Two Tiered Christianity

Throughout the history of the church there have been movements that attempted to promote a two tiered view of the church. The gnostic heresies talked of those without liberating knowledge, the unenlightened, and those "in the know." Today such ideas can be seen in differentiating between believers and seekers, believers and Christ followers. The monastic movement saw a difference between those concerned with living every day lives and those who separated themselves to chastity, poverty, and obedience within the cloister. The radicals of the Reformation proposed doing away with every vestige of the medieval church. They sought to return to primitive christian practices, believer's baptism, and a holiness based in the Law of God. These ideas are around today in popular American evangelicalism. Dichotomies such as: Jesus as only Savior or Jesus as also Lord, a christian or a disciple, weak believers or mature believers, cheap grace or costly grace, carnality or Spirit baptism, etc.

I do not dismiss some of the distinctions made in the past. But have you noticed one glaring problem? The distinctions in our perceptions about ourselves and others all revolve around us and what we do. We must seek gnosis. We must be Christ followers. We must separate ourselves from the world. We must make Jesus Lord. We must go beyond being merely a christian and become a disciple. We must show that we appreciate the cost of grace by our lives of sacrifice. We must be Spirit filled and speak in tongues. Each of these distinctions, that focus on what we do in contrast to others who don't, feeds our pride. We are better than them. We are mature. They are still babies. Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 10:12 "For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise."

When we compare ourselves to one another of course we can find others who don't measure up to "our standard." Believe me, that many of those who don't measure up are aware. We don't let them forget. Some of them will eventually become despondent. They will walk away from the church. We will have committed a grave sin of pushing sinners away from God. You think this is unreasonable and overstated. I am one of those who could have walked away. I knew many who did. The common factor was the bait and switch move from the Gospel to the Law. Sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus changes to our own efforts to keep a self imposed list of rules, even rules based soundly in Scripture, in order to be all we can be. Those who think they have attained some measure of success in doing so feel good about themselves and their attainments.

After all a disciple, so the argument goes, is self-disciplined. Get with it! Just try harder. Develop good habits. Get off your lazy butt and do what God commands. However, the transfer of discipline, and hence self-discipline, from the term disciple is illegitimate. It is based in English not Greek. In Greek the term disciple, mathetes, at its most basic meaning is "a learner, a pupil." One could say that for a christian the focus should be on the One teaching us through his Word. Who talks about or remembers a great teacher's pupil? The focus is on the Teacher!

In the Bible there is no distinction between a christian and a disciple. In The Gospels the term disciple, mathetes, is almost exclusively used of the twelve. The Gospels do not present a flattering picture of the twelve. They look and act a lot like us with their jealousy, pride, selfishness, and even unbelief. In Acts the term expands to include all believers. In Acts 11:26 the term christianos is equivalent to mathetes, "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Paul, the apostle who was certainly a disciple, called himself the chief of sinners (in the present tense not past tense, 1 Tim. 1:15). He showed the struggle he had against a contrary law in his members at conflict with what he wanted and should do (Rom. 7:23). I can understand Paul's struggle. The longer I have been a christian the less holy I feel. I see so much more about me that doesn't measure up to God's absolute standard. Perhaps the problem with two tiered christianity is simply that we think in the wrong terms. We are measuring ourselves by the wrong standard. We pick a standard that we can achieve either by actually doing it or by fudging a bit and excusing ourselves from perfection. In our pride we deceive ourselves that we actually do what God expects! But if we measured ourselves against perfection which of us could claim any level of attainment? "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

Luther taught that the christian life is a life of repentance. When we truly measure ourselves by God's standard we can fully understand why he said this. In fact, we don't know the half of it. I am sure that I don't always recognize when I fall short of God's standard. This is especially true when it concerns doing good works. In my opinion we need forgiveness as much for our good works as we do for our sins! I need forgiveness for this blog and for my last sermon! Perhaps we should say that even our best works are tainted and corrupted by sin. Good news! Christ didn't just die for our sins. He lived for us. In Heb. 5:8 it says, "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." The term "learned" in Greek is manthano. Guess what term it is closely related to? Your right, the term is a cognate (very closely related term) of the term disciple, mathetes. Christ's perfect obedience before God is the perfection of what we call discipleship! Though I could never be the perfect disciple, Jesus was, for me! So, even though we try hard, we fail to be what God wants us to be. Thank God Jesus served God without sin for us. Therefore God forgives my imperfect obedience in Christ.

Then why do any good works? Why go to church, why study the Bible, why do good deeds for others? We go to church and study the Bible to learn from Christ and receive his gifts. We do good deeds for our neighbor in order to bear testimony of our gracious Lord. In all of this as christians, as disciples, we live in God's forgiveness for all of our sins, even those that are called good works. We all live in the same forgiveness as sinners saved by grace alone!

