In Response to Hans Bischof Regarding Decision Theology and Silly Arguments

April 24, 2016

By Joseph D. Klotz

When you publish your writings on the internet, you must be prepared to be criticized. I mean, it’s not like anyone asked me to do this, I just enjoy it. Writing is also a good way for me to work through questions and ideas. If others can benefit from my mental exercises, so much the better. The internet can, however, be a brutal place. Thankfully, as a hateful jerk, my interactions with others in my personal life have more than prepared me to weather, and also to defend myself against, people with whom I don’t agree. This approach to life, while satisfying in the individual moments, generally tends to feed into the whole “hateful jerk” paradigm and causes one’s total life experience to be, over the long term, rather disagreeable. The police academy, however, taught me a valuable life lesson. I try to live according to it every day since I learned it, and apply the principle in every situation. Doing so has proved to smooth things out, so to speak, and by a great deal. I pass that lesson along to you all now: If it feels good, don’t say it.

I mention this here because internet comments make it not so easy to keep the proverbial mouth shut. On the advice of a friend, I have generally made it a practice to simply ignore comments on my writing. This practice has made life a lot more enjoyable. Ignorance is, after all, bliss. Once in a while, however, there comes along a comment which simply must be addressed because, to let it go without response might give the wrong impression to other readers, and perhaps lead them to think that I have no appropriate rebuttal. It’s like when the guy on the traffic stop refuses to give you his driver’s license because he read online someplace that he didn’t have to (FYI - in Illinois it is a class A misdemeanor to refuse to hand over your license to a police officer on a traffic stop), and now he is going to show you that he knows his rights. A traffic cop can’t let this go. There is an appropriate response to the driver’s erroneous assertion. He needs to be educated so that he won’t cause himself further trouble and embarrassment in the future. And, this is one of the few times where we’re allowed to say the thing that makes the other person angry but feels so good.

I recently received the following comment on my article, “Why I Quit the Gideons.” After reading it, I knew that I had to open my mouth. I’ll present the entire comment to be digested, and then address it in smaller pieces:

It's the heart that matters. The bible [sic] may not mention anything about asking Jesus into your heart but so what. Do you really think that Jesus cares if we do? I'm sure He does care and probably with a smile on His face. As His children we should never be afraid to ask. Many of us don't receive because we don't ask. So why make such a big religious issue out of it. It's these silly arguments that divide us and that prevent many from coming to Christ. Why don't we celebrate and discuss the things we do agree on. For all the other things, let's simply ask for God's wisdom and agree to disagree if necessary.

I certainly think that we Christians should celebrate the issues on which we agree. I don’t advocate fruitless arguments. And, of course, God instructs us in the book of James to pray for wisdom and promises that he will answer our prayer[1].

The general message seems to be 1) so what if people want to believe that they are asking Jesus into their heart? and 2) lets all just get along. If I am getting this wrong, Hans Bischof, I apologize. It is not my intention to create a straw man to tear down. This is how I understand your comment. If I am mistaken, I apologize.

Holy Scripture teaches that we take no part in our conversion and salvation. We are dead in trespasses and sins. I won’t dwell on this too much here; if anyone is interested in reading more about our spiritual state, let him go to the original article. Sufficient for our discussion here are these three passages of St. Paul:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them…The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned… Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (Ephesians 2:1-9; 1 Corinthians 2:14; 2 Corinthians 3:4-6).

That being said, no, it’s not all about the heart, if we are talking about a person’s salvation, unless you mean that the heart is the problem. Scripture is clear about the state of a person’s heart. It says a man’s heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick[2]. Consequently, our heart (that is, our will) is the thing which needs to be converted, and would not turn to Jesus on its own. We also can’t submit our will – “give our heart” – to Jesus. Why, to paraphrase Bo Giertz[3], would he want such a wretched thing in the first place? The Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, describes it this way:

This is certainly true: in genuine conversion a change, new emotion, and movement in the intellect, will, and heart must take place. The heart must perceive sin, dread God’s wrath, turn from sin, and see and accept the promise of grace in Christ, have good spiritual thoughts, have a Christian purpose and diligence, and fight against the flesh. Where none of these happen or are present, there is no true conversion. But the question is about the effective cause. Who works this in us? How does a person have this? How does he get it? Therefore, this teaching informs us that, since the natural powers of mankind cannot do anything or help toward it, God out of His infinite goodness and mercy, comes first to us. He causes His Holy Gospel to be preached. The Holy Spirit desires to work and accomplish this conversion and renewal in us. Through preaching and meditation on His Word God kindles faith and other godly virtues in us. They are the Holy Spirit’s gifts and works alone (FC SD II 70-71).

So, in conversion, God makes willing people out of unwilling people, by the power, working, and drawing of the Holy Spirit, by means of His word. We play no part until after conversion. After such conversion, in the daily exercise of repentance, a person’s regenerate will is not idle, but also cooperates in all the Holy Sprit’s works that He does through us[4] (McCain, et al. 2005).

