The Word at Work Magazine - Fall 2015

Fall 2015 Vol. 4. 3 & 4

Inside this Issue: Pg. 3 – A Letter From the Senior Editor Look What God is Doing Rev. Doug Morton Pg. 16 – While You Were Out Dr. Eugene W. Bunkowske Pg. 20 – Bible Studies The Exclusivity of Jesus Christ Leon Miles Pg. 26 – A Word for the Theologian Christ, Exclusivity and Truth Conditions Dr. Dennis Bielfeldt

1

Board of Directors Honorable G. Barry Anderson Senior Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court

Rev. Dr. Fred Baltz Pastor, St. Matthew Lutheran Church, Galena, IL

Dr. Eugene Bunkowske Emeritus Professor, Concordia University, St. Paul, MN Retired Missionary Rev. John Bent Pastor, Christ Lutheran Church, Whitefish, MT

Debra Hesse Agribusiness Owner and Manager, Moses Lake, WA

Staff Dennis Bielfeldt – President president@ilt.org Carl Deardoff – Web Development and Video Productions cdeardoff@ilt.org Doug Dillner – Classroom Technical Support ddillner@ilt.org Threasa Hopkins – Assistant to the President thopkins@ilt.org Leon Miles – Comptroller and Director of Admissions lmiles@ilt.org Doug Morton – Dean of Educational Ministries dmorton@ilt.org

Dr. Hans J. Hillerbrand Emeritus Professor of Religion, Duke University

Denia Murrin – Office Assistant dhaynes@ilt.org

Dr. Mark Mattes Professor of Philosophy and Theology, Grandview University

Colleen Powers – Library Clerk

Rev. James T. Lehmann, STS Pastor, Immanuel Lutheran Church, Thomasboro, IL

Rev. Janine Rew-Werling Pastor, Hosanna Lutheran Church, Watertown, SD Fred Schickedanz Real Estate Developer, Calgary, Alberta Dr. Phil Wold Retired Physician, Mankato, MN

David Patterson – Librarian and Registrar dpatterson@ilt.org

Tom Sandersfeld – ILT Ambassador tsandersfeld@ilt.org Marsha Schmit – Advancement Facilitator mschmit@ilt.org Constance Sorenson – Congregational Relations Coordinator csorenson@ilt.org Jonathan Sorum – Dean of Academic Affairs jsorum@ilt.org Kara Swenson – Library Assistant

Timothy J. Swenson - Dean of Student and Religious Life tswenson@ilt.org Eric Swensson – Social Media and International Relations Coordinator eswensson@ilt.org Ethan Wiese – Print Productions ewiese@ilt.org

605-692-9337 www.ilt.org Fax: 605-692-0884 910 4th Street Brookings, SD 57006 2

A Letter From The Senior Editor

When God works, He does far more than we expect. This is what happened for the Institute of Lutheran Theology (ILT) between Sunday, October 4 and Wednesday, October 7 at the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC) Annual Gathering in Frisco, Texas. ILT was represented at this event by its President, the Rev. Dr. Dennis Bielfeldt , the Rev. Timothy Swenson, its Dean of Student and Religious Life, the Rev. Douglas Morton, its Dean of Educational Ministries, and the Rev. Eric Swensson, Tom Sandersfeld, and Constance Sorensen. We “hit the ground running” from the moment we arrived.

The first thing on the Agenda was a “Mission Festival,” hosted by ILT, and held between 3 – 5 p.m. on Sunday for those arriving early for the Gathering. Greetings were given

by Dr. Bielfeldt, while Rev. Morton gave a presentation on ILT’s Educational Ministries and how it is expanding in North America through its Certificate Programs’ partnership with Lutheran Church of the Master in Omaha, Nebraska, through its partnership with Morningside Lutheran Church in Sioux City, Iowa to provide lay education for the area surrounding Sioux City, as well as working with Morningside’s Lutheran Asian Missions (LAM) for educational outreach in Southeast Asia. Rev. Morton also spoke about how ILT will be partnering with St. Matthew Lutheran Church, Galena, Illinois in the area of Outreach Education. Rev. Martin Lalthangliana, Mission Director and Interim President of the Lutheran Church of Myanmar (Burma), gave a presentation on the work his church body is doing in his country. Rev. Lalthangliana was in the United States at the invitation of ILT to discuss ways ILT can provide theological education to pastors and church workers in Myanmar.

During the four-day Gathering, ILT also answered questions and gave out various materials on the school at its table in the Display Room. Rev. Tim Swenson, and wife Dale, answered questions for those who stopped by the table.

Both ILT’s Eric Swensson and Tim Swenson gave workshops at the Gathering. In addition, Dr. Bielfeldt, Rev. Morton, Rev. Swensson and Tom Sandersfeld sat in many meetings with Lutheran leaders from around the world who wished to partner with ILT in some way in order to make Lutheran theological education available in their parts of the world. At the meeting was also Rev. Lalthangliana from Myanmar, Rev. Thomas Thorstad, missionary to Southeast Asia, Rev. Tom LoVan, associate pastor at Morningside Lutheran Church and head of

Lutheran Asian Ministries, as well as Rev. Darrin Vick, Senior Pastor at Morningside Lutheran Church. From this meeting we conceptualized a plan for beginning the “School for Asian Lutheran Theology” (SALT) to cover five Southeast Asian countries. The school would utilize the expertise of ILT and its faculty, while also using qualified instructors in each country, and technology provided

by LAM. In addition, ILT was asked by representatives from Africa and India if it was possible to do something similar in their part of the world. Both Dr. Bielfeldt and Rev. Morton started conversations with these groups.

While at the Gathering Rev. Morton and Tom Sandersfeld also met with Rev. Jordan Long, President of the Lutheran Church of South Sudan (LCSS), in order to make final plans for their Mission Trip to Ethiopia (October 26 to November 10). While in Ethiopia Rev. Morton preached on several occasions and taught pastors and seminary instructors at LCSS’s Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Gambella, Ethiopia. The Mission Team also brought medical supplies for South Sudanese Refugees and theological books for Trinity Lutheran Seminary Library.

We went to the Gathering with the expectation that God would work, but, once again, God has shown how He “is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think” (Ephesians 3:20; ESV). Exciting things developed from the Annual Gathering. We ask for your prayers as we seek to go through these doors that the Lord seems to be opening for us. We also need your prayers so we can expand our educational ministry further throughout North America, and – as it seems to be the direction God is leading us – throughout the world.

When God works, He does far more than we expect.

In Christ,

Rev. Douglas V. Morton Senior Editor The Word at Work

3

Contents Pg. 3 – A Letter From the Senior Editor Look What God is Doing Rev. Doug Morton Pg. 5 – ILT News Pg. 8 – I Believe (part 2 of 12) Dr. Jonathan Sorum Pg. 10 – Has the Church Lost its Saltiness?

Constance Sorenson Pg. 12 – Lord of the Tax Dr. Frederick W. Baltz Pg. 14 – One–Way Luther Rev. Eric Jonas Swensson Pg. 16 – While You Were Out Dr. Eugene W. Bunkowske Pg. 18 – Is This Really What We Want to Do With Social Media? Really?

Rev. Eric Jonas Swensson Pg. 20 – Bible Studies The Exclusivity of Jesus Christ Leon Miles Pg. 24 – Book Review “THE BIBLE: Twice Denied by James Kallas” Rev. Timothy J. Swenson Pg. 26 – A Word for the Theologian Christ, Exclusivity and Truth Conditions Dr. Dennis Bielfeldt Pg. 30 – The Uniqueness of the Gospel Rev. Douglas V. Morton 4

ILT NEWS Sent from ILT Three students from the Institute of Lutheran Theology graduated this fall. David Patterson, Dwight Schramm, and David Jay Webber had their graduations approved. Upon the recommendation of ILT's faculty, their names were presented to the Board at the end of July and the Board acted affirmatively.

With their graduations approved and diplomas signed, these students awaited their graduation ceremony. ILT arranges the graduation ceremony to take place where and when it is most convenient for the student. Oftentimes ILT sends someone out to the congregation in which the newly-graduated student is serving. A service of graduation is held there during a regular Sunday service, or as the student and congregation arrange it.

Already this summer past, Rev. Timothy J. Swenson, Dean of Student and Religious Life, has been in Kerrville, TX where a graduation service was held at Zion Lutheran Church for John Harrison.

He was awarded his Pastoral Ministry Certificate at the January Board Meeting and his graduation was arranged for June 21st at Zion Lutheran with his pastor, Rev. Mike Williams.

This fall, David Patterson had his graduation ceremony at Pioneer Lutheran Church, White, South Dakota. Dr. Jonathan Sorum, Academic Dean, conferred upon him a Master of Religion degree on behalf of the Board and Faculty of the Institute.

Two other graduations occurred in September. On September 27th, in Greenville, Ohio, Dr. Dwight Schramm received his Pastoral Ministry Certificate.

St. Paul Lutheran Church and its pastor, Rev. Peter Mencke, hosted the service. Rev. Swenson from ILT presided. The service was fallowed by a reception.

September 29th marked the graduation of the first student from ILT to obtain its Master of Sacred Theology degree: Rev. David Jay Webber. He met with Rev. Swenson in Minneapolis to receive his diploma during that mid-week service.

(Above) David Patterson is presented his Master of Religion diploma by the Dean of Academic Affairs, Jonathan Sorum.

(Below) Rev. Timothy J. Swenson, Dean of Student and Religious Life, awards John Harrison with his Certificate of Pastoral Ministry.

5

ILT NEWS Educational Ministries to Work with Congregations

T

he Institute of Lutheran Theology is not only concerned with Graduate Education, but with Lay Education as well. As a result, ILT is partnering with several Lutheran congregations in the Midwest.

