No other name, not even all the wonderful honorific titles by which the church of the East and the West has distinguished Mary. We have no other hope than He, the one Mediator! We don’t know whether Mary, or whether the blessed ones in the church triumphant, hear our voices. It may be that they pray for us. But that we should call to them, nothing about that is found in the Scripture, and Luther is correct when he says that we should rather ask the living saints on earth for their intercession than the dead ones, about whom we know nothing. And we should, above all, call to Him Who is always with us until the end of the world, and Whose return is anticipated in every celebration of His sacrament. It would have been the task of Evanston to announce this unica spes [one hope] of Christians. But that was not possible.
As Edmund Schlink [1903-1984] held his presentation about the main topic, deeply rooted in Scripture and explaining Scripture, the “Lutheran” bishop Eivind Berggrav [1884–1959][1] made the comment to another delegate: “The Word became theology and did not dwell among us” (Time, Pacific ed., of August 30, p. 36). While Schlink, whose presentation is certainly known to, or accessible to, each of you, expressed the biblical hope for Christ’s coming in all its relevance to the present, the correspondent, Prof. Robert L. Calhoun from Yale, a Congregationalist, developed the “American” version of Christian hope, in a manner which was certainly very significant, discussing the old Social Gospel of a previous era but really essentially rooted in liberalism and American Ritschlianism, according to which the goal of this hope is being more and more realized, even if not entirely perfected, already in this world. It was, in other words, the old contrast from Stockholm in 1925.[2]
It was an English lay delegate who declared that he was neither an Adventist nor a German theologian, but he considered it to be the un-surrenderable task of the church to announce the second coming of the Lord. Finally, it centered about this question, and over it, the minds were divided.
Whoever reads the reports will be reminded of the event which Heinrich Wilhelm Josias Thiersch (1817–1885) reports (Life, published by P. Wigand, 1888, p. 42) about his years as a student in Tübingen, where in the first sermon which he heard there, during Advent, Ferdinand Christian Baur[3] (1792–1860) said: “Christ is not coming again.” One sees how a man like Thiersch could be steered into his Irvingian [after E. Irving, Scottish preacher, 1792–1834] detours by exactly [such a remark]. Perhaps some people experienced similar things in Evanston. The well-prepared draft of a declaration about the great topic was rejected after intense discussion. In the document which justifies the rejection, it states:
We are not satisfied by the presentation of that which the report calls “rival hopes” (i.e., the hopes of political world-views offered as a substitute to contemporary humanity). Some believe that they are presented with too much sympathy, others wish for a still more understanding treatment. Many bring it to [our] attention that the list is incomplete and should, in any case, also contain hopes which falsely call themselves Christian. We are not entirely satisfied with the treatment of non-Christian religions, and cannot agree among ourselves about the correct definition of our hope in regard to those who believe in God but who do not recognize His revelation in Christ . . . Finally, some are of the opinion that the boundaries between the church and the world are drawn to sharply.
... So they did the only thing they could: they forwarded the report to the churches “for study, for prayer, and for exhortation.” That means that the attempt to utter a common word about Christ as the hope for the world, ended in failure...
One must grasp this immeasurable tragedy of non-Roman Christendom, in order to understand the fate of even the Lutheran Church in the world. If there would be one church, which could witness to the gospel and thereby to the real hope of the church, in the face of Rome and of the ecumenical council, then it would have to be the Church of the Lutheran Reformation. But it, apparently, is floating down the stream of an un-evangelical ecumenism. Indeed, it is odd, that exactly the loudest and least critical endorsements for the WCC is made in those churches, which today still carry the name “Lutheran.” Among all the gifts, which are given to the Lutheran bishops, presidents, and other “church leaders,” the gift which is so severely needed for a bishop’s office—as well as for the pastor’s office—is the great graciously-given gift of discerning among spirits.
[1] Sasse uses the quotation marks because Berggrav was a supporter of Reformed/Lutheran intercommunion, Barmen, etc. MH
[2] Stockholm Conference 1925 grew out of an appeal for peach and fellowship sent out by Christian leaders in several neutral countries at the outset of the First World War (1914), followed by an appeal by Soederblom in June 1917 for an immediate conference. ODCC p. 1544. MH
Posts
1 comments:
"Luther is correct when he says that we should rather ask the living saints on earth for their intercession than the dead ones, about whom we know nothing."
I am former LCMS Pastor (Ten years) who is now an Orthodox Presbyter. Greetings and congratulations on your election; may God be with you in leading this important American Denomination. Regarding this above quote, I wrestled with asking intercession of departed Saints for years. Finally a few things came together. First, I realized that if this practice had not been with the Church from the beginning, it would have had to have been introduced in the Apostolic era or afterwards. Oftentimes it is supposed that this was introduced post-Constantine. But if it were a novelty at any time after the Apostles, it is completely impossible that such a novelty would have taken hold in such disparate places as Syria, Spain and Egypt without a copious, written record of a knockdown, dragout fight of epic proportion (i.e. marcionism, monarchianism, arianism, etc.). No such record exists; if any mention is made it is sparse. Also, we do have extant the hymn/prayer to the Theotokos in the Egyptian Nativity Liturgy of around 250 (Sub Tuum Praesidium). This was not just private practise; it was mainstream! Also witness the plethora of pleadings on the Catacomb walls in Rome from the
200's. The same principle of catholic uniformity across the churches of the Roman Empire also is seen in the initiation rites of Baptism, Chrismation and Communion for all ages (including infants). It is utterly impossible that this uniform practice would take hold as a novelty (assuming that communion should be withheld from infants until they reach an age of reason)in such diverse locations.
Regarding the latter, I have a theory. In Orthodox circles, I often hear of a departure from the faith as crystalizing in scholasticism. But I contend that scholasticism was the bad fruit of the every Sunday experience of seeing infants and young children denied Christ in the Eucharist(a good book to read on this is by J.D.C. Fisher "Baptism in the Medieval West). Over generations of forgetting that Christ is given in his fullness to all regardless of age, mental capacity, etc. as a gift; the Western Church surmised an "age of reason" which supposedly readied one to be able to receive the lamb in communion. This is the root of "Decision Theology". Salvation is about more than just forgiveness; it is about Life (in the flesh of Christ). This gift is for the "Life of the World".
Just some thoughts in reaction to your post that came my way via a Facebook posting by a good friend of mine. Please feel free to PM me at dch1993@live.com .
Fraternal blessing,
Fr. Daniel Hackney
Post a Comment