Christian News

BETTER THAN THE SUPER BOWL

2012-02-09T09:37:00.000-08:00

Luke 14:15-24
BETTER THAN THE SUPER BOWL
Theme: The Grace of Our God
Related reading: Ephesians 2:1-10
By Pastor Theodore Allwardt

Christian News, Vol 40, No 7 - February 13, 2012

Ahh! Super Bowl Sunday! The highest festival of America's folk religion: pro football! For it is very much a religion for many people! Every Sunday in the season either at a game or glued to a TV set! Enthusiastic talk about a favorite team! And giving money! Guess how much the cheapest ticket was for today's Super Bowl? $800! But a minimum of $2500 by yesterday with other tickets up to $7000 – or more for luxury boxes! Jesus said: “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt 6:21). And rabid football fans show where their hearts are by how they spend their money! And their time!

Of course, not all pro football fans make a religion out of their excitement. But perhaps you (and I especially) need to examine our priorities, referring not only to pro football, which I personally really enjoy, but to other personal preferences about things or about activities. Are we as dedicated in using our time for the Lord's work as we might be for a hobby? Do we spend more on personal non-essential activities than we give for the Lord's work? Do we talk as enthusiastically about the value of what Jesus has done for sinners as we might brag about what a player has done for our team? Who really is in first place in our lives and attitudes? God's Word says that He is to be first! But so easily we can get caught up in the pleasures and cares and activities of this life with faith and life for God – according to His guidance because of what Jesus did for us sinners – losing out in our lives! Doesn't always happen – but there is danger, as Jesus warned in that parable about the sower and the seed: “(Some seed) feel among thorns... but as they go on their way they are choked by life's worries, riches, and pleasures” (Luke 8:7,14) and lose their faith. Who or what is first in your life?

Which is what the parable in our text is about! A man prepared a great party and invited many guests – everything was ready – everything was free! But nobody came! None of those invited! They all had other things to do, other things which were much more important to them than that man and his party! You can imagine how insulted that man felt! No wonder he crossed them off his list permanently! Wouldn't you? Instead of his arrogant so-called “friends” he invited the ordinary people, the needy people of the community – and then, when there was still room, the real outcasts of society. He had prepared a party, and he was going to have people enjoy it!

The original application of this parable, the reason why Jesus told it, was to condemn especially the Pharisees and religious leaders then who were rejecting Him as God's promised One. They were too good for this country hick called Jesus ! They had better things to believe! So God rejected them, because they had rejected Him! And the ordinary people, the hurting people, not just the physically, but the spiritually hurting, were invited – and were responding. And the Gentiles, the non-Jews from around the world, would also be invited – and we thank God for that invitation, because that's how we are allowed to attend God's “feast in the kingdom of God”, as our text puts it.

Which brings us to our day, to us personally. Last Sunday when I preached in Ferndale, CA, one member mentioned in conversation: as I came to church this morning, I saw so many people out walking, walking their dogs, just strolling. They take time for that – why don't they take time to come to church? Easy answer! They think their other activities are more important and interesting for them, because they think they don't need what God has to offer them through His Word in public worship! Which is also the reason why many church members, that is, people who say they believe and belong, don't come regularly or at all! It's not interesting to them, because they think they don't need it – they are good enough without whatever the preacher might say from God's Word – yes, they are good enough – they don't need it!

But how can that be? Aren't they sinners? Yes, but – not all that bad, they think (as we all are tempted to think) – not as bad as that Joe Paterno, for example, the football coach who just died in disgrace, because he didn't do enough to protect young boys who were being sexually abused – oh, he did something – but not enough – how terrible he was – and I'm not like that! So, I don't need any preaching which talks about sinners – not me!

Or else, on the other side of sin, some think they are just too bad as sinners, no hope for them – that's the thinking of every addict, made worse by what their addiction leads them to do to support their addiction! No one can accept me, not if they know what I have done, what I do! And especially God sure wouldn't accept me! So, no point in pretending that I'm not so bad by putting on a hypocritical face with those church people! No point! No hope! For me! I can't have it – I don't need it!

But there is also a third side to this, the side which says: and when I did go, it didn't have any meaning for me – it didn't speak to the needs I do feel – it was so boring – and the people seemed so hypocritical, because I know how some of them live during the week – and I even heard how some of them talked about others when they were at church before or afterward – no, nothing there for me!

Which is where they are all wrong, but are misled by the devil. For why did God send His Son into this world at all? Because it was a perfect world inhabited by good people? Nope! But because, and we know it, but because we aren't good, instead are bad in His sight, yes, bad! Not worthless, of course, but bad – because they sin, each one sins, each one is in spiritual and eternal need! Which includes you – which includes me! We are like the undeserving ones in the parable: spiritually poor and crippled and blind and lame, the outcasts! Nothing in us or by us to deserve any good from God – no reason why God should love us – every reason why He should not! Yet He does!

Which is called His “grace”, His undeserved love for us sinners, which caused Him to work out our acceptance to Him through the living and the suffering and the dying of the one He sent into this sin-filled world, Jesus, actually God Himself, the Second Person of God, to be theologically correct. His grace caused Him to plan the eternal party for those who cannot deserve it – His grace caused Him to buy the invitation-ticket to that eternal party through Jesus – His grace now works to cause us to accept His invitation for eternal celebration as well as for peace now in this life. His grace! The ones in the parable who did come to the party knew they didn't deserve it – they just enjoyed it – and thanked the party-giver for it! Same for us! Need it, because we're completely shut out of the party on our own, can't buy a ticket on our own! But we enjoy it, because Jesus has not just invited us, but brought us in!

However, a problem remains: all this goes against our human pride and our human nature which wants its own way instead of His way. This is why we need to hear the message of God's grace every week, His grace which reminds us that we are in need, His grace which assures us that He loves us and invites us and accepts us because of what He has done for us through Jesus. That message will keep us being thankful for His grace and happy to hear His message so we can show our thanks daily.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE - The Material Principal of Biblical Theology

2012-02-02T10:48:00.000-08:00

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE
The Material Principal of Biblical Theology
By Gary Ray Branscome

Christian News, Vol 50, No 6 - February 6, 2012

"A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
(Romans 3:28)

The material principle of any theology has to do with the central idea that shapes that theology, giving it its form and unity. Because justification by faith is central to God’s plan of salvation, it is central to Evangelical theology. And, because the Bible clearly tells us that we are justified through faith in Christ, no theology that denies, or in any way compromises, what the Bible says about justification by faith can honestly be called Biblical (Romans 3:21-28 and 5:8-9).

To justify someone is to absolve them of guilt, to vindicate them of any wrongdoing, to free them from blame, or show them to be innocent. Therefore, spiritually speaking, a just person is someone who is innocent, righteous, or blameless before God. We emphasize the fact that we are justified by faith "alone," because so many people miss the fact that faith "without the deeds of the law" is FAITH ALONE.

Now, it is important to understand that faith is not the reason we are forgiven! We are forgiven because Christ died for our sins. Faith is simply the hand that receives what Christ obtained for us (Romans 5:2). Faith is not a work. It is not something we do. It is our God given assur ance that forgiveness and salvation are ours in Christ.

The Proper Relationship of Law to Gospel
In his letter to the Romans, the Apostle Paul begins his presentation of the doctrine of Justification by Faith by making it perfectly clear that the law cannot make anyone righteous. In chapter one, he mentions sins common among the gentiles. In chapter two he points out sins common among the Jews. And, in chapter three, he uses quotes from the Old Testament to drive home his point, that, "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10). He then explains that the law cannot make anyone righteous, because it was given to condemn us (Romans 3:19-20). However, he then tells us that because the law cannot make us righteous, God has provided another way for us to be made righteous. Or as he put it, "Now the righteousness of God without the law is revealed, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all who believe:" (Romans 3:21-22).

Now these two facts:
1. that the law cannot make us righteous (Romans 3:9-20), and
2. that righteousness is only imputed to those who trust in Christ (Romans 3:21-28), are of key importance in understanding the proper relationship of law to gospel.

Since the law was not given to make us righteous, and cannot make us righteous, those who try to make themselves righteous through the law are only hardening themselves in unrepentance (Romans 9:31-32). In contrast, because the law was given to show us our need of Christ’s forgiveness, only those who acknowledge their sin and look to Christ for forgiveness are doing what the law requires (Romans 10:3-4).

Therefore, the only people who truly "Keep" God’s law, are those who do not try to make themselves righteous, but instead trust in Christ (Romans 9:30-32). Likewise, the only people who truly "obey" the law, are those who acknowledge their sin and look to Christ for forgiveness (Romans 10:3-4). Those who actively try to make themselves "obedient" are simply refusing to hear what the law says, because it condemns them.

True Repentance
It is only as we understand why the law was given, and realize that its purpose is to point us to Christ, that we can understand what true repentance is. True repentance comes only as the law convicts us of sin, showing us our need for forgiveness. And, as we turn to God, desiring assurance of his mercy, we find that assurance in His promise of forgiveness in Christ (1John 2:9, Galatians 3:6-8). Faith is believing that promise of forgiveness (Galatians 3:6). Furthermore, because all who repent and turn to Christ are sorry for their sin, they do not want to sin (1Corinthians 5:3, Psalm 51:17).

Living Righteously Apart From the Law
As long as someone is trusting in the law to make them righteous, God pleasing, or obedient they are not trusting in Christ. They may have a weak faith, but they are not relying on Him alone. They cling to the law because they do not understand how we can be righteous apart from the law. And, they will never be able to understand it as long as they think that the law is what makes them righteous. In fact, as long as they think that the law can make them righteous, or even partially righteous, they will think that freedom from the law is freedom to sin, and nothing could be further from the truth.

In order to fully understand the gospel, and the freedom that is ours in Christ, you need to understand that the law not only does not make you righteous, the law is what keeps you from being righteous. No matter how hard you try to keep the law, it will condemn you. Even your most sincere efforts at being righteous will be condemned as "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). Instead of making you partly righteous, the matters on which you fall short will bring the full condemnation of the law down on your head (James 2:10). Therefore, the only way we can possibly be righteous in the sight of God is to be freed from the law. To be freed from the law is to be freed from condemnation. And, to be freed from condemnation is to be freed to be a good citizen, a responsible parent, and a faithful spouse. We are freed from the law so that we can live "a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty," without being condemned by the law (1Timothy 2:2). As it is written, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one who believes" (Romans 10:4).

Those who fail to understand this point, are continually trying to find some way around what the Bible says about Justification by faith. Therefore, as soon as they learn that James said, "a man is justified by works and not by faith only," they assume that the words of James negate what Paul said (Romans 3:28, James 2:24). In their blindness they then feel free to ignore Paul’s warnings against trusting in works. However, a careful examination of what James said makes it clear that Paul and James were talking about two different things. When Paul spoke of faith he was referring to faith in Christ. In contrast, the words, "You believe that there is one God; you do well: the devils also believe and tremble," make it clear that the faith James regarded as "dead" was not faith in Christ at all. Likewise, when Paul spoke of works he was referring to works of righteousness, or obedience to the law. In contrast, the words, "Was not Rahab the Harlot justified by works, when she received the messengers, and sent them out another way," make it perfectly clear that the works James had in mind were not works of obedience, or righteousness, but what we would call the fruits of faith (James 2:19, 20, 25). Therefore, James was not saying that we need works of righteousness in addition to faith. Instead he was saying that if a person truly has faith in Christ it will make a difference in their life.

The Light of Faith
One reason justification by faith is central to Biblical theology, is because once we understand the proper relationship of law to gospel, and realize that it is faith, not the law, that makes us righteous, it affects our entire understanding of God’s Word.

For example: Deuteronomy 15:4-18 promises a number of blessings to those who keep God’s commandments. When those who do not understand the proper relationship of law to gospel read those promises, they assume that works determine who receives those blessings. However, once we understand that it is faith alone that makes us righteous in the sight of God, we can see that the only people who truly keep God’s commandments are those whose trust in Christ. As it is written, "If the inheritance comes by the law, it is not given by promise… But scripture has concluded all under sin, so that the promise might be given to those who believe, through faith in Jesus Christ" (verses 18 and 22). In short, all of the promises are ours through faith in Christ (2Corinthians 1:20).

Likewise, when those who believe that righteousness comes by the law read the words of 1Kings 15:5, "David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and did not turn aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite," they assume that David did not sin, except in the matter of Uriah.

However, once we understand that the law cannot make us righteous, we can see that David only "did that which was right" because as long as he trusted in Christ no sin was imputed to him (Psalm 32:2). However, in the matter of Uriah, it was imputed to him because he sinned willfully (Hebrews 10:26).

When Abraham believed God, his faith was "imputed to him for righteousness," not because faith is a work, but because he was trusting in Christ. That is what the Bible tells us. It tells us that Abraham believed the gospel (Galatians 3:8). It tells us that the gospel is the good news of Christ’s death and resurrection (1Corinthians 15:1-4). And, it tells us that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son because he believed that God was going to raise him from the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19).

The words, "he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has PROMISED to them that love him," are not telling us that we can gain a "crown" through works. On the contrary, that passage refers to God’s promise. And, what God has PROMISED to us only comes to us through faith in Christ (Galatians 3:22, 2Corinthians 1:20). Works play no part in it.

Conclusion
While the truth is simple, the carnal mind does not want to rely on Christ. On the contrary, men are constantly trying to find some way to make God’s favor depend on works. Therefore, let me make it perfectly clear that we are not saved by "choosing Christ," "accepting Christ," or "asking Him into our heart". We are saved by believing that He died for our sins. From our point of view it may sometimes look like we are making a choice, but the words, "no one can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost," tell us that apart from God’s grace we would never make the right choice (1Corinthians 12:3, John 6:44).

King's God: The Unknown Faith of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

2012-01-26T07:29:00.000-08:00

The Lutheran Witness said that King “Is first of all a committed Christian.”
Who told the truth about him? The LCMS or Christian News?

King’s God: The Unknown Faith of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Christian News, January 30, 2012

As a young man, Martin Luther King Jr. rejected many of the orthodox views of Jesus’s divinity, resurrection, and return. The author shows how King flatly rejected “a literal interpretation of biblical stories, claiming such a reading would be ‘absurd’ in a Copernican world.” On these issues, Scofield argues, King did not change his mind in later years. by Robert James “Be” Scofield.

You undoubtedly know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a progressive Christian and champion of civil rights and the social gospel. You may also know that he spoke out against the Vietnam War, harshly criticized U.S. foreign policy, and questioned the capitalist system that produced poverty. But do you know his theology?

Right up until Dr. King's assassination in Memphis, Tennessee, where he had traveled to support striking sanitation workers, the civil rights leader worked—not as a secular activist but as a Baptist minister—to awaken the conscience of the nation. What was the meaning of Jesus for Dr. King? Did he see Jesus as divine? How did he interpret the Bible?

Biographies describe King as a liberal Protestant, but what does this mean? What was his understanding of Christian doctrines and why are they important to us? A number of academic papers written during his seminary years (1948-1951) provide an intimate look at the young King as he struggled to reconcile religion with a changing, dynamic, and modern world.

Prior to entering the liberal Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, King had developed only a tenuous relationship with Christianity. Despite being raised in a lineage of orthodox Baptist ministers, King at a young age demonstrated skepticism of the irrational claims of religion, and embarrassment at the emotionalism of his father's preaching. His entrance into Christianity at the age of six came from neither a genuine religious conviction nor a crisis moment; rather, he saw his sister make the altar call during a local religious revival and quickly followed suit. He claimed that during his baptism he had no idea what was occurring. Perhaps most striking was his denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus during Sunday school at the age of thirteen. From this point he stated, "doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly."[i]

King carried these suspicions with him when he entered Morehouse College in Atlanta at the age of fifteen. He had originally planned on being a doctor or lawyer. At Morehouse, under the guidance of President Benjamin E. Mays and professor George D. Kelsey, he began to believe that religion could be both "intellectually respectful and emotionally satisfying." Mays's weekly talks on the social gospel enchanted King, while Kelsey's Bible course taught him to see the Bible metaphorically, leading him to conclude the Bible has "many profound truths which one cannot escape."[ii]

While the "shackles of fundamentalism" broke off during these years at Morehouse, it was at Crozer that King discovered the insights and potential of liberal theology and began to articulate his opinions about Christianity. It was here that he found his calling, graduating first in his class and delivering the commencement address. He would go on to study the twentieth-century giants of theology -- Tillich, Wieman, Niebuhr, and Barth -- while pursuing a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Boston University. But by the end of his seminary years at Crozer he had already laid out his understanding of the core doctrines of the Christian faith. And it is here that we now direct our focus.

How did Dr. King understand Jesus? Did he see him as the Son of God? In "The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus," a paper written for a class called "Christian Theology Today," King clearly lays out his view on the divinity of Jesus:

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadequate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: "Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possibly have ..." So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit of God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers. The appearance of such a person, more divine and more human than any other, and in closest unity at once with God and man, is the most significant and hopeful event in human history. This divine quality or this unity with God was not something thrust upon Jesus from above, but it was a definite achievement through the process of moral struggle and self-abnegation. [iii]

The question King answered was not whether Jesus was divine but rather how he became divine. This approach allowed him to deal with the "insuperable difficulties" of the orthodox position while still explaining why Jesus was unique and different from other people.

In line with his metaphorical interpretation of Jesus, King searched for the deeper significance of the history and context in which the Christian doctrines were created. He suggests, "We should delve into the deeper meaning ... and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation," and when we do this "we will find they are based on a profound foundation."[iv]

In a paper discussing the creation of orthodox beliefs, King argues that the virgin birth story represents a pre-scientific worldview: Christ's followers believed that Jesus's uniqueness could only be explained biologically. According to King, Jesus's early disciples saw his "spiritual life so far beyond theirs" that any attempt to explain his existence as human was inadequate. He concludes, "We of this scientific age will not explain the birth of Jesus in such unscientific terms."[v] This same type of thinking led Christ's followers to externalize their inner experience of his lasting power through the story of the bodily resurrection. Those who knew Jesus "had been captivated by the magnetic power of his personality," King writes, which led them to believe that he "could never die."[vi] The living and eternal presence they experienced was then transferred into the story of a bodily resurrection.

In "The Christian Pertinence of Eschatological Hope," a paper King wrote for Christian Theology Today, he explores the core doctrines. The one he denounces most directly is that of the second coming, writing, "It is obvious that most twentieth century Christians must frankly and flatly reject any view of a physical return of Christ."[vii] What were the early Christians trying to convey in predicting the return of Jesus? King states:

Actually we are celebrating the Second Advent every time we open our hearts to Jesus, every time we turn our backs to the low road and accept the high road, every time we say no to self that we may say yes to Jesus Christ, every time a man or wom[a]n turns from ugliness to beauty and is able to forgive even their enemies. Jesus stands at the door of our hearts if we are willing to admit him.... The final doctrine of the second coming is that whenever we turn our lives to the highest and best there for us is the Christ.[viii] This is in effect the continual return of Jesus.

In addressing the orthodox notion of the Day of Judgment, King suggests that we "set aside the spectacular paraphernalia of the judgment scene and the literal throne."[ix] Jesus has already come to judge the world. When we judge ourselves against the life of Christ or experience closeness to him we are experiencing the Day of Judgment. King also denies the traditional notion that some are destined for eternal communion with God while others are destined for hell. In "The Christian Pertinence of Eschatological Hope," he writes, "A physical heaven and a physical hell are inconceivable in a Copernican world ... for us immortality will mean a spiritual existence."[x] And in "Why Religion?" he says, "In reality I know nothing about heaven ... personally I don't believe in hell in the conventional sense."[xi] In the end King interprets the kingdom of God not as some cataclysmic end time or a theocratic kingdom that triumphs over "satanically inspired regimes."[xii] Rather he associates the kingdom of God with the eternal love of God on earth, writing, "When we see social relationships controlled everywhere by the principles which Jesus illustrated in life -- trust, love, mercy, and altruism -- then we shall know that the kingdom of God is here."[xiii]

For entire article see Christian News, January 30, 2012; Vol 50, No 5; http://www.christiannewsmo.com/

LCMS Wins Supreme Court Case- But at What Price?

2012-01-19T07:25:00.000-08:00

LCMS Wins Supreme Court Case - But at What Price?
Christian News, January 23, 2012
Vol. 50, No. 4

The unanimous Supreme Court Decision published on January 11, 2012, to protect the right of churches to fire a church worker under the free expression of religion has been praised by American denominations/church corporations and by many religious rights organizations. (See page 39 opinion at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf ).

There is no question that under the First Amendment a church has the authority to remove any church worker, pastor or teacher, without government intervention, for moral turpitude, incompetence, dereliction of duty, incapacity, false doctrine, and financial duress. But this is not why Hosanna Tabor Lutheran Church fired Lutheran School teacher Mrs. Cheryl Perich.

Perich was fired because she threatened to sue her church. In other words, the U. S. Supreme Court has agreed with the LCMS that a member of the LCMS surrenders their right to due process because LCMS pietism teaches it is a sin against the Bible to file suit against another Lutheran.

The U. S. Supreme Court has now recognized the LCMS Doctrine of Dispute
Resolution, invented by the LCMS Council of District Presidents and adopted by the 1992 Convention, as the religious doctrine of the LCMS.

We quote Chief Justice Roberts from the transcript published by the LCMS Reporter, “It’s possible for Lutherans, he said, to say, ‘[L]ook, our dispute-resolution belief is just as important to a Lutheran as the all-male clergy is to a Catholic."

The LCMS has convinced the U.S. Supreme Court that Dispute Resolution, as understood by no less than U. S. Chief Justice Roberts, is “…an important and central tenet of our [LCMS] faith.”

LCMS church workers who object to decisions by church courts, Dispute Resolution Panels, Commission on Constitutional Matters Opinions, Convention resolutions and Handbook by-laws now have no standing in American Courts.

Under LCMS Dispute Resolution all LCMS Pastors and teachers have a right to be judged by a panel of their superiors. So if you choose to work for them you have to ask yourself, “Do I trust these people?”

We quote part of Chief Justice Roberts opinion in favor of the LCMS:

“Reversing that judgment, this Court explained that the First Amendment ‘permit[s] hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters.’ Id., at 724. When ecclesiastical tribunals decide such disputes, we further explained, ‘the Constitution requires that civil courts accept their decisions as binding upon them.’ Id., at 725. We thus held that by inquiring into whether the Church had followed its own procedures, the State Supreme Court had ‘unconstitutionally undertaken the resolution of quintessentially religious controversies whose resolution the First Amendment commits exclusively to the highest ecclesiastical tribunals’ of the Church. Id., at 720.”

The Obama administration, no friend of religion, went in way over its head in defending this obscure test case all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court. They thought they found a weak link and could fly under the radar of the large democrat leaning denominations like the Catholic Church, the ELCA, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church U. S. A., and the United Methodist Church; not to mention Jews, Mormons, and Muslims. Who is going to pay attention to a small Republican oriented church body like the LCMS that represents less than three quarters of one percent of the U. S. population? The LCMS projected greetings from President Bush on a large screen at its 2004 and 2007 Conventions.

Instead of arguing about a violation of equal employment, the Obama administration should have argued that the First Amendment negate the right to due process. If a church body says it is a sin to pay taxes is the U. S. Government going to agree with that? What was the Obama administration thinking in a 9 to 0 defeat including two of its own appointees to the court? Their performance is beyond inept, unless they purposely took a dive in order to promote Shariah law in United States courts.

There was great rejoicing in the Vatican and Mecca over this Supreme Court decision. The right to sue includes the right to discovery and force church corporations to open their financial records. It was reported on FOX news that the Catholic Church and other large denominations had been waiting for a decision like this for 30 years.

The unique feature of this new Supreme Court ruling is that the LCMS can file suit against whomever they please but it is a sin and false doctrine for laypeople, churches, pastors, and teachers to sue the Synod.

Legal Counsel to the LCMS Board of Directors, Sherri Strand filed suit against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer for the church property of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland, CA (case number RG07363452). She is representing California-Nevada-Hawaii District President Robert Newton in the suit for the church property. Strand also asked the court to make other members such as Ben Chavis show all his financial records including personal accounts, business activity, and tax filings.

Attorney Leondra Kruger argued for the Obama administration. “We’re saying the ‘government’s interest in preventing retaliation against those who would go to civil authorities with civil wrongs is foundational to the rule of law.” This was an excellent point. But Kruger pressed too many other Non sequiturs. How can the First Amendment nullify the right to due processes for American citizens?

We are saying that the First Amendment gives Hosanna Tabor the right to fire Cheryl Perich for parting her hair the wrong way, but not for the right to due process, a right guaranteed in the U. S. Constitution. What is the Supreme Court saying? “If you want the full protection of the U. S. Constitution, don’t join a Church body?”

This was her sin. Hosanna Tabor argued: “As grounds for termination, the letter cited Perich’s ‘insubordination and disruptive behavior’ on February 22, as well as the damage she had done to her ‘working relationship’ with the school by ‘threatening to take legal action.’”

Last week was pivotal for Religion America. The Supreme Court Decision issued on January 11, 2012 was in favor of the LCMS. However the day before on January 10, 2012, a federal appeals court upheld a ruling that blocked the implementation of an Oklahoma law barring judges from considering international or Islamic law in their decisions.

The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a ruling released Tuesday, affirmed an order by a district court judge in 2010 that prevented the voter-approved state constitutional amendment from taking effect. The ruling also allows a Muslim community leader in Oklahoma City to continue his legal challenge of the law’s constitutionality.

If the LCMS Church courts have the force of law that suspend constitutional rights, the same is true for every other religion including Muslim, Islamic or Shariah Law. If the Supreme Court says First Amendment protects LCMS Dispute Resolution, it also protects Shariah Law, and Vatican Cannon Law.

In his opinion Chief Justice Roberts reflects on the problems of religious influence in Colonial American courts prior to the U. S. Constitution. But hasn’t the Supreme Court just laid the ground work for a revival of the same problem and a new ecclesiastical feudalism?

There is great rejoicing in LCMS District Offices and St. Louis headquarters over this new ruling. The irony is that the LCMS was founded on Waltherian congregational polity and abhorred every kind of European clerical hierarchy and sacerdotal legalism. However, now the LCMS rejoices over words such as “this Court explained that the First Amendment ‘permit[s] hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters.”

This is the same position that Strand argued in her motion to the Court in Oakland on September 9, 2010, filed for Newton:

“‘The LCMS is a connectional religious denomination, under which each member congregation has agreed to and are committed to act in accord with the Synod’s Bylaws and Constitution. (Resp. Fact 1). The LCMS more resembles—at least for present purposes involving secular court determinations of properly disputes —a ‘hierarchical’ structure where the congregation is ‘itself part of a large and general organization of some religious denomination, with which it is more or less intimately connected by religious views and ecclesiastical government.’ Episcopal Church Cases, 45 Cal.4th at 480 (citing Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 726-27 (1871)). Therefore, the cases resolving property disputes involving so called ‘hierarchical’ churches are most applicable to resolving a property dispute within the LCMS. In such cases, as here, ‘whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these [hierarchical] church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them, in their application to the case before them.’ Id. at 408 (citing Watson, 80 U.S. at 727; Serbian Orthodox [sic] Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 710 (1976)).”

The Supreme Court has now agreed that the LCMS is a “hierarchical religious organization” regardless of what they tell the Convention delegates and the laypeople in the congregations. Under the Dispute Resolution Process LCMS District Presidents now function as regional church magistrates whose jurisdiction is recognized by the U. S. Supreme Court. This wasn’t nearly as much a victory for the small-fry LCMS as it was for the Vatican, Mecca, and Salt Lake City.

We predict that LCMS Districts, the LCMS Convention, not to mention numerous other religious organizations, will be busy crafting new resolutions, opinions, by-laws etc. to clarify, strengthen, and increase the scope of their newly confirmed legislative and judicial powers over church property and lay people.

This author accused the LCMS of real-estate fraud over an opinion issued by the LCMS CCM in May of 2004. We now must apologize. It is not real-estate fraud for a District President to have the right to suspend proper channels in congregational constitutions. According to the Supreme Court they have that right even if the laypeople are not aware of it.

As for me, I wish to thank the Chairman of the Council of the District Presidents and the Michigan District President, William Hoesmann, for removing me from the LCMS clergy roster without a hearing for complaining about LCMS real-estate fraud. Dispute Resolution is not my religion; I do not confess it, and I do not believe the same religion the LCMS confessed to the U. S. Supreme Court, even if it did cost me half of my pension for the rest of my life. In the future lay people will be advised to see what a congregation’s constitution actually says and also the jurisdictional and legal controls the parent church body exercises over the congregation before they join it.

CHRISTIANS TELL THE TRUTH

2012-01-12T06:43:00.000-08:00

Official Definition of Holocaust
“The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators as a central act of state during the Second World War.” President’s Commission on the Holocaust, forerunner of the official U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, 1979.”

CHRISTIANS TELL THE TRUTH

Holocaust Theology Examining the Evidence
(Preface to a new book Christian News

intends to publish when funds are available)

“These are the things you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates” (Zachariah 8:16).

“All liars will find themselves in the lake burning with fire and sulfur; this is the second death” (Revelation 21:8).

“Speak out for those who can’t speak, for the right of those who are doomed. Talk up, render a fair decision, and defend the rights of the poor and needy people” (Proverbs 31:9).

Chief among those who have been doomed, exterminated, and who cannot speak up, are the many millions who have been slaughtered because of the pro-abortion policy of their nation, America, Germany, Russia, Israel, etc.

When the editor of this book began Christian News during the 1960s he was considered some “kook” out of step with the times for fighting against abortion and complaining that many unborn infants, even in Lutheran hospitals, were being slaughtered. His congregation petitioned the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod prior to the 1973 Supreme Court pro-abortion ruling to declare abortion sinful killing except in the rare instance where the life of the mother is in danger. When Christian News began, most were remaining silent about abortion. Even the LCMS’ Concordia Publishing House published a book supporting abortion. In 1976 the CN editor was invited to speak on “Why Christian News” at a meeting of the Lutheran Editors and Managers Association meeting that year at Concordia Publishing House. The editor concluded after presenting the reasons why Christian News began: “Why Christian News? If you Lutheran journalists on the staffs of official Lutheran publications continue to support abortion and remain silent about this tremendous sin, Lutherans surely need an independent publication
which warns that abortion is sinful and which exposes the fact that thousands of unborn infants are being killed even in Lutheran hospitals”.

Eventually the LCMS adopted the position recommended by the editor’s congregation. It became the first major Protestant denomination to condemn abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court ruling.

During the 1960s and 70s, Christian News published hundreds of articles against Communism and supporting the captive nations and pleading the case for Christian martyrs suffering under Communism. The editor’s congregation petitioned the LCMS to adopt a resolution calling for an observance of Captive Nations Sunday and prayers for Christian martyrs in nations controlled by the Communist. In 1975 the LCMS adopted this resolution proposed by the editor’s congregation.

(To read complete article see Christian News, Vol. 50, No 3 – 1-16-12; www.ChristianNewsMo.com)

ALL CLAIM BONHOEFFER WAS A CONFESSIONAL LUTHERAN

2012-01-05T07:42:00.000-08:00

CAN THEY All BE “Dead Wrong”?

What Do Marty, M. Becker, McCain, Harrison, Collver, Netto, Andrea, KFUO, Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, CPH, Thrivent and The Lutheran Witness Have In Common?

ALL CLAIM BONHOEFFER WAS A CONFESSIONAL LUTHERAN

Christian News, Vol. 50, No. 2, January 9, 2012

This issue includes a review which appeared in the December 27 Christian Century of Martin Marty’s new book “Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Paper’s from Prison: A Biography” (p. 1)

Marty has long been a great fan of Bonhoeffer. The May 27, 1966 TIME said: “So persuasive is his influence that Lutheran Church historian Martin Marty once suggested dividing the world into two groups: Those who admit their debt to Bonhoeffer and those who borrow his ideas without acknowledgment.”

The Christian Century’s review of Marty’s new book on Bonhoeffer concludes: “Both the casual fan and the serious scholar should commend Marty for his fine account of Bonhoeffer’s most famous and most enigmatic book.”

The First article in CN’s Bonhoeffer and King: Their Life and Theology Documented in Christian News 1963-2011 - A Fifty Year Battle vs. Intellectual Laziness is “Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” an editorial which appeared in the November 15, 1965 Lutheran News (now Christian News) when Lutherans in the Detroit area praised Bonhoeffer more the Martin Luther at a Reformation Service. The editorial quoted at great length from Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison, Fortuna, S.C.M. Press, Great Britain, 1953. CN, almost 50 years ago, suggested that readers study this book for themselves.
Bonhoeffer wrote in his Letters and Papers from Prison that “the Old Testament is not a religion of salvation.” He denies that the known eighth century B.C. Prophet Isaiah wrote the book of Isaiah (112).

Among the “mythological” elements he found in Christianity is the resurrection (110). According to Bonhoeffer, Rudolph Bultmann did not go far enough in demythologizing the Bible (p. 24). Bonhoeffer writes “we are preceding towards a time of no religion at all: men as they are now simply cannot be religious anymore” (p. 91). “God is teaching us that we must live as man who can get along very well without him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us (Mark 15:34)” (p. 122).

“Belief in the Resurrection is not the solution of the problem of death (p. 93). According to Bonhoeffer, the demythologizer of the Bible, God is now superfluous (pp. 103-165).

In his book on Creation and Fall, Bonhoeffer wrote that the book of Genesis contains myths.

Reprinted on page 3 from the June 27, 1966 Lutheran News is “Bonhoeffer Influence.” It is on pp. 9 and 10 of Bonhoeffer and King.

The three major articles in the book published by CN in 2011 on Bonhoeffer by Christian theologians who show that Bonhoeffer rejected such doctrines as the resurrection of Christ and repudiated historic Christianity are by Raymond Surburg, Cornelius Van Til, and Richard Weikart. They all quote Bonhoeffer and show that Bonhoeffer’s Christ is not the Christ of the Bible.

Bonhoeffer’s last book, Letter’s and Papers From Prison was published in 1953. This editor attended Concordia Seminary St. Louis from 1952-1958.

Bonhoeffer, now hailed as the most important Lutheran since Martin Luther, was hardly mentioned by liberal or conservative professors. They all must have been extremely ignorant and uninformed. Barth, Aulen, Nygren, Emil Brunner, Pauck, the Niebuhr brothers and Tillich were praised as the great important “Christian” scholars whose books must be read and quoted by those who wanted to be considered well informed intellectuals and scholars. Bonhoeffer was never mentioned by faculty members in their Concordia Theological Monthly. There is no mention of him in the index of the Concordia Theological Monthly 1930-1959.

However the index does list Cornelius Van Til’s “Christianity and Crisis Theology”. It is in the Christian News Encyclopedia together with numerous other articles the Bonhoeffer fans should read to get informed about what is going on in the theological world. As Kurt Marquart said, for intellectual snobs, something in a publication they despise just does not exist. Van Til’s “Dietrich Bonhoeffer – A Review Article”, which first appeared in the May 1972 Westminster Theological Quarterly, is on pp. 71-85 of Bonhoeffer and King. It has 94 footnotes, most of them quotes from Bonhoeffer.

“Scripture and Myth In Dietrich Bonhoeffer” by Richard Weikart is on pp. 128-139 of Bonhoeffer and King. Raymond Surburg’s “An Evaluation of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Life and Theology after Half a Century” is on pp. 23-33. Many of the 61 footnotes are quoted from Bonhoeffer, including some 10 from Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison. Since Surburg was long a professor at Concordia, Springfield, Illinois, then Ft.Wayne, Indiana. CN suggested that at least one of the Bonhoeffer fans and scholars the seminary invited to speak at the seminary’s big Bonhoeffer centennial re spond to Surburg. What Surburg exposed about Bonhoeffer’s anti-scriptural theology was totally ignored by the scholars who follow the crowd of Bonhoeffer admirers.

CN has suggested that CPH publish a book with Surburg’s essays on a variety of topics in the Christian News Encyclopedia. CPH and Paul McCain are more interested in promoting Bonhoeffer’s writings. They have the wholehearted financial support of the Schwan Foundation.

Martin Marty, Matthew Becker, Matthew Harrison, Albert Collver, Simeon Uwe Netto, Eric Andrae, Concordia Seminary, Fort Wayne, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, CPH, Thrivent, The Schwan Foundation and the Lutheran Witness all have something in common. They all praise Dietrich Bonhoeffer or finance those who praise Bonhoeffer as a great Christian Lutheran and believer in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can all these great Lutheran scholars defended by the organized conservatives who want CN to close be wrong? Read the facts revealed in Bonhoeffer and King and Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison now again promoted by Marty in a new book and judge for yourself.
Some 60 years ago when this editor and Kurt Marquart first began expressing concern at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis about some of the great liberal theologians in Christendom held in high regard at the seminary, they were almost alone. The majority considered the “Marquart/Otten team” in error and “screwballs”. The fact that all these great Lutheran theologians today praise Bonhoeffer and the CN editor is considered “out of the loop” and not “politically correct” still does not prove that the vast majority is correct. Truth is not determined by vote, but by scripture and solid evidence. Most of the “great scholars” are no more interested in studying the evidence in Bonhoeffer and King then they are in examining the evidence for the six million holocaust which has grown with the Bonhoeffer myth to show that Lutherans are pro-Israel and not “anti-Semitic”.

50th Anniversary Year - Why This Newsletter

2011-12-28T11:23:00.000-08:00

50th Anniversary Year
Why This Newsletter?

This issue, Volume 50, Number 1, Issue Number 2298, marks the beginning of the 50th anniversary year of Christian News. The first page of the first issue is reproduced on p. 20. CN began in the basement “dungeon” of the parsonage of Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri on December 15, 1962. The editor cranked the hand mimeograph thousands of times. It was called Lutheran News until January 1, 1968.

The Statement of Policy on page 4 in each issue since 1968 was written by Dr. Kurt Marquart, who had been the editor’s roommate at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.

Many of the names of those to whom the first issues of CN were sent by member of the State of the Church Conference, a group of Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod pastors and laymen concerned about the growth of the theological liberalism and a pro-communist attitude within churches. It began at the Mule Mountain Ranch in Bisbee, Arizona where a group of pastors and laymen concerned about a pro-communist attitude within some major denominations had been meeting annually after Christmas. Some of them heard about a recent graduate of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis serving as pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Mo. They invited him to speak for four hours on their program. It took him almost 2 days to get there by bus and hitchhiking.

The anti-communist pastors and layman had him speak some 12 hours during the days at the ranch. Plans were then made to combat the theological liberalism, which the recent seminary graduate had shown the group had infiltrated the LCMS. He told them that this theological liberalism could be far more destructive than the pro-communist position of many churchman which had been their primary concern. At the time hundreds of U.S. clergyman were members of Communist front groups.

