Three Principles of Ecclesiastical Art Production from the Writings of Luther

— by Ted Giese

Art is something that must be perceived. Of course many things in the daily life of the individual are perceivable, but a great deal of things go unnoticed both actively and inactively by the casual observer. There are two kinds of perceivable things in the world: those things touched by human hands and those things that are not. In the case of those things that are touched by human hands, intentionality becomes an essential clue as to the purpose behind their formation, just as Gene Edward Veith suggests in his book Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, when he states that art “brings abstract philosophies down to earth.” H.W. Janson and Anthony F. Janson in their classic art history textbook History of Art assert that art is the most intentional of humankind's activities, or at least it is the most intentional form of expressing ideas and concepts in nonverbal non-traditional linguistic forms. What has been defined as art has fluctuated over time, and the artisans of one time become the artists of another and vice versa. This is largely due to shifts in social attitudes and tastes.

At the time of the Reformation of the sixteenth century, art was becoming what people generally understand it to be today: drawing, painting, sculpture, and architecture. This Renaissance period that coincided with the Reformation period was a great time of upheaval within Western culture, and some scholars like Erik Erikson believed that Martin Luther had little interest in art at all. This is not true. Luther commented and wrote about art many times, yet he did not give a single list of parameters that one could use in the proper production of ecclesiastical art. For this, one must look more broadly at the writings of Luther and deduce from them useful principles.

When Luther was writing about art, he was writing about architecture, drawings, paintings, and sculptures as they could be found in the secular and religious culture of his time. What is measured as art in our current time has widened considerably to include a vast and varied set of interrelated fields and disciplines far exceeding the confines of drawings, paintings, sculptures, and buildings. Conceptual art, performance art, text-based art, textile art, installation art, earth art, photographic art, cinematic art, time-based art, kinetic art, sound-based art, digital art, printmaking, and assemblage all comprise the current definition, along with drawing, painting, sculpture and architecture. These fields will at times intersect with one another, creating complex relationships and systems.

Luther's writings in no way encompass all of these current fields, yet three essential principles can be taken from Luther's writings when it comes to the production of ecclesiastical art and its proper function in the church.

1. Christian ecclesiastical art must respect the inerrancy of Scripture, that is the Old and New Testaments contained in the Christian canon, and them alone;
2. Christian ecclesiastical art is to act as secondary instructional materials in the form of memorials and reminders for the Christian, which is to say it must serve a pedagogical purpose;
3. Contextual matters are to be taken into consideration when producing ecclesiastical art for the divine service.

These principles will all be examined briefly to give a better understanding of how Luther looked at ecclesiastical art and its proper function in the church.

First, scriptural inerrancy is a key building block of confessional Lutheran thought, second only to Christ himself, for scripture is the infallible word of God and must be respected as such. A great deal of the assurance of the Christian is based on the fact that the scriptures are true and contain no falsehoods or errors. Scriptural inerrancy then becomes the first rule by which Luther discerns art of any kind. If it is in adherence to Scripture, it is good and useful; if it is not, then it is dangerous to faith. Producing ecclesiastical art that is good and faithful can only be accomplished through respect for scriptural inerrancy.

An example of this approach by Luther can be found in his 1539 Lectures on Genesis where Luther notes, concerning contemporary images of the patriarch Abraham's near sacrifice of his son Isaac on mountain of the Lord, that "it was not a sword, and the picture commonly painted of Abraham about to kill his son is incorrect. It was a knife, such as butchers and priests were accustomed to use." (LW 4:110–11). Two very different things are conveyed when the sword of a king is compared and contrasted with the knife of a butcher or an Old Testament priest. The first is a symbol of government and the vocation of the sword, the other is a symbol of the sacrifice, particularly in the case of an Old Testament priest. With the cross of Christ and Jesus' death upon that cross as the center of Scripture and with the account of Abraham and Isaac typologically pointing to the sacrifice of God's only Son, the question can be asked: Which better conveys visually what the text of Scripture teaches? The sword or the knife? Artistic licence in this case can introduce error at worst and theological dissonance at best.

Earlier in 1522 Luther likewise pointed out, in his sermon for the festival of Epiphany, that the common misconception promulgated by artists that there were three Wise Men from the east just because there were three gifts (gold, frankincense and myrrh) was in fact incorrect, because Scripture never numbered the wise men (LW 52:160). These examples may seem nitpicky to some, but they show the serious attitude Luther had concerning the inerrancy of Scripture and the potential pitfalls of bearing false witness in ecclesiastical art production. There is also an element of common sense in Luther's statements: if the text of Scripture does not say it, do not make it so in art. To do anything else would be a lie, as well as subversive. If the intent is to produce faithful ecclesiastical art, then hyperbole becomes a dangerous ground upon which to build, even if it is well intentioned or has become traditional. It should be noted that Luther does not specifically insist on scriptural inerrancy, while at the same time it is important to note that Luther singles out as "incorrect" works of ecclesiastical art that do not adhere to scriptural inerrancy.

Second, ecclesiastical art contains a pedagogical purpose in the form of memorials and reminders. While discussing the use and production of personal prayer books (LW 43:43), Luther advocates the daily remembrance of Scripture through imagery in a similar fashion as he advocates the daily remembrance of baptism in his Small Catechism. Scripturally, Luther accepts the use of images, even including crucifixes and images of saints, based on Joshua 24:26 and 1 Samuel 7:12, because examples of ecclesiastical art such as these serve the same function of memorial and witness as is sanctioned in the Old Testament with the proper use of witness stones (LW 40:87).

For Luther, ecclesiastical art was permissible only when it was not the object of worship. Consider the bronze serpent made by Moses in Numbers 21:8–9 under the specific direction of God. It began as a useful object and had a specific pedagogical purpose. It was there to teach the people to trust in God and his promise. When it was being misused later in the time of Hezekiah, Hezekiah destroyed it (2 Ki 18:4) because it was being worshiped (LW 40:87). Between the time of Moses and Hezekiah there was no problem with the bronze serpent because its only function during that time was to serve as a reminder of the grace of God for his afflicted people.

Because of the value of ecclesiastical art as pedagogical, it is necessary at this point to take a short detour into Luther's response to iconoclasm in his time. Luther preferred to avoid the destruction of ecclesiastical art if it did not have to be physically destroyed, or rather he preferred teaching as opposed to hammer, chisel, and torch (LW 40:58). Luther's approach in this regard was much more pastoral. On the one side, the Roman church taught falsely concerning images, claiming that just seeing, and/or praying to, or being in the presences of certain material objects could forgive sin (SA II.23), produce miracles, and be counted as meritorious. On the other side, Luther had the iconoclasts and enthusiasts who wished to strip the world bare of all ecclesiastical art, seeing it as inherently idolatrous. Luther stuck with Scripture and promoted an alternative approach. His main concern was the worship of images, and in his treatise of 1525 "Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments," Luther provides the above discussion concerning the bronze serpent, as well as his philosophy for avoiding idolatry, as he debated the iconoclasm of Karlstadt. He states:

“[I] approach the task of destroying images by first tearing them out of the heart through God's Word and making them worthless and despised. This indeed took place before Dr. Karlstadt ever dreamed of destroying images. For when they are no longer in the heart, they can do no harm when seen with the eyes. But Dr. Karlstadt, who pays no attention to matters of the heart, has reversed the order by removing them from the sight and leaving them in the heart. For he does not preach faith, nor can he preach it; unfortunately, only now do I see that. Which of these two forms destroy images best, I will let each man judge for himself (LW 40:84).”