As for the statement, “The bible [sic] may not mention anything about asking Jesus into your heart but so what?” I say, that is the whole point. Not only does the Bible not mention that we should ask Jesus into our heart, it teaches that we are incapable of doing so. How can we, who call ourselves Christians, be so flippant as to dismiss Holy Scripture in this matter? Such cavalier treatment of God’s Word is a sin for which we must repent.

As I wrote in the original Gideons article, the problem with the idea of decision theology is that it puts the decision in man’s hands rather than God’s. It gives people the false idea that their own work of making that decision is what saved them, rather than Christ’s holy, precious blood, and His innocent suffering and death. To call rebutting this false teaching with what the Scripture teaches about how God has saved us through the person and work of Jesus Christ a “silly argument” that divides and hinders people from coming to Christ is simply untrue. We are not supposed to simply agree to disagree and have some kind of false unity. Christians in general and pastors specifically are to teach sound doctrine and to rebuke false teachers. St. Paul instructs Timothy and Titus to do this in his letters to them. In fact, St. Paul says that the man who teaches contrary to sound doctrine is the one who is guilty of being “puffed up” and craving controversy, not the one who answers him:

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive…If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain…He [the pastor] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Romans 16:17-18; 1 Timothy 6:3-5; Titus 1:9).

The fundamental misunderstanding betrayed by this position is one of who, in God’s saving work, does the verbs. If mankind is the actor in conversion, by doing the work of making a decision, or anything else, then salvation depends on man. If this is the case, a man must be convinced, and in many cases manipulated, to commit an act of will and declare himself for Christ. I understand how we can be seduced to believe such a thing. It seems logical. As logical and reasonable as this may seem, however, Scripture says otherwise. To maintain this Pelagianism is to take Christ’s work away from him.

If, however, God is the one who does the verbs – who chooses, who converts, who saves, who declares righteous – we can have tremendous comfort. We should marvel at how God deals with us. As I wrote in a previous article, not only has he redeemed us by His grace, through faith alone in Christ, He has given us his external word, by which we can be certain of God’s promises of forgiveness and eternal life, even when we feel the weight of our sin, and do not feel “saved.” That can sustain and comfort us when our bosoms cease to burn, our inner illumination goes dim, and we remember what kind of rotten sinners we are, undeserving of God’s favor. In those times we can look to God’s external word; whether in Scriptures, in the preaching of a faithful pastor, or in the Lord’s Supper or remembrance of our Baptism, and have assurance that though we are sinners, God has forgiven us for Christ’s sake, and is faithful[5].

Works Cited 

Giertz, Bo. The Hammer of God. Minneapolis: Augsburg Books, 2005.

Klotz, Joseph D. "The External Word." The Hodgkins Lutheran. December 4, 2014. http://hodgkinslutheran.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-external-word.html (accessed April 24, 2016).

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.

End Notes

---

[1] James 1:5

[2] Jeremiah 17:9

[3] Giertz, Bo. The Hammer of God. Minneapolis: Augsburg Books, 2005. See pages 122-123 for the exchange between Fridfeldt and his superior regarding “giving your heart to Jesus.” The passage can be found online here: http://gnesiolutheran.com/giertz-on-giving-jesus-your-heart/

[4] FC SD II 88

[5] Klotz, Joseph D. “The External Word.” The Hodgkins Lutheran. December 4, 2014. http://hodgkinslutheran.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-external-word.html

The Witch, Enthusiasm, and Sharla Fritz

I recently did something which I rarely do – I went to the theater to see a movie. The movie I saw was called The Witch (or “The VVitch”…I’m not sure why it was spelled that way in the title). It was a horror movie that told the story of a puritan family which is shunned by their community for some ambiguous sin committed by the father. The family goes into the wilderness to begin their new life in exile. It is there that they come into contact with the witch, who torments them for the duration of the film. I won’t ruin the movie for any of those who might wish to see it, though I will say it is not for the squeamish. Normally, horror movies aren’t my thing. My cousin, however, thought that I would be intrigued by the depiction of the puritans and the accuracy with which the filmmakers portrayed their religious beliefs, and how they affected their everyday lives. He was right.

Watching the movie, I was struck by two scenes in particular. In one the mother prays a prayer over and over again after the family is struck by a gruesome tragedy. She lies in her bed weeping, hands clasped in desperate prayer, begging for God to send His Holy Spirit into her heart so that she could know that she was his child. In another scene, father and son are walking through the woods. The father is catechizing his son. Suddenly, the son tells his father that he knows he is a sinner and is afraid he is damned. The father tells his son that yes, he does deserve damnation because of his sin. He then tries to comfort his son by telling him that we can’t know whether we’re saved or lost, but we must pray and live according to God’s law. The child actor was good – the look of utter despair he gave in response to his father was heartbreaking.

I remarked to my cousin that what that family needed was a good Lutheran pastor to preach to them Law and Gospel properly. Of course, that would have made for a much shorter, less suspenseful movie.

The issue the characters were dealing with was Enthusiasm. The Lutheran Confessions describe Enthusiasm as the belief that God speaks to people separate and apart from Holy Scripture, and that He would save people without the means of grace. This is a concept with which we are all familiar, whether we realize it or not, and we all struggle with it, even in so-called confessional Lutheran congregations.