First, ILT and Lutheran Church of the Master (LCM) in Omaha, Nebraska are currently working together to enhance ILT’s Certificate Programs among immigrant and international Christians living in the Midwest. LCM is helping develop ILT’s outreach in its Certificate Programs by opening its facilities for ILT’s Certificate Programs. The Rev. Douglas Morton, ILT’s Dean of Educational Ministries, will be working closely with the Staff of Lutheran Church of the Master as more Certificate Programs are developed for lay people and church leaders. These programs and classes will not only be held online as they are now, but pastors, teachers, and lay leaders will also be able to come to LCM to get onsite, face-to-face training and classes. We are already doing this with Sudanese pastors in the area who come twice a month to LCM for four hours worth of face-to-face classes taught currently by Rev. Morton.

We are not only reaching out to Lutherans, but to pastors in other Christian communities who gather for good, indepth education in Bible, Bible Doctrine, Church History, and Pastoral Theology. This group of immigrant pastors will complete their training and receive the “Ministry Certificate” at the end of next summer. Rev. Morton is excited about all of the possibilities for educational ministry through its partnership with LCM. We will also be holding one day seminars for pastors and lay people on topics of importance for congregations. Short, four to six week classes will also be held for laypeople on topics and subjects of interest to the laity.

6

Second, ILT is partnering with Morningside Lutheran Church (MLC) in Sioux City, Iowa for starting a lay ministry educational program there, as it reaches out to the Sioux City area (which takes in Northwestern Iowa, Northeastern Nebraska, and Southeastern South Dakota). Professors from ILT will go down to MLC to teach classes for laypeople. We will also be working with Rev. Tom LoVan, one of the pastors at MLC, in reaching out to congregations in Southeast Asia. Rev. Morton is hoping to travel with Rev. LoVan to Southeast Asia on one of his next mission trips.

Third, ILT is partnering with St. Matthew’s Lutheran Church, Galena, Illinois to begin a new Christian Outreach Certificate program which ILT is developing with the help of St. Matthew’s Senior Pastor, the Rev. Dr. Fred Baltz. Our goal for beginning the first “onsite” class (which will also be offered over the internet) will be next Spring.

If your congregation is interested in an “onsite” location for lay classes and certificate classes, contact Rev. Morton at (605) 691—4576 or at dmorton@ilt.org.

God has been opening many doors for ILT as we seek to work with congregations in various Lutheran church bodies.

ILT also has opportunities to work with church bodies around the world to help them in educating pastors and teachers. Already we are working with the Lutheran Church of South Sudan. Rev. Morton and ILT’s Ambassador, Tom Sandersfeld, went to Ethiopia for two weeks beginning Monday, October 26. They met with members of the Lutheran Church of South Sudan, and Rev. Morton taught pastors, church leaders, and seminary instructors at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Gambella,

Ethiopia. On September 26, ILT brought in Rev. Martin Lalthangliana, the Mission Director and Interm President of the Lutheran Church of Myanmar. Rev. Lalthangliana preached at several congregations in the U.S. and attended the LCMC Annual Gathering in Dallas, Texas.

One of the reasons ILT brought him in was to work out an arrangement between ILT and the Lutheran Church of Myanmar so that ILT would be able to send instructors to Myanmar several times a year to teach pastors and others in this small, but growing church body.

The Institute of Lutheran Theology has come a long way since its small and humble beginnings. Five years ago, President Dennis Bielfeldt of ILT, wrote an article entitled, “The Institute of Lutheran Theology: Out-ofthe-Box Theological Education.” At the time, Dr. Bielfeldt was speaking about ILT’s live online education. And, while live online education is still something we do here at ILT, our “out-of-the-box” thinking has taken us down paths that only God knows where they will eventually lead us. What is plain to see is that the Institute of Lutheran Theology is here to stay, not only among North American Lutherans, but among the Christian Church worldwide. We have brought on the Rev. Jenina Gatnoor, a Sudanese pastor in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to help us with cross-cultural educational ministry and with our outreach to immigrant pastors and congregations. Who among us would have thought God would lead us in these directions? Yet, He most certainly has, and we invite you to come along as we seek to touch the lives of many throughout North America and the world. We would love your prayers. And, we would love your financial support.

But, above all, we would love for you to come along on this ride with us as we watch what God is doing among us. We are looking for more congregations throughout North America and the world with whom ILT can partner to make Theological Education available to pastors, teachers, Christian education directors, youth and family ministry evangelists, and all laypeople, so God’s church might be grounded in Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God. Through this Jesus, we can make a difference in people’s lives, not just for time, but for eternity.

(Above) Rev. Doug Morton and Rev. Jenina Gatnoor.

Doug Morton, third from left, with Rev. Kip Tyler, fifth from left, senior pastor of Lutheran Church of the Master, and Sudanese students in Omaha.

7

8

H

ere is the heart of the matter. We believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, only if we believe in his only Son, Jesus Christ. And we believe in Jesus Christ only when we know and confess him as our Lord.

But who wants to have a lord? I like to think of myself as a free agent: I make my own decisions. I decide what is good for me. I decide what I’m going to believe. I certainly don’t want a lord ordering me around, telling me what to do and what to believe!

So we would rather deal with Jesus on our own terms. We might be willing to acknowledge him as a good man and a great teacher of moral and spiritual truths. We might even be willing to “believe” that somehow he is someone God sent to help us know him. But Jesus rejected the title “Good Teacher,” and claimed to be nothing less than the Son of God. And in the end, he purposely threw away his life because he thought that’s what God wanted him to do.

Accepting him as a “good teacher” or mere spiritual guide is not an option. There is no middle ground.

Either we have to reject him as a blasphemer or a lunatic, or else we have to fall down and confess that he really is “our Lord.”

So now God has us on his terms. In Jesus Christ he became our Lord by humbling himself and dying on a cross and now he is exalted at the right hand of God, so that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:10-11) When we confess this line from the Creed, our knees bend now! We confess that the “I” who wants to be a free agent has died and Jesus has become our whole life. “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (Galatians 2:19-20) What wonderful news! We have a Lord and that Lord is this one and no one else, Jesus Christ, the Father’s only Son. So we are truly free, free to live with him as the beloved children of “God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.”

Note: This article is the second in a twelve-part series on the Apostles’ Creed, which will continue in following issues of The Word at Work.

9

By Constance Sorenson

John 14:6

Jesus says, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” Do you believe what He said? Is Christ the only Way for salvation? Is he Our Way to heaven and eternal Life? If we believe that, how do we deal with our neighbors or co-workers who are Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jewish or Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist? Where are they going if they do not believe that Jesus is the Only Way? This causes many believers to pause and think. If we believe that, how can we share what we know to be true so that they, too, will share the same destination? Some leaders of other faiths think we are “climbing the same mountain.” But of course we are not. Some Christians believe that as long as people believe in something and that they are “good people”, God will make exceptions. But that is not what God’s Word says! When I pointed that out to a fellow Christian, her response was, “Yeah, but that’s just the Bible!” As Christians, we believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Nothing has changed since Christ said, “I am the Way…” Christ died for all but not all have accepted this gift of grace. They believe that by their own power and strength they can cleanse themselves of all sin, evil thoughts and deeds and somehow make it to heaven by their own merits. If that were true, then of course, Christ died for no reason.

Do you have control over every thought you have towards your loved one or your neighbors? No, envy, jealousy, prideful thoughts take control and no matter what you do to rid yourself of them, they persist and come back time after time. You see, God knew that we were powerless to take care of this problem called Original Sin, so He did something 10

about it. John 3:16 says it very clearly. He loved us so much that He sent His only Son to die in our place so that we may live with Him for all eternity.

He wants us back in His garden spending time with Him as He did when He created us.

Now we know that God’s Word still stands, yet we live in a very different world than we did fifty years ago. Our nation was based on Christian values, morals and standards that no longer exist today.

Christianity is being attacked from every direction and the world says we need to be politically correct and learn to tolerate each other and their beliefs.

What sounds right, instead forces us to deny the Truth as we know it. We ourselves cannot make others believe as we do. Yet we must not forsake God’s Word just in order to get along with our neighbor.

Solomon received the gift he asked for from God…wisdom.

Solomon was very wise and judged the people according to what God commanded. BUT then he began to mix his politics by marrying women from other faiths and allowed them to bring with them their gods. It wasn’t long before Solomon was sacrificing to these false idols right along with his wives. Are we not doing the same thing, but not seeing the slippery slope of toleration for all faiths at the expense of our own?

We cannot, nor should we, force someone to believe what we believe. Yet we must hold fast to what we know. Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through him. It’s that simple.

We didn’t make up that Jesus is the Way, God did, and we either believe, or we will turn our back on God’s Word.

The Church has been called to be the “salt and light of the world.”

We know the importance of salt as it enhances flavor and acts as a preservative. We know that salt is used to cure and to heal. If the Church is being the salt it is called to be, it may cause some people to react and protest just as putting salt on an open wound is going to sting. It will be painful before it begins to heal. We sense the Church is wounded and has been torn apart in many places. The Church is having to wrestle with issues like, gender identity, same sex marriage, serial marriages, divorces, broken and single parent families, along with the devaluing of marriage. Christians no longer hold God’s Word as the center of their faith, their measuring stick.

When we bring the purpose of the Church back to its mission to proclaim the gospel, we are going to offend some, step on the

toes of others, and make many people uncomfortable. However that is what we must do for the sake of His kingdom here on earth.

We are called and commanded to “go, teach and baptize.” We are to go to Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria and to the ends of the earth proclaiming the good news.

Christ came into this world to shed His Holy and Precious Blood that we may be cleansed from sin.

