Gmail - [CB] The Papacy and Lutheranism - jacobthanni@gmail.com

Gmail - [CB] The Papacy and Lutheranism - jacobthanni@gmail.com


[CB] The Papacy and Lutheranism


July 27, 2008

Greetings Cyberbrethren:

"The Reformation's greatest weapon against Rome, was not Rome's
errors, but Rome's truths" said John Nevin, a prominent American
Lutheran theologian in the 19th century. It is precisely because of
this reality that confessional Lutherans continue to assert the
teaching of the Lutheran Confessions that the Papacy is the
Antichrist. And it is precisely for the sake of the truths of Rome
that we vigorously reject and condemn the errors of Rome. Further,
Nevin's statement is a caveat to heed carefully that we never throw
the baby out with the bathwater even as we point out the grave errors
inherent in the Papacy.

The most vigorous rejection of the office of the papacy in the Book of
Concord is found in this portion of the Smalcald Articles. Luther
asserts that the Papacy is the Antichrist. This is a statement that
shocks most modern Christian ears, striking many as an outrageous
excess of rhetoric. Confessional Lutherans must be sensitive to the
degree to which this assertion in our Book of Concord is deeply
offensive to other Christians when they learn of this teaching. Care
must be taken not to imitate the high-volume polemics of the
Reformation era in a context where, regardless of what we think of it,
high value is placed on civility, politeness and courtesy—qualities
obviously not understand in the same way in Luther's day where there
was a much greater degree of "rough and tumble" in the way Christians
addressed issues and those with whom they disagreed. This is not to
suggest, even for a moment, that we are to back away from this
teaching in the Lutheran Confessions, no, not at all. But it is to say
that we must be careful to be very clear on what we mean, and what we
do not mean, when we continue to assert that the Papacy in Rome is the
Antichrist.

This roundtable post will be longer than others posted so far,
because, in my opinion, this is such a sensitive issue, yet such a
very vital one. I've noticed even among confessional Lutherans a
tendency to want to dismiss the assertion Luther makes here as
historically conditioned. While it is most certainly true that the
assertions in this article are historically conditioned and some do
not even pertain anymore, at the heart of Luther's argument is an
issue that is still very much alive and well and of essential, vital
importance: the issue is the Gospel of Christ and how that Gospel is
confessed, and to what degree the Gospel is properly understood and
believed. That is the heart of Luther's argument here and it is why,
to this day, we must continue to confess the antichristian nature of
the office of the Papacy.

Let us be very clear what we are not saying with this assertion. We
are by no means suggesting that within the Roman Catholic Church there
are no Christians, or that everything taught and heard in Roman
Catholic congregations is anti-Christian. No, quite the opposite is
the case. It is precisely because we recognize the Gospel is preached,
taught and heard in the Church of Rome, and that the Sacraments are
validly administered, that we are all the more concerned to point out
as clearly as we can what, precisely, in the Roman Church runs so
deeply contrary to the Gospel. That is the animating passion in this
article in the Smalcald Articles: the doctrine of justification by
grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ, alone. But
that there are dear Christians in the Roman Church is undeniably true!

It is therefore important for Lutherans to understand precisely what
this teaching is all about and to take care when explaining their
beliefs to other Christians, particularly Roman Catholics. Simply put,
the historic teaching of the Lutheran Church, as stated here, is that
the office held by the particular men chosen to be pope is the
fulfillment of what Paul warns the church about in his second letter
to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2:3): a man will seat himself in the
church of God, as supreme ruler, and claim that his teachings are
God's teaching, making himself thus, effectively, equal to God.
Elsewhere St. Paul warns the Church to be on watch for those who enact
rules and requirements, like forbidding people to marry and ordering
the abstention from certain food (1 Tim. 4:3). We are warned that such
movements in the church will result in things like. The person and
office that continues, to this day, to best fit this description, is
the office of the Papacy in Rome, which continues to claim for itself
supreme rule and ultimate doctrinal authority in the Christian Church
on earth. At the time of the Reformation, the Papacy claimed not only
ultimate authority in the church, but also claimed authority in the
realm of civil government. A couple helpful documents from The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod help to explain this teaching. In
response to a question from a non-Lutheran about the historic Lutheran
teaching concerning the Antichrist, the LCMS' Frequently Asked
Questions site states:

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any
individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist.
The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows
by the Synod's Theological Commission: "The New Testament predicts
that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists
(Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2
John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ's Word are
opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ."
However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic
"Anti-Christ" (Dan. 7:8,11,20-21,24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1
John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical
identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions'
identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose
official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed
above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction that
the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy)
and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be
Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person's heart.
Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the
Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by
these marks would rise. In a footnote, the Commission adds: To the
extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons
and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for
instance, the doctrine "that justifying faith is nothing else than
trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it
is that trust alone by which we are justified," the judgment of the
Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist
holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility,
under God's guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements
(e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on
"Justification by Faith") could lead to a revision of the Roman
Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.

