From Augsburg with love
John H Sunday 6th May, AD 2007
Josh’s comments on evangelical converts to Roman Catholicism (as quoted in my previous post) have provoked discussion in a number of places, ranging from Kevin Johnson’s highly critical response at Reformed Catholicism, and Michael Spencer’s surprisingly positive comments (“Get out the cameras. I think Pirate’s insight on this entire subject is, frankly, brilliant…”).
Chris Atwood picks up on some of Michael’s other comments to revive a question he has asked before: namely, why are the doctrines characteristic of “Augsburg evangelical” theology only found within those churches that derive from the German and Scandinavian Reformations. In other words, Can you be [Augsburg] Evangelical without being Lutheran?”
There is then a third question, one which Josh posed in the comments thread to Kevin Johnson’s post: why are many Reformed Christians far more scandalised by the Lutheran practice of closed communion than by the equivalent practice in the Roman Catholic Church? My own attitude before joining the Lutheran church could have been summarised as follows: “The Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is blasphemous nonsense, and it is scandalous that they won’t let me participate”. I suspect I was far from unique in this.
All these questions find at least part of their answer in the following: the difficulty many Reformed Christians seem to have in comprehending how different the Lutheran teaching on the Lord’s Supper is from their own, and how this difference then colours all aspects of Lutheran theology and spirituality.
The Lutheran Supper: it’s more different than you think
Reformed Christians who take a “high”, Calvinistic view of the sacraments are undoubtedly far closer to the Lutheran position than the outright Zwinglians sat in the pew alongside them, and so it is Reformed Christians of this sort that I principally have in view here (specifically: me, circa 2001). Such Christians tend to say to Lutherans, “We agree that we receive Christ and the benefits of his saving death in the Supper, so why should we divide over what precise explanation we give for this?”
So for example, Mike Shea at the BHT highlights the third question from the Small Catechism’s section on the sacrament of the altar. Since Calvinists and Lutherans can agree that “forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words“, then “to what degree [does] faith in this promise require believing anything about the bread and cup themselves?”, he asks.
However, this argument misses (or attempts to sidestep, perhaps) the Catechism’s first question:
What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.
Note what we are saying here: the Lord’s Supper IS the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This goes far deeper than simply disagreeing over what happens within the Lord’s Supper. It is not simply that Lutherans say, “At the Lord’s Supper, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ”, while Calvinists say, “At the Lord’s Supper, we feed on the body and blood of Christ as we receive the bread and wine”. If that were the case, the Calvinist argument that the difference between us is one of methodology would carry considerable weight.
Rather, it is a case of saying: if you have bread and wine that are not actually the body and blood of Christ, then what you have isn’t the Lord’s Supper. Full stop. End of story. We’re not disagreeing over mechanisms here: it is a case of saying, “You Reformed Christians say that the bread and wine in your Supper are not the body and blood of Christ. Fine. We will take you at your word. But in that case, what you have is not the Lord’s Supper. So any comparison between what it means and how it works compared with the Lord’s Supper in our churches is meaningless, because we are not talking about the same thing.”
So at the heart of Reformed incomprehension over the strength of Lutheran feelings on this issue is this basic difference: Reformed Christians think the discussion is about what happens at the Lord’s Supper, while Lutherans think the discussion is about what the Lord’s Supper is in the first place.
Mis-underestimating the difference
This “mis-underestimation” of the difference between us regarding the sacrament of the altar then goes some way to explaining the phenomenon that Josh described, of evangelicals going to Rome to find truths that would be far more readily available to them in Wittenberg.
To put it simply, Reformed Christians don’t really think there is that much difference between Lutherans and themselves (the slightly odd Lutheran teachings on the sacraments clearly just being the result of Luther not rethinking his medieval presuppositions with sufficient thoroughness, and his followers being reluctant to contradict him). That is why they are outraged when we reply, “Actually, we think there is, and we think the differences are sufficiently fundamental to necessitate a breaking of altar fellowship”.
But that is also a key reason why Reformed Christians looking for “something different” are going to end up in Rome (or possibly Constantinople): because they don’t see Lutheranism as “something different”. Lutheranism is seen as a synonym for “German Reformed”, and we’ve already had enough of the Swiss/Westminster versions of Reformed theology, thanks. (My own, slightly hazy, view of Lutheranism five years ago was that it was basically middle-of-the-road Anglicanism with longer hymns.)
