From the Augsburg Confession: "For the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree about the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments." VII:2
Why? Because the unity of the Church is nothing else and other than the unity which that Gospel and Sacrament effect when through imparting and strengthening saving faith they unite a human being in saving faith to Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit and so to the Father. The Church is the company of those so united to the Triune God - hence, "die Versammlung aller Gläubigen."
The unity of the Church is not another thing distinct from the unity of all believers with the Triune God; it is one and the same. No one is part of the Church strictly speaking who is not united by the Spirit's work in saving faith to Jesus Christ and in Him to the Father. "What we have heard and seen we proclaim to you that you also may have fellowship (koinonia) with us, and our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ." So when our Lord prays for the unity of His Church, He prays: "that they may be one even as we are one. I in them, You in Me, that they may become perfectly one."
What preserves the unity of the Church is that which alone unites in saving faith to the blessed Trinity - the Word of the Gospel preached, the blessed sacraments administered and received. "I pray for those who believe on me through their Word..." To focus on anything else is to focus on window dressing.
Why? Because the unity of the Church is nothing else and other than the unity which that Gospel and Sacrament effect when through imparting and strengthening saving faith they unite a human being in saving faith to Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit and so to the Father. The Church is the company of those so united to the Triune God - hence, "die Versammlung aller Gläubigen."
The unity of the Church is not another thing distinct from the unity of all believers with the Triune God; it is one and the same. No one is part of the Church strictly speaking who is not united by the Spirit's work in saving faith to Jesus Christ and in Him to the Father. "What we have heard and seen we proclaim to you that you also may have fellowship (koinonia) with us, and our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ." So when our Lord prays for the unity of His Church, He prays: "that they may be one even as we are one. I in them, You in Me, that they may become perfectly one."
What preserves the unity of the Church is that which alone unites in saving faith to the blessed Trinity - the Word of the Gospel preached, the blessed sacraments administered and received. "I pray for those who believe on me through their Word..." To focus on anything else is to focus on window dressing.
Where is this Church?
ReplyDeleteIt's here in Warsaw, IL at 801 Lafayette Street, and it is scattered throughout the world, wherever Christ's holy sheep are gathered around His Word and Supper.
ReplyDeleteYup, and here at 6969 West Frontage Road in rural Worden Illinois. And sometimes visitors from Warsaw come here and recognize that they're all part of the self-same Church - which happens to be manifest at different locations here on earth, but is the same. The same Gospel and the same Sacraments joining us together in saving faith to the One God.
ReplyDeleteAn excellent start. Now, where else? Or is that it? Is the church certain congregations scattered all over the earth, period?
ReplyDeleteHere we go again.
ReplyDeleteThe church is strictly speaking the entire assembly of all believers, but she appears in this age in specific gatherings around the Word and Sacraments through which the Spirit works to create or sustain faith.
ReplyDeleteWilliam,
ReplyDeleteYou mean we've been around this question BEFORE?
"I BELIEVE (not see) one, holy, Christian, apostolic Church."
ReplyDeleteDoes believing negate seeing?
ReplyDeleteAmen Pr. Weedon. The articles of Religion in English Church are exactly inline with the C.A.
ReplyDeleteArticle XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
Jim,
ReplyDeletePonder Hebrews 11:1 and 2 Cor 4:18 in light of your question.
Also, is locatedness (as in, giving a physical address) not also a matter of the senses? Does sensual perception negate something being of faith? Does it have to be a sensual/faith either/or question? (I'm not trying to make a point; these are real questions).
ReplyDeleteThe locatedness is the presence in this age of that reality which cannot be seen:
ReplyDeleteUnseen is the blood of Christ in the water of Baptism that lends it its power.
Unseen is the body and blood of the Savior in the Holy Eucharist.
Unseen is the holy Church gathered as one in that locality.
Unseen is the One to whom we pray, through whom we pray, and in whom we pray.
There's much you can see, but everything we believe is what you cannot see.
Huh?
ReplyDeleteSo if the people from Warsaw, IL, come to 6969 West Frontage Road in Worden Illinois, but the Church there is unseen, how are they going to know they're all part of the self-same church? How will they be able to tell, if the Church is invisible?
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
ReplyDeleteSo, presumably, we rule them out, yes? They aren't the Church. Others have erred, too, for example, Calvinists and Enthusiasts of various stripes, so they aren't Church, either. In practical terms (as distinct from hypothetical ones), is it possible to say any non-Lutheran congregation is the Church? I mean, has anybody actually ever heard of a non-Lutheran congregation that Missourians regard as the Church?
Well Anastasia, there is the truth, and then there is the whole truth. Luther was willing to grant that the Orthodox were Church, because they had the same Baptism and Sacrament as Rome. He was even willing to grant that Rome was Church, until they started saying that the Reformers were not Church.