When the pastors meeting in Arizona asked the seminary graduate for the names of leaders of “your” group opposing theological liberalism, the graduate said there really was no organized group but that men like Kurt Marquart and Harold Romoser shared his concerns. When the graduate suggested that the leader of the anti-communist pastors meeting in Arizona, Dr. August Brustat, would be a good chairmen of a group opposing theological liberalism, Brustat said this would not be wise since he was a member of the “44”, an organization of leading liberals in the LCMS. Lutheran Hour Speaker, Dr. Oswald Hoffman was the last living member of the “44”. Otten then suggested that Cameron Mackenzie: would make a good chairman. Mackenzie, a Detriot pastor, agreed to serve and immediately called for an organizing meeting in Detroit. Dr. Louis Brighton, later a long time professor at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, became a member of the executive committee of the conservatives at a meeting in Detroit which called for a “State of the Church Conference” in Milwaukee. A future editor of Affirm was critical of the conservatives who opposed liberalism in the LCMS. He wrote in his column “To Tell the Truth” in The Badger Lutheran of the LCMS’s Milwaukee Council of Churches that among the men associated with those calling for a “State of the Church” meeting in Milwaukee was a “a graduate whom the seminary has so far refused ordination, and a person officially connected with another fringe publication.”

The Church League of America
The uncertified graduate had done some writing for the Church League of America, including Parts I, II, III and IV of “What is Troubling the Lutherans? The series was sent to LCMS churches, throughout the nation. The seminary graduate paid for most of the $1,000 cost of mailing from his, at the time, $150 monthly salary. He also compiled the 1961 and 1962 State of the Church Documentation, about 200 pages each, printed by Cameron Mackenzie at his Detroit church.

Hundreds from all over the nation attended the 1961 SOC gathering in Milwaukee, about 400 “registered” voting delegates plus some unregistered guests.” Future LCMS President Jack Preus was among the registered delegates. He kept his registration badge inside of his jacket, in order not to displease any church officials. Among the speakers at the SOC conference were Dr. William Beck, Dr. Siegbert Becker, Dr. L.W. Faulstick, Moderator Machenzie, Dr. August Brustarts, William McMurdie, Harold Romoser, Ben Bryant, M.D., Arnold Gebhardt and Fred Bendewald.

Neither the secular nor religious press presented accurate reports about what was said and done in the Milwaukee SOC meeting. The conservatives recognized they needed their own publication to publish accurate reports.
When the seminary graduate married Deaconess Grace Anderson they went on a 5,000 mile wedding trip. Along the way they spoke to many groups on “The Crisis in Christendom.” Names gathered on this trip were also used for the first mailing of Lutheran News. Grace spent the 30 dollars she had saved for Christmas presents to pay for the first issue.

Reprinted in this is “Why this Newsletter?” from page 1 of the first issue of Lutheran News and “A Forty year Battle For Free Speech”, a 54 page (11”x17”) booklet published in 1995. It has the history behind the founding of Christian News. Next month CN will publish “Officials Urge New Haven-REMOVE YOUR PASTOR, the recorded transcript of a meeting at Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri, 4 days after the first issue of Lutheran News was published. After 50 years, the LCMS’ Council of President has not changed much. The COP call is still “remove your Pastor.” He is “an impenitent sinner on the road to Hell.”

For the entire article see Christian News, Volume 50, No. 1, January 2, 2012

Where Is Heaven?

2011-12-15T07:45:00.000-08:00

Where Is Heaven?
Christian News, Vol. 49, No. 48, December 19, 2011

“Infinity and Beyond” is the title of a feature story in the December 5 Time. The Subtitle is “After 34 years in space and a combined 20 billion miles, Voyager 1 and 2 are poised for their greatest adventure yet.” A section from the article reproduced on page 2 of the December 12 CN shows that Voyager 1 is approaching the “Edge of solar system 12 billion miles.”

Time says “There’s no way of knowing exactly where the solar system ends, but the best guess is that it’s up to 12 billion miles from the sun.”

Time’s “Infinity and Beyond led CN to consider again publicizing Journey to the Edge of Creation of our Solar System and The Milky Way and Beyond. Creation Astronomer Danny Faulkner had a major role in these videos.

“Astronomer Says God Created the World in Six Literal Days”, the lead story in the November 16, 1998 CN had this subtitle: “Has the Hubble Space Telescope Shown the Universe is 13 Billion Years Old?” It said:

"Astronomers Peer Into the Past," a New York Times Service story in the October 26 International Herald Tribune (Paris) reports: "Two weeks ago, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration released pictures taken by the Hubble Space Telescope of what astronomers think are the most distant galaxies ever studied. These galaxies probably formed in the first billion years of cosmic history, or more than 12 billion years ago. Such estimates are rough because they depend on cosmological models and chronological yardsticks based on the universe's being about 13 billion years old, which is controversial and subject to revision."

Dr. Danny Faulkner, one of the few Creationist Astronomers in the U.S., insisted at a lecture at Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri, on Saturday, November 7, that God created the world in six literal days less than ten thousand years ago.

Faulkner stressed that as a Christian and a Creation Astronomer his basic assumption is that the Bible is God's authoritative and inerrant Word. He said that it was important for a Christian to recognize the historicity of man's fall into sin described in Genesis 3 and the reality of the year-long global and universal flood mentioned in Genesis 6-8.

Dr. Faulkner received his Ph.D. in Astronomy from Indiana University. He is currently an Associate Professor of Astronomy and Physics at the University of South Carolina-Lancaster. His professional memberships include the American Astronomical Society, Sigma Pi Sigma, and Sigma Xi. He has conducted many nights of photoelectric observations on telescopes of aperture between 16 and 50 inches in Georgia, Indiana, Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Chile. His work has been published in the Astrophysical Journal, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, and Information Bulletin on Variable Stars. He is also an editor for Program Notes on Close Binary Stars, a semiannual international publication.

Dr. Faulkner's creation writings have been published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, and Impact, a publication of ICR, the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, California. He is also an adjunct faculty member at the ICR Graduate School and a member of the Creation Research Society. He has been an invited speaker at creation conferences in South Korea, Origins 98 at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, and the 1998 International Creationism Conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He has been interviewed on Christian radio and appears in the Moody Institute of Science two-part video tape series Journeys to the Edge of Creation.

"Our Solar System" and "The Milky Way and Beyond”, the two-part videotape series of Journeys to the Edge of Creation, is available from Christian News for $14.00 plus postage. Dr. Faulkner served as a technical advisor for the series.

He is also the technical adviser for Voyage to the Stars and Voyage to the Planets published by the Institute for Creation Research. These books are reviewed in this issue of CN.

Dr. Faulkner accepts the statement of belief of the Creation Research Society, an organization of several hundred scientists. The statement says:

"1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

"2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since the Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

"3. The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

"4. We are an organization of Christian men of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior." Pastor Herman Otten of Trinity Lutheran Church noted that when Dr. Walter Lammerts visited New Haven some 40 years ago Lammerts told him that there should be room within Bible-believing Christian churches for astronomers, biologists, physicists, chemists, and other scientist whose research may have led then to new insights as long as they do not contradict the authoritative Word of God set forth in Holy Scripture. Lammerts commented on astronomy and the billions of years which most astronomers accept as the age of the earth because of tremendous distances stars are from the earth and the time it would take for light to travel from these stars to be seen on earth. Lammerts wrote in "The Creation Concept," an essay published in the November 18, 1963, Christian News:

"A crude analogy is that of filling a large tank with water under pressure through a hose several hundred feet long. Once the tank is full the flow immediately reverses when pressure is discontinued. No matter how long the hose, water pours out immediately at a rate determined by the tank pressure. Astronomers of the uniformitarian school would have us starting with an empty hose. Then, of course, the time taken by the water to travel through the hose would be a measure of the length of the hose. So they assume stars as beginning to shine with no photons of light connecting them with the earth or other stars. But if the stars are conceived as being created by the flow of energy into them, then as soon as they begin to shine by virtue of this accumulated energy, a reversal in flow of light photons would immediately be visible here on the earth."

Dr. Walter Lammerts' "The Creation Concept" is reprinted in this issue, pp. 7-9. Lammerts thanked CN for publishing his essay at a time when the LCMS’ official publications, including the theological journals of both LCMS seminaries, would not publish the essay because of its strong stand against evolution.

Lammerts, and the CN editor, together with some other LCMS confessional Lutherans, met with the President and Vice-Presidents of the LCMS in St. Louis at the headquarters of the LCMS in 1965. Lammerts attempted to persuade the top LCMS leaders that evolution was being promoted in various sections of the LCMS. The LCMS officials argued that the LCMS professors Lammerts said were teaching evolution as a fact were simply promoting "progressive creation."

A recent survey showed that many LCMS high school teachers are teaching theistic evolution. LCMS officials have refused to discipline pastors and professors in the LCMS who promote evolution even though the LCMS in convention after convention has rejected evolution and affirmed the historicity of the Genesis account of creation, fall into sin, and flood.

Most denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope, accept the evolutionary origin of man and the universe.

2011-12-08T07:49:00.000-08:00

God Enters the World as an Infant
Christian News, Vol. 49, No. 47
December 12, 2011

The Final Secret of the Universe
By Dr. Kurt Marquart
John 1:1-18

John opens his majestic prologue to his Gospel with the very first words of the Bible: “In the beginning …” (Genesis 1:1). When God started to make everything, “the Word” (Christ) was already there, because “the Word was God.” Christ is the eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Christ is God’s Self-Expression, Mind, Reason, and Pattern by whom everything was created. Against the idea that Jesus only became God’s Son in His Baptism or by the Resurrection, John makes it quite clear that Christ was God all along, without beginning and without end.

Verse 3 (just like Colossians 1:15-17) draws a clear line between Christ and the whole created universe, visible and invisible. Christ, as God and Creator, is on one side of the line, and all else is on the other side, as His creation.

And then comes the most mind-boggling miracle and mystery of all: “The Word became flesh”! In Christ, God became Man-and still is. Some think that Christ put away His manhood when He ascended into heaven-or that He “Filed it away” some where in heaven, so that He is now with us only as God, not as Man. But after the Word has become flesh through His miraculous conception and birth of His blessed Virgin mother, it is impossible to tear Him apart, as if God were here and His flesh there. No, wherever He is as Man, there also He is as God, and vice versa. In Colossians 2:9 (after the Ascension!) Paul uses the present tense: “In Him all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily.”

Luther: “So it is final, says St. Paul, the whole, total Godhead dwells bodily, that is personally, in Jesus Christ. Therefore the fellow who does not find or get God in Christ shall never again and nowhere else have or find God outside of Christ, even if he goes, as it were, over heaven, under hell, or into space!”

Millions of dollars are spent every year to spy or “eavesdrop” on the universe with sophisticated electronic gear. Scientists are straining every ounce of their ingenuity to find evidence of meaningful signals, indicating the presence of intelligent forms of life somewhere deep in space. And all along the central riddle of the universe, and its self-solution, are largely ignored: God the Creator/Communicator freely opens and offers Himself to us in the Baby of Bethlehem! This is the secret or mystery long hidden, but now made plain through the preaching of Christ’s apostles (Romans 16:25-27; Colossians 1:26, 27:2; 2:2; 1 Timothy 3:16) – and even the angels have to learn it from them (1 Peter 1:12)! And Christ still has “communication centers” all over the world – wherever two or three gather in His Name (Matthew 18:20), especially as His communicants (1 Corinthians 10:16)!

“He lived among us and we saw His glory” (v. 14). His flesh is still a kind of Shield which protects us from that divine Radiation which no man can see and still live (Exodus 33:20). Even high heavenly beings have to cover their faces before Him (Isaiah 6:1.2; compare John 12:41). Christ’s human flesh is like a screen: it “filters out”, for those who believe in Him, the death-dealing rays of God’s justice and anger-yet lets through the life-giving light of His love and grace, vv. 4, 9, 14, 16, 17! For while the Law came through Moses, grace and truth, that is God’s free favor, came by Jesus Christ. Moses and the Old Covenant are shadow and picture. Jesus and His New Covenant are fullness, body, reality (Colossians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 3:6-4:6).

GOD'S GIFT TO MANKIND -- MARRIAGE

2011-12-01T05:47:00.000-08:00

GOD’S GIFT TO MANKIND—MARRIAGE
MARRIAGE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A CHRISTIAN WOMAN
Preserving the Christian Home
By Mrs. Dorthy Preus

Christian News, December 5, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 46

Mrs. Preus is the wife of Pastor Rolf Preus, the author of the foreword to Pastor Otten's new book A Handbook of Christian Matrimony ($14.95)

While I am honored to be asked my perspective of marriage as a wife and mother, I do not want you to think that I am here to preach to you! God does not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to learn in silence. (I Timothy 2:9-15) I am here to encourage the young women and I ask the men to be patient while I have this opportunity to do a good thing. I appeal to Titus 2:1-5.

But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things—that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

We are in sad times in that marriage is not taken seriously even among young Christian women. So this older woman would like to teach good things in love and admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children………., that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

“Will you live with him according to God’s Holy Word and love and honor him, and in good and evil days, keep only unto him as long as you both shall live?” (The Norwegian Synod Handbook of the Ministerial Acts)
May 27, 1975 I was asked this. I have to admit I was nervous about this. The good days were what I was looking forward to, but evil days?! I was focusing on Rolf’s ability to love me for the rest of my life. I was focusing on my ability to love him for the rest of my life. I had my doubts. How is this going to work? The answer came in the question that was asked me: “Will you live with him according to God’s Holy Word…..” I threw my worries and fears upon God and vowed to be determined to trust God and His Word. God works things for good for those who love Him. (Romans 8:28) The text for our Wedding was Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things will be added to you. (Matthew 6:33) I was determined and confident that God would take care of us.

The pastor pronounced that Rolf and I are husband and wife in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: “Therefore, let no one separate what God has joined together.”

This is it! The commitment has been made before God, family, friends and soon in the legal public records. What tends to be over-looked with all the excitement in preparing for the wedding celebration with the dresses, the ceremony, and other wedding details is that GOD IS COMMITTED! Christ, our Lord and Savior, points this out in Matthew 19: 4-6 and Mark 10:1-9. As wedding vows are being made, it is as if God is taking a rib from the side of the groom, forming a woman and giving to the man his bride before the eyes of family and friends!

Let us ever walk with Jesus,
Follow His example pure,
Flee the world, which would deceive us,
And to sin our souls allure.
Ever in His footsteps treading,
Body here, yet soul above,
Full of faith and hope and love,
Let us do the Father’s bidding.
Faithful Lord, abide with me;
Savior, lead, I follow Thee

Let us suffer here with Jesus,
To His image e’er conform;
Heaven’s glory soon will please us,
Sunshine follow on the storm.
Though we sow in tears of
sorrow,
We shall reap in heav’nly joy;
And the fears that now annoy
Shall be laughter on the
morrow.
Christ, I suffer here with Thee;
There, O share Thy joy with me!

Let us also die with Jesus,
His death from the second death,
From our soul’s destruction, frees us,
Quickens us with life’s glad breath.
Let us mortify, while living,
Flesh and blood and die to sin;
And the grave that shuts us in
Shall but prove the gate to heaven.
Jesus, here I die to Thee,
There to live eternally.

Let us gladly live with Jesus;
Since He’s risen from the dead,
Death and grave must soon release us.
Jesus, Thou art now our Head.
We are truly Thine own members;
Where Thou livest, there live we.
Take and own us constantly,
Faithful Friend, as Thy dear brethren.
Jesus, here I live to Thee,
Also there eternally. (ELH # 236)

Woman - The Greatest Gift to Man
Adam without question accepted God’s gift of a woman to be his wife as his flesh. (Genesis 2: 18-24) The woman is the greatest gift to man. The woman was made specifically for man. Adam feared, loved, and trusted God above all things. Adam loved his wife as himself. Adam loved and honored her by naming her Eve. And Eve loved Adam as herself. Eve respected Adam as her husband. Adam and Eve feared, loved and trusted in God above all things and loved the other as oneself. God, the Father, created and loved Adam and Eve very much. God BLESSED them and told Adam and Eve to have children, become many, fill the earth and control it. (Genesis 1:28) This was all VERY GOOD. How romantic is that! BUT it was especially GOOD because Adam and Eve walked with God. (Genesis 3:8) And so would Adam and Eve’s children for generations to come.

God told Adam not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:17) Adam told Eve not to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. What was Adam thinking while he watched Eve talking with the serpent by the forbidden tree!?! Adam did not intervene to protect Eve from the deceit of the serpent. Adam did not rebuke the serpent. Adam did not pull Eve away from the tree or the serpent. Instead Adam did not bother with God or His Word. Adam failed to fear, love, and trust in God above all things. Adam did not keep Eve safe in God’s Word. Adam listened to his wife. Adam feared Eve more than God. Adam had become a ‘wimp’. Adam did not love Eve as his own body. Adam failed as a man. Adam failed his wife and their children for generations.

I understand the nature of Eve. Certainly the crafty serpent did. Here is all this wonderful fruit! We can’t let all of this fruit go to waste! My husband surely misunderstood God. Surely God would not want all this good fruit to go to waste! And so begins the wonder of men: “If a man speaks in a forest where no woman can hear, is he still wrong?” The crafty deceiver caused Eve to doubt God and His Word and Adam’s headship. Eve failed to fear, love and trust in God. Eve failed to respect her husband. Eve failed as a woman. Eve failed her husband and their children for generations.

God, our Creator and heavenly Father, saw Adam and Eve disobey Him. Adam and Eve failed to love and trust in God above all things. Adam and Eve failed to love each other as one self. By this sin, they separated what God has joined together. When one fails to fear, love, and trust in God above all things, one cannot love another as oneself. Since Adam’s fall into sin men and women have questioned God’s gift of a woman to a man. How can one love another as one self if you encourage one to not fear, love, and trust God? Men and Women fear to love and trust in God above all things. Men and Women fear to love another as oneself. When husband and wife do not fear, love, and trust in God above all things and love one another as one self, they separate what God has joined together.

Eve had it all. She had a husband that loved and honored her. Together Adam and Eve feared, loved, and trusted God above all things. Their needs were provided. What a marriage! What a life! This harmony with God did not please Satan. Satan did not want God to be loved by Adam and Eve. Satan did not want God to be glorified with Adam and Eve loving one another as one self. The crafty deceiver caused doubt in Eve toward God. Because Eve doubted God, she did not respect Adam. Eve doubted Adam. So began the misery on earth beginning within marriage. Sin separated what God had joined together.

The tree of life with ev’ry good
In Eden’s holy orchard stood
And of its fruit so pure and sweet
God let the man and woman eat.
Yet in this garden also grew
Another tree, of which they knew;
Its lovely limbs with fruit adorn
Against whose eating God had warned.
The stillness of that sacred grove
Was broken, as the serpent strove
With tempting voice to Eve beguile
And Adam too by sin defile.
O day of sadness when the breath
Of fear and darkness, doubt and death,
Its awful poison first displayed
Within the world so newly made.
What mercy God showed to our race,
A plan of rescue by His grace:
In sending One from woman’s seed,
The one to fill our greatest need
For on a tree uplifted high
His only Son for sin would die,
Would drink the cup of scorn and dread
To crush the ancient serpent’s head!

Now from that tree of Jesus’ shame
Flows life eternal in His name;
For all who trust and will believe,
Salvation’s living fruit receive.
And of this fruit so pure and sweet
The Lord invites the world to eat,
To find within this cross of wood
The Tree of life with ev’ry good. (ELH # 302)

After trying to pass off the guilt of their sin, God comforts them with a promise of a Savior from sin and death. (Genesis 3:15) After knowing they failed God and each other, Adam and Eve continue with their marriage in their sinful flesh. Let no one separate what God has joined together. Adam and Eve had to depend and take comfort in God’s promise of a Savior from their sin and eternal death. This promise covers the repentant Adam and Eve’s sin so that they are one flesh. God’s promise of the Savior from sin and death can only unite them. With this promise we can walk with God through life. Keeping in mind God’s mercy and grace through His Son and the Savior of the world (John 3:16), the husband and wife are reminded to be merciful to one another (Mark 11:25). Let no one separate what God has joined together.

Die As A Christian
What I wanted in this life on earth was to die a Christian and I still do. I wanted to drown the Old Adam daily. (Romans 7:18) I wanted Christ to renew me daily through His Word. I wanted to always go to a church with a faithful Pastor rightly administering the Word and Sacraments to keep me in the true faith until God calls me from this sinful earth and my sinful flesh to eternal life. If I would be so blessed to marry, I wanted my husband to want the same so I could respect him and be safe in God’s Word. I wanted to spend the rest of my life on earth with Rolf. I wanted to respect Rolf as a wife should respect her husband. Rolf was raised Lutheran. I knew Rolf and I would get encouragement in our marriage to be faithful to God’s Word from Rolf’s family. I knew I was a sinner. I did not fear, love, and trust in God above all things. I knew I didn’t love Rolf as myself. I wanted to and still do. I knew Rolf was a sinner. Rolf did not fear, love, and trust in God above all things or love me as himself. Rolf wanted to and still does.

One thing needful!
This one treasure
Teach me, Savior, to esteem;
Other things may promise pleasure,
But are never what they seem;

They prove to be burdens that vex
us and chafe us,

And true lasting happiness never
vouchsafe us;
This one precious treasure, that
all else exceeds,

Gives joy above measure and fills
all my needs.
I have naught, my God, to offer,
Save the blood of Thy dear Son;
Graciously accept the proffer:
Make His righteousness mine own.
His holy life gave He, was crucified for me;
His righteousness perfect He now pleads before Thee;
His own robe of righteousness, my highest good,
Shall clothe me in glory, through faith in His blood.

Hence forth Thou alone, my Savior,
Shalt be all in all to me.
Search my heart and my behavior,
Cast out all hypocrisy.
Restrain me from wand’ring in pathways unholy
And throughout life’s pilgrimage keep my heart lowly;

I’ll value but lightly earth’s treasure and store:
Thou art the One needful, and mine evermore!
(ELH 182 verses 1, 6, &10)

Luther on Sixth Commandment
God created woman for man. (Genesis 1:27; 2:21-25) Husband and wives daily separate what God has joined together because of their own sin. In Luther’s explanation of the sixth commandment, he describes what are necessary between husband and wife.

Thou shall not commit adultery. What does this mean? We should fear and love God that we may lead a chaste and decent life in word and deed, and each love and honor his spouse.

Alfred Kinsey, a gall-wasp zoologist!, taught at the Indiana University from 1920 until his death in 1956. In the book Sexual Anarchy: The Kinsey Legacy by Judith A. Reisman, PHD and Mary I McAlister, ESQ tells how Kinsey claimed the Biblical view was ‘repressive’. In 1953, Kinsey claimed that this ‘repressive’ sexual legacy was responsible for socio-sexual ills like divorce, rape, illegitimacy, venereal disease, juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, homosexuality, adultery, and child sexual abuse. Kinsey “claimed the legal and Biblical view was hypocritical and causes socio-sexual ills. Kinsey argued that if we Americans would admit that we really were engaged in widespread licentious conduct, instead of hypocritically denying it, then these socio-sexual ills would be dramatically reduced.” Kinsey claimed ‘free-love’ would eliminate socio-sexual ills. Aw….can’t you hear the serpent: “You won’t die. You will be like God.” (Genesis 3:4-5) This ‘free-love’ was the downfall of King Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived.(I King 11) Christians are accused of being hypocritical. A Christian is hypocritical when he hides his sin(s) from the church and does not repent of his sin(s). Hypocrites fear man not God. Hypocrites judge what is good by their desires. Hypocrites will judge what is right and wrong determined on popular consensus of what sin is and what sin is not. The children of Israel thought the same thing when they convinced Aaron to build a golden calf. (Exodus 32) Is it not wise to know what sin is according to God’s Word? Even if the sinner fools himself sin is not sin, it is crucial the church knows and identifies sin for what it is for the sake of the sinner. (Proverbs 1:7) Where there is forgiveness of sins there is life and salvation.

I pray Thee, dear Lord Jesus,
My heart to keep and train.
That I Thy holy temple
From youth to age remain.
Turn Thee my thoughts forever
From worldly wisdom lore.
If I but learn to know Thee,
I shall not want for more. (ELH 178)

(To be Continued)

2011-11-17T06:14:00.001-08:00

Help for Advent and Christmas Sermons
Almah - Problem Passages and
Messianic Prophecy
Presented at the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod’s Missouri District,
Washington Circuit Pastoral Conference
Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Hermann, Missouri
November 15, 2011
By Herman Otten

Part I

The doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. The LCMS’ Lutheran Witness was correct when it said in 1957 “The doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is a fundamental article of our faith the denial of which makes saving faith in Christ impossible.” This statement is quoted in the chapter on the Virgin Birth of Christ in Baal or God published by Lutheran News in 1965. Most of the translators of the NCC’s RSV were modernists and higher critics of the Bible who denied the virgin birth of Christ. Baal or God shows that some prominent Lutherans denied the virgin birth of Christ. Today, even within our Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, churchmen like Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who denied such doctrines as the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, are hailed as great committed Christians. Our St. Louis seminary has said Bonhoeffer was the greatest Lutheran since Martin Luther. Bonhoeffer and King - Their Life and Theology Documented in Christian News 1963 - 2011 - A Fifty Year Battle vs. Intellectual Laziness, published this year by Christian News documents the theology of King and Bonhoeffer.

It’s unfortunate that even the LCMS’ Lutheran Service Book includes hymns by Harry Emerson Fosdick and Georgia Harkness, who denied the virgin birth of Christ and other fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

Of course not everyone who denies that almah should be translated virgin or rejects direct messianic prophecy denies the Christian faith. There always is what orthodox theologians call “Glücklichess Inconsequenz,” fortunate inconsistency. Now let’s look at the Hebrew word almah.

“God’s Word Will Stand” from p. 340 of the Third Edition of William F. Beck’s An American Translation:

Many in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, including the LCMS’ Worship Commission and Paul McCain of Concordia Publishing House, have said that the Revised Standard Version of the National Council of Churches is a reliable and accurate version.

How some Bibles and Commentaries Translate almah in Isaiah 7:14

1. Good News Bible - The Bible in Today’s English Version - American Bible Society Distributed at an LCMS convention in 1976, “a young woman”.

2. Holman Study Bible - Revised Standard Version, 1952, “a young woman”.

3. The Living Bible Paraphrased - Tyndale, 1973. (11,375,000 Living Bibles in print by 1973). “The Controversial Hebrew word used here sometimes means “virgin” and sometimes “young woman.’ Its immediate use here refers to Isaiah’s young wife and her newborn son (Isaiah 8:1-4).

4. The James Moffet Translation - Harper & Row, 1954, “young woman”.

5. The New English Bible - Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, 1970, “a young woman”.

6. The Jerusalem Bible - Doubleday. Imprimatur - John Cardinal Heenan, 1966, “the maiden”. Immediate appellation does not refer to the virgin birth of Christ - footnote on p. 1153.

7. The Jerome Biblical Commentary, Edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.J., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, St. and Roland E. Murphy, O, Carr. Foreword by Augustine Cardinal Bea, S.J. Imprimatur Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, 1968.

“Isaiah does not use the technical term for ‘virgin’ (bethulah) but a word (‘almah‘) that signifies a young woman of marriageable age, whether a virgin or not”, p. 270.

8. The Jerome Bible Commentary, Second Edition, 1990 “the young woman: Here almah is not the technical term for a virgin (bethulah). This is best understood as the wife of Ahaz, the child promised will guarantee the dynasty is future (note again ‘the house of David’ in v. 13; cf. v. 2) and for this reason can be called Immanuel (‘with us is God‘) p. 235.

9. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 volume, 15,350 pages, 17,000 articles. McGraw-Hill, Catholic University of America. Imprimatur Patrick A. O’Boyle, Archbishop of Washington. Sponsored by the Bishops of the U.S. Dedicated to Pope Paul VI. (ed. A homosexual pope. See Randy Engel’s 1300 page The Rite of Sodomy). It is not necessary to believe that almah, in Isaiah 7:14 referred to Christ and Mary when it was first written (1-326).

Reviewed in the May 29, 1967 Lutheran News (now Christian News) and the April 6, 2009 Christian News). CN’s review of the New Catholic Encyclopedia may have been the most extensive critical review with many quotations published in any newspaper or theological journal. CN has found through the years that many scholars, including Roman Catholics, have never read it. CN showed that it presented “A New Faith” which is not historic Christianity. It should have been reviewed in every theological journal.

10. “What Does Almah Mean?” by William F. Beck, An American Translation of the Bible. Lutheran News, April 3, 1969. Concordia Seminary, St. Louis refused to publish this article. It is in the Christian Handbook on Vital Issues, pp. 537-548.

Beck begins by explaining the historical setting and what the sign is and then examines the meaning of almah.

“The etymological meaning of ALMAH is a sexually active girl.”

“1. Sound exegesis does not base the meaning of a word on the etymology. When a member of our class in Messianic Prophecy argued for the etymological meaning of almah, our Korean, Mr. Oh, asked him, ‘You say “teaspoon”, do you drink “tea” with it?’” (Dr. Oh and I were good friends in graduate school at Concordia Seminary. He visited us in New Haven, introduced me to professors at Covenant Seminary, and later became the president of what may have been the largest Presbyterian seminary in Korea. He earned his Th.D at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.)

“ALMAH occurs nine times in the Old Testament. In two places (Ps. 46:1; 1 Chron. 15:10), we have the plural alamoth”. Beck then examines each passage where almah is used and shows that this context indicates it must be translated “virgin.”

“But just as all the evidence dating almah as being a virgin, so there isn’t the least suggestion in Is. 7:14 that she is anything but that.”

“I have searched exhaustively for instances in which almah might mean a non-virgin or a married woman. There is no passage where almah is not a virgin. Nowhere in the Bible or elsewhere does almah mean anything but a virgin.”
Prior to the LCMS’ 1962 convention in Cleveland, an open hearing on doctrinal issues was held. Some 1400 attended. Many of the professors of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis who disagreed with Beck’s translation of almah were present at the hearing. I argued that every time almah is used in the Old Testament the context indicated it must be translated virgin. One of the professors said there was a passage in the Bible using almah where it does not mean virgin. I asked from the floor of the open hearing for the faculty to give the verse. He then told the open hearing that at the moment he could not supply the verse, but would do so later. The professor never did because there is no such verse where almah should not be translated “virgin.” This public confrontation did not improve my popularity with the seminary faculty.

Debate With Beck Declined
I tried to arrange a debate at the seminary between Beck and his critics on the faculty on such matters as the translation of almah, the J-E-D-P source hypothesis, Deutero-Isaiah, Beck’s translation, etc. Beck agreed to debate his critics on the faculty but they refused. Such a debate would have shown that Beck was by far the better combined Greek and Hebrew scholar and more familiar with the latest textual findings in Lutheranism than any of his critics.
Many have argued that if Isaiah had meant a “virgin” he would have used the Hebrew bethulah. Beck writes; “If Isaiah had used bethulah, those who want to have a young married woman could cite Joel 1:8 where bethulah is used of a woman who has had a “husband.”

“If almah means any married woman, there is no miracle and no prophecy of the virgin birth of God-with-us. Then Is. 7:14 has been watered down to fit any one of countless women giving birth to a child.”

Beck then examines other Semitic languages and the Septuagint. He wrote in this essay which every LCMS pastor should read:

Orlinsky calls the Septuagint “an authorized translation of the Bible into Greek, the work of Jewish scholars.”40 Their translation of Is. 7:14 is an excellent one. In this translation, two hundred years before Christ, long before the Jewish bias against Christ, “seventy” Jewish scholars translating for Jews, living twenty-two hundred years closer to ALMAH that we do, translated it with “virgin”, PARTHENOS. Whatever difficulties they may have experienced with the text and its historical setting, they were convinced that ALMAH means “virgin.” This PARTHENOS was kept in their Bible and read there by the Jews for three centuries. Not until 130 A.D., a hundred years after Christ, did they change it.

Matthew 1
If the virgin birth were a peripheral and insignificant element in Matthew 1, we might have to give some serious attention to those who claim that v. 23 is an inexact rendering of Is. 7:14. But the virgin birth is central and even pivotal in Matt. 1:16, 18-25. Matthew wants to tell his fellow Jews that Jesus was born of a virgin. That is the critical point of this event. Joseph was deeply troubled about Mary because he was convinced that she was guilty of adultery. What other explanation was there! Only one— a holy creation. To tell Joseph that, the angel had come down from heaven. “That which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit,” he says. There is nothing wrong with Mary. And more than that, the Lord has planned this. He predicted it in Is. 7:14: The ALMAH will conceive and bear a child. What the Lord said is now a concrete fact: Jesus is born of a virgin. Many a person may have puzzled about the ALMAH in Is. 7:14 (cp. 1 Pet. 1:10-12), but when Joseph, Luke, Matthew, and the other Apostles saw the historic fact, they understood Isaiah 7:14: Jesus was born of an ALMAH. The miracle of the ALMAH is given in Isaiah and made absolutely necessary by Isaiah; it is not added by Matthew.

Luther says,
If they make the claim that the Hebrew text does not state a VIRGIN is with child, but rather: an ALMAH is with child but ALMAH is not to supposed to mean Virgin but BETHULAH means a virgin, where ALMAH means a young maiden, . . . St. Matthew (1:22-23) and Luke (1:13), both of whom apply the passage in Isaiah to Mary and translate the world ALMAH “virgin,” whom we believe rather than the whole world. For God the Holy Spirit speaks through St. Matthew and St. Luke, of whom we firmly believe that He understands the Hebrew language and words.52

New Evidence
“The new evidence from Ras Shamra. . . Lends no support to those who claim that ALMAH may be used of a married woman.”

God-with-us
And so this God in God-with-us, on whom rests the Spirit of knowledge (11:2), will know by human experience. God-with-us eats curds and honey in order to learn how to reject the veil and choose the good. These words may have little meaning for those who switch off the light of the New Testament. But we should notice that the Messianic meaning is not imported from the New Testament and injected into a meaningless text; this is the simple meaning of the Hebrew text. Yet it matches the New Testament absolutely. In His training period when He ate curds and honey, God-with-us grew in wisdom (Luke 2:40, 52), by which He distinguished between good and bad, righteousness and sin, truth and falsehood. He did this for thirty years. His learning to reject the evil and choose the good is called a testing in Heb. 4:14, by which He is enabled to sympathize or “experience” (Cp. Gal. 3:4) with us. By His experience He learned obedience (Heb. 5:8, that is, the rejection of evil and the choice of the good. The goal of such training according to Hebrews (2:10; 5:8) was to be a perfect High Priest. The heart of His experience is given in Is. 53. According to verse 3 (where the Dead Sea scroll gives us the active participle of YADHA) He experiences pain for our sins. By His experience of our sin and its punishment, of righteousness and its attainment, He finished His work.

For entire article see Christian News, Vol. 49, No. 45, November 21, 2011

LCMS Deceives Supreme Court About Its Doctrine

2011-11-11T06:24:00.000-08:00

LCMS Deceives Supreme Court About Its Doctrine
By Jack Cascione

Christian News, November 14, 2011

The Apostle Paul exercised his right to appeal to Caesar, but that didn’t give him the right to deceive Caesar about his religion.

“The case, titled Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Et Al.”, centers on Cheryl Perich, formerly a commissioned-minister teacher at the now-closed Redford, Mich., Hosanna-Tabor school. Hosanna-Tabor is an LCMS congregation.”
http://reporter.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=19326

There is no question that under the US Constitution the government has no authority to regulate the hiring and firing practices of a church’s workers. The government can’t control who can and who can’t teach or preach in churches and church schools. Under the First Amendment the government has no authority to establish religion.

However, through a labyrinth of self-imposed by-laws, convention resolutions, CCM Opinions, and contractual agreements, the LCMS has caught itself in its own bureaucratic web and in violation of American labor laws.

The article by David Strand in the LCMS Reporter, and obviously approved by his wife Sherri Strand, who is legal counsel to the LCMS Board of Directors, exposes the misinformation and confusion being argued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the intentional deception about LCMS doctrine and practice being argued by attorneys representing the LCMS.

This is the same obfuscation practiced by the LCMS in its lawsuit against four ladies in Oakland California for the church property of Redeemer Lutheran Church. If the court doesn’t know or understand LCMS doctrine, the LCMS sees no reason to tell the truth about what the LCMS believes.

The following are some of the issues raised in the November, 2011 LCMS Reporter:
1. “On Feb. 22, Perich [the teacher who was fired] appeared at the school and told Hoeft [the principal] she would sue Hosanna-Tabor if she was not reinstated. When the principal reminded Perich that suing the church would violate LCMS policy (all called workers in the Synod with complaints against their church employer are required to use the Synod's dispute-resolution process rather than going to court), Perich repeated her intention.”

Before we even look at the merits of the case, the LCMS has no business restricting the rights of an American citizen from using the courts as a condition of membership in the LCMS. This would mean the Apostle Paul should have been excommunicated for appealing to Caesar. Why is the LCMS acting as a legalistic cult? A man is a fool to give up his constitutional rights to work for anyone.

2. Justice Sotomayor (a judge I don’t like) asked an excellent question, What about, “. . . cases of suspected child sexual abuse or when a church uses an illegal substance -- peyote was mentioned -- as part of a religious rite. Would Perich have been free to report such things to civil authorities?”

Isn’t a church body that requires it members to surrender their rights as American citizens, as a condition of membership, raising suspicion about its requirement to administer its own internal system of justice? This is what the Catholic Church did during the Inquisition. Of course, it was all in the name of the Lord. The LCMS District Presidents and President Ralph Bohlmann trashed the old LCMS adjudication system that relied on lawyers because it was a sinful and worldly system. In other words, justice that follows the rules of evidence is bad for Lutherans and control imposed by an LCMS Council of District Presidents (COP) kangaroo court is good. Many US denominations are interpreting the First Amendment as a pretext to administer their own shadow government.

3. “Justice Alito asked Laycock [also representing the LCMS] if he knew of many cases ‘in which ministers have been fired for reporting criminal violations,’ to which Laycock said he knew of ‘only two’ that even remotely approached such circumstances.”

Laycock would have no information about many LCMS pastors have been threatened or removed from the roster for objecting to corruption and real-estate fraud in the LCMS.

4. “Justice Kennedy wondered why Perich, in a case of alleged retaliation, couldn't get a hearing. ‘She could have had a hearing,’ said Laycock. She could have had a hearing ‘in the Synod before decision-makers’ in the church's dispute-resolution process, a venue wholly independent from Hosanna-Tabor. Indeed, the Synod's Bylaws insist that ordained and commissioned ministers seek redress for complaints internally, within dispute-resolution, rather than taking matters to court. Perich ‘could have gone to the Synod,’ Laycock said. ‘She wasn't cut off from that. She decided not to.’"