I recently began reading a book called, “Soul Spa: 40 Days of Spiritual Renewal,” by Sharla Fritz. It is a woman’s Bible study published by Concordia Publishing House. The author recently spoke at my church to the women’s Bible study group, and I was interested to find out the things she was teaching. Before I was very far into the book I would wager that the expression on my face resembled that of the puritan boy in the movie who was given the law by his father after having been crushed by it, rather than the Gospel.

I was particularly distressed by “Day Two” of “Week Three,” a chapter called “Solitude.” The author begins the chapter by quoting 1 Kings:

And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper (1 Kings 19:11-12).

As soon as I read the Scripture quotation I knew what this chapter was going to be about – Enthusiasm. She writes that people need solitude to connect with God and hear his voice. By seeking out solitude we can sort out our feelings, we can more clearly hear God’s voice, and experience the miracle of God’s grace (whatever that means).

The world constantly demands our attention. Sometimes the only time we can truly hear God is when we shut out all the other voices. We need solitude to hear the Father’s whispers to our hearts (Fritz 2015).

The Father’s whispers to our hearts? That doesn’t sound Biblical. Don’t worry. The author explains how Elijah functions as our example for this.

The prophet Elijah experienced a time of burnout and depression after a very successful time of ministry. In response to his ragged feelings, he took a forty-day journey to Horeb, the mount of God. He instinctively knew he needed time alone with the Lord. Elijah’s journey to solitude in 1 Kings 19 can help us with our path to hearing God in the empty places of our souls (Fritz 2015).

Elijah was burnt out? He instinctively knew he needed to be alone with the Lord? Hearing God in the empty places of our souls? This is a total twisting to God’s Word, and a dangerous path down which to tread. Far from teaching us to seek out solitude to listen for God’s whispering to our hearts, this passage shows how God uses means to communicate with us. Elijah only found comfort when God spoke to him – using words – rather than from God’s power manifested by the wind, the earthquake, and the fire.

Furthermore, we are not Elijah. He was a prophet of God, with whom God dealt directly. He has not promised to deal with us in the same way.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Scripture teaches that God works among us through means, not whispers in the empty places of our souls. The Gospel is the means by which the Holy Spirit offers us all the blessings of Christ and creates faith in us (Concordia Publishing House 1991). That Gospel is delivered to us by means of the written word and the sacraments.

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in Me through their message…Faith comes through hearing the message and the message is heard through the word of Christ…You have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God (John 17:20; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:23).

The problem with what the Bible teaches, however, is that it takes all the work away from us. God’s grace is solely responsible for our salvation. Because we are fallen, sinful creatures, bent in toward ourselves, we cannot accept this and constantly seek to merit what Christ would give us as a gift. This attitude of Enthusiasm has been engrained in us since the fall.

All this is the old devil and old serpent (Revelation 12:9), who also turned Adam and Eve into enthusiasts. He led them away from God’s outward Word to spiritualizing and self-pride (Genesis 3:2-5). And yet, he did this through other outward words. In the same way, our enthusiasts today condemn the outward Word. Yet they themselves are not silent. They fill the world with their babbling and writings, as if the Spirit could not come through the apostles’ writings and spoken Word, but has to come through their writings and words. Why don’t they leave out their own sermons and writings and let the Spirit Himself come to people without their writings before them, as they boast that He has come into them without the preaching of the Scriptures? We do not have time now to argue about this in more detail. We have treated this well enough elsewhere[1] (Concordia Publishing House 1991).

We need not retreat to the solitude of a remote mountain top in order to hear from God. In fact, if we go off to remote places to search for God, we can be certain not to find him. What we will find is our own sinful nature and desires. In order to hear God speaking to us we need to go to where he has promised to be. He has promised to be wherever two or three are gathered in his name to hear his Word preached. He has promised to come to us in the waters of Holy Baptism and the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. We should all stay out of those dark and empty places in our souls.

As for Elijah being an example for us to go off into solitude to sort out our feelings and hear from God, Luther deals with that as well:

God does not want to deal with us in any other way than through the spoken Word and Sacraments. Whatever is praised as from the Spirit – without the Word and Sacraments – is the devil himself. God wanted to appear even to Moses through the burning bush and spoken word (Exodus 3:2-15). No prophet, neither Elijah nor Elisha, received the Spirit without the Ten Commandments or the spoken Word. John the Baptist was not conceived without the word of Gabriel coming first, nor did he leap in his mother’s womb without Mary’s voice (Luke 1:11-20, 41). Peter says, “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Without the outward Word, however, they were not holy. Much less would the Holy Spirit have moved them to speak when they were still unholy. They were holy, says he, since the Holy Spirit spoke through them[2] (McCain, et al. 2005).