ReplyDeleteAs to your previous question: "How will they be able to tell, if the Church is invisible?"
Answer: by its identifying marks: The purely preached Gospel and the administration of the Blessed Sacrament. Just as the prophet is known by his fruits, so the Church is known and "seen" in its marks.
I wonder if we are begging the question. What does "invisibility" mean if the church is still perceptible by marks?
ReplyDeleteThat's very interesting, Pr. Beisel. Are there any further examples of Lutherans regarding non-Lutheran bodies (or did you mean idividuals?) as Church?
ReplyDeleteDo Lutherans still today regard the Orthodox as Church?
As far as I know. In so far as their priests teach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and the people believe in it I certainly cannot withold that from them. The fact that a "Church Body" has errors in its teaching/theology does not necessarily negate the fact that the Church is among them. At least, that's how I have understood the Lutheran position.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the Church? Luther's simple description as "holy sheep who hear the voice of their shepherd" holds true I believe.
But this is hypothetical, whereas I am trying to nail down the practicality of it. Do you, does anybody here, actually know somebody who fits that description? Whre is a non-Lutheran priest who preaches the Gospel as Lutherans see it instead of as the Orthodox (or Methodists or Presbyterians or Baptists) do? Do you actually know of any non-Lutheran laity who aren't Lutherans but believe the same as Lutherans? Seems to me people like that probably convert.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, do you actually know of any Church (whether individuals or bodies) outside of Lutheranism? If so, why aren't you in communion with them - or are you, perhaps?
Okay. Here is a concrete example. The local Episcopal priest and I have had some good conversations about theology. We are agreed on a good many essential parts of Christian doctrine. He is probably more "Lutheran" than some Lutherans I know. There are some things that are problematic, particularly his ecumenical practices (allowing a female priest to preach from his pulpit) and he disagrees with the LC-MS's stance on closed communion. Just because he is not Lutheran in name does not mean that he and his flock are not the Church.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteI think the invisible/visible language is not necessarily helpful. The seen/unseen or maybe better yet not fully seen gets the job done.
The Church is seen in her gatherings around the Eucharist, in her prayers, in her acts of mercy and love. BUT it is only the smallest bit of the Church that is seen as such, and when we gather at the Eucharist we know we are gathering with the WHOLE of the Church, the overwhelming majority of which is unseen at the moment, but truly present, and will be seen indeed by all on the Last Day when Christ is revealed and we with Him.
Anastasia,
We believe that particular churches are either orthodox (correct in their teaching) or heterodox (incorrect in some of their teaching, yet maintaining the foundations of the Gospel which still connect people in saving faith by the Spirit to the Son and so to the Father). Heterodoxy always is in danger of obscuring that saving faith connection, but the saving Gospel is still present in such Churches and through it the Holy Spirit ever seeks to binds hearts to Christ and through Him to the Father. For Lutherans, the Eastern Church is heterodox, yet the Gospel still sounds forth in it at many points (despite the accretions of merely human doctrine) and this enables us to say that the Orthodox are truly Church - albeit, a heterodox particular Church within the One Church which is the assembly of all baptized believers.
I'll grant you that seen/unseen is perhaps a better construct, but (as you know) there are those who argue that the invisibility doctrine is an essential of being Lutheran.
ReplyDeleteBut again, how is the church unseen if it is perceptible by sensible marks?
Is it in the Symbols?
ReplyDeleteUntil the entire unbelieving world points to the Orthodox Church and says: "There is the Son of God dwelling with man in the fullness of His glory," I'm going to have to confess, with the Creed, that the Church is an article of faith.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a sophomore in college, our Greek professor took the class to an Orthodox Church. We were given bread to eat at the end of the Liturgy. We were confused. We had to be told it was not the body of Christ that we were eating.
If the body of Christ is an article of faith, then so is the body of Christ....er....you know what I mean.
Maybe it's one of those East-West disconnect things, but it seems odd that there are people who would try to argue others into believing that the Church is not an article of faith.
Rev. Tom Fast
William, how much error does there have to be before a given body is no longer Church? When we are looking for the Gospel being rightly preached, how gross must the error be to subvert the whole enterprise? What's the principle of discernment, and where do we concretely apply it? For example, do women priests render an organization non-Church? How about homosexual priests? How about not having Justification By Faith Alone as the guiding, central tenant? How about having a different god? (Think Filioque.) Receptionism?
ReplyDeleteYes, Jim, I'd like to know that, too.
For Tom: yup, an article of faith. One God the Father almighty, one Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, and one, holy, apostolic Church. But let us examine this article of faith to see what it is.