On the one hand having ecclesiastical art and keeping it present within the worship and devotional life of the Christian provides opportunity for pedagogy. Conversely, on the other hand, the absence of such art will hamper and/or shift pedagogy away from visual learning. The latter was not the intention of Luther. He certainly understood such visual learning as valuable, and made a case that it would be beneficial if images like those printed in his translation of the Bible would find greater uses.

Before leaving this second principle, consider how Luther suggests that such prints as found in books should be painted on walls because, as he puts it, they "do no more harm on walls than in books." He continues saying, “It is better to paint pictures on walls of how God created the world, how Noah built the ark, and whatever other good stories there may be, than to paint shameless worldly things. Yes, would to God that I could persuade the rich and mighty that they would permit the whole Bible to be painted on houses, on the inside and outside, so that all can see it” (LW, 40:99).

Third, ecclesiastical art best serves the church when context is considered. This might best be thought of as a natural refinement coming out of the first two principles. These principles being a deep and careful regard for scriptural inerrancy and the desire to produce works of art which focus themselves as pedagogical reminder and witness.

The question of context for Luther utilizes the most basic form of common sense flowing from the first two principles. Luther gives a very strong opinion concerning this as he writes about the Sacrament of the Altar on the basis of Psalm 111 in 1530:

Whoever is inclined to put pictures on an altar ought to have the Lord's Supper of Christ painted, with these two verses written around in golden letters: ‘The gracious and merciful Lord has instituted a remembrance of His wonderful works.’ Then they would stand before our eyes for our heart to contemplate them, and even our eyes, in reading, would have to thank and praise God. Since the altar is designated for the administration of the sacrament, one could not find a better painting for it. Other pictures of God or Christ can be painted somewhere else. (LW 13:375)

Luther wishes to reinforce the fact that "the Lord is gracious and merciful" (LW 13:373). The trouble comes when individuals approach the Sacrament of the Altar in confusion, when the recipient of the body and blood of Christ is afraid of Jesus, afraid of God the Father because Jesus has been "painted" either with words or presumably with paint, to varying degrees, as angry or displeased in the institution of his sacrament. Luther assures the Christian that "[Jesus] will not devour you or stand over you with a club when you go to the Sacrament" (LW 13:374).

Here we can see how Luther is making the distinction between what is appropriate and what is not, and how an individual piece of art in the wrong place can bear false witness concerning the true teachings of the church. The preceding block quote provides a positive example of how art can be employed to get the right message across to the troubled soul, becoming that proper reminder and witness. When applied, this third principle would suggest quite strongly that there is a proper place for ecclesiastical art.

For example, one would be encouraged to put ecclesiastical art concerning baptism around a baptismal font. In contemporary art theory, this is called site-specific; the fabrication or production of aesthetic elements that interact with the pre-existing environment. This is most common in the field of installation art where a change in the environment is attempted; the success of such a change is largely determined by how seamless the integration of the preexistent merges with the aesthetic additions. The desire is generally one of two things: either to create unease or inquiry by the use of juxtaposition, or to create harmony by the use of common homogeny or winsomely developed homogeny. Luther appears to desire the latter. Juxtaposition is not generally useful in ecclesiastical art unless it serves the first two principles and is contextually appropriate.

To put a finer point on the necessity of context, consider this example. King David is a prominent individual recorded in holy Scripture. It is entirely possible to produce a painting or sculpture of David that would be faithful to the text of Scripture, an image that contained no spurious errors. Such a work of ecclesiastical art could rightly be understood as serving as a witness to the personage of David and his life lived in the grace of God's promise of salvation, yet it would be contextually inappropriate to place such a work of ecclesiastical art predominantly at the altar. Doing so would be an elevation of David over Christ and would then retroactively break the first two principles. The work of art would, because of its placement, teach falsely and if it taught falsely it would subsequently no longer be respectful of Scripture and scriptural inerrancy.

These three principles for the production of ecclesiastical art give the artist and patron/congregation valuable insight into what best constitutes ecclesiastical art how it can be faithfully utilized by the Christian. In the current milieu, the field of art encompasses virtually all elements of Christian worship. As a result, these three principles may be applied more broadly especially when the entirety of the divine service and its physical setting is deemed to be art. Movement, color, gesture, body language, duration of time, fabric, construction materials, tone, structure, sound, music and all the non-verbal elements are perceivable as art. The principles of respect for scriptural inerrancy, pedagogical reminder and witness, and appropriate context can therefore be applied to an individual element or to the whole of the divine service.

Lastly, because of the common sense nature of these three principles, they have been generally applied by Lutherans, but because they have not been presented as principles formally, their use has been subject to variability due in part to shifts in social attitudes and tastes. As a result the Lutheran church in North America, on the congregational level, has often been influenced more by the artistic principles of other denominations and/or by secular artistic movements than it has been by Luther and its own writers and thinkers. Careful consideration of these three principles from the solid footing of Scripture could provide a way forward toward a comprehensive understanding of ecclesiastical art and its proper function in the church.

 

Rev. Ted Giese serves as associate pastor of Mount Olive Lutheran Church, Regina Saskatchewan Canada.

---

As an extension of LOGIA, LOGIA Online understands itself to be a free conference in the blogosphere. As such, the views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LOGIA’s editorial board or the Luther Academy.

Standing Bold Upon Firm Ground

— By Gunnar Andersson

Translated by Bror Erickson

At the beginning of this month (June) the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia in synod decided to update the church order to say that only men can be ordained as pastors. The decision reinforced what was already the practice since 1993 when Janis Vanags became archbishop. Seventy-seven percent of the delegation voted for it; only seventy-five perfect was needed for such a change to be made.

The 2016 Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia meets in the Cathedral of Riga. Photo via the ELCL.

It is very encouraging that the church in Latvia has integrity and stands up to pressure from different directions to follow along with the modern agenda. To see that a church dares to go against the stream, towards the word of God and not away, is a sign of hope in our time.

During the same synod a Swede (!), Hans Jönsson, was elected bishop for the Diocese of Liepaja. Because of his faithfulness to the Bible and confession even in the question of holy ministry, Hans could not be a pastor in the Church of Sweden, and this finally led him to Latvia where he was ordained in 2003. Since then he has garnered more and more confidence as dean, as overseer of the Church’s economy, and as chairman of the board of regents for the church’s seminary. His consecration as Bishop takes place on the sixth of August in Riga’s Cathedral.

No church is free of challenges and worries, not even in Latvia. But there is a decisive difference between striving against God’s word and serving with God’s word. The latter has the Lord’s promise with it. For a long time, the Church of Sweden has been on a collision course with the Bible and the confessions and has said no to people the Lord has called to ministry precisely because they are not able to compromise with their consciences that are bound to the word of God. Instead of faithful pastors, many communities have received those that would lead them away from their Savior.

