Sunday, March 18, 2012

De Jure or De Facto Lutherans?


I'm delighted that Sasse's 70 or so Letters to Lutheran Pastors is making its way through the CPH python. I'm told it will appear in three volumes and that cover layout is in process.

Matt Harrison


I cannot tell which enlightening ecclesiastical jurist—or was it even a theologian?—distinguished for the first time between churches which are only de jure and churches which are de facto Lutheran. He fooled us all with this distinction, including me, as I would expressly like to say. It could not have been a good jurist. A good jurist would have known, how inexact and ambiguous these expressions are. In common law, e.g., the de facto recognition is much less [important] than the de jure recognition, while in the recognition of churches, the expressions are used in roughly the opposite sense: the de facto is more significant than the de jure. But it can also not have been a good theologian. A good theologian would have known that a confession which is only de jure valid is no confession at all. The validity of a confession is indeed something very different than the validity of a law. Even in the worst times of state ecclesiology with its mixture of ecclesiastical and worldly jurisprudence—one can still study this mixture today in Sweden or England—the “validity” of the Book of Concord has always been something different than the “validity” of a ordinance under penalty of death. For the confession is not a legal document, which humans have made, as they make an ecclesiastical ordinance, but rather it is an exposition of eternal truth, which the church confesses and teaches before God and before all Christendom, based upon the Holy Scripture, because it believes it. Confession is, therefore, as even the modern church constitutions admit, not the object of law-giving. One can change or do away with the Lüneburg order of service. One cannot “do away” with the Book of Concord, one can only “fall away” from it, and when one has fallen away from it, then it has lost its “validity.” A church which would call itself Lutheran, because in it the Lutheran confession still has de jure validity, perhaps because it binds its pastors to it, is like a man who calls himself Lutheran, and demands the rights of a Lutheran Church member, only because he has not yet left the church. When a church cannot say: we believe, teach, and confess—when it as a church still merely teaches and confesses, but leaves it to the individuals, whether or not they want to believe that which it regards as legally binding doctrine, then it has ceased to be a Lutheran church. A church is either Lutheran or it is not. It cannot be de jure Lutheran if it is not also de facto Lutheran.

Hermann Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors XXX, April 1953


Friday, February 24, 2012

Three Cheers for Concordia Theological Seminary

A Whole New Can of Worms

Standing before an assembly of princes at the Diet of Worms, Martin Luther famously said, “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against my conscience. May God help me. Amen.” When he spoke those words, the blessed Reformer knew that his life was on the line. His strong defense embodies not only the courageous spirit of Lutheranism but of Christianity throughout the ages. Indeed, the apostle Peter himself, upon threat of imprisonment and death proclaimed, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). This means that while we honor those in authority, our first allegiance must be to our Creator. This means that Christians understand their duty is to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. (Luke 20:25)

Christians gratefully recognize that temporal authority is a gift from God. We heed well the words of St. Paul who writes, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1). Our Lord Himself did not come to establish an earthly kingdom but a heavenly one. While the government bears the sword, our only weapon is the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. Christians did indeed come to “turn the world upside down” (Acts 17:18), but their purpose has never been to foment revolution. Rather, we come to preach a message of forgiveness, a crucified and risen Savior, who has won for us salvation and who has taught us that every human life is precious to God.

Thus, as Christians and in accordance with Scripture, we pray for those in authority. We thank God for the gift of governance, and in all things we strive to act in accordance with the law. We seek in every way to be good citizens of this land and to fulfill our civic duties. Still, we must also say to our leaders and to the world that we are also subject to another law and answer to a higher court. We confess that on the last day Christ will come to judge us all according to His holy law. This law manifests itself in our conscience by which all people act according to their perception of what is right and wrong. (Romans 2:14-15) The conscience is the internal law, as it is written in our hearts. It is our perception of God’s will. Now, it is true that our conscience may be uninformed or ill-informed. As Christians, we recognize that the conscience can err and, therefore, must be informed by God’s Word, so that it may conform to God’s will. It is true that on certain ethical issues people of good will come to different conclusions. In the New Testament we see instances of some who thought that eating meat sacrificed to the idols was a sin. Whether or not such eating was a sin was open to debate. What was not open to debate was the fact that to go against one’s conscience is always a sin. To go against conscience is to say, within oneself, “I will disobey God. My will, not His, be done.” For this reason, we must be especially respectful of conscience, for in doing so we show respect for the integrity and dignity of one another.