And He died and rose again so that we might live with Him forever.

“The Church has been called to be the “salt and light of the world.”

11

W

e have all seen actor William Devane.

Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are Whether in his Cessna flying over a canyon, free. However, not to give offense to them, on a golf course demonstrating a swing, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the or riding horseback on a ranch, he tells you that the first fish that comes up, and when you government bailed out Wall Street, but not to expect open its mouth you will find a shekel. Take any such favors, and that you would be better off to that and give it to them for me and for invest in securities of precious metals. One option is yourself.” coins. “What’s in your wallet?”

A little-used text from Matthew (17:24-27) Some would say this story belongs in the category provides a unique perspective on coins, government, of legend, because of the miraculous appearance and Jesus as Lord. of the required coin in the mouth of a fish. Walk through the fishing aisle of your Walmart and notice

When they came to Capernaum, the how many lures are manufactured to be shiny. In collectors of the two-drachma tax went fact, fish have been caught with coins later found up to Peter and said, “Does your teacher inside them, no doubt when coins were accidentally not pay the tax?” He said, “Yes.” And when dropped overboard and fish were attracted to the he came into the house, Jesus spoke to flash made by the sinking coins. Still, that the first him first, saying, “What do you think, fish caught following Jesus’ instruction to Peter would be carrying such a payload secures the Simon? From whom do kings of the earth miraculous nature of this story. But the miracle is take toll or tax? From their sons or from not the point. This story is not about improbability; others?” And when he said, “From others,” it’s about identity.

12

Jesus clarifies for Peter that he, Jesus, is exempt from taxes because his true place is among—really above—the world’s rulers, none of whom pay taxes.

In the previous chapter Peter has confessed that Jesus is the Messiah. The rest of the world doesn’t know this yet, but it’s true. Kings don’t pay taxes.

Then we learn that what is true for Jesus is also true for Peter! The coin is to cover his share of tax as well. By extension Peter is free from having to comply with the demands of inferior kingdoms, because he belongs to the Kingdom of God over which Jesus is Lord! In this Kingdom of God the rulers of the earth have no jurisdiction. All citizens of the Kingdom of God are exempt from earthly rulers’ taxes, because they belong to a Kingdom as real as any other on earth which, unlike those others, will last forever.

That idea has a subversive ring to it! As Luther wrote in The Freedom of a Christian, “A Christian is the perfectly free lord of all, subject to none.”

But didn’t Jesus say, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesars…(Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25)?” Yes, however his words did not mean what so many now think. Coins with images stamped on them were considered idolatrous by Jews, and Jesus was saying in effect: Send those evil coins back where they came from. That is a far different message from: be sure to pay your rightful share of taxes to the nice government agents. Jesus’ answer to his opponents that day did not endorse the payment of taxes to Caesar, but rather allowed it by rejecting the tax money itself. That is why (1) his opponents were amazed, (2) why his answer didn’t result in his arrest, and (3) why the crowds who hoped in Jesus did not find in his words a trace of capitulation to the oppressor.

Still, Jesus complied with the tax in our Matthew story so as not to give offense. That is important, too. Kingdom citizens aren’t supposed to be looking for a fight. Luther wrote as well - “A Christian is the perfectly bound servant of all, subject to all.”

This particular coin presented no burden to anyone. It was lost, out of circulation, coming out of nowhere to appear in the mouth of a fish. No one had to earn it, and then give it on behalf of Jesus or anyone else.

What’s in your walleye? Not a coin that miraculously appeared, no doubt. You have had to work for the money with which you pay your taxes.

If Jesus is right, as a citizen of the Kingdom, you

really don’t owe taxes. But so as not to give offense we pay our taxes in the spirit of Jesus’ words, and of Romans 13:6, “For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God.” In Christ the Christian is both free lord and bound servant.

But what kind of an individual says such things? C. S. Lewis’ words come to mind, “Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”1 I am glad that we quote the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) more frequently than we used to. I hope we hear the preceding words just as clearly. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” No one else has made such a claim, nor has any demonstrated the right to make it. Jesus Christ is unique in all of history.

1. Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster [Touchstone Edition], 1996), 56.

13

There is no shorter way to the Father except that we love Christ, hope and trust in him, boldly look to him for everything good, and learn to know and praise him. For then it will be impossible that we should have a miserable, frightened, dejected conscience; in Christ it will be heartened and refreshed. ---- Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 51, p. 46.

A

merican Christians have been warned that our religious freedom may be imperiled by the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. We were warned of this by no less than the Chief Justice in his dissenting opinion. Only God knows how this will all work out, but we can speak to one thing with utmost certainty: This is but one more cultural battle lost because of our failure to present a convincing argument. Perhaps it is impossible to convince the secular world on such issues. Indeed, all we are required to do is to state what it is that we believe.

Stating what we believe used to be easier. In an age when a leader comes to his own defense with, “It depends on what you think the meaning of ‘is’ is,” we have to deal with relativism. Also, we live in a time of schism and warring factions in church and culture and may hardly ever be sure what we mean by ‘we’.

The church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord, so says the beloved hymn, and it is still true. Yet, it is not the case that we agree on who Jesus is. While marriage and family are terribly important, the person and work of Jesus Christ is a much more fundamental concern. It is primary.

Everything else is derived from this understanding.

So our primary problem is not a recent ruling. The situation that demands attention is, “Who do you say I am?” Yes, Jesus asked that of Peter, and it is a living voice that all who love Him hear, but in an age of ‘isms’ there are many who have no clear answer. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6 ESV). However, many do not hear “except through me”.

14

In an age of “isms”, how does one proceed in convincing Christians of the necessity of Christ? One might hold that there is no need. If a theologian, or a preacher, is going around saying there are many ways to God other than Jesus – contrary to Jesus’ own words – then there is little hope for that person. Yes, but it is not only these preachers who cause us concern. People we know, people in our own congregations and families, may be skeptical on this point also. Souls are in danger.

We must work continually to find arguments that reach people today.

If people are not convinced by Jesus, then it is rather doubtful that Martin Luther will persuade them. Yet, I would argue that in getting to know Luther and his writings better, we will find some help. A Lutheran pastor once told me, “Luther helps me be a better Christian.” I found that to be a refreshing way to look at the Reformer. Rather than use Luther as an authority figure to bolster our own point of view, we look to him as a guide when thorny thickets block the path. We need guides these days. Our churches and our culture are split. Recently I was made aware of just how great this split is when someone referred to a certain kind of person – someone very much like me I suppose – as “theological police”. The context was that people were tired of being told what to do, and they should be free to go and have the kind of church they want without having to worry about the “theological police.”

The problem is, the church requires good doctrine.

In many ways, the church is no longer able to confront culture because the church is the culture. Church members may not be able to see it because they are so very close to it. Pastors and lay leaders may not be able to see it because they have come to believe that getting new members is the goal of what we do as a church.

However, the purpose for the church has not changed.

The church really does need good doctrine. I recently heard of a church that was no longer going to read the Bible in its worship services. The Bible was just too unpredictable. People got upset. You might think I am kidding, so let me tell you a true story. I was talking to another pastor on the phone, and I asked my friend how it was going at his church. I know him and the congregation quite well. He told me things were not very good. There was a recent problem, and an upset member had complained to the Church Council. It seems that on a Sunday around Christmas, he had been giving a children’s sermon. In this sermon he said that when Mary had become pregnant with Jesus, she was not married, and that brought shame to her. However, Joseph married her anyway because an angel appeared to Him in a dream and told him it was Okay. A relative had gone to that worship service with the member, and the relative was a young woman who was also pregnant and unmarried. The church member was outraged at

the pastor’s lack of discretion.

How long will it be before our preachers are urged to have more discretion and say that Jesus is only one way to eternal life? One wonders.

Let us see what guidance Luther might have for us. Below are some passages taken from Luther’s Small Catechism.

On Jesus:

At the end of the Small Catechism, Luther placed some Christian ‘Questions with Their Answers’ for those who intend to go to the Sacrament. Included in these questions and answers are the following:

Do you hope to be saved?

Yes, that is my hope.

“I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, In whom then do you trust? begotten of the Father from eternity, In my dear Lord Jesus Christ. and also true man, born of the virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed Who is Christ? me, a lost and condemned creature, The Son of God, true God and man. delivered me and freed me from all sins, from death, and from the power How many Gods are there? of the devil, not with silver and gold Only one, but there are three but with this holy and precious blood persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. and with his innocent sufferings and death, in order that I may be his, live What has Christ done for you under him in his kingdom, and serve that you trust in Him? him in everlasting righteousness, He died for me and shed His blood innocence, and blessedness, even as for me on the cross for the forgiveness he is risen from the dead and lives of sins.3 and reigns to all eternity. This is most certainly true.”1 We can rest our case here that Martin Luther believed there was only one way to God, and this way It is not the water that produces is through Jesus Christ. It is of these effects, but the Word of God vital importance that you and I, as connected with the water, and our Lutheran Christians, know that. Any faith which relies on the Word of God Lutheran who says there is more connected with the water. For without than one way to God is rejecting the the word of God the water is merely clear teaching of Luther. water and no Baptism. But when But we still have the situation connected with the word of God it is where, if someone is not convinced a Baptism, that is, a gracious water by the words of Jesus, then why of life and a washing of regeneration would they believe these teachings in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul wrote of Martin Luther? They probably to Titus (3:5-8), “He saved us by the won’t. Don’t expect you are going to washing of regeneration and renewal convert anyone by quoting Luther. in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out But it is you that will be speaking. upon us richly through Jesus Christ our The main thing you need is to be Saviour, so that we might be justified convinced of the truth in both by his grace and become heirs in hope Jesus’ and Luther’s words. of eternal life. The saying is sure.” 2 Luther can help you to be convicted of the Not only does Jesus die for us and absolute necessity of we find our redemption in Him, but Christ. This is why it is necessary that we are baptized it is important to in the water of life, and the means for read the Catechism that is found in the Word. and to read it

regularly. I would even encourage you to read Luther’s other writings regularly. In an age where the church is becoming very much like the culture around it, we need to read authors who are not of our culture.

