Messages

I have spoken to two Venezuelans, one who is a member of my congregation, and one who is a bishop about the refugee crisis.  Both said they would discourage people from their country from trying to reach the US by foot.  Better to wait in place for asylum to be granted. 

I agree completely that for the Church the focus should be on people who are in need.  God is no respecter of persons and the Church should follow suit.  From the point of view of those skeptical of the Church, this is one of the things that is wrong with the Church.  They wonder why the Church wants to debate policy instead of simply helping those in need.  They know enough about the Church to know that there is to be no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. 

Even today, many of the members of my church are disappointed to hear that the doors of the church are locked.  Although they know that with mass shooters the protocols have changed, they are saddened.  My local police chief, when I first met him, was under the impression that the sanctuary rule still   applied to churches.  He wasn't sure he had the right to go into a church to arrest someone.   He certainly did not want to do that.

The image of the Church as a sanctuary, a hostel, and a hospital still lingers in people's minds.  They are often surprised and disappointed that we don't see ourselves that way.

We might recall that in the beginning of Hitler's rise, many Americans seemed to acquiesce. Even FDR! They turned away the ship full of Jewish asylum seekers.

One test of a person's sincerity is their willingness to accuse their own people first.  Since I'm an American and a Lutheran, I feel uncomfortable denouncing the Catholic Church until I have been honest about the failings of my own forebears.  I wonder if there has been a full accounting of the American Lutheran response to Hitler yet.  They only person I have ever heard address the issue, David Yeago, told me that the record of American Lutheranism was less than stellar.

I wonder if anyone here has more information.

Pastor Charlton, Dreher Notes frequently that what a lot of people thought we knew could not be verified, because sources would not go on the record. Newspaper standards in those days meant that, without reliable verification, you didn't print.
I once did a story on an accused priest and we went through some torturous editing in order to make sure that we did not clearly state what I thought to be true, but couldn't actually verify. We had to stick to court papers which contained minimal information.

Yes.  I understand that.  I referred to McCarrick to say that in the case of popular and powerful figures like Pope Pius XII, there can be a lot more that is known than can be printed. 

The same is true about popular Protestant figures, like Karl Barth.  Many people knew the truth about his decades-long relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum and the effect it had on his family, especially his wife Nelly.  However, it was only after the Barth family made some of his private letters available that someone like Christiana Tietz could write about it. 

I realize that Tietz is a biographer, not a reporter, but the general principle still applies.  It may take decades for something that is known by insiders to be able to appear in print.  When those things are revealed, it may be unpleasant and it may diminish people that we have admired. 

Pastor Charlton:
I remember when Bishop McCarrick was exposed in 2018 for being a serial sexual abuser of young men, seminarians and priests.  It was revealed that several journalists knew of this in 2002 but were prevented for various reasons from printing the truth.
Me:
"Revealed" by whom? And how? I was working for the major newspaper in New Jersey in 2002. I sure would've known if someone was preventing us from printing the truth.

Pastor Charlton:
Part of the problem was that no one was willing to go on the record.  Another problem, however, was that pressure was applied to news organizations to suppress the story.
Me:
What pressure? How? Again, I was covering religion in New Jersey in 2002.

Rod Dreher, who was a reporter at the time, has written about that extensively over the last 5 years.  Where have you been?  Try googling Rod Dreher + Cardinal McCarrick.

I admit that I don't have a PhD in history, but I did major in history as an undergraduate. I cannot imagine writing a paper that said, for instance,

"The Catholic Church signed a concordat with Germany in 1933, therefore Pope Pius was a Nazi.  The end."

Neither can I imagine writing a paper that said,

"At one point, Werner Elert was sympathetic to the Nazis, therefore anyone who makes use of Elert today is a Nazi.  The end."

It would take a lot more than one sentence to reach the conclusion that Pope Pius or Werner Elert are little more than Nazis.  So, for instance, is there a difference between signing a concordat in 1933 and signing a concordat in 1945.  I would think so, but some retired journalists don't seem to think the distinction is relevant.  My objections, written above were to the way that a certain retired journalist does history. 

The question of what Pope Pius knew and what choices he made are very relevant and should be explored.  Reasearch should lead where it leads.  Journalists have an important role in seeking the truth and sometimes they are thwarted in that work by powerful bishops and their supporters. 