Now, we come to the present day debate, brought on by the “women’s preventive care” mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS Secretary Katherine Sibelius issued this mandate with the endorsement of President Obama. According to this mandate, Catholic institutions, including hospitals, schools, and charities, will have to pay for both contraceptives and abortifacients. Some have tried to turn this into a debate on women’s rights and their access to reproductive services. And yet, we should be clear, this is not the issue.

This has been made clear by our Synod President, whose bold words echo those of Martin Luther. Appearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February 16, 2012, Dr. Matthew Harrison, President of The Lutheran Church –Missouri Synod (LCMS), testified, “The conscience is a holy thing,” and then added, “We fought for a free conscience, and we won’t give it up without a fight.”

To some it may seem unusual to hear such words offered up by a Lutheran pastor in defense of a presumably Roman Catholic teaching. Now, we should say without hesitation that as Lutherans we stand firmly against abortion and recognize it as a grave evil and a national tragedy. On this position we are in full agreement with the Catholic Church. We who proclaim Christ as the life of the world hold all life precious, from conception to natural death. Yet, there is still another issue which is at play, namely, that of conscience and of the religious liberty proclaimed in the Constitution of the United States.

As LCMS Lutherans, we operate preschools, grade schools and high schools. We take pride in our university system as well as our seminaries, and we perform countless works of mercy through our many charitable organizations. The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s World Relief and Human Care brings needed supplies and resources to victims of famines and floods. At the grass roots level, Lutheran congregations operate food and clothing banks, provide shelters for the homeless, hope centers for the abused and medical care to the indigent. Through these and so many other ways we express our Christian faith and bring Christ’s love to our neighbor.

According to this new ruling of the HHS, all employers will be forced to provide not only contraceptives but also drugs that induce abortion. Churchly institutions that do not serve primarily members of their own church would be subject to this new ruling, except with one “accommodation.” This accommodation would allow churchly institutions to opt out of paying for this service, with the proviso that their insurance carriers would then pay for these things themselves, providing them at no cost to those covered by the institution’s policy. Christians must recognize that this accommodation is not enough. Rather than an expression of freedom, the mandate is coercive. Indeed, the very idea of an “accommodation” is troubling. Thomas Jefferson asserted that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Unalienable means that these rights cannot be given, given up or taken from us. According to our nation’s own founding documents, the government has no right to pass laws that would abridge the exercise of our religious freedom. Indeed, as Christians, we recognize that religious liberty is a gift from God. Our own church, the LCMS, was founded by men and women who left their homeland so that they could exercise their religion freely and in accordance with their conscience. And we are grateful for all the men and women who have fought to preserve this same religious freedom.

According to this unconstitutional mandate, Christians who own insurance companies will be forced to offer contraceptives and abortifacients. Christian institutions will be forced to buy insurance from companies that will also have to provide their workers contraceptives and abortifacients. While we do not share with the Catholic Church the same teaching on contraceptives, we do honor their right, according to the First Amendment, to practice their beliefs according to their conscience. Furthermore, we do stand with them entirely on the matter of abortifacients, which we hold to be the taking of human life. We fear that human life itself is being treated like a commodity. We are concerned with a mindset that thinks of human beings as a commodity, rather than as a precious good and a source of blessing in and of itself. At stake is the very dignity of our humanity.

Furthermore, this mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is by no means an isolated incident, but is part of a troubling trend in which governmental entities are demanding that religious institutions abandon their own biblical principles or else discontinue their works of charity. For instance, Christian adoption agencies are already being coerced into providing adoption services for same-sex couples. Due to conscience informed by biblical values, some agencies refuse, and as a result, adoption agencies are closed down, children are not adopted into loving families and the whole of society suffers. Terrible precedents have been set and, if allowed to stand, will forever alter the landscape of our society. Accordingly, we must ask some fundamental questions as to what type of society we wish for our children and grandchildren. Do we want to live in a world where social activities informed by religious conscience are systematically exterminated? Do we want to live in a world where the social fabric is torn apart, and an overreaching government harasses the very people who knit together our society through acts of charity and mercy? Do we want the public landscape wiped clean of religious hospitals, schools and charitable organizations?

The situation is critical. If this mandate is allowed to stand, the world will become a poorer place, those in need will needlessly suffer and our own message of Christ’s love will be silenced. This mandate, and others like it, must be resisted.