I expect people to be enthusiasts. I am one as well, and I must repent of my enthusiasm daily. What I don’t appreciate is how the publishing house of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod would cut the legs out from under their faithful pastors by putting their imprimatur on such unbiblical, unconfessional, pop-Christian, fundagelical nonsense as this. How are pastors supposed to teach their congregations rightly when the Synod publishes material which directly contradicts biblical and confessional teaching? Pastors encourage the people in their care to gather regularly around word and sacrament and receive what the Lord has promised us – the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting. Materials such as these encourage people to seek something different, something better – a personal, emotional experience with God, apart from corporate worship. When the faithful pastor attempts to correct this, his parishioners suspect him of simply being cantankerous. After all, it can’t be all bad if CPH publishes it, right? Lord, have mercy!

Works Cited

Concordia Publishing House. Luther's Small Catechism. Translated by Concordia Publishing House. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1991.

Fritz, Sharla. Soul Spa: 40 Days of Spiritual Renewal. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2015.

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.

---

[1] SA III VIII 5-6

[2] SA III VIII 10-13

Slavery in the Bible

In a fortune cookie I once read what was purported to be a Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. In these current interesting times, everything one says or does, no matter how innocent the circumstances, seems to cause offense. Particularly, everything the Christian says or does; particularly on social media.

A friend of mine at work came to me seeking some advice after a nasty exchange on Facebook with one of his militant atheist friends. My friend, who is a Christian, but could not be considered a “Bible-thumper” by any stretch of the imagination, had posted a rather popular meme on his Facebook page. The meme elicited such a vigorous response in the form of comments attempting to “refute” Christianity that my friend was confused and troubled. 

The meme (pictured above) depicts the thin blue line, and a Bible verse. The thin blue line is a symbol used by law enforcement around the world to commemorate fallen law enforcement officers and to symbolize the relationship of law enforcement in the community as the protectors of fellow civilians from criminal elements. The Bible verse was Romans 13:4, “…for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.”

Anti-police sentiment in today’s political climate is hardly surprising, especially to most police officers. The comment which bothered my friend the most, however, was one which misused another verse of Scripture:

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly (Leviticus 25:44-46).

The commenter went on to say how despicable it was for the Bible to advocate slavery, to instruct God’s Chosen People to oppress their neighbors, and that we certainly shouldn’t heed anything it has to say because we have evolved to become more enlightened. 

My friend was unaware of such a verse in the Bible, and did not know how to respond. He came and asked me what I would say to his friend. Well, here goes…

First (addressing my Christian friend), when speaking with people such as this, we must always remember that the sinful mind in hostile to God, and it cannot submit to God. No amount of clever debating will ever reason anyone into the faith. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. That being said, St. Peter instructs us to always be ready to make a defense to anyone who asks from us a reason for our hope.

That being said (addressing the militant atheist), slavery is absolutely in the Bible. There is also murder, adultery, homosexuality, incest, theft, war, lying, and all manner of other evil described in the Bible. Just as no sane person who has a command of the English language would try to make the case that the Bible supports any of these other evils (let’s call them sins, in keeping with how the Bible refers to them), no one who has seriously studied the Bible would ever try to make that case regarding slavery.

Slavery in the Bible is something completely different than the slavery a 21st Century American thinks of when they hear the word. We have images of oppressed blacks being hunted and captured like animals, transported against their will to work on large cotton plantations in the antebellum south. According to Lenny Esposito, Christian apologist, president, and founder of Come Reason Ministries, most slave situations were not primarily due to a person being taken against his will, but because poor people either sold themselves or their children into slavery.

Slavery was designed to pay a debt to a debtor, and once the debt was paid, the person was free. A slave could buy his own freedom from the profits of his selling his property. It is noteworthy that many people became bond-slaves (pledged to remain in his master's household for life) because their situation was better as a slave than as a free person. We sometimes assume a modern frame of reference when we talk about these things, but one must remember that life was extremely hard during these times, and to be free meant you had no guarantees that you would have enough food to eat or even a decent house to shelter your family. Add to that taxes from the ruling governments, no protection from raiding parties or foreign invaders and the expense of buying tools to accomplish tasks and you can see how being part of a larger organization could be inviting. You would share in the collective efforts of many people and have access to the resources of a rich master - much the same way the feudal serf system was constructed in the Middle Ages (Esposito n.d.).

In fact, some theologians, such as John Nordling, suggest that slavery in antiquity, at least during New Testament times, may have been viewed by society as a morally ambiguous institution. Nordling goes on to make a connection between the New Testament type of slavery and the Christian doctrine of vocation.

Usually emphasized are certain undeniably negative aspects of slavery to which slaves were subject, such as violence and sexual exploitation. Although one may not dispute these findings, I find problematic the idea that gratuitous violence, disgrace, and degradation were endemic to ancient slavery as such. That opinion cannot abide the possibility that slavery—at other times and amid other peoples—may have existed far differently than it did among Americans in the antebellum South, for example. The first Christians offer a case in point: for them, slavery was arguably a morally ambiguous institution. One might say that slavery for them was neither completely good nor uniformly bad but simply the place where untold numbers of Christians demonstrated their faith in Christ by engaging in service to the neighbor. If this is approximately the role that slavery played among the first Christians, then one could reasonably argue that biblical slavery remains pertinent for Christians still today and so should be studied for its applicability to actually being a Christian in concrete situations (Nordling 2009).