Laycock didn’t reveal that the LCMS is in the habit of forcing its workers to use the new LCMS Dispute Resolution Process so that it can keep the dissident members in an endless round of appeals and/or interminable delays. This writer is still waiting for a case to be resolved that was filed against him by Dr. Waldo Werning in 2001. In December of 2005 a written statement from LCMS Secretary Hartwig said there would be a decision by January 2006. I’m still waiting.

In 2004 I complained at an LCMS Convention committee to Michigan Sixth Circuit Court Judge Gene Schnellz (inventor of the LCMS Dispute Resolution Process) that one of the Synod’s handpicked Reconcilers wrote that she didn’t deal with religion. Schnellz refused to consider the complaint and said he didn’t care what she wrote. Telling Perich to go to Dispute Resolution is the LCMS way of showing dissidents the back door. The District Presidents on the final panel reserve the right to overturn any ruling they don’t like. The LCMS is now governed by COP hierarchy.

Laycock deceived the US Supreme Court when he told them that the LCMS Dispute Resolution Process is LCMS doctrine. It is not Lutheran Doctrine. It is not in the Bible. It is not in the Lutheran Confessions. It is not a matter of faith or salvation, but the Justices don’t know that any more than they know if the LCMS believes in Santa Claus. The Justices also don’t know that the official position of the LCMS in the Augsburg Confession is that only called Pastors are Ministers of Religion. Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order. “Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.”

Identifying LCMS school teachers as ministers of religion is a recent LCMS invention that is not supported by the Synod’s own official doctrine. In other words, Perich is not, nor has she ever been a minister of religion.

5. “‘It's sobering that a relatively quiet and local dispute should not only find its way to the Supreme Court but also carry such potential for adverse effect upon the work of the church,’ said Synod Secretary Rev. Dr. Raymond Hartwig. ‘To me it lends serious weight to our Synod's bylaw declaring our dispute-resolution process to be the exclusive and final remedy when disputes arise among us. Our reconciliation process keeps our disputes within the brotherhood where they belong, according to 1 Corinthians 6.’"

According to the LCMS Handbook, the LCMS is not a church, it is a corporation. Only the congregations are churches. At no time does the Bible make 1Corinthians 6 a mandated process, any more than the Bible requires that we wash feet like Jesus did. Paul’s request that church members resolve their own differences rather than go to court is a request based on faith, not a contractual requirement as a basis for membership in the church. The LCMS used to teach that it was sin to buy life insurance. People who bought life insurance in the 19th century were excommunicated.

According to Hartwig’s interpretation of the Bible, if you are born Amish you can’t use electricity, if you are born Baptist you can’t drink wine, if you are Apostolic you can’t dance, if you are born Muslim you must follow Shariah Law, and if you are born in the LCMS you can’t use the courts and the Supreme Court is supposed to recognize these religious curiosities as exceptions to rights of American citizens who belong to these churches. With this interpretation, who would be so foolish to desire a loss of constitutional rights by joining a religious denomination? Why not be a free American?

6. “No, we're not saying that, said Kruger. We're saying the ‘government's interest in preventing retaliation against those who would go to civil authorities with civil wrongs is foundational to the rule of law.’"

Kruger represents an administration that should be voted out of office, but Kruger’s statement is outstanding. How many governments do we have in this country? God save us from despotic theocracy and the re-imposition of pre-Reformation papacy. Will the Justices agree that church discipline can include putting people on the rack, because they agreed to it, as definition of the separation of Church and State?

The Supreme Court is not aware of the LCMS suit filed by Sherri Strand against four women in Oakland California for their church property. The LCMS denies it is suing anyone, but the name LCMS is listed more than 30 times in the suit.

The California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod filed suit against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer for the church property of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland CA (case number RG07363452). Synodical Sectary Hartwig and CCM designate Dr. Wil Sohns refused to answer questions during depositions by pleading the First Amendment. Synodical President Kieschnick was instructed by Strand not to answer if an LCMS District is part of the LCMS.

Attorney Paul Nelson’s brilliant defense won the suit for the four women but the Synod still refuses to settle the case. The LCMS spent more than a million dollars in tax exempt funds suing these four women whose personal legal bills are now over $750,000. Judge Whitley’s written opinion in favor of the women is outstanding.

What if the Supreme Court Justices knew that LCMS doctrine/legalism teaches that it is a sin to sue the Synod according to a 2007 LCMS Convention Resolution, promoted by Kieschnick and the District Presidents? However, the same Resolution states that it is acceptable practice for the Synod to sue its own members? In other words, in the LCMS God says you can’t sue them but God also says they can sue you.

What if the Supreme Court Justices knew that LCMS doctrine is whatever the LCMS officials decided to tell the court what is convenient at the time? There is nothing in the U. S. Constitution forbidding a church from changing its doctrine every day.

Historically, the Supreme Court has had no difficulty in banning bigamy in Utah no matter how many church members agreed to it. How far will the Supreme Court go in granting religious denominations exemptions from the U. S. Constitution in name of the separation of Church and State?

Reformation Day: Past and Present

2011-11-03T05:27:00.000-07:00

Reformation Day: Past and Present
By Chaplain Brandt Klawitter
Christian News, November 7, 2011

When reflecting on Reformation Day and the events surrounding Luther posting his 95 Thesis on the door of the castle church in 1517, many thoughts come to mind. We think of that day as Luther first stood up in opposition to the false teachings of the church. We think of the months and years that followed as Luther, out-manned and out-gunned, so to speak, stood up against church and empire to boldly confess the truth of God’s Word.

Yes, we like to look back at that day as one might look with great nostalgia towards some great victory in a battle that never needs to be fought again. It’s enough to simply celebrate the victory; fighting is no longer necessary, we tell ourselves. In fact, whether visiting Wittenberg, Germany, or reading about its history in books, that’s the overwhelming view that we often have of Luther’s Reformation.

Yet, is the Reformation best described using the verb “was,” as if it were a one-time event for which the last page has been written and the final chapter closed, or is the Reformation actually something more, perhaps better described using the word “is” and viewed as an ongoing event that will continue on until the return of our Lord?

In truth, the Reformation was not and is not an isolated event. If anything, it was only one more outbreak in the war between truth and deception, light and darkness, God and those that would oppose Him. The pages of the Old and New Testaments are filled with the violence and evil inflicted on truth and upon God’s people by His enemies. Whether it was violence to those faithful messengers of God, the prophets and apostles, or violence to God’s name and glory in the form of false-teaching, this war raged throughout the distant past. In the early centuries of the church, heresy of all forms afflicted the faithful followers of Christ, constantly vying to replace God’s saving truth with a lie. Luther’s faithful stand in defense of Scripture’s clear teaching that salvation is by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, was another outbreak of this age-old war.

In light of this historic reality, it would be fool-hardy to celebrate the Reformation as a one-time battle that must never be revisited. We would only be fooling ourselves if we were to believe today that the Enemy has not armed himself with even more death-dealing deception than at Luther’s time (or any other time in church history, for that matter) while we light-heartedly celebrate the winning of a one-time battle. C.F.W. Walther once rightly remarked that Christian Doctrine is such that if it is attacked at any one point, everything is threatened. Attack Christ’s two natures, and salvation is threatened. Attack the Trinity and one ends up with an idol. Attack the proper teaching of God’s Law and you will lose Christ and the Gospel. Confuse and pervert God’s teachings on marriage and children and you’ll lose the family and the future of the church. Attack Scripture’s teaching on the nature of truth, and you’ll lose the foundation upon which all things are built. In short, there are countless points of attack for the Enemy and all of them are potentially lethal. There is no point in the lines of defense that can be a matter of indifference—not when it comes to the truth of God’s Word and its purpose of sharing God’s way of salvation for sinful man.

Yet, as we focus on the on-going battle waged by the church militant on Reformation Day, we also bring into focus the true champion of the battle. Luther’s hymn, A Mighty Fortress, illustrates this point most magnificently. While this world’s prince may scowl and devils should fill all the world, Christ and His word will never be conquered. You see, most importantly, we are reminded on this day of the Valiant One who fights for us through His Word. This battle is not one of human arms or might, but is one that is waged by the power of God and whose victory is ultimately assured through Christ’s triumph over sin, death, and the devil through His glorious resurrection.

Thus, as another Reformation Day comes and goes, certainly, we do celebrate God and thank Him for faithful warriors who labored and fought in that line of prophets, apostles, and martyrs known as the church militant. Most of all, we thank Him for His glorious Word, Jesus Christ, who fights for us. Yet, until the last trumpet calls out, the battle does rage on. And thus, Reformation Day remains a rallying day for the church militant in the fight that must continue.

In that way, it is not merely a day of celebration or the commemoration of a one-time event, but it is a call to repentance and to rejoin the battle. It is a call to each of us to soberly and humbly return to God’s Word. It is a call for us to turn once again with repentant hearts and look to God’s Son for that mercy which we did not deserve yet have so freely received. It is a time to pray that God would richly fill us with His Spirit to take up the weapons of our warfare, His Word and prayer, and strengthen us to labor on in the battle into which we have each been called.

Reformation Sermon by C.F.W. Walther

2011-10-26T12:50:00.000-07:00

Reformation Sermon
By Dr. C.F.W. Walther
Reprinted from Christian News, October 24, 1983

A Reformation Sermon, October 21, 1876. Translated by Rev. Arnold T. Jonas, Pilgrim Lutheran Church (Deaf), Los Angeles, Calif. (Retired)

“Lord Jesus, hot was the battle which once our fathers had to wage, but glorious was the victory which You granted unto them. Therefore, we thank and praise you today with joyful mouth and tongue. For that for which our fathers strove, Your true, and precious, and saving Word that is still ours-their children-today: a precious heritage.

“Still the holy war is never fully brought to an end. What we have today, the enemy attempts again and again to wrest from us again. Therefore, You, again and again, call forth to us: “Contend for the faith, which was once delivered to the saints.” “Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” Oh, so help us, then, that the remembrance of our fathers, who battled so steadfastly and faithfully, and are since in death, will influence us today, so that also in our day we battle as did they, so that we also may triumph as they, and one be crowned with Thee, to celebrate with them also—from eternity to eternity. Amen.”

TEXT: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Jude, v. 3

Christ vs. Satan

The History of the Reformation, which remembrance we celebrate today, is the history of the continuous war for about 30 years, from the year 1517 on, as Luther openly nailed his ninety-five theses against the papal tyranny, until the year 1546, when Luther died. This was not much a physical as it was a spiritual battle.

On the one side stood Luther, a weaponless monk, no weapons in his hand other than the Bible, and seconded only by a few, and mostly sagging, friends; on the other side stood the well-armed Pope, the physical and spiritual sword, as he called them, that is, the political and churchly powers, in his hand, and seconded by an uncountable band of church prelates, cardinals, bishops, archbishops, priests, monks, and nuns, as well as by the greatest earthly power in all Christendom of that age, the Emperor.

On the one side stood Error; on the other side, the Truth. On the one side, man’s word; on the other, God’s Word; and what was the chief fact, on the one side stood the invisible Jesus Christ, the King of Truth, and Prince of Salvation with all His holy angels; on the other side, Satan, the prince of darkness and damnation, with all of his hellish hosts.

I Will Not Recant

Today, just 359 years ago, on October 31, 1517, it was that Luther made manifest the battle to the pope with his ninety-five theses, that he would oppose him, girded with the sword of the Spirit, as David once with his slingshot opposed Goliath; and stepped out of his monk’s cloister, in the Name of the Lord, the Living God, upon the plain and gave the signal to contact the enemy to all who wished to stand on the side of the Lord, and His true church, in the most holy war that ever had been upon the face of the earth.

So then followed one skirmish after another, orally as well as penned. In the year 1518, Luther withstood at first a secret duel in Augsburg with the cardinal Cajetan, which dealt only with the little world “revoco”, that means, “I recant”, but all the persuasive oratory of the sly Italian was fruitless. Luther took back nothing and so left the battleground the victor.

In the year 1519 followed an open battle between Luther and the papal sophist, Dr Eck, at the Leipzig Disputation in which the authority of the pope and councils was dealt with; but at the final conclusion of the same, all who were of the truth – even papists – conceded the battle prize to Luther. Two years after, in the year 1521, Luther was at last cited to appear in Worms personally before the Emperor and the empire to be questioned, and that then sentence be spoken.

All the friends of Luther trembled, only he did not; he moreover made clear: “And if there are as many devils in Worms as there are house gables, still I will enter therein; and if my enemies should build a fire from Wittenberg to Worms, that reached up to the heavens, so will I tread not the mouth of the behemoth, between his teeth, to acknowledge Jesus Christ – and let him do as he pleases.”

So began then a hot encounter—but see! As Daniel emerged from the lion’s den, and as the three men came out of the furnace unsinged, so Luther went out of Worms again unbeaten, for his final, closing remark was (and still remains): “I will not recant; here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.” A second hot Reformation blow was struck by the giving over of our Confession to the council of emperors at Augsburg in the year 1530.

God’s Word or Reason

The history of the Reformation is, my hearers, not only the history of a battle from without, but also a spiritual leaders battle; namely, that afterwards the Swiss preacher Zwingli, who at the beginning was one with Luther, and with him battled for God’s Word against the papal, man’s, doctrine, Zwingli fell away again, and proclaimed that it was against reason to believe that Christ’s body and blood were in the Sacrament. With horror, Luther saw through this, that Zwingli wanted to set human reason in the pope’s place.

So it came as an inevitable result of many unsuccessful war letters between Luther and Zwingli that in the year 1520 the Colloquy of Marburg was held, which ended in the two opposing camps. Whether the true and almighty words of the Son of God: “This is My body; this is My blood,” should stand; whether it should be God’s Word, or reason – or whether reason must alter God’s Word. That was the second causus belli, the second great battle question, which should be clearly defined at Marburg. And, may God be praised, Luther did not falter here, either. As in Worms, when he freed God’s Word from the authority of the pope, so he, at Marburg, freed God’s Word from the authority of human reason.

And so Luther carried the battle forward, until he at last was called into the land of eternal peace, there to be crowned, and, with all true warriors, to celebrate the Festival of Triumph of Eternal Life.

What, now, my brethren? Has the battle of the Reformation at last brought peace to the church? Oh, no! Triumph comes to the church only above; here, the battle must be carried on till the echo of the last trumpet. God’s Word gives witness to this on all its pages, and also Jude, with many others, writes the same in our text.

“FIGHT THE BATTLE OF FATIH”
I. THE PURE DOCTRINE OF OUR CHURCH IS NOT OUR POSSESSION, BUT IS AN UNEARNED GOOD, TO USE FOR HONEST MANAGEMENT.
II. WHILE THE DESPISING OF THE LEAST OF THESE IS SOMETHING MORE HORRIFYING THAN ALL FIGHTING, AND THE LACK OF PEACE.
III. IT IS A BATTLE COMMANDED BY GOD, AND, THEREFORE, IS TRULY BLESSED, IN TIME AND IN ETERNITY.

I.
The first reason why man thinks “It is about time for the battle for the true doctrine in our church to come finally to an end,” is because this eternal bickering and quarreling, as one calls it, is against Love. Man quotes Jesus, Who says in plain words: “Thereby shall ye be known that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another.” So also John writes: “He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.” Yes, Paul says, convincingly” “Though I talk with the tongues of men and angels, but have no charity, so am I soundless brass, and a tinkling cymbal. Now abides these three: faith, hope, and charity, and the greatest of these is charity.” When the Galatians were bickering and quarreling among themselves, the same Apostle criticized them sharply, and wrote to them: “If ye bite and devour one another, so see to it that ye are not destroyed, one of the other.”

As true as this may be, my beloved, that brotherly love is an indispensable proof or token of true Christianity, that without love all other virtues are empty symbols, and all of the highest gifts are worthless, and that bickering and quarreling can lead only to damnation, it by no means follows that now for us the time has come at last, once and for all, to give up the battle for the purity of doctrine of our church. For the holy Apostle, as we have already heard, writes the following in our text: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write not you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints.”

Concerning the true faith, the Apostle also states that it has “once been delivered to the saints”. The true faith, or, what is the same thing, pure doctrine, is not given to the saints, but only entrusted to them, that means, not given to them as a gift, but merely turned over to them; not made as one of their possessions, over which they may be free lords, and which they can handle according to their own moods and fancy, but is entrusted to them as something strange, namely a Goods of God and His Possession, and that they are only servants and householders of it, faithfully to protect and handle it.

True Love

Now, answer yourself: does love demand of a manager that he take some of the goods entrusted to him and sell it, or that he dismiss, or remit, some of the debt to those indebted to his lord? Or that he quietly allow that the treasures of his lord, which he has been committed to watch and to guard, be taken away? Was it love, for example, as that manager, in order to make friends with the debtors of his lord who owed him a hundred tons of oil, said: “Take your bill, sit down, and write quickly ‘50’”? Was that not much rather unfaithfulness, yes, even open deceit and robbery?

Therefore, does not Jesus Himself, even for this reason, call him the “unjust steward.” Furthermore, was that true love when the general, to avoid further warfare and fighting, allows only a small opening to be made in the wall of the fortress given over to him for protection against the enemy? Would not such a general be dragged to judgment, and punished as a traitor?

Or, is it love to pilfer from another that which is his, in order to give it to the poor? And lastly, would that have been true love, had Luther silenced the recognized and known truth, when on its account fighting would arise from it? So, judge for yourself, would that also be love when we Lutherans now give up the battle at last, and under the “pretext” that it is only for the true administration of the entrusted pure doctrine for the sake of making them friends of mankind? Or that we value them as charitable and peace-loving people, and so let them proceed?

No, it would not be brotherly love or neighborly love, to say nothing of Godly love ,but self-love; not true management over that which is from God, and entrusted to us only for administration, but vile, outrageous betrayal of another’s goods. Yes, nothing else before God but theft and robbery: robbers shall not inherit eternal life.

True, pure love should be ready for the sake of peace, in such things in which we have the power, to relent, but no in things over which not we, but another, has power to advise. And well should our love be ready, to sacrifice to our neighbor everything that we possess, even our life, where necessary; however, not another’s, but only our own, goods. Therefore, Luther cried out once in the year 1522 against his opponents: “My love is ready to die for you: “My love is ready to die for you; but the faith or the Word you should worship. To our love, ascribe all the fault that you want, but our faith, in all things, you must honor.”

Love Christ’s Word
Oh, my faithful Lutherans, partners in faith, confession, and warfare, so let us not err in these matters, when a person accuses those of lack of love who continue to refuse to give up the battle for the pure doctrine. Consider, this teaching is, as our text states, the faith “which was once delivered to the saints”.

They are not our possessions, over which we have power and freedom of disposition, or retailing them; they are, much rather, God’s possessions, which we have merely to administer. And not only us, but all Christendom; yes, the whole world: to preserve them keep them, and hand them over – undamaged – to posterity. First on that day will God say to us Lutherans in respect to the purity of doctrine of His Word, which was entrusted to us: “Give a reckoning of thy stewardship.”

True, it is a bitter shame to let yourself be considered as a heartless and loveless person; yes, believe it, my beloved, this disgrace will often break the hearts of the contenders fur the purity of God’s Word. However, this disgrace all the contenders have carried time and time again. Therefore, our godly, devout fathers of our church have said in the Confessional Writings of our church: “It is a sad and difficult thing when one separates so many countries and peoples, and would teach a singular doctrine. But here stands God’s command that each person shall watch, guard himself, and not be in unanimity with those who teach a wrong doctrine.’

So let us, then, exhibit our love richly, so that this world sees that in us Lutherans that love nevertheless lives in all earthly or temporal things. In divine matters, however, in the pure doctrine of God’s Word, which was “once delivered to the saints”, let Christ’s declaration be our maxim and guiding star: “He that loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and he that loves son or daughter more that Me is not worthy of Me.”

A United Peace Movement

II

Also, my dear brothers and sisters in the Lord, the battle concerning the pure doctrine in our church cannot be given up in the second place because the loss of this jewel or treasure would be something more horrible than all the fighting and lack of peace among men.

It is true, my beloved, that the battles and quarreling which are carried on again and again throughout all Christendom, not only between the different church bodies, but also among members of one and the same church, is so great a pity (misery) that it cannot be declared with enough words, and cannot be sufficiently deplored; yes it cannot be bewailed enough with bloody tears.

Is it not a pity that these quarrel with one another who all want to be children of one and the same Heavenly father, servants of one and the same Savior, temples of one and the same Holy Spirit? Is it not a pity that those who are united, joined as one man, should be battling against the countless and mighty enemies of Christendom, unleash their swords against themselves? How must Satan rejoice and shout when he sees this disunity among Christians! How many unbelievers take offense, and therefore have no desire to be a Christian, by which they argue: how can that be the only saving religion, whose confessors (professors), so to say, rend each other to pieces?

And how many weak Christians are thereby misled and fall away to the world again? What about that? Many ask: “Is it not high time that we Lutherans give up once and for all this battle for the purity of doctrine in our church? That we, as Isaiah prophesied, turn our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks? That we conclude a peace treaty with all Christians, and stretch forth the reconciling hand of brotherly love, and join with them in one great united peace movement?”

Certainly, my hearers, could we Lutherans purchase with blood a holy, universal peace treaty, so should no Lutheran, much less any Lutheran pastor, value his blood so highly, but for this cause much rather spill his blood, with exceeding great joy. And yet, my brethren, we cannot give up the battle for the pure doctrine in our church.

We are taught this on all the pages of God’s Word, and we are also taught this out of our text when it states: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation (unser aller Heil), it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints.” See there, because the apostle wanted to write to them of the “common salvation”, he therefore held it necessary to admonish them first of all that they should “contend for the faith”. According to this apostle’s definition we are dealing with nothing less than our “common salvation”.

We Cannot give Up the Battle

How, then? May we, can we, now at last give up this battle for the pure Bible doctrine in our church? Nevermore? Yes, if the battle concerns gold and goods, honor before men, good days; briefly, when we battle for earthly, temporal things. Woe is us when we do not ask whether the peace in the world and in the church will be upset, whether the unbeliever and the weak Christian will be offended, whether God’s work will be hindered thereby or not.

But it is another matter when we “contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints”. There, we battle not for earthly, temporal goods but for eternal values; here, we battle not for human but for God’s honor; here, we battle, not for this life, but for eternal life; here, we battle, in the words of our text, for the “common salvation”.

For this cause, all the prophets and apostles, yes, Christ Himself, have already—again and again—battled for the pure faith. Christ testifies explicitly in Matthew 10: “Do not think I am come to send peace on the earth. I am not come to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father; daughter against her mother; and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” The dissension which thereby insures that one contends for the pure faith is, therefore, not an unholy dissension, but a blessed dissension, which Christ Himself does not cause to cease, nor does He forbid it, but rather He is come to send it, and to raise it up, in this world.

If no one should falsify God’s word, then certainly no battle would be necessary; yea, it would be an evil, a horrible sin. However, Flesh, World, and Satan continue to go out, again and again to falsify God’s Word, or the pure doctrine. And never has it been falsified as just now in our time, so that even now millions, by the poison of false teaching, die the eternal death.

Dare we, can we, be silent thereto, just so that the temporal peace is not disturbed? Is it more horrible that the temporal peace is taken from man, or is it not much more horrible that the Word of God, which alone is able to save our souls, is pilfered from us? Is this not of more value than the whole world? Does not Christ Himself therefore say; “What shall it profit man, if he shall gain the whole world…” (also, the peace of the entire world) “ . . and lose his own soul?”

Consider the Results

Consider the results, if in the years of the fourth century the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, as it was attacked by Arius, had not been battled by Athanasius, or any one else. Consider the result as in the fifth century, if the doctrine of the conversion of man solely by grace, as it was attacked by Pelagius, had not been battled for by Augustine, or any one else. Consider that result in the 16th century if the whole doctrine of Christ, as was falsified by the papacy, neither Luther nor anyone else had battled against it.

Consider the result if, in the last century, as Rationalism penetrated the Christian church, none had battled against it. Surely, there would have been much less quarreling and disunity in the world, but where would the pure Word of God be now? Where, the Lutheran Church? Where would the correct doctrine of the way to salvation be? All of these would long ago have disappeared forever from the face of the earth, and therewith the salvation and blessedness of uncounted numbers of people would have been lost.

Oh, my faithful, let us mourn and lament, then, over that time and again erring spirits attack the pure doctrine, and thereby are to be blamed for the battle and strife in the church. However, over this let us not lament, but much rather praise and thank God that He awakens men who will battle against the erring spirits for, and I repeat it, “our common salvation” is at stake.

The Battle Must Continue
III
So also, my hearers, the greatest and most uncontestable ground why the battle for the pure doctrine of our church dare not and cannot be surrendered in this; while this battle is one commanded by God, and therefore highly blessed, both in time and in eternity. Allow me, then, to speak to you, in the third place, and grant me your attention for these few moments more.

There are truly in this day, many well-meaning Christians who say: since not all battling for the doctrine is to be cast out—and, true, we must occasionally battle with all our might for the same (it was, for example, perfectly right that Luther for a quarter of a century heroically battled for the true doctrine, as a lion unto the death, against the falsifications of the papacy; for his battle ended in such a result, the like of which the history of the church has never before exhibited or known)—but now it is clearly the time, once and for all, to make an end to the battle for the truth in our church; and instead of fighting one another, we should much rather build together; in place of the word, grab hold of the trowel. For what has been the outcome of all this strife in our time? Nothing but greater divisions and confusions.

These preachers of peace, no matter how good their intentions, still are encompassed by a very great error.

The Battle Is Blessed

First of all, is it not true that, in our time, during these more than thirty years of battling for the pure doctrine of our church, we have had only greater divisions and confusions as a result? But much more – to the glory of God alone is it declared—that, as a direct result of these battles, the church of the Reformation has stood up in its shining, golden purity of doctrine; more than a thousand congregations have again shared with us in the old pure confession of our church, and from our America has gone out the sound of the old pure gospel into all lands, and has everywhere gained new professors of the truth and gathered them under the old and good banner of our pious fathers.

And, secondly, thousands upon thousands who were at the point of giving up entirely the old eternal faith have, in the smallest part, come to a standstill on the road of error, a greater part have moved to a return to the way of the truth they neglected. Even the present battle has been richly and gloriously blessed by God above all hope, prayers, and understanding.

Even though this were not so; and even if it would appear more so, as if at last in our day all battle for the pure doctrine of our church were absolutely unsuccessful and useless, even so still we would not dare to, nor could we, give up at any time this battle. And why? Because the great God in clear words has commanded it. For who is it, who among others, in our text through the apostle Jude summons all the saints; that is, all believing Christians, so earnestly that they “contend for the faith once delivered to the saints?” It is the great God Himself. For, holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. What more do we need to add? Yes, what man, or what angel, will hazard it, that when God says “contend”, to say “contend not!”

And so when we contend at the command of the great God, dare we then at any time fear that our battle will be useless? Nevermore! What God does, or orders to be done, that cannot be anything else but blessed in time and in eternity. Even so, the wise man, Sirach, also wrote: “Uphold the truth unto the death; so will God, the Lord, fight for you.” (Sirach 4:33).

God Command Us to Contend

Oh, so let us then not listen to those who, although they praise and glorify a former Reformation battle but would have nothing to do with a similar battle in our day. God’s command; “Contend for the faith!” applies to all, even for our day. Let our hearts be kindled by the same fiery zeal with which Luther and his faithful assistants battled. Let us not cowardly and without a fight surrender what they, by hot war, and with word, writing, blood, and tears have conquered and won, but faithfully guard and courageously defend it against all attacks, even unto death. Let us not consider any clearly revealed truth as unimportant, or allow its falsification; for here this applies: “A little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf.” Let us not be bothered if any man, for the sake of our battle, should cast out our names as those most evil. Also Luther and his assistants had to experience this, and now they bring blessings to always more millions, even after they have rested already so long in their graves. Let us prove ourselves even, not as degenerate, but as honorable, true children of the Reformation, so will it also be, that long after we lie – dust by dust—our children and our children’s children shall also bless us.

It is established, my beloved, that our names will remain for the sake of our battles for the pure doctrine of our church, disgraced before men until the judgment day; but then so will it be when we endure faithfully in the battle, as sure as God is faithful and true, and for the sake of Jesus, the judgment day will be the day of our crowning, and entire eternity shall be our victory and peace festival. Oh, what joy, what glory that will be, when also we, we poor, here despised, rejected, and hated people shall have been taken up into the uncounted multitudes of the holy army of God, from Adam on unto the last of the faithful contenders, who triumph before God’s throne.

So, I call to all of you in closing:
Up, Oh, Christian man; up, to battle; up, up to the conquering! In this world, in this time, there is no rest to be found. Who will not fight, wears not the crown, nor has any part of eternal life. Amen.

A Reformation Sermon

2011-10-25T14:14:00.000-07:00

A Reformation Sermon,
October 21, 1876. Translated by Rev. Arnold T. Jonas, Pilgrim Lutheran Church (Deaf), Los Angeles, Calif. (Retired)
“Lord Jesus, hot was the battle which once our fathers had to wage, but glorious was the victory which You granted unto them. Therefore, we thank and praise you today with joyful mouth and tongue. For that for which our fathers strove, Your true, and precious, and saving Word that is still ours-their children-today: a precious heritage.
Still the holy war is never fully brought to an end. What we have today, the enemy attempts again and again to wrest from us again. Therefore, You, again and again, call forth to us: “Contend for the faith, which was once delivered to the saints.” “Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” Oh, so help us, then, that the remembrance of our fathers, who battled so steadfastly and faithfully, and are since in death, will influence us today, so that also in our day we battle as did they, so that we also may triumph as they, and one be crowned with Thee, to celebrate with them also—from eternity to eternity. Amen.”
TEXT: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Jude, v. 3
Christ vs. Satan
The History of the Reformation, which remembrance we celebrate today, is the history of the continuous war for about 30 years, from the year 1517 on, as Luther openly nailed his ninety-five theses against the papal tyranny, until the year 1546, when Luther died. This was not much a physical as it was a spiritual battle.
On the one side stood Luther, a weaponless monk, no weapons in his hand other than the Bible, and seconded only by a few, and mostly sagging, friends; on the other side stood the well-armed Pope, the physical and spiritual sword, as he called them, that is, the political and churchly powers, in his hand, and seconded by an uncountable band of church prelates, cardinals, bishops, archbishops, priests, monks, and nuns, as well as by the greatest earthly power in all Christendom of that age, the Emperor.
On the one side stood Error; on the other side, the Truth. On the one side, man’s word; on the other, God’s Word; and what was the chief fact, on the one side stood the invisible Jesus Christ, the King of Truth, and Prince of Salvation with all His holy angels; on the other side, Satan, the prince of darkness and damnation, with all of his hellish hosts.
I Will Not Recant
Today, just 359 years ago, on October 31, 1517, it was that Luther made manifest the battle to the pope with his ninety-five theses, that he would oppose him, girded with the sword of the Spirit, as David once with his slingshot opposed Goliath; and stepped out of his monk’s cloister, in the Name of the Lord, the Living God, upon the plain and gave the signal to contact the enemy to all who wished to stand on the side of the Lord, and His true church, in the most holy war that ever had been upon the face of the earth.
So then followed one skirmish after another, orally as well as penned. In the year 1518, Luther withstood at first a secret duel in Augsburg with the cardinal Cajetan, which dealt only with the little world “revoco”, that means, “I recant”, but all the persuasive oratory of the sly Italian was fruitless. Luther took back nothing and so left the battleground the victor.
In the year 1519 followed an open battle between Luther and the papal sophist, Dr Eck, at the Leipzig Disputation in which the authority of the pope and councils was dealt with; but at the final conclusion of the same, all who were of the truth – even papists – conceded the battle prize to Luther. Two years after, in the year 1521, Luther was at last cited to appear in Worms personally before the Emperor and the empire to be questioned, and that then sentence be spoken.
All the friends of Luther trembled, only he did not; he moreover made clear: “And if there are as many devils in Worms as there are house gables, still I will enter therein; and if my enemies should build a fire from Wittenberg to Worms, that reached up to the heavens, so will I tread not the mouth of the behemoth, between his teeth, to acknowledge Jesus Christ – and let him do as he pleases.”
So began then a hot encounter—but see! As Daniel emerged from the lion’s den, and as the three men came out of the furnace unsinged, so Luther went out of Worms again unbeaten, for his final, closing remark was (and still remains): “I will not recant; here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.” A second hot Reformation blow was struck by the giving over of our Confession to the council of emperors at Augsburg in the year 1530.
God’s Word or Reason
The history of the Reformation is, my hearers, not only the history of a battle from without, but also a spiritual leaders battle; namely, that afterwards the Swiss preacher Zwingli, who at the beginning was one with Luther, and with him battled for God’s Word against the papal, man’s, doctrine, Zwingli fell away again, and proclaimed that it was against reason to believe that Christ’s body and blood were in the Sacrament. With horror, Luther saw through this, that Zwingli wanted to set human reason in the pope’s place.
So it came as an inevitable result of many unsuccessful war letters between Luther and Zwingli that in the year 1520 the Colloquy of Marburg was held, which ended in the two opposing camps. Whether the true and almighty words of the Son of God: “This is My body; this is My blood,” should stand; whether it should be God’s Word, or reason – or whether reason must alter God’s Word. That was the second causus belili, the second great battle question, which should be clearly defined at Marburg. And, may God be praised, Luther did not falter here, either. As in Worms, when he freed God’s Word from the authority of the pope, so he, at Marburg, freed God’s Word from the authority of human reason.
And so Luther carried the battle forward, until he at last was called into the land of eternal peace, there to be crowned, and, with all true warriors, to celebrate the Festival of Triumph of Eternal Life.
What, now, my brethren? Has the battle of the Reformation at last brought peace to the church? Oh, no! Triumph comes to the church only above; here, the battle must be carried on till the echo of the last trumpet. God’s Word gives witness to this on all its pages, and also Jude, with many others, writes the same in our text.
“FIGHT THE BATTLE OF FATIH”
I. THE PURE DOCTRINE OF OUR CHURHC IS NOT OUR POSSESSION,
BUT IS AN UNEARNED GOOD, TO US FOR HONEST MANAGEMENT.
II. WHILE THE DESPISIG OF THE LEAST OF THEIS IS SOMETHING
MORE HORRIFYIGN THAN ALL FIGHTING, AND THE LACK OF PEACE.
III. IT IS A BATTLE COMMANDED BY GOD, AND, THEREFORE, IS TRULY
BLESSED, IN TIME AND IN ETERNITY.
I.
The first reason why man thinks “It is about time for the battle for the true doctrine in our church to come finally to an end,” is because this eternal bickering and quarreling, as one calls it, is against Love. Man quotes Jesus, Who says in plain words: “Thereby shall ye be known that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another.” So also John writes: “He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.” Yes, Paul says, convincingly” “Though I talk with the tongues of men and angels, but have no charity, so am I soundless brass, and a tinkling cymbal. Now abides these three: faith, hope, and charity, and the greatest of these is charity.” When the Galatians were bickering and quarreling among themselves, the same Apostle criticized them sharply, and wrote to them: “If ye bite and devour one another, so see to it that ye are not destroyed, one of the other.”
As true as this may be, my beloved, that brotherly love is an indispensable proof or token of true Christianity, that without love all other virtues are empty symbols, and all of the highest gifts are worthless, and that bickering and quarreling can lead only to damnation, it by no means follows that now for us the time has come at last, once and for all, to give up the battle for the purity of doctrine of our church. For the holy Apostle, as we have already heard, writes the following in our text: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write not you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints.”
Concerning the true faith, the Apostle also states that it has “once been delivered to the saints”. The true faith, or, what is the same thing, pure doctrine, is not given to the saints, but only entrusted to them, that means, not given to them as a gift, but merely turned over to them; not made as one of their possessions, over which they may be free lords, and which they can handle according to their own moods and fancy, but is entrusted to them as something strange, namely a Goods of God and His Possession, and that they are only servants and householders of it, faithfully to protect and handle it.
True Love
Now, answer yourself: does love demand of a manager that he take some of the goods entrusted to him and sell it, or that he dismiss, or remit, some of the debt to those indebted to his lord? Or that he quietly allow that the treasures of his lord, which he has been committed to watch and to guard, be taken away? Was it love, for example, as that manager, in order to make friends with the debtors of his lord who owed him a hundred tons of oil, said: “Take your bill, sit down, and write quickly ‘50’”? Was that not much rather unfaithfulness, yes, even open deceit and robbery?
Therefore, does not Jesus Himself, even for this reason, call him the “unjust steward” Furthermore, was that true love when the general, to avoid further warfare and fighting, allows only a small opening to be made in the wall of the fortress given over to him for protection against the enemy? Would not such a general be dragged to judgment, and punished as a traitor?
Or, is it love to pilfer from another that which is his, in order to give it to the poor? And lastly, would that have been true love, had Luther silenced the recognized and known truth, when on its account fighting would arise from it? So, judge for yourself, would that also be love when we Lutherans now give up the battle at last, and under the “pretext” that it is only for the true administration of the entrusted pure doctrine for the sake of making them friends of mankind? Or that we value them as charitable and peace-loving people, and so let them proceed?
No, it would not be brotherly love or neighborly love, to say nothing of Godly love ,but self-love; not true management over that which is from God, and entrusted to us only for administration, but vile, outrageous betrayal of another’s goods. Yes, nothing else before God but theft and robbery: robbers shall not inherit eternal life.
True, pure love should be ready for the sake of peace, in such things in which we have the power, to relent, but no in things over which not we, but another, has power to advise. And well should our love be ready, to sacrifice to our neighbor everything that we possess, even our life, where necessary; however, not another’s, but only our own, goods. Therefore, Luther cried out once in the year 1522 against his opponents: “My love is ready to die for you: “My love is ready to die for you; but the faith or the Word you should worship. To our love, ascribe all the fault that you want, but our faith, in all things, you must honor.”
Love Christ’s Word
Oh, my faithful Lutherans, partners in faith, confession, and warfare, so let us not err in these matters, when a person accuses those of lack of love who continue to refuse to give up the battle for the pure doctrine. Consider, this teaching is, as our text states, the faith “which was once delivered to the saints”.
They are not our possessions, over which we have power and freedom of disposition, or retailing them; they are, much rather, God’s possessions, which we have merely to administer. And not only us, but all Christendom; yes, the whole world: to preserve them keep them, and hand them over – undamaged – to posterity. First on that day will God say to us Lutherans in respect to the purity of doctrine of His Word, which was entrusted to us: “Give a reckoning of thy stewardship.”
True, it is a bitter shame to let yourself be considered as a heartless and loveless person; yes, believe it, my beloved, this disgrace will often break the hearts of the contenders fur the purity of God’s Word. However, this disgrace all the contenders have carried time and time again. Therefore, our godly, devout fathers of our church have said in the Confessional Writings of our church: “It is a sad and difficult thing when one separates so many countries and peoples, and would teach a singular doctrine. But here stands God’s command that each person shall watch, guard himself, and not be in unanimity with those who teach a wrong doctrine.’
So let us, then, exhibit our love richly, so that this world sees that in us Lutherans that love nevertheless lives in all earthly or temporal things. In divine matters, however, in the pure doctrine of God’s Word, which was “once delivered to the saints”, let Christ’s declaration be our maxim and guiding star: “He that loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and he that loves son or daughter more that Me is not worthy of Me.”
A United Peace Movement
II
Also, my dear brothers and sisters in the Lord, the battle concerning the pure doctrine in our church cannot be given up in the second place because the loss of this jewel or treasure would be something more horrible than all the fighting and lack of peace among men.
It is true, my beloved, that the battles and quarreling which are carried on again and again throughout all Christendom, not only between the different church bodies, but also among members of one and the same church, is so great a pity (misery) that it cannot be declared with enough words, and cannot be sufficiently deplored; yes it cannot be bewailed enough with bloody tears.
Is it not a pity that these quarrel with one another who all want to be children of one and the same Heavenly father, servants of one and the same Savior, temples of one and the same Holy Spirit? Is it not a pity that those who are united, joined as one man, should be battling against the countless and mighty enemies of Christendom, unleash their swords against themselves? How must Satan rejoice and shout when he sees this disunity among Christians! How many unbelievers take offense, and therefore have no desire to be a Christian, by which they argue: how can that be the only saving religion, whose confessors (professors), so to say, rend each other to pieces?
And how many weak Christians are thereby misled and fall away to the world again? What about that? Many ask: “Is it not high time that we Lutherans give up once and for all this battle for the purity of doctrine in our church? That we, as Isaiah prophesied, turn our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks? That we conclude a peace treaty with all Christians, and stretch forth the reconciling hand of brotherly love, and join with them in one great united peace movement?”
Certainly, my hearers, could we Lutherans purchase with blood a holy, universal peace treaty, so should no Lutheran, much less any Lutheran pastor, value his blood so highly, but for this cause much rather spill his blood, with exceeding great joy. And yet, my brethren, we cannot give up the battle for the pure doctrine in our church.
We are taught this on all the pages of God’s Word, and we are also taught this out of our text when it states: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation (unser aller Heil), it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints.” See there, because the apostle wanted to write to them of the “common salvation”, he therefore held it necessary to admonish them first of all that they should “contend for the faith”. According t this apostle’s definition we are dealing with nothing less than our “common salvation”.