Against this background of the church and congregations in Sweden depriving themselves of the call and gifts of the Lord, it is a joy to note that the church in Latvia values and receives the ministry of those who want to remain faithful to the Lord’s will. Let us pray for the Lord’s blessing and protection for the church in Latvia and her future bishop.

The need in Sweden for genuine evangelical divine service and congregational life is acute. The remaining functional congregations in Sweden are being disposed of at an alarming rate. Many have been anesthetized by continuing to sit under pulpits where God’s word was first diluted before moving on to pure heresy. Congregations and priests, bound to the confessions of the Church of Sweden but independent of the presently politically bound organization are needed in many places, both so that the Christians can be built up and strengthened in faith and trust in Jesus, and so that new converts could be won for him.

Unfortunately, there have been very different opinions both concerning the need and the way forward among groups and individuals within the confessional movement. To judge from the growing number of converts to the Roman Catholic Church many seem to have subsequently given up hope for evangelical Lutheran Church life in Sweden. Perhaps there is reason to question how much the evangelical Lutheran faith really meant for them. Or perhaps the discord within the Church of Sweden become an excuse for them to do what they have always wanted?

Another worry that can be sensed is that we in different areas have been eager to defend our specific spiritual traditions and are not capable or willing to see and affirm that which is good and in other places. Faithfulness to the Bible and confessions is a must, but freedom of expression needs to prevail as it fits.

The most significant initiative to bring forth the great heritage of the Swedish Church is the Missions Province, the college of pastors of which Hans Jönsson is a member. The Province is not big, and it isn’t growing very fast. At the same time, numbers and greatness are not anything the Bible emphasizes as a sign of whether or not we have the Lord’s blessing. However, the Lord asks for faithfulness.

There is every reason for the Mission Province to work boldly, both to nurture the already established congregations, and to establish new congregations. This is especially true in areas where there are few alternatives, organizationally independent of the Swedish Church. The newly established congregations in Borås and Karlskrona are examples of this.

No matter which country one lives in, or how the congregation’s circumstances look, there is great reason for boldness if one stays on the God given firm ground. The Lord remains seated on the throne!

---

This article was originally published in Kyrka och Folk Nr. 25-26 23 Juni 2016 93 Årg.

---

As an extension of LOGIA, LOGIA Online understands itself to be a free conference in the blogosphere. As such, the views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LOGIA’s editorial board or the Luther Academy.

An Update to Martin R. Noland's Article

From the Editor:  

Martin R. Noland posted an update to his article here. I felt it was worth including as a separate post:

"I know this blog post is now below the blog-surfers' radar, but I wanted to add a postscript item that should have been in my footnotes. Ed Stetzer wrote a blog post in November 2014 that I had seen but lost track of, that agrees with the essence of my argument. It was re-cited this week at Christianity Today, so is making the rounds. Point your browser here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/channel/utilities/print.html?type=article&id=125804"

A Word from Our Chinese Brethren

Editor's Note: This letter was originally written for Luther Academy.

A Letter from our Chinese Brethren

—by Pastor Jason Li

We, Chinese Lutherans, need solid, genuine, and orthodox Lutheran teaching as much as possible. Luther rediscovered the Gospel, and that is the only reason why we were baptized and became Christians. We believe that Lutheran theology is the faithful interpretation of the Gospel. 

Lutheran writings in Chinese are extremely scarce, almost next to none in Chinese circles, compared to Reformed and Catholic books that are flooding the market. If Luther felt frustrated when he saw the deplorable conditions of the German churches and then wrote the Small Catechism, I believe Luther would be deeply depressed to see the even more deplorable conditions of the gospel among Chinese churches. We Lutheran pastors don't even have orthodox Lutheran books in Chinese to read, let alone the Christians in our churches.

As bad a situation as this is, Luther Academy supports us by donating many confessional books (see below). These books will be a huge blessing to our Chinese Lutheran pastors in over 30 Chinese Lutheran Churches in North America, including Canada.

As for one example, the theological teachings on the Lord's Supper is the distinguishable point between Reformed churches and Lutheran churches. Every Lutheran should pay more attention to this point and not allow the Devil to take away our dear Lord from the Lord's Supper.

Another example, I am reading the article "The Decline of Biblical Preaching in the Past Century" from the book The Word They Still Shall Let Remain. I realized that I need to pay more attention to preaching biblically. The article shows that "there is nothing that keeps people at church more than good preaching. The true adornment of the churches is godly, useful, and clear doctrine, the devout use of the Sacraments, fervent prayer, and the like" (Ap. XXIV.50-51). 

We pastors always want to know how to attract people to come and worship. The Apology already tells us that a good sermon is a must. After all, the most important reason that people come to church is to be fed by the Word and the body and blood of Christ. Just like the flower without water will wither, without good biblical preaching, the hungry faithful Christian will fade away sooner than we think. And the Apology already gives me the criteria for good sermons: godly, useful, and clear doctrine. When we pray, we pray fervently. When we receive the Sacrament, we receive devoutly.

We greatly appreciate Luther Academy's support of the Chinese Lutheran Ministry. May the Lord bless your ministry and bring to us more books with solid, genuine, and orthodox Lutheran doctrines. If these books could be in Chinese, that would be the best blessing for us all.

---

To support the work of Luther Academy, go here. 

To purchase your own copy of The Word They Still Shall Let Remain, go here. 

God's 'No' and God's 'Yes' in the Clavis

Click here to purchase a copy of Clavis Scripturae Sacrae.

“God's 'No' and God's 'Yes' in the Clavis”^[1]

—by Armand J. Boehme

INTRODUCTION

 How do Lutheran Christians “rightly divide the Word of Truth” so that they understand and use the Bible correctly? The answer to this hermeneutical question has troubled all Christians since the beginning of the Christian Church. Lutheranism itself has not been able to achieve consensus in the area of hermeneutics.^[2] For a significant period of time Lutherans used Matthias Flacius' Clavis Scripturae Sacrae as the standard hermeneutic text to help them in understanding and using the Bible correctly.^[3] 

To put the Clavis in historical context, Flacius wrote it after the Interims and before the publication of The Formula of Concord when Lutherans were engaged in debate about many theological issues. Flacius founded a Lutheran academy at Regensburg in 1561, but that venture was not successful. In 1566 he was called to the Lutheran community at Antwerp but was forced to leave by wartime struggles. He fled to Frankfurt but was not welcomed there, forcing him to go to Strasbourg where he was, for a while, well-received. It was during this time frame that Flacius wrote the Clavis. It was published in two large volumes in 1567.^[4] In the 1674 and 1719 editions, the Clavis contains over 800 folio pages with about another 300 to 400 pages of index. The English translation in How to Understand the Scriptures, covers 26 folio pages of Flacius' monumental work covering chapters 1–4 of Tractatus I.^[5]

In the Clavis, Flacius is opposing the medieval four-fold understanding of the biblical text, those who attempted to cut and paste verses of Scripture without consideration of their context, the idea of the superiority of the inner word, and those who manipulated the Scriptural texts as they desired like Erasmus, the Sophists, Victorin Strigel, and Casper Schwenkfeld.^[6] The Clavis was written to help Lutheran pastors and theologians interpret the Scriptures properly in the spirit of Luther and the Reformation.^[7]

As we approach the 500^th Anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation, one of the treasures the Church recovered as a result of the Reformation is the proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel. This is one of the basic hermeneutical principles for rightly dividing God's Word. With it the Scriptures are clear and Christ and His work of salvation are exalted.^[8]

In his hermeneutical work Flacius attempted to walk in the footsteps of Martin Luther using Luther's concept of “a threefold practice for the study of the Bible.”^[9] This threefold practice includes oratio, meditatio, and tentatio.