These things are well said, but of course we know that Rome continues
to insist on the historic definition of the doctrine of justification
as specified at the Council of Trent and, to that extent, remains in
the gravest of error regarding the very heart of the Gospel of Christ
itself. And this is the main point of this article in the Smalcald
Articles. The reason the Papacy was so strongly opposed, and why to
this day we must continue to reject and condemn the office and its
powers is precisely because of how it conflicts with the Gospel. Here
is the mystery of lawlessness and the degree to which Satan works

It is claimed by by the majority of the mainline/liberal form of the
Lutheran Church as typified by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America and other large state churches in Europe and Germany that the
differences between Rome and Lutheranism on Justification were
resolved by the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.
This claim is clearly refuted in an excellent monograph on this issue
that was prepared by both Missouri Synod seminaries with the Missouri
Synod's Commission on the Doctrine of Justification. It is essential
reading on this point. The other essential book that must be read is
Rev. Dr. Robert Preus' Justification and Rome. It is a penetrating
analysis and summary of the critical difference between Rome's
understanding of the Gospel and the Scriptural teaching of the Gospel.

And lest we think it was only Missouri Synod theologians playing the
role of eternal party-poopers in ecumenical dialogs, we need to
remember that a large number of the most prominent members of German
theological faculties also pointed out the failings of the JDDJ. Here
is a quote from an article about this:

While sharp critiques from conservative Protestants in the United
States did not constitute a hot news flash, the reaction of over two
hundred Lutheran theologians in Europe (primarily from German
universities) was somewhat of a surprise. Prior to the signing of JDDJ
they issued a "Position Statement of Theological Instructors" which
set forth seven points of objection to JDDJ. Among the signatories
were eighteen professors from the University of Tubingen (hardly a
bastion of conservatism), including Peter Stuhlmacher, Martin Hengel,
and Otto Betz. Among their objections was that JDDJ promulgates an
essentially Catholic view of justification.

And here is the text of the useful FAQ on the JDDJ available on The
LCMS web site, which yours truly authored at the time of the release
of the JDDJ:

Q. I would like to understand the main problem your church body
has with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification
(signed October 31 by representatives of the Lutheran World Federation
and the Roman Catholic Church). Is it the fact that it implies that we
are saved as a result of both faith and works?

A. Yes, you are on the right track here. The recently signed Joint
Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) does not signal a
change in the Roman Catholic church, but rather, a willingness on the
part of the Lutherans who signed it to allow Rome's doctrine of
justification to stand as a valid interpretation of what the Bible
teaches us about justification. This is something that the Lutheran
church has never done before, and in fact, it is a great tragedy and a
profoundly sad moment in the history of Lutheranism.

Rome historically has always taught that we are saved by grace,
and grace alone. They emphasize that very strongly. The 16th century
Council of Trent makes this point very clear. Thus, there is nothing
new on this in the Declaration on this point, even though some
Lutherans have made it sound as if Rome's words about grace signal
some marvelous breakthrough.

What you probably have not heard is that the JDDJ very carefully
avoid precise definitions of the words grace, faith, sin, etc. That is
no accident. Careful definition of those terms would have shown how
far apart our two churches actually are on the doctrine of justification.

The problem with Rome's view of justification is that they view it
as a process, whereby we cooperate with God's grace in order to merit
eternal life for ourselves, and even for others (that is a paraphrase
of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches). They view grace
as a sort of "substance" that God infuses into us that permits us to
do those works that are necessary in order that we might earn more
grace. The Bible describes grace as the loving and favorable
disposition of God; in other words, grace is all about what God is
doing and giving.