What then can we, as Christians, do? For one, we must stand in solidarity with those under assault. As citizens of this nation, we must remind our leaders of the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. We must teach our people that we have a right to life that comes not from the government, but from God. We must support those who put themselves on the line in defense of this liberty. And we must ourselves also be willing to stand up and pay the price of our convictions, whatever that price may be. While we do all this, we will continue to be good citizens. We will continue to engage in acts of mercy. We will continue to offer up prayers and supplications on behalf of our nation and its leaders, even as we pray that they would rescind this mandate. So, finally, we say with St. Paul, may we “always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man” (Acts 24:16). May God grant us wisdom and courage in the days ahead.

Adopted by the faculty of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana, February 21, 2012.

Monday, February 20, 2012

My trip into the Monkey Cage


So.... I was just minding my own business when last Tuesday the call came from D.C. "We want you to testify on the HHS provisions." Hmmmmmmmmm..... Nuts! I've got a ton of work to do! LCMS Board of Directors' the next day, then the Southern Illinois District Convention, then Council of Presidents. Congressman Issa's staff were making the inquiry. Thought about it for a bit. Staff thought yes, no, maybe. I'd just been in D.C. with LCMS friends. They were lamenting the absence of our voice in D.C. Couldn't let them down at this point. OK, I'll go.

Next morning I hopped on a plane at 11:00 a.m. for Reagan in D.C. Went over to see our friends at the Becket Fund (a bunch of brilliant kid-lawyers who helped us prevail in an astounding 9-0 Supreme Court Decision on the Hosanna Tabor Case. The EEOC was harassing the LCMS, asserting that the Feds had a right to stick their nose in a matter of a church school's employment of a commissioned minister (teacher).

Had my friend, Lutheran ethicist John Pless along, and Ann Stillman, lawyer for our Concordia Plans (the LCMS insurance agency). After the briefings we enjoyed a late dinner. Slept o.k. Woke early to write my testimony for the hearing later that morning. Had to keep it within 5 minutes. Felt inspired.

Headed to the Capital Hill Club with friend and LCMS layman Tim Goeglein at 7:30. "Wouldn't change a thing" he commented on my statement. "They will throw everything possible at you to make you look like an idiot, a bigot or whatever...." "Don't respond in kind."

Off to the hearing room in one of the congressional office buildings. Only one security check. Got there at 8:30 a.m. Invited to the "anti-room" with other panelists. Congressman Issa stopped to inform us that there was ongoing drama with the democrats regarding witnesses. They'd failed to get the name and credentials in of a woman who'd been denied medications at Georgetown. Keep calm. Stick to your convictions.

The hearing commenced with drama. Democrats blasted away on the make up of the committee. It's all about women's health. Where are the women? Never mind the Dem's had proposed Barry Lind (man) who didn't show. Never mind two women on the second panel. I had no idea who would or wouldn't testify. No idea about the rules. All I know is that the administration had issued some surreal regs via HHS that religious institutions would have to distribute "birth control" medications (i.e. meds that kill unborn life) to all employees. Then the administration issued a statement stating that the insurance companies would pay, not the church. Read the regs on the airplane. Horrid limitation of freedom of religion to houses of worship and not institutions owned and operated by the church.

I was in total sympathy with our Catholic friends. They have a principled position on abortion causing meds (just like we do), and a conscience position regarding birth control. What in the world is the fed government doing forcing anyone to act contrary to long standing moral teaching of the church? Why in the world are we "grandfathered" and given an "accommodation" for what is CLEARLY our first amendment right!

The hearing was a sideshow. I was asked by folks back home, "It seamed speaker after speaker on the democrat side had not heard what you just said!" Said, I, "They didn't. You see each person simply came in with the talking points for the cameras and blasted away only to leave as soon as they did the grandstand." All was twisted. "You really want to get rid of birth control, right?" Harrison: No. We're not against Birth Control, but only abortion causing drugs. "You really don't care about women right?" Harrison: No. I've spent years assisting them. I knew my dear wife was at home no doubt yelling at the T.V. Wished she were there instead of me at that point.) Republicans wanted to draw me into condemning Obama outright. Wouldn't do it. I was representing the Missouri Synod. We haven't condemned Obama care, or even ruled on it. And we won't. Our problem is the government forcing religious people to act contrary to their doctrine and practice.

I felt like I was in monkey cage frankly. But the media circus followed. The Dems lost the argument in the hearing, so they sent in the troops to obfuscate and create drama for the ever willing press. So the story is turned to something like this: "Why do you guys hate women?" "Why do you want to take our contraceptives away?" "How can you men be testifying about women's health?" There were some exceptions. Tim Townsend gave us an accurate piece in the St. Louis Post Dispatch. The New York Times wasn't all bad. Others were pathetic. Nancy Palosi was blasting away on the Sunday morning shows with the obfuscation. (I regard that attack as a badge of honor.) The panel photo even appeared on SNL. More nonsense. I couldn't care less.