19th Century American slavery accounted for the slave as property to be exploited by the owner for his profit, without any further regard to the slave than one would give to a valuable piece of farm equipment or farm animal. This debate regarding whether or not slaves should be counted as persons or property was one which was argued from before the beginning of the United States, and was immortalized in the US Constitution by the famous Three-Fifths Compromise. In somewhat of an ironic twist, southern slave states wished to have slaves counted as person when determining a state’s population for representation in the House of Representatives and for taxation purposes. Northern free states, in an effort to limit the power of the slave states, argued that slaves should not be counted as persons. The compromise counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. This insured that the slave states would not have overwhelming representation in the House, and they therefore could not block anti-slavery efforts. In the Bible, however, there is no such debate. A survey of the laws of the Bible shows that they guard the rights of each individual and his family (Packer and Tenney 1980).

Each slave kept his dignity as a human being. No Israelite could be forced into slavery. Even if he signed a contract to become another man’s servant, God’s Law cancelled the contract at the end of 7 years (Exodus 21:2-6). A slave became a member of his owner’s family. He enjoyed the rights of any other family member (except the right of inheritance, of course). If the slave was a foreigner, his owner could circumcise him and invite him to worship with other Jews (Exodus 12:44; Deuteronomy 12:18; 16:10-11)…Even though the Bible allowed slavery, its regulations reminded the Israelites that every person was created in the image of God – including the slave (Packer and Tenney 1980).

In fact, the Bible tells us that we are all slaves. Mankind, since the Fall, is in bondage to sin. What’s more, we are bound to self-centeredness, doomed to death, and blind to our slavery (Engelbrecht 2009). We are only set free from our slavery to sin and death by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:15-23).

Americans can be fiercely independent, and we prize our rights. Essentially, however, we are all slaves. Either we are slaves to sin, death and the Devil, or slaves to righteousness. Those of us who are slaves to righteousness are called to be slaves to our fellow men, serving them through our vocations. The editors of the Lutheran Study Bible put it this way:

Although many people consider freedom to be the ultimate human right, no one is truly free spiritually. We were slaves to sin and bound to death. Knowing this, Jesus came to serve us by giving His life on the cross and rising for us. Freed from sin, we can now serve God. Only when we are “slaves” to God will we have freedom to be the people he created us to be (Engelbrecht 2009).

Finally, race had very little to do with slavery of the type during Greco-Roman times. The type of slavery chronicled in the Bible has great application for us today to show us how we are to relate to our bosses and fellow men as we serve them in our vocations. Substitute “employees” and “bosses” for the Greek words for “slaves” and “masters” respectively, and there remains still today essentially the same relationship as obtained long ago in the assemblies of the New Testament[1] (Engelbrecht 2009).

Works Cited

Engelbrecht, Rev. Edward A., ed. The Lutheran Study Bible. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009.

Esposito, Lenny. "Does the Bible Aprove of Slavery?" Come Reason Ministries. http://www.comereason.org/slavery-in-the-bible.asp (accessed March 12, 2016).

Nordling, John G. "A More Positive View of Slavery: Establishing Servile Identity in the Christian Assemblies." Bulletin for Biblical Research, 2009: 63-84.

Packer, J. I., and M. C. Tenney, . Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980.

End Notes

[1] John G. Nordling, Philemon, CC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2004), 43, 44, 59, 69-70, 138.

Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, and Pro-Vocation

I like guns.

It’s not a big secret. As a police officer I spend a lot of time around guns. I’m a life member of the National Rifle Association. I’m an advocate of concealed and open carry. In fact, I carry a firearm on my person every day, both on and off duty. I’m a student of history and have a modest collection of odd and historic firearms. I’m a constitutional conservative who recognizes that Americans have a constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms.

Reading the paper a couple weeks ago, I came across an opinion piece by Rob Schenck chastising Christians who are pro-gun and pro-life, and it brought up an issue that I have struggled with for a long time – self-defense. To summarize the opinion piece, the author cites Christ’s injunction to, “bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.” Mr. Schenck maintains that the Bible strictly limits the use of deadly force. He reminds Christians that we have an obligation to love everyone, even those who mean us harm.

The Christian gospel should quell our fears and remind us of our Christ-like obligation to love all people, even those who intend us harm. This generous view of the world calls us to demonstrate God's love toward others, regardless of who they are, where they come from or what religion they practice. Assuming a permanently defensive posture against others, especially when it includes a willingness to kill, is inimical to a life of faith (Schenck 2015).

I can’t say that I necessarily disagree with Mr. Schenck’s broader point. Christians are certainly called to love their neighbors as themselves. I believe that Mr. Schenck however, who states in the article that he is an Evangelical, jumps to a conclusion which cannot be reached, and on which the Biblical doctrine of vocation could possibly shed some light.

The question is, is there ever a time when a Christian may use deadly force to protect themselves, or others, from the violence that would be done to them by evil men?

Our gut reaction as Americans may be a resounding yes, but this attitude of self-preservation does not seem to reconcile with the “turn the other cheek” attitude Christians are allegedly supposed to exhibit at all times and in all situations. Several Biblical passages which deal with this issue come to mind.