Are we becoming a three ring circus? The Abuse of the Call in Missouri.

[Issues, Etc. Blog of the Week 12/11/2009]

The Augsburg Confession teaches: "Concerning church government it is taught that no one should publicly teach, preach, or administer the sacraments without a proper [public] call." [Augsburg Confession, Articles of Faith, XIV. Concerning Church Government] (Kolb, R., Wengert, T. J., & Arand, C. P. (2000). The Book of Concord : The confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.] Note that this article is undisputed. It is the norm accepted by the whole church at the time of the Reformation!

Since becoming a Lutheran I have been concerned about an ongoing constellation of problems concerning the office of the ministry in the Missouri Synod. I cannot deal with all of them here. I want to briefly describe some things I have personally observed concerning what I will name as the "Abuse of the Call."

One note before describing the problem is that these abuses have become so common and in some cases so long standing that long time LCMS folks may not give them much thought. I hope that this will stir you up to revisit the Lutheran Confessions and other books concerning the Office of the Ministry (by such men as Chemnitz and Walther).

The first ring of abuse, and the highest in the hierarchy of the church, is at the level of District Presidents. Two main areas have been noted. I review them here.
1) Removal of men from their calls without proper reason and process (Todd Wilken, Martin Noland, et al.) -or- allowing a congregation to do so. This is often followed by activity noted below.
2) Hindering confessional men from receiving a call through active and passive acts, i.e. acts of commission or omission. Actively blocking the call process through various bureaucratic means, providing unwarranted negative input about a man (perhaps in violation of the 8th commandment), unilaterally taking names off of a congregation's call list, refusing to pass a name on to another district. Passively doing nothing to help a man, not following up in necessary steps to help a man to receive a call -or- "not so benign" neglect.

Note that this kind of abuse is despite the fact that DPs have no constitutional or confessional authority to hinder or abuse the call process. The Power of the Keys, and thus the power to call belongs to the Church and by extension and in practice to the local congregation!

The second ring of abuse is when churches do not take seriously their responsibility/authority to properly call a man.
1) This often happens due to ignorance or lack of understanding concerning the Power of the Keys and the authority to call a qualified man. This often exhibits itself by churches allowing a DP to usurp the congregation's responsibility/authority. Nature abhors a vacuum.
2) Another reason is due to lack of finances. There are many (small) churches that have severe financial issues. "Pay scale guidelines" can serve as a further obstacle to calling a man. However, so called "tent maker" options could be explored (i.e. a man has a part time job and serves the congregation). Many men are willing to serve for less than pay scale guideline levels. Willingness to share a man with other small congregations might work in such cases. A local congregation might need to re-examine its priorities. They may have more resources than they think. Churches must take the initiative to explore their options.
3) The most disturbing problem is due to convenience/lack of commitment. Some churches are more than willing to allow a "fill-in" pulpit supply situation to be the regular, ongoing situation. I won't discuss the problems with many ad hoc or fill-in pulpit supply situations here. The issue is congregations that for various reasons do not regularize their public ministry through a proper call. This neglect of their congregational responsibility/authority is a serious problem. In the Saint Louis area, as in any seminary/graduate school town, such ad hoc arrangements are common. However, is this truly what the confessors taught in AC XIV?

The third ring is by servants of the Word themselves:
1) The most common is politicking for a call. We have all seen the process abused when men use personal influence to get a call. Walther considered this to be illegitimate (cf. Walther's Pastoral Theology).
2) Another abuse is contributing to the degradation of the office of the public ministry by participating in invalid or illegitimate situations. I have come to the conclusion that in doing so many servants of the Word have unintentionally contributed to the problem. Too often many "logical" reasons are given for such ad hoc arrangements--but how many are truly emergencies? Once again does AC XIV allow for such ad hoc arrangements? And even if a theological argument can be made for such arrangements is the situation presently such that faithfulness to the Lutheran Confessions requires a strict adherence to the doctrine in order to restore proper order?

Finally, the issue at stake is not merely organizational. The real issue is the proclamation of the Gospel and confidence that the man in the pulpit is speaking for God, that the man at the altar is forgiving sins by the authority of Christ through Word and Sacraments. With such treasures given to the Church by our Lord why would we settle for uncertainty, confusion, and lack of proper order?

The Citadel (a cautionary tale)

The smoke and dust rose in an ever increasing pillar. Our beloved city was gone. In a moment of time it was no more. We stood together, in a small cluster, on the hillside, weeping and singing our laments. "Oh, Citadel, fairest of cities, beautiful sanctuary, our home in this new land. Gone! Gone! Nothing remains. Gone!"