We distinguish between the result of justification, which is the
Christian life, and the work of God to save us. Rome mixes
sanctification with justification. Why is this view troublesome?
Because it teaches that something other than trust in Christ is
necessary for or salvation. That "something other" is what we bring to
the table. And the only thing we do bring to the table is our sin, not
our good works. Our works are a response that God works in us, but not
a contributing cause to our justification.

The Roman Catholic Church is very careful to state that even this
"something other" is made possibly only because God has given us the
"initial" grace to desire more grace. But in practical reality, it is
apparent that the Roman Catholic Church is finally throwing people
back on relying on what they are doing, or can do, to merit eternal
life. When we mix in our works in the picture of our salvation, the
glory and merit of Christ always end up becoming obscured.

But the Bible is clear that it is purely by grace, not by works,
or else grace would just be a "help" for us to do the works that
finally are what merit God's forgiveness. In the Roman Catholic view,
justification is a process by which we participate with God in
achieving our salvation. The Biblical view is that justification is
God's declaration of our complete righteousness and total forgiveness,
apart from any works. This gift is received by faith alone--apart from
works (Rom. 3:28; Eph. 2:8-9).

Another point to be made is this: If, in fact, Rome does teach
justification as the Bible teaches it, then there should be an
immediate change in its view of indulgences, prayer to the saints and
the myriad of other extra-biblical traditions that it has embraced.
For if justification is the heart and center of the Bible, then these
other things are incompatible with it.

I hope this helps you see that the Roman Catholic view of
justification and the classical Lutheran view are definitely not
complementary, but diametrically opposed to one another. The JDDJ did
not change that fact. The Lutherans who signed the document did not
insist on careful definition of terms so as to make absolutely clear
that our salvation is by faith alone, through Christ alone, by grace
alone.

The best short study of the historic differences between Rome and
Lutheranism on the doctrine of justification is available in a book
called "Justification and Rome" by Robert Preus. You may purchase a
copy of this book from Concordia Publishing House (CPH) (800-325-3040).

The most complete treatment of this subject is in the 16th century
Lutheran response to Trent, which still stands today as the best and
most complete treatment of Trent by a Lutheran. It is "The Examination
of the Council of Trent" by Martin Chemnitz, also available through CPH.

And it is not only Lutheran groups that have clarified precisely what
the JDDJ means, and does not mean. Here is the Vatican's own very
carefully clarification and caveats issued at the time the JDDJ was
being hailed as a great "breakthrough" by certain Lutherans. Read this
carefully and you will see the extent to which claims that the
differences between Rome and historic Lutheranism have been "resolved"
are entirely false, as anyone with even the most elementary
familiarity with the Lutheran Confessions will be able to see in the
statement below.

From the Vatican statement issued at the time the JDDJ was announced,
this from Cardinal Cassidy:

Under the title "Declaration" it is clearly stated that "a
considerable agreement has been reached" on a question that has been
for centuries so controversial. Indeed "it is rightly stated that
there is a consensus in fundamental truths of the doctrine of
justification". At the same time, the Catholic Church is of the
opinion that we cannot yet speak of a consensus such as to eliminate
every difference between Catholics and Lutherans in the understanding
of justification. And as a matter of fact the Joint Declaration itself
refers to some of these differences.

Under the second heading "Clarifications", the Catholic Church
indicates several points that need further study. The major
difficulties are to be found in paragraph 4.4 of the Joint Declaration
concerning the justified person as sinner. We have some difficulty in
seeing how the explanation given in N° 29 regarding the Lutheran
understanding of the justified person as sinful can be fully
compatible with the Catholic doctrine explained in N° 30. The Lutheran
explanation seems still to contradict the Catholic understanding of
baptism in which all that can properly be called sin is taken away.
Concupiscence remains of course in the justified, but for Catholics
this cannot be properly called sin, while in N° 29 it is stated that
for Lutherans it is truly sin. Moreover, the Statement in N° 22 that
"God no longer imputes to the justified their sins" does not seem an
adequate explanation of the Catholic understanding of the interior
transformation that takes place in the justified person. The term
"Opposition to God" that is used in NN° 28-30 is understood
differently by Catholics and Lutherans and so becomes, in fact,
equivocal. For these reasons it is difficult to see how, in the
current state of the presentation, given in the Joint Declaration, we
can say that the Lutheran doctrine of "simul iustus et peccator" is
not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decrees on original sin
and justification.