Is non-Lutheran Augsburg evangelicalism possible?
I think there is another, related, reason why Reformed Christians looking for “something else” tend to overlook Lutheranism in favour of Rome for inspiration, even if they remain in the Reformed churches. Chris Atwood summarises the essence of “Augsburg evangelicalism” as follows:
- Justification by faith alone;
- baptismal regeneration;
- the real and substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood in Holy Communion;
- the relative indifference of polity as defining the being of the church; and
- Scripture as the only binding norm of faith and practice.
Now, this seems to be exactly the sort of agenda that a “Reformed Catholicism” should be pursuing: a return to the mainstream of historical church teaching on the sacraments, while retaining the insights of the Reformation as regards justification and the role of Scripture, and regarding bishops as some considerable way down the list of priorities.
However, as Chris goes on to point out, these five distinctives are, in practice, only found in conjunction with “the whole kit and kaboodle of the Lutheran tradition, from the Book of Concord to Law and Gospel sermons to Waltherian congregationalism to Reformation Sundays to Concordia Press to beer”.
So the invitation to consider the tenets of Augsburg evangelicalism is inevitably heard as an invitation to become Lutherans, in the sense of buying into the whole package. And I can well understand that a Reformed Christian would be reluctant to do this: after all, the LCMS is a very imperfect organisation, and (in the UK) the ELCE, while perfectly formed, is undoubtedly very, very small. In human terms, to become a Lutheran looks very much like edging into an obscure niche, rather than finding the purest expression of the catholic and apostolic faith.
The effect of this understandable reluctance to become Lutheran is that people overlook the insights of Augsburg evangelicalism, in favour of a “Reformed or Rome” dichotomy. When that is the choice presented to us, it’s inevitable that many people will choose Rome, especially when their local Roman Catholic church is five minutes walk away, and their nearest church confessing the Augsburg evangelical faith is an hour’s drive.
The challenge to Augsburg (and other) evangelicals
The intention of this post is not to bash Reformed Christians over the head and say, “You idiots! Haven’t you ever read the Small Catechism?” Rather, the challenge is to Lutherans, to ask how we can engage more effectively in commending the basic principles of Augsburg evangelicalism to Christians from other traditions – not with the aim that they necessarily end up members of Lutheran congregations, but so that these teachings can be a blessing and a help to other Christians even as they remain in their own traditions.
I came within the Lutheran orbit initially through receiving Lutheran insights while still being a Reformed evangelical Anglican. The proper distinction of law and gospel and the doctrine of vocation, for example, are teachings that can be tremendously liberating and helpful for Christians of any tradition. The Lutheran understanding of the Lord’s Supper can attract more opposition, but stands witness to the fact that moving beyond a Zwinglian or even “high Calvinistic” view of the Supper needn’t involve embracing the erroneous teachings of transubstantiation or the “sacrifice of the mass”.
This isn’t about “winning the argument”, let alone winning “converts”. If we really believe these teachings to be true, then we believe them to represent a blessing to all Christians, even if we don’t see any increase in “our” numbers. The spirit we should display is perfectly summarised by Gene Veith in the first chapter of his brilliant introduction to Lutheran teachings, The Spirituality of the Cross: The Way of the First Evangelicals, as he disclaims any intention to engage in “sheep-stealing”:
I think any Christian could draw on the spiritual insights of the Lutheran tradition that will be described here, though of course there will be points of disagreement.
For Reformed (and other) Christians reading this, I would say this: do read the Small Catechism. I’m sure you will find much of it a blessing to you (it’s been described as the only Reformation catechism that can be prayed). It will also help you understand our points of difference more clearly, particularly as regards the sacraments – but even there, I hope you will find a perspective that enriches and challenges your own views of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and makes each of those more of a blessing to you in your own experience. And do read Veith’s book as well: it is superb, and written in a gracious and eirenic spirit.
But equally, it is only fair for me to continue as Veith continues in the paragraph quoted above:
The full dose of Lutheran spirituality can only, of course, be found within the day-to-day life of a Lutheran church … Spirituality, after all, must be lived, not merely intellectualized, and its locus is the mysteries taking place in an ordinary local church.
- Tags: Swimming the Tiber
- Categories: Gospel and Sacrament , Lord's Supper , Lutheranism , Reformed Christianity
- Comments(35)
[...] John H picks up several Beckwith links, and then writes his own good post on the possibility of a non-Augsburgian Evangelicalism. Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 4:07 pm | Trackback | Permalink [...]