We Cannot give Up the Battle
How, then? May we, can we, now at last give up this battle for the pure Bible doctrine in our church? Nevermore? Yes, if the battle concerns gold and goods, honor before men, good days; briefly, when we battle for earthly, temporal things. Woe is us when we do not ask whether the peace in the world and in the church will be upset, whether the unbeliever and the weak Christian will be offended, whether God’s work will be hindered thereby or not.
But it is another matter when we “contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints”. There, we battle not for earthly, temporal goods but for eternal values; here, we battle not for human but for God’s honor; here, we battle, not for this life, but for eternal life; here, we battle, in the words of our text, for the “common salvation”.
For this cause, all the prophets and apostles, yes, Christ Himself, have already—again and again—battled for the pure faith. Christ testifies explicitly in Matthew 10: “Do not think I am come to send peace on the earth. I am not come to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father; daughter against her mother; and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” The dissension which thereby insures that one contends for the pure faith is, therefore, not an unholy dissension, but a blessed dissension, which Christ Himself does not cause to cease, nor does He forbid it, but rather He is come to send it, and to raise it up, in this world.
If no one should falsify God’s word, then certainly no battle would be necessary; yea, it would be an evil, a horrible sin. However, Flesh, World, and Satan continue to go out, again and again to falsify God’s Word, or the pure doctrine. And never has it been falsified as just now in our time, so that even now millions, by the poison of false teaching, die the eternal death.
Dare we, can we, be silent thereto, just so that the temporal peace is not distributed? Is it more horrible that the temporal peace is taken from man, or is it not much more horrible that the Word of God, which alone is able to save our souls, is pilfered from us? Is this not of more value than the whole world? Does not Christ Himself therefore say; “What shall it profit man, if he shall gain the whole world…” (also, the peace of the entire world) “ . . and lose his own soul?”

Consider the Results
Consider the results, if in the years of the fourth century the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, as it was attacked by Arius, had not been battled by Athanasius, or any one else. Consider the result as in the fifth century, if the doctrine of the conversion of man solely by grace, as it was attacked by Pelagius, had not been battled for by Augustine, or any one else. Consider that result in the 16th century if the whole doctrine of Christ, as was falsified by the papacy, neither Luther nor anyone else had battled against it.
Consider the result if, in the last century, as Rationalism penetrated the Christian church, none had battled against it. Surely, there would have been much less quarreling and disunity in the world, but where would the pure Word of God be now? Where, the Lutheran Church? Where would the correct doctrine of the way to salvation be? All of these would long ago have disappeared forever from the face of the earth, and therewith the salvation and blessedness of uncounted numbers of people would have been lost.
Oh, my faithful, let us mourn and lament, then, over that time and again erring spirits attack the pure doctrine, and thereby are to be blamed for the battle and strife in the church. However, over this let us not lament, but much rather praise and thank God that He awakens men who will battle against the erring spirits for, and I repeat it, “our common salvation” is at stake.

The Battle Must Continue

III
So also, my hearers, the greatest and most uncontestable ground why the battle for the pure doctrine of our church dare not and cannot be surrendered in this; while this battle is one commanded by God, and therefore highly blessed, both in time and in eternity. Allow me, then, to speak to you, in the third place, and grant me your attention for these few moments more.
There are truly in this day, many well-meaning Christians who say: since not all battling for the doctrine is to be cast out—and, true, we must occasionally battle with all our might for the same (it was, for example, perfectly right that Luther for a quarter of a century heroically battled for the true doctrine, as a lion unto the death, against the falsifications of the papacy; for his battle ended in such a result, the like of which the history of the church has never before exhibited or known)—but now it is clearly the time, once and for all, to make an end to the battle for the truth in our church; and instead of fighting one another, we should much rather build together; in place of the word, grab hold of the towel. For what has been the outcome of all this strife in our time? Nothing but greater divisions and confusions.
These preachers of peace, no matter how good their intentions, still are encompassed b a very great error.

The Battle Is Blessed
First of all, is it not true that, in our time, during these more than thirty years of battling for the pure doctrine of our church, we have had only greater divisions and confusions as a result? But much more – to the glory of God alone is it declared—that, as a direct result of these battles, the church of the Reformation has stood up in its shining, golden purity of doctrine; more than a thousand congregations have again shared with us in the old pure confession of our church, and from our America has gone out the sound of the old pure gospel into all lands, and has everywhere gained new professors of the truth and gathered them under the old and good banner of our pious fathers.
And, secondly, thousands upon thousands who were at the point of giving up entirely the old eternal faith have, in the smallest part, come to a standstill on the road of error, a greater part have moved to a return to the way of the truth they neglected. Even the present battle has been richly and gloriously blessed by God above all hope, prayers, and understanding.
Even though this were not so;; and even if it would appear more so, as if at last in our day all battle for the pure doctrine of our church were absolutely unsuccessful and useless, even so still we would not dare to, nor could we, give up at any time this battle. And why? Because the great God in clear words has commanded it. For who is it, who among others, in our text through the apostle Jude summons all the saints; that is, all believing Christians, so earnestly that they “contend for the faith once delivered to the saints?” It is the great God Himself. For, holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. What more do we need to add? Yes, what man, or what angel, will hazard it, that when God says “contend”, to say “contend not!”
And so when we contend at the command of the great God, dare we then at any time fear that our battle will be useless? Nevermore! What God does, or orders to be done, that cannot be anything else but blessed in time and in eternity. Even so, the wise man, Sirach, also wrote: “Uphold the truth unto the death; so will God, the Lord, fight for you.” (Sirach 4:33).

God Command Us to Contend
Oh, so let us then not listen to those who, although they praise and glorify a former Reformation battle but would have nothing to do with a similar battle in our day. God’s command; “Contend for the faith!” applies to all, even for our day. Let our hearts be kindled by the same fiery zeal with which Luther and his faithful assistants battled. Let us not cowardly and without a fight surrender what they, by hot war, and with word, writing, blood, and tears have conquered and won, but faithfully guard and courageously defend it against all attacks, even unto death. Let us not consider any clearly revealed truth as unimportant, or allow its falsification; for here this applies: “A little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf.” Let us not be bothered if any man, for the sake of our battle, should cast out our names as those most evil. Also Luther and his assistants had to experience this, and now they bring blessings to always more millions, even after they have rested already so long in their graves. Let us prove ourselves even, not as degenerate, but as honorable, true children of the Reformation, so will it also be, that long after we lie – dust by dust—our children and our children’s children shall also bless us.
It is established, my beloved, that our names will remain for he sake of our battles for the pure doctrine of our church, disgraced before men until the judgment day; but then so will lit be when we endure faithfully in the battle, as sure as God is faithful and true, and for the sake of Jesus, the judgment day will be the day of our crowning, and entire eternity shall be our victory and peach festival. Oh, what joy, what glory that will be, when also we, we poor, here despised, rejected, and hated people shall have been taken up into the uncounted multitudes of the holy army of God, from Adam on unto the last of the faithful contenders, who triumph before God’s throne.
So, I call to all of you in closing:
Up, Oh, Christian man; up, to battle; up, up to the conquering! In this world, in this time, there is no rest to be found. Who will not fight, wears not the crown, nor has any part of eternal life. Amen.

A SKETCH OF DR. WALTHER'S LIFE

2011-10-19T11:31:00.000-07:00

A SKETCH OF DR. WALTHER’S LIFE
Christian News, October 24, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 41

On the 200th anniversary of Dr. C.F.W. Walther’s birth on October 25, 1811. Christian News cannot improve on what Dr. John C. Drickamer wrote at the 100th anniversary of Walther’s death in “A Sketch of Dr. Walther’s Life” in the April 20, 1987 Christian News. Dr. Drickamer was a great champion of Dr. Walther. His translation of Walther’s Pastoral Theology was the first English translation of this important work. When CPH did not publish the translation, CN did. CPH still refuses to list this important work of Dr. Walther’s in their catalog. CPH similarly refuses to list Dr. William Beck’s An American Translation of the Bible. Dr. Drickamer is the editor of the fourth edition of the AAT. CPH published Beck’s New Testament in 1963 and said it would follow the request of an LCMS convention which asked CPH to publish Beck’s entire AAT. CPH never did.

Dr. Drickamer wrote in his “A Sketch of Dr. Walther’s Life:”

Dr. C.F.W. Walther was the greatest theologian of the nineteenth century and the founder of the Missouri Synod. He served as pastor, professor, and president. May 7, 1987, will be the one hundredth anniversary of his death. It is time to remember his life on page 9.

His full name was Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther. Some people mistakenly refer to him as “Carl Walther.” His letters to his wife were signed “Ferdinand,” and that was how close relatives addressed him. But in those formal times, friends often referred to each other by family name. Walther’s letters to friends were signed “Walther.” In any formal context, his name was “C.F.W. Walther.”

Walther was born on October 25, 1811, in Langenchursdorf, Saxony, where his father was pastor. He was educated mostly in boarding schools. In 1829 he graduated from the Gymnasium at Schneeberg. The European “Gymnasium” is on a level between our high school and junior college.

Walther studied theology at the University of Leipzig. Nearly all of the professors were rationalists, that is, unbelievers. They tried to follow man’s reason instead of God’s Word. Walther joined a group of students who read Pietistic books and discussed spiritual experiences. Pietism was another form of unbelief. It did not believe that Christ had met the requirements for our salvation. Instead, man had to go through a process of struggle for salvation. But Jesus said, “It is finished” (John 19:30).

Walther came down with a respiratory illness and spent the winter semester, 1831-1832, recuperating at home. During those months he read a great deal in Luther’s works from his father’s library. That was the beginning of his intimate acquaintance with the Reformer’s thought.

Walther finished his university studies in 1833. As was customary, he spent some time serving as a tutor in a private home. In 1837 he became pastor at Braeunsdorf, Saxony.

Martin Stephan, pastor of the Bohemian congregation at Dresden, had been preaching God’s Word, which was rare in Saxony then. On the advice of a friend, Walther wrote to him about spiritual problems. Stephan comforted Walther in a letter about the grace of God. Stephan’s later problems should not cause us to forget that he had long preached the Word of God correctly in spite of government opposition.

Late in 1838 Walther left Germany with a group under the leadership of Martin Stephan. These were the famous “Saxon immigrants,” who were seeking religious freedom. They arrived at New Orleans and headed up the Mississippi to St. Louis early in 1839. In Germany, Missouri was reputed to be a paradise on earth. Some of the immigrants settled in St. Louis, but most of them set up a colony in Perry County, Missouri, about a hundred miles south of St. Louis.

Stephan had been persecuted for preaching God’s Word. But there had also been questions about his personal life. Stephan and some of those loyal to him began to interpret the persecution as personal. The Stephanite movement degenerated largely into a personality cult. Walther was not one of those who followed Stephan blindly.

As his pretensions grew, Stephan had himself declared “bishop” and dominated the group in temporal as well as spiritual matters. But “a man’s pride shall bring him low” (Proverbs 29:23). In May 1839 certain immoral behavior became public knowledge, and the immigrants deposed and expelled him. Walther was a leader in getting rid of Stephan.

Walther and the other immigrants were tried by external hardships and spiritual doubts for the next two years. They feared that their immigration had been schismatic and that they had cut themselves off from the true church and any valid public ministry.

Walther emerged as the theological leader of the Saxons at the Altenburg Debate, April 15 and 21, 1841. (Altenburg was one of the settlements in Perry County.) There Walther explained and defended the principles of the church and the pastoral office which he would defend for the rest of his life. The church is simply Christians, believers in Christ. Where believers were, there was the Office of the Keys (Matthew 18:15-20). The Saxons should repent of anything they had done wrong in connection with the immigration. But they had the right and the responsibility to form congregations and call pastors to administer the Word and the Sacraments publicly.

This event was also typical of Walther’s emphasis on Law and Gospel. One should repent and confess his sins. God brought a person to repentance through the Law. But then one should believe the good news of full and free forgiveness because of the Lamb of God Who took away the sin of the world (John 1:29). God brought a person to faith through the Gospel and the Sacraments. The message of forgiveness also moved a person to forget his own sins and to want to go forward in a life of service to God and their neighbor.

Walther preached and taught Law and Gospel to the end of his life, culminating in The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (English translation by W.H.T. Dau, CPH, 1928). It was a series of thirty-nine evening lectures for seminary students. The lectures were reconstructed from student notes and published after Walther’s death. This book has been a tremendous blessing to many people. It is full of practical insight on church, ministry, preaching, counseling, and Christian life in general. Its content is supremely comforting and evangelical. No more influential book has ever been written by a Lutheran in America.

Walther had been called to be pastor of the Saxons who had stayed in St Louis. The day after the Altenburg Debate, he left to take up his work in this growing city. Because of state control of churches in Saxony, none of the Saxons had experience in self-governing congregations. Walther led the laymen in writing a constitution and becoming active as they should be in church life.

Walther remained pastor of this congregation to the end of his life. From 1850 he was involved in full time seminary teaching, but he still served part time as pastor. Even synodical administration (he was president 1847-1850 and 1864-1878) did not end that.

In 1844 Walther began to publish Der Lutheraner (“The Lutheran”). It was a congregational periodical, but it also sought a wider audience among confessional Lutherans in North America. Among others, it reached some of the Sendlinge (“missionaries”) who had been sent to America by J.K.W. Loehe of Neuendettelsa, Bavaria. Der Lutheraner was for all Christian readers, not only for pastors.

Der Lutheraner helped in the formation of the Missouri Synod. Contact between confessional Lutherans led to the idea of organizing in a synod to undertake certain kinds of work that could be done better by an association of congregations and pastors than by independent congregations and pastors. Those purposes were missions, publishing, and the education of pastors and teachers.

A constitution was written in 1846 and submitted to interested congregations. The German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States, was founded in Chicago in April 1847. Walther was the theological leader of the new synod and served as president from 1847 to 1850. His St. Louis congregation had also made quite a contribution to the discussion about the proposed constitution.

Walther and several others had founded a school in Perry County in December 1839. The school was intended to prepare students for university. But in the realities of American life, it became a theological seminary. Some of the early students simply stayed with it that long. The first candidate for the ministry graduated in 1847. Walther was the theological leader of the new synod and served as president from 1847 to 1850. His St. Louis congregation had also made quite a contribution to the discussion about the proposed constitution.

Walther and several others had founded a school in Perry County in December 1839. The school was intended to prepare students for university. But in the realities of American life, it became a theological seminary. Some of the early students simply stayed with it that long. The first candidate for the ministry graduated in 1847.

In 1849 the Perry County congregations decided to donate this school to the synod. It began operations in St. Louis in 1850 with the name Concordia College. Walther was the professor in the seminary division. To devote himself to this work, he was freed from the synodical presidency. The Missouri Synod today should note that administration was not considered the most important work. Walther gave up being president rather than give up being pastor. He later served again as president because he was so highly respected. But he remained a pastor!

From 1850 to the end of his career, Walther’s work with the seminary was his full time occupation. He taught in many different fields, but he is best known for his work in teaching Christian doctrine. He was president of the seminary from 1854, when the position was created. Again, administrative work was a sidelight, not a major preoccupation.

Walther took the initiative in relations with other Lutherans in America. In 1855 he suggested that free conferences of Lutherans be held. “Free” meant that people would attend as individuals, not as representative of any church body. All who held to the Augsburg Confession were welcome. One who does not hold to the basic Lutheran confession is not a Lutheran. But many people then as now claimed the Lutheran name without Lutheran convictions.

Four annual free conferences were held. The plan was to discuss the Augsburg Confession, article by article, confident that doctrinal consensus could be reached or revealed. That was more important than a larger organization. Unity was more important than union. The internal unity of the faith was more highly valued than the outward union of the organization.

The free conferences were interrupted in part by health problems on Walther’s part and in part by the Civil War. They were not resumed after the Civil War because some of those involved went into an organizational union without doctrinal consensus.

That left the truly confessional Lutherans free to find that doctrinal consensus did exist among them. In 1872 the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America was founded. It included, among others, the Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Norwegian Synods. We should not be surprised to learn that Walther was chosen as the first president also of this organization. As a testimony to his pure doctrinal stance, the Ohio Synod’s seminary in Columbus, Ohio, awarded Walther the degree of doctor of divinity in 1878.

The doctrinal consensus was torn apart by the Election Controversy, also known as the Predestinarian Controversy. Walther had been a faithful Lutheran also in the doctrine of predestination or the election of grace. The Biblical, Lutheran doctrine is that God gets all the credit for salvation but that man gets all the blame for damnation. That is an important doctrine for all Christians. We need to be directed constantly to trust God, not ourselves. Christian faith is faith in Christ, not in self. But some people within the Synodical Conference, wanted to teach that man had a determinative role to play in his own salvation.

God says, “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thine help” (Hosea 13:9). Damnation is man’s doing. Salvation is God’s doing. If man is to be to any extent his own savior, he is to that extent his own god. Faith in ourselves is misplaced. Faith in God is what the Bible teaches.

Most American denominations teach that man must do something to save himself. It may be that this works righteousness influenced some men who had formerly been true Lutherans. The leading opponent of the true doctrine in this controversy, F.A. Schmidt, also had a personal grudge against Walther after Schmidt was not chosen for a position on the faculty at St. Louis.

The controversy was very bitter, especially during the early 1880s. It split the Synodical Conference and the Norwegian Synod. A few men switched from the Missouri Synod to the Ohio Synod, but about the same number switched from Ohio to Missouri. But Christ is in control of His kingdom. We do not know why He permitted this false teaching to deceive so many people. It may be that those who left the Synodical Conference had never been truly Lutheran in their hearts in spite of their words. The split left the Synodical Conference weaker in numbers but stronger in faith and conviction by driving men more deeply into Scripture.

In addition to all his work with church, seminary, and synod, Walther was also very active as a writer and editor. Those who think that a faithful pastor or professor does not have time for writing should consider Walther’s career. In addition to the popular weekly, Der Lutheraner, he also edited and contributed to Lehre und Wehre (“Doctrine and Defense”), a theological monthly that was begun in 1855. He produced textbooks for the students at the seminary and books dealing with various controversies, such as those on church and ministry.

Some of Walther’s books consisted largely of quotations from the Bible, the confessions, and the writings of theologians of the past. Walther is criticized for that. But in humility he preferred to let Luther or some other great theologian speak. That was no problem for Walther because his knowledge was so great and because, unlike his critics, he agreed with the Biblical doctrine of Luther and the confessions.

Walther’s ability to express Christian truth in his own words was shown by his many sermons and addresses that were published in the synod’s periodicals. Many of these valuable writings were also collected and published in volumes. Some of Walther’s writings are available in English translation from Concordia Publishing House in St. Louis, Missouri. But many others deserve to be translated and published. They would certainly be a blessing to Lutherans today.

Walther died on May 7, 1887. Every circuit in the Missouri Synod should observe this centennial with a special worship service. The sad fact is that many in our synod no longer support our doctrinal heritage, which is best exemplified by Dr. Walther. May God lead those opponents of the truth to true repentance. May God make all of us truly grateful for the wonderful gift He gave to His people in the faithful pastor and teacher, Dr. C.F.W. Walther.

Walther: 200 Years After His Birth - WHAT WOULD HE SAY AND DO TODAY?

2011-10-13T09:50:00.000-07:00

Walther: 200 Years After His Birth - WHAT WOULD HE SAY AND DO TODAY?
Christian News, October 17, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 40

Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther, “The Greatest American Theologian” (CN, October 10, 2011), was born October 25, 1811. “Walther,” a 4 disc DVD set sent to the congregations of the LCMS was featured on page one of last week’s Christian News. CN wishes every member of the LCMS would at least watch the movie. Nothing is said about what Walther would do or say today if he were a member of the LCMS.

This issue includes the section on Walther in the Concordia Cyclopedia published by CPH in 1927.

While the 200th anniversary of Walther’s birth is now being commemorated in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, has his theology become a forgotten relic rather than a lived reality?

If Walther were living today, would he remain with the LCMS, a denomination which includes more than a thousand pastors who support the ordination of women, allows on its clergy roster those who promote evolution and deny the inerrancy of the Bible, and whose leaders at its seminaries and publishing house praise Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a liberal theologian who denied the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the greatest Lutheran theologian since Martin Luther?

Today the LCMS allows its leaders to maintain that the Muslim god is also the true God.
This issue of CN includes the editor’s conclusion of his book Baal or God published in 1965, p. 4. The editor quoted what Walther told the First Convention of the synod’s Iowa District in 1879 and recommended “Separate from your denomination when it no longer preaches God’s Word and when it tolerates the anti-Christian views of modern liberalism.”

Last week CN reported that the 2011 Walther Conference scheduled to be held at Concordia Seminary on November 11 and 12 has been cancelled. The editor was scheduled to speak at the conference on “What Would Walther Do or Say Today.” “What About Doctrinal Discipline? ̶ If WALTHER WERE PRESIDENT OF THE LCMS TODAY?” was the title of the editors essay at the First National Walther Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, November 5 and 6, 1998.

On March 18, 2011 the editor sent a tentative outline of the speech he intended to present at Concordia Seminary to LCMS President Matthew Harrison, Concordia Seminary President, Dale Meyer, LCMS Missouri District President, Ray Mirly, CTCR Executive Joel Lehenbauer, the president of the LCMS Concordia University System, and the president of CPH. None of the LCMS leaders said they would be able to serve on the panel responding to CN. They were also not able to send a representative to serve on the panel.

The outline CN sent to the LCMS leaders and letter of March 18 follow:

Tentative Outline
1. Support a Twenty-first Century Reformation and Formula of Concord, which reaffirms the Book of Concord of 1580 but speaks to the issues of our day: evolution, higher criticism of the Bible, abortion, homosexuality, communism, and socialism, etc. Expose the anti-scriptural theology now tolerated in all the major denominations.

2. Stop the “Dying of the Light” in the Concordia University System as exposed in The Dying of the Light – The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from Their Christian Churches by James Burtschaell and in The Christian News Encyclopedia and the volumes of Christian News.

3. Call for the highest academic standards and the careful study of solid evidence in all areas.

4. Defend the inerrancy of the Bible and oppose such destructive notions of the Bible as the J-E-D-P source hypothesis, the Deutero-Isaiah theory, 160 B.C dating of Daniel and the translation of “young woman” rather than “virgin” for almah in Isaiah 7:14.

5. Support free speech and debates including a debate between those at CPH and in the CUS and LCMS seminaries who insist that the RSV and the ESV are accurate and reliable translations and those who claim that the RSV and ESV, which is 91% RSV, undermine basic doctrines of God’s Word, direct rectilinear messianic prophecy, and change the Bible text in more than 1,000 passages.

For entire article see Vol. 49, No. 40, Christian News, October 17, 2011.

MARQUART: ST. LOUIS SEMINARY LOST CASE VS OTTEN

2011-10-06T05:56:00.000-07:00

LCMS’ COP, Administration, Special Presidential Committee, And Seminary All Disagree With Ft. Wayne Professor:

MARQUART: ST. LOUIS SEMINARY LOST CASE VS OTTEN
Christian News, October 10, 2011

Those who claim the pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Mis-souri and editor of Christian News is an impenitent sinner on the road to hell all disagree with Dr. Kurt Marquart who insisted that Herman Otten won the Seminary vs. Otten case. Among those who disagreed with Marquart are LCMS presidents Harms, Jacob Preus, Ralph Bohlmann, A.L. Barry and his assistant, Paul McCain, Jerry Kieschnick, and Matthew Harrison. During the last 50 years hardly any member of the LCMS’ Council of Presidents has agreed with Marquart.

Very few have ever read the 1,050 page transcript of the Seminary vs. Otten case in the files of Concordia Historical Institute and the research center of Christian News. Dr. Martin Noland, former director of the Concordia Historical Institute said after he read the transcript that Marquart’s defense “completely exonerated” Otten. (“Marquart’s Defense Exonerated Otten,” CN, January 18, 2010). “Kurt Marquart – God’s Chosen Instrument In the Church – Missouri Synod’s Great Battle for the Bible” (CN, January 18, 2010), noted that the LCMS’ Concordia Publishing House would never publish a biography of Kurt Marquart, nor would the Schwan Foundation finance it if it mentioned Marquart’s association and defense of Otten. When CPH published two volumes on the works of Herman Sasse, edited by Matthew Harrison, it did not mention that Sasse defended Otten or that some of Sasse’s articles were published in Christian News.

So far the only publication which includes a biography of Marquart, testimonials about him, and a long list of many of his writings is CN’s “Marquart’s Legacy – The International Luther” available from Christian News for $5.00.

A 41ft. 21st Century Reformation Cross at Camp Trinity, New Haven, Missouri dedicated in memory of Dr. Marquart, who promoted a 20th Century Formula of Concord, will be dedicated during a Reformation service at the Missouri District’s Washington Circuit on October 30 at 3 p.m. Chaplain Brandt Klawitter, a great admirer of Marquart, will preach.

James C. Burkee, in his Fortress Press published Power, Politics and the Missouri Synod – A Conflict That Changed American Christianity has this caption of a photo of a young Marquart in his book: “Kurt E. Marquart, long time Otten friend and ally. Marquart constantly advocated for the ‘regularization’ of Otten’s clerical status, which he considered key to ‘pacification’ in the church.”

If Concordia Seminary, the leaders of the LCMS, and the LCMS COP had accepted the final ruling of the LCMS’ Board of Appeals, the case, which led to the latest suspension of Trinity, New Haven, Missouri would never have happened. The COP ruling vs. Otten’s congregation led to the ruling that Otten is an impenitent sinner on the road to hell (CN, October 3, 2011).

---------------------

Professor Kurt Marquart of Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne, told a Special Presidential committee asked to deal with Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, vs. Herman Otten case that the seminary failed to show just cause for refusing to certify Otten for the ministry. The committee was formed in response to a resolution adopted at the LCMS’ 1995 convention.

Many regard Marquart as one of the leading theologians in the U.S. The Board of Appeals of the Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod ordered the St. Louis Seminary to show cause for refusing to certify Otten.

Marquart told the committee: “The case ended in a 5-5 tie or non decision. Anywhere else but in the Soviet Union and in other dark corners of unchallenged bureaucratic arrogance, it would have been self-evident that the seminary had failed to show cause.”

When Otten asked Dr. James Kalthoff why the Special Presidential committee took issue with Marquart’s statement, he said the he could not answer any questions about the committee’s report. Marquart was a counselor for Otten in the case. They had been roommates at the St. Louis Seminary. Dr. Siegbert Becker, a professor at Concordia Teachers College, River Forest, and Rev. H.W. Niewald, pastor of Bethlehem Lutheran Church, New Haven, were Otten’s other counselors.

The Special Presidential Committee said in its 41-page report published in the March 3, 1997 issue of CN, that the meaning of the 5-5 ruling has not been clarified even though the LCMS’ Commission on Appeals ruled in 1984 that the 5-5 ruling meant that the seminary failed to show cause and that Otten was the prevailing party. The LCMS’ Handbook says that such rulings are binding. The Special Presidential Committee faults Otten for failing to ask for a rehearing. Otten and his counselors did not ask for any rehearing because they accepted the ruling of the Board of Appeals. Why should the winner ask for a rehearing? Members of the committee were James Kalthoff, Wallace Schulz, David Mueller, Doris Christopher, and Patrick Stacher. Kalthoff later suspended Otten’s congregation from the LCMS. . . . .

"ON THE ROAD TO HELL"

2011-09-29T06:42:00.000-07:00

LCMS Leaders Insist Pastor/Editor is:
“ON THE ROAD TO HELL”
Christian News, October 3, 2011

Herman Otten, the pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri, since 1958 and editor of Christian News since 1958 is “an impenitent sinner on the road to hell whom I would never commune” says Dr. Ray Mirly, President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s Missouri District, where Trinity, New Haven is a member.

Mirly has not withdrawn what he said about the editor being “on the road to hell.” Mirly came to the CN office on October 22, 2009, together with now LCMS First Vice-president Herbert Mueller, chairman of the panel of the Council of Presidents, which found the editor of CN an impenitent sinner and Jesus First leader Dr. Charles Mueller, Sr., always an orthodox Lutheran. While Christian News has exposed the long liberal, pro-Seminex, majority on the LCMS’ Council of Presidents, LCMS President Matthew Harrison has expressed confidence in the COP. COP member, Ray Mirly said in a letter he delivered to the CN editor on October 22, 2009:

Rev. Herman Otten
Lutheran News, Inc.
684 Luther Lane
New Haven, MO 63068

Dear Herman:
Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

In response to your letter dated September 2, 2009 in which you asked five questions, here are my answers:

Question 1 – “Is Trinity, New Haven, still under the threat of being expelled since I still insist I told the truth?”

Luther’s Small Catechism, Copyright 1943, states, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. What does this mean? We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander nor defame our neighbor, but defend him, speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.” Question 68: “What does God forbid in the Eighth Commandment?” Answer A: “God forbids us to slander or defame our neighbor; that is, to speak evil of him and thus injure or destroy his good name.” Question 69: “What does God require of us in the Eighth Commandment?”

Answer: A. “We should defend our neighbor; that is, we should take his part and shield him against false accusations.” B. “We should speak well of our neighbor; that is, we should praise his good qualities and deeds so far as it can be done in keeping with the truth.” and C. “We should put the best construction on everything; that is, we should cover up his faults and explain in his favor whatever can be so explained.”

Since you are not a pastor of The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, I must exercise my Ecclesiastical Supervision of the ministry of the pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church through the ministry that the congregation permits its pastor to conduct. Following the guidance of Matthew 18, 15-18, your congregation was afforded every opportunity to defend your accusations against Dr. Charles Mueller, Sr. in a lengthy and well documented hearing. The purpose of that hearing was to determine whether Dr. James Kalthoff, then President of the Missouri District, properly ruled that you had broken the 8th Commandment and that you had not confessed your sin (which, from your letter of September 2, 2009 it is quite evident that you have not), repented of it and asked Dr. Mueller for his forgiveness.

The three District Presidents that conducted the final hearing of the case against Trinity determined that you did in fact break the 8th Commandment. You have failed to accept their judgment. Thus, yes, Trinity, New Haven, is still under the threat of being expelled as long as you remain the pastor of the congregation and you remain impenitent of a public sin.

Question 2 – “Am I eligible to preach in congregations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod?” The answer is no. Only rostered pastors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) or pastors of congregations with whom we are in official altar and pulpit fellowship are eligible to preach or administer the sacraments in Missouri Synod congregations. As you know, even though Trinity is a congregation of the LCMS, you are not rostered. Therefore, you are not eligible to preach in an LCMS congregation.

Question 3: “Am I eligible to attend Holy Communion at Trinity, New Haven and at pastoral conferences?” Answer: Admission to the Lord’s Table is the responsibility of the local pastor and congregation. To attend the Lord’s Supper, one is to be truly penitent of all of their sins.
Based upon my answer to question 1, if I was pastor of the congregation where you desired to commune, because of your public statements of impenitence, I would not commune you.

Question 4: “May I participate in services of ordination?” Answer: The answer is no! Only clergy of the LCMS are eligible to participate in an ordination or installation of a pastor in an LCMS congregation.

Question 5: “Have you taken any action to get Pastor Gundermann to confess that it is contrary for women to serve as pastors?” I have properly exercised my Ecclesiastical responsibilities in regard to Pastor Gundermann, as I am fulfilling my responsibilities with Trinity Lutheran Church.
Herman, I am concerned about you and your continued refusal to recognize the sin that is at the center of your letter. You have a blind spot when it comes to this sin. Your understanding and application of the 8th Commandment is not the common LCMS understanding and public teaching of this doctrine. It is not in accord with the 8th Commandment to publicly print and distribute accusations about anyone without clear evidence that your information is correct.
Secondly, even then, as a Christian, it is your responsibility to attempt to personally engage in private spiritual counsel with that individual.

I urge you to engage in a careful, prayerful study of the 8th Commandment with the pastors of the Washington Circuit. At the least, I beg you to study this Commandment with the members of Trinity to seek to gain a proper understanding of the teaching of God’s Word. Members of your congregation, through my review of the teaching the 8th Commandment from Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms, agreed with what is taught therein.

In the Service of Jesus Christ,
Rev. Dr. Ray G. Mirly

President Mirly visited Trinity, New Haven, three times to show the congregation their pastor broke the Eighth Commandment. He called members to St. Louis to meet with him without their pastor. He gave the congregation this summery of the 13 page ruling of the COP ruling.

Trinity Lutheran Church
New Haven, Missouri
Hearing Panel Decision
May 1, 2006

Main Issue (Page 3)
Should the suspension of Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri by Missouri District President James Kalthoff be upheld, or should the suspension not be upheld and Trinity’s full membership in the Synod be restored?
Sub-issues (Page 3)

1. Did the ecclesiastical supervisor follow proper procedure in suspending the member?
2. Were the requirements for expulsion according to Article XIII 1 of the Constitution of the Synod met?
3. Was sufficient evidence provided to support the accusations that led to suspension?
Summary of the Decision

(Page 3)
1. The panel determined that the ecclesiastical supervisor did follow proper procedure in suspending the member. (Trinity, New Haven)
2. The panel determined that the requirements for expulsion under Article XIII of the Constitution were met in the technical sense, but that since the case involves the removal of a congregation from the Synod and that the congregation was not given adequate counsel by its ecclesiastical supervisor as required by the Constitution of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Article III. 9 the suspension should not be upheld at this time.
3. The panel determined that sufficient evidence was provided to support a suspension of membership in the Synod.

Specific Direction Given to the Missouri District President (Page 9)
Trinity, New Haven should also have had clear counsel from its ecclesiastical supervisor concerning the issues in this case and especially concerning the options available to the congregation there are four options.

1. The first is for Trinity, New Haven to have its pastor – not its elders, but its pastor – provide direct and specific proof for the allegations he made against Pastor Charles Mueller, Sr. on June 30, 2003.
2. If he is not able to do that, the second option is for Trinity, New Haven to persuade its pastor to repent and apologize to Trinity, Roselle in a manner acceptable to them for his violation of the 8th Commandment, which is a serious sin.
3. If Pastor Otten fails to provide the direct proof of his allegations or make an appropriate apology, the third option is for the congregation to remove him from his office in the congregation.
4. The fourth option is for the congregation simply to resign its membership in the Synod or to accept the suspension of such membership.
The panel is not satisfied that such counsel was given to Trinity, New Haven by its ecclesiastical supervisor or his representatives in a setting where these matters could be discussed in a calm and straightforward fashion.

(Page 10 through top of page 11 – Top of page, indented paragraph, second sentence)

“. . . the meeting notes (from the August 28th meeting between Trinity and President Kalthoff) also indicate that the presence and the remarks of the congregation’s pastor and its advisor would have made such a calm and careful discussion of the congregation’s task, its role in these proceedings, and the options available to it almost impossible.”

Since this was not done the panel determined that the suspension of Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri should not be upheld until such a meeting or meetings with the congregation can be held and a reasonable amount of time, perhaps 45 days, be granted for the congregation to consider its options. If, after that time, it continues to support its pastor and the matter remains unresolved, the suspension should be reimposed and upheld.

The panel determined that sufficient evidence was provided to support the case brought by Trinity Lutheran Church, Roselle, Illinois for the following reasons:

The charge in this case was very specific and very narrow. An accusation was made against a member of the Synod in a publication titled Christian News, which, if true would place the accused, Pastor Charles Mueller, Sr., in jeopardy of church discipline and possible expulsion from the Synod. Trinity, Roselle, the congregation of which Pastor Mueller, Sr. is a member, properly demanded that the editor of Christian News either provide direct proof for his allegations or print a clear and public retraction of them. This was not done.

The congregation then took the matter to its sister congregation, Trinity, New Haven, which has responsibility for the life and ministry of its pastor. It requested the congregation to obtain from Pastor Otten direct proof of his allegations against Pastor Charles Mueller, Sr. or a retraction and apology. This was not done.

The panel notes that throughout the process a great deal of information was given, none of its containing clear or direct proof of the allegations made against Pastor Mueller. In fact, throughout the process additional allegations were made against him.

Therefore, the panel has determined that there are ample grounds for a decision to suspend Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri and that such suspension should be upheld, but in view of the lack of adequate counsel of Trinity, New Haven, on the part of its ecclesiastical supervisor, the panel has determined that the suspension should not be upheld until such time as the counsel described above can be given to Trinity, New Haven, and it has the opportunity to respond.