Anastasia,
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Church, I only know what I see by what I hear. I only know I am eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ because that is what I am told. I could break open the bread, put it under a microscope, and yet that would not help me to "see what it is," to use your words. If you want to see and examine the Church so that you know what she is and where she is, then you need to join Luther and "put your eyes in your ears and listen." Again, until you can tell me what color are the eyes of our Lord and whether the nails scars are in his palms or wrists, then I'm sticking with what Weedon, Westgate, Beisel, Fr. Carlos, the Scriptures, the Creeds, and our Confessions say about these things
Gotta run. Time for catechesis.
Rev. Tom Fast
Okay. Fair enough. All I'm asking is,m what do they say? What do they tell us? But I'm asking to hear this article of faith in concrete terms rather than hypothetical, is all.
ReplyDeleteVisible versus invisible?
ReplyDeleteDidn't Jesus say "I know my own, my own know me."
Of course the church is visible. But not all within her walls are true Christians.
That invisible "line" that divides the sheep from the goats will not be visible to us until that Last Day when some are amazed that they are among the sheep and others who thought they were sheep were actually goats. In the meantime the Lord tells us not to pull up the wheat with the tares.
And no, I am in no way advocating a Pelagian view. I firmly adhere to the Lutheran Reformation.
Christine
Christine, I agree not all within the Church's walls are true followers of Christ.
ReplyDeleteBut unless we know where those walls are, we can't really speak of anybody being outside them - or inside, either.
Where are the Church's walls, in wLutheran thought?
From what I can gather so far, they have to do with the Gospel being rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered, but they seem somewhat elastic. The Gospel preached doesn't have to be quite pure, and the sacraments can still be somewhat wrongly administered (i.e., by laypersons). So those markers aren't absolute. I suppose one way of asking my question would be: since those markers aren't absolute, how relative are they? (They mustn't be so relative as to have no meaning.)
Anastasia,
ReplyDeleteFor Lutherans who confess to being part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments as defined by the Confessions will be quite clear.
Now, since those Confessions are a witness to the faith as found in the Holy Scriptures and the early centuries of the church (including the patristic witness), those markers are very well defined and not at all relative. The further away any particular Christian body moves from those markers the more clear it will become how much heterodoxy is being tolerated.
As an ELCA Lutheran I routinely encountered female pastors (and now bishops), open Communion and full table fellowship with non-Lutheran bodies, a different hermeneutic as regards the interpretation of Scripture and more. As an LCMS Lutheran I do not. It is very clear which body moved away from the Confessional boundaries. The same can be said of much of the Protestant mainline.
In my ten years as a Roman Catholic I came to see that the catholic Church can still be found in the Catholic church but with an added corpus, i.e., Tradition, that went beyond the apostolic tradition and the teachings of Scripture. That, too, is a marker.
Dear Anastasia,
ReplyDeleteLutherans have generally regarded those bodies as still Church in which the foundations of the Gospel (e.g., Trinitarian and Christological Orthodoxy) and the Gospel itself in the narrow sense are found. Concretely, for example, this would include: historical Anglicanism, RC, Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, etc. It would exclude: Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons, JWs, etc.
The difficulty in our day is that groups that would have been recognized historically by us as Church have fallen into a form of modern gnosticism that renders questionable their claims to being Church - and the signs of such gnosticism are the ordination of women, the denial of Trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy, and the destruction of the Scriptures through a higher-critical methodology permitting such things as defense of a homosexual life-style and so on.
About such jurisdictions we have to say: We don't know what they are - for mixed in with pastors and congregations that have embraced these errors there are still faithful pastors and congregations who struggle to maintain the faith they historically held.
About the question of receptionism, its presence does not render a congregation or pastor not Church, but it is a false teaching nonetheless.
"As an ELCA Lutheran I routinely encountered female pastors (and now bishops), open Communion and full table fellowship with non-Lutheran bodies, a different hermeneutic as regards the interpretation of Scripture and more. As an LCMS Lutheran I do not. It is very clear which body moved away from the Confessional boundaries."
ReplyDeleteUntil the LCMS stops open communion, women administering the Sacrament (such as at this congregation: http://www.messiahwilmington.org/) use of grape juice for the Supper, and disrespect for unconsumed Blood from the Sacrament (discarding of the Blood in a trash can), and tolerating false open, ongoing false doctrine, it would really be good for LCMS Lutherans to stop suggesting that they are different from ELCA Lutherans, and especially to stop insinuating that they are better than folks in ELCA.
it would really be good for LCMS Lutherans to stop suggesting that they are different from ELCA Lutherans, and especially to stop insinuating that they are better than folks in ELCA.
ReplyDeleteI am in no way insinuating that I am "better" than individual members of the ELCA. I have a sister who is still a member of an ELCA congregation and have utmost sympathy for the WordAlone Network which is trying to bring the ELCA back to a more central position.
The things that you mention that occur at some LCMS congregations scandalize me far less than what I experienced in my ten years as a Roman Catholic.