John,
I did not know we have some things in common, I was Calvinist circa till 2004.
On the Supper, I have heard of Calvinists saying that the Lutheran practice of closed communion is blasphemous. The main point first is this – is the Lord’s Supper Christ’s body and blood, if it IS, the practice of closed communion is secondary and really not even a problem or at least I think it should not be. My Calvinist brothers want to have their bread and eat it too.
But putting this on the side, I am with you on this program, the Augsburgian worldview does have something to commend and help modern evangelia – it offers them the stability and scriptural understanding of the Christian faith. Hopefully, the old time Lutherans who look at itself as just one of those traditions, don’t mess it up for us.
> “… Mark Shea at the BHT highlights the third question from the Small Catechism’s section on the sacrament of the altar.”
I’m assuming you mean Mike Shea (http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/?s=mike+shea) and that was either a mistyping, or else you are using Dragon and have a Nottinghamshire accent that I hadn’t realised.
It’s a disappointment, since both Jash Brokestreck and I would have rejoiced to see that particular lost sheep http://markshea.blogspot.com/ return to the fold. I even had some doggerel prepared:
“Mary of Matthew 12 would think it impossible
Or else in Hell a very cold day
To hear the truths of the evangelical gospel
Blogged on the web under the name of Shea”
By the way, given that millions of Hal Lindsey-reading American fundoes won’t use bar codes because of Revelation 13, how smart was it for some computing exec to market voice-recognition software under the brand name of “Dragon”?
Tom: Thanks. I’ve been waiting for someone to pick up on that ever since I realised it myself, seconds after hitting “Shutdown” on my PC last night.
I’m sorry your rhyme will have to go back into storage for the moment. Perhaps there could have been some sort of exchange deal, Beckwith for Shea, with perhaps a cash element to balance up one side or another – I’ll let others decide in which direction.
Blimey, I’d not say it’s blasphemous. Perhaps I’m just too polite. I have heard the “hangover from medievalism” line, and I suppose that to an extent I’d have to agree; given my Calvinist credentials, I would find the Reformed view otherwise inexplicable.
“Reformed Christians who take a “highâ€, Calvinistic view of the sacraments are undoubtedly far closer to the Lutheran position than the outright Zwinglians sat in the pew alongside them…”
Or, indeed, presiding over the Table in front of them, which is where it really hurts. It’s one thing to recognise that the people sitting next to you probably don’t realise exactly what an amazing gift they are being given; it really does make me wince when prayers are offered from the front which declare “although these elements are mere symbols…”
Oh, one question about that quote: when you said we’re closer to the Lutheran position than the Zwinglians, did you mean we’re closer you than we are to the Zwinglians, or closer to you than the Zwinglians are?
Blimey, I’d not say it’s blasphemous. Perhaps I’m just too polite.
Well, politeness is an much-underemployed virtue in theological debate, so no problem there.
In my REPA days (Reformed Evangelical Protestant Anglican), my views on the real presence were basically identical to those of JC Ryle, who (in his essay, “Why were our Reformers burned?” – great title, it has to be said) wrote:
There is a voice in the blood of the martyrs. What does that voice say? It cries aloud from Oxford, Smithfield, and Gloucester,- “Resist to the death the Popish doctrine of the Real Presence, under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper!â€
So I’d say that’s a fairly-strongly negative position to hold.
did you mean we’re closer you than we are to the Zwinglians, or closer to you than the Zwinglians are
I meant the latter. As for the former, well that becomes a difficult comparison to make (how long is a doctrine? how wide is a confessional statement?), but on the critical question of “what IS the Lord’s Supper”, it is pretty clear that Calvinists are on the same side of the divide as Zwinglians. Calvinists believe more is going on at the Supper, and that God uses it more actively than is believed by Zwinglians, but you’re in basic agreement that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, and the body and blood of Christ remain in heaven.
Also, I don’t think Calvinists take their view of the Supper as seriously as do Lutherans (I’ve posted on this before, I’m sure, but I’m blowed if I can find the post right now – perhaps you’ll have more luck!). The fact that Calvinists are prepared to grit their teeth while remaining in Zwinglian churches tells its own story, and I think tends to support my thesis that the fundamental, fellowship-determining issue is what the Lord’s Supper is, not what it does.
