Matthew 16:18; John 16:33. 

Luther's Sermon for the First Sunday After Trinity

In a sermon on 1 John 4, Luther addresses those pastors and people who wrongly imagine that they can preach and listen only to the Gospel apart from the rebuke and admonition of the Law:

YOU have often heard and are now hearing the complaint, which is universal in all the world, that when human beings hear the preaching of faith about the remission of sins, they embrace it, because it is a delightful preaching: God has sent His Son for you. But when it is said that you must adorn your faith to the praise of God, and sins are rebuked, no one wants to hear anything more.

In towns everywhere, people distinguish among preachers. “This one is a fine preacher, who talks about grace and mercy; and what is even finer, he does not scold anyone or frighten people.” That is the way people commonly talk and act. If he does rebuke [sins], they undertake to have him removed. Therefore, many [of these preachers] have returned to us.

When you are scolded as a usurer, adulterer, or whatever kind of swine you are, or [it is said] that a peasant, a townsman, or a nobleman is godless, no one will suffer that. “But if I am a usurer, adulterer, swindler, and [the preacher] does not scold me, ah, what a pious man he is!”

[Are you] really righteous because I [do not] rebuke your vices? Then let the devil be [your] preacher. If I see peasants, townsmen, noblemen and do not chastise them, then I will go to the devil along with you. For [God says in] Ezekiel 3 [:18]: “I will require [their] blood at your [hands],” and they themselves will go to the devil. You shall give an account of yourself. I will not be responsible for that in the hour of death or of judgment. Rather, I shall declare what is contrary to the commandment, and then if you do not obey, you do it at your own peril.

. . . Surely an upright [Christian] gladly hears an admonition to faith, not to be greedy or a usurer, and he amends himself. I would want a brother to admonish me when I go astray. But they refuse to tolerate anyone who rebukes them [even] in general. When I say that usurers belong to the devil, why do you cry out? It is because you yourself are guilty. If you want to know which dog has been struck, it is the one who cries out.8 Therefore, you are accusing yourself, if you grumble, and are defaming yourself. As Cicero says, when vices are rebuked in general terms, whoever becomes angry at it shows himself to be guilty.

Whoever cannot bear it when unbelief is rebuked along with the fruits of unbelief, he is most certainly the dog who has been struck. But this is the purpose for which they want to misuse the Gospel: that they may do whatever they want, and the preachers should confirm it and so be cast down to hell along with them, or else we should nullify the Gospel and the ministry [of the Word], etc., [saying,] “Oh, it is all the same; do whatever you want and you will be saved!”

The Word must be unbound [cf. 2 Tim. 2:9]. It must be freely preached. Human nature has been corrupted by unbelief, which brings its fruits along with it. Therefore, sins must be rebuked, as in the Ten Commandments, etc. If you don’t want to listen to God, then don’t!

Luther, Martin. “Sermon for the First Sunday after Trinity, 1 John 4:16–21.” Luther’s Works: Sermons V. Ed. & trans. by Christopher Boyd Brown. Vol. 58. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2010, pp. 234–235.

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).