Self-Authentication of the Word of God

Following up on my previous post about Karl Bath and the conscience, I read an interesting chapter from William Lang Craig. In it, he explained that both Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann believed in the self-authentication of God's Word. Even though I already knew this, this sentence made Barth's comments on the conscience make sense to me. The conscience, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, through God's Word, is the only thing that can recognize God's Word as it really is.

The Conscience

I have been reading Barth's "The Word of God and the Word of Man." It's a wonderful read; very sermonic at times. However, it did raise a question that I have concerning Barth's view of natural theology.

In the introductory essay, given in 1916, Barth claims that conscience is "the only place between heaven and earth where the righteousness of God is manifest." This statement seems strange, coming from Karl Barth. Both the primary and secondary sources which I have read seem to state that Barth rejected any sort of natural theology.

I guess the question that needs to be asked is: how did Barth change from his early years (1916) to the later years (Christian Dogmatics)?

Sermon for Pentecost 18, Series A

Grace, Mercy and peace be unto you from God our Father, and from Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The basis for the sermon is the Gospel text, especially these words:

"Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." Here ends the text.

To the heavenly citizens sojourning here in Plymouth,

The Gospel reading once again shows us the hatred that sinners have for Jesus. Once again, human reason seeks to entrap the Word made Flesh in a Gordian Knot, a seemingly insolvable problem. However, the sinful mind soon finds out that the words of Jesus, sharp as any two-edged sword, easily cut through such a problem. Thus, those who would be captors are now the captured, and Christ once again astounds us.
But the words of Jesus, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” are more than just a rebuttal to the Pharisees and the Herodians. In the Gospel reading,

JESUS SHOWS US WHAT LIFE IS LIKE FOR A CHRISTIAN IN LIGHT OF THE CROSS.

Jesus’ words, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” are comprehensive. The implications of this statement are not really drawn out, however. So, we must ask the Lutheran catechetical question. What does this mean? What belongs to Caesar and what do I owe him?
Unfortunately, many Christians throughout the years have struggled with this problem and failed to render to Caesar the things of Caesar. Some Christians drift off the path toward the “right.” They seek to dominate Caesar’s kingdom by means of Christianity. The popes are a good example. They seized the power that belonged to kings and emperors. Another example, a little closer to home, is the Puritan emigration. They sought to build a theocracy, the rule of God, here in the new World. John Wintrhop, one of the pastors, preached a sermon where he claimed that they were a “Citty upon a Hill, [and] the eies of all people are uppon us.” And today, we see this tendency among those who would make America a “Christian nation.” These men, while having good intentions, failed miserably and rightly so. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." If you try to establish Christ’s kingdom as an earthly kingdom, you are no better than Peter, who struck off the ear of the high priest’s servant.
Other people, drift off the path to the “left.” They seek to withdraw from government, in order to remain pure and unsullied. Men and women from prominent families went into the desert as monks in order to avoid political office. Or you can look at the Jehovah’s Witness, who refuses to say the pledge of allegiance or fly a flag. While we wouldn’t go to such extremes, don’t we sympathize with them, even just a little? What is the popular, however generalized, conception of the politician? The Politian is a consummate liar, a person with no scruples. The recent sex scandals like Senator Weiner really don’t help to change this picture. Even the word “politics” has become a dirty word, associated with irrelevant wrangling and backstabbing. Why would I want to dirty myself by associating with those crooks in Washington?
These people also fail to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. They tend to view the government as a thing of the devil or as a human arrangement, nothing more. St. Paul destroys these faulty views when he writes in Romans chapter 13, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” You see, a golden chain doesn’t stop being golden, simply because it is being worn by a pig or a monkey. In the same manner, the government doesn’t stop being an institution of God, even when sinful people abuse their God-given authority. Our Heavenly Father has created and preserved the government as his mask in the world. This shouldn’t be difficult to believe, since we believe that God works through means. If Christ gives His body and blood in, with and under the bread and the wine or calls a pastor through men, can Christ not rule through the people of the government? So, this is what it means to render to Caesar the things of Caesar: “Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.”
But why do we need the government? What does the government do that is so important? The government’s primary goal is not to encourage universal health insurance, have a space program, or live a parasitic life on the hard earned cash of its citizens. According to the Scriptures, the government’s goal is the execution of the Law of God: “For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” While it may not seem like it, this is a blessed gift from God. We need someone to bear the sword. Otherwise, we sinful people would be like rabid dogs; we would steal, murder, and pillage with no regard for the consequences. But through Caesar, through the government and civil laws, Christ curbs our sinful desires and keeps us safe from the sinful desires of others.
As long as Caesar doesn’t act contrary to God’s law, we render what is God’s to God when we render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. However, when Caesar forbids the preaching of the Law and Gospel or commands things that are contrary to God’s Law, we must resist. With St. Peter and the apostles, we boldly say “We must obey God rather than men.” This might even mean jail time. This might even mean fines. This might even mean martyrdom. We have been safe in America for a long time, but that could be taken from us at any time. As the sermon last week stated, “The Christian life is a life of obedience to Christ.” This is what it means to render to God what is God’s. It means being willing to suffer all, even death, for the sake of Christ.
Therefore, we live under the government in the same way that Christ lived and we suffer under the government just as Christ suffered. Jesus paid His taxes. He acknowledged the authority of Caesar when He said to Pilate, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.” He submitted to execution, to crucifixion, even though He was guiltless. In the midst of all this suffering, Christ did not rail against Caesar, but committed Himself to the Father, who judges in righteousness. All this was done, so that you might have a better citizenship than you currently have. Paul speaks to this new citizenship: “our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”
So, in this life, render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give all glory and honor to God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. When you fail or give what you owe grudgingly, repent of your sins and take comfort in the One who rendered perfect obedience to both Caesar and God for your sake.