In this threefold scheme Luther understood human beings as the passive recipients of God's active work in the Scriptural Word of Law and Gospel. This passivity is a result of the Law humbling human beings through the Spirit's work, enabling penitent sinners to receive the gift of the Gospel in faith. Though Flacius does not lay out this threefold scheme in the way Luther does, he still uses it in the Clavis.^[10] Since many Lutherans consider the distinction between Law and Gospel an essential part of a scriptural hermeneutic, this essay will examine the Law/Gospel distinction in Flacius' Clavis.^[11]

CAUSES OF DIFFICULTIES

Flacius wrote about the difficulties Christians at times have in working with Holy Scripture. The first difficulty examined is a sophistic use of the Scriptures that attaches “philosophical and Aristotelian meanings” to words and concepts like “sin, righteousness, justification, faith, grace, flesh, spirit, and the like.”^[12] These philosophical concepts change the meaning of these biblical terms so that they point people to their own “power,” to their “own person, and away from the proper profession of the One Lamb of God and His sacrifice, merits and works as the one way of salvation” and turn people back to “Moses and good works, and the merits of men.”^[13]

Another cause of confusion was a result of Christians supposing “that the New Testament speaks and teaches something different than the Old.”^[14] In other words the New Testament preaches Gospel while the Old Testament preaches Law. In truth, both testaments preach Law and Gospel.

A further cause of difficulty was that many of the “undiscerning” believed that the Law and the Gospel were “in contention” with one another rather than seeing their proper distinction and concord. To help relieve that problem Flacius contended that everyone needs “to know that the gospel stands above the law and in that way gives the life that the law promises and yet is unable to give on account of the guilt and the vice of fallen men, who are unable to produce obedience.” The Law is “a servant to the gospel” because it has lost its original function, and now can only perform “an auxiliary function, namely, revealing sins and the wrath of God, compelling men to seek medicine. In this way it serves as a schoolmaster to lead men to Christ.”^[15]

It is because human beings are sinful that the “true and native use of the law...has come to naught” so that the Law cannot “justify” or “vivify.”^[16] Flacius spoke about the original function of the Law — that it promised salvation to all who could keep it perfectly. But since the fall, no one can keep it perfectly. Flacius saw the condemning use of the Law as being only “faintly” set forth “in the Old Testament.” He views this as problematic and as being tied together with the “manifold obscurity” caused by the “veil of Moses.”^[17] 

Flacius also believes that there is a progressive character to God's revelation in Holy Scripture. “God revealed His mysteries in the beginning more obscurely and then later more clearly.” The obscurity of some parts of Scripture serves to cause the pious to “investigate the Scriptures all the more ardently and strive for a clearer discovery. In these things we must therefore be attentive with our whole hearts” meditate on the Word of God day and night, as well as being “constant and fervent in prayer.” Having received the Word the Holy Spirit will increase the faith of God's people. “Finally, we must here certainly know God and His mysteries as in a riddle and imperfectly, though in the next life we will know Him perfectly and see Him face to face.”^[18]

REMEDIES FOR THE DIFFICULTIES 

Flacius gives “remedies” for the above problems. The solution to all problems begins by acknowledging that the triune God is the supplier of all the remedies human beings need, for He leads them into all truth and makes sinful human beings into those who are “taught by God.” The second remedy comes from diligent instruction and growth in the knowledge of Holy Scripture, and especially from “an awareness of our sickness [sin — Law] and subsequently also of the only Physician, Christ [grace — Gospel].” The third remedy is “a solid knowledge of the speech of Sacred Scripture.”^[19]

The fourth “remedy is persistent meditation upon and study of the divine law.” Thus Jesus urges all “to search the Scriptures (John 5:39).” The fifth remedy “is ardent prayer,” in answer to which the Spirit of God opens human minds and hearts to know those truths to which minds and hearts had been closed. The sixth remedy is “real life experience.”^[20] The seventh remedy is to see that Scripture teaches the same things in different places — at times more clearly and at other times less clearly. Let the clear passages illuminate the unclear. Flacius’ final remedy for confusion about the Scriptures is the need for “good and clear translations and faithful” interpretations of Holy Writ.^[21] 

Flacius then expands on these points under the heading “RULES FOR UNDERSTANDING THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, TAKEN FROM THE SACRED SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES.”^[22] The rest of this essay will highlight Flacius' understanding of Law and Gospel in this part of his work. 

LAW AND GOSPEL IN THE CLAVIS

For Flacius a proper understanding of Scripture begins with God's Son, Jesus Christ. “In Christ are all the treasures of the knowledge and wisdom of God (Colossians 2:3). We dare not seek anything beyond or above Him.” Further It “is the office of Christ to open the Scripture to us and to illuminate our heart to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45). We must all receive of His fullness. That happens, however, when we come to know Him and apprehend Him through faith.” The key (clavis) to a proper hermeneutic of Scripture begins with Christ — and with faith in Christ. This Christocentric emphasis includes the work of the Holy Spirit. “The Holy Spirit is at the same time the author and interpreter of Scripture. It is His task to lead us into all truth (John 16:13). It is His task to write Scripture on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). For prophecies, and all of Scripture, as St. Peter attests (2 Peter 1:20), are not a thing of one's own intellect or interpretation, but rather as Scripture has been given by the Holy Spirit through prophecy, the same must of necessity also be interpreted in His light.”^[23]

For Flacius any proper knowledge about the content of Holy Scripture, or faith in what it says, comes from the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus there is a passive tone to Flacius’ Lutheran biblical hermeneutic.