I’m inclined to say that the highest Calvinistic view of the Lord’s Supper is an attempt to maintain a Lutheran view of the Supper’s effects while retaining an essentially Zwinglian view of the Supper’s nature. A brave attempt, but history shows it is very unstable and quickly “decays” to a more Zwinglian position.
Oh, I see. No, I always thought that the blasphemy of the Catholic Mass was supposed to arise from believing that Christ’s sacrifice was being repeated and offered to the Father by the priest. Whether that’s an accurate representation of Catholic dogma I’m not sure, but holding that position would seem pretty indefensible.
See, for instance, Heidelberg 80, which doesn’t so much condemn the view that the body and blood are under the bread and wine as the conclusion that they are therefore to be adored; as well as the belief that Christ is daily offered by the priest.
Great post. I’ve ventured out of the “reformed” world as you have an have noticed much of what you discuss here. I regret that many within the Lutheran Confession fail to make the distinctions between the Calvinist and Zwinglian views of the supper. However, I also regret that those who hold to a Calvinian position feel comfortable using the words “real presence.” As such, it has been my experience that even those that hold a higher, more Calvinian view of the supper also tend to be Zwinglian in practice (i.e. passing the sacrament down the aisles).
Frankly, in my opinion it sees the Calvinan view is a logically tenuous position to hold. One will eventually (either in practice or dogma) slide to the Lutheran perspective or the Zwinglian. I also find difficulties with those Calvinists who join us in asserting a “theology of the cross” and that God condescends to us but then in the supper assert that we are somehow “glorified” and taken up to heaven to feast upon the ascended Christ. Its odd to me that in this place they don’t mind climbing “jacobs ladder” – especially since it means the worshiper doing what they say Christ can’t do in the supper.
Well, please continue the thoughtful posting.
Phil: the post I was referring to before is here. You might also find this very early post interesting.
Reading Heidelberg 80, I’m not sure it is as open to the Lutheran understanding as you suggest. While the focus is indeed more on the sacrifice of the mass, the reference to Christ being “bodily present” seems to exclude the Lutheran view as well (which was, indeed, partly the point of the Heidelberg Catechism in its historical context).
Actually, you’d be surprised. It wasn’t really written to separate Calvinists from Lutherans, since the Elector, under the terms of the Peace of Augsburg, was forbidden to be Calvinist. Thus, any clearly Calvinist confession or catechism emanating from Heidelberg would have been problematic. It was certainly Calvinistic, but I don’t think it was constructed to be simplistically so.
The history of HC 80 is quite interesting. It was added by Elector Frederick III in the second edition of 1563; it wasn’t in the original. And it was specifically intended to hit Catholicism. Meanwhile, the Catechism as a whole, including its extra Calvinisticum, was defended at the Diet of Augsburg (1566) by the Lutheran Elector Augustus of Saxony as having “no more strayed beyond the Augsburg Confession that had Brenz’s Gnesio-Lutheran Stuttgart Confession in 1559.” [1, p. 81] Of course, that’s all muddied by the Philippism that was doing the rounds, since Augustus was that way inclined.
Completely off-topic, I’ve just heard an article on the Radio Four news about the finishing off the translation of the Bible into Australian Aboriginal Creole. Ties in nicely with your post earlier on.
[1] An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, Bierma, Gunnoe, Maag and Fields. BakerAcademic (2005).
I also regret that those who hold to a Calvinian position feel comfortable using the words “real presence.â€
Ouch. When I serve the Supper in my presbyterian church, I don’t cross my fingers or do metaphysics in my head to affirm that Christ is really present for the communicants. They come forward, take the elements, and I tell them “This is the body of Christ” or “The blood of Christ.” True, the occasional Zwinglian will arch a concerned eyebrow in my direction…
I also find difficulties with those Calvinists who join us in asserting a “theology of the cross†and that God condescends to us but then in the supper assert that we are somehow “glorified†and taken up to heaven to feast upon the ascended Christ.
Double ouch. Now I’m no fan of that Calvinian interpretation of the Supper, but it seems rather uncharitable to interpret Calvin as teaching a theology of glory regarding the Supper. I would agree that the “ascending to heaven” theme is problematic, but I give it little more weight than an indiscreet metaphor. Perhaps Cynthia Nielsen’s series on the subject of the Reformed view of the Eucharist will be worth following.