One of the most discussed points in the Joint Declaration has been
the question considered under N° 18, concerning the Lutheran
understanding of justification as criterion for the life and practice
of the Church. For Lutherans this doctrine has taken on an altogether
particular significance. The Joint Declaration states clearly that for
Catholics also the doctrine of justification "is an indispensable
criterion which constantly serves to orient all the teaching and
practice of our churches to Christ". Catholics, however, "see
themselves as bound by several criteria" and our Note indicates what
those criteria are by stating that, "according to Scripture and
already from the time of the Fathers of the Church, the message of
justification has been organically integrated into the fundamental
criterion of the regula fidei, that is the confession of the one God
in three persons, christologically centered and rooted in the living
Church and its sacramental".

The Catholic Church has noted with satisfaction that N° 21, in
conformity with canon 4 of the Decree on Justification of the Council
of Trent, states that man can refuse grace; but it must also be
affirmed that, with this freedom to refuse, there is also in the
justified person a new capacity to adhere to the divine will, a
capacity that is rightly called cooperatio. Given this understanding
and noting that in N° 17, Lutherans and Catholics share the common
conviction that the new life comes from the divine mercy and not from
any merit of our own, it is difficult to see how the term "mere
passive" can be used by the Lutherans in this regard, and how this
phrase can be compatible with the affirmation by the Lutherans in N°21
of the full personal involvement in faith. A clarification would
therefore seem necessary in order to determine more exactly the degree
of consensus achieved in this regard.

The Catholic Church also maintains with Lutherans that these good
works of the justified are always the fruit of grace. But at the same
time, and without in any way diminishing the totally divine
initiative, they are the fruit of man, justified and interiorly
transformed. We can therefore say that eternal life is, at one and the
same time, grace and the reward given by God for good works and merits.

In pursuing this study further, it will be necessary to treat also
the sacrament of penance, through which the sinner can be justified anew.

And then in a third section, the Note indicates some Prospects for
Future Work. The hope is expressed that the present important step
forward towards agreement on justification may be followed by further
studies that will make possible a satisfactory clarification of the
divergences that still exist, some of which concern aspects of
substance and are therefore not all mutually compatible, as affirmed
on the contrary in N° 40. Particularly desirable would be a deeper
reflection on the biblical foundation that is the common basis of the
doctrine of justification both for Lutherans and Catholics.

And the Note finally expresses the wish that Catholics and
Lutherans might seek to find a language which can make the doctrine of
justification more intelligible also for the men and women of our day.

9. In conclusion, I wish to stress that the consensus reached on
the doctrine of justification, despite its limitations, virtually
resolves a long disputed question at the close of the twentieth
century, and on the eve of the new millennium. It is a response to
Pope John Paul II's appeal in Tertio Millennio Adveniente that "the
approaching end of the second millennium demands of everyone an
examination of conscience and the promotion of fitting ecumenical
initiatives, so that we can celebrate the Great Jubilee, if not
completely united, at least much closer to overcoming the divisions of
the second millennium" (N° 34), and will be an enormous encouragement
to Catholics and Lutherans as they continue to work in the years ahead
for the visible unity to which the Lord is calling us. Indeed, it will
be an encouragement to the whole ecumenical movement. It will show
that patient work to overcome difficulties through dialogue can
achieve results that go far beyond what could have been hoped for when
the dialogue began.

And of course there is this illuminating response from the Vatican
prepared by the man who is now Pope. Note particularly the very
telling affirmation of precisely the very doctrine of Rome that is so
vigorously and consistently rejected and condemned in the Lutheran
Confessions as the direct contradiction of the Gospel that it is:

1. The major difficulties preventing an affirmation of total
consensus between the parties on the theme of Justification arise in
paragraph 4.4 The Justified as Sinner (nn. 28-1,0 ). Even taking into
account the differences, legitimate in themselves, that come from
different theological approaches to the content of faith, from a
Catholic point of view the title is already a cause of perplexity.
According, indeed, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in baptism
everything that is really sin is taken away, and so, in those who are
born anew there is nothing that is hateful to God (3). It follows that
the concupiscence that remains in the baptised is not, properly
speaking, sin. For Catholics, therefore, the formula "at the same time
righteous and sinner", as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29
("Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins
through Word and Sacrament ...Looking at themselves ... however, they
recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in
them..."), is not acceptable.