This is not always so outside of Lutheranism. Flacius writes about the fanatics and the followers of the anti-Christ who dream up great and wondrous mysteries beyond the truths contained in the Scriptures, and beyond the crucified Christ. These supposed mysteries flow from within them and do not come from God. Thus they fall prey to “foolishness and impiety” and to an excessive emphasis on sacrifice. Flacius wrote the Clavis to help Lutheran Pastors to avoid such self-generated “foolishness and impiety.” Flacius saw that God gave His Word to human beings because God deals with sinful human beings only through means. The Scriptures are one of the means God gave human beings to “teach and convert” them. Through the external ministry God “calls out and admonishes” sinners with the Law in order that they would listen and be brought to repentance and faith.^[24]

The preaching of the Gospel redeems sinners who are moved by the Holy Spirit to “call upon God and be saved.” For Flacius, “the scope and argument of all of Scripture” is centered in “the Lord Jesus . . . His suffering and benevolent service” that saves human beings from their sins. The “end of the law is Christ.”^[25] Here Flacius echoes Luther in teaching that the Law exists to show sinners their sins, and the Gospel exists to bring penitent sinners the forgiveness of sins.^[26] 

Flacius wrote that “When we are converted to Christ, the veil is taken off our heart and . . . from the Scriptures.” The Spirit enables us to see Christ who is the end of the law, “the pearl of great price.”^[27]

Flacius wanted pastors and students of the Bible to understand what the text of Scripture teaches and what should be plucked from the text so that the student would have its truths deposited “securely in” the heart.” For that understanding to occur, Bible students need to understand that we are bound under sin by the Law that condemns, and that Scripture “testifies to us about Christ” so that we are consoled and redeemed and equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16–17).^[28]

Returning to his premise that a right knowledge of Scripture and its application is centered in Christ and His work, Flacius encourages daily meditation on the Scriptures — both the Old and the New Testaments.^[29]  

To aid in that study Flacius summarized all of Scripture in two syllogisms. First, “Whatever God says is true.” And secondly, “Therefore this man Jesus is the true Messiah.”^[30]

These syllogisms were offered to help those who incorrectly saw the Old Testament as a body of Law and the New Testament as the proclamation of the Gospel. Flacius again emphasized the truth that the Old Testament preaches Christ and the Gospel. Thus the first syllogism advances to these conclusions:

“Whatever the Old Testament or the prophets have preached concerning the Messiah or other things, that is most true; or Whatever description has been made about the Messiah by the prophets is most true. Our Jesus is indeed just such a person as the Messiah has been depicted by the prophets.” The prophets foretold the time of His coming, the place of His birth, His family heritage, His virginal birth, His miracles, the fact of His divine incarnation, His forerunner, as well as His death and resurrection. With Christ's coming “Moses and all the idols of the world fall to the ground.”^[31] Because the Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed in both the Old and New Testaments, Law and Gospel are proclaimed in both Testaments.

The Old and New Testaments are summarized by these words “This has happened in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled.”^[32] Thus the whole of Holy Writ proclaims the good news of the Gospel that Jesus is “the true Messiah” and Savior from sin.^[33] Jesus Himself emphasized the fact that He is the central figure of the Scriptures, that His saving work is central to the Gospel, and that He is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament Scriptures when He taught His disciples that He had fulfilled all the things “written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning” Himself. (Luke 24:44)

Flacius wrote that this Christocentric Law/Gospel center will assist one in learning the doctrines taught in the Bible. The Bible contains “two kinds of doctrine...The first says (according to Paul in Romans 10:5), 'Whoever does these shall live by them,' that is, the most complete obedience of the law leads the one rendering it to eternal life. The other, however, contrarily cries out, 'Whoever believes, or apprehends through faith that One who alone is able to fulfill the law and does so for the whole human race, will be saved (John 3:16)...There are two kinds of doctrine, therefore: law and gospel. The former certainly offers salvation to none except those worthy and righteous. The latter, however, only offers salvation to the most unworthy.”^[34] 

Law and Gospel are a paradox. They fit together yet one is inferior to the other. The Law is inferior to the Gospel because the Law cannot give “salvation. There is no defect in the Law. Rather the “defect is in” us, for it is the defect of sin. “The Gospel however is able to save and justify the whole human race.” The Law exposes our corrupt nature and sin and God's wrath. Thus it stands at the Gospel’s side and “drives us to seek some Savior outside of us, and thus also compels us to flee into the net of the Messiah. In this way, it is the pedagogue to lead us to Christ.”^[35] It is the alien righteousness of Christ which saves, not our works.^[36]

Flacius then emphasizes the fact that “the key (clavis) to all of Scripture, or theology” is “to know” these two doctrines, and which is superior and which is inferior, the one that can save, and the one that cannot.^[37]

Flacius writes that some are “ignorant of this” Law/Gospel “key” which is centered in Christ. They forsake this key by returning to Moses and the siren song of the Law. They hear both the Law — “Whoever does this will live by it” — and the Gospel proclaimed which says “I [Christ] have come to save sinners.” Many are troubled by what they perceive to be “contradictory” words from God and become “tone deaf” to the truth of the Word. They suppose that they must “reconcile these two doctrines . . . and somehow bring them into agreement by hook or crook.” They suppose that these two doctrines are “the same,” the “one sole doctrine” contained in God's Word.^[38]

Thus they falsely conclude that sinners “are saved partly through” the grace of Christ “and partly through the law and work, or that through Christ we receive the initial grace to enable us to perform the works of the law and be saved through it, or finally that we are indeed justified and saved through Christ first in Baptism, as in a safe and good ship, so long as we later perform no mortal sin; but if we do subsequently fall out of the ship by committing some sin, then it is necessary for us to have recourse to the second plank, to penance and good works, so that we may escape and evade the fate of a shipwrecked person. In this way they bring Moses and Christ, the law and the gospel, and grace and merits into agreement in three ways, or rather they confound them most abominably in three ways. When one has recognized” these errors, “it will be most beneficial for his study of the Sacred Scriptures.”^[39] 

After the student of Scripture has learned that Law and Gospel must be properly distinguished and how they complement one another, Flacius then desires that further catechetical education would happen which should flow directly from the Scriptures themselves. Flacius sees “a sort of creed [Symbolum] . . . in the first three chapters of Genesis” which teach about “the true God, creation, the fall, and redemption through the blessed Seed” which is also found in the three Ecumenical Creeds. Further he sees the Law summarized in the Ten Commandments. He also notes the Lord's Prayer and the Sacraments and describes all these as the “chief parts of doctrine” and as “a convenient sort of catechesis.”^[40]

To avoid confusion, catechetical instruction should begin with what is easier and then proceed to those things that are harder and more difficult. This is the methodology of education in the liberal arts and it should be the methodology for Christians as well.

Flacius encourages the study of biblical history for it is the “easiest” thing to teach. That history begins in Genesis which teaches about God as Creator, the creation of the world and human beings, the worship of God, the fall into sin, and the curse of sin and death. The Law is taught in the Fall and the Gospel of salvation is preached in the promise of the Seed of the woman Who is Christ. Marriage, children, and vocation are also taught. So one should begin with these teachings “for these are easier and are also the font and foundation of all teaching.”