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you…Do not say, “I will do to him as he has done to me; I will pay the man back for what he has done…” See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand” (Matt. 5:38-42; Prov. 24:29; Deut. 32:39).

In these passages, and in many other places, Christians are told not to resist evil. In fact, St. Paul, quoting Proverbs, tells us to heap burning coals on the heads of our enemies by doing good to them.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:14-21).

This would seem to bring the question to a close. We must consider, however, that God has ordered his creation and placed men into vocations so that this world can be governed. In fact, this is the purpose for which God has instituted government, as St. Paul describes in Romans 13.

In his explanation of the Fifth Commandment in the Small Catechism, Dr. Martin Luther explains what God requires of man when he commands, “You shall not murder.”

We should fear and love God so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help and support him in every physical need (Concordia Publishing House 1991).

Indeed, speaking in terms of vocation, Dr. Luther certainly did not believe that Holy Scripture commanded the Christian to be a pacifist who refrained from violence of any kind. In his commentary on The Sermon on the Mount, Dr. Luther wrote the following:

You see, now we are talking about a Christian-in-relation: not about his being a Christian, but about this life and his obligation in it to some other person, whether under him or over him or even alongside him, like a lord or a lady, a wife or children or neighbors, whom he is obliged, if possible, to defend, guard, and protect. Here it would be a mistake to teach: “Turn the other cheek, and throw your cloak away with your coat.” That would be ridiculous, like the case of the crazy saint who let the lice nibble at him and refused to kill any of them on account of this text, maintaining that he had to suffer and could not resist evil (Luther, The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat 1999).

So, not only does the Christian have a duty not to harm his neighbor, he also has a duty to help and protect him in every bodily need.

A police officer, for example, serves his neighbor by serving in his vocation, by protecting life and property and keeping the peace. Sometimes this service may necessitate using deadly force. A person, however, does not simply hold one vocation. In addition to my vocation as a police officer, I am also a father, a son, and a citizen. Those vocations may also, at times, necessitate using deadly force. For example, a father, in fulfilling his vocation and obligation to protect his family, may be compelled to use deadly force. Dr. Luther, in his commentary on The Sermon on the Mount, continues:

Do you want to know what your duty is as a prince or a judge or a lord or a lady, with people under you? You do not have to ask Christ about your duty. Ask the imperial or the territorial law. It will soon tell you your duty toward your inferiors as their protector. It gives you both the power and the might to protect and to punish within the limits of your authority and commission, not as a Christian but as an imperial subject. What kind of crazy mother would it be who would refuse to defend and save her child from a dog or a wolf and who would say: “A Christian must not defend himself”? Should we not teach her a lesson with a good whipping and say: “Are you a mother? Then do your duty as a mother, as you are charged to do it. Christ did not abrogate this but rather confirmed it” (Luther, The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat 1999).

The laws of the state of Illinois confer upon the citizen the power to effect arrest and the right to use appropriate force in order to stop crime, just as it does for a Peace Officer[1]. Therefore, I would urge Mr. Schenck to consider that a citizen, acting in his vocation as such, is not committing sin if he lawfully owns or carries a gun for the purpose of lawful protection. He is simply acting according to the vocation of citizen into which God has placed him, under the stewardship of the government which God has ordained.

The implication of this view is, however, that while one may be justified in using force to protect his neighbor according to his vocation, he may not be so justified to protect himself. I suppose this “good citizen” argument might be extended to include the individual protecting himself from crime, but for me the jury is still out. It seems to me that, when I meet that robber or terrorist who wishes to do me harm, as an individual Christian I am bound to turn the other cheek. Luther seems to agree with this view.

We have now [with the first four commandments] finished teaching about both the spiritual and the temporal government, that is the divine and the parental authority and obedience. But now we go forth from our house among our neighbors to learn how we should live with one another, everyone himself toward his neighbor. Therefore, God and government are not included in this commandment. Nor is the power to kill taken away, which God and government have. To punish evildoers, God has delegated His authority to the government, not parents. In earlier times, as we read in Moses, parents were required to bring their own children to judgment and even to sentence them to death (Deut. 21:18-21). Therefore, what is forbidden in this commandment is forbidden to the individual in his relationship with anyone else, but not to the government (LC 1, 180-181) (McCain, et al. 2005).

Of course, there is a difference between punishing evil-doers and defending one’s self or one’s neighbor from harm. A police officer foiling an armed robbery is not punishing the perpetrator when he uses force to stop the crime and make an arrest. The punishment comes after the criminal is tried, found guilty, and sentenced by a judge. Similarly, when a citizen uses force likely to cause great bodily harm or death to stop the same armed robbery, he is not “punishing evil-doers” outside of the bounds of his vocation. Rather, he living up to his obligation to protect and defend his neighbor.

The problem with Mr. Schenck’s statement that one cannot be pro-gun and pro-life is that it is not accurate and causes the Christian the type of cognitive dissonance Mr. Schenck exhibits in his article when considered apart from the doctrine of vocation.

Works Cited

Concordia Publishing House. Luther's Small Catechism. Translated by Concordia Publishing House. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1991.