This statement does not, in fact, seem compatible with the renewal
and sanctification of the interior man of which the Council of Trent
speaks (4). The expression "Opposition to God" (Gottwidrigkeit) that
is used in nn. 28-30 is understood differently by Lutherans and by
Catholics, and so becomes, in fact, equivocal. In this same sense,
there can be ambiguity for a Catholic in the sentence of n. 22, "...
God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit
effects in them an active love", because man's interior transformation
is not clearly seen. So, for all these reasons, it remains difficult
to see how, in the current state of the presentation, given in the
Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on "simul iustus et
peccator" is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on
original sin and justification.

We also need to recognize, as Rome rightly notes, politely yet
bluntly, that the Luthreran World Federation can not be regarded as an
entity that in fact represents or speaks for world Lutheranism. In
fact, at the time the JDDJ was being pushed by the LWF Executive
Council many member churches of the LWF did not approve it, or sign
on, or vote to adopt it. The Vatican says:

We need finally to note, from the point of view of their
representative quality, the different character of the two signataries
of this Joint Declaration. The Catholic Church recognises the great
effort made by the Lutheran World Federation in order to arrive,
through consultation of the Synods, at a "magnus consensus", and so to
give a true ecclesial value to its signature; there remains, however,
the question of the real authority of such a synodal consensus, today
and also tomorrow, in the life and doctrine of the Lutheran community.

Therefore, when we today read this article in the Smalcald Articles we
need to keep in mind that the severity of the rhetoric reflects the
reality Luther and his fellow reformers were experiencing at the time:
the Roman Papacy was engaged in literal warfare against those who
disagreed with Roman Catholicism. They were torturing and putting
people to death for affirming the Biblical Gospel. Today we can be
thankful that there the extravagant claims made for Papal authority on
heaven and on earth are no longer being made by the Papacy, and we
praise God for any movement more toward the proclamation of Christ
that we do see and notice in more recent Papal sermons and addresses;
however, the most fundamental error of Romanism remains: the claim
that we are not saved by grace alone through faith alone, but that we
are saved through a mixture of faith plus works. The Pope continues to
insist on his universal authority in the Church.

We rejoice that we have much in common with our fellow Christians in
the Roman Catholic Church. Because of what we have in common, we are
committed to working toward true reconciliation of our important
differences. We can not support the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine
of Justification because it does not actually reconcile the
differences between Lutherans and Roman Catholics concerning the most
important truth of Christianity. What is that truth? God loved the
world so much that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live a perfect
life in our place and to die for our sins. God declares us to be
totally righteous and completely forgiven because of the life, death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God gives us eternal life as a free
gift through trust in Christ alone. The Roman Catholic Church teaches
that something more than trust in Christ is necessary for us to be
saved. It teaches that we are able to merit, through our works,
eternal life for ourselves and others. We believe this teaching
obscures the work of Jesus Christ and clouds the central message of
the Bible. Therefore, despite what has been reported in the public
media about the Lutheran-Roman Catholic declaration, very significant
differences remain in regard to how we understand salvation, a fact
that the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges. We pray for genuine
reconciliation of differences among Christians. Our church is intent
on working for the day when the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ is
proclaimed with one voice. We will continue to work toward true
reconciliation.

I ask for your kind indulgence, dear reader, as I wax a bit
autobiograpical at this point in this post.

Why Separation from Rome is Still a Tragic Necessity

Some time ago, word went out that the Papacy might be considering
lifting the charge of heretic against Martin Luther. This rumor was
squelched. In the course of talking about it with a friend, we were
going back and forth about our feelings about Rome and the Papacy. I
offered him these more personal reflections on my experiences with
Rome and what a truly painful thing it is to recognize that
Lutheranism and Romanism must be, and remain, separate. In light of
the Pope's coming trip to the USA, I thought I would share these
thoughts, with a few modifications, more openly here:

The reason I have such strong feelings of frustration and, yes, anger,
with the errors of Romanism is precisely because there is so much in
the Roman Catholic Church that I love and cherish. "Tragic necessity"
is no mere polite soundbite to me, nor to many other faithful Lutheran
Christians. We cherish the Gospel that is read and heard in Roman
Catholic Churches whenever and wherever it is read, or preached. We
cherish the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar which is given and
distributed in Roman Catholic Churches. We love and cherish these
things in spite of the errors that obscure the glory and grace of God
in the mercy of Christ.

I developed close friendships with many Roman Catholics growing up in
the Deep South where Lutheran and Roman Catholics were but two sides
of the same coin in the view of Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. There was
a shared history and experience of liturgy and church history that was
unknown to many, if not all, Bible fundamentalists.