Amen.

Now may the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus, our Lord. Amen.

Walther Movie Review

In honor of the 125th anniversary of C.F.W. Walther’s death, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, has released a 4 DVD collection. This collection includes the 2011 movie, “Walther,” commentaries from historians, the 1938 Walther movie, “Call of the Cross,” and the reflections of past and present presidents from the seminaries and of the synod itself.
Historically, “Walther” was pretty solid. I did have a question about the movie’s opening scene however. There is no date given for the opening scene, but the next scene opens in 1836. How could Walther have been at one of these conventicles, if he was working as a tutor in Kahla, 181 kilometers east? Walther was a student at the University of Leipzig and then a pastor at Bräunsdorf. Both cities are some distance from Dresden, the home of Martin Stephan. Thus, close personal communication as depicted in the opening scene is exaggerated.
Also, some of the hymns sung by the Saxon immigrants were off-base. In the movie, we hear “Silent Night,” “Joy to the World” and “O Come, All Ye Faithful.” I doubt that Walther and his congregation aboard the ship would have sung hymns written by an Independent, Non-Comformist English Clergyman, or an exiled English Roman Catholic. Walther makes that clear in his Theological Opinion of 1883, in which he states: “The singing of such hymns would make the rich Lutheran Church into a beggar that is forced to beg from a miserable sect.” Where are the Lutheran hymns? Where is “From Heaven Above to Earth I Come” By Martin Luther? How about “I stand before Thy Manger Here” or “All My Heart Again Rejoices” by Paul Gerhardt? For a group of conscientious Lutherans fleeing from the “devastated” landeskirche of Germany, these hymns seem a little out of place.
Perhaps a bit more historical context should have been given in order to understand the time in which Walther lived. “Walther” makes us look at the Saxons as Americans, caught up in the idea of religious freedom. No, the Saxons were German Lutherans that were willing to obey and stay within the landeskirche as long as they were free to preach the Gospel. But when the Saxons came, they did not allow their group to “follow its conscience.” They came, not for the freedom of religion, but for the freedom to remain a pure and unadulterated community. The Stephenites were virtually a cult. This is why Stephan was invested as Bishop and given as virtually total control over every facet of the community. A decent reading of Stephan’s Investiture reveals the fanaticism of many of the Stephanites.
Cinematically, the Walther movie was a B movie. The acting wasn’t impressive and the documentary-style interviews made the movie choppy. The plot was sluggish. But how can it be otherwise, when the climax of the story is the Altenberg Debates? To me, it seems that the producers tried too hard to make it historically accurate, and, as a result, the plot suffered.
A better alternative would have been to make a History Channel style documentary of Walther. Have clips of the historians speaking, and then cut to pictures of prominent people and places with good narration. Have a few action scenes, but not very many. I say this because the historians are the shining stars of this 4 DVD collection. They are interesting and they put Walther in his proper context. All in all, I think Concordia Seminary should have saved its money and merely updated the 1938 version of Call of the Cross.