It doesn't change that those LCMS congregations that adhere to Confessional teaching are upholding historic Lutheran belief and practice and the ELCA no longer does. That's simply an objective fact. Nor did the LCMS sign the Joint Declaration with Rome.
Christine
Jim,
ReplyDeleteThe LCMS is obviously in no condition to be "throwing stones" at other Lutherans. Yet Christine's comment really did not suggest that we were "better than" our ELCA brothers and sisters. We're both in bad shape, but in differing ways and I think ultimately from different causes.
Both you and Anastasia have alluded to the receptionist problem, and I think we need to be clear on this: the folks who discard the reliquae in an irreverent manner do so because they do not believe that they are the Lord's blood. They are wrong, of course, but I think it is important to note that they are not intentionally dishonoring our Lord's precious blood. Sadly receptionism has long reigned among Lutherans, and it was really only with the publication of Chemnitz' monumental works (and especially Teigen's book) that the dangers of this Phillipist approach was exposed as NOT being genuinely Lutheran or in accord with the Symbols. Hence, I don't accuse those who throw the cups into the trash of intentionally being blasphemous, but I do seek to educate them about the consequences of what they are doing - and this would hold even IF they believe in some deconsecration - what they toss at the very least participated in Christ's blood and therefore should be treated with the utmost respect and honor.
"It doesn't change that those LCMS congregations that adhere to Confessional teaching are upholding historic Lutheran belief and practice and the ELCA no longer does."
ReplyDeleteBut some ELCA congregations DO adhere to these teachings and practice. The reality is, we're just talking numbers. Some LCMS congregations are one way, some another, and likewise the ELCA. There's really no difference. Pretending otherwise just isn't helpful.
There is a real difference when one looks at the official stands taken by either Church. Here's one: In the LCMS, a woman cannot be a pastor; she cannot consecrate the Eucharist or preach. If a parish allows a woman to do either, they are violating their Synodical covenant. Here's another one: In the LCMS, the use of the higher critical method for Scriptural interpretation has been renounced and rejected. If there is a pastor who persists in it, he does so contrary to the Synodical covenant.
ReplyDeleteBut some ELCA congregations DO adhere to these teachings and practice.
ReplyDeleteBut not as a unified body. When the ELCA speaks publicly on behalf of her congregations people don't look to those congregations that "do adhere." They are listening to what the presiding bishop of the ELCA is saying.
I have my own reservations with what comes out of St. Louis at times but the consistent witness of Jesus as the one Way, Truth and Life has always been upheld, as has marriage constituting the union of one man and one woman and rejecting the syncretism that has affected so much of the Protestant mainline. Nor does the LCMS provide elective abortion coverage for female clergy as does the ELCA.
I attend my sister's ELCA congregation occasionally for family events. I am still buffaloed by the presence of a woman "bishop" which, so far, I haven't seen in any LCMS congregation.
Christine
Hell, if you're in Omaha you can find the church at 7033 L Street.
ReplyDeleteFlying Judas at the air show, the terms one, holy, catholic (yeah it really says that, not Christian) and apostolic are adjectives, and not even proper adjectives let alone nouns or proper nouns.
Doesn't make the storefront Apostolic Holiness Church down the street the "true church" though it bats two for four on terms in the name. Doesn't make Lamb of God Lutheran Church across town at the address above not the church for being a storefront (actually a warehouse front).
Doesn't make Pius X parish down the street -- the one I'm supposed to belong to if only I'd knock off all this Lutheran stuff and come home to Rome -- the catholic church because it has "Catholic Church" in its name.
Doesn't make any of the "Catholic Churches" or for that matter "Orthodox Churches" (who cannot seem to find a "broad consensus" among themselves who is really Orthodox) orthodox or the catholic church even if their functionaries like to run around in get-ups derived from their predecessor's former offices in the Roman Empire.
And that's the whole deal -- trying to find the church like you find an earthly destination; trying to make the Kingdom of God function like a kingdom of men, as certain church bodies seek from their centuries-long enforced existence as an arm of the state evidence of their "authority", mistaking the power of state for the power of God.
None of which has anything to do with the fidelity of individuals or congregations within them to their respective bodies. Might as well look to a hospital and say What a crap hospital that must be, look at all the sick people in it.
About such jurisdictions we have to say: We don't know what they are -
ReplyDeleteWe don't, either. For which we have sometimes been roundly criticized, even jeered, as for instance here, see your entry for May 19, 2007, or on Rev. Petersen's blog:
http://www.redeemerfortwayne.org/blog.php?msg=5897
Dear Anastasia,
ReplyDeleteWas it really "jeers"? Lord, have mercy. I don't think either of us intended it come across in such a manner. But no doubt we could have spoken more cautiously.