I attended a Roman Catholic High School and was so deeply moved and
impressed by the nuns and priests there who taught us everything from
typing (thank you Sister Mary Jean!) and drilled us to death in
English and grammar (thank you Sister Mary Margaret!). I loved Latin
class when Father Pine, S.J., would wander in and engage in Latin with
our teacher, and when he actually corrected my writing one day,
walking up and down the rows of desks, "Ah, excuse me, Mr. McCain, but
you seem to have a certain fondness leaving your "t's" uncrossed and
your i's undotted." As my face grew red, I was able only but to agree
and say "Yes, Father. You are right."

And I recall Father Foley regaling us with tales of youthful episodes
with a certain "fair lass" in Ireland, where he hailed from, and I
recall listening to him and Sister Mary Ellen rattle away back and
forth in Gaelic, their mother tongue, the mother tongue of my
ancestors as well.

And they even gave a Lutheran kid best religion student of the year
award, twice in a row! And I have the warmest memories of all of the
many kind notes and remembrances from the priests, sisters and
brothers who, in their own dear ways, encouraged me to become a
Lutheran pastor, with quiet conversations, even whispered in some
cases. We shared a love for Christ!

But as for the institution and public doctrine of the Roman Catholic
Church, here is where the tragic necessity of separation becomes a
reality.

But I sat seething through four years of Masses where the Gospel was
terribly obscured with all manner of nonsense that one can only
imagine that would be possible in the mid-seventies, with people
trying to impress teenagers attending Mass. (It became so bad the
Bishop announced he would no longer conduct mass at our high school
until the behavior in Mass got better!).

For these very personal reasons, in addition to my passion for
theology, I've been deeply concerned and interested in Roman
Catholicism for years and feel such a kindred spirit with the Roman
Church, but also at the same time, such a heart-wrenching separation
when I watch the Gospel not really proclaimed sweetly and clearly.

Tragic necessity, indeed. Lord, have mercy.

While it is necessary to read and understand this particular article
in the Smalcald Articles with the errors of Rome clearly in view,
there is also much to be gained from this article in addition to that.
Read and applied to the situation even within our Lutheran Church
raises opportunities for introspection, confession and repentance. How
and when can situations arise in any church where the Gospel is
obscured and the authority of a man, or men, is elevated over and
above that of Christ and His Word? While the Papacy is still rightly
identified as Antichrist, is the Papacy alone antichrist? What are
other modern-day "antichrists" that threaten the church? In what sense
is any threat to the Gospel the spirit of Antichrist at work in the
Church today?

Note: for references for the quotes in this article, go to my blog
site:
http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/cyberbrethren/2008/07/the-papacy-is-the-antichrist-the-continuing-necessity-and-validity-of-this-lutheran-confession.html

Will Hutton: Rebel bishops threaten the very heart of our liberal traditions | Comment is free | The Observer

Will Hutton: Rebel bishops threaten the very heart of our liberal traditions | Comment is free | The Observer


Rebel bishops threaten the very heart of our liberal traditions
All comments (79)

* Will Hutton
*
o Will Hutton
o The Observer,
o Sunday July 6, 2008
o Article history

'Let's at least agree on one thing, God is a hypothesis.' That's what one of my professors used to say. 'Your hypothesis may be different from mine, but if you insist it is superior because you have a better line to God than me, it leads to nothing but bitterness, rancour and even war. The best course is mutual toleration - live and let live.' But then, Jonathan is an Anglican.

Anglicanism is a liberal tradition central to the very conception of Englishness, but it finds itself under mounting threat. Last Sunday around 300 Anglican bishops, largely from Nigeria, Uganda and Australia, but including at least one from England, issued the Jerusalem Declaration. They no longer accepted that the Archbishop of Canterbury led the Anglican Church.

Claiming the mantle of true Anglicans, they insist they will be guided only by the church's founding documents, notably the 39 Articles of 1563. They would establish a new governing council of primates who would lead a voluntary fellowship of 'confessing' Anglican clergy and laity (Foca) who would assert these fundamental principles, of which the most important was not ordaining gay priests.

On the face of it, this is schism - a challenge by rebels to the constitution and principles of the Church of England. Around a third of the church's worldwide bishops, representing some 30 million out of 70 million adherents, intend to establish a church within a church. The timing of the Global Anglican Futures Conference (Gafcon) which produced the Jerusalem Declaration was not accidental. It came a fortnight before the 10-yearly Lambeth Conference starts on 16 July, the most important event in the Anglican diary.