The constitution is with us. And like Hosanna Tabor, it may take some time, but I believe the HHS provisions are going to fall with a crash in the Supreme Court. And we'll have another shot at talking about what the "real" issue is.

Matt H.

The TEXT of Harrison's HHS Ruling Testimony

Click HERE.

From Molly's Blog:

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2012
Posted by Mollie
Share

Yesterday, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee had a hearing on threats to religious liberty. The Republicans on that committee were trying to make President Obama look bad, because of his recent edict requiring religious groups to provide insurance policies that violate their doctrines. The Democrats on the Committee staged a walkout because some of the panelists who were brought on to discuss questions of religious liberty had male parts.

Guess what happened with the coverage!

Yesterday I noted Politico: “Carolyn Maloney, Eleanor Holmes Norton walk out of contraception hearing. ABC News: “Rep. Darrell Issa Bars Minority Witness, a Woman, on Contraception”. CBS: “Dems decry all-male House panel on WH contraception rule.” A reader noted:

Mollie, you missed the absolutely wretched CNN article

You would have thought that none of the clergy were present and that only the grandstanding politicos were there.

Because it’s so rare to have the head of my church body speak on these things, our members were surprised (or at least disappointed) to the see the disparity between what actually happened in the hearing (and many of them watched) versus what was reported in the media. It was almost like a parallel universe. And they haven’t even gotten basic facts right, attributing to Metropolitan Jonah what was said by the Rev. Matthew C. Harrison. (Hint: they both have facial hair but very different facial hair.)

What’s interesting to me is that if you were going to focus on grandstanding Democratic politicians, I found the remarks of Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., in which he went after the panelists and dismissed the hearing as a sham much more interesting. And he staged a walkout, too!

But the idea that the media would just swallow the public relations spin of one party and ignore or downplay the substance of the hearing … is frustrating.

My church body never engages in politics, for doctrinal reasons. But here even when we are compelled to speak out, the words that our elected President spoke aren’t important because he’s male? By falling for partisan spin about gender inequality, reporters have completely marginalized me and the millions of women who were being represented yesterday. It’s infuriating. It is sexism, but not the type that they recognize.

In any case, we already showed how laughable the oft-repeated, obsessed-over stat is, the one regarding 98 percent of Catholic women who, we’re told, use birth control for fun all of the time. We showed how that statistic was invented and, rather, showed that 87 percent of Catholic women who are not open to life in general but who report fighting contraception in particular use contraceptives. Or, as we could say 87 percent of Catholic women who are not pregnant, not post-partum, not pre-partum and are having sex right now and are between the ages of 15-44) are using contraceptives. The White House put it in talking points and the media swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

You may be interested in this statistic from CNN.com. CNN reports that a full 22 percent of Catholics support Catholic teaching on birth control. This is a statistic that has nothing whatsoever to do with the religious liberty concerns being addressed by a wide variety of church officials, but at least it addresses how many Catholics support Catholic teaching.

I’ll note a similar statistic from another poll. Guess what percentage of Catholics go to mass weekly? Take a random guess. Did you guess … 22 percent?

Oh, and polls show that a majority of citizens oppose the new HHS policy. Do you think that story is being accurately set forth? The opposite?

I read a piece in the New York Times that mentioned the debunked 98 percent statistic and I decided to follow the link of supposed substantiation. It went to, and I’m not joking, a Politifact story that rated the fraudulent statistic … yes … “mostly true.

The piece admits that characterizations of the study were deeply flawed, although it only mentions some of the flaws with that characterization, before giving the ruling. The article basically says that, despite evidence showing problems with the study design relative to the claims of the study, Politifact says “who cares? Mostly true. Hiccup!” To see what an actual fact-check looks like, as opposed to writing what you wish were true, you can check out the links in this post from a few days ago. And a reader points out that special credit simply must be given to commenter Bain Wellington, who really nailed the problems with that stat before others.

Do check out Glenn Kessler’s fact check of the statistic over at The Washington Post:

The claim that 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception: a media foul

He simply explains what’s flawed with the statistic without denying that many Catholic women do contracept:

If a statistic sounds too good to be true, be wary. A spokesman for Pelosi said she was saying that 98 percent of Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives — because that is how the media characterized it.

But, judging from the examples above, the media has gotten it wrong. The journalistic shorthand has been that “98 percent of American Catholic women have used contraception in their lifetimes.” But that is incorrect, according to the research.