We had come to the new land years ago. We were seeking a sanctuary, a place of freedom, a place to worship God in Spirit and truth. The road was long and difficult. Across the sea, down the rivers, to the west, toward the setting of the sun. For centuries we had been a people sojourning first here then there. Ever gong on, ever westward. We longed for a settled life, a place of security.

When we arrived at the valley we beheld the fertile lands, the merging of two great rivers, the rich forests. This was a place to settle, to build, to grow, to prosper. There was no king, no emperor, no supreme pontiff. We would be governed by the sacred scriptures, by the faith of our fathers that is found in them. In our new homeland we would trust in our God and serve our neighbor. Each man would contribute to the whole. Each week we would join together to hear God's truth and receive his gracious gifts of forgiveness, life, and salvation. Then we would go out into the land and live in faith toward God and in love toward one another.

This was our hope. It was the plan. But the plans of sinful men often go astray. Even at the beginning we encountered problems. Some of our group wanted to adapt our ways to the ways of the people of the land. They did not think it wise to be different, to stand out. "We must make them trust us, to feel comfortable with us." Others would claim, "They will be more likely to join us in our faith if we put away the old dusty ceremonies and non essential dogmas of the past."

So, we split into two factions. One was always changing. Always trying out new ideas from the people of the land. In short order they no longer taught the faith as our fathers passed it on. Their doctrines changed. They held ceremonies that resembled the ceremonies of other faiths. They thought us foolish for hanging on to the old ways. "You cannot keep your grandfather's ways forever!"

We thought them foolish and unfaithful to our faith for abandoning the ancient ways. How could one claim to be a follower of the faith when throwing away its teachings and changing the very ceremonies that helped to teach its truth and give its blessings?

Many of our people did not understand the fuss. "Why are your two groups always fighting? Can't we all get along?" An uneasy truce was reached. Both sides gathered with their own. Both looked with suspicion on the other. Both became certain that they were right.

Each side occasionally tried to exert control over the other. Neither succeeded until the last days of the Citadel. A man arose who used political power and rhetoric to fool those in the middle who just wanted to get along with everyone. His conciliatory words and his promises of better days caused them to give him support. "After all," they claimed, "if we agree on a few basic things it is enough." He was elected the First Servant. As First (as he liked to be called) he packed his Council with friends and fellow "new way" believers. Through executive privilege and through sweeping changes in the rules he forced the people to accept his ideas.

Those of us who thought the First to be teaching errors and leading the people in the wrong direction began to talk about leaving. It would be hard to leave behind our friends on the other side. But our people had left other places before. We had survived. We could do so again. Most of our group thought we should wait. "Maybe things will change. It will be alright if we just have patience." The few who saw the danger ahead reminded the others of the problems in the old land. "The First has taken on powers that are not in keeping with the scriptures and our father's faith. He is not acting like a servant, but like a dictator!"

At this time cracks in the Citadel walls began to appear. The builder's guild began to search the chambers below the Citadel to discover the problem. After surveying the storage rooms near the foundations of the walls they came back with distressing news. Their report said, "Years of neglect and certain unwise practices have created a dangerous situation. Some of the foundation bedrock has been weakened by cutting into them to expand the archives. The old theology books and histories of the people were placed in these rooms by the First to make room for the new library in the Council chambers. We had to move aside stacks of books and records to find this problem. Our recommendation is that the rooms be cleared out so new buttresses might be constructed to strengthen the walls. Remember the builder's maxim, when the foundations are weakened, the walls cannot stand." The report was not made public. The First demanded that the builder's guild swear an oath of secrecy. "We do not want to alarm the people with this news until we assign a task force to look into these opinions."

We got a copy of it. The next day it was published in the Daily. The uproar was amazing. That night the First addressed the people in the plaza. "This report in the Daily is not true. There is no danger. We will assign a blue ribbon task force to look into these allegations. But, I speak with every confidence that we are entirely safe. Please return to your homes and live your lives with the knowledge that your First is always vigilant and concerned about your welfare." That night we made plans to leave the Citadel.

On the last day our small group gathered by the west gate with our carts loaded with our few most prized possessions. As the first rays of dawn lightened the eastern sky and the first birds began to sing, the gates creaked open. The gatekeeper looked at us and remarked, "Headed west then? Wher'ya goin'?" We handed him a copy of the Daily and left the Citadel. As we reached the top of the hill the ground began to shake. A loud crack boomed across the valley. We all turned to look. In stunned silence we saw the walls begin to fall inward and disappear in a cloud of dust and smoke. The entire city was gone. When the foundations are weakened, the walls cannot stand.