Ed. CN’s response to Mirly and the COP was published in the November 18, 2009 CN. Future issues of CN will have Otten’s response to the Council of Presidents and to “The Road to Hell”.

Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod: A Conflict That Changed American Christianity - Reviewed by Rev. Rolf D. Preus

2011-09-21T11:37:00.000-07:00

Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod: A Conflict That Changed American Christianity, by James C. Burkee, Fortress Press, 2011. Reviewed by Rev. Rolf D. Preus
Christian News, September 26, 2011

Burkee’s book contains a wealth of information, but if the reader is looking for an objective recounting of the events surrounding the “Battle for the Bible” in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod during the fifties through the seventies, he will be disappointed. Despite Martin Marty’s suggestion in the forward that Burkee offers something different and more “fair-minded” than previous partisan efforts, Burkee’s book presents two dimensional caricatures of such main actors as Jack Preus and Herman Otten and fails to demonstrate an understanding of how issues, personalities, and events interacted with each other during this most significant time in our recent history.

Burkee’s thesis is that a relatively small clique of ideologically driven clergymen, with the help of a few wealthy rightwing laymen, pushed the Missouri Synod to the right as part of a larger cultural/political movement in the same direction. Burkee links and likens Herman Otten to Joseph McCarthy and Jack Preus to Richard Nixon. “Richard Nixon had his plumbers and so did Jack Preus.” (p 117) This fanciful thesis is clumsily imposed throughout his book, making it an extended cheap shot directed at the men who during the nineteen sixties and seventies were most articulate in defending the historic teaching of the LCMS on the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. Seeking a politico-cultural explanation of Missouri’s civil war, Burkee largely ignores the theological sources of the debate.

The central weakness of his book, evident throughout, is Burkee’s apparent ignorance of the theological issues underlying the synodical controversy. He will not acknowledge the grassroots uprising of the conservative laity of the Missouri Synod against the liberal theology emanating from the St. Louis seminary. The debate about the Bible was certainly not limited to the faculty of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. It was taking place throughout the synod. When young graduates of the St. Louis seminary went out into the parish calling into question such things as the historicity of Adam and Eve, they provoked a reaction. Herman Otten didn’t create this reaction. He didn’t even lead it. He was a part of it. He was an important part of it. But he was not, as Burkee claims, “the single most influential conservative in the synod before 1969.” (page 7)

Imposing a thesis on the facts is not so hard to do, but it tends to distort the facts. Burkee begins by magnifying Otten’s role in the controversy. Then he attributes to Missouri Synod conservatives at large the various political and cultural concerns Otten expressed in his newspaper, Lutheran News, later Christian News. Otten’s eclectic interests thus become part and parcel of the conservative movement in the Missouri Synod. Burkee writes of conservatives who were “frightened” by such things as the civil rights movement, riots, black radicalism, and the welfare state. This is the context within which he suggests we understand the Missouri Synod controversy.

Burkee refuses to confront honestly the grassroots lay reaction against the theological liberalism ascendant at the St. Louis seminary in the sixties and early seventies. He points to the fundraising difficulties of the conservative magazine Affirm as evidence of a lack of widespread support for Affirm’s goals (page 180). If anything, those difficulties illustrate the lack of political sophistication on the part of those men to whom Burkee attributes just that!

Burkee accuses the conservatives of a “literalistic view of the Bible” (page 14). That is a false charge. But it has long been a favored trash-talking technique designed to discredit without serious argument. And Burkee engages in no serious theological argument. He can hardly deny that the vast majority of the LCMS was staunchly supportive of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This is why the “moderates” did not usually reject biblical inerrancy outright but consistently changed the subject whenever the subject came up and argued that it’s the wrong question to ask. Piepkorn’s “What Does Inerrancy Mean?” (CTM, Vol. XXXVI, Sept. 1965) is a good example of this. After quibbling over the pedigree of the term “inerrancy” and amassing dozens of alleged errors in the Bible, Piepkorn concludes by arguing that seminary professors should neither confirm nor deny biblical inerrancy but rather explain to those who ask where they stand on it that the term is “inadequate” as a theological term. Burkee includes Piepkorn’s essay in his bibliography and refers to it, saying: “Arthur Carl Piepkorn challenged the synod’s growing infatuation with ‘inerrancy’” (page 25). But there was no “growing infatuation with ‘inerrancy’” within the LCMS. The LCMS had always been committed to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

No one in the LCMS during the Battle for the Bible made more of a scholarly contribution to the issue of biblical inspiration and inerrancy than Robert Preus. Burkee gives no indication that he read anything Robert Preus ever wrote on the subject. Robert Preus is not listed in his bibliography (though a couple of collections of essays to which he contributed are included). Burkee says relatively little about Robert Preus, limiting himself mostly to the repetition of malicious judgments against him. He quotes Ralph Bohlmann as remembering that Robert Preus was the chief politician in the synod. This is an amazing judgment and contrary to the consensus among mutual friends of both men that Robert Preus was first and last a theologian and motivated by theological concerns.

Errors of fact abound in this book. Since Robert Preus was my father I will address a few errors concerning him. Some errors are minor. Burkee identifies Robert Preus as a professor in the ELS (page 23) when he was called to teach at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. He wasn’t. He served in that synod as a pastor of congregations in North Dakota, Massachusetts (where I was born) and Minnesota, but never as a professor.

Burkee repeatedly asserts that Robert was Jack’s older brother. One wonders where he got such an idea. Jack was over four years older than Robert.

Burkee reports as fact that Jack, who was one of four electors who voted to elect Robert Preus president of Concordia Theological Seminary, was frustrated by Robert’s decision to accept the position. (page 162) Checking out his footnote one learns that his source for such a bizarre assertion is none other than Waldo Werning! This is the same Waldo Werning that Burkee claims “remained [Jack] Preus’s close advisor” (page 106) after his election as president of the LCMS.

Such bald assertions reveal a naïveté that is simply breathtaking. No one who knew both Jack Preus and Waldo Werning would believe that Waldo was a “close advisor” to Jack after Jack became president of the LCMS. I’m quite sure that Waldo wanted to be Jack’s advisor. I’m just as sure that Jack did not want to be advised by him. But neither did he want to antagonize him.

Burkee’s reliance on Waldo Werning leads him into error. He reports correctly that Jack Preus was opposed to Affirm issuing a list of preferred candidates for synodical office in 1977. He incorrectly assumes that Robert was in charge of whether or not there would be a list of preferred candidates published by Affirm in 1977. Noting that Jack Preus was elected, he concludes: “The Affirm list went out, conservatives again dominated, and Jack was again elected. Jack was now in the uncomfortable position of being beholden to his brother.” (page 164)

Had Burkee bothered to do his homework, he would have learned that Affirm did not endorse Jack Preus as president in 1977. It listed both Jack Preus and Walter A. Maier as candidates and did not recommend one over the other. Robert Preus personally favored his brother over Walter A. Maier. He thought he was better qualified. But his preference was not adopted by those who prepared the preferred candidates list.

Burkee accuses Robert Preus of “duplicity” (page 178) in connection with a confusion of two letters he wrote, one to Ralph Bohlmann and the other to Herman Otten. The letters were put into the wrong envelopes and Bohlmann received the letter intended for Otten. Burkee never does explain what is duplicitous about an honest mistake. He writes as if providing information to a newspaper editor is wrong. Is it also wrong to provide information to a man writing a book about power politics in the LCMS? Having read Burkee’s book and knowing my father, I am confident that the information Robert Preus provided to Herman Otten was more reliable than the information upon which Burkee bases much of his book.

Burkee’s theological gaffes are at times somewhat shocking, as when, in reference to the Missouri Synod, he speaks of “the church’s historic doctrinal emphasis on unconditional obedience to the government” (page 26). The LCMS has never taught unconditional obedience to the government. Such a teaching is not only in direct conflict with the Holy Scriptures, it is contradicted by officially adopted catechisms of the Synod. It is difficult to imagine any LCMS pastor teaching such a thing. Nevertheless, Burkee regards it as an “historic doctrinal emphasis.”

Burkee’s efforts to link the LCMS theological debate about the Bible to the social and political issues of the day frequently display his ignorance of basic theological issues that were under debate at the time. For example, conservatives did not criticize the social gospel because they did not believe that the love of Christ could be expressed by us in our actions. They criticized the claim that the gospel could be proclaimed by actions and not words. Burkee makes a mess of this. Addressing Herman Otten’s criticism of the “Social Gospel,” Burkee asserts: “To Otten and his followers, one could not demonstrate the love of Christ through actions; it had to be spoken (apparently, spoken only).” (page 59) That’s not so. Of course the love of Christ can be demonstrated through actions and Herman Otten has never suggested otherwise. The gospel of Christ, however, which reveals his love for us (the love that we demonstrate by our actions) is a teaching. It is communicated in words that contain a cognitive message. It is the message of God’s love for us in Christ who suffered and died and took away the sin of the world. This message cannot be proclaimed without words that speak of who Christ is and what he has done for us sinners. That was Otten’s theological concern with the social gospel, and not his only, but the concern of the vast majority of the Missouri Synod. Neither social nor political action nor our individual acts of Christian charity constitute proclaiming the gospel. Burkee gives no indication that he understands this theological concern.

Burkee repeatedly asserts highly partisan opinions as fact. The status and role of synodically adopted doctrinal statements was a part of the debate of those days with both sides claiming the Lutheran high ground in their argument. Burkee asserts as fact Fred Danker’s opinion that “. . . the 1959 San Francisco convention gave [The Brief Statement] ‘status next to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.’” One needs to look up the footnote to see that he is quoting Fred Danker’s, No Room in the Brotherhood. Burkee is apparently unaware that he passing off a partisan accusation of serious theological import as an uncontroversial observation.

Probably the most disappointing feature of the book is Burkee’s utter disregard for the Eighth Commandment. In his introduction he says of Jack Preus: “That Preus was a master of duplicity is the one point on which nearly all those I interviewed (who were willing to talk) agreed.” (page 9) Does it not occur to Burkee that when his sources are united in condemning a man as duplicitous he might possibly wish to acquire more sources? Perhaps men who defended, spoke well of, and put the best construction on everything Jack Preus did? There is a fine line between duplicity and diplomacy.

Furthermore, Burkee’s decision to discard the norm of Christian charity and to embrace a shallow caricature of Jack Preus prevents him from understanding what he is writing about. He evidences not just theological ignorance, but political ignorance as well. Burkee imagines that the men who elected Jack Preus in 1969, by withdrawing their support in 1981, “dethroned” (page 10) him. Nonsense! Once the LCMS had reaffirmed her historic teaching on inerrancy and reclaimed her authority over the seminary in St. Louis, the church-political expression of the conservative movement in the LCMS became increasingly irrelevant. Jack Preus would have easily won reelection had he run for a fourth term. Burkee’s argument to the contrary, based on interviews with score-settlers, flies in the face of the facts. The facts are that theology drove the controversy and politics followed theology. Once the “Battle for the Bible” had been won, the political power of both Affirm and Christian News diminished. They were deemed no longer necessary. Burkee has matters precisely backwards.

This brings us back to the central weakness of this book. I am not suggesting that only a seminary trained theologian can write a book of history that chronicles a theological debate. But a degree of familiarity with the theological debate is necessary. Understanding the strength of theological arguments is vital. Knowing the major characters as theologians is indispensable.

When I was sophomore at Concordia Lutheran Junior College in Ann Arbor, Michigan (1972-73), I read a book that Jack Preus had just written in 1971 entitled, It Is Written. It’s a good book. It was well written and easy to understand. It clearly sets forth what the Lord Jesus says about the Bible. It was a book of theology, not politics, written by a Lutheran theologian who also happened to be the president of the LCMS at the time. I recommend the book. If it’s out of print, CPH should republish it. It’s not listed in Burkee’s bibliography. Apparently, Burkee hasn’t read it. He should.

CHRIST AND HIS WORD THE ONLY HOPE IN TRAGEDY AND DEATH

2011-09-15T06:23:00.000-07:00

CHRIST AND HIS WORD THE ONLY HOPE IN TRAGEDY AND DEATH
Christian News, September 19, 2011

“Beyond 9/11” is the title of the special commemorative issue of the September 19, 2011 issue of Time magazine. Time says “you may notice something different about the covers. For only the third time in our 88 – year history, we have changed our trademark red border. Ten years ago, we ran the border in black. For the momentous anniversary, we have changed it to silver.”

Millions of Americans on the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11 watched a special television program which showed what happened on 9/11/01. The 343 fireman who died were shown. According to the report, more are now dying from cancer caused by the fumes of 9/11.

“Christ and His Word the Only Hope in Tragedy and Death” was the title of the sermon Pastor Otten preached at a special service at Trinity, New Haven, Missouri on 9/11/01 several hours after the great tragedy. The entire sermon, which includes news stories from the major networks, was published in the September 17, 2001 CN together with many photos and the headlines from major newspapers.

The editor first heard the reports of 9/11 just as he was concluding a bicycle ride at 8 a.m. When he heard about the first plane crash he thought it can’t be true. This must be something out of Orson Wells. Then came the news of another plane crash as he started to eat breakfast. It can’t be just an accident. He thought there is something sinister behind this.

He was born in Manhattan and lived there and in the Bronx for his first 24 years. His father worked on the doors of the Empire State Building which had been the world’s tallest building with its 102 floors. Later, he worked with his father on some painting jobs close to where the World Trade Center stood.

The news took him back to December 7, 1941 when his family sat in front of a radio listening to the news of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. His father told the family that this was the beginning of the most devastating war in all history and that there was much more behind the bombing than appeared on the surface. Some 2,350 were killed in that bombing.

The editor said in his sermon on 9/11/01: God is calling America to repentance. We are living in a sinful world. God is our refuge and strength a very present help in trouble. “He said: ‘He will never leave you or desert you.’ Also we have the courage to say: “the Lord is my Help. I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” (Hebrews 13:5,6). “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8). “I am with you always even unto the end of the age” (Matthew 28:290).

The Christian knows that this world is not his final home. He is content with Jesus Christ. When people at the time of St. Augustine heard the news of the Barbarians taking over northern Africa, they thought the world was coming to an end. Augustine reminded them that Jesus Christ still reigns supreme.

It has now been almost 50 years since the nation was shaken with the news of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Shortly after the event people in our community and students from the New Haven High School, which at that time was right across the street from the old Trinity Lutheran Church, now the town library, gathered for a worship service. The title of the sermon was “When Death Summons.”

Sin is the ultimate cause of all disasters and death. Jesus Christ through his death and glorious resurrection has destroyed sin, death and the power of the devil. No man lives forever. All must die in one way or another. All those who trust in Him for their eternal salvation will live with Him in heaven forever. Remember: “Christ and His Word is the only hope in tragedy and death.”

This issue of CN is substituting some of the articles originally prepared for publication with a few of the many articles CN published shortly after 9/11. They are: “Christ Is the Only Way to Heaven for All Not Just Christians”; Subject: Prayer Meeting – A Nation of Idolaters”; “Not Without Hope”; “Death at Twin Towers: Was It Wrath or Grace of God?”; “If God IS Loving, Why Do We Have Death and Suffering in The World?”; “Commentary – Terrorists and Death!”

Gard Rebukes Becker for Promoting Historical Criticism on ALPB Forum

2011-09-07T11:27:00.000-07:00

Gard Rebukes Becker for Promoting Historical Criticism on ALPB Forum
By David Becker
Christian News, September 12, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 35

The New York-based American Lutheran Publicity Bureau (http://www.alpb.org) operates an Internet discussion forum, one of the most popular such forums among Lutherans on the Internet. There are hundreds of pages of messages on that forum. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Atlantic District President David H. Benke is among those who regularly post messages there. On Thursday, September 1, 2011, two theology professors clashed on the ALPB forum.

Valparaiso University Theology Professor Matthew Becker, Ph.D., wrote in the discussion topic, "Valparaiso University and The LCMS," (section 25) "The pastoral letters were not written by the apostle Paul. That settled conclusion has been a mainstream scholarly position for more than a century. (That there are some scholars, like Luke T. Johnson, who disagree with this consensus--and in his case, mainly just to be curmudgeonly with NT scholarly establishment--needs to be noted, but even Johnson's arguments have not met with any acceptance by historians of early Christianity.) "
The Biblical pastoral letters, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus, claim to be written by the Apostle Paul.

Concordia Theological Seminary Professor Daniel Gard, Ph.D., responded to Becker, writing, "Matthew Becker, the Pastoral Epistles were written by Saint Paul the Apostle. They are not forgeries that only claim Pauline authorship. Your opinion or the opinion of other liberal 'scholars' cannot and does not change this fact. You stand in clear and absolute opposition to the teaching of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. I write this only to assure any readers that Matthew Becker's opinion does not reflect the consensus of the Church. You may trust the Holy Scriptures to be reliable and certain in everything that they assert in contrast to the opinion of human beings."

Becker responded later in the discussion, "Yes, there are some scholars who continue to think that Paul wrote the pastorals, as I mentioned, but they represent a minority position and are not persuasive to me and to most others. Perhaps there are some genuine fragments from Paul included (e.g., the biographical material), but the letters in their present form represent the work of a post-Paul author(s)."

Gard responded, "I am a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and can validate your claim that most would not accept the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. But then most would not accept the deity of Christ, His Virgin Birth or His Resurrection. So the fact that they do not accept Pauline authorship means nothing to me. I am also one of the few Lutherans admitted to membership in the Catholic Biblical Association. Few there accept the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. Like you, Matthew Becker and the SBL, they are wrong. I am also a member of the Evangelical Theological Society. Only a handful there might question whether Paul wrote the Pastorals. But these folks probably do not qualify as 'scholars' for you."

Reacting to an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America clergyman sympathizing with Becker, Gard added, "Frankly...your position does not surprise me or concern me. There is little that you affirm about anything that you and I can agree on. Your theology is between you, God and the ELCA. Matthew Becker's essential agreement with you does concern me. He is a clergyman of the LCMS and, as such, he is at variance with the Synod in a serious manner."

Later on Becker commented on another matter, "The Synod has misunderstood the genre and theological meanings within the first chapters of the Bible when it has insisted that these chapters must be interpreted to mean that God created the universe over the course of six, twenty-four-hour days a short time ago....Dr. Pieper, and other LCMS theologians have misled the synod in this area."

Becker went on even more a bit later, "Dr. Luther, of course, did not know about the history of the natural world prior to the emergence of hominids. He and all others in his century did not know about the evolutionary development of life on the planet. But we do. Thus, there is the need to formulate our interpretation of Genesis 2-3 in the light of physical evidence in the natural history of the world that indicates the reality of death prior to the emergence of the first human beings."

Others on the ALPB forum also took issue with Becker. One commented to Becker, "So those books of the Bible contain lies, Dr. Becker, when they claim to have been written by Paul the apostle? Some view of the Bible you have!"

LCMS Professor Daniel Gard has been Professor of Exegetical Theology at the Fort Wayne, Indiana-based Concordia Theological Seminary since 1989. He is also Dean of Military Chaplaincy Programs and serves as a Chaplain in the U.S. Naval Reserves. His biography may be found at http://www.ctsfw.edu/Page.aspx?pid=325. Dr. Matthew Becker's biography may be found at http://www.val po.edu/theology/faculty/matthewbecker.php.
David Becker (not related to Dr. Matthew Becker)
Bismarck, North Dakota

Walther Conference Seeks Papers on Walther and Sponsor Ads

2011-08-31T13:14:00.000-07:00

Walther Conference Seeks Papers on Walther and Sponsor Ads
Christian News, Vol. 49, No. 34, September 5, 2011
reclaimnews@earthlink.net

The Eighth National Free Conference on C. F. W. Walther will be held at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis MO, Werner Chapel, on Friday, Nov. 11-12. The theme for this year’s conference is, “Walther and the Bible: His 200th Birthday.”

The Walther Conference plans to publish a commemorative booklet in recognition of the 200th birthday of C. F. W. Walther. The theme of the papers should focus on Walther’s importance for the layman today.

Rev. Joel Baseley is serving as the editor of this publication. Clergy and other interested parties are being asked to submit papers and/or articles to be published by the Walther Conference in this commemorative booklet by email to Rev. Joel Baseley at j_baseley@hotmail.com All papers and articles must be submitted by September 30, 2011.

To help finance this memorial publication congregations and/or individuals are asked to purchase commemorative sponsorships. Each sponsorship will receive a complimentary copy of this booklet.

Sponsor is one line of text with the name of individual or organization begins at $10.00.
Business Card sized ads/dedication are 1/5 of one column using a 2 column format.
Name on sponsor list $10:00
Business card $25.00
1/4 page (3.25” x 5”) $100.00
1/2 page (7” x 5”) $200.00
Full page (7” x 10”) $300.00
Please send funds for ads to
Rev. Neil R. Schmidt
1709 Summergate Circle
St. Peter’s MO 63303
or e-mail fnp@hope—lutheran.org
Phone 636-447-5211 or Cell 636-627-9331
Checks should be made payable to Walther Conference with Commemorative Booklet in the memo line.
—————————
Preliminary Schedule
Eighth National Free Conference on C. F. W. Walther
To attend the Eighth National Free Conference on C. F. W. Walther, send a registration fee of $30.00 and an additional $00.00 for the banquet to:
Rev. Neil R. Schmidt
1709 Summergate Circle
St. Peter’s MO 63303
or e-mail fnp@hope—lutheran.org
Phone 636-447-5211 or Cell 636-627-9331
Werner Auditorium [Old Chapel] - Concordia Seminary – 801 DeMun Ave. - St. Louis, MO 63105

FRIDAY –
NOVEMBER 11th, 2011
11:00 a.m. - 11:45 a.m. - Registration at entrance of Werner Auditorium [Old Chapel]
11:45 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. - Opening Devotions – Rev……………….
12:15 - 12:20 – Welcome - Prof.**************
12:20 - 12:25 p.m. – Announcements by Moderator Rev. Neil Schmidt
12:25 - 12:40 p.m. – Coffee Break

12:40 - 1:40 p.m. - Session #1 - Rev. Rolf Preus
“The Inspiration of Scripture, by Robert D. Preus: Is This Book Relevant to the Church Over Half a Century Later?”

1:40 - 3:00 p.m. – Session #2 - Eyal Rav-Noy
Who Really Wrote the Bible?

3:00 - 4:00 p.m. – Session #3 - Rev. Joel Baseley
How the Doctrine of Inspiration Answers the Objections and Inventions of Reason in the Writings and Publications of C.F.W. Walther.

4:00 - 5:00 p.m. – Session #4 – Attorney Paul Nelson
LCMS Polity As Presented to American Courts

5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. - Session #5 - Dr. David Kaufmann
Macroevolution: Science Falsely Called

6:00 - 7:30 p.m. – Banquet – provided by Concordia Seminary – cost (to be announced)
Texas Barbecue

7:30 - 8:45 p.m. - Banquet Speaker: Rev. Herman Otten
Walther: 200 Years after His Birth – WWWD What Would Walther Say and do Today?

SATURDAY – NOVEMBER 12th, 2011
9:00 - 9:15 a.m. – Opening Devotion – To Be Named

9:15 - 10:15 a.m. – Session #6 - Rev. Jack Cascione
“Patterns in the Text from Revelation to Genesis: Ignored by Uninspired Higher Critics and Exegetes”

10:15 - 11:45 a.m. – Session #7 - Panel Discussion
The Bible, a Tool for Evangelism with or without an Inspired Text?
11:45 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. – Announcements & Closing Devotions

PRESENTATION FORMAT SESSIONS 1-6
35-45 minutes for the speaker
10-20 minutes for questions from the floor
5-10 minutes intermission/coffee break
The Walther Conference is sponsored by Hope Lutheran Church, 10701 St. Cosmas Lane, St. Ann, MO 63074, and is directed by the Walther Conference Committee. Rev. Neil Schmidt will serve as the Conference Moderator.
—————————
Rev. Joel Baseley, has served as a pastor in the LCMS for over twenty years and has pursued a regular discipline of translating and self-publishing German theological works, especially from the 19th century. Some of his projects include collection of daily devotional readings Luther, “Taegliche Andachten (1884),” published in 1996 under the title “Luther’s Family Devotions”. He translated and published “Luther’s Festival Sermons” (2005) which complements Klug’s “House Postils” and the Lenker’s “Sunday Sermons” of Luther. Since 2005 he has translated four C.F.W. Walther anthologies in their entirety; “Lutherische Brosamen (1876)”, “Casual -Predigten und -Reden (1889)”, “Festklaenge (1892)”, and “Ansprachen und Gebete (1888)”, and has published them also. Most recently (2010) he published his translation of the first year of C.F.W. Walther’s “Der Lutheraner (1844-45)” as well as his own work, “Holy Communion: Vanishing Mark of the Church”, diagnosing the fatal cancer of Evangelicalism that currently afflicts the LCMS, mainly by citations from the pages of Walther’s “Der Lutheraner” and the Lutheran Confessions. The current issue of his free, semi-weekly e-newsletter, which includes his newest translations from the second year of Der Lutheran, as well as all of the works mentioned above and more, are available on his website, www.mark vpublications.com. At this Walther Conference Pr. Baseley will share Walther’s thoughts on the topic “How the Doctrine of Inspiration Answers the Objections and Inventions of Reason in the Writings and Publications of C.F.W. Walther.” Basely has studied, translated, and published Walther’s works for the past 20 years. Baseley has gathered together Walther’s published writings on the doctrine of Inspiration.

Rev. Jack Cascione, author of “In Search of the Biblical Order” published in 1987, will speak about the inspiration of Scripture in relation to patterns in the Biblical text from Revelation to Genesis. For the past 150 years higher critics have either rejected or ignored the possibility of patterns in the Biblical text. Do they exist? What is the proof for their existence? How did they get there? The implications of patterns in the Biblical text mean: (1) we possess the original text, (2) the patterns are linguistic tools to identify correct manuscript readings, (3) the entire Bible is unified by Mosaic style, (4) the JEPD theory is a hoax, and (5) the Bible is not a collection of oral traditions. Patterns in the Biblical text show that no other human literature or so-called holy books on earth are written like the Bible. Cascione has an MFA and M Div., is a former Assistant Professor of Art at Southern Indiana State University, has served as a Lutheran pastor for 30 years, and is currently the pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church in St. Clair Shores, Michigan.

David A. Kaufmann, holds a Ph.D. in Human Ana-tomy from the University of Iowa. He is one of the few creation scientists to earn tenure and full professorship at a large, secular research university. He has done biomechanical research at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland and exercise physiology research at the Wingate Institute, Netanya. Israel. In 1999, he taught “Philosophy of Science: Creation vs Evolution,” at Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Siberia and debated the top members of the Eastern Russian Academy of Sciences for eight weeks. He is a Professor of Applied Physiology (Retired) at the University of Florida in Gainesville and was Secretary of the Creation Research Society for 21 years. He will show how Macroevolution is not scientific and really is atheistic metaphysics, show how to refute evolutionary arguments and hopefully inspire some in the audience to be become Lutheran creation scientists. He will also demonstrate that theistic evolution is theo illogical, and creation is theo logical.

Attorney Paul D. Nelson, is an experienced trial litigator and appellate lawyer with emphasis on complex civil cases, including major class actions, insurance coverage, business disputes, mass tort, product liability, and catastrophic injury matters. Nelson graduated from Clark College with a B.A., cum laude 1971 and from the University of Oregon, School of Law with a J.D. 1974. Nelson is the Defense attorney in Lee vs. Bowles financed by the California-Nevada-Hawaii District Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod and filed by Attorney Sherri Strand, Legal Counsel to the LCMS Board of Directors. Nelson has deposed LCMS President Gerald Kieschnick, LCMS Secretary Dr. Raymond Hartwig, LCMS Executive Administrator of the Board of Directors Ronald Schultz, LCMS Designate from the Commission on Constitutional Matters Dr. Wilber Sohns, CNHD-LCMS District President Dr. Robert Newton and others. Nelson has gained valuable insight into LCMS Church Polity as it is presented to American Courts. Nelson’s grandfather served as a Norwegian Lutheran Pastor in Minnesota.

Herman Otten, has been the pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri, since 1958 and the editor of Christian News since 1961. He is the editor of William Beck’s An American Translation of the Bible and the author and editor of more than a dozen books. Otten has spoken widely throughout the U.S. and in other countries. He has debated liberals and church officials who now generally refuse to face him. James Adams, religion editor of the St. Louis Post Dispatch wrote in his “Preus of Missouri” that “when historians assess power and influence in Missouri in the ‘60s, no man right or left will be more important than journalist Herman Otten.” James Burkee, chairman of the faculty of Concordia University, Wisconsin, wrote in his “Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod” published by ELCA’s Fortress Press in 2011: “Otten was the most significant figure in modern LCMS history.” The St. Louis Globe Democrat said: “Feared firebrand of The Lutheran Church.” “Tough in print, Otten is warm and friendly in person.” Christianity Today said in an article on Otten: “Tough in print, but likable enough in person.” Editor Bill Miller, a former president of the Missouri Press Association who has toured many nations on press tours, wrote in an editorial on Pastor Otten titled “A Man of courage, discipline,” that “Pastor Otten is the most disciplined person this writer has ever met.”

Rev. Rolf Preus, son and student of Dr. Robert D. Preus, has studied and taught on the Doctrine of Inspiration for more than 30 years in the ministry. Preus is a serious student of his father’s work, and is highly qualified to speak on his father’s historic book, that had a profound influence on Lutheran and Protestant churches in North America. Rev. Rolf D. Preus is a 1979 graduate of Concordia Theological Seminary in Ft. Wayne and received his STM from the same institution in 1987. He has spoken at numerous conferences on a variety of theological topics and has taught classes in theology for Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne; Concordia University, Wisconsin; Ukrainian Lutheran Theological Seminary of St. Sophia in Ternopil’, Ukraine; and for the Luther Academy in Indonesia. Rev. Preus is pastor of First American Lutheran Church in Mayville, North Dakota; First Evanger Lutheran Church in Fertile, Minnesota; and Grace Lutheran Church in Crookston, Minnesota.

Eyal Rav-Noy, an Israeli born scholar, now living in Los Angeles, is the author of “Who Really Wrote the Bible.” Rav-Noy, who has been interviewed on national broadcasts, including the Michael Medved show, is the first Jewish author to show that patterns in the text of the Pentateuch must have been written by the same author. Rav-Noy’s book proves that the JEPD theory, which denies Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, is a fraud, and is therefore a response to Dr Richard Elliott Friedman’s book, “Who Wrote the Bible.” Rav-Noy is an ardent spokesman for the single authorship of the Five Books of Moses.

The Fall and Rise of Human Violence

2011-08-24T12:10:00.000-07:00

The Fall and Rise of Human Violence

Why crime plunged in the 17th century but is rising again in the 21st

by Berit Kjos - Updated August 14, 2011

“If we will not be governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn, 1-3-1701

The world is changing fast. A massive shift from the guidance of a Bible-based conscience to a mindless pursuit of corrupt “thrills” has been fanning the flames of this transformation for years. The following news items let us glimpse the dark consequences:

“In Philadelphia, a group of 20-40 youths went on a rampage...resulting in 59 people being beaten and briefly hospitalized. ...a mob ran through the Wisconsin State Fair at closing time, beating up people at random. In London, citizens have been besieged by three straight nights of hellish rioting [that] spread to other parts of the nation.” (Weapons of Mob Destruction)

“‘We have been too unwilling for too long to talk about what is right and what is wrong,’ [Prime Minister] Cameron said....’Children without fathers. Schools without discipline. Reward without effort. Crime without punishment. Rights without responsibilities.

Communities without control. Some of the worst aspects of human nature tolerated, indulged - some- times even incentivized...’ Young people who watched Cameron speak appeared unimpressed.” (Riot-hit UK must reverse `moral collapse‘)

In her recent article titled, “How the liberals ruined Britain,“ Melanie Phillips adds these insights:
“The violent anarchy that has taken hold of British cities is the all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value. The married two-parent family, educational meritocracy, punishment of criminals... and many more fundamental conventions were all smashed by a liberal intelligentsia hell-bent on a revolutionary transformation of society.

“Now we can see what they have brought about in the unprecedented and horrific scenes of mob violence, with homes and businesses going up in flames, and epidemic looting. ...These youths feel absolutely entitled to go ‘on the rob’ and steal whatever they want. ....

“What has been fuelling all this is not poverty...but moral collapse. What we have been experiencing is a complete breakdown of civilised behaviour ..and at the very heart of these problems lies the breakdown of the family. ... [T]here are whole areas of Britain...where committed fathers are a wholly unknown phenomenon.... It’s a world without any boundaries or rules. A world of emotional and physical chaos.”

A spreading addiction to depraved entertainment has magnified this moral revolution. The rest of this article explains why this is happening and how we can prepare for the challenges ahead.

History’s lessons
As centuries come and go, history occasionally reveals sudden, momentous changes that transform cultures in ways that defy human logic. One of these astounding leaps began about 400 years ago. It brought light into the darkness of the Middle Ages and safety to people bound by fear, superstition and tyranny.

Historian Randall Roth summarizes what happened. His research showed little variation in the rate of human violence between the 14th and the 16th centuries. “Then in the 17th century, there is a very big, dramatic drop,” he says. “It’s so sudden and rapid that it seems too hard to explain....”[1]

Mr. Roth ought to know. From his base at Ohio State University, he had uncovered detailed documentation of 16th and 17th century murder rates which suggested “that countries don’t become more or less civilized that quickly.”

Journalist Alexander Stille explores this remarkable shift in his New York Times article, “Did Knives and Forks Cut Murders?” Basing his observations on studies done by historians during the last 60 years, he summarizes their findings:

“Although there were no national statistics centuries ago, some historians discovered that the archives of some English counties were intact back to the 13th century. So in the 1970’s they began diligently counting indictments and comparing them with estimated population levels to get a rough idea of medieval and early modern crime rates.

“Historians in Continental Europe... came up with findings that yielded the same surprising results: that murder was much more common in the Middle Ages than it is now and that it dropped precipitately in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.” [1]

Why this drop? How did people suddenly become less violent?

These are important questions, for an accurate answer would also help nations deal with today’s rising rate of violence.

So in his informative article, Mr. Stille cites some proposed answers to these crucial questions. One such explanation points to the social changes caused by industrialization and urbanization. But this theory was countered by James A Sharpe, a historian at the University of York in England. He showed that the “big statistical dip in violence preceded industrialization and urbanization by more than a century.” [2]

Other explanations for the plummeting crime rates proved flawed as well. Some scholars have suggested that the nature of crime merely “shifted from bodily assault to crimes of property.” But, wrote Mr. Sharpe, “The great decline in homicide in the 17th century was not accompanied by a rise in property offense prosecutions but rather by their diminution.

In other words, theft as well as murder plummeted in the 17th century. People had actually changed their values. They had become more honest as well as peaceable. But why?
Mr. Sharpe doesn’t answer that question. Instead, he wrote that “this drop... remains inexplicable.[3]

Tom Cohen, a history teachers at York University in Toronto, comes closer to solving the puzzle:
“Both the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation put a lot of emphasis on individual conscience... The conscience becomes the internal gyroscope. There is the growth of introspection... personal self-control....” [1]

But while Mr. Cohen hints at the cause, he cloaks it in the humanist terms of today’s progressive educator. Therefore, he can’t explain how the “ conscience becomes the internal gyroscope.”
Instead, Mr. Cohen’s answer begs two more questions: How did the people suddenly develop their “individual conscience” and “personal self-control”? And how did their numbers grow to the point where cultures and nations actually reflected this personal transformation?

Here is the answer

The seeds of change were actually sown in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries by a few courageous reformers who dared to resist the corrupt religious establishment of their times. Willing to face persecution and death, men like...

John Wycliffe: (England) - died in 1384, two years after translating the Bible into English),
Jan Hus (Bohemia) - burned on the stake in 1415 in a fire lit with pages from Wycliffe’s banned Bible.

John Foxe ( England) - 1587, who compiled the amazing stories in Foxe’s Book on Martyrs) chose to follow their conscience and teach the life-changing truths that would — by the 17th century — transform northern Europe,

Martin Luther led the way. As a Catholic priest, he had access to the Scriptures, and his Bible-based conscience could no longer tolerate the twisted doctrines of self-serving bishops nor their cruel exploitation of the poor. He knew that souls were saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not through forced “indulgences” and submission to oppressive human edicts. His rational challenge to the papacy (in 1518) birthed the Reformation and became a beacon of hope to those who longed to know the truth and live in freedom.

The surrounding culture didn’t change overnight. The first sprouts from the seeds of the Reformation were still too few to accomplish a change in public consciousness. Many of the early Protestant churches were too closely tied to established traditions and state alliances to freely demonstrate the Christian life. They needed time to study God’s Word, clarify the doctrines and define the unfamiliar terms. And their followers had to learn a lifestyle of faith that would resist and endure what the Encyclopedia Britannica called “savage persecution” involving the torture and death of “thousands of humble victims.”[4]

Their courage and commitment bore fruit. Persecution has always built faith rather than failure in God’s flock. As Tertullian said back in the 1st century AD, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.”

Ruled by the Spanish King Phillip II, whose deadly campaigns aimed to crush every rebel against his religious empire, Dutch believers faced the brunt of these deadly assaults. But in 1609 the Dutch Republic won independence from Spain. “Protestantism was now firmly established in the northern provinces,” [4] and throughout most of northern Europe.

By God’s grace, people in northern Europe were suddenly free to print and read the Bible, live by faith and follow their conscience. A century later, the evangelistic zeal that spread God’s truth and love throughout Europe began to cross seas and continents to reach the earth’s most distant lands and oppressed people.

In the wake of this mission movement which grew quickly in the 19th century, nations were transformed. You might argue that financial exploiters and many colonial leaders served human greed and ambition. That’s true. But faithful Christian missionaries did the opposite. They gave all they had — comforts, security, health... in order to share God’s love. Facing all kinds of dangers, they built hospitals, schools and churches in distant lands. And as they spread God’s truths, moral standards and respect for human life, the world changed. The global slave trade ended, human violence ebbed, kindness and civility grew and travelers no longer feared for their lives.

Christianity had taught men to protect, not abuse, women. So in 1912, when the passengers of the sinking Titanic climbed into a limited number of lifeboats, “women and children came first.” You may recall more recent ship and ferry accidents in which men trampled the women in their path in order to save their own lives. But when the Titanic hit the iceberg, most of the men demonstrated self-sacrificing kindness and old-fashioned chivalry:

“Lifeboats were quickly made ready and women and children were ordered to get into them first. There were 12 honeymooning couples on board the ship. Though all of the brides were saved, only one of the grooms survived.” “ While ‘Unsinkable’ Titanic Sank, John Harper Preached
Today, we still reap the benefits of a violent world pacified by the spread of Christianity. But it may not last long, for we also see a reversal of that tide that first flooded Europe with truth. Many powerful leaders — religious as well as political — are determined to snuff out the light of God’s Word.