I remember when Bishop McCarrick was exposed in 2018 for being a serial sexual abuser of young men, seminarians and priests.  It was revealed that several journalists knew of this in 2002 but were prevented for various reasons from printing the truth.  Part of the problem was that no one was willing to go on the record.  Another problem, however, was that pressure was applied to news organizations to suppress the story.

The same may be the case with Pope Pius. There may be a lot more out there that has been suppressed.  We will see.

It looks to me like Pius XII risked nothing,

What a remarkably ignorant thing to say.  The Nazis had hundreds of priests in their power in places like Poland who would have died if the Nazis didn't like the Pope's actions.  You can argue that the Pope should have been willing to send thousands of Catholics to martyrdom.  That may be true.  But to say that he risked nothing is stupid.

quite the contrary, he had a concordat with the Nazis to provide certain protections for the church in Germany.

The Catholic Church should be given at least the same benefit of the doubt as the Communist Party.  The Soviet Union signed a treaty with the Nazis in 1939 and was glad to help Hitler carve up Poland.   American Communists considerer the Nazis to be socialist allies until they invaded the Soviet Union.

It should also be given the same benefit of the doubt as the government of Great Britain, who signed an agreement with Hitler in 1938.

The concordat between the Vatican and Germany, on the other hand, was signed in 1933, when the violent and racist intentions of the Nazis were far less clear. 

The Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich by Doris L. Bergen makes it clear - to this reader, at least - that the Deutsche Christen prevailed, numerically, ideologically and in practice, some Nazi bishops continuing in office after 1945.

And a whole host of American Lutheran theologians were happy to import the work of Elert, Althaus, and others into their seminaries.  I do not believe that Elert and Althaus were Deutsche Christen, but their legacies have always been tainted by their ambiguous relationship to the Nazis.

By the way, one of the legacies of the Erlangen school in American Lutheranism is the insistence that there are only two uses of the Law.  Some have alleged that they introduced crypto-Marcionism into American Lutheranism. 

It looks to me like Pius XII risked nothing,

What a remarkably ignorant thing to say.  The Nazis had hundreds of priests in places like Poland who would die if they didn't like the Pope's actions.  You can argue that the Pope should have been willing to send thousands of Catholics to martyrdom.  That may be true.  But to say that he risked nothing is stupid.

quite the contrary, he had a concordat with the Nazis to provide certain protections for the church in Germany.

When was the concordat signed?  What were the stipulations?  Did the concordat mean that the Pope could act against Hitler without consequence?  You need to have clear answers to those questions before you say that the Pope risked nothing. 

To be clear. I am not advocating the elimination of the  threefold use. It can be useful for teaching.

There can be other ways to teach the Godly life and we ought to refrain from condemning everyone who does that without the third use. There certainly are antinomians out there. As David observes  many are a result of over reaction to Calvinism and Pietism. But not everyone who finds the third use as weak is necessarily an antinomian.

Peace, JOHN

Agreed. God's people have written about the usefulness of the Law since inter-testamental times. They did not always have this specific terminology but were able to think and communicate about Sanctification nonetheless.

I think Jenson's little book from ALPB (2011) called Lutheran Slogans: Use and Abuse is helpful in this regard:

"The problem with slogans is that as over time they become increasingly necessary, they just so tend to acquire lives of their own, and then can become untethered from the complex of ideas and practices which they once evoked. In that free-floating currency they are then available to be wielded to various ends, often antithetically to their original service and without awareness that this is happening."   

The battle over Two or Three Uses may be one of those cases.

Speaking for the three use crowd: we already answered that. No. Lex SEMPER accusat. Semper is semper. I am assuming, though, you are speaking of our life in this age and not after the Parousia.

Yes.  Agree.  You offer a new insight with emphasis on "semper". 

That word indicates a time element as opposed to e-ternal whic to me beyond time category.  Something for me to consider

I ran into this issue earlier, when I said the law is temporal.  I should have said that for the believer, the accusation of the Law is temporal.  On this side of eternal life, the Law always accuses. 

Now here is a place that I can use one of Paulson's statements. In eternal life, for the redeemed, the Law will remain as something that has been satisfied.  The purpose for which the Law was given will have been fulfilled.  We will be justified and sanctified.  For the damned, the Law will remain as that which has not been fulfilled.  The accusation will remain.