Luther can help us here. No, Luther did not live in our time. He could not have foreseen many of our challenges and difficulties. But he lived with a price on his head, because he would not recant his understanding of the gospel. We can do no less, or we should quit calling ourselves Lutherans. Whatever the future holds, we cannot allow our churches to become something like a statesanctioned church, where we can only denounce that which the state condemns and only proclaim a [false] gospel that gives life to none.

1. Small Catechism, The second article: redemption, paragraph 4 in The Book of Concord, trans. & ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 345.

2. Small Catechism, The Sacrament of Holy Baptism, paragraph 9 in The Book of Concord, 349.

3. Small Catechism, 1986 translation, section 4: Christian Questions with their Answers, (St. Lewis Concordia Publishing House 1986), 33. “The ‘Christian Questions with Their Answers,’ designated Luther as the author, first appeared in an edition of the Small Catechism in 1551.” (ibid, 32).

On Baptism:

15

While You Are Going Out

by Dr. Eugene W. Bunkowske

G

oing and coming: these are the “attending circumstances” of everyday life. The going and coming begins when we put our feet on the floor in the morning. It normally does not end until we tuck those same feet back into our bed in the evening.

Going and coming is important to God. He is the embodiment of coming and going, especially in Jesus Christ.

He goes and comes because He wants all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (I Timothy 2:4). In Jesus this mission of God took on human reality. Just after Jesus had come into the house of Zacchaeus and was instrumental in saving the entire household, He said, “The Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost.”

(Luke 19:10).

In baptism Christians are named with God’s name. We are made part of His family and thus are drawn into His mission. At this point our comings and goings become very strategic in God’s mission of “seeking and saving the lost.”

In Matthew 28 after Jesus reminds us that all authority is given to Him in heaven and earth, he said, “poreuthentes matheeteusate.”

Often “poreuthentes” is translated in the English versions with the word `go’, or at times with the phrase `having gone’. A more accurate rendering would be `while you are going about’ or ‘in your goings and comings.’ Why, because poreuthentes is a participle of attendent circumstance. This means in plain English that this normal action of `going and coming’ is one that is happening right along side of another major action.

In this case the major action `make disciples’ (matheeteusate) is in the imperative mood which means that it is a command to act. So the idea is that we are to `make disciples’ not, at least in the first instance, by teaching formal Bible classes or preaching in church or making a special trip overseas or by building mission

16

churches. Rather Jesus is saying that the natural life activity of all who are part of His family by faith is to `make disciples right in the midst of our everyday hustle and bustle.’ Yes, right while we are doing all of the normal goings and comings that we would have to do anyway.

“... as members of the family of God we give our first and most important witness for Christ...”

The idea here is that as members of the family of God we give our first and most important witness for Christ and actually do the key work of `making disciples’ by just being our Christian selves in our everyday words and actions right where we live and work and have our being. We do it primarily in our homes and at work and school, on the plane or in the car or in the grocery store or while watching television with our friends or family. Jesus is talking about this activity when he says, “Those who declare publicly that they belong to me, I will do the same for them before my Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:32).

What does Jesus actually mean here? He means that we need to let other people around us know that we are Christians. We need to seek for natural and easy ways to tell others that the forgiveness of sins makes a difference in our lives and that forgiveness of sins and life forever

with God is a free gift that we have received and are thankful for. Yes, it means telling what having a friend like Jesus on a day to day basis means to me.

It means being ready to pray with people and to explain what the privilege of talking to God on a moment by moment basis does for us in terms of peace and security. It means being open to sharing personal joys and sorrows and encouraging other people to talk about their joys and sorrows.

It means getting acquainted with the Bible through daily personal Bible study so that we will be able to read the Bible with others and share relevant parts of God’s word with people who need a word of warning, forgiveness, love or comfort.

In the larger context of Matthew 28 it is clear that Jesus spoke these words to the disciples when they were discouraged about the idea of trying to tell the story of God’s love in Jesus Christ to others. The sequence of events goes like this: On Good Friday Jesus was murdered. It was a bitter pill for the disciples. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary wanted to conclude that difficult part of their life with a last look and possibly a chance to anoint the body. Instead of dreaded death they found life, an angel, the stone rolled away, the guards afraid and trembling and the angel saying, “Don’t be afraid. Jesus is not here. He has been raised, just as He said. Go quickly and tell His disciples.”

The Marys turned to go and met Jesus. They fell at His feet in worship.

Jesus said, “Don’t be afraid. Go and tell the disciples that I will meet them in Galilee.” What a joy it must have been for these two women to take the good news back to the disciples.

What a joy it must have been for the disciples to hear and to let the joy of this wonderful news sweep over them. What an emotional moment it must have been.

But that is not all there was to it because when the chief priests heard the truth of what had happened from the terrified guards they quickly took counsel and developed the `official story.’ Then they began to spread it by generously bribing the frightened guards to give the false report that the disciples had come during the night and stolen the body of Jesus away while they (the guards) were asleep.

So there it is, just as the delicious news of Christ’s resurrection was taking root in the disciples minds another piece of news started to filter around Jerusalem. It was the `official story’ of what had `really happened.’

You can imagine the roller coaster effect on the disciples. One says to another, “Who will believe us? We are considered rustics from Galilee and certainly no competition for the official communication channels (CNN, NBC, CBS, ABS) of Jerusalem.

Who will believe our report about Jesus’ resurrection when the Roman and Jewish official community is saying that Jesus is dead but that the body was stolen by His disciples?”

It is into this situation in which the disciples are being overawed by the authority of the Jewish leaders and the Roman power structure that Jesus comes and calls them away from the fearful city of Jerusalem to their own environment in Galilee and in essence says: All authority in heaven and on earth has not been given to the Jewish leaders and the Roman power structure but to Me. Now, then, this is how to handle it.

Don’t try to fight the official

communication channel, the CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC of that day, but rather while you are going about in your everyday life make disciples (people who believe that I have come to save them and are ready to follow, listen, learn and be loyal to Me) of people everywhere: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe (guard, hold on to, keep uppermost in their mind, do, fulfill) everything that I have commanded you. And just remember, I do not expect you to carry out this work of Mine alone because I will be with you always even until the end of time.

The fact of the matter is that the early disciples did just what Jesus asked them to do. They proclaimed the message as they understood it, most often in terms of their own life and experience. They did it as they were going about their everyday activities. They did not do it perfectly but they did it. In many cases they were prepared to give up their lives rather than to stop making disciples.

What was the result? This kind of Christian witness turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6).

On the other hand, the authority of the Jewish leadership soon was no more. By 70 A.D. the Jewish temple and all the authority and power that went with it was gone. By 400 A.D. Christianity was the official religion of the powerful Roman Empire.

The amazing part of the story is that there are more Christian disciples in the world at this time

than ever before in history. About 22,000 people on the average receive Christ each day in Africa. Although solid statistics from mainland China are hard to come by, it is estimated that there are approximately 25,000 conversions each day in that nation.

The doors have once again opened in the former Soviet Union and we are amazed to see that Christianity was not rooted out during 70 years of atheistic communism but that there are many believers left even though Bibles were almost totally unavailable and Christian teaching had to happen mostly in secret. Then there is Korea with the rapid increase in the number of disciples and a strong move in Latin America from a pre-reformation understanding of Christianity to something that in many cases much more closely resembles Apostolic Christianity.

As Christianity seems to be walking off into the sunset in the Western world we should not to be afraid and discouraged but recognize that Jesus is calling us away from our normal patterns of fear and hesitancy, not to some new evangelism program but to his encouraging words of wisdom which winsomely say: All authority in heaven and earth has been given to Me. Now then, while you are going about in your everyday life, make disciples of people from all the nations: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and teach them to observe (hold onto and do) everything that I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of time.

17

Is This Really What We Want to Do with Social Media? Really?

Rev. Eric Swensson

1 rom what I see on social media I am very concerned about conservative Christians.

Why? Well, if it is the case that what people post on social media is indicative of what they are feeling and thinking, my friends at least have gone over the edge. Obamacare, SCOTUS and the Iran Deal have taken their toll.

I am also concerned about my social media friends who embrace the progressive view. They perhaps have forgotten reading Animal Farm and Brave New World.

What was true for a few is becoming normal. I realized yesterday that I can no longer post anything to do with politics without collecting comments that are so unpleasant that I, and the ministries I work with, cannot help but be sullied.

So, what should I and people who are experiencing the same thing do? Stop expressing opinions about politics completely? Perhaps. But I would not want to go there. That’s very much like the argument, “That’s letting the terrorists win.”

Of course, we are not talking about terrorists, but the Lizard People.

The Lizard People? Yes, The Lizard People. I was taught about The Lizard People when I studied Family Systems. The major thing to know here is stress does something to families and family systems.

This includes any grouping of people and churches, which is why I needed to learn it. What does stress do? Well, initially, it makes us stupid. Not everyone.

Some people perform well under stress. They can ride it to victory. But too much stress makes any individual reactive. You all know this, and you are also familiar with the term “Fight or Flight.”

Many conservative Christians are choosing to fight it out on social media. Bad move. When the limbic system is in charge and we happen to be on social media, we might very well decide to straighten 18

people out. This is a bad move because that is not what it is for. It’s called “social media” after all.

