Pietist has a post on his blog that caught my attention. Click on the title to check out his other posts.
Someone who read The Lutheran blurb on Wartburg seminary professor of contextuality Craig Nessan's paper presented to the ELCA bishops wrote:"In reading this quote, I see no source identified. Does anyone know where this is being quoted from to see the wider context? Martin Luther took a different view, Nessan said, quoting him: "It is not enough simply to look and see whether this is God's word, whether God has said it; rather we must look and see to whom it has been spoken, whether it fits us. That makes all the difference between night and day.
"I couldn't identify where in Luther's writings this quote comes from, but I think Luther probably said something like that and it is a correct approach to biblical interpretation, but capable of being horribly misused by people who are looking for a way to nullify the clear teaching of scripture. Yes, God commanded the people of Israel to practice circumcision, but he didn't command Christians to do the same. Yes, God commanded the people of Israel to observe the seventh day as the sabbath, but did not command Christians to observe the seventh day. Yes, God told various leaders in the Old Testament to totally destroy their enemies (Amalakites, Canaanites, etc.) but he did not command us to do this. Yes, God told the people of Israel to abstain from certain foods, then told Peter to call nothing unclean.
Yes, God commanded Israel that if a man died without children, his brother was to marry the widow, but didn't give that command to us. Yes, God told Hosea to go out and marry a harlot. Yes, Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had. The fact that some commands in scripture were given to particular people in a particular time and place and are not binding on all people at all times does not mean that the moral teaching of scripture is purely relative and we can replace it with more contemporary ideas of right and wrong that are more congenial to people who don't like any moral restraints.
Yes, that makes biblical interpretation more difficult because the Bible is in some ways a complicated book. Christians have always known that, so most of us are not Seventh Day Adventists or Messianic Jews. But the church never had so much trouble as it has today in distinguishing what was obligatory for ancient Israel as opposed to what God expects of us who believe in Jesus. There is a difference between taking scripture seriously as God's Word and simple minded literalism that ignores important distinctions, for example between the Old and New Testaments.
The problem with what the ELCA is likely to do in its statement on how Lutherans read scripture is that it will relativize parts of scripture that have universal relevance, and that it will use the "gospel" (misunderstood as cheap grace) to undercut biblical morality or any appropriate use of God's law. It will also likely use the historical critical method to raise questions about the trustworthiness of scripture and its historical reliability. The notion of cultural relativity will likely be pushed much too far, and we will end up with a notion of scriptural "authority" that pretty much allows revisionists to do whatever they wish with scripture and accuse the rest of us of holding to an unLutheran biblicism or some such nonsense, in much the same way that Walt Bouman criticized Robert Gagnon as being "too Reformed" and not having a Lutheran understanding of scripture. Bouman implied that if Gagnon had a Lutheran understanding of scripture, he would not see homosexual behavior as morally wrong. And I have heard other revisionists say that those of us who hold to traditional moral understandings are unLutheran, particularly if we believe that creation itself established heterosexual marriage as normative.
What we are likely to get from the ELCA study is half truths that can be twisted to serve the revisionist agenda, just as some would misuse the quote from Luther cited by Craig Nessan. I fear that antinomianism will be defined as true Lutheranism.
Jim Culver
---Katie
1 comment:
Jim is right on. When I left seminary, the President at the time understood that we were headed in this direction. He felt that being antinomian was fine. Better to err on the side of grace!
We have been moving this way for some time.
Of course, what Jim sys here has a number of implications which are of major concern with regards to pastoral care.
For example, I have just this morning dealt with a woman and her family that were very much concerned with their daughter's involvment with witchcraft and the occult. The daughter was brought to me.
Now how did I work with her? The Old Testament says we should not allow a witch to live (she was acting as one and supply aid and comfort to others). Should I stone her?
Obviously that is not what happened. I did not stone her (though I did mention that this was the Old Testament pronouncment on witches and I told her why this pronouncment was not only serious but in fact one that has/had merit).
I told her that when Christ dealt with the woman caught in adultery he did not allow her to be killed (though that too merited death according to Leviticus); but he told her to go and sin no more.
I told this person practicing witchcraft that what this meant was that her sin deserves death, it is in fact a all out rebellion against God and what God ordains. If she remains committed to the devil, she will be destroyed by that sin. She had replaced God with a false god, one that would lead her to destruction not life(She is violating the first commandment, which still applies to Christians, as do the other nine).
I told her that Christ did not order the woman caught in adultery to be killed, for he wanted repentant and redeemed sinners, not dead ones. Once dead, there is no redemption possible.
I told this girl that she still lives in this life and Christ will forgive. She must give up her associations, her witchcraft stuff, repent, and receive absolution.
She went home and brought here witchcraft stuff to the church and we burned it all. She repented, we did confession, and she received absolution for her sins.
There is more we need to do with her, but the points I am trying to make are the following:
1) The Scripture is the authority upon which the pastor counsels.
2) It is that authority upon which sin is called sin, and forgiveness is offered.
3) There is a definite way to read Scripture, as both Old and New Testament speak to each other and speak to us. The law still applies to us with regards to morality. Christ speaks to us as to the purpose of the law, and how we are to act when the law is violated.
If anti-nomianism and universal salvation become the hermenutic by which the Scriptures are read, then we will not be able to even start calling those who are oppressed by the devil back into the arms of the Savior.
Well, that was a long bit and I still need to finish my lunch and get back to work.
Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler
Post a Comment