The new global education and human resource development systems are designed to replace the personal freedom we have in Christ with a collective society based on religious pluralism and global idealism. Aware of the rising wave of violence in schools and communities, they ban the only viable solution to rage and violence.( Psalm 127:1 and Isaiah 30:15)

“...when you have eaten and are full, and have built beautiful houses and dwell in them... your heart is lifted up and you forget the Lord your God.... you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gained me this wealth.’

“...if you by any means forget the Lord your God, and follow other gods... you shall surely perish. As the nations which the Lord destroys before you, so you shall perish, because you would not be obedient to the voice of the Lord your God.” (Deut 8:10-20)

That warning is illustrated by this cycle of Old Testament history< here: pictured>:

As history repeats itself, the civilized world is regressing. Paganism, promiscuity, deception and violent crime are on the rise,[6] while the growing hatred for Biblical Christianity is fanned by a global media and entertainment industry that wants nothing more than the death of Biblical Truth and morality.

At such a time, we need to remember that our God still reigns — even in the midst of the rising evil. As we trust Him and follow His way, He will be our strength and refuge no matter how fierce the battles. Thanks be to God who leads us in His triumph! (2 Cor 2:14)

“...in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come... shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 8:37-39

These Scriptures will help prepare your heart and mind: Encouragement from A to Z

See also Preparing for Persecution A New Way of Thinking

Purging the Memory of Our Christian Roots

Ban Truth - Reap Tyranny Hope, Hate & Human Nature

1. Alexander Stille, “Did Knives and Forks Cut Murders?” The New York Times, May 3, 2003.
2. While the source of this quote by James A. Sharpe is Alexander Stille’s article (listed above), much more information can be found in the first chapter (written by Mr. Sharpe) in the book, The Civilization of Crime: Violence in Town and Country Since the Middle Ages. Written “by scholars from North America and Europe,” it “demonstrates that both rural and urban communities in Sweden, Holland, England and other countries were far more violent during the late Middle Ages than any cities are today.” (University of Illinois, 1996, back cover).
3. Eric A. Johnson (Editor), The Civilization of Crime: Violence in Town and Country Since the Middle Ages (University of Illinois, 1996) In chapter 1, Mr. Sharpe writes, “We have a number of samples of homicide statistics from the Middle Ages. These show massive variations in homicide rates...[but] a cluster of samples, however, suggest a typical thirteenth-century rate of around 18 to 23 per 100,000. We then have more samples to suggest that the rate dropped a little, perhaps to 15 per 100,000 in 1600, and then fell dramatically over the middle of the seventeenth century. This drop... remains inexplicable.” (page 22)
4. Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 19 (Chicago: William Benton, 1968), page 48.

CN HAS TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT ROME AND THE POPES

2011-08-17T10:45:00.000-07:00

CN Has Told the Truth About Rome and the Popes
Christian News, August 22, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 32

“The Truth About What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II” by Brother Michael Dimond and Brother Peter Dimond again shows that Christian News has told the truth about what has been happening in the Roman Catholic Church during the last 50 years. CN told the truth about the theology of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

Much of what Christian News has published about the Roman Catholic Church
and its popes, since CN began in 1962, is in The Christian News Encyclopedia. CN has reviewed scores of books by Roman Catholic theologians. Among them are the 15 volume, 15 million word New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, the Jerusalem Bible, and The New Catholic Catechism. CN has shown that Pope Benedict XVI in some of his many books promotes the views of liberal higher critics of the Bible, universalism and evolution. These critics contend the Bible contains myths and fiction and that Christianity gradually evolved through the centuries rather than being directly revealed by God, the Holy Ghost, to such men as Moses, Isaiah, David, Paul, etc. CN has published articles showing that Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Ratzinger, denied what the Bible teaches about the Resurrection.

The back cover of the 658 page “The Truth About What Happened to the Catholic Church After Vatican II” says:

Based upon the infallible teaching of the Catholic popes (the Magisterium), Sacred Scripture and Catholic Tradition, this book is a defense of the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Church. With irrefutable evidence and undeniable documentation (including more than 1,700 references), this book demonstrates what has really happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II. This book contains the most complete exposé of the post-Vatican II apostasy from the Catholic Faith that has ever been produced.

> You will learn that in Catholic history there have been 260 popes and over 40 antipopes (i.e., false popes who claimed to be true popes but were not, and some of them even reigned from Rome for a time).

You will learn that an apostasy in Rome is predicted to occur in the last days.

> You will learn what the Catholic Church teaches about heretics: heretics lose any offices they hold or claim to hold in the Catholic Church (including the office of pope), without any declaration, when they defect from the Catholic Faith.

> You will learn what the Catholic Church teaches about non-Catholic religions, and what has been taught since Vatican II about non-Catholic religions.

> You will learn that the coming of a Counter Church in the final days – a counterfeit sect which is meant to deceive and lead Catholics astray in the time of the Great Apostasy – was predicted by Jesus Christ, the Mother of God during her 1846 appearance at La Salette (France), and other Catholic prophecies, including by Pope Leo XIII.

> You will learn that the “Church” which has arisen since Vatican II is without any doubt a Counter Church – with new teachings, new practices, manifestly heretical antipopes and a New Mass which all oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church.

> The heretical and false teachings of this Counter Church and its antipopes are exposed and refuted in this book in tremendous factual detail. This book contains:

• The most devastating exposé of the heresies in the documents of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) that has been produced…

• The most devastating exposé of the heresies of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI that has been done, including the shocking actions of interreligious “ecumenism”…

• A detailed examination of the Liturgical Revolution (the changes to the Mass and sacraments after Vatican II), and why many of the new sacraments (including the New Mass) are invalid according to Catholic sacramental teaching…

• An answer to every major objection posed by those who say that the conclusions presented in this book are not conformable to Catholic teaching on the Papacy or the indefectibility of the Catholic Church…

• A vigorous exposé of the rotten fruits that have flowed from Vatican II, which are so revealing about the truth of what has occurred since Vatican II, including the abominable priestly sex scandal (and why it occurred), the pro-abortion-politicians-Communion-scandal, the abominable state of post-Vatican II seminaries and religious orders, the annulment fiasco, the post-Vatican II Church’s union with pagan culture, the apostasy of the post-Vatican II hierarchy, and much more…

• This book covers in detail many of the issues raised by different traditional Catholic groups which have correctly concluded that Vatican II started an apostasy, but differ on what to conclude about it.

This book is based on years of the most intense research, including: a study of every papal encyclical since 1740 (the year when the modern form of encyclical was introduced), a study of the decrees of all the ecumenical councils in Church history and other papal bulls, research of every published issue of the Vatican’s weekly newspaper from April 4, 1968 to the present, an intense study of Catholic history, and much more. No Catholic can afford not to read this monumental work. . . . .

(Most Holy Family Monastery • 4425 Schneider Road • Fillmore, NY 14735 • 585-567-4433 • 800-275-1126, www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com).

For Entire article see Christian News, Vol. 49, No. 32, August 22, 2011

Who Really Wrote the Bible? Review by Rev. Rolf Preus

2011-08-10T08:22:00.000-07:00

Who Really Wrote the Bible?
Review by Rev. Rolf David Preus
Christian News, Vol. 49, No. 31, August 15, 2011

Who Really Wrote the Bible? And Why It Should Be Taken
Seriously Again, by Eyal Rav-Noy and Gil Weinreich, Richard Vigilante Books, 2010. (Available from Christian News for $10.00 plus $4.00 s/h.)

One hears of the demise of the JEDP source hypothesis as other forms of criticism (genre, literary, etc.) come into vogue. Not that it is debunked to the satisfaction of establishment scholars. It just doesn’t matter anymore as the scholarly community has gone on to more interesting pursuits. After all, the slicing and dicing of the Pentateuch into various oral traditions identified with J (the personal name for God), E (the title God), D (more or less the book of Deuteronomy) and P (the priestly tradition) might have been exciting when first introduced, but over the years became a rather tedious exercise as the theory, teetering like a T.V. on the edge of the airwaves, required constant fine-tuning to reconcile its many internal inconsistencies. No wonder interest waned.

Rav-Noy’s and Weinreich’s book might just resurrect a bit of interest in JEDP. They have thoroughly discredited it. By identifying thematic structures, chiasms, the use of the number seven, and other literary devices the authors convincingly demonstrate the single authorship of the Pentateuch, debunking the JEDP source hypothesis in the process.

They show the unity of the biblical text. With clarity and humor they display to the reader the intellectual laziness of the critics who arbitrarily assign the use of one word to this tradition and the use of another word to that tradition.

While relying on the original Hebrew throughout, this book is an easy read. The authors set forth their arguments clearly and demonstrate them convincingly. While it is not an apologetic for biblical inspiration, it does effectively rebut one of the chief tenets of those who reject biblical inspiration, the notion that the Books of Moses are a compilation of various oral traditions that were later redacted into one work.

In a refreshing and entertaining fashion, this book shatters the orthodoxy of the liberal scholarly establishment. The authors’ purpose is to discredit what has kept people from taking the Bible seriously. They succeed in doing so. Clearly, the authors take the Bible seriously, but do not find the gospel of the free forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake through faith alone as the essence of or even as a feature of Moses’ teaching. Thus, while a text worthy of serious consideration for our instruction in the mysteries of God is necessary, something needs to happen to the reader. The veil needs to be lifted. But the God who lifts it does so through his own words recorded for us in the Holy Scriptures.

For this reason we can rejoice in a work that shoots down the arguments of the Bible critics and forces the honest reader to take the Bible seriously again.

Rav-Noy to Speak at Walther Conference 11/11/11

2011-08-10T08:08:00.000-07:00

Rav-Noy to Speak at Walther Conference 11/11/11
Christian News, Vol. 49, No. 31
August 15, 2011

Eyal Rav-Noy, an Israeli born scholar, now living in Los Angeles, is the author of “Who Really Wrote the Bible.” Rav-Noy, who has been interviewed on national broadcasts, including the Michael Medved show, is the first Jewish author to show that patterns in the text of the Pentateuch must have been written by the same author. Rav-Noy’s book proves that the JEPD theory, which denies Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, is a fraud, and is therefore a response to Dr Richard Elliott Friedman’s book, “Who Wrote the Bible.” Rav-Noy is an ardent spokesman for the single authorship of the Five Books of Moses.

Rav-Noy will speak on “Who Really Wrote the Bible.”
The Eighth National Free Conference on C. F. W. Walther will be held at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis MO, Werner Chapel, on Friday, Nov. 11-12. The theme for this year’s conference is, “Walther and the Bible: His 200th Birthday.”

To attend the Eighth National Free Conference on C. F. W. Walther, send a registration fee of $30.00 to:

Rev. Neil R. Schmidt
1709 Summergate Circle
St. Peter’s MO 63303

LCMS HAS ADOPTED A BIBLE TRANSLATION CONTRARY TO LUTHER

2011-08-03T09:24:00.000-07:00

LCMS Has Adopted a Bible Translation Contrary to Luther
Christian News, Vol. 49, No. 30, August 8, 2011

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has adopted a Bible translation “that is contrary to the translation principles of Martin Luther” says Professor Thomas P. Nass in “Some thoughts on the ESV and Bible Translations”, a 34 page essay he presented at pastors’ conferences of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

Christian News has been saying much the same for more than 10 years about the English Standard Version. CN has repeatedly shown that no modern English translation is closer to Luther’s translation than William Beck’s An American Translation of the Bible. Beck said that he and Luther were almost always in agreement, not because he followed Luther, but because they both followed the Hebrew and Greek text. Professor Nass writes: “I’m sure he [Beck] would be distressed to see acceptance of the ESV as the CPH translation of choice today.” Beck was an editor at CPH.

When CPH and the LCMS took surveys, they did not include the AAT. CPH’s Paul McCain insists the editor of CN is a liar. He is at least in part responsible for the fact the CN editor has not been certified for the pastoral ministry. (p. 14) McCain has the support of the LCMS bureaucracy and Schwan Foundation.

When a pastoral conference asked that the LCMS’s Worship Committee and CPH to listen to the case the CN editor makes for the AAT, neither the Worship Committee nor CPH were interested in listening to CN or any debate between the CN editor and McCain. McCain refuses to debate the CN editor on Bible translations. CN on July 14, 2011 sent the essay by Professor Nass to McCain, LCMS President Matthew Harrison, these editors of the LCMS’s ESV Study Bible (Paul E. Deterding, Scott R. Murray, Daniel E. Paavola, Jerald C. Joersz, Victor H. Prange, Mark W. Love, Robert A. Sorensen, Steven P. Mueller, Michael P. Walther), and both LCMS seminary faculties.

CN invited them to show where Nass was in error. None of the editors or officials responded or answered the survey CN sent to them.

Nass says in his essay:
Some Thoughts on the ESV and Bible Translation
Thomas P. Nass

“CPH also has leaders like Rev. Paul McCain who definitely favor the ESV” (1).

“The ESV–A revision of the RSV

“The ESV, to put it simply, is a revision by conservative Christians of the Revised Standard Version (RSV). Depending on whose statistics you use, between 91-95% of the text of the ESV is identical to the 1971 edition of the RSV” (1).

“ESV critics have pointed out how rapidly the ESV was prepared, wondering how thorough the revisers were in examining the RSV text over against the originals. At any rate, one should be aware that the foundation of the ESV is very definitely the RSV” (1).

Liberal Theology of RSV Translators
“It is important to know that the Revised Standard Version, the base text of the ESV, received a mixed review when it was first published in 1952. The RSV was carefully done by the leading scholars of the day and was in general quite highly regarded as a translation. In the following decades it was the best-selling translation apart from the KJV. The RSV, however, was strongly criticized and avoided by many conservative Christians. The committee that prepared the RSV had liberal translators who followed the higher-critical method, and their liberal theology showed up occasionally in the translation, especially in Old Testament messianic prophecies and New Testament passages about the deity of Christ’ ” (2).

Did the ESV correct the doctrinal weaknesses of the RSV?
“Herman Otten in Christian News has encouraged Lutheran Christians to avoid the ESV because in his opinion the ESV has not corrected the doctrinal problems of the RSV. He writes, ‘Many of the errors in the RSV remained in the ESV.’ If this is true, the ESV should be avoided. The first criteria for Bible translations in our circles has always been: ‘Is the translation doctrinally acceptable?’” (2)

Calvinism
“The ESV is also weak in some passages that have been used by Calvinists to teach double predestination. The wording of the ESV is more Calvinistic than the NIV in these passages. Of course, the NIV has long been criticized by some Lutherans for supposedly showing Reformed influence. The fact is that the ESV, like the NIV, was done by a committee of translators who did not hold to Lutheran theology” (3).

ESV Adds Words
“It is certainly true that the ESV is more literal than the NIV and numerous other English translations. However, it is an overstatement to say that the ESV gives direct transparency into the original text. Often the ESV reworks the form of the original and often the ESV adds words that are not in the original. Rodney Decker in his review of the ESV correctly states, “There are far more idiomatic, functional equivalents in the ESV than most people would ever suspect based on the popular perception of this essentially literal translation” (7).“Good translation does not have anything to do with counting up the total number of words. But it is interesting to see what the total word count is in the ESV and other translations, especially since promoters of the ESV are quick to say that the ESV does not add words where they are not in the original.“Version: Total number of words:Hebrew and Greek 545,202HCSB26 718,943NIV (1984) 726,109ESV 757,439.27” (7)

“Next, if one works at all with the ESV and the original languages, one can easily find many examples where the ESV does not translate literally, and no footnote is added.”

ESV Inconstistent
“Seeing the number of shifts like this in the ESV leaves me stunned when I read Leland Ryken‘s comment that the ESV only rarely shifts away from the literal wording of the original, and generally supplies a footnote when it does. The only person who could honestly say this, it seems to me, would be a person who has not actually worked with the original texts and the ESV open on his desk. I wonder: was there no Crossway editor knowledgeable with the original languages who could correct this overstatement in Ryken‘s book?“In actuality, the handling of idioms in the ESV seems inconsistent. Sometimes idioms are brought over literally, and sometimes the same idioms or similar idioms are reworked without any footnote” (9).

“So in short, if you want to use the ESV, I say ‘fine.’ But don‘t do it because you think that the ESV will give you direct transparency into the original text without any interpretation. It has much interpretation, just like every other translation” (14).

(For entire article see Christian News, Vol. 49, No. 30, August 8, 2011)

THE ANTI-CHRIST. HERE?

2011-07-27T07:53:00.000-07:00

The Anti-Christ. Here?
Christian News, August 1, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 29

The Anti-Christ means against, opposed to Christ. The term anti-Christ is used in the Bible in a general and in a specific sense. It may mean any and all forces that are opposed to Christ, His Word, and His church here on earth. In this sense St. John uses the word when he makes this statement in his first epistle: “Even now there are many anti-Christ’s”. Chap. 2:18. But the Bible also uses the word “anti-Christ” in the specific meaning of ONE particular person with world-wide power and influence, who will rise within the church and continue to the end of days in unparalleled opposition to Christ under the cover of Christ’s name. It is concerning this one Anti-Christ that we ask: Has Antichrist appeared?”

The Prophecy
Before answering the above question, let us hear what the Bible teaches about Anti-Christ and how it describes him. The chief texts of the Bible that treat of The Anti-Christ are, the 2nd Chapter of 2nd Thess., the 8th and 11th chapter of Daniel, and chapters 13-19 in Revelation. All these texts cannot be treated exhaustively in a brief essay. For our purpose it will suffice to study the text in 2nd Thess., chapter two, with a few references to Daniel and Revelation.

According to the description of Anti-Christ in the book of Revelation, his kingdom will be revived in a new form of the ancient Roman Empire which ruled the world when Jesus was born, which persecuted the church and passed out about 400 years later. It is also clear from Revelation that the capital of Anti-Christ’s kingdom will be the capital of the ancient Roman Empire, Rome. We find this prophecy in Revelation chapter 17 vv. 8-18. It is a well known fact that the city of Rome is built on seven mountains or hills, and that it was the city that ruled over the kings of the earth in the days of the apostles - and this - according to the prophecy - is the city from which Anti-Christ will rule.

NO SINGLE PERSON
There are those who believe that Anti-Christ will be a single person, such as Mohammed or Napoleon; but it is evident from the prophecy in Revelation and from 2nd Thess. 2, that the kingdom of Anti-Christ will continued for a longer period of time than any person could live, for the apostle states that “the mystery of iniquity” was already at work in his day, and a little later he says, that the Lord will destroy Anti-Christ with the brightness of His coming; it is evident, therefore, that the power of Anti-Christ will be at work during the entire New Testament era. Anti-Christ cannot, therefore, be a single person, but must be a succession of persons with the same title, power, and authority.

We turn to the text in 2nd Thess. chapter 2, where we read: “Now we beseech you brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” From these words it is clear that certain Christian teachers in Thessalonica had shaken the minds of the Thessalonian Christians by teaching that the apostle Paul had either said or written that the day of the Lord was immediately imminent. Some Thessalonians had believed these prophets and had quit working and were loafing waiting for the Lord to come. The apostle corrects this error writing them: “That day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” Before the coming of the Lord to judgment there must come a general falling away from the Lord and from His Word WITHIN the church of God, for there can be no falling away outside the church; this great falling away will be led or headed by one whom the apostle calls “the man of sin, the son of perdition.”

Opposition to God
In the next verse the apostle describes the leader of this great falling away from the truth as follows: “Who opposeth and exalteth himself about all that is called to God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” This prophecy agrees with Daniel's prophecy chapter 11,36: “And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods”, and with what we read in the 13th chapter of Revelation verse two: “And the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority...and there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given him to make war with saints and to overcome them; and power was given him over all kindred, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

According to these words, Anti-Christ sets himself in opposition to God - to Christ. He will claim to have the authority of Christ; demand observance of his laws and decrees as though they were Christ’s. He will set aside all that is worshipped, that is, Christ as the only Savior and His Word as the truth and final authority in the church, and enforce his own words and decrees in blasphemous opposition to the truth and to Christ. He will establish this throne in the temple of God, in the midst of Christendom, among baptized and believing Christians who are the temple of the living God. 2 Cor. 6:16. And he will give himself out to be God by claiming divine honor and causing people of many nations to worship him. He will make war with the saints, the true believers and overcome them, subdue them to his belief or destroy them.

The apostle now continues as follows: “Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what witholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let until he be taken out of the way (till he who is now holding it back gets out of the way--Beck) And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.” 2 Thess. 2:5-8. Here the apostle states that this “mystery of iniquity” of the Ant-Christ was at work already in his day, but was being withheld from gaining recognition by another power; not until that power is removed would Anti-Christ be revealed. Having been revealed, Anti-Christ will be consumed, lose much of his power and influenced through the proclamation of the Word of the Lord - for this is the mouth of the Lord; and he will be destroyed when the Lord comes to judgment. Concerning the judgments of God that will overtake the Anti-Christ and rob him of much of his power and influence and his final destruction on the Last Day, one may read more fully in the 15th 16th 18th and 19th chapters of Revelation where God’s judgments over Anti-Christ are described in heavenly visions.

Tactics of Satan
The concluding words of the apostle read: “Even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders. And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; they might all be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” What is stated here concerning the tactics of Anti-Christ is corroborated by statements both in Daniel and Revelation as stated above. And what are the tactics of Anti-Christ, what methods and means does he empty to gain and maintain his power and influence? The text says, that he employs the tactics of Satan: signs and lying wonders, the deceit of unrighteousness, and strong delusions; according to Daniel he will “not regard the desire of women:, that is, he will forbid marriage and pronounce it an unholy or unclean estate; and he will “divide the land for gain”, that is, he will be greedy for gain and practice fraud; and according to Revelation (chapter 18) he will make merchandise of everything, including the bodies and souls of men. This is briefly the prophecy about Anti-Christ.

The Fulfillment
We are now ready to proceed with the answer to the question: Anti-Christ...here? Has there been and is there today such an institution, such as kingdom of world-wide influence, combining both temporal and spiritual power in one head, within the pale of Christendom as is described in these prophecies? Or is the rising of such a power still to be expected?

Description of Papacy
One would have to be blind to the events of history and to what one hears and sees not to recognize in these prophecies a description of the Roman Papacy. If any man has ears to hear and eyes to see, let him compare history and facts with prophecy.

The spirit of the Papacy - according to the apostle - was already astir in apostolic times. It began to show its power and influence after the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 A.D. (this was the power that was holding it back). It ascended to undisputed power over the nations in the 12th and 13th centuries. It lost much of its power and influence through Luther and the work of the Reformation. It is with us today, and it will remain with us to the end of time. The Papacy and the Roman Church is the “great falling away” from the truth of God’s Word from the early days of the church through all the centuries till Judgment Day, as foretold in prophecy.

The Roman Papacy is a mysterious empire within the church; it sits in the temple of God, in the midst of Christendom; its palace and throne is the city of Rome - all as prophesized of Anti-Christ.

The head of the Roman Church claims that he is the vicar of Christ on earth, and that, therefore, all authority and power on earth is delivered into his hand; all Christians everywhere and all governments on earth are under his jurisdiction and by divine right subject to his demands and decrees, - such are his arrogant claims. He has declared himself infallible in matters of doctrine and morals. He has decreed that no man can judge him. In this manner the pope- every pope makes the same claims - has set himself up as a god here on earth, and his followers call him Holy Father, and bow the knee before him.

FORBIDS MARRIAGE
The Roman papacy without any regard for the individual forbids marriage to priests, monks and nuns; it has corrupted the Lord’s Supper from a means of grace through which God forgives, into the institution of the Mass in which the priest offers to God the body and blood of Christ as a sacrifice for the sins of the people both living and dead; in former years it has forbidden reading of the Bible - it has persecuted, condemned and burned those who did-; the Roman church in it official confession, the Decrees of the Council of Trent, has put its curse on the doctrine that we are justified before God by grace and faith alone. Other “strong delusions” by which the Papacy deceives many are well known: purgatory, immaculate conception and worship of Mary the mother of our Lord; the veneration of and praying to the saints, indulgences, pilgrimages, masses for the dead; holy water etc. - to say nothing about what the popes have done to those who opposed their claims - Wyclif, Huss, and Waldensians, the Huguenots etc. The power and influence of the Roman Papacy began to stir in the early days of the church; it rose to absolute power in the Middle or Dark ages; it was shaken, shorn of most of its power, by the Reformation; it is still with us making the same arrogant claims though more subtly. And though, today it is making some changes in its outer appearance - like a woman changing her apparel so as to be more attractive - the inner core of Romanism remains the same; the old saying is still true, Roma semper idem. This is Anti-Christ.

Missouri's Curse

2011-07-20T05:28:00.000-07:00

New Orleans (1973) Resolution 3-09
MISSOURI’S CURSE
Christian News, July 25, 2011, Vol. 49. No. 28

A liberal professor who takes issues with the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible defended by Herman Otten, editor of Christian News has said never-the-less that the LCMS is cursed because of the way it treated Otten. The final ruling in the St. Louis Seminary vs. Otten case (1960 and 1984) showed that Otten won the case and should have been certified. Yet, the seminary and all LCMS presidents since 1960 have refused to accept the ruling even though the LCMS’s handbook requires them to accept it. Otten may have been the only pastor serving an LCMS congregation who was told not to participate in the installation and communion service where LCMS leaders elected at the LCMS’s 2010 convention were installed. Several times Otten’s congregation has been suspended and expelled from the LCMS. It is currently under the threat of expulsion from the LCMS because of a ruling of the LCMS COP backed by the Kieschnick and now Harrison administration. None of the organized conservatives have registered any protest. Some want Christian News to close.

James Burkee, in his Fortress Press published Power, Politics and the Missouri Synod – A Conflict that Changed American Christianity show how the organized conservatives at times used Otten and then dumped him. They supported those like Jack Preus who did not want Otten certified and ordered Christian News to cease publication.

While Burkee appears to agree with the LCMS conservatives who maintain that Otten is some kook, racist, anti-Semite, he says under a caption of Otten speaking to students at Concordia Senior college, Ft. Wayne: “He shaped Missouri conservatism with a impact magnified by his freedom from church oversight. Otten was the most significant figure in modern LCMS history.”

A Seminary in Crisis, published by CPH and backed by the Schwan Foundation hardly recognizes that Otten and Christian News exist. It was written by Paul Zimmerman, who, like his friend Tom Baker, claims Christian News was responsible for the election of Jerry Kieschnick because CN refused to support Dean Wenthe for LCMS president. Wenthe was the choice of the organized conservatives.

“In Defense of Some Seminex Professors – SEMINEX DID NOT RUIN ELCA” in the June 6, 2011 Christian News mentions what former Valparaiso University, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, and Seminex Professor Edward Schroeder reports about some in ELCA who maintain that the Seminex professors who joined ELCA ruined ELCA.

“New Orleans (1973) Resolution 3-09, Missouri’s Curse” is the title of an item in Schroeder’s “The Stars of Missouri that Led to Seminex. Schroeder writes:

Peace did not come to Missouri with the dismissal of the heretics. Even today, thirty-plus years later, when the false teachers, “not to be tolerated in the church of God, much less be excused and defended,” have been gone for decades, good guy and bad guy battles continue. And now the irony is that the one under charge is the synod president, Gerald Kieschnick, the most conservative, Bible-believing, president Missouri has had in ages. Yet he too is under attack from the same alligators of the 1970s—or in some cases, their surviving sons—not so much for the orthodoxy of his doctrine, but for his aberrant practice. I don’t know the details. I’m an outsider. But what I hear is that his proposals for mission and lay-ministry diverge, according to the alligators, from “what we’ve always said and done” in Missouri.

A light bulb went on a few weeks ago about how this never-ending fight inside Missouri might just be “third and fourth generation” consequences of that killer resolution 3-09.

Here’s the scenario. I’d just met the LCMS prexy, Gerald Kieschnick (first time ever), at a Bach Society evening event here in town. That night (about 3 a.m.) a light went on. So I shamelessly posted this e-mail to him next morning. It was shortly before the LCMS convention was to open here in town. I haven’t received an answer. I’m not holding my breath.

Dear President Kieschnick,

One more item to add to our conversation at the Bach Society annual meeting last evening.

Though this was our first face-to-face meeting, you said you knew who I was. I’m guessing that you therefore know how my life was changed at the LCMS convention, New Orleans 1973. From that premise, here’s an add-on to our exchange last evening.

An 8th commandment Aha! about Missouri‘s continuing turmoil—and how to bring it to closure.

1. In a few days it will be the 34th anniversary of the New Orleans convention and resolution 3-09.
2. That resolution declared 45 of us teachers at 801 to be teaching “false doctrine”—and then quoting the Formula of Concord, that we “cannot be tolerated in the church of God, much less excused and defended.”
3. That resolution, when passed as it was, put Missouri on record as officially breaking the 8th commandment. i.e., bearing false witness in a most public way against faithful teachers by calling them false teachers. In Luther’s words that we both memorized from his catechism, the synod did indeed “deceitfully belie, betray, slander, and defame” the neighbor.
4. Even our super-critic Martin Scharlemann (who helped mightily to engineer that resolution) knew that 3-09 was not true, that it was, in fact, false, and thus false witness against us. Here’s prima facie evidence: when Martin (my brother-in-law) became acting president of Concordia after Tietjen’s suspension, he tried to convince most all of us 45 to “stay on” under his leadership because we were clearly “not false teachers at all.” Resolution 3-09 was a lie. Martin was admitting it by asking us to stay on.
5. That resolution and the subsequent cleansing of the 45 of us by the seminary board of control action did not bring peace to Missouri. As you well know, since you are yourself now falsely accused by fellow-Missourians, just as we were.
Here’s the main point.
6. In the Small Catechism, Chief Part 1, Luther makes it a point to quote the Bible’s own words about commandment-breakers—8th commandment-breakers included—that “God visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations.”
7. Missouri‘s continuing turmoil, according to this Word of God, will continue, since God Himself continues to “visit” Missouri for that 8th commandment violation of 34 years ago. How can that not be true?
8. How to stop God being Missouri‘s critic? You know the answer. It was Jesus’ drumbeat: “Repent,” and having repented, “trust the Good News.”
9. So to bring God’s own peace back into Missouri, Missouri needs to rescind New Orleans 3-09 just as publicly as it gave that false witness way back then. Not for political reasons, but for pastoral ones, for Missouri‘s own peace with God. And then to trust the Good News anew.
10. I know that you know what Jesus says are the consequences of unrepentance in such passages as Luke 13:5. It’s not that we who are still alive (about half) of the original 45 need our names cleared. Christ has already done that. It’s Missouri who is in trouble—trouble with God.
11. Are you not called to the kingdom for just such a time as this? I think so.

Peace and joy!
Ed Schroeder

Back to Zimmermann’s book. From his doxology in the final pages about the “blessed outcome” of Preus’s leadership and his own FFC you’d think that it’s been peachy-keen in Missouri ever since. But it is not yet. Even apart from Kieschnick’s alligators, PZ is a bit hasty in claiming the blessing for Missouri. As Bible-believing folks know, blessing is the opposite of curse. It doesn’t come so long as the curse persists. False witness brings curse, not blessing. Bible-believers know that. It’s scriptural truth. But Bible-believing folks, Missourians included, also know how to get un-cursed. “Repent and believe the Good News.”

Almost half of the Seminex faculty, that ancient “faculty majority,” has died. The rest of us would gladly have our names cleared of the false witness still on the books in New Orleans 3-09. But it’s not we who would be the most benefited. The greatest beneficiary of 3-09 repentance would be the LCMS itself. The blessedness Zim- mermann claims for God cleansing the heretics years ago (even if it were true) is small potatoes compared with getting God’s curse off your back. That’s real blessedness. And for Missouri to get there, Paul Zimmermann, there’s but one way. Your inside story was, and still is, the wrong way.

Peace and joy!
Ed Schroeder

P.S. D.v., there will be a Part III—a word from beyond the grave, you could almost say. Just discovered a few days ago among Bob Bertram’s papers is the text of his address to the New Orleans Convention 1973. In just one page he says it all. Stay tuned.

Crossings Community
P.O Box 7011 Chesterfield, MO 63006-7011
314-576-7357
info@crossings.org
© Crossings.org

Opinion on Passage of Gay Marriage in New York

2011-07-13T07:03:00.000-07:00

Opinion on Passage of Gay Marriage in New York
Christian News, July 18, 2011, Vol 49, No. 27

Not What God Intended
The Times of Middle Country
June 30, 2011

To The Editor:
I would say what Jesus said: “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?” (Matthew 19:4-5).

Do they expect me as a minister of God to conclude a marriage ceremony by saying, “I now pronounce you husband and husband, or wife and wife, or spouse No. 1 and spouse No. 2?” And to be politically correct and not offend anyone shall we replace Mother’s Day and Father’s Day with Parent No. 1 Day and Parent No. 2 Day? How heartwarming is that?

If God intended homosexual marriage, He could have created Adam and Steve or M’adam and Eve. But then they might be confused to hear God’s command to “Be fruitful and multiply.”

When we buy something it isn’t a good idea to ignore the manufacturer’s directions for assembling and maintenance of the product. The Bible is God’s manual for marriage, and His warranty of blessing is forfeited when we ignore God’s blueprint for marriage and family. Prepare for more personal brokenness, and dysfunction and social confusion and chaos – and costs (benefits, entitlements, etc.)

I know from experience that taking the stand will invite the wrath of retaliation from gay rights activists. But I’d rather be in good standing with the One I will face on Judgment Day. Homosexuals can go a lot of places in our free society, but marriage should not be one of them. But I will remain happy to share with them the love of God in Jesus, our Savior, to whom we all need to come in repentance and faith to receive his mercy, forgiveness and grace.

The Rev. Ronald Stelzer
Pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church
Centereach

(Salt Light and Signs of the Times - An Intimate Look at the Life and Times of Alfred (Rip) Rehwinkel, by Ronald Stelzer. Available from Christian News for $13.95 plus $4.00 s/h.)

POT CALLING THE KETTLE BACK

2011-07-08T07:36:00.000-07:00

McCain on WELS and NIV
POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK
Christian News, July 11, 2011

Paul McCain of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s Concordia Publishing House is continuing his campaign vs. the New International Version of the Bible and his promotion of the English Standard Version of the Bible. According to the publisher of the ESV, it is 91% the same as the Revised Standard Version of the National Council of Churches.

CN has shown for years that the ESV translators, like the RSV translators before them, deny the inerrancy of the Bible. The July 4 CN published the Preface to An American Translation of the Bible. There Beck notes that the liberal translators of the RSV made more than a thousand deliberate changes of the Hebrew text. The ESV translators simply followed the NCC’s RSV translators. They did make a few good changes but still used the same stilted, archaic language. The LCMS’s organized conservatives, who support McCain in his campaign vs. the AAT and NIV and for the ESV, claim the ESV is more liturgical. This is why the hyper-euros oppose the AAT.

“It is not liturgical.” CN has shown that the argument is utter nonsense. The ESV like the RSV undermines the plan of salvation by cutting down the prophecies of the coming Savior in the Old Testament as well as important truths about Christ in the New Testament. In this way both the RSV and ESV fail every privilege of being the Bible of the Christian Church.The weaknesses of the NIV are minor when compared to the false doctrine promoted in the ESV.When a promoter of the ESV, like McCain, is critical of the WELS’s support of the NIV it is like the pot calling the kettle black.Bible translation will be a major topic of discussion at the July 28-29 convention of the WELS. CN urges members of the WELS to read the article on Bible translations in the July 4, 2011 CN.

This issue of CN includes: “McCain Still Mum - WHO ARE THE LCMS SCHOLARS WHO PREFER ESV OVER AAT?, “Will McCain Face Otten? CPH on the AAT” and “What Do You Want in a Bible?”

CN has repeatedly documented the fact that McCain does not have the facts, evidence and truth on his side. However, he does have what counts in today’s publishing world, the big money. What a tragedy that McCain has been able to get millions from the Schwan Foundation for the promotion of the ESV. Rev. Paul Burgdorf, the father of the head of the Schwan Foundation, together with William Beck, were the LCMS’s most vocal opponents of the RSV. Paul Burgdorf, who wrote many articles for Christian News, was a strong supporter of Beck’s AAT.

Beware NIV 2011

2011-07-08T07:31:00.000-07:00

It’s Hard to Believe That the WELS is Actually Willing to Endorse the NIV 2011 For Use in Its Congregations

Beware NIV 2011
By Paul McCain, Concordia Publishing House
Christian News, July 11, 2011

I remain utterly flabbergasted that a committee appointed by the WELS to study the NIV 2011 is actually willing to recommend its use in WELS’ congregations. The WELS prides itself on its fidelity to the Biblical text and careful attention to the original languages, and rightly so. That is what makes it all the more shocking that the committee appointed to study this issue is recommending the NIV 2011 for use in the WELS. I’ve read the committee’s report and frankly it is sloppy and woefully insufficient and simply brushes aside the very, very serious problems with the NIV 2011. I was interested to read today the full report on the action taken by the Southern Baptist Convention about the NIV 2011. I hope the WELS rejects the recommendation of its committee and also is able to declare the NIV 2011 to be an inaccurate translation.

WELS TO CONSIDER BIBLE TRANSLATION

2011-06-29T06:05:00.000-07:00

WELS TO CONSIDER BIBLE TRANSLATION
Christian News, July 4, 2011

A reader of Christian News in the Wisconsin Evangelical Synod wrote to CN on June 13:“Dear Friends:“The 61st biennial convention of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod will be held July 25-29, 2011, at Luther Preparatory School, Watertown, Wis. One of the major issues to be discussed at this convention is the ongoing study of new translations of the Bible with special emphasis on the recently revised NIV. As you have mentioned in Christian News, the old NIV will no longer be available, I believe, after 2013. This is forcing a decision on all those who are using it in publishing Bible study materials. Do they go with the New NIV or is it time to make a change? The study of new translations is a very important topic since it lays the ground work for the translation to be used in future WELS Synodical publications.“In recent discussions it seems ministers and lay people (with whom I have discussed this subject) who have examined these issues would like to see the AAT given serious prayerful consideration. Most feel that doctrine is of prime importance, far outweighing all other priorities. We feel the AAT fully meets this requirement.”