Lizard People are doing what marketing people call “damaging the brand.”

Christians in America today do not need this.

Sure, it is nothing new. Hollywood in general has been stereotyping us as mean-spirited hypocrites for quite a while. However, it seems we don’t need Hollywood to do that for us anymore. Why? Because we have Facebook. Judging from my timeline we are not only mean-spirited, we are also foul-mouthed and completely disrespectful of anyone who does not agree with us.

Drop the pundit routine. You are not a politician!

I want to bring in an expert here to show you what I mean: For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.

– Mark 7:21-22; ESV

Yeah. Pretty much nails it. Foolishness. Epidemic rates of foolishness. Conservatives and liberals alike, no one is going to take your opinions – much less your hard–won principles – seriously if you are always on the attack.

Isn’t it rich? Aren’t we a pair? Liberals and conservatives. Send in the clowns? They’re already here.

It really isn’t that hard. One only needs to sober up. Getting drunk on ideology as may well be

intoxicating, but in the end it ends up in addiction.

Believe it or not, the analogy works. One can end up losing their job and family members.

Law and Gospel works for me. If Jesus places slander and foolishness in the same list as sexual immorality and adultery, that gets my attention.

For some reason I keep forgetting that foolishness is a sin. Perhaps I am so prone to it that it is a blind spot!

Maybe we all do. Maybe if we really feel called on to point out error and wrong-doing on social media, we should study our Bible first.

I am certainly not saying that one should not point out error. When we study Scripture we learn that we are to admonish fellow believers as well as build them up. But on Facebook? Really? In an epithetlaced ad hominem? Really?

If one really wants to be effective, try the essay form of writing. Sitting down and trying to collect one’s thoughts, while reflecting on some key teachings that guide the way you have learned to live, somehow is much better than firing a salvo from the top of your head. In a time of great foolishness there’s a lot of stuff flying and we are getting hit in the face with it. We need good writers right now.

Why? We are perhaps at the tipping point. I am not one who thinks it is wise to predict the future, but as one who spends a lot of time online managing social media for ministries, I do see trends. One is

Christians asking other Christians to be more careful in how they express their beliefs online. Yes, sort of like I am doing here.

Am I evolving? Perhaps, but maybe it is more accurate to say I am learning from Jesus. The gentleas-doves and wise-as-serpents, live-by-the-sword, count-the-cost-before-going-to-war Jesus was not entirely a pacifist, and neither did He censor His disciples, but he taught a different way and the Holy Spirit urges us on in a different manner than the worldly one from pundits and news outlets.

So I would want us all to realize that people who are important to us are watching us and listening to us these days. Train up a child in the way he or she should go. Bequeath wisdom, not bitterness. We are in this for the long haul and we need the younger generation. If we become an embarrassment to them, and this is exactly what some forces are attempting, we certainly will diminish. Worse, the younger generation will fall away from the faith completely.

Of course, it is not just the younger generation that will drop out, but all who do not want the grief of being part of the marginalized.

Now, more than ever, we shall endeavor to keep our eyes on Jesus. Our good Lord does know exactly what we are going through and He knows where it will end. Rest in Him when anxiety comes. Really.

19

The Exclusivity of Jesus Christ

Note: The following Bible studies are designed to be used in small group discussion or for personal reflection. Please feel free to make copies of them as you wish. You will also find an answer key. Please answer the questions for yourself before you consult the answer key.

JOHN 14: 5-7 Introduction: This passage is one of the most clear and direct in Scripture of the exclusive claims Jesus makes. Here Jesus, in no uncertain terms, claims to be the only way to the Father. The context of this passage is Jesus’ last supper with his disciples. In the beginning of chapter 13 Jesus washes the disciple’s feet, which begins a long dialog between Jesus and his disciples that goes all the way through chapter 17.

Here specifically, in verses 1-4, Jesus is telling them he must go away and prepare a place for them in his Father’s house.

This prompts Thomas’ question in verse 5 and the answer is very clear. It is only in Jesus that we can know the way to the Father’s house. It is only in Jesus that we can go to the Father at all.

Study Questions: 1. What question does Jesus’ statement at the beginning of the chapter cause Thomas to ask? (verse 5) 2. How does Jesus respond to Thomas’ question? (verses 6-7) 3. What does it mean that Jesus is the way? What are some of the definitions of the word way that could apply here?

4. What does it mean that Jesus is the truth? What is the opposite of truth? In what way are we in need of hearing the truth?

5. What does it mean that Jesus is the life? What is the opposite of life? In what way are we in need of life?

6. What exclusive claim does Jesus make as a part of this statement? (verse 6) 7. In what way was this exclusive claim a challenge for the disciples?

8. In what way is this exclusive claim a challenge for us today?

20

9. In what way have you been challenged by this personally?

10. What can we do to meet these challenges?

Conclusion: By being exclusive in his statements about the way to the Father, Jesus is not being unloving. We know that God is love and his demonstration of this is the suffering and death of his Son on our behalf. To be exclusive does not mean to be unloving. However, the way that God shows and offers his love is very exclusive. It is shown and offered in Jesus and in Jesus alone. Outside of Christ we have only the wrath of God, but in Christ we see the love and care of a true Father who gives up everything for his children.

Closing Prayer: Dear Heavenly Father, we are grateful for the love that you have shown us through your Son Jesus Christ. We pray, Father, that you would increase our faith in Jesus so that we might know him as the only way to you.

We pray also for those who have not heard, or who do not believe. Open their hearts so that they might know Jesus too.

In Jesus name we pray. Amen.

Answers: 1. Thomas seems confused about what Jesus is saying in verses 1-4. He says to Jesus, “How can we know the way?” What Thomas did not understand at this point is what Jesus meant when he said he was going away.

Jesus was talking about his coming death, resurrection, and ascension, but Thomas did not yet understand this.

2. Jesus responds to Thomas by saying that he himself is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the only way to get to the Father. Here Jesus makes his exclusive claim to be the only way to God. 3. In English we think of the word ‘way’ in this context as the directions we need to follow to get from where we are to where we want to be. The word ‘way’ in Greek means this too, but it can also mean path or road. There is a remnant of this in English when we call a street a ‘way’ (e.g., 123 Clifford Way). This is a direct answer to Thomas’ question. The way, the road one must follow to the Father’s house, is Jesus. To know Jesus is to know the way.

4. Jesus, throughout the Book of John, makes a contrast between truth and lies. In the context of the Book of John, lies are the opposite of truth. Satan is the great liar (John 8:44). Jesus is the truth. There are many lies in this world all claiming to be the way to the Father, but Jesus is the only truth. All other claims are lies and will not lead to the Father.

5. Another contrast Jesus makes in the Book of John is between life and death. We are lost in death because of the Fall of Adam and Eve and the corruption which is in the world now because of this Fall. Accordingly we have no life in us, only death. In the same way those other claims lead only to death, not to life. Jesus is the life and only in him is there victory over death.

6. Jesus says clearly, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” (verse 6; ESV) Jesus is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. In this statement Jesus excludes all other claims to know a way to the Father.

There is no other way to come to the Father, all other claims are wrong, or worse, they are lies.

7. For the disciples, Jesus’ claims were hard to understand.

At the point which Jesus tells them these things, they did not yet know Jesus was going to die and rise. They did not yet know Jesus came to have victory over sin, death, and the devil. Their expectations were in conflict with the reality of Christ.

8. The pluralistic views many hold today are challenged

by Jesus’ statement in these verses. It is true that Jesus does not exclude anyone in his death and resurrection.

The gift of God’s grace is a gift that is offered to all.

However, Jesus does say he is the only way to the Father.

This means that while the gift is offered to all, this gift is not offered in many ways. There is only Jesus. This does not sit well in a day and age when these types of exclusive claims are seen to be at least arrogance and at most bigotry.

9. For personal reflection.

10. For personal reflection.

ACTS 4:1-12 Introduction: Many times in the history of the world, Christians have been asked to give an answer for the faith they have and the message they preach. These verses record one of the first times this circumstance occurred. Here, the disciples are asked by the Pharisees to give answer for their preaching of the resurrection of the dead. It was hoped that with the death of Jesus all the problems Jesus caused would be gone. And yet, the message continued to spread until there were five thousand in Jerusalem believing in the resurrection of Jesus. In this instance, we hear again that Jesus is the only way and again faith in Jesus excludes all other so called faiths.

Study Questions: 1. For what reason were the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees greatly annoyed?

2. How did they finally react to the disciples’ preaching of Jesus in the temple?

3. What was the reaction of the crowd to their preaching?

4. What question did the leaders ask the disciples?

5. How did Peter answer their question?

6. What are the two ways Peter describes Jesus?

7. What is Peter’s purpose is describing Jesus in these ways?

8. In what way does Peter exclude the religion of these Jewish leaders from leading to the Father?

9. In what way does Peter exclude all other so called ways to God? 10. How are we challenged by this statement in our lives today?

Conclusion: In these verses we learn that rejection of Jesus is rejection of salvation. There is only one way. The challenge to this statement today comes from those who do not accept this, those who think it unreasonable for there to be only one way. Peter and the other disciples, however, were willing to face imprisonment and even death to preach the message of Jesus as the only way. The church only has one message: “Christ crucified.”

Closing Prayer: Dear Heavenly Father, please give us the courage to speak the name of Jesus as the only way by which a person must be saved. Be with us in this day when the exclusive claims of Jesus are not a welcome message. Bring us the peace of mind that can only come from faith in your promises. In Jesus name, Amen.

Answers: 1. They were annoyed because the disciples of Jesus were continuing to preach. They were preaching that Jesus rose from the dead. We can imagine they had hoped with the death of Christ that this whole thing would go away, but it continued. The disciples continued to preach and more and more people came to believe.