“The shorthand is not what our statistic shows since we only looked at women aged 15-44 who have ever had sex,” Jones said.

The NSFG data on women of child-bearing age certainly may still be relevant to the debate over contraception, because these are the women who today might have a need for access to free birth control. The data also shows that there are few differences between women of different religions in terms of contraceptive use; there was not much difference back in 1973 but the gaps have narrowed even further today. But that still does not excuse the media’s sloppy shorthand for this statistic.

Two Pinocchios — to the media

Sounds fair. Now, it’s also true that journalists haven’t explained how the percentage of parishioners who violate a church teaching becomes the basis for determining whether it’s ok to violate religious liberty. There are arguments in favor of this and against it, and it should not be assumed.

Page IconPosted at 3:47 pm | Print Print | Permalink | Trackback | Comments (24)
divider

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2012
Posted by tmatt
Share

The political battle over same-sex marriage continues in my home state of Maryland and the New York Times recently published an appropriately blunt story looking at the biggest hurdle faced by gay-rights activists — the opposition of African-American churchgoers.

Please read the story for yourself.

As you read it, it will probably be hard not to notice that only one person is quoting in defense of the conservative stance on this hot-button issue and that quote, it seems, comes from a radio interview. Another conservative is briefly quoted, but only to offer information about the political controversy itself, not about his beliefs on the issue at hand.

Did anyone from the Times interview ANY African-American Christians who oppose same-sex marriage? It’s hard to tell.

Is this bad, from a journalistic point of view? One could say that the story is flawed, if the goal is to present a fair, balanced and accurate story that represents the beliefs and arguments of people on both sides of these arguments. If the goal is advocacy journalism in favor of same-sex marriage, then the story is fine.

It seems to me that this is a perfect example of the new Bill Keller gospel of journalism. As he recently stated — click here for details — professionals at the Times no longer need to pretend to be neutral on issues related to morality, culture and, by implication, religion. The paper has grown beyond those old-fashioned standards.

Nevertheless, one passage in the story does deserve some attention:

Much of the hesitation, black advocates of the bill say, has its roots in the churches, whose influence is strong among many African-Americans. And while the overwhelming majority of black clergy in the state still strongly oppose same-sex marriage — they held a rally here in the state capital last month to make that point — a few young pastors have come out in support.

“This was an issue I knew I could not avoid,” said the Rev. Delman Coates, 39, one of two Baptist preachers who testified in support of the bill in a hearing last week. “Clergy leaders have been organizing against this, and I didn’t want my silence to sound like consent.”

According to the Times, the key issue here is young clergy vs. old clergy. The person held up in support of this argument is Coates — who is a crucial voice in this debate. I would argue that his presence in the story is not only appropriate, but essential.

The issue is whether his stance, on this issue of Christian theology, is truly rooted in his age or in his approach to issues of church history and biblical authority. He is a Baptist, of course, but that’s also the case with Bill Clinton, the Rev. Bill Moyers, Al Gore, the Rev. Al Sharpton and a host of others on the doctrinal left. The word “Baptist,” essentially, contains no doctrinal content — other than a commitment to congregational and personal autonomy on matters of doctrine.

However, with a few clicks of a mouse, a journalist can find his biography on the Mt. Ennon Baptist Church website:

Rev. Delman Coates is a graduate of Morehouse College (B.A. in Religion, 1995), Harvard Divinity School (Master of Divinity, 1998), Columbia University (Master of Philosophy in Religion, 2002), and Columbia University (Ph.D. in New Testament & Early Christianity, 2006). … Dr. Coates’ dissertation entitled, “Resistance Reading: Reconsidering the Functions of Early Christian Allegory,” examines the cultural-critical function of early Christian allegorical interpretation, and proposes an alternative comparative methodology for the study of early Christianity.

Dr. Coates’ published articles entitled, “And the Bible Says: Methodological Tyranny of Biblical Fundamentalism and Historical Criticism” in Blow The Trumpet In Zion (2004). …

So, is the crucial factor here this pastor’s age or is it that much of his theological training was found, well, on the left side of academic life in New York City?

Once again, this preacher’s voice is essential to the story. The key is whether his voice is typical and whether, if the goal is understanding the events unfolding in Maryland, readers needed to hear other voices, from other pews, with other perspectives. Obviously, this depends on the goal of the editors who approved its publication.

Page IconPosted at 12:56 pm | Print Print | Permalink | Trackback | Comments (2)
divider