[not infidelity to believe]

This is not exactly the "threefold uses" that was created after Luther.

Agreed.

It seems to me that it is not infidelity to believe that the "third use" as traditionally understood has only thin support in Reformation theology. That alone does not deny Luther's strong appeals to a holy life so clearly asserted in the Decalogue, Small Catechism. Nor does it deserve being branded as antinomian.

17th century Orthodoxy is not only road to confessional fidelity.

Peace, JOHN

I agree again.  I would only add that it is not infidelity to teach the third use of the law, to exhort people live holy lives, or to encourage them to do good works. 

The problem with Paulson, and some others, is that their rhetoric indicates that it is infidelity.  If you teach the third use, exhort to holiness or good works, you are dismissed as a Pietist or Calvinist. That rhetoric is falsified by even a cursory review of Luther's Church Postils.  The postil for the First Sunday of Advent itself shows this.

[in which Christ's grace is given to keep the Law]

Then, above and beyond the Law, he must also preach the gospel, in which Christ's grace is given to keep the Law.  Luther' Works (Concordia Publishing House, 2013), 76:7-8 (Church Postil II)

That sounds an awful lot like sanctification.  I would even go so far as to say it is sanctification by grace through faith.

The law does provide information but not without the semper accusans.

Agreed. 

The problem with Agricola is that even when Law is not preached, it still accuses. One doesn't silence accusation of the Law by refusing to preach it, but only by preaching the Gospel. 

Lutherans believe that Law and Gospel should be preached to all people in this life, including Christians. In his Catechisms, Luther clearly intended his explanations to serve a multiple purpose: 1) to guide the head of the household in establishing discipline, 2) to shape the daily lives of Christians, 3) to drive people to the Gospel expressed in the Creed. Because Lutherans do not believe it total sanctification in this life, they know that the Law must continue to be preached. 

I believe that Paulson is making a mistake that his teacher Gerhard Forde warned about.  He is trying to silence the Law through a rhetorical tour de force.  The Law cannot be silenced that way. 

The presentation of law and gospel in the BoC and FC both epitome and SD do not present a balance but a giving over from the threats of the law semper accusans into the comfort and benefits of the gospel.  Jesus Christ crucified and living in the church through word and sacrament are the end.  "Use" of the law is always for sinners and forgiven sinners as well.  But it is always accusing even when it is informational after justification.

The law always accuses, but it doesn't only accuse. 

The Eisenach Synod of 1556

In the next section, Paulson explains his preference for the teachings of a group that was later addressed by the formula of Concord. This might be confusing to more traditional Lutheran theologians. Those of the German tradition are accustomed to following the doctrine of the Formula of Concord. The Scandinavian Lutheran tradition did not have that as a standard. Additionally, modern theologians who have advocated for academic freedom do not feel bound by the Confessions as traditional theologians would. Paulson seems to be influenced away from the Formula of Concord.

An irony I see in such theologians is that they wish to present themselves as sincere Lutherans, understanding that they are following Luther's vision for the proclamation of the Gospel. They happily quote some of Luther's more radical statements, especially those about the benefits the Gospel. But they ignore or brush aside other radical statements from Luther about the necessity and use of the Law. The historian of doctrine needs to reckon with both and in doing so sees that Luther indeed presents a balance Theology of Law and Gospel, sometimes giving one emphasis,  sometimes another depending upon opponent and occasion.

The real problem is when this is presented as Confessional Lutheranism to seminarians.  Study the Lutheran Confessions honestly, and then, if you want, say why you deviate from it.  Don't teach that Sanctification and the Third Use of the Law aren't found in true Lutheranism, but are some kind of Calvinistic or Pietistic infection.  That simply is not true. 

Regarding the Scandinavians, while it is true that they do not subscribe to the Book of Concord, they still have a doctrine of Sanctification, because Luther teaches it in the Small Catechism.  And while the term "Third Use" is not used, a statement like "We should fear and love God so that" sounds an awful lot like the Third Use.  It speaks not of what we are compelled to do by threat of temporal punishment, nor of the terror of eternal punishment caused by the law, but of what we should do out of faith in the true God.