2. They had the disciples arrested and set a trial for them the next day.

3. Although it is the case that the leaders were standing against the disciples, many people did hear their word and believe it. Here the number goes from 3000 who believed at Pentecost (Acts 2:41) to 5000 believers in Jerusalem. Despite their best efforts, the leaders were not able to stop the truth from being heard, or from spreading.

4. The leaders’ question was a question of authority.

They wanted to know the power or name by which the disciples healed people. The disciples clearly did not have the permission of the leaders. From where then, did this authority come?

5. Peter answers their question boldly. It is in the name of Jesus that they preach and that they can do the miraculous things they are doing. Peter goes on here to accuse them of the death of Jesus. Of course, it can be said that Jesus’ death was caused by all of us, because we all sin and we all are in need of his death and resurrection. Peter is preaching the law to the hearts of the leaders, for it

21

was their actions that lead to his death, but it was by the action of God that he was raised from the dead.

6. Peter describes Jesus in two ways: 1) the stone who was rejected, 2) the only one in whom there is salvation.

7. Jesus is the only one who gives salvation to all people.

Peter is shown that Jesus has been rejected, the stone that was rejected is the capstone. Peter is also pointing to Jesus as the only way. It is a call to the leaders to put aside their hardness of heart and to believe in Jesus. In their hardness of heart not only did they kill Jesus, but they are rejecting the gift Jesus offers – even to them – in his death.

8. In saying these things Peter is also saying that the way of salvation which the Jewish leaders are following does not lead to salvation. They believed that by their obedience they were coming closer and closer to the Father. This way is now excluded in Christ. Jesus is the only way in which a person can be saved.

9. Peter’s statement does not exclude only the Pharisees ideas about salvation, it also excludes all other ways that people seek to be saved. Jesus is the only way by which a person must be saved.

10. For personal reflection.

MATTHEW 7:13-14 Introduction: The ministry of Jesus, as it is recorded in the Book of Matthew, begins with what has come to be known as the Sermon on the Mount. This sermon is recorded in Matthew chapters 5-7. In this sermon Jesus deals with many things. Most specifically, he deals with the law and how it should be interpreted. In chapter 7 he uses three analogies to show the way of God is not an easy way and most do not choose it. These analogies are the narrow/wide gate, the tree and its fruit, and the house built upon the rock. By these analogies Jesus claims exclusive rights to be the way to salvation from sin, death, and the devil.

Study Questions: 1. What command does Jesus give in these verses?

2. In what way does Jesus describe the wide gate?

3. In what way does Jesus describe the narrow gate?

4. What is Jesus referring to by use of the analogy of the narrow gate?

5. What is Jesus referring to by use of the analogy of the wide gate?

6. What makes the wide gate so attractive to our sinful human nature?

7. Why do you think the narrow gate is so hard to find and use?

8. Read Romans 10:17. How do people find the narrow gate and enter it.

9. In what ways do Christians today struggle to point people to the narrow gate?

22

Conclusion: What is perhaps most shocking to us here is that most people will not find the narrow gate. We know from 1 Timothy 2:4 that God desires all to come to the knowledge of the truth and to be saved. But reality is that there are many who will not be saved because they reject the offer of salvation in the gospel. In our day we face the same type of criticism Jesus faced from the Pharisees in our own day. We will be ridiculed and Jesus will be rejected by many.

We are simply called to speak the truth in love. In his grace God will bring people to the narrow gate.

Closing Prayer: Dear Heavenly Father, we are grateful that you have opened our ears and our hearts to your word.

Please be with us now as we speak this word to others. Lead them to the narrow gate as you have lead us. Grant us your peace as we attempt this in Jesus name. Amen.

Answers: 1. The command of Jesus is to enter the narrow gate.

2. Jesus says that the wide gate is the easy way and that many take it. He also says, however, that it is the gate to destruction. It seems that those who take this gate are unaware that this gate leads to destruction.

3. Jesus says the narrow gate is a hard way and few people find it. He also says, however, this is the gate that leads to life. The implication here is that most people find only the way to destruction and only a few people find the way to life.

4. Jesus is referring to himself by the analogy of the narrow gate. It is only through Jesus that we can come to the Father. This is clear from other scriptures. It is only through Jesus that we have life. This too is clear from the Bible. The lingering question is about the few and the many. It seems that from this passage only a few will come to hear and believe in Jesus.

5. The wide gate is an analogy to all other ways or attempts to come to the Father outside of Jesus. Here again the works of the Pharisees are being addressed by Jesus in the context of the Sermon on the Mount, but all human endeavors and enterprises which claim to be a way to the Father or a way to life are not. They are the wide gate and lead only to destruction.

6. By this analogy the wide gate talks to the human hearts.

When humans try to determine on their own the gate to enter, they make a gate that suits them, a gate which is reasonable to them. Whether this is by works of the law or for the sake of inclusiveness, these ways all seek to exchange the word of God for the word of men.

7. The narrow gate, because it is purely a gate created by God, is much harder to accept as a way. It is the answer that humans need, but that does not mean that it speaks to the human heart. Because it excludes human effort and reason and points purely to the word and will of God, many are those who reject it or simply cannot find it.

8. In Romans 10, Paul makes the case that it is by hearing the word of God that people are lead to find the narrow gate; Jesus is the gate. Where the word of God is spoken, there the Spirit of God is creating and sustaining faith.

Jesus is the narrow gate; the gate is revealed and the invitation to enter is spoken through the word of God. 9. For personal reflection.

JOHN 10:1-10 Introduction: In this chapter Jesus calls himself the Good Shepherd and the Door of the sheep. These analogies are perhaps some of the best known in the Bible. Jesus is the only shepherd for the Sheep of God. He is the one whose voice we hear and know. He is the one who leads us to good pasture and promises to watch over and protect us from all harm and danger. These are comforting words for us who struggle in this world of sin and death.

Study Questions: 1. In his first analogy, to what does Jesus liken himself?

5.

6.

7.

8.

2. Who are the thieves and robbers?

3. What is true about the sheep?

4. To what does Jesus liken himself in the second analogy?

5. According to this analogy, what must a person do to be saved?

9.

of the sheep pen. He is the way through which the sheep enter the safety of the sheep pen.

To be saved a person must enter through the door. If they enter through the door then they are not a thief or a robber, so that with ease they may go in and out to enjoy the pasture The thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy. It seems clear in this context that Jesus is speaking this parable against the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders. They did not know Jesus or the truth about Jesus. They came only to abuse and oppress the sheep.

Jesus came to give his sheep abundant life.

The other ways do not lead to life. They are ways that lead only to destruction. In the time that Jesus was preaching this he was speaking against the abuses of power by the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Sanhedrin.

However, this is true of every time. There are in every age those who would use the sheep of God to obtain selfserving advantage, or those who simply mislead and as a result attempt to lead the people of God away from our Good Shepherd.

For personal reflection.

6. What does the thief come to do?

7. What does Jesus come to do?

8. What is Jesus really saying about the other ways here?

9. What “other ways� are tempting or alluring to you?

Why are they alluring?

Conclusion: While there is much comfort to be found in these verses for the Christian, it is also clear there is no other shepherd other than Jesus. He is the only way we can enter the sheep pen. He is the only one whose voice we can heed.

In him, we have life and peace and joy. All others come only to deceive and destroy. This is a statement of exclusion.

All other voices are excluded, as are all other ways into the sheep pen. It is certain and true that Jesus is the only way.

Closing Prayer: Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for sending your Son to watch over us and care for us. We pray now that you would give us peace and joy in him and him alone. Please bring others into the flock so that they too might heed the voice of the Good Shepherd and be saved. In Jesus name. Amen.

Answers: 1. In the first analogy, Jesus likens himself to a shepherd.

The sheep belong to him and know him. They listen to him alone.

2. Anyone who is not the shepherd is a thief or a robber.

They do not enter by the door, instead they climb in by another way. Jesus is making a clear-cut distinction here.

There is the true shepherd and there are thieves. He does not give a middle ground in this parable.

3. The true sheep follow the shepherd and will not follow the thief or the robber. The true sheep know the voice of the shepherd and will not listen to the voice of a stranger.

4. In the second analogy, Jesus likens himself to the door

23

BOOK REVIEW

BY TIMOTHY J. SWENSON THE BIBLE: Twice Denied A Cure for the Continuing Collapse of Christian Influence

by James Kallas 2013, by Harmon Press, Woodinville, WA, 105 pages

James Kallas has provided us with a fine book that gets directly to the authority of scripture. Filled with assertions, his argument is untroubled by nuance. Holding forth as Luther must have when he famously said, “Assertions? The Christian faith is nothing but assertions!”

Kallas’ argument states that Biblical authority was denied twice in favor of human-centered glory.

One of the few theologians to be knighted, Kallas has been a missionary, a scholar, a professional athlete, and a college president.

He sets forth his argument which names two instances when the authority of scripture was set aside. In each of those instances, Scripture’s assessment of the human condition proved so negative and distasteful that it was rejected. In its place was set an anthropology more positive and compatible with humanity’s estimation of itself.

Kallas has structured his argument into three parts, each being roughly one-third of the book. The author introduces these three parts: 1) Luther’s interpretation of Paul; 2) The two denials of Biblical authority; 3) An appraisal of, and remedy to, demythologizing.

The author proceeds from Luther to the present but doesn’t adhere to a strict chronology. He often loops back to fill in details of what transpired between important events. For example, he leaps from 1517 to the Diet of Worms but later returns to provide intervening material.