This is where every Anglican bishop has traditionally gathered to renew common bonds, pray together and deliberate over common challenges. Now they will be reduced from 900 to 600, with the Gafcon bishops saying they will boycott Lambeth. They want more missionary zeal, although the flashpoint is Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams's refusal to discipline the American church for ordaining a gay bishop in 2003 which, they say, is directly against biblical instruction. The Lambeth conference has been organised by Anglican liberals who even welcome the deviant Americans back - and has been structured to take no hard decisions. They will stay away.

The mutual enmity and sense of betrayal is profound. Williams has said the rebels' proposed institutional changes are wrong and wants them to call a halt to their plans. So far, only one English bishop, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, has joined Gafcon, but the movement could join a growing evangelical fundamentalism at home. For example, Gafcon has allegedly earmarked two theological colleges, Oak Hill and Wycliffe Hall, as potential training grounds for its priests.

Gafcon's challenge is a toxic mix of doctrine laced with resentment of what its leading movers see as colonial subordination to Canterbury's liberal imperialism. Sydney's archbishop, Peter Jensen, a Gafcon driving force, is not just anti-gay, he carefully ensures there are no women priests in his diocese. The British Empire is over politically, he says, it should now end religiously. Nigeria's archbishop Peter Akinola, one of Gafcon's founders, also passionately deplores the ordination of gay priests. He likes Canterbury's authority no more than Jensen. These are fighters for freedom and the Bible, even while protesting their devotion to Anglicanism.

The row about the role of Church of England in an era of secularism and falling congregations has been rumbling on for decades. The emergence of Gafcon and Foca could trigger a full-scale crisis, notwithstanding their roots in Africa, Asia and Australia, because it gives the English fundamentalists powerful allies.

Yet in purely English terms the ordination of women priests and bishops, along with the eventual ordination of gay clergy, is inevitable. The genius of the Church of England is that because it is the official church it has to include the universe of all the English - Christian, agnostic and atheist of whatever sexual orientation. It represents the cultural heartbeat of the country, and as the country has become more progressive so has it.

This is not just a precious institution at individual moments of crisis. Anglican priests are bulwarks for a cluster of values - tolerance, mutual respect, kindness, altruism, redemption - wherever they go in the communities they serve. I've never met one I did not respect enormously. In some social housing estates they are the only decent non-official figures people encounter. And even if God is only a hypothesis, it is crucially important that the country's leading religious institution is liberal.

Williams understands this. The popular view is that he is an ineffectual, hand-wringer who is risking the break up of the Church of England. I disagree. He obviously has a responsibility to try to keep the worldwide Anglican church together if he can. But he has a greater responsibility to the genius of Anglicanism - its capacity to reconcile Christian faith with the lived lives of the English and in so doing transmute religion into a powerful liberal, rather than reactionary, force.

Neither need his strategy of gradualism and inclusivity fail. For the Gafcom revolutionaries, for all their unpleasant views, remain very Anglican in their fundamentalism. To declare adherence to the 39 Articles, whose core purpose was to ensure it is England's monarch, not the Pope, who ordains priests, will lead them to the same place as Williams if they could but see it. The Anglican church moved with the sexual times in the 16th century, founded to free English kings from papal bans on whom they married, loved and divorced. It is moving with the sexual times in the 21st century by preparing to ordain gay priests and women bishops.

People who believe in the 39 Articles, even if they live in Lagos, Kampala or Sydney, can not ultimately stray very far from Lambeth. Gafcon's bishops should leave the Church of England if they had the courage of their convictions, but they love its tolerance too much to do that. And the liberal English, whatever divine hypothesis they favour, should not allow Williams to fight alone. If we don't want bigots running our liberal church, we'd better show it more support. One step might be to turn up for the odd service.