Flacius ties this elementary teaching with the analogy of faith. All proper understanding of Scripture “takes place according to the analogy of faith,” which is “harmonious with the above-mentioned basic catechetical teaching set forth in the early chapters of Genesis. This analogy of faith centers in the revelation of the triune God, creation, the fall and death, the Law summarized in the Ten Commandments, the promise of redemption and justification in Christ the Seed, as well as in the Lord's Prayer, the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion.” These things are the core of the analogy of faith for Flacius.^[41]

As Flacius noted before, the very words of Scripture are of prime importance as is a proper understanding of the meaning of those words. “One must therefore exercise diligent care with the words of the Sacred Scriptures.”^[42] Flacius applies this directly to his Law/Gospel hermeneutic when he writes that Paul “also wants the one explaining the Sacred Scriptures to rightly divide them (2 Timothy 2:15).” This proper explanation requires a solid understanding of the words, meanings, phrases, and sentences of Scripture, and the contexts in which they are found. There is also the need for a careful separation of things holy and profane, the Creator and creature, the ungodly and the righteous, Moses and Christ. John's Gospel early on distinguishes between Christ and Moses, Gospel and Law, as does Paul in Galatians 3 and 4, and Romans 3–8. This proper distinction helps readers see what is inferior (the Law) and what is superior (the Gospel). With the Spirit's help, this proper distinction helps people avoid seeking righteousness and salvation from the law, or from turning “the ministry and doctrine of righteousness and life” in Christ into “the accusing, judging, and condemning law.”^[43] Flacius also places great stock in learning from experience.^[44] 

Lutheran pastors are encouraged to beware of human traditions.^[45] Just as Christ warned the disciples “to be on guard against the yeast of the Sadducees” — so evangelical pastors need to beware of faulty traditions for they lead back to the Law. When the Word either in the Old or New Testament speaks about Christ, what is stated must be believed above all else, and should not be “adulterated as happens with many when they mix certain works in with Christ (1 Corinthians 2:17). What does straw have to do with wheat? What do the promises of God have to do with human dreams? (John 23:28).”^[46]

In addition Flacius wrote that “Christ Himself with His sharp file, the Sermon on the Mount, removes in Matthew 5 and 6 the rustiness and dullness of the law produced by the Pharisees and their Pelagian gloss. So long as any rust or dullness clings to or resides within the law, it is useless and ineffective for us” because the dross of the Pharisees removes the gravity of God's wrath from sinners.^[47] The Law in all its fullness needs to be preached so that Christ and His salvation are seen as the remedy for sin, death, and damnation. A proper Law and Gospel distinction helps people see that Christ is not a new Moses nor is he another lawgiver. Rather, He is the Savior from sin.

Flacius warns his readers that philosophy gives false hope for it teaches that the suitable and insightful hearers will be more receptive to a message if they have the right disposition towards it. Philosophy also desires a fit and capable hearer so that he would more readily receive and accept what is being taught.^[48]

Such a perspective reverses the truth and reality of Law and Gospel. Scripture teaches that no one, by nature, has a right disposition to the truths of God's Word because human beings are by nature sinful — spiritually blind and dead to spiritual truths. By nature all human beings have a natural disposition against God, which causes them not to see and hear the truths of His Word. Thus, God needs to “prune and illumine” those who have hearts that do not perceive, eyes that do not see, and ears that do not hear. None of the disciples or followers of Christ came to Christ “of their own accord” or because of their own natural predisposition so to do. Rather they were drawn to God by His mercy and grace that comes to sinners in Word and Sacrament. Thus the Holy Spirit working through the means of grace brings sinners to faith so that they become “those taught by God.”^[49]

Philosophy teaches that one must understand in order to believe. Theology teaches that one “must believe in order to understand.”^[50] Interestingly Flacius quotes Aristotle approvingly: “The student must believe.”^[51] 

Flacius expounded some very practical applications of Law and Gospel for the every day life and piety of Christians. He emphasized the fact that Christians should daily practice contrition, that is be led to have a good sense of “one's personal sin.” The Christian should also daily experience “justification and [the] peace of heart” that comes from “the remission of sin” and the “consolations of the Word” of Gospel. Other helpful spiritual experiences would include frequent prayer, bearing the cross, and wrestling with adversity and temptations.^[52]

Christians are to grow in their understanding of Scripture, and of the careful distinction between Law and Gospel. Thus one should move from milk to solid foods. The less learned receive the milk. The more learned or spiritually mature should have solid food.^[53] Growth occurs through the diligent study of God's Word. The goal of such study for Flacius “is the knowledge of God, the justification of the sinner, and the corporate worship of God.”^[54]

Flacius emphasized the fact that in theology there are two ways of gaining knowledge. First, knowledge is gained by God affirming or denying something in His Word. Secondly knowledge can be gained by making a deduction from something that God has said in His Word. It is this second method that often deceives false teachers. Sinful human beings have also constructed “a third sort of theology” which is “reasoning from philosophy or from certain other plausible propositions.”^[55]

This “third sort of theology” led the Sadducees to deny the resurrection. From Flacius' perspective this kind of theology was a “dream theology,” and was the underlying premise of the legalistic perspective of the sophists and their synergistic “free will” theology which confuses Law and Gospel.^[56] Dream theology causes its proponents to emphasize a theology of works. Thus such things as virginity were exalted and marriage was disparaged.^[57] Such dream theology makes of Christ a new lawgiver.

Though human reason is suspect when dealing with religious matters there is a proper ministerial use of reason which can and should be used. Flacius also warned pastors against disparaging the study of languages, or the use of dialectic, rhetoric, and philosophy.^[58] The proper distinction between Law and Gospel will also suffer if pastors place themselves and their reasoning above God and His holy Word.

CONCLUSION

The key (clavis) to understanding Scripture for Flacius is centered in Christ and in the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. The two are intimately connected. If one has, by the Spirit, properly divided Law and Gospel, then Christ will be at the center. For Flacius properly “dividing the text” into Law and Gospel “marvelously illuminates the true meaning” of Scripture because it will be centered in Christ and His saving work.^[59]

---

[1] This is a revised version of the paper presented at a conference entitled, “Matthias Flacius and the Lost Lutheran Hermeneutic” held at Trinity Lutheran Church, Northfield, MN on November 26, 2011. Other presenters were Wade Johnson, Jack Kilcrease, Oliver Olson, Steve Paulson, Donavon Riley, and Paul Strawn.

[2] This book illustrates the variety in Lutheran hermeneutics: John Reumann, ed., Studies in Lutheran Hermeneutics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979).

[3] Jack Kilcrease, “Introduction to the Clavis Scripturae Sacrae: The Life and Theological Contributions of Matthais Flacius Illyricus,” in Matthias Flacius Illyricus, How to Understand the Sacred Scriptures from Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, trans. Wade R. Johnson (Saginaw, MI: Madgeburg Press, 2011) 46; This text is the primary source for the exposition of Flacius' theology.

[4] Henry W. Reimann, “Flacius, Matthias Illyricus,” in julius Bodensieck, ed., The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church, vol. II F-M (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1965), 859–60; Kilcrease, “Introduction to the Clavis Scripturea Sacrae,” 25.

[5] Flacius, How to Understand the Sacred Scriptures, 2. Tractatus I contains 104 folio pages.

[6] Kilcrease, “The Life,” 26–27, 33–37, 39, fn 142; “Flacius (Vlacich), Matthias,” in Erwin L. Lueker, ed., Lutheran Cyclopedia (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1954) 379.