Part one covers Luther’s theological breakthrough provided to him through his study of Scripture. The prevailing notion of sin as guilt was overthrown by what Luther found in the Word of God. Sin was 24

a power that held humanity in bondage, not the emotion of guilt to be assuaged by penance. In this, Luther took from Paul the negative assessment of human capabilities, encapsulated in Paul’s statement: “The good I would, I do not do” (Romans 7:19). Kallas determines that Luther’s anthropology is the center of his theology without connecting it to his Christology.

In the second part, Kallas names the two denials of Scripture’s authority: one occurs at the Council of Trent and the second takes place in the teachings of Rudolf Bultmann. The Council of Trent in 1546 was the theological assessment of Luther’s teachings which Luther desired but never received from the Papal church. Kallas determines four conclusions from the decision reached by the Council of Trent: 1) “The Catholic church agreed with Luther! The Apostle Paul did describe sin as bondage.”

2) “Trent said Scripture was not ultimate authority.

Instead, the interpretation given by the church was final, absolute, and binding.” 3) “Trent confirmed that Luther had the Bible on his side. It energized the Reformers!” 4) “[T]he reason Trent disavowed Scripture is evident. … [M]an was a giant every bit as big as God, able to do all things, was the view that reigned supreme.” (see pages 54-55) The Papal church, then, in Reformation times, agreed with Luther on what Scripture said, but rejected the truth of Scripture regarding sin in favor of a truth promulgated by the church and more monitarily useful to it.

Kallas assigns responsibility for the second denial of scripture to Rudolf Bultmann. The teachings of Rudolf Bultmann can be summarized by the word “demythologizing”. Demythologizing strips Scripture of the miraculous and the spiritual and leaves it with

only the practical and political. Of Bultmann’s teachings, the author says: “Bultmann’s demythologizing was not a rephrasing of Scripture. It was a rejection of Scripture, a radical rewrite. Not only was the form of Scripture altered, but its content was as well.” (p.

70) According to Kallas this second denial was much worse than the first. Not only was it done by a friend (Bultmann was a Lutheran professor) who denied Scripture but that denial itself was disastrous in its destruction of Scripture’s authority—the bedrock of the Lutheran Reformation. (p. 71) In summing up the second denial, Kallas says, “Scripture was no longer the truth. Public opinion had replaced it. The question was no longer ‘What does the Bible say?’ but rather ‘What will modern man accept?’”

Part three opens with an examination of the wounds left by Bultmann’s scathing, demythologizing critique of Scripture. It concludes with the author’s prescription to heal those wounds. The wounds are numerous: 1) the abstraction of evil, p. 67; 2) the psychologizing of sin, p. 68; 3) the resurrection of Jesus as a metaphor, p. 71; 4) the separation of religion and ethics, p. 72-73. The prescription for healing is singular: The restoration of a Scriptural anthropology. Kallas proposes the healing of demythologizing’s wounds by employing a recovery of Luther’s central insight: the Bible’s nega-

tive depiction of man as bound in sin and his need to be freed.

James Kallas won my heart with his direct and assertive approach!

He places things in stark contrast with one another so that there can be no doubt of their distinction. This is categorical thinking in service of polemics. The reader is left with no doubt about Kallas’ opinion of Luther’s breakthrough and of society’s two-fold denial of Scripture. His unfolding of sin as bondage/concupiscence is quite helpful in grasping what Luther called “The Bondage of the Will”.

Kallas was able to accomplish his argument without recourse to such traditional Lutheran topics as the Simul, the Two Kingdoms, or the two kinds of Righteousness.

That being said, his writing may have fared better if he had taken recourse to the classic Lutheran distinction between the hidden God and the revealed God. Kallas so protects God from any involvement with sin and evil it’s as if they are beyond God’s will.

He writes of the world’s imperfections: “[T]his wanton caprice is not the will of God,” p. 83. A recognition of God in His hiddenness would have allowed God to be who he is: a deity inscrutable enough to contain both the mysteries of evil’s origin and the alien-ness of its use. God so loved the world (as Kallas points out on page 88) but that is known only in the faith engendered by the delivery of Jesus Christ from the pulpit, in the font,

and at the altar.

Kallas’ own treatment of Satan and the demonic leaves the reader wondering whether or not Kallas engages in his own form of demythologizing. He writes “The doctrine of Satan is philosophically naïve. It creates more problems than it solves … these problems exist because the doctrine of Satan was not a philosophical treatise on the origin of evil … its purpose was solely to insist that God would not do such things!” (p. 80) He even gives evidence of his own reliance on “What will modern man accept?” when he writes things like this: “We can set aside the language used. We can abandon the idiom of fallen angels and the activities of demons if our cosmopolitan level of learning is so high that terms like “Satan” and “the devil” make us chuckle.” (p.

83) In conclusion, Kallas’ book delivers exactly what it claimed: The Bible, Twice Denied. The reader receives a recounting of two occasions when the Bible was twice denied. Kallas delivers enough history to provide context and enough assertive evidence to demonstrate his thesis.

25

Dr. Dennis Bielfeldt

Christ, Exclusivity and Truth Conditions Editor’s Note: Over the course of this and the next three issues of the magazine, the President of the Institute of Lutheran Theology provides a deep analysis of the cultural attacks on the truth claims of Christianity. Using the tools provided by philosophy, Dr. Bielfeldt examines the ways in which the very thoughts of our culture have changed, making it more difficult to assert the truth of Christ and more easy to deny such claims. Through the four chapters of "Christ, Exclusivity and Truth Conditions," Dr. Bielfeldt describes and assesses how the way people are taught to think deeply influences whether or not they can hear Christian truth claims.

In this first chapter, President Bielfeldt puts forward three ways of approaching the particularity of the truth of Jesus Christ. These three ways are exclusivity, inclusivity, and pluralism. The approach of exclusivity says that Jesus Christ is the one and only truth. The approach of inclusivity says that Jesus Christ is the best truth among all the others. The approach of pluralism says that Jesus Christ is but one truth among many truths. As President Bielfeldt puts these approaches forward, he names influential scholars and quotes some of their writings in order to demonstrate just how it is that our culture, as a whole, has lost the ability to think the truth which is Jesus Christ, him crucified and him alone.

For those who wish to read the full article, please visit www.ILT.org.

26

raditionally, most Christians have understood their faith in exclusivist or particularist terms.

They have believed that Christianity is the true religion because, at least in part, it affirms a set of true propositions. While they knew that there was much more to Christian belief than the affirmation of a set of true propositions, they supposed that Christianity consisted in at least such an affirmation. In other words, they regarded the affirmation of some set of propositions as a floor, though clearly not a ceiling for Christian faith.

The history of doctrine displays the care and concern the Christian community had for asserting correct propositions. In the fourth and fifth centuries they labored to state precisely true assertions about the Trinity and about the two natures of Christ. Christians have traditionally regarded propositions like ‘God is in Christ reconciling the world unto himself ’ to be true and ‘God is in Buddha proclaiming the emptiness of thinking’ to be false. For most of Christian history, believers thought the first statement true because there is some state of affairs, some way that things are, on the basis of which the first statement is sorted into the class of true propositions, and the second into the class of false propositions.1 These states of affairs (or way things are) making true propositions true and false propositions false constitute the truth conditions of the statements. A truth condition for a statement p is that by virtue of which one can distinguish a situation in which p is true from a situation in which p is false. Presumably there is

T

some situation that would allow a competent language user to assert correctly ‘God is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself ’ is true and ‘God is in Buddha proclaiming the emptiness of thinking’ is false.

One might be tempted to employ Alfred Tarski’s famous convention T, the material adequacy condition, and say, “’God is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself ’ is true if and only if God is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.” Simply put, the sentence ‘God is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself ’, itself an element of the object language, is true if and only if a particular state of affairs obtains, that is, the state of affairs of God being in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. Connecting the truth of a proposition in the object language to a worldly state of affairs is a connection done within the meta-language, a language “beyond” the object language which itself is capable of talking about the object language and its relationship to the world of facts.2 Using convention T to grant truth conditions to theological language clearly seems to commit one to the particularity of Christian truth. If ‘God is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself ’ is true just in case God is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, then the truth of properly understood theological and dogmatic assertions entails that the states of affairs materially equivalent to them must obtain, and not the states of affairs materially equivalent to Buddhist or Muslim assertions. This is the situation of Christian exclusivism.

1 There are a number of ways to characterize Christian exclusivism in drawing a distinction with Christian inclusivism. One might, for instance, claim that one is a Christian exclusivist with respect to some issue when he or she believes that the Christian perspective is true, or at least closer to the truth, than any other religious perspective on that issue. The inclusivist, accordingly, would deny that the Christian perspective on the issue is true, or at least closer to the truth, than any other religious perspective on that issue. While this distinction is clear, it is not the way that the distinction has sometimes been drawn. Exclusivism often states that the Christian perspective just is the true perspective with regard to an issue and other religious perspectives are wholly incorrect, while inclusivism claims that while the Christian perspective is superior to other religious perspectives with respect to an issue, other perspectives are not altogether false, but rather are “partially true” with respect to that issue. The Christian pluralist, on the other hand, claims that the Christian religious perspective with respect to an issue is not truer than that of other religious perspectives, yet also makes some positive claim about this situation. For instance, if the issue is the conditions that must be fulfilled in order to have eternal life, where one might spend eternity, the pluralist might say that the religious perspectives of a number of faiths might be justifiably considered to be equally close to the truth. If the issue is the ontological contour of God, the pluralist might claim that the perspectives of a number of different religions might reflect some aspect of this truth. See David Basinger, “Religious Diversity (Pluralism)”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/religious-pluralism/>.