Luther, Martin. "The Large Catechism." Chap. 1, 181 in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, edited by T. G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Luther, Martin. The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat. Vol. 21. Edited by J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999.

Schenck, Rob. "Commentary: You can't be pro-life and pro-gun." The Chicago Tribune, December 30, 2015.

End Notes

[1] 720 ILCS 5.0/7-6 (2015): Private Person’s Use of Force in Making Arrest (Illinois Compiled Statutes).

A Migration Story - Season's Greetings from the Unitarian Universalist Church

MS St. Louis

Citations from the Book of Concord have been taken from Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions: A Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord.

 

It’s that time of year again - time for the Christmas visit to Evansville, IN. It’s nice to get away from home and work for a while, and catch up with out-of-town family and friends. Of course it also means that I get to indulge in one of my other, more recent Christmas traditions; seeing what sort of nonsense the Unitarian Universalist Church is up to. Their church sign is usually good for a laugh, and some fodder for an article or two. This year has been no exception (though I don’t think anything will beat “Fire Communion” from 2013). 

 

Driving past the small white cinderblock building on Morgan Avenue, I saw that their sign advertised “A Migration Story.” I was immediately turned off, as this title conjured images of the whole, “Jesus was an unwelcome immigrant too!” chestnut, so often roasted by liberals when discussing the topic of illegal immigration. A little internet searching showed this Sunday’s service would indeed focus on immigration, but the message would be one that had been delivered on Thanksgiving at UU Rockford, IL by Rev. Dr. Matthew Johnson. This piqued my curiosity so I went looking for the text. Unfortunately for me I was unable to locate the printed text, but the people at UU Rockford did publish a podcast to iTunes, which I downloaded and listened to.

 

I won’t do a point-by-point critique of the Homily. In summary, the Rev. Dr. Johnson’s message was that, in the wake of terror and fear, some people seek to close the doors of immigration altogether. How dare you! God loves the stranger, and you were a stranger once to.

 

“If we want to be fair about it, that it is only those folks whose migration stories predate written history who were themselves overrun by the Europeans some 500 years ago who I think get a vote on which migrants we take in now,” he said (Johnson, 2015).

 

As I listened to the Rev. Dr. Johnson spout on and on about Americans should be completely open to accepting refugees and illegal aliens because of the 500 years of white European oppression of brown people I was struck by two things, one concerning the left-hand, the other concerning the right-hand kingdom.

 

First, the left-hand kingdom issue: The bulk of the approximately 20 minute homily focused on the telling of Rev. Dr. Johnson’s own migration story, and the tragic tale of the St. Louis. For those who don’t know, the St. Louis was a ship filled with asylum-seeking Jews which departed from Germany in 1939 bound for Cuba. The ship was turned away. They attempted to gain permission to land in America. The Nazi government, attempting to “help” the United States, warned that the people on board the St. Louis were Communists, criminals, and all manner of subversives. They were again rebuffed. The ship eventually made its way back to Europe. The Jews of the St. Louis found asylum in Great Britain and other countries on the continent. Half of them, however, would not survive the coming Second World War (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2015).

 

Rev. Dr. Johnson explained how his family had come from Germany to America on that very same ship after the Great War. His people had been allowed to come into the country and live; these other poor wretches had been callously turned away and most of them had perished.

 

To those people who would turn away refugees Rev. Dr. Johnson explained that he’d like to sit down at the kitchen table with them and, “I’ll read it [the story of the St. Louis] again, and I’ll read it again, until their heart is opened and their conscience awakes” (Johnson, 2015).

 

There is something to be learned from the story of the MS St. Louis and we should apply that knowledge to our situation today.

 

The sad tale of the St. Louis is not, however analogous to the refugee situation which Europe and America is facing today with those coming out of Syria and Iraq. Whether we wanted to admit it to ourselves or not, sending the Jews on the St. Louis back to Germany was a death sentence. They had no safe place in Europe to which they could flee, at least for very long. We knew that the Nazis wanted to purge the Jews from their midst; Hitler had written of his intentions, and his hatred for the Jews in Mein Kampf over a decade previous.

 

There was no real danger that these Jews were a threat to the United States. There were no Jewish Nazis, and the Nazi propaganda regarding who the passengers aboard the St. Louis were was, most likely, designed to play on the anti-semitic feelings of those in power at the time. The reports from Germany that those Jews seeking asylum were Communists and subversives gave the excuse needed in order to turn the ship away.

 

Today, the tens of thousands of Muslims fleeing war-torn Syria and Iraq seeking refuge in Europe and America have a different story. They are fleeing the horrors of war, but they do not face genocide. Unlike the Jews of the St. Louis, they do have other Muslim countries to go to where they would not be forced to live under Islamic State.

 

Unlike the Jews of the St. Louis, the fear that terrorists could be hidden among the asylum-seekers is legitimate. While there were no Jewish Nazis, there are most certainly Arab Muslim terrorists. So, while it may take some time to check out the backgrounds of Syrian and Iraqi Muslims seeking entry to the United States, they have other safe places to wait in the interim.