I think CPA might have brought up the issue of how close the Calvinist doctrine of the Supper can be to the Lutheran if Calvinists never excommunicate Zwinglians. Allowing a man who teaches the bread and wine are symbols of the absent body of Christ in a Lutheran pulpit is unthinkable. Lutherans see such denial as obliterating the gift. But Calvinists are quite comfortable with Zwinglians preaching and administering the sacraments.
When I serve the Supper in my presbyterian church, I don’t cross my fingers or do metaphysics in my head to affirm that Christ is really present for the communicants. They come forward, take the elements, and I tell them “This is the body of Christ†or “The blood of Christ.â€
That’s good to hear, though I’m reminded slightly of JI Packer’s comment on the Calvinist belief in God’s sovereignty in salvation, when he points out that all Christians believe that it is God that saves when they are praying for their own or others’ salvations, and that therefore “a Calvinist is merely someone who professes on his feet what all Christians confess on their knees”.
By the same token, all I’m doing is asking you to profess away from the altar what you confess at it.
Joel: When I serve the Supper in my presbyterian church, I don’t cross my fingers or do metaphysics in my head to affirm that Christ is really present for the communicants. They come forward, take the elements, and I tell them “This is the body of Christ†or “The blood of Christ.†True, the occasional Zwinglian will arch a concerned eyebrow in my direction…
SP: Well, that is good to hear. And in fact, there are some with in the reformed community (i.e. Kim Riddlebarger) who have made a point to affirm the Lutheran interpretation of “is” in Matthew (see his 2006 Maundy Thursday sermon). However, what is given with one hand is taken away with the other. I suppose my question for you would be is how do you reconcile the reformed/presbyterian position on the Ascension with the view that bread and wine “are/is” the body and blood?
Joel: Now I’m no fan of that Calvinian interpretation of the Supper, but it seems rather uncharitable to interpret Calvin as teaching a theology of glory regarding the Supper.
SP: Well, I assumed from your post that you weren’t Zwinglian – what is your position?
Most importantly I don’t think I was being uncharitable to Calvin (who I actually admire in many respects). Also, I wasn’t broad-brushing him saying that all his theology is a “theology of glory”. However, I have troubles when he says we are mysteriously taken “up” to heaven to where Christ is ascended to feast on his body and blood. After all, from the incarnation to the 2nd Advent it is always Christ condescending to us – right? Why the exception with the supper? Unfortunately I think some have built a theology around the sursum corda rather than scripture.
Anyway, back on track. The funny thing about ‘theologies of glory’ is that often the adherents never intended their theology to be such.
Joel: I think spicedparrot has raised a key question here regarding the “theology of glory” versus the “theology of the cross”. Please note in what follows I am not saying “Nyah, nyah! You’re a theologian of glory! Nyah nyardy nyah-nyah!”, just trying to explore further what SP was saying.
The Lutheran view of the Supper is consistent with our “bottom-up”, incarnational approach to how we know and access God. The divine nature of God is remote from us and unknowable (“No-one can see my face and live”), and it is only through the incarnate Christ – “God in the manger, God on the cross” – that we come to access the gracious God. This is *the* central principle of the theology of the cross.
Conversely, to Lutheran eyes, the Calvinist perspective on the Supper appears to turn the Incarnation on its head, by saying that it is the divine nature of Christ that is close and accessible to us, and it is by means of the divine nature that we access the human nature of Christ that is otherwise remote and inaccessible. The idea that we can access God directly in his divine nature is the central principle of the theology of glory, which is why we fear that Calvin’s theology of the Supper is edging in that direction, however inadvertently.
PS – like SP, I’d be interested to know what your view of the Supper is. If not Lutheran, Calvinist, Zwinglian or (I assume!) Roman Catholic, then what?
“The Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is blasphemous nonsense, and it is scandalous that they won’t let me participateâ€.
Your comment reminded me about a time during the first year of our marriage when we were flipping through churches like my daughter flips through the latest issue of a fashion magazine. I did have contact with many, many Lutherans (LCMS variety) and even attended their large church …once. It was communion day, of course. I was heartily offended that “they” were keeping me from the table and used that offense to keep myself from ever considering the church again. Key words: I, me, myself Overlooked words: words of institution from Christ Himself
What I found so interesting in Shea’s response to Pirate’s post on Holy Communion is that he seems to imagine that we Lutherans are carrying around the Book of Concord, studying Luther’s words (a common perception?). Pirate wasn’t quoting Luther alone; he was quoting Luther quoting Christ.