[7] After reading the Clavis, one individual wrote that Flacius' biblical hermeneutic is “a new conception” which is able to lead the Church “out of the dead-end street of historical criticism.” Jorg Baur quoted in Bengt Hagglund, “Pre-Kantian Hermeneutics in Lutheran Orthodoxy,” Lutheran Quarterly Vol. 20, No. 3 (Autumn 2006) 319.

[8] Since C.F.W. Walther described Flacius as “the greatest theologian of his time, second only to Luther,” parallels to Walther's theology will be noted in the footnotes. C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel: Thirty-Nine Evening Lectures, trans. W.H.T. Dau (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1928) 119. For more parallels see Raymond F. Surburg, “Walther's Hermeneutical Principles,” in Arthur H. Drevlow, John M. Drickamer, Glenn E. Reichwald, eds., C.F.W. Walther: The American Luther – Essays in Commemoration of the 100th Anniversary of Carl Walther's Death (Mankato, MN: Walther Press, 1987) 96–113.

[9] Kilcrease, “Introduction to the Clavis Scripturae Sacrae,” 43.

[10] Kilcrease, “Introduction to the Clavis Scripturae Sacrae,” 43–44.

[11] For example: John T. Pless, Handling the Word of Truth: Law and Gospel in the Church Today (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2004).

[12] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 49.

[13] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 49–50.

[14] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 51. Walther, Law and Gospel, 7.

[15] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 60.

[16] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 60. Walther, Law and Gospel, 7 & 10. The Lutheran Confessions also speak of the original function of the Law. SA Part III, 2, 1; FC SD V, 17; AP IV, 159.

[17] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 60, 61.

[18] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 61–62.

[19] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 63.

[20] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 64.

[21] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 65. Also Armand J. Boehme, "Caveat Emptor! Let the Buyer - and the Reader - Beware!" LOGIA Vol. 10, No. 1 (Epiphany 2001) 23–36.

[22] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 67.

[23] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 67.

[24] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 68.

[25] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 69.

[26] SA Part III, Art. II; III, 1–10; IV; XIII; AE 2, 158–64; AE 8, 40–47, 161–83; AE 35, 157–74; AE 39, 175–203. Walther, Law and Gospel, 9–20.

[27] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 69.

[28] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 70. See Walther, Law and Gospel, 1, 60. For this distinction in the Confessions see FC SD V, 1; AP IV, 186, 188; FC E V, 2; FC SD V, 23–24, 27.

[29] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 70.

[30] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 70, 72.

[31] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 71.

[32] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 73.

[33] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 74. Walther, Law and Gospel, 70–71.

[34] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 74–75.

[35] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 75.

[36] For Flacius as well as for Walther and Luther justification was and is imputed and forensic. 

Flacius opposed Osiander's infused understanding of righteousness which is condemned in FC SD III. “Joachim Morlin...objected to the description of justification as a gradual process and the subjective emphasis on the indwelling of Christ (doc. #130) . . . Both Melanchthon and Flacius agreed that Osiander's ideas about justification by the infusion of righteousness were closer to the traditional emphasis of Catholic theology than to the forensic conception of justification that had been taught by Luther (doc. #131).” Eric Lund, ed., Documents from the History of Lutheranism 1517–1750 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002) 185. Walther, Law and Gospel, 224; Armand J. Boehme, “Tributaries into the River JDDJ: Karl Holl and Luther's Doctrine of Justification,” LOGIA Online (August 2009) 1–16. http://www.logia.org/logia-online/23?rq=boehme (last accessed 28 May 2016).

[37] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 75–76.

[38] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 76.

[39] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 76–77. Walther, Law and Gospel, 6, 61, 75, 135–37.

[40] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 77.

[41] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 79. C.F.W. Walther, The True Visible Church: An Essay for the Convention of the General Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States for its Sessions at St. Louis, Mo., October 31, 1866, trans. John Theodore Mueller (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961) 87n; also C.F.W. Walther, “Why Should Our Pastors, Teachers, and Professors Subscribe Unconditionally to the Symbolical Writings of Our Church,” Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. 18, No. 4 (April 1947) 242.

[42] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 80.

[43] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 81–82. Walther, Law and Gospel, 276–84.

[44] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 83–84. Walther, Law and Gospel, 42–60.

[45] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 84–85.

[46] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 86–87.

[47] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 87–88. Walther, Law and Gospel, 69.

[48] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 88–89.

[49] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 89.

[50] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 90. Italics in original.

[51] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 91. Italics in original.

[52] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 91.

[53] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 92–93.

[54] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 94.

[55] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 94.

[56] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 95.

[57] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 97–98.

[58] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 100.

[59] Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 116.

Why The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and Its Kin Have Declined in Membership and What to Do About It

By Martin R. Noland

Lutheran church leaders have been trying to explain the slow-but-sure decline in Lutheran church membership in America since the 1980s. Explanation for the decline in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)[1] is straight-forward and obvious. A constant focus by the ELCA on “social justice,” church fellowship with non-Lutherans, and adoption of the gay-lesbian agenda at its 2009 convention has led many of its former members to drop out, join other denominations, or start new synods, such as the North American Lutheran Church (NALC)[2] and the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC)[3].

Explanation for the much slower decline in membership of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS)[4] and its kin—the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)[5] and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS)[6]—is less obvious and is, in fact, puzzling. From about 1973 to the present time, church-going Evangelical Protestants have consistently out-numbered church-going mainline Protestants in the United States. Today the church-going Evangelicals outnumber church-going mainline Protestants nearly four to one.[7] In the four key beliefs that define Evangelicalism, the LCMS and its kin are aligned with Evangelicals, not mainline Protestants.[8] So in this period, why haven’t the “confessional Lutherans,” i.e., the LCMS and its kin, enjoyed the same, or similar, membership growth that Evangelicals have seen?

In my opinion, the “confessional Lutherans” have not seen growth primarily because of four factors. These four factors are things that the Evangelicals have done, and we confessional Lutherans have refused to do. The confessional Lutheran refusal to follow Evangelical practices in these matters is commendable. I would not have these synods do otherwise. The LCMS, WELS, and ELS have been faithful to their beliefs, their confessions, and the Scriptures by refusing to do these four things.

The first factor is the confessional Lutheran refusal to participate in unionistic worship services, revivals, and other unionistic religious work. American Evangelicalism really began with the Second Great Awakening, which was led by Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist ministers as a self-consciously unionistic enterprise.[9] Evangelicalism has been unionistic ever since. Unionism, or religious cooperation between people of contrary beliefs, is a key component of Evangelicalism’s popularity and its great “success.” The LCMS and its kin, on the other hand, have been strictly anti-unionistic, as were their orthodox Lutheran predecessors going back to the sixteenth century.

The second factor is the confessional Lutheran refusal to accept the theology and practices of the charismatic movement. Although the early leaders of modern Evangelicalism in the post-war period were not Pentecostal or charismatic, the tide has changed. Charismatics, who are usually classified as Evangelicals, now are a majority among “born again” Evangelicals in America.[10] Charismatics are also a key component in Evangelicalism’s growth. This has led to some conflict with non-charismatic Evangelical leaders.[11] The LCMS and its kin, on the other hand, though buffeted by charismatics for a time, have resisted the siren song of tongues-speech, bogus healings, speculative prophecies, and related manic practices. 