 

The real analogy to the Jews aboard the St. Louis would be to the Syrian and Iraqi Christians, the people whom our government has largely been ignoring (Shea, 2015). These people have been targeted by the Islamic State for death. They face persecution and genocide. There is no safe haven for these Christians in the Middle East. Despite their desperate situation the U.S. has refused to allow the Syrian and Iraqi Christians entry in favor of Muslim refugees, so as not to appear Islamophobic. And, like their Jewish refugee counterparts from 70 years ago, there are no Christian members of the Islamic State. It would be much simpler to investigate the backgrounds of these people than it is proving to do with the Muslim refugees, and their situation is far more urgent.

 

Instead, for political reasons, we choose the latter over the former.

 

We should absolutely learn the lesson of the “Voyage of the Damned” - but we are repeating this sad episode all over again, this time with Arab Christians paying the price.

 

God cares for men spiritually through the church; He cares for them temporally through family and government, all of which have been established by him. Part of the job of the government (what we Lutherans refer to as the “left-hand” kingdom) is to protect its citizens and administer justice.

 

“Civil rulers,” it is explained in the Augsburg Confession, “do not defend minds, but bodies and bodily things against obvious injuries. They restrain people with the sword and physical punishment in order to preserve civil justice and peace” (AC XXVIII 11).

 

It isn’t wrong for the government to protect its citizens by being careful when admitting refugees, immigrants, and asylum-seekers into the country. To the contrary, a ruler thus engaged is serving his citizens faithfully according to his vocation.

 

This brings me to the right-hand kingdom issue. During the course of this homily “god” was mentioned only a handful of times. Jesus was totally absent. Holy Scripture was not read at all. What a curious way for a “church” to celebrate the First Sunday of Christmas. Of course, I am well aware that the Unitarian Universalist Church is not Christian, and it does not surprise me. This is what they have to say of themselves:

 

“In Unitarian Universalism, you can bring your whole self: your full identity, your questioning mind, your expansive heart. Together, we create a force more powerful than one person or one belief system. As Unitarian Universalists, we do not have to check our personal background and beliefs at the door: we join together on a journey that honors everywhere we’ve been before. Our beliefs are diverse and inclusive. We have no shared creed. Our shared covenant (our seven Principles) supports “the free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” Though Unitarianism and Universalism were both liberal Christian traditions, this responsible search has led us to embrace diverse teachings from Eastern and Western religions and philosophies…We are united in our broad and inclusive outlook, and in our values, as expressed in our seven Principles. We are united in shared experience: our open and stirring worship services, religious education, and rites of passage; our work for social justice; our quest to include the marginalized; our expressions of love” (Unitarian Universalist Association, 2015).

 

War, bigotry, lawlessness, racism, and all the other things commonly referred to as “ills of society,” are the consequences of sin. Sin originated from our first father Adam who, by his disobedience in the Garden, made all men subject to sin and death.

 

“This hereditary sin,” Luther writes in the Smalcald Articles, “is such a deep corruption of nature that no reason can understand it. Rather it must be believed from the revelation of Scripture” (SA III I 3).

 

The Rev. Dr. Johnson said near the beginning of his message that he would sit down at the table with someone who was opposed to immigration, and read the account of the St. Louis to them over and over until their consciences awoke. When I heard those words I was saddened to think that this man would trade the God-breathed words we have been given in Holy Scripture, which are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness - the means of God’s grace, his living and active Word - for the words of men which have no power.

 

Wouldn’t it have been nice for the people listening to the Rev. Dr. Johnson to hear about their sin? No doctor can cure a disease which hasn’t been properly diagnosed, and the Rev. Dr. Johnson is no exception. He is attempting to cure the ills of society by applying a social gospel, which is really no gospel at all. These people, as do we all, need to hear how wicked they are. They, as do we, need to be called to repent of their sins. They, as do we, need to hear the good news that this sin of theirs has been paid for by the babe born in Bethlehem, Jesus, who was God in human flesh; that Jesus died on the cross in our place, and that he rose from the dead, and the gates of life eternal are opened to us by the grace of God through faith in him.

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

“Home.” Unitarian Universalist Church of Evansville. Accessed December 27, 2015. http://www.uuevansville.org.

 

Johnson, Rev. Dr. Matthew. “A Migration Story.” the UU Church-Rockford, IL. November 22, 2015. Accessed December 26, 2015. http://uurockford.podbean.com/e/11222015-a-migration-story/?token=085a764164a18148d872f961afb5fa7c.

 

McCain, Paul T, ed. Et. Al. Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions: A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2006.

 

Shea, Nina. “The State Department Turns Its Back on Syrian Christians and Other Non-Muslim Refugees.” National Review Online. November 2, 2015. Accessed December 27, 2015. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426419/christian-refugees-syria-religious-minorities-united-states-resettlement-policy.

 

“The Voyage of the St. Louis.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. August 18, 2015. Accessed December 27, 2015. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267.

 

“What We Believe.” Unitarian Universalist Association. February 9, 2015. Accessed December 27, 2015. http://www.uua.org/beliefs/welcome/index.shtml.