>I’d be interested to know what your view of the Supper is.
Well, I can’t say that I have a treatise-level interpretation of the Supper. In fact, I don’t know if what I think, which is rather child-like, I’ll confess, even rises to the coherence of “a view.” But let me respond by addressing something you wrote earlier
>The divine nature of God is remote from us and unknowable (â€No-one can see my face and liveâ€), and it is only through the incarnate Christ – “God in the manger, God on the cross†– that we come to access the gracious God. This is *the* central principle of the theology of the cross.
And I absolutely agree. The Incarnation is so central to my theological outlook, that it would be accurate to describe me as a materialist. But that would take us to Philosophy Land, and it’s the end of the semester and I’m tired of all those rides right now. (A neocalvinist materialist? The head asplodes…)
But when it comes to the Supper, I’m enough of a covenantalist to insist that the Incarnation concerns not only the cradle and the cross, but the Supper of the Lamb that was one of the central features Jesus enacted during his ministry. Come to the Table…by the Father’s grace. Come to the Table…trusting that you really are invited and wearing the robe and the ring. We can and should explain what it means, the reality of the body and blood presented to us there. But like all good parties and banquets, guests will impose on the Host, they probably cannot reckon the magnitude of Babette’s gift, and the Holiness of the sacrament will turn out to be an inexhaustible source of wonder.
Look, I’m at the kid’s table, I admit it. I’m enjoying what I’ve got there. I hope to mature and sup with the adults, but I don’t begrudge the grownups anything.
>If not Lutheran, Calvinist, Zwinglian or (I assume!) Roman Catholic, then what?
Yes.
Great article. Before I found Lutheran church, I thought there were only two choices as well – Reformed or Rome. Ending up a Lutheran was the last thing on my mind.
The Lutheran church needs their version of a Scott Hahn or Patrick Madrid. Scott and Patrick have convinced many Reformed and “American Evangelicals†that Rome is the answer. Many people who are “crossing the Tiber†should be on the Wittenberg Trail (in fact, I agree that this is what they are really looking for).
After my experiences on the “trailâ€, I created a website to help others on the path (www.wittenbergtrail.com).
Eric,
That is a very interesting and well done site. Thank you for putting that together. I’ll be passing along the link to others. Kudos.
Hey Eric, nice site. However, I suggest putting prominent links to the Small Catechism and Augsburg Confession somewhere. Likewise, Herman Sasse’s “Here We Stand” is a great book introducing Lutheranism as well.
> “some sort of exchange deal, Beckwith for Shea, with perhaps a cash element to balance up one side or another”
Francis Beckwith was born Catholic, so maybe some sinister skull-capped Jesuit lurking deep under the Vatican simply pressed a hidden button on his elaborately bejewelled ring to re-activate FB’s Manchurio-chip implant at a time when it would do maximum damage to the Protestant cause. Indeed, FB’s defection to Rome has pretty much smashed American Evangelicalism fatally. If people defect from your denomination, how can it possibly be the (or a) true church? Oh, wait…
Also, regarding…
> ” both Jash Brokestreck and I would have rejoiced to see that particular lost sheep return to the fold”
… I believe MaRRRRRk Shea (as distinct from Mahk Shea – the R doesn’t disappear when you pronounce the names with an American accent as opposed to a Yorkshah wonn) belonged to quite a different “fold” from the one we would prefer he joined now. I understand that, til about 20 years ago, Mark belonged to some unnamed non-denominational campus group that was so non-denominational that it didn’t believe in any sacraments at all. This has qualified him to write books for the next 50-60 years with titles like An Evangelical Discovers That Luther Was Wrong When He Completely Rejected The Real Presence. “Evangelical” may be disputable, but it’s understandable since A Professional Catholic Apologist Ends Up Agreeing With the Catholic Catechism on X, Y and Z! Who’d Thunk It?! doesn’t have quite the same “man bites dog” attention-grabbing force.
Much the way Pontificator has another 25-30 years of blog posts left in him on the theme of “If the Episcopalian Church of the USA tried valiantly for years to live by Sola Scriptura, but eventually gave up because the Bible on its own is utterly obscure on the question of ordaining practising gays, this shows there is no alternative but to let the Bishops declare the living tradition of the Apostolic Church as they go along.”