The third factor is the confessional Lutheran refusal to “sheep-steal.” The twenty-second paragraph of the Preface to the Book of Concord elaborates the Lutheran belief that there are many pious Christians “who err ingenuously and who do not blaspheme the truth of the divine Word” (Tappert, 11) in non-Lutheran Christian churches. This belief is the reason that, as a rule, Lutherans do not consider members of other Christian churches to be a focus of their evangelism efforts. Evangelism is properly directed to the non-churched, the unbeliever, and to people of other religions. Evangelicals, on the other hand, have grown in numbers in large part due to their willingness to proselytize their fellow church-going Christians. Although some Evangelicals have criticized this practice,[12] it is a common practice defended by “church growth” gurus.[13] Since confessional Lutherans hold to the same key beliefs as Evangelicals, our youth and young people have been “easy pickings” for Evangelicals.

The fourth factor is the confessional Lutheran refusal to identify with American Evangelical politics and political organizations. A recent pastoral letter by President Matthew Harrison reminds pastors of the LCMS that, though we have a few issues of concern for the body politic like abortion and same-sex marriage, neither the pastors nor the synod should tell people how to vote or whom to vote for.[14] 

This is in stark contrast to the Evangelical common practice of making political statements, persuading public officials, and telling the Evangelical flock how to vote and for whom to vote. Of modern Evangelicals, 62% believe that religious organizations should persuade senators and elected officials on legislative matters, which compares to 40% of Liberal Protestants, 47% of Roman Catholics, 37% of non-Christian religious people, and 28% of secularists.[15] This is a big change from the conservative Protestants in the 1950s and 1960s who believed that they should not be political involved.[16] The heavy involvement of modern Evangelicals in politics since the 1970s has been well-documented and analyzed.[17] One might conclude that many people joined the Evangelical churches since the 1970s out of political convictions, instead of spiritual ones. In the present political season (i.e., early 2016), the political convictions of Evangelicals seem to be “Trumping” their spiritual convictions.[18]

What should the “confessional Lutherans” do about this? Imitating Evangelical worship practices, sheep-stealing, accepting charismatic or unionistic practices, or any other Evangelical practices or theology will only further erode the membership of “confessional Lutheran” churches. These are not options for us.

In my opinion, in the present climate, we “confessional Lutherans” should concentrate on our strengths, not on our weaknesses. We should tell people that in regard to the four key beliefs of Evangelicals, we are Evangelicals—Dr. Gene Edward Veith has been saying this since 1999, if not before[19]—and we have so much more to offer than what is found in Evangelicalism. 

Our preaching is permeated with the constant grace and love of God, because we believe that the Gospel should predominate in preaching and teaching, not the Law. We have a doctrine of sanctification that allows for failure, because it recognizes we are always sinners and saints, and that Jesus forgives anyone who repents. We have a solid hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible that has been tested by five hundred years of theological debate. We have a time-tested theology in the Book of Concord, which our pastors are expected to follow and which keeps them from idiosyncratic teaching and church-fights over doctrine. 

We have a congregational polity, which keeps our pastors “in check,” prevents abuse of power by “bishops,” avoids problems of pastoral succession, and which recognizes the ecclesial role of the laymen in exercising their own “priesthood.” We have a liturgy and hymnody that sings the praises of God, not of ourselves. We have sacraments in Baptism and Absolution that actually give the Holy Spirit, faith, and forgiveness to those who receive them. We recognize that reason and the arts are a gift of God, unlike many Evangelicals who are anti-intellectual or who despise science and the arts. As a rule, we avoid political involvements, since we recognize the left-hand of God at work in rulers, and we have learned by historical experience that political engagement corrupts the church, and vice versa. 

  Finally, we confess that “Christ . . . in His Supper, engages with us in a blessed exchange whereby he unites himself with us through his holy flesh and blood so that, by his power, he may continually crucify and kill the old Adam more and more. And thus we all become one body in Christ, where each member is to love, honor, and support the other. . . He who finds that he is weak in faith has in the Lord’s Supper a blessed, powerful antidote to strengthen faith.”[20] 

These are just some of our strengths, which we should be happy to confess before the world in the coming 500^th anniversary of Luther’s Reformation.

---

[1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in_America#Statistics ; also see http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/06/elca-has-lost-half-a-million-members ; accessed March 4, 2016, as were all other web pages in this article.

[2] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Lutheran_Church.

[3] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Congregations_in_Mission_for_Christ.

[4] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Church%E2%80%93Missouri_Synod#Membership_and_demographics.

[5] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Evangelical_Lutheran_Synod#Membership.

[6] For current statistics, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Synod#Membership. Statistics for 1991 indicate 21,347 baptized members in the ELS; in John F. Brug, et.al., WELS and Other Lutherans (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1995), 104.

[7] See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/14/in-a-dramatic-shift-the-american-church-is-more-evangelical-than-ever.

[8] The four key beliefs of Evangelicals are explained here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/april/defining-evangelicals-in-election-year.html. The beliefs are defined by the authors with the following statements used in surveys: 1) “The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe”; 2) “It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior”; 3) “Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin”; and 4) “Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.”

[9] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening ; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_Ridge,_Kentucky.

[10] See https://www.barna.org/barna-update/congregations/52-is-american-christianity-turning-charismatic#.Vtnw-Ob3yzM.

[11] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._MacArthur#Cessationism ; and http://www.christianpost.com/news/strange-fire-conference-john-macarthur-calls-out-charismatic-movement-as-unfaithful.

[12] For example, see: William Chadwick, Stealing Sheep: The Church’s Hidden Problems with Transfer Growth (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001).

[13] See Donald McGavran, “Sheep Stealing and Church Growth,” in Win Arn, ed., The Pastor’s Church Growth Handbook (Pasadena, CA: Church Growth Press, 1979), 15–18.

[14] See http://blogs.lcms.org/2016/president-harrison-provides-a-lutheran-view-of-church-and-state.

[15] See James Davison Hunter, American Evangelicalism: Conservative Religion and the Quandary of Modernity (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1983), 115–16.

[16] See Hunter, American Evangelicalism, 116.

[17] See Robert Zwier, Born-Again Politics: The New Christian Right in America (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982); James Davison Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America (New York: Basic Books, 1991); D. Michael Lindsay, Faith in the Halls of Power (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation (New York: Harper One, 2008); Ross Douthat, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics (New York: Free Press, 2012); and Kevin M. Kruse, One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America (New York: Basic Books, 2015).

[18] See http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-demise-of-conservative-christian-political-prominence/471093

[19] See Gene Edward Veith, The Spirituality of the Cross: The Way of the First Evangelicals, 2^nd ed. (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2010). The first edition of this book was in 1999.

[20] See Martin Chemnitz and Jacob Andreae, Church Order for Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel , 1569 edition, tr. Jacob Corzine, Matthew Harrison, and Andrew Smith, ed. Jacob Corzine and Matthew Carver (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2015), 63.