SUGGESTED OVERTURE ON NIV AND AAT FOR MEMBERS OF THE WELS

This issue of Christian News is being sent to most of the congregations of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. By the time they receive this issue, the time for submitting overtures to the WELS convention may have passed. However, any member of the WELS is invited to use anything in this issue at the WELS convention July 25-29. If CN had the name and addresses of all WELS convention delegates, CN would send them this issue. The CN editor has always been willing to speak on Bible translation and other issues to any interested group. He has frequently offered to participate in a debate with anyone who maintains that today confessional Lutherans should use the RSV, NIV, NEB, ESV, or some other translation rather than producing their own translation using An American Translation of the Bible by William Beck and improvements on the AAT from a team of confessional Lutherans from the LCMS, WELS, ELS, and CLC. . . . (for the entire article, see Christian News, July 4, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 25)

Christianity and the Culture War

2011-06-22T10:28:00.000-07:00

Christianity and the Culture War
by Bradley Hughes
Christian News, June 27, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 24

The church faces significant challenges if it is to bring an end to Satan’s assault on the institutions of the United States and mitigate the growing dominion of evil in the country. The church bears significant responsibility for the cultural and moral decay that attends the manifest decline of the US culture and the broader Western Civilization.The symptoms of the problem are evident throughout the state of the American culture. Statistics with respect to abortion, alcoholism, bankruptcy, cheating, child abuse, crime, debt bondage, depression, divorce, drug addiction, fraud, gambling, government dependence, greed, homosexuality, illegitimacy, illiteracy, infidelity, over-medication on a chronic basis according to Medco Health Solutions Inc.)1 physical abuse, pedophilia, pornography, promiscuity, prostitution, sexual abuse and assault, STD’s, same sex adoption, same sex marriage, suicide, violence, and the rise of an increasing police state are overwhelming the culture and show few signs of abatement. Nancy Pearcey writes in Saving Leonardo that politics is downstream from culture and Christians must address the cultural decay in America if we are to prevent the rise of the secular state and persecution of Christians. While Satan and his demons never sleep, Christians often do. The report card is ominous.

Illegitimacy is becoming the national norm.
• In 1960, only 5% of American births were illegitimate.
• By 2004, 37% of American births were illegitimate—(32% of white births, 45% of Hispanic births, and 68% of black births).

• The rate of illegitimacy rose 75% from 1980-1990.
• By 2010, 40% of all American births were illegitimate—75% are to women 20 or older. (Black women account for 72% nationally and 80% in larger cities.)
• Nationally, 45% of unmarried couples living together are raising children.2
The problem of moral and cultural decay is explained by systemic secularism (and its philosophical progeny socialism and relativism) in the face of ill-prepared Christians who are both biblically illiterate and lack initiative regarding cultural engagement.

Further, the rise of global Islam presents a formidable challenge to Western Civilization. Christians are both doctrinally indigent and spiritually indolent in confronting the twin threats of Secular Humanism and Radical Islam. These two religious forces are co-bel- ligerents in the contest with Judeo-Christian values. They clearly represent the greatest threats to Western Civilization. The FBI estimates there are 15,000 web sites supporting terrorism. Terrorism has become Americanized with 68 citizens/residents charged and convicted of terrorist crimes in 2009-2010. Almost 200 citizens have been charged with terrorist crimes since 2001 with one quarter of them being converts to Islam.3

The most significant combatants supporting Secular Humanism and its cousin the Marxists (remember Corliss Lamont, Van Jones, Bill Ayers, Tom Hayden, etc.) and Radical Islam in this battle have been the media, the education system (and its public unions), the legal profession, and the government. Although the situation looks bleak, the solution lies in the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit. Understanding the times (I Chron. 12:32) and engagement (Daniel 11:32; Acts 13:36) are the instruments of human remedy.

The lack of Christian preparedness is corroborated by the survey findings of the Barna Research Group. The Barna study, conducted approximately two years ago, states, “For the purposes of the survey, a biblical worldview was defined as believing that absolute moral truth exists; the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches; Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic; a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works; Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and God is the all-powerful creator of the world who still rules today.”4

In the research, anyone who held all of those beliefs was said to have a biblical worldview. Nine percent of Americans have such a biblical worldview and less than one out of every five (19%) born-again Christians had such an outlook on life.”5 If one were to incorporate additional doctrinal truths, e.g., the Trinity, the inerrancy of the Bible, original sin, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus, the exclusive divinity and salvific nature of Jesus, etc., it is likely that a Biblical worldview among professing Christians would drop precipitously. Further, the application of Biblical solutions to social problems, e.g. homosexuality, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc., would likely test the most fervent understanding of a biblical worldview and reduce those adhering to a strict biblical worldview to the low single digits. The small percentage of Christians with a biblical worldview often compromise that worldview in cases of personal circumstance. Finally, Barna research indicates that only 4% of those born after 1977 have a biblical worldview.6 (For entire article see Christian News, June 27, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 24)

Christianity Today Sits on Fence

2011-06-15T12:36:00.000-07:00

Creation Evolution Debate CHRISTIANITY TODAY SITS ON FENCE
Christian News, June 20, 2011

“The Search for the Historical Adam” is the title of the cover of the June, 2011 Christianity Today. The subtitle is “Some scholars believe genome science casts doubt on the existence of the first man and woman. Others say the integrity of the faith requires it.”

At one time Christianity Today defended the inerrancy of the Bible, the historicity of the Genesis account of creation, and opposed evolution. Now Christianity Today maintains that those who deny the inerrancy of the Bible and promote evolution should be permitted to remain in their denomination and not disciplined.

Christian News has frequently shown that no major denomination ever since it began has insisted on the absolute historicity of the Genesis account of creation, one man and one woman, and opposed evolution more that The Lutheran Church-Missouri synod. Until the 1950s no LCMS pastor or professor publicly promoted evolution or denied the inerrancy of the Bible. In the 1950s some LCMS professors and pastors began denying the inerrancy of the Bible and historicity of Genesis account of creation. They supported evolution. Although the LCMS continues to publicly oppose evolution, no pastor or professor in the LCMS who supports evolution has ever been removed from the LCMS. Since the 1950s all LCMS administrations, including the present LCMS administration, have refused to take action vs. evolutionists or even consider charges of false doctrine brought against evolutionists. Only those who dare to file charges of false doctrine against any evolutionists are kept off the LCMS clergy roster.

“The Search For The Historical Adam” by Richard Ostling in the June Christianity Today says:
“Secularist brows furrowed in 2009 when President Obama chose prominent atheist-turned-Christian Francis S. Collins to be the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).”
“Collins, one of the most eminent scientists ever to identify as an evangelical Christian, staunchly defends Darwinian evolution even as he insists on God as the Creator. And he now stands at the epicenter of a dispute that increasingly agitates fellow believers. At issue: the traditional tenet (as summarized in Wheaton College‘s mandatory credo) that ‘God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race.’”

“In a recent pro-evolution book from InterVarsity Press, The Language of Science and Faith, Collins and co-author Karl W. Giberson escalate matters, announcing that ‘unfortunately’ the concepts of Adam and Eve as the literal first couple and the ancestors of all humans simply ‘do not fit the evidence.’”

“Foundational confessions of faith from the Protestant Reformation assume a historical Adam, and official Roman Catholicism defined this teaching at the 1546 Council of Trent, in the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII (who cautiously allowed leeway for humanity’s bodily evolution), and in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church. The broader public is intrigued, more so than by many other biblical topics; a 2005 Gallup Poll found that 40 percent of Americans think the various competing concepts of human origins matter ‘a great deal.’
“So, is the Adam and Eve question destined to become a groundbreaking science-and-Scripture dispute, a 21st-century equivalent of the once disturbing proof that the Earth orbits the sun?”
“But even the late James Montgomery Boice, founding chair of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, which insisted on a historical Adam, thought various scientific findings make it ‘hard to believe’ in a recent creation.”

“A second competitor, the ‘old earth’ version of creationism, is far more prevalent among evangelical intellectuals. It basically rejects evolution but affirms science’s longstanding and lopsided support for the planet’s vastly ancient age.

“A third alternative is the newer ‘intelligent design’ approach, which deems the Darwinian ‘natural selection’ model of evolutionary theory to be improbable and posits that some designing force lies behind nature, but does not explicitly define this as the God of Judaism and Christianity.

“Collins and his colleagues dismiss those three views in favor of ‘theistic evolution,’ which affirms that the biblical God was the creator of all earthly organisms, humanity included, and used as his method the standard evolutionary scenario of gradual natural selection among genetic mutations across eons. A non-random Internet survey of teachers at evangelical seminaries in 2009 showed that 46 percent accept that concept. Giberson estimates that ‘the overwhelming number in biology departments at Christian colleges would be fine with this,’ though a 2005 survey found that only 27 percent identified as evolutionary creationists. In a mail survey of ASA scientists last year, 66 percent of respondents affirmed that ‘Homo sapiens evolved through natural processes from ancestral forms in common with primates,’ while 90 percent agreed that the Earth is some 4.6 billion years old.

“In late 2007, Collins launched the San Diego-based BioLogos Foundation to promote theistic evolution, especially among evangelicals. He sought not only to embrace what he considers to be the best evidence, but also to bolster Christian credibility among people who are knowledgeable about mainstream scientific . . . . continued in Christian News, June 20, 2011, Vol. 59, No. 23

J-E-D-P OR GOD?

2011-06-08T11:27:00.000-07:00

J-E-D-P OR GOD?
Christian News, June 13, 2011

Moses did not write the first books of the Bible and monotheism and Christianity gradually evolved from pagan origins, claims “The Bible’s Buried Secrets – Beyond Fact or Fiction” a PBS/NOVA special shown throughout the nation.

The film reflects what is basically now taught in most of the seminaries and colleges of the major Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church and by the Pope. Christianity is no longer considered the one and only saving faith founded on solid historic fact.

The jacket of the DVD says:
“NOVA: The Bible’s Buried Secrets: Archaeology’s New Theories
An archeological detective story traces the origins of the Hebrew Bible. Aired November 18, 2008 on PBS. Go on a scientific journey to the beginning of modern religion, and dig into both the Bible and the history of the Israelites through the artifacts they left behind. The film focuses on the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) as the foundation for the great monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This powerful exploration of science, scripture, and scholarship examines the most pressing issues in biblical archaeology.

“Format: Classical, Color, DVD, NTSC
“Language: English (DTS 5.1), English (PCM Stereo)
“Subtitles: English
“Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
“Run Time: 120 minutes”

This issue of CN includes “A Q & A With Paul S. Apsell, Senior Executive Producer of Nova.”

According to “The Bible’s Buried Secrets – Beyond Fact of Fiction”, the first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses as Jesus said (Matthew 19) and inspired by God but by various human sources designated as J-E-D and P centuries after Moses died. Jesus is considered a deluded child of his times and not true God and true man, the second person in the Holy Trinity revealed already in Genesis.

No pastor of professor in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod until the 1950s challenged the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the doctrine that the known 8th century Prophet Isaiah wrote the 66 chapters of Isaiah the sixth century Prophet Daniel wrote the book of Daniel, the Old Testament contains passages which directly predict the coming of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the account of the origin of man and that the universe in Genesis is factual and evolution is contrary to Scripture and true science. When the CN editor and Kurt Marquart were students at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis during the 1950s, they publicly protested when various liberal professors promoted the J-E-D-P source hypothesis, the Deutero or Trito-Isaiah theory, the non-historicity of Genesis and Johan, evolution, and denied direct rectilinear messianic prophecy and the vicarious satisfaction of Christ.

“Specification of Doctrinal Issues,” a statement Otten submitted to the St. Louis faculty on February 8, 1959 includes statements on scripture, the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, the immortality of the soul and resurrection, creation, the Old Testament, Predestination and the Brief Statement. It is in “Concordia Seminary, St. Louis vs. Otten Case – Book of Documentation arranged by Kurt Marquart.” Those who later formed organized conservative groups remained silent.

“Our Great Scholars,” an editorial in the September 23, 1963 Lutheran News (now Christian News), showed that the J-E-D-P source hypothesis was being promoted in Lutheranism, including the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and Concordia Publishing House. CN quoted at considerable length from a Professor emeritus at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem who showed that the J-E-D-P source hypothesis is fiction and has no basis in fact and real scholarship. The October 7, 1963 Lutheran News published “The Documentary Hypothesis” by Lutheran Hour speaker Walter Maier, who earned his Ph.D. in Semitics at Harvard. Maier showed how the J-E-D-P source hypothesis undermines historic Christianity and is based on the false evolutionary notion that monotheism and Christianity gradually evolved, rather than being directly revealed by God to man. Otten quoted Maier and others in his chapter on the Old Testament in Baal or God in a section on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Maier’s “The Documentary Hypothesis” is also in the CN editor’s “Maier Still Speaks – Missouri and the World Should Listen.” Paul McCain and CPH refused to publish this book or any books by Maier. CPH does publish books by authors who promote the J-E-D-P source hypothesis besides publishing books by those who reject J-E-D-P. The J-E-D-P source hypothesis has become an open question in the LCMS. It can be affirmed or denied. LCMS bureaucrats want a church body which is open to both positions.

James Burkee in his Fortress published book “Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod” in which he says that “Otten was the most significant figure in modern LMCS history” (94f) writes:
“His backbreaking schedule and staunchness made Otten a minor celebrity in conservative circles.

“Throughout 1962, Otten maintained his speaking schedule and continued to produce materials for the SOC while tending to his small congregation in New Haven. His publications were aimed squarely at the synodical administration and the seminary. His three-part series ‘What Is Troubling the Lutherans?’ charged that a credibility gap existed between synod and congregations and that the church was not communicating honestly through its publications.

“The hodgepodge group was geared up for the 1962 convention in Cleveland. Otten personally wrote nearly fifty memorials (statements to be voted on by the convention) and had them signed and submitted by supporters. The SOC purchased a booth at the convention, for which it was charged ten times the going rate by Wolbrecht before its contract was rescinded altogether.”

While the organized conservatives who wanted no public association with Otten worked on getting their men elected, Christian News has always concentrated on the actual doctrinal issues, particularly those involving Scripture, justification by faith alone and universalism.

CONVENTION OVERTURES
Reproduced in this issue (pp. 12-13), from the 1965 Convention Workbook of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod are some overtures Christian News was able to get more than 300 pastors and laymen from some 25 states and Canada to sign. They are titled (2-10) “To Petition the 1965 Detroit Convention to Reaffirm the Historic Christian and Lutheran Doctrine of the Mosaic Authorship of the First Five books of the Bible, etc.” (2-11) “To Petition the Detroit Convention to Request. . . Resignation of all . . . Professors, Pastors, Teachers Who Continue to Maintain that the . . . Prophet Isaiah did Not Write the Entire Book of Isaiah.” (2-12) “To Petition the Detroit Convention to Reaffirm the Historicity of the Jonah Account.” (2-13) “To Petition the Detroit Convention to Reaffirm the Historic Christian Doctrine that the Old Testament Directly Predicts a Personal Messiah.” (2-15) “To Petition the Detroit Convention to Have the synod Affirm Its Conviction that Adam and Eve Were Historical Personages, etc.” (2-16) “To Petition the Detroit Convention to Reaffirm that it Accepts the Doctrine that God Made Heaven and Earth in Six Days, etc.” (2-17) “To Petition the Detroit Convention to Declare that the theory of the Evolutionary Origin of Man and the World Will Not be Accepted Within the Synod, etc.” Each of these overtures on pp. 52-66 are followed by signatures of more than 300 pastors and laymen from some 25 states.

The Response of the LCMS’s 1965 convention is reproduced in this issue (p. 13).
Liberals were miffed that the “young, punk uncertified editor” was able to organize conservatives to submit so many overrules.

Six of them at one convention alone were signed by more that 300 laymen and pastors from some 25 states. Rev. Wayne Saffen of the University of Chicago and the Bonhoeffer House wrote in the Lutheran Camps pastor in 1968:

“We repeat. It is an impressive record. Concerns which had been generated when the editor was still a student have almost all been validated by convention resolution: affirming a six-day creation, a historical Jonah, an inerrant Scripture, Adam and Eve as real historic persons etc. Missouri Synod in convention assembled has vindicated almost every doctrinal stand of Herman Otten as its official position. Now, that has to be impressive. How can the Synod, then, still withhold recognition of his ordination when it was carried out in strict accordance wit the directions of C.F.W. Walther?”

"GREATEST LUTHERAN FACULTY ON EARTH"

2011-06-01T10:21:00.000-07:00

Study the Facts and Evidence
“GREATEST LUTHERAN FACULTY ON EARTH”
Christian News, June 6, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 21

The Best Seminary Commencement Speech I’ve Ever Heard,” a story posted by CPH’s Paul McCain on his “Cyberbrethren: A Lutheran Blog” on May 24 has the commencement speech LCMS President Matthew Harrison delivered at the recent commencement at Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, Indiana where the faculty awarded Harrison an honorary doctorate. McCain, like a typical bureaucrat, knows what to say to keep his position.

Dr. Harrison began: “I want to share with you – especially with the faculty of this august institution – the same words I just shared with the faculty of the St. Louis Seminary; you are the greatest Lutheran faculty on earth. And I want there to be absolutely no doubt that when I say that to one of the two faculties, I really meant it.”

“Once Again – The World’s Finest Seminary,” was the five column headline of a full page story in the March 18, 1974 Christian News. The subtitle was “Support Concordia Seminary.” It had photos of a rally of more than 1500 who gathered at the seminary when 45 out of 50 faculty and staff members left the seminary taking most of the students with them. The editorial concluded: “For the first time in a good number of years members of the LCMS can enthusiastically encourage students to enter the ministry and attend Concordia. They won’t be brainwashed by liberal professors. Those now teaching at Concordia are both scriptural and scholarly. Concordia now has the potential of once again becoming the finest seminary in the world.” The editor risked getting into difficulty with his friends at what is now Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne, formerly Springfield, Illinois. At the time fund raisers for both LCMS seminaries asked CN for its subscription list in order that they could find names of conservative laymen who might support the seminaries. CN gave the fundraisers its list without charge even though it meant some of our supporters could be sending less to CN.

Unfortunately, today CN can no longer call either Concordia Seminary, St. Louis or Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne, “the world’s finest seminary” or “the greatest Lutheran faculty on earth” as President Harrison now says.

Anyone who regularly reads Christian News should be familiar with enough facts which disqualify calling either seminary the “world’s finest seminary” or “the greatest Lutheran faculty on earth.”
What about the faculties of the seminaries of the WELS, ELS and CLC? The editor knows little about them other than what he reads in their seminary publications. These publications take a far more confessional Lutheran stand than the journals of either LCMS seminary. The journals of the LCMS seminaries praise Dieterich Bonhoeffer as a great, faithful Lutheran theologian faithful to “the Word of God.” The St. Louis seminary even says Bonhoeffer is the most important Lutheran theologian since Martin Luther. CN has shown for almost 50 years that Dietrich Bonhoeffer denied the resurrection of Christ, said Genesis was a myth and demythologized the Bible even more than Rudolf Bultman. All the documentation anyone needs is in CN’s recent book Bonhoeffer and King: Their Life and Theology Documented in Christian News 1963-2011, which those who want to be politically correct in the LCMS avoid mentioning. Both seminaries have invited such liberals as Martin Marty, Richard Neuhaus, Carl Braaten, Gerhard Forde, Herbert Chilstrom, Robert Jenson, Richard Koenig, Leonard Sweet, Walter Wangerin, Thomas Troeger and a host of others to speak without generally giving those who oppose their anti-scriptural theology and the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual position of their denominations an opportunity to respond and question them. Seldom, in recent years, has either seminary invited someone who took a public stand against the anti-scriptural position of Seminex to speak while those who backed Seminex like Walter Schoedel, Charles Mueller, Richard Neuhaus, Martin Marty, Carl Braaten, Richard Koenig, and others are welcomed and praised as great Lutheran theologians.

When the Concordia Theological Quarterly of the Ft. Wayne seminary published an essay it attributed to Dr. John Johnson, now president of Concordia University Chicago, it refused to publish a retraction and apology when Professor Nathan Jastram, chairman of the theology department of Concordia Wisconsin, in great detail documented the fact that almost the entire essay was plagiarized. Jastram’s honesty and courage killed any chances of him getting elected president of the Ft. Wayne seminary. The Concordia Journal of the St. Louis seminary published a eulogy of Father Richard Neuhaus by Atlantic District President David Benke even though Neuhaus denied the inerrancy of the Bible, justification by faith alone, supported universalism and Bultmann’s demythologizing of the Bible ever since his student days at the St. Louis seminary. The St. Louis journal publishes reviews by such liberals and higher critics of the Bible as Matthew Becker, Henry Rowold and Robert Holst. It praised the artwork of He Qi, a Chinese artist who taught at the Communist controlled Nanking seminary and refused to condemn the mass murderer and adulterer Mao Tse Tung and confess that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven and non-Christians are lost.

The St. Louis seminary, to this day, refuses to accept the ruling of the LCMS’s highest judicial court, its Board of Appeals that the seminary failed to show just cause for refusing to certify the CN editor for the ministry when he told nothing but the truth about what was being taught by various liberal professors at the seminary.

Today neither LCMS seminary qualifies for being “the World’s Finest Seminary.” Neither has “the greatest Lutheran faculty on earth.” CN does not hesitate to disagree with the new administration of the LCMS when it makes such claims about the LCMS’s seminaries and when it has nothing but praise for the LCMS’s Council of Presidents, a group whose majority has a long liberal, pro-Seminex record and which has found that Jesus First leader Charles Mueller, Sr., has always been an orthodox Lutheran, while the editor of Christian News is an unrepentant liar because he said Jesus First leader Mueller wants the LCMS’s clergy roster to be open to those like Matthew Becker who promote the ordination of women and evolution.

The facts and evidence show that neither LCMS seminary has “the greatest Lutheran faculty on earth.”

Special LCMS Report in Lutheran Witness - LCMS IN FINANCIAL CRISIS

2011-05-18T10:01:00.000-07:00

Special LCMS Report in Lutheran Witness
LCMS IN FINANCIAL CRISIS
Christian News, May 23, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 19

“The Synod headquarters is in a financial crisis,” writes Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod President Matthew Harrison in “A Special LCMS Report” in the May, 2011 Lutheran Witness. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans assisted in funding the special issue also sent to many non-subscribers. It includes an offering envelope.

Harrison writes: “We are launching the ‘Koinonia Project’ to begin to deal with the theological issues that have caused us to distrust each other. We are attempting to lead in a way that does not divide.” No action is expected to be taken against anyone on the LCMS clergy roster who promotes women pastors, evolution or the general anti-scriptural theology of Seminex.

Dr. Lawrence Rast of Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne mentions that the Ebenezer campaign of 1967 designed to raise at least $40 million took in less than $15 million.
A chart of “Career Missionaries” shows that in 1960 the LCMS had 350 career missionaries in 1971 and in 2010 it had 50.

A Fan into Flame Updates says:
“Through March, the campaign had raised $63.8 million in cash and pledges. Of that among, $44.9 million has been collected in cash. To achieve the original goal, $46.2 million still needs to be raised by Reformation Day, Oct. 31, when the formal campaign ends.

“Challenges persist. Fan into Flame was designed to incur operational costs of no more than $10 million of its original $100 million goal—the lowest reasonable operational expense in order to maximize new funds for work in the mission field. But those expenses (which include costs for materials, management and staff) have exceeded $18.3 million. The economic recession and additional operational expenses not included in the original campaign budget) have contributed to increased costs.”

“A snapshot of LCMS Pre-K12 Education” reports that “During the last three years, the economy has had an impact on the number of elementary schools. The church has lost over 100.”

A report on the Concordia University System says that “For the 11th consecutive year, all 10 of the Concordia colleges/universities were included in the annual ranking of ‘America’s Best Colleges’ by U.S. News & World Report.”

The CN editor’s Bonhoeffer and King – Their Life and Theology Documented In Christian News 1963-2011 – A Fifty Year Battle vs. Intellectual Laziness includes a speech the CN prepared for delivery at Concordia University Wisconsin on February 3, pp. 251-296. The editor commented on the Concordia University System.

What is the Greater Blight? FACING THE LCMS'S FINANCIAL CRISIS

2011-05-18T09:48:00.000-07:00

What is the Greater Blight?
FACING THE LCMS’S FINANCIAL CRISIS
Christian News, May 23, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 19

The special May, 2011 Lutheran Witness (p. 1) sent to many thousands of non-subscribers besides subscribers reports that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is facing a financial crisis.

Christian News has said for decades that the LCMS’s bureaucracy should be curbed, full time district presidents returned to the parish ministry, limit the number of meetings of the Council of Presidents and cut the salary of district, synod, and CPH executives to that of the recommended district salary scale for pastors. “Curb the LCMS Bureaucracy,” a resolution submitted to the LCMS’s 2010 convention by Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri, documents the tremendous growth of the LCMS bureaucracy while the LCMS year after year has fewer members. The overture shows the long pro-evolution, liberal, and pro-Seminex theological position of the LCMS’s Council of Presidents majority. It urged that all district presidents return to the parish ministry. CN has long said that church bureaucrats at the LCMS’s International Center and Concordia Publishing House be paid about what the average pastor receives. Why should congregations which can hardly afford to pay their own pastor the district salary scale, be expected to send money to the district and synod so that the bureaucrats may continue receiving their six figure salaries?

CHURCH GROWTH IN LCMS
“Church Growth in the LCMS,” the lead story in the April 5, 2010, reproduced here, listed some of the figures published in the LCMS’s Lutheran Annual. It showed how small the LCMS’s Lutheran Building was until 1983 when the LCMS built its costly International Center. At the time CN said it was not at all necessary.

The LCMS bureaucracy banned the publication of the overture “Curb the LCMS Bureaucracy. The May 19, 2010 CN published photos of some of the costly office buildings of LCMS districts. Prior to full time district presidents, district presidents often used their own church office for the district office. Today with full time district presidents and costly office buildings and staff the LCMS is smaller.

The May 10, 2010 CN, which published photos of some of the costly LCMS district offices also published an article titled “CN – A 47 Year Frugal Christian Mission – (No Bureaucracy to Support).” It said in part that “Some have commented that CN produces more than many costly church offices and buildings. Compare CN’s 50’x120’, $100,000 metal building with the multi-million dollar church offices pictured here.”

STAY HOME
CN has often said that it would be far better for the families and congregations of church leaders if they would spend less time traveling to meetings and more time at home. When LCMS officials were installed in 2010 at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, in a ceremony involving foreign churchmen, CN said it would have been far more economical to have the installation at the close of the convention in Houston where the officials were elected and where churchmen from other nations were already present. This was done in the past rather than paying for the flight and expenses of so many officials and foreign church leaders to gather for another service. The LCMS treasurer could not tell CN how much the service cost but did tell CN that the Schwan Foundation paid for the travel expenses of at least some of those who came from overseas. When some 90 churchmen were flown to a training session in Santiago, Chile, CN said that far too much mission money today is being used for travel rather than supporting a missionary who remains on the field preaching, baptizing and communing instead of being…….. (for entire article see Christian News, May 23, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 19)

Creation - Or Evolution?

2011-05-12T06:18:00.000-07:00

CREATION — OR EVOLUTION?
A Sermon By Dr. Walter A. Maier
Christian News, May 16, 2011

The Lord God formed man — Gen. 2, 6
Ed. CN has often said that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod did not follow the Fundamentalist, Reformed, or anyone else when it opposed evolution and affirmed the inerrancy and historicity of the Bible. It simply defended what the Bible, the Lutheran Confessions, and Luther taught. This sermon by Lutheran Hour speaker Walter A. Maier was preached 80 years ago.

"CLOSE your eyes and think of some muddy gutter or frog pond full of stagnant water, with a scorching sun glittering down on the green slime which floats among the bulrushes and swamp weeds. These cesspools" — I am quoting verbatim from a current popular account of the origin of man — "were the cradle of life on earth." For millions of years, to cite the opinion of another book, which for many months was a best seller throughout the country, this jellylike mass floated about aimlessly. Some of its cells preferred to move about and became fish. Some of the fish gradually adapted themselves to live on land, and they became the first reptiles. Some of the reptiles began to live on the tops of trees, covering themselves with feathers. They developed into birds. But other reptiles adopted hair instead of feathers and became the first animals. And now the climax, which I quote from the bland statement of the original: "One animal in particular seemed to surpass all others.... This creature, half ape and half monkey, was your first manlike ancestor, a very ugly, unattractive mammal. His head and most of his body was covered with long, coarse hair. His hands looked like those of a monkey. His forehead was low, and his body was like the body of a wild animal." There you have the modern, popularized account of the origin of the human race, an account which is essentially the same as that which has been taught to most of the army of young people who in these weeks graduate from our American colleges.

THE BIBLE CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY ASCRIBES OUR CREATION TO GOD

As contrary to this as any two irreconcilable extremes may be, we have this simple, but sublime record of the Scriptures, which tells us that the Lord God formed man." This is the revelation of Heaven, which assures us that the human race was called into existence by a very direct act of God, so that you and I must trace the beginning of human existence, not along the path which leads from some primitive life cells upward to the bleary-eyed, coconut-munching, trapeze-swinging baboon, but directly to the creative hand of God, who formed man as His masterpiece, in His own divine image.

In acknowledging confidently and gratefully, as we do, this revealed truth, we are, of course, not unaware of the fact that the animal origin of man has been announced to the world as an established fact. We know that the curator of our National Museum at Washington unhesitatingly claims, "It has been definitely established that man originated from the anthropoid [manlike] apes," and that a German authority, with equal positiveness, asserts, "We do accept the theory of evolution now as the foundation of all our teaching of biology and social psychology." But such confident pronouncements, intensify them as you will, cannot decide the issue. Produce all of the endorsements for this frightful insult to God that you can; compile all possible statistics showing the number of teachers in our American high schools and colleges who accept evolution; bring on all the reconstructed ape-men, these exotic masquerades of scientific madness, — and all of this, multiplied to the thousandth degree, cannot begin to outweigh this divine summary of revealed truth, to which the Scriptures repeatedly lend such pronounced and emphatic endorsement, The Lord God formed man." This is the conviction of the psalmist, who declares, Know ye that the Lord, He is God; it is He that hath made us." No room for natural selection there nor for the theory of oozy life cells clinging to a rock in mid-ocean! This is the humble confession of the evangelist-prophet Isaiah, We are the clay and Thou our Potter; we all are the work of Thy hand." No accidental origin and ape ancestry in such statements! This is the unwavering assurance of St. Paul, who says that Adam was the first man, not the Java ape-man, that mythical missing link reconstructed from two mysterious bones and two equally questionable teeth found at different times and different places and withheld from scientific men in a most significant manner; nor the Southwestern Colorado man, built up three years ago from part of a set of ancient teeth, but torn down again when it was found that the teeth were those of an old horse; nor the more formidable Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii, built up from that notorious million-dollar Nebraska tooth, which distinguished scientists described as the molar of an American ape-man, but which is now admitted on all sides to be part of the dental equipment of a wild pig. That sublime truth, that the Lord God formed man," is finally crowned with the endorsement of the highest of all authorities, my Lord Jesus Christ, who in the nineteenth chapter of St. Matthew directly declares His Father to be the Creator of both man and woman in the beginning. And Christ’s Word, even in things scientific, is always the unimpeachable truth of heaven.

"But," some one says, "is it not true that the theory of man’s animal ancestry, accepted by some of the greatest scientific minds of our age, rests upon convincing evidences and demonstrations of fact?" In answer to that challenge we simply declare: The history of human research is replete with similar enthusiastically accepted theories, all heralded as proofs of Biblical inaccuracy, which have become mere punctured pretenses. When God has spoken, men’s contrary guesses cannot disturb us. When the Word of God is contradicted by the word of man, it does not matter how important or authoritative that man may be; his theory, even if it has the endorsement of learned societies and scientific bodies, is improvable. Every argument ever advanced to show ape ancestry, — the argument from the similar skeletal structure of animals and men, from fossil remains, from the developing embryo, from blood tests, from geographical distribution, useless organs, transmutation of species, — these and a host of other theories, drafted for the defense of this godless doctrine, have been considered by reputable and internationally known scientists, and their repeated verdict has been decidedly negative. It is usually the second-rate mind, the blatant atheist, the cynical scoffer, who rushes in where more conscientious investigators fear to tread, the dubious D. D., who, preaching in a pulpit erected by Christian faith, calls evolution "God’s way of doing things" or poetically insists: — Some call it evolution, and others call it God.

But among the very greatest of the great, a formidable number of truly scientific men have bowed reverently before the truth of our text, The Lord God formed man" and declared, in effect, with Pasteur, "Posterity will some day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophy. The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator.

When a long list of experts, eminent in the scientific world, denounce the claims of this delusion that is being taught to our boys and girls in tax-supported institutions of higher and lower learning, intelligent Christians dare not accept blindly the unguarded statements that slip into our Sunday newspaper supplements and our popular magazines and that repeat, parrot like, the unfounded fiction of the master minds of misrepresentation. This is tragic evidence of a human perversion, which dissipates its energy in the futile task of shooting infidel peas against the Gibraltar of this divine dictum, The Lord God formed man.

ONLY FAITH IN OUR DIVINE ORIGIN INTERPRETS
HUMAN PROBLEMS ARIGHT

No, the truth of our text remains; and what a world of moral and spiritual strength the belief in this divine origin must produce in every human heart! It means, first of all, that you and I are not the mere results of inexorable fate, that we are not here by animal chance, but that we have consciously been placed into the world by the loving- kindness and far-sighted providence of a heavenly Father, who doeth all things well." Humanity is not an accident, a chemical coincidence, but it is God’s supreme masterpiece, created after a counsel of the divine Trinity.

And the natural conclusion which every child of God is entitled to draw from such conviction is this: If God made me and all creatures, if in Christ I can truly call Him my Father, then surely all the changing fortunes of human existence, all my own questions and doubts and the sorrows of life may safely be entrusted to Him. He would not have given me, His child, life and existence only to desert me and to permit me to fall victim to the overpowering odds with which my life is surrounded. — For, while the delusion of man’s materialistic origin leads to the blank, insurmountable walls of despair and so frequently produces suicide, the acknowledgment of God’s creative love is the pledge to every one who believes it that no battle in life will be too hot and hard, no combination of misfortunes too crushing and calamitous, to destroy the relation that exists between a loving Father and His beloved child.

We believe in our divine origin because that belief, and that alone, shows us our individual moral responsibility and our duties to our fellow-men. If there is nothing divine in man, if he is only a refined form of the beast, then all the ideals of clean, constructive living are shattered. If, according to the materialistic theories of the origin of man, millions of years ago (how many millions is not important in the lavish recklessness that finds nothing easier than the production of immeasurable aeons of time), that from which you and I are supposed to have descended was a mere blob of protoplasm which came into existence by accidental chemical action; and if, later, after the lapse of myriads of other years, this ancestral blob, by the merest chance, be- came a jelly-fish; and if this change has been repeated in an interminable series of evolutions, each one an accidental process, so that you and I can trace our descent, not from the creative hand of God, but from the grinning gorilla, then the best philosophy of life for you and me may be this, that we rob and steal and maim and cripple and carouse and chase from the satisfaction of one lust to the fulfillment of another vicious desire. If there is no God in heaven who has placed you and me into this world for a high and holy purpose, then down with law and order! Away with purity and honor and virtue! That is the tragic, yet, logical consequence to which the doctrine of a beast beginning leads. And if you wish to know the dire extremes to which some apostles of evolution have descended, describing life, as they do, as a fierce battle in which only the fittest survive, in which aged and invalids are to be removed from the land of the living, then read Nietzsche’s description of the superman, in which every vestige of helpful and sympathetic regard for the needs of one’s fellow-man is ruthlessly cast aside.

But because God — thanks be to His holy name! — created man as a moral and responsible creature and revealed His will to man in the divine Law, you and I have a conscience, you and I know what is right and what is wrong, you and I are aware of our duties to others, you and I know the terror of sin and its devastating force in our own lives. Godless writers can laugh sin away or brand it as an animal inheritance and claim, as a recent writer did, that the tramp who meets a child on the highway, murders her for the few pennies that she clutches in her little hand, and then throws her body into the ditch is not responsible for his fiendish brutality. Modern educators can continue to heap up the iniquity of our present age by ridiculing individual responsibility and making light of the moral breakdown in the present era of our nation. The theory of chemical, mechanical, accidental human origin can deny the depravity of the human race and claim that men are steadily rising to higher planes and gradually approaching a gilded Utopian age. We look into our own hearts and round about us, and we see, with all the progress and advancement of our age, unmistakable signs of degeneracy, unquestionable evidences of moral and physical collapse; and knowing God as our Creator, we know by the plain statement of His Word that we cannot avoid the responsibilities of meeting the demands of His holiness and perfection and that at an appointed time all who remain in their sin will be gathered around His judgment-seat to answer the charges of a broken law.

But because the God who made us is the God who does not delight in the death of sinners," because He is the Lord whose boundless mercies are fresh every morning, the life that He bestowed upon man is so vital, so priceless, so precious in His sight that He gave the only potent and saving solution to the problem of sin that the world knows. He who created us has not left us as staggering, perishing victims of our own vices, but has given us — O precious promise of God’s unfailing truth! — His own Son as the payment for the overpowering debt incurred by our sins. He who created us, not as glorified animals and high- grade simians, but as reflections of His own holy image, regards you and me as of such surpassing importance that in order to restore that image of holiness and reestablish the relation of loving Father and beloved children, He paid the greatest price that earth or heaven could offer, the holy, precious blood of Jesus Christ, shed, poured out, not for descendants of apes, but for God’s lost children, to older to every sin-harassed soul that may hear these words to-night the full and free forgiveness of each and every sin that would separate it from God.

His Cross, with everything that it implies, — a personal God, a loving God, a forgiving God, a redeeming God, a dying, but also a victoriously risen God, — is the seal and assurance of every other truth of Scriptures, also of that truth which we gratefully acknowledge tonight in the words of Martin Luther, "I believe that God has made me and all creatures; that He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my members, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them." Any other conviction can produce only distrust and despair and look forward to nothing but dismal annihilation and destruction. But with God as our Creator, with His Son as our Redeemer, and His Spirit as our Renewer and Sanctifier, you and I are invited to look for truth and beauty and happiness here, in the assurance of our divine origin and hereafter in the blessed promise of divine destiny, the new and better life created by the same gracious Father. Amen.
[From the book, "The Lutheran Hour" 1931]

Corrections and Setting the Record Straight - Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod

2011-05-05T06:50:00.000-07:00

Corrections - And Setting the Record Straight - Power, Politics and the Missouri Synod, Christian News, May 9, 2011

Power, Politics and the Missouri Synod - A Conflict That Changed American Christianity by James C. Burkee is being highly praised by liberals as a book of great scholarship. The author is supposed to have unearthed material previously only in “unsealed” files and never before made public. It is published by ELCA’s Fortress Press with a foreword by Martin E. Marty, hailed as America’s premier church historian, a real scholar. Former Concordia Seminary, St. Louis and Seminex Professor Edward Schroeder says on his crossings web sit: “Burkee has unearthed documents that expose the seamy side of the ‘Wars of Missouri’ back in the 1970s. He tells all.” Seminex Professor Ralph Klein says “The dirt (Burkee) dug up and the connection to right wing political extremism are amazing.”