> After my experiences on the “trailâ€, I created a website to help others on the path (www.wittenbergtrail.com).
Excellent site! Good critiques of the latest “Evangelical” (= revivalist) fads. Too much of this “theology” is based less on Who Moved The Stone? than on Who Moved My Cheese?.
And re:
> “given that millions of Hal Lindsey-reading American fundoes won’t use bar codes because of Revelation 13…”
Or to make this guy http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077394/ an editor of Christianity Today http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/passion-passionofmel.html?
Spicedparrot – thanks
Josh – thanks for the feedback. Those links are there, but I agree they need to be more prominent. The site will always be a “work in progress”, so if you have any other suggestions or ideas please send them my way.
Tom R – thanks
Thanks John, as a reformed Christan currently attending/visiting a LCC congregation, this was a good post. So good, in fact, that I’m going to link you to my blog…
[...] As Josh rightly pointed out the other day, the distinction between “Lutheranism” and “Augsburg evangelicalism” that my post last week referred to can be “a bit of a mouthful”. In many respects, “Lutheran” remains the best and clearest term, even if it still requires some explanation to make it clear that (i) no, that doesn’t mean we worship Luther, and (ii) we’re talking about teachings, not the cultural stuff that crops up in “The News from Lake Wobegon”. [...]
Thanks for the lengthy post concerning Geneva vs. Augsburg evangelicalism–both informative and gracious without resorting to a lot of the undue polemics many confessional Lutherans have toward Reformed types.
I myself have been really wrestling with the question, “Am I Lutheran or Reformed?” I was baptized, schooled, and confirmed in the LCMS, but I was part of a confessional Reformed (RCA) congregation in college. I feel Lutheranism in my blood, being of German heritage in a beer drinking, German Lutheran-saturated part of Michigan, but I often feel more of Calvin when studying the Bible.
Obviously four areas encompass my continual debates and back-and-forth wanderings: two of soteriology (limited atonement/effective redemption and the perseverence of the elect), in which I strongly favor Reformed views (with a nod toward Douglas Wilson, Peter Leithart, and some of the Federal Vision guys); and two of sacrament (baptismal regeneration and the way in which Christ is bodily present in the Supper).
I’ll probably bookmark and return to your blog often, seeing as how you came out of a “high church” Reformed evangelicalism–exactly where I am now. In the meantime, I’ll keep pestering my other evangelical friends with discussions about infant baptism and using liturgies and observing the church calendar. God bless.
[...] May 15th, 2007 by biblicalchristian I’ve been lurking around Confessing Evangelical’s blog and stumbled upon his post, From Augsburg with Love. [...]
[...] As I mentioned in a recent post, the Small Catechism is great reading for Christians of any tradition. It represents a “mere Christianity” that can be found and appreciated far beyond the institutional boundaries of “Lutheranism”. (See, for example, CraigS’s reference to the catechism he prepared for his sons, based on the Small Catechism.) [...]
[...] This is not a “How?” question for us: it is a case of what the Lord’s Supper actually is. Not merely another context in which Christ is present in a general, spiritual sense, but one in which his body is present in this bread and his blood is present in this wine, which we eat and drink for the forgiveness of our sins. I’ve written about this at greater length on my own blog here. [...]
[...] Well, let’s indeed STOP THERE. I’ve written before about my personal desire being to promote “Augsburg evangelicalism”, not the specific cultural or terminological preferences of “Lutheranism” as a whole. So let us indeed attempt to find an agreed minimum of shared belief regarding the Supper. [...]
[...] Rick Ritchie has almost persuaded me I was wrong (theoblogger in “I was wrong” shock – news at 11!), Dr Philip Cary has swung by and made some very helpful comments (as well as “coming out” as a non-Lutheran Augsburg evangelical ) and Fr Al Kimel has said he “would dearly love to be re-persuaded that Luther was right” about law/gospel. [...]
[...] It’s not immediately obvious to me either why this should be the case, and if I have any “apologetical” aims for this site then it is not to “convert” people to Lutheranism as such, but to promote those aspects of Lutheran theology, such as the “five points”, which can be appropriated with benefit by people of any tradition (just as I benefited greatly from teachings such as law/gospel, vocation and so on long before becoming a Lutheran, and as I continue to benefit from the insights of Christians from other traditions today). I described this in more detail in my post, From Augsburg with love. [...]