What is this thing We call Humanity?

I just read a nice blog post by one of my friends about the hypocrisy of care givers who abort unborn infants. This is is terrible problem that is occurring in many "civilized" nations. And, in many ways, it goes much deeper than the murder of unborn children. Certainly that is awful, but it is only the symptom of a much deeper problem.

This deeper problem is this: What does it mean to be human? This question has led to the deaths of millions upon millions of people in the 20th century.

Now, for most of the philosophers since Aristotle, rationality has been the hallmark of humanity. Even Luther says that "it is certainly true that reason is the most important and the highest in rank among all things and, in comparison with other things of this life, the best and something divine" (Vol. 34, 137-139). But defining humanity by rationality has its limitations. The unborn, the very young child, the person stricken with Alzheimer's are all people that could not be included in this definition of humanity.

I think that Luther has a good solution. Thesis 35 and 36 are very good: ". Therefore, man in this life is the simple material of God for the form of his future life." And again, "Just as the whole creation which is now subject to vanity [Rom. 8:20] is for God the material for its future glorious form."
If you get a chance, read his "disputation on Man," from Vol. 34 of the American Edition of Luther's Works.

Doesn't Christendom Get You Down?

Last week I was in Buxtehude, visiting some long lost relatives (our common ancestor lived in the 1770's). They were very nice people, and allowed me to stay with them. They took me around to many different sites in Hamburg, and around Hamburg.

Neither one of these people are regular church going people. The Husband is not baptized and is not a member of the state church. The wife is a member of the state church, and goes on Christmas and confirmation. The reason that the wife is a member is interesting: "It is part of our heritage and our history."

This is what Christendom (as opposed to Christianity) is devolving into. There is no real faith or conviction. It is the mentality, "We do it because our parents do it and we are expected to do it." This same mentality is creeping up on the American churches. This "cultural" Christianity chokes out faith, suppresses the pure proclamation of the Word, and turns the rites of the Church into a "religious" baby shower (Baptism), or into a coming of age milestone (confirmation).

Why the Lectionary?

As I was reviewing my blog, I saw that I had a presupposition when dealing with the lectionary. The question should be asked: "Why have a lectionary at all?"

Limitations of a lectionary (ones that I've heard from congregations not having a lectionary):
1. The Bible, in its entirety, is not preached on.
2. One does not have the ability to preach to the needs of the congregation.
3. There is a hermeneutic of any lectionary.

My responses:
1. It is impossible for a parson to preach on the entire bible. Even if one were to preach everyday, One could never exhaust the riches of the biblical text. The question is not whether a pastor preaches on every verse of the bible. The question is: How do these verses proclaim both law (our sin and inability to be righteous) and Gospel (In other words, Christ: Who is our Righteousness). Preaching is not a lecture on the more obscure Christian truths. Preaching is meant to kill the old Adam, and then raise Him to new life in Christ. This is also called, by my friend Rev. Dreyer, the Divine narrative. For more info, Read Walther's "The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel."

2. This objection is usually used with the word "relevance." These preachers want to speak to today's world. The lectionary is old and dusty. What could it possibly answer for us today?

Well, we must come to the realization that the Word of God is not "relevant." Relevance comes and goes. Here is a quote that explains what I mean:

"We note . . .a certain detachment in Jesus' attitude toward contemporary events and the secular problems and policies of His day . . . We will do well, therefore, as disciples of Jesus, to imitate His attitude toward the external and contemporary and secular life of the world. We will not allow our minds to be too much occupied or enmeshed in the vexing questions of the day. We will keep ourselves informed concerning these, but we will not become so preoccupied with present-day problems which perplex, disturb, and harass the mind."-- From the Minister's Prayerbook

In other words, to use contemporary events (homosexuality, etc) as your lectionary is to be driven from below. We must be guided from above, with that "peace which passeth all understanding."

3. This point is valid, in many respects. A pastor must be careful of what the creators of the lectionary were thinking. What did the makers leave in, and what did they take out?

But, at the same time, this can be a very good thing too. If the hermeneutic is Christ and His work (divine narrative), then we can trust and appreciate this lectionary.


All in all, lectionaries are human traditions. They are not infallible or perfect. Different lectionaries have been used at different times for different purposes. I will continue with another post on the positives of the lectionary shortly.