The American Lutheran Publicity Bureau’s Lutheran Forum has reprinted 13 pages from the book. Christian News has been selling it. The back of the book has highly favorable testimonies from Robert Benne, Director of the Roanoke College Center for Religion and Society; Jon Diefenthaler, a district president of the LCMS; and Chris Beneke, Associate Professor of History, Bently University, Waltham, Massachu- setts. CN has published reviews by Matthew Becker of Valparaiso University, and Paul Hinlicky, former editor of Lutheran Forum, praising the book as great scholarship.

When CN began selling the book, CN was advised to include a list of corrections with each book sold because of what it said about CN. When the book first appeared as a Ph.D. thesis for Northwestern University, Burkee concluded by stating that all of the editor’s children had fallen from the faith. He ended by asking how many others had fallen from the Christian faith because of the work of Herman Otten, the editor of Christian News. When the thesis first appeared CN published much of it with corrections. Burkee did change his conclusion about the editor’s children falling from the faith and causing other to fall. However, when Fortress published the thesis, many of the same errors CN had mentioned were still included.

Here are some corrections of a book which Martin Marty and many others consider a great work of scholarship.

CN has already noted that the book’s greatest weakness is the author’s failing to grasp the real theological issues involved. “The Essence of the LCMS Battle - DOCTRINAL ISSUES NOT POWER AND POLITICS,” a front page story in the March 7, 2011 Christian News covered this matter. CN reprinted “What Is Going On? A Specification of Issues” which the editor and Kurt Marquart first formulated in the 1950s and then later published as a tract which was widely distributed in LCMS churches all over the nation. This was long before the organized conservatives spoke in public about the infiltration of theological liberalism in the LCMS. While much of what Burkee says about Power and Politics may be true about the organized conservatives, it is not true when it come to Christian News. CN year after year hammered away at the theological issues. CN had no power other than the truth and God’s Word.

Burkee’s “History”
Burkee is an historian and not a theologian. Now let’s look at some of his “history.”
Dr. Greg Jackson in his review in CN (CN February 7, 2011), of the Burkee book observes that Dr. Martin Marty in the foreword refers to the CN editor as “Mr.” rather than pastor. Liberals and even some of the organized conservatives have long refused to recognize that the CN editor has been the full time pastor of an LCMS congregation since 1958 when he was called by the congregation. Marty says that moderates disdained Otten as a Holocaust denier, plagiarizer, and violator of copyright laws. Otten has never defended Hitler or the Nazis. He has always opposed the socialism of the right and the socialism of the left. He has recognized that the Nazi’s and Communists killed many Jews and others. However, he insists that there is no evidence that the Germans during WWII exterminated some six million Jews in gas chambers. Otten’s Baal or God shows that he received permission from some 40 publishers. Those who accept the 6 million figure now refuse to debate him. They recognize CN has the facts.

When Otten quoted directly from the writings of liberals to show they denied basic doctrines of the Christian faith, the liberals complained Otten was quoting out of context. When Otten asked such liberal publications as Dialog and Marty’s Christian Century for permission to reprint the entire article to show CN was not quoting out of context, they denied permission. Copyright laws were not intended to shield authors from legitimate criticism. Marty had his chance to expose Otten as a fraud when a group of California laymen invited Otten and Marty to debate at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. Each side could question the other about anything they had written. Marty was to defend the notion that Lutheran seminarians should attend an ELCA seminary while Otten would show why they should attend an LCMS seminary. Marty had written that Concordia Seminary, St. Louis and the LCMS had “gone to ashes.”

Otten agreed to debate while Marty declined. Marty would have had opportunity to show where Otten had not told the truth about the Holocaust or anything else.

Secret Meeting with LCMS President Behnken
Contrary to Burkee, (p. 1). Otten had no secret meeting with LCMS President John W. Behnken or any other LCMS leader.

Otten Most Influential Conservative in LCMS
Burkee writes: “Again, it is necessary given such revisionism, to state the obvious: Herman Otten was the single most influential conservative in the synod before 1969” (7).

“Herman Otten Jr. founded conservative tabloid Christian News following his rejection by Concordia Seminary. He shaped Missouri conservatism with an impact magnified by his freedom from church oversight. Otten was the most significant figure in modern LCMS history.” (photo caption 94f)

According to the LCMS’s organized conservatives, who shunned Christian News, Otten hardly existed. They were the one through their political activity, publications and meetings first exposed liberalism in the LCMS and should get the credit for “turning the LCMS around.”

Otten’s Truth not Biblical Truths
Burkee writes:
“Herman Otten is also the Missouri Synod’s most infamous figure. Otten saw himself, as others still see him as the ‘Martin Luther of the Missouri Synod,’ standing firm for truth regardless of the cost. But as Christian News developed in the 1960s, it came more to reflect Otten’s truth then biblical or even religious truth.” In reality Otten never saw himself as any Martin Luther. If anyone even came close to Luther, Otten said it was Kurt Marquart. Otten said he came up with nothing new but was merely reflecting what the Bible teaches and what Luther and the Lutheran Confessions affirmed.

Not For Publication
Otten did not publish “personal letters not for publication” because some letters Burkee found in Otten’s files were marked “Not for Publication” (9).

Clandestine Meetings
Burkee writes: Otten “complained about the conservative movements secretive tactics but attended clandestine meetings and frequently communicated through back channels. Herman Otten’s sprawling conservatives and problematic methods gained him unmatched influence. They gained him a strong and loyal following. And they gained him enduring infamy” (9).

As far as Otten can recall, he attended only two “secret” meetings of LCMS conservatives. He made it clear at the outset that he had problems attending the meetings because of the secrecy. He was never invited back. Most of the organized conservatives refused to invite him to be a speaker even though he had drawn larger crowds, particulary laymen, than they did to meetings. Neither he nor his wife was ever presented any awards by the organized conservatives. The organized conservatives told Otten that “the LCMS was in a war and in a war you do not tell your opponents your strategy.” While at least some of the others attending the “secret” meetings had their travel expenses paid, Otten insisted on paying his own way. He did not want to be obligated to anyone. Otten repeatedly opposed the deception practiced by LCMS President Jacob Preus and the organized conservatives who backed Preus. Otten warned that some day when an honest scholar discovers this deception and double talk it could turn youth away from conservativism in the LCMS.

New Christian Right
Burkee writes:
“Herman Otten belongs on the list of the most significant leaders of the ‘New Christian Right’. Otten and the movement he helped create bridge the gap between the old and new movements” (13). Otten emphasized for more than 50 years that he was starting nothing new but merely calling for the LCMS to return to the position of its founding fathers, Scriptures, Luther and the Lutheran Confessions.

Crusader Mentality
“For Herman Otten was a product of both a moderating seminary and a crusader mentality shaped by his perception of family and history” (27). Otten simply said he was the product and champion of “Old Missouri’s school system” which included faithfulness to God’s Word.

Oswald Hoffmann
Burkee writes: “St. Matthew’s, where Herman Sr. served as congregational president, was a revolving door for the best and brightest of young often liberal pastors-in-training, including future LCMS leaders Oswald Hoffman, Ralph Klein, Walther Bouman, Art Simon, John Damm, and John Tietjen . . . Nearly every week one or more of these young men broke bread at the Otten dinner table. When Herman Jr. was away at seminary, they often took his place. And while he spent his summers upstate sweating to earn money on a dairy farm, they sat in his cool home, drank his father’s beer and talked of peace and justice” (28).

Hoffman was never a pastor-in-training or a vicar at Otten’s home church. He was an assistant pastor largely responsible for getting a long line of leading liberal intellectuals to serve as vicars at St. Matthew.

Anonymous Letters
Burkee writes:
“Before long, however, Weidman (professor at Concordia, Bronxville), began to receive confrontational letters sent anonymously. He attributed them to Herman. There is no question that Herman was capable of writing such letters – and worse. His sister, Marie, tells of a time when Herman’s younger brother, Walter, who, like Herman, was an athlete – got caught drinking beer at a post game celebration. According to Marie, what Walter got from his father was nothing compared to the vitriol from his older brother. “Marie Meyer Interview” (28). “Herman Sr. was angry only because (1) Walter had gotten caught, and (2) he wanted money by getting the bottle deposits” (ff. 69, 196).

J.T. Mueller in Hiding
Burkee writes: “J.T. Mueller hid at a nearby motel, hoping to provide moral support for Otten without associating with him publicly” (37). “J.T. Mueller, an aging professor at Concordia Seminary who . . . . . (for entire article see Vol. 49, No. 17, Christian News, May 9, 2011).

A Bloody Unnecessary War

2011-04-27T11:42:00.000-07:00

150th Anniversary of the Civil War – Slavery Not the Cause
A BLOODY UNNECESSARY WAR
Christian News, May 2, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 16

“Why We’re Still Fighting The Civil War – The endless battle over the war’s true cause would make Lincoln weep” is the cover story of the April 18 TIME.
Times says:
“A few weeks before Captain George S. James sent the first mortar round arcing through the predawn darkness toward Fort Sumter, South Carolina, on April 12, 1861, Abraham Lincoln cast his Inaugural Address as a last-ditch effort to win back the South. A single thorny issue divided the nation, he declared: ‘One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.’”

“On and on, seemingly endless, sometimes contradictory — although not among mainstream historians, who in the past generation have come to view the question much as Lincoln saw it. ‘Everything stemmed from the slavery issue,’ says Princeton professor James McPherson, whose book Battle Cry of Freedom is widely judged to be the authoritative one-volume history of the war. Another leading authority, David Blight of Yale, laments, ‘No matter what we do or the overwhelming consensus among historians, out in the public mind, there is still this need to deny that slavery was the cause of the war.’”

“With the centennial of the war approaching, a flood of outstanding Civil War history books hit shelves, and the half-century since then has been rich in scholarship. Robust controversies rage and always will, but the distortion and occluded memory that shaped the Lost Cause story is found now only on the academic fringe. What energy exists in the modern version comes from a clique of libertarians who view the Union cause as a fearsome example of authoritarian central government crushing individual dissent. Slave owners make odd libertarian heroes, but by keeping the focus narrowly on Big Government, this school uses the secession cause to dramatize issues of today.”

“To be blind to the reason the war happened is to build a sort of border of the mind, walling off an important truth. Slavery was not incidental to America's origins; it was central. There were slaves at Jamestown. In the 1600s, writes Yale's David Brion Davis, a towering figure among historians, slave labor was far more central to the making of New York than to the making of Virginia. As late as 1830, there were 2,254 slaves in New Jersey. Connecticut did not abolish slavery until 1848, a scant eight years before the fighting broke out in Kansas. Rhode Island dominated the American slave trade until it was outlawed in 1808. The cotton trade made Wall Street a global financial force. Slaves built the White House.”

“In other words, the path to healing and mercy goes by way of honesty and humility. After 150 years, it's time to finish the journey.”

Paul McCain of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s Concordia Publishing House reflects the view of many of the organized conservatives in the LCMS who reject LCMS founder C.F.W. Walther’s position on the Civil War. McCain says the bloody war, where more than 600,000 Americans were killed was a necessity.

“150 Years Ago Today Began the Great War Between the States: Thoughts on the Tragedy and Necessity of the Civil War,” a statement released by McCain throughout the LCMS on April 12 said in part:

“One could argue that the Civil War was finally not truly over until civil rights legislation was passed and enforced throughout the South. 150 years ago began that great conflict that would consume so many of our nation’s men, at the time, on both sides. I remain deeply distressed that even some of my fellow LCMS pastors are so willingly complicit with attempts to recast the history of the times and make it appear as though the issue of slavery was not at the very heart of the issues that precipitated the Civil War.

“Slavery was a festering wound in the side of the United States at its very inception, when, frankly, hypocritically, the same men who declared that all men are created equal owned as property fellow men, as slaves. The war was long in coming, but perhaps inevitable and tragically, finally necessary. But what a great tragedy it was. I think that no better words have ever been spoken on why the war was necessary than those spoken by Abraham Lincoln at the dedication of the cemetery at Gettysburg. Following Lincoln’s speech, are words from a speech given by the vice-president of the confederacy, driving a nail into the coffin of the argument that the Civil War was not about ‘slavery.’ When people talk about the ‘culture’ of the South, and ‘peculiar institution’ of the South, let’s be clear: that culture, that ‘peculiar institution was slavery’!”

McCain has long been a leading champion in the LCMS of Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He insists they were faithful Christians. The vast array of evidence in CN’s book on Bonhoeffer and King shows that both King and Bonhoeffer denied the resurrection of Christ. McCain and the conservatives who support him unlike true scholars refuse to consider the evidence.

“An Unnecessary War,” in this issue is an excerpt from Pastor Ronald Stelzer’s Salt, Light and Signs of the Times – An Intimate Look at the Life and Times of Alfred (Rip) Rehwinkel. Rehwinkel insisted that Walther was correct, “The Civil War did not solve the slave or Negro problem. The Civil War could have been avoided.” CPH refused to publish Stelzer’s book on Rehwinkel and the Schwan Foundation refused to help finance it.

Columnist Patrick Buchanan writes in “The New Intolerance” in this issue: “Slavery was not the cause of the war. Secession was – that and Lincoln’s determination to drown the nation in blood if necessary to make the Union whole again.”

Some of the articles CN has published on the Civil War are in the Christian News Encyclopedia. “The Civil War” in the September 2, 1991 CN said: “We have long been convinced that the bloodiest of all U.S. wars should never have been fought. We think of the utter stupidity of the killing of so many thousands of boys and men, and the grief caused in hundreds of thousands of American homes in both the North and South when we visit the Civil War battle sites.” Al Benson in “Public Television’s ‘Civil War’ impressively shallow (CNE, p. 343) noted “The series hardly dealt with the Unitarian influenced abolitionist movement in the Northern politicians. It did not at all deal with the revival of Reformation Christianity taking place in the South before the war.” “C.F.W. Walther: The American Luther (CNE, 3172) discusses the position Walther and the LCMS took during the Civil War.

This issue includes much of the section on the Civil War in “The Messianic character of American Foreign Policy” (CNE, 4120-4121).

“The Civil War – The Conflict that Divided America began 150 Years Ago This Week” is the cover story of the April 10 PARADE. “America’s War Without End”. PARADE says:

“No one refights the Revolution or World Wars I or II, but what President Abraham Lincoln termed our ‘fiery trial’ has proved to be an American war without end. From Appomattox forward, how we see the Civil War reveals much about what Dr. King called ‘the content of our character.’”

Walther - A Patriotic American

2011-04-27T11:39:00.000-07:00

WALTHER
A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN
Christian News, May 2, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 16

C.F.W. Walther strongly opposed Socialism and Communism. Christian News distributed hundreds of copies of his booklet first published in 1879 titled Communism and Socialism (Available from Christian News for $ .50). Walther defends the thesis “Why Should and Can No Reasonable Man, Much Less A Christian, Take Part in the Efforts of Communists and Socialists?” He listed some dozen reasons why “The efforts of the Socialists and Communists are in conflict with definite doctrines of Christianity.” The LCMS’s CPH should reprint this pamphlet during the Walther year.

Walther was a loyal patriotic American. He said in a Fourth of July speech to a Christian youth group on July 4, 1853:

“There are indeed innumerable advantages and benefits which distinguish our new fatherland above all other lands and which have been poured out upon it especially since that memorable Declaration of Independence down to the present hour. I would have to be more than blind if I were not to see them. The land which we have chosen for our new homeland stands as the greatest marvel of this century before our eyes and before those of the whole wondering world, a tree that has grown with unprecedented speed, laden with a thousand golden fruits of every kind of human industriousness, and at the same time full of innumerable sprouting blossoms, which promise ever new fruits of human effort, while ever greater numbers from all languages and nations gather under its shade-giving, ever further spreading branches.”

“Then what is the greatest and most glorious, indeed, the only thing that the state can grant the true religion? Not privileges, but freedom; not civil laws to command faith in the teachings of religion, but the freedom of religion to defend and spread herself with the weapons of the convincing Word; not dominion in the state, but freedom to live within it, a hospitable reception, a guestroom, a place to stay.”

“Where compulsion begins, religion ends. All compulsion in religion is a (self-) contradiction, it is something unreal (Unding), for compulsion is contrary to the nature of religion itself. Freedom is its being. Freedom is the element in which alone it can breathe, live, and continue to exist. Religion is not to fight against earthly armies but against errors and sins. Religion is not to conquer lands, cities, and towns, but hearts. So what can the state, with its stone prisons and steel weapons, do to help religion?”

Entire speech in The Christian News Encyclopedia

The Resurrection of Christ is a Fact which Happended in Calendar History

2011-04-07T07:24:00.000-07:00

The Resurrection of Christ Is A Fact Which Happened In Calendar History Christian News, Vol. 49, No. 15, April 11, 2011 “Christ Has Risen” on page one shows what the Bible teaches about Christ’s resurrection. “Jesus Is Risen From the Dead” on page 2 presents the Resurrection of Jesus as a Jerusalem newspaper might have reported it. It was a real historical event which happened in ordinary calendar history not in a realm above and beyond history, the realm of myth. “Jesus Rises From the Dead” and “Jesus Lives”, two lessons from Dr. William Beck’s Bible Stories in Pictures show that Beck clearly accepted the resurrection as historic fact. Fifty years ago Beck asked this editor to visit some major publishers in New York City to find one who would publish his entire Bible Stories in Pictures in one or two volumes. CPH had been sending Beck’s series week after week to thousands of Sunday Schools throughout the nation. They were well received. Now Beck wanted a major publisher to publish them in one or two books. The publishers CN visited agreed the art work was great. Yet they said they could not publish the work of a theologian who actually believed that the events recorded it the Bible such as the creation, fall into sin, and the devil coming in the form of a snake and really speaking happened in history. They did not agree with Beck’s emphasis upon direct Messianic prophecy, the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and justification by faith alone. “The Resurrection of the Flesh” in this issue makes use of what Beck wrote about the resurrection of the flesh in an article published by the Concordia Theological Monthly of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. The entire article is in The Christian News Encyclopedia. It contains helpful material for use in Easter sermons. Beck noted that when he attended an Easter Sunrise Service in St. Louis where Martin Marty preached, little was said about the physical resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the flesh. Marty has been a skeptic for decades. Beck noted that most of the translators of the NCC’s Revised Standard Version of the Bible rejected such doctrines as the deity and resurrection of Christ. Yet today the LCMS’s CPH promotes the English Standard Version of the Bible, which is 91% the RSV of the liberal National Council of Churches. The RSV-ESV changes the Hebrew text in more than a thousand places. The translators rejected the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. Yet CPH and the LCMS’s Worship commission insist that both the RSV and ESV are accurate and reliable translations. They simply refuse to examine the evidence and insist on promoting a translation which uses stilted out-dated language. Karl Barth On Resurrection “Karl Barth on the Resurrection” reprinted in this issue, (p. 5) from Guidelines for Today shows that Barth, hailed by many as the greatest Christian theologian of the 20th Century rejected the resurrection of Christ as an event which happened in real history. Liberal Churchman and the Resurrection This Easter many liberal churchmen, who do not believe that Christ actually rose physically from the grave, will again speak about the resurrection. According to them, it is not the kind of historical event which could be photographed. They will wax eloquently about Christ living in the heart of believers and about how the early Christians said he rose from the dead. They will fool many into thinking they really believe in Christ’s physical resurrection. Surveys have shown that a large percentage of Protestant clergymen reject the physical resurrection of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church now allows its theologians to deny this doctrine. Note what last week’s CN said about the Pope and the resurrection. The Christian News Encyclopedia includes plenty of documentation showing that most major denominations no longer insist that their clergymen accept the physical resurrection of Christ. Already more than 40 years ago the famous Jeffrey K. Hadden survey, which polled some 10,000 clergymen and had more than 7,000 responses, showed that only 49 per cent of the nation’s Methodist clergy agreed with this statement: “I accept Jesus’ physical resurrection as an objective historical fact in the same sense that Lincoln’s physical death was a historical fact.” Dr. Ronald Goetz, Editor at large of The Christian Century and a Professor of Theology and Religion at Elmhurst College, wrote in the April 4, 1990 Christian Century: “LET’S BEGIN by admitting that we Christians can’t agree on what happened Easter morning. Certainly resurrection faith does not require belief in the resurrection of a corpse! But does it require faith in the empty tomb? Maybe the various Gospel accounts are best read as innocent attempts – decades after the first Easter – to provide some historical hook on which first-century believers could hang their experiential faith.” True Christians agree what happened on Easter morning. Christ rose physically from the grave. Resurrection faith does require belief in “the resurrection of a corpse.” The tomb was empty. The Gospel accounts are God’s directly revealed inerrant word and not some human fabrication. The Christian Century has long attacked the fundamental doctrines of historic Christianity. This was not the first time Dr. Goetz attacked the physical resurrection of Christ in The Christian Century. Here are some items taken from the Christian News Encyclopedia: February 25, 1980 “Easter” is the theme of the Winter, 1980 Dialog Some of the liberal theologians associated with this publication maintain that it is possible to affirm the “resurrection’ of Christ without believing that Jesus ever rose physically from the grave and that the tomb was actually empty. Editor Robert W. Jenson writes that “The resurrection was not a resuscitation; . . .” “Whether, e.g., ‘Jesus is risen’ must claim that the tomb was emptied, that he now is a collection of cells in organic continuity with a material mass once buried, depends on how we understand ‘body,’ and this in turn on how we understand time and space. It is therefore a matter of the problem next on our agenda, and not an immediate component of the gospel-claim. Doubtless there are also things in fact claimed by ‘Jesus is risen’ that we nevertheless would not have to claim to predicate ‘is risen’ of him, even supposing a negative decision on the question just posed, the emptiness of the tomb is one such. These are not my present concern.” “. . . serious assertion of the resurrection is now so uncommon. Our mental map of time and space includes no region that could contain Jesus’ present body. And so, whatever orthodox formulas we may repeat, our actual body of Jesus: the conception that cooperates in the thinking of ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ alike is of Jesus’ continuing ‘spiritual’ or historical influence i.e., by any responsible rendering ‘. . . is risen,’ the whole modern church proceeds as if Jesus were not – and will so proceed until a post-Copernican way of locating Jesus’ body is proposed and becomes ecumenically influential.” Dialog is published quarterly, 2375 Como Ave., St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, $8.50. It has a circulation of about 2,000. April 12, 1982 “The Resurrection: A Truth Beyond Understanding” in the April 7 CHRISTIAN CENTURY leaves the doctrine of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ an open question. Dr. Ronald Goetz, a Christian Century editor at large and professor of religion at Elmhurst (Illinois) College is the author of the article. Goetz points out that there is a vast difference of opinion among church members about just what is meant by the resurrection of Christ. “This Easter, though Christians in many churches will be standing together in the pews and singing in joyful harmony the triumph anthem ‘Christ the Lord Is Risen Today, Alleluia,’ their interpretations of the resurrection will be radically discordant. Some members of the congregation will be thinking of a relatively straightforward physical event. Certainly more was entailed, but at the very least the resurrection entailed a resuscitation of the body and an empty tomb, with Jesus concretely and empirically manifested. “Others will conceive of the event in a ‘demythologized’ manner. What came forth from death was not a body; the event was not historical but existential. . . “For still others such Germanic circumlocution is impossible to understand, let alone embrace; they will regard the resurrection in a rationalistic, relatively, ‘old-fashioned’ deist-liberal manner as a pre-scientific way of expressing the timeless content of Jesus’ life and ministry – his preaching about the love of God and the need for human fellowship”. . . “THIS RANGE of opinions does not exhaust the list of possible alternative understandings of the resurrection, but it is enough to indicate that the church is not of one mind on the question of what happened that first Easter.” The Christian Century editor says that “the church need not be embarrassed by this diversity of understanding. A wealth of interpretations in unavoidable – given the character of New Testament witness, the difficulties inherent in the doctrine of revelations itself, and the pluralism of our philosophic environment.” Goetz says that “One can affirm a bodily resurrection without such literalistic smugness; however, such a dogmatic insistence on a bodily resurrection is often indicative of a vague grasp of the problem involved. The implication that a physical event guarantees that a divine reality gave rise to that event is an assertion not of the Christian’s faith in the doings of the transcendent, invisible, eternal God, but an attempt to like a particular finite metaphysical and epistemology to the Christian faith.” The Christian Century editor-at-large concludes that “What I am saying is simply that when we gather on Easter we should not be dismayed by our differences. We should rejoice that the Easter event is more true than any of our explanations.” The Christian Century has long argued that there should be room within the major denominators for those who reject such doctrines as the virgin birth of Christ, His deity, and physical resurrection. A church member who does not believe Christ rose physically from the dead can hardly be considered a Christian. The vast difference of opinion within the churches of our day about the resurrection is cause for alarm. Clergymen who do not accept Christ’s physical resurrection should be removed from the ministry.

Catching Up to Liberal Protestantism / Pope Rejects Historic Christianity

2011-03-31T06:46:00.000-07:00

Rome Works Fast CATCHING UP TO LIBERAL PROTESTANTISM “Catholic Liberals in 25 Years Destroyed What Took Protestant Liberals 300 Years” on page 1 is taken from an article by Dr. Robert Sungenis which appeared in the February 28, 2011 Remnant, a Roman Catholic bi-weekly. The entire article is on page 7. Dr. Sungenis observes that Dr Raymond Brown was one of the Roman Catholic liberal leaders who helped take the Roman Catholic Church down the path of destructive higher criticism. He is an editor of the Jerome Biblical Commentary published in 1968 with Rome’s Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. When the somewhat revised New Jerome Biblical Commentary appeared in 1990, CN again showed that this officially approved commentary taught that the Bible contains myths, legends and fiction. It denies basic doctrine of historic Christianity. Raymond Brown is mentioned on 14 pages in the Christian News Encyclopedia. He lectured at the LCMS’s Concordia University, New York, where his anti-scriptural notions were not repudiated. When Christian News reviewed Brown’s “Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible” the headline was “Jesus Was Not the All Knowing God.” The subtitle was “Father Raymond Brown, Roman Catholic Modernist, Says Authors of New Testament No Eyewitnesses of Jesus.” An editorial on Brown’s book was titled “Who Will File Charges of False Doctrine Against Father Brown?” CN said: “Filing formal charges vs. Father Brown may do some good if it shows conservative Roman Catholics that the Pope is a theological modernist and universalist who maintains that God used evolution to create the world and that Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians can get to heaven without faith in the merits of Christ.” CN documented at great length Brown’s anti-Christian theology (Christian News Encyclopedia, pp. 4014-4016). Sungenis notes that Pope John Paul II regarded Brown as “one of the world’s best exegetes.” Pope Benedict’s new best seller Jesus of Nazareth (p. 1), again shows that Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, is a destructive higher critic of the Bible and a fan of the non-Christian Lutheran Rudolf Bultmann who repudiated the resurrection of Jesus Christ. No wonder Father Richard Neuhaus, a fan of Bultmann’s demythologizing of the Bible, ever since his student days at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, had such a high regard for Pope Benedict XVI. Will the hyper-euros and organized conservatives in the LCMS who have such a high regard for Father Neuhaus while they want CN to close shop, finally wake up. When Neuhaus died, the St. Louis seminary’s Concordia Journal published an editorial praising this champion of the Pope and Bultmann. Paul McCain of CPH, William Woeden, Mollie Hemingway of Steadfast Lutherans, The American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, David Benke, and both LCMS seminaries were among those who praised Father Neuhaus. Had they been reading what CN has said about the growing modernism in Rome, perhaps they would not have been deceived by Neuhaus. They should have been spending more time reading The Remnant, Chronicles and other publications edited by conservative Roman Catholics rather than neo-con Neuhaus’s First Things which covered up the tremendous homosexual scandal in Rome including Neuhaus’s defense of leading homosexuals in Rome. Even “The Homosexual Pope” was praised as a great hero of the faith (pp. 5-6) POPE REJECTS HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY “Does the Pope Believe in the Resurrection?” on p. 3 from the Free Presbyterian Magazine of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland should come as no surprise to regular readers of Christian News. CN has documented the theology of leading liberals, including Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) for some 50 years. During these years CN has reviewed at considerable length such major officially approved Roman Catholic works as the 15 volume, 15 million word New Catholic Encyclopedia, the Jerome Biblical commentary, the Jerusalem Bible and the writings of hundreds of Roman Catholic theologians. Many of these works claim the Bible contains myths, fictions and errors. They attack such doctrine as the vicarious satisfaction of Christ. The 2263 back issues of Christian News contain one of the most complete records of what has been going on within all Christendom during the past 50 years. What has CN said about the present Pope Benedict XVI? “Catholic Press Promotes New Theology” was the title of the lead story in the September 20, 1993 Christian News. CN reported: “Following the Pope’s lead, the entire Catholic press now promotes the ‘New Theology’ says Bishop Richard Williamson of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, Winona, Minnesota, in a letter he sent this month to friends and benefactors of the seminary. “According to Bishop Williamson, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, appointed by the Pope to serve as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘is a Prefect for the Faith Without the Faith!’ Bishop Williamson maintains that Cardinal Ratzinger denies the scriptural doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ. Williamson notes that Ratzinger was a colleague and disciple of the leading progressive teacher, Karl Rahner.’ Rahner rejected such Christian doctrines as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (See the Christian News Encyclopedia). CN published the documentation Bishop Williamson presented to show that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) denied the scriptural doctrine of the deity of Christ. CN has published reviews of some of Pope Benedict’s writings showing that he is a universalist, an evolutionist, a higher critic of the Bible, and undermines such doctrines as the Trinity. The July 4, 2005 Christian News quoted at considerable length from Pope Benedict XVI’s book, Truth and Tolerance, where the Pope boldly promotes universalism and approves theistic evolution. “Pope Promotes Historical Criticism – Undermines Basic Christian Doctrine” was CN’s title of its August 8, 2005 review on page one of the latest edition of the Pope’s Introduction to Christianity. The report includes many quotes from Pope Benedict showing that he is a liberal higher critic of the Bible and undermines basic Christian doctrine. The Free Presbyterian rightly exposed Pope Benedict’s theological liberalism. The Pope’s refusal to take any real serious disciplinary action against the thousands of homosexual churchmen in the Roman Catholic Church is bad enough. His defense of and promotion of anti-Christian theology in Rome is far worse. Confessional Lutherans have never had more valid reasons for insisting with the Lutheran Confessions, Martin Luther, C.F.W. Walther, and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s Brief Statement that the Papacy is indeed the anti-Christ of 2 Thessalonians. The pro-Loehe, anti-Walther Romanizers in the LCMS who highly praised Father Richard Neuhaus, one of Pope Benedict’s chief defenders, are wrong for not boldly recognizing that the Papacy is the Anti-Christ. They should keep up with what is going in the theological world by reading Christian News. The LCMS’s new Lutheran Study Bible should have boldly championed the doctrine that the Papacy is the Anti-Christ. A review of The Lutheran Study Bible in the Fall, 2010 Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly by Editor John Brug, says: “In some instances, one becomes concerned about lack of doctrinal clarity. The discussion of 2 Thessalonians 2 (p 2062) states that the Lutheran Confessions describe papal and Islamic doctrines as marks of Antichrist and that Antichrist will manifest himself as an authority over the church at the end of time. Where is the clear Confessional statement that the pope is the very Antichrist? A Lutheran study Bible should sound a clear signal at this point. In Revelation 17 (p 2224) the comments associate the prostitute with the goddess Roma and with a personification of Rome. But which manifestation of Rome? Imperial or papal?” The Muslims with their vicious Koran promoting hatred of Christians and Jews , and the Jews with their Talmud teach that Jesus Christ is a bastard and Mary a whore are not the Antichrist. The Papacy is the Antichrist of 2 Thessalonians 2: The Jews and Muslims do not “sit in God’s Temple.” Every Lutheran publication in the nation should reprint “Does the Pope Believe in the Resurrection?” The Pope of Luther’s day affirmed the Resurrection. He was not a universalist and evolutionist. Christendom today needs a Reformation far more today than it did 500 years ago. Roman Catholics who now recognize they have been betrayed by recent popes should climb on board.

A Great Scholar With A Pastoral Heart

2011-03-24T06:32:00.000-07:00

Pastor Kenneth K. Miller 1934-2011
A GREAT SCHOLAR WITH A PASTORAL HEART
Christian News, Vol. 49, No. 13, March 28, 2011

Pastor Kenneth Miller, one of Christendom’s greatest Old Testament scholars, was called to his eternal home on March 21. His obituary is on page 4.

Dr. Robert Preus, President of Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne, wrote in the foreword to Pastor Miller’s Gospel According to Isaiah: “It is a great pleasure to write this foreword. Rev. Kenneth Miller has been my dear friend for more than 30 years. He has been a pastor and preacher for more than thirty years. But he is no ordinary preacher. He is a preacher who has combined a knowledge of the biblical languages with a profound understanding of Old as well as New Testament theology and of the relationship between the two Testaments.

Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne Professor Waldemar Degner wrote that Pastor Miller’s The Prayer for All Seasons, the Lord’s Prayer, amplified and applied for various sorts and conditions of men was “a classic.”

Dr. John Drickamer, who worked on the Fourth Edition of An American Translation of the Bible, wrote in a review of Pastor Miller’s History Explained and Applied: “This book is magnificent. Everyone should study it. The seminarian can learn from it to develop a truly evangelical sermon from the Bible’s historical books. The pastor can use it as a rich resource for ideas and material in preaching on any text that deals with Biblical events - or for making Law-and-Gospel applications in Bible class. The parochial school teacher or Sunday school teacher can use it to pack the greatest possible value and meaning into the precious time devoted to Bible study.”

The Christian News editor, who has known Pastor Miller since seminary days in the 1950s, said in a notice in the May 25, 1992 Christian News promoting Pastor Miller’s books, that he was “A scholar who writes with a pastoral heart.” The editor wrote in 1992:

“K. Miller has been a Lutheran pastor for 33 years. He graduated from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis with an S.T.M. degree and shortly thereafter was about to receive a Th.D. degree in the Old Testament until some thought he found too much evidence for the Holy Trinity in the Old Testament. Pastor Miller is a real Hebrew scholar, and yet writes with a pastoral heart and years of experience in the pastoral ministry. CN highly recommends his books.”

This issue of Christian News has a list and brief summary of some of Pastor Miller’s writings which appeared in Christian News, A Christian Handbook on Vital Issues and the Christian News Encyclopedia.

A GREAT HERO OF THE FAITH

2011-03-24T06:26:00.000-07:00

A Name Written In Heaven
Ignored by Most of Lutheranism But Known to God
A GREAT HERO OF THE FAITH
Christian News, Vol. 49, No. 13, March 28, 2011

“A Great Scholar With A Pastoral Heart!” on page one reports that Pastor Kenneth Miller, the chief theologian of The Lutheran Churches of the Reformation was called to his eternal home. CN is removing about half of the articles already completed for this issue to make room for a special issue on Pastor Miller. Even many Lutherans will ask, Why? Who is Kenneth Miller? He is one of Christendom’s greatest Old Testament scholars during the last 50 years. He has been virtually ignored by both liberals and the organized conservatives in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Those Pastor Miller taught, both children and seminarians, hold him in high esteem. Note “A Great and Good Man” by one of his students from grades 1-8.

This issue includes just a few excerpts from some of Pastor Miller’s many writings. Why was he ignored by most of Lutheranism? A photo in this issue shows Pastor Miller with some of the more than 40 pastors, professors, and laymen who met at Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri, in 1963, to make plans to help restore the LCMS to orthodoxy and remove the liberals at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, CPH and elsewhere in the LCMS. One of those in the photo with Miller is Larry Burgorf who became head of the Schwan Foundation. What a tragedy that Miller was never able to get the necessary support to publicize his excellent writings from any major foundation or insurance company who have poured millions into publishing projects of those who supported the anti-scriptural theology and destructive criticism of the Bible Miller so ably exposed and opposed. They preferred to finance a seminary which called an Old Testament scholar with a doctorate from Seminex who accepted the critical views of the O.T. Miller opposed.

Note “Miller Not Rowold Should Lecture at Concordia Seminary” in this issue.

Pastor Miller and this editor were students at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. For a year or so, he was much too busy working for his Th.D. to get involved in the battle the editor and Kurt Marquart had with the liberals. However, by 1961 he showed great courage when as a graduate student he signed this statement:

RESOLUTION ON THE NEW HAVEN CONGREGATION
Whereas, Trinity, New Haven, has been suspended from Synod by Presidential fiat; and
Whereas, The case has not been presented to the Board of Appeals of the Western District according to 5.25 of the Bylaws;

Whereas, Suspension is not included in the “administrative action” therein mentioned; and

Whereas, Counter-charges have been filed against the President of the Western District; therefore be it

Resolved, that Trinity congregation, New Haven, Missouri, be rightfully considered a member of the Western District of The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod until such a time as the District Board of Appeals shall render a decision in the case; and be it further

Resolved, That this congregation be invited by the District to register its lawful two delegates.

Respectfully submitted,
Rev. Kenneth K. Miller
Walter Dautenhahn
Fred Maetten
Dr. A.M. Rehwinkel
------------
In 1960 Pastor Miller went with Kurt Marquart, Walter Otten and the editor to visit Valparaiso University President O.P. Kretzmann to discuss the teaching of evolution at VU. When the editor expressed concern about the teaching of evolution at Valpo, O.P. had invited Otten to meet with him. Otten took some real scholars with him.

Discover the vast scope of Pastor Miller’s writing’s, then read some of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s writings. CPH lists 10 books by Bonhoeffer in its latest catalog, yet, CPH lists none by Pastor Miller. Read the writings of Pastor Miller in this issue and find out why CN is publishing this special issue on him just as it published special issues and articles when such great Lutheran churchmen as John Behnken, John Tietjen, William Beck, Robert Preus, Jack Preus, Paul Burgdorf, Kurt Marquart, Henry Koch, Siegbert Becker, Raymond Surburg and some others died.

May his faithful wife, six children, 21 grandchildren and now a growing number of great-grandchildren gain comfort by reading what their deceased loved one wrote about “A Blessed Death,” No. 20 in CN’s list of “Some Writings of Pastor Kenneth Miller in Christian News”, pp. 2 and 3.

One of the most significant things this editor can say about Pastor Miller is that, in an age when many pastors have dysfunctional families, his children and grandchildren have remained faithful to God’s Word and are members of confessional Lutheran congregations. May they all rejoice not in what Pastor Miller has done but that he recognized he was a sinner redeemed by Christ. When the disciples rejoiced because of all they had done for the Gospel, Jesus told them: “Only don’t be glad that the spirits obey you but that your names are written in heaven.” Luke 10:20.