Muslim-Christian dialogue can succeed only by recognizing realities: Tariq Ramadan | TwoCircles.net

Muslim-Christian dialogue can succeed only by recognizing realities: Tariq Ramadan | TwoCircles.net

The Church that came to Malabar by Renuka Narayanan, Hindustan Times

The Church that came to Malabar

The Road to Damascus
July 04, 2008
Renuka Narayanan, Hindustan Times

July 04, 2008
First Published: 22:34 IST(4/7/2008)
Last Updated: 02:19 IST(5/7/2008)





A few days in Syria, ‘Land of Prophets’ for the 2000th anniversary of St Paul’s birth made me realise the original eastern character of Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox Church was the main player there, with priests and journalists from Russia, Romania, Bulgaria and of course, from all over the Middle East, especially Bilad-al-Sham (Syria-Lebanon-Jordan, which was one country until the British carved it up).

I found myself having strange, intense and wonderful conversations with many men in black. At first they thought I was a Syrian Christian from India and when they discovered I was Hindu, a hail of questions flew at me about the philosophy, customs, manners and ceremonies. My point, made first at the Maaloula Church, where Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is spoken, and thereafter wherever I could, was this: “In an increasingly mutual world, please let us re-nuance correctly and politely. Let’s not use words like ‘pagan’, ‘heathen’, ‘idol-worshipper’ and ‘unbeliever’. Instead, why not say ‘non-Abrahamic religions’ until we think of a better term to describe Hinduism, Buddhism and the rest of us?” Interestingly, several ‘Abrahamic’ people there seemed open to the idea.

The language of Christian prayer in Syria at the various services I attended was Syriac (Arabic and Aramaic). They were so deeply musical and prayerful that I was moved to tears. Hearing Arabic words like mahabbat (love) and rahman (merciful) made you recall that Christianity was the big religion of that region first.

Back home in Delhi on Friday, I heard the fascinating history of the Syrian Christian community in Kerala from Father Sam Koshy of Kottayam, a Marthoma (Reformist) priest. It’s the tale of ‘direct’ Christianity in India from its land of origin, the Middle East, different from the blonde, blue-eyed colonial English/American version of recent centuries.

As you know, St Thomas (the doubter at the Last Supper) is said to have come to Kerala in 52 CE and founded seven churches. Kerala has a narrative tradition of this small historical presence. Then, in 345 CE, Thomas of Cana (from Syria) brought the Syriac liturgy and rituals to Kerala in a big way.

In 823 CE, another group of Syrian leaders called ‘Mar Sabarisso’ arrived in Kerala. Those were the days of turf wars between the three South Indian Hindu dynasties of Chola, Pandya and Chera. The new Syrian group made friends with the Chera king (of the present Kerala region). In addition to the existing Syrian Christian centre at Kodungallur, they set up, by 825, a supplementary capital at Kollam (Quilon). The Malayali Christian calendar thus begins at 825 CE!

Since the Syrians had a good grasp of Middle Eastern currency and commerce, the Chera king gave them special privileges (‘cheppedu’) as business enablers. With the negotiating skills and social savvy of their Jewish heritage, the Syrians influenced many in Kerala and built up a strong middle class of Malayali Christians.

In the eighth century, the Brahminical community of Kerala got organised and ritualised and in a parallel move, so did the Syrian Christians. Their culture was and is an eclectic mix of Dravidian, Brahmanical, Jewish and Syriac.

Along came the Portuguese Catholic, Vasco da Gama, in 1499 and a process of Latinisation began that climaxed a century later in 1599 with the Portuguese local boss, Alexis de Menezes, organising the Council of Udayanperoor (near Kochi), where all Syriac religious books were summoned and ceremonially burnt: shades of the Inquisition. The benefit was socio-political unity. The flipside was the emotional loss of language.

In 1755, the East India Company came to Kerala and in 1795, the first British Resident moved in. By 1800, the huge British territory of the Madras Presidency was a fact and in 1810, Parvati and Laxmibai, the queens of Travancore who ruled by British grace and favour, awarded ‘Dewan Pattam’ (prime ministership) to a smart gora called Colonel Munro, who set up the secretarial system of administration in Kerala.

In 1816, Munro also founded Kerala’s first theological seminary (with 300 gold coins), to ensure a well-educated clergy. The sambar thickened further with liturgical differences in 1836, 1908 and in the 1950s. In sum, there are now three groups of Syrian Christians: Syriac-Latin (Malankara), Syriac-Greek (Jacobite and Orthodox) and Syriac-Malayalam (Marthoma aka Reformist). It is natural to want to pray your own way and keep your own culture. And under ‘the burning sun of Syria’, you refresh both the particular and the universal with the thought, “Inna lillahi wa inna elaihi raaze’un.” ‘O God, we are Yours and verily unto You we return.’