2 The great logician Alfred Tarski (1901-1983) attempted to raise the predicates ‘true’ and ‘false’ to a position outside the object language and to make them part of a theoretical meta-language of which the object language is itself part. In so doing, he tried to escape a semantically closed language, one in which the ‘true’ and ‘false’ are both regular predicates in the language and theoretical terms in a theory of truth. In a semantically closed language, a language in which this occurs, the Liar’s Paradox necessarily arises, e.g., the Cretan utters, “All Cretans are liars.” If he utters it truly, then he is not uttering it truly. Convention T is materially adequate because native speakers of the object language do have the capability to specify in the meta-language what must be true if the object language itself speaks the truth: “’Snow is white’ is true if and only if snow is white,” or “’Der Schnee ist weiss’ is true if and only if snow is white.” Allowing object languages to be semantically open undercuts their ability to generate paradoxes like the Liar’s Paradox.

27

Christian exclusivity is, however, undoubtedly under attack today. Why? There are several good answers to this, one of which claims that if the truth of a set of propositions were to depend upon a revelation that was not in principle available to all in the same way, then whether or not one affirms the proper set of propositions is not within one’s epistemic abilities, and if its not within one’s epistemic abilities, then it is profoundly unfair that some should come to affirm the true propositions upon which salvation itself depends. But if God is a God of justice, He simply could not establish a situation of epistemic favoritism. Thus, since God is just, Christian exclusivity must be false.

The contemporary pop-cultural response to Christian exclusivism is quite predictable. How could Christians be so close-minded (and intolerant) to think that their propositions about Christ and His salvific characteristics are true while the propositions of the other world religions are not? Since there is no publicly accessible fact of the matter (or state of affairs) that makes true Christian propositions and false Buddhist propositions, then how can it be justified to call the former true and the latter false?

3

The rejection of Christian exclusivism has had a profound impact on Christian mission, of course. Presumably, one of the traditional motivating factors for foreign missions has been to give others, who do not know the truth about the life, death and the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, correct information about what God has done for all people in Jesus the Christ. If Christian exclusivism is false, then it seems that much of the motivation for mission is taken away. If the truth of Christianity does not preclude the truth of traditional animism, then what good reason

is there to try to get people to give up their traditional animist ways? If one is not truer than the other, it seems that the missionary’s real motivation must be that of prejudice. Ethnocentricity and cultural imperialism thus become the real, hidden reasons why the missionary tries to get the other to become Christian. It is left, of course, to the anti-Christian cultural hero to expose what is hidden.

For Christians convinced that there are deep problems with Christian claims of exclusivity, Christian inclusivism looks like an attractive option. In the words of Clark Pinnock, “Inclusivism believes that, because God is present in the whole world (premise), God’s grace is also at work in some way among all people, possibly even in the sphere of religious life (inference).”4 Pinnock’s inclusivism asserts both the particularity of salvation through Christ and the universality of God’s intention to save all sinners. His view recalls the conclusions of Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium stating: Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.5 In Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes we find: Since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with the

3 A “publicly accessible fact of the matter” would be one that all epistemic agents could in principle access or apprehend. For instance, if all competent epistemic agents were able to prove the existence of God, like they might the irrationality of the square root of two, then there would be a publicly accessible fact of the matter about Christianity. Alternatively, if there were some set of religious experiences available to all epistemic agents on the basis of which one might build a Christian theological theory, then there would be a publicly accessible fact of the matter. The point simply is that revelation cannot in principle deliver a publicly accessible fact of the matter.

4 See Dennis Okholm and Timothy Phillips, ed., Four Views of Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 98.

5 See John Moffit, “Interreligious Encounter and the Problem of Salvation,” Christian Century, November 17, 1976, pp. 1001-1007.

6 Ibid.

28

paschal mystery.6 This Catholic take on inclusivism is rooted in the While Christian inclusivism and Christian great theologian Karl Rahner (1904-1984) whose notion exclusivism have a number of advocates, Christian of the “anonymous Christian” was very much in vogue pluralism is perhaps the most popular option within at the time. Rahner writes: American popular culture these days. Accordingly, the Christian perspective with respect to an issue (e.g., the We prefer the terminology according to nature of eternal life) is not truer than the perspective which that man is called an ‘anonymous of some other religions, yet its truth is somehow “true Christian’ who on the one hand has de facto enough.” What this seems to mean is that Christianity accepted of his freedom this gracious selfdoes succeed in stating something important about the offering on God’s part through faith, hope issue at hand, and this stating is subjectively satisfying and love, while on the other he is absolutely for the claimant. not yet a Christian at the social level (through The virtue of Christian pluralism is that it succeeds in baptism and membership of the Church) or in addressing the problem of epistemic favoritism head on the sense of having consciously objectified his by claiming both that Christians are not epistemically Christianity to himself in his own (by explicit privileged and that their claims to truth are no more Christian faith resulting from having hearkened justified (and true) than the claims of other traditions. to the explicit Christian message). We might The position’s obvious vice is that there seems to be no therefore put is as follows: The ‘anonymous justification at all to do Christian mission. Why go and Christian’ in our sense of the term is the pagan tell others the Good News when they have good news after the beginning of the Christian mission, of their own? who lives in the state of Christ’s grace through Christian pluralism seems to differ from both faith, hope and love, yet who has no explicit exclusivism and inclusivism on the question of truth. knowledge of the fact that his life is oriented While the exclusivist might say that Christianity 7 grace-given salvation to Jesus Christ. is true because it and it alone holds as true a class of statements whose truth conditions jointly obtain, and For Rahner human beings can and are “pre- the inclusivist might assert that Christianity is truer thematically” Christian, a situation that can be than the other religions because it holds as true a larger “thematized” into the explicit doctrines of the faith. class of statements whose truth conditions jointly obtain Christian inclusivism can be parsed in a number of regarding an issue than any other religious tradition ways, and it is unclear how far Pinnock would follow does, the Christian pluralist must argue that it is rational Rahner. While the latter holds that other religions can to adopt a religious position having no larger class of be pathways to salvation, Pinnock seems to stop short true propositions than other religious traditions. But if of this, even claiming, “religions can be pathways to the class of true propositions in Christianity is no larger damnation.”8 Critical to understanding Christian than the class of true propositions in any other tradition, inclusivism is what counts as “partial truth” in the then what motivates being a Christian pluralist? Why other religious traditions. Rahner’s claim of anonymous be Christian if the truth conditions for its statements Christianity, for example, seems to suggest a greater are no more likely to obtain than those of other religious degree of participation in truth by non-Christian tradition – or perhaps no religious tradition at all? In religions than some other construals. (After all, an order to get clear on the nature and appeal of Christian anonymous Christian is still a Christian.) A less pluralism (and religious pluralism in general) it is robust Christian inclusivism might claim that another necessary to examine the nature of theological semantics religion might get after the same truth that Christianity more deeply. How is it that theological propositions asserts most truly. For instance, Zoroastrianism and have meaning, and is it true that truth conditions grant Christianity proclaim a Last Judgment, but Christianity meaning to such propositions? gets closer to the objective facts of the matter than Zoroastrianism.

7 Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, Vol. 14, Translated by David Bourke (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976), 283.

8 Okholm and Phillips, 113.

29

The Uniqueness of the Gospel

By Rev. Douglas Morton How many religions are there out there in the world?

Actually, while there are many different types of religious expressions, there are only two classes of religion.

There are religions of the Law, which seek to reconcile the deity by things they do. Then, there is the religion of the Gospel, which brings us Jesus, through whom we have been reconciled to God. The various religions of the Law differ with each other on many things in the areas of beliefs and morals.

However, the one thing each one has in common is the idea that somehow, someway, I must do something – be it hard or simple – to get on the good side of the deity (or deities).

There is something inside all people that tells them they must do certain things to be in the good graces of whoever or whatever runs this universe. Thus, people invent all sorts of things they must do. One religious expression may differ with another religious expression on what needs to be done, but each one agrees that something needs to be done by the religious devotee. The only problem is, no one who follows this type of thinking can ever be sure if he or she is in the deity’s good graces, because no one can ever seem to do enough.

On the other hand, it is the Apostle Paul who says there is nothing we can do to get on the good side of God. Rather, this is done by God himself. “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8; ESV). “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them” (2 Corinthians 5:19; ESV).

This is the ‘religion of the Gospel,’ where the news of what God has done for the world in Jesus Christ is 30

truly good news. The gospel is so revolutionary that no human being would have ever thought it up. It is the message of forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ, a message that says all our sins have been dealt with on Jesus at the cross. Its message says that Christ takes our sin and gives us his righteousness. “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21; ESV).

Just before Jesus died on the cross, he cried out, “It is finished” (John 19:30; ESV). “It is finished,” means that everything needed for us to be made right with God has been accomplished by Jesus; nothing more needs to be added. That’s good news! That’s the Gospel! Rather than working at trying to get into God’s good graces, the Gospel invites us to simply rest in the fact that we are in God’s good graces through Jesus Christ. That is why it can only be received through faith (trust).

There is religion of the Law, and then there is the religion of the Gospel. The religion of the Law is the way of works, the way of ‘doing’. The religion of the Gospel is the way of forgiveness in Christ which makes us right with God. Or, as the Apostle Paul writes, “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:4-5; ESV). Now, what excites you more? Religion of the Law with its ‘do, do, do!’, or religion of the Gospel with its ‘done, done, done’? I know the one that gets me all excited. It’s unique and like no other message in the world.

The Institute of Lutheran Theology is a Christian faith community, seminary and graduate school that rigorously equips faithful pastors, teachers and lay people to effectively proclaim the gospel and serve Christ’s church throughout the world.

The Institute of Lutheran Theology provides graduate and certificate level programs. With a fully-credentialed faculty, ILT offers 72 courses to challenge and prepare the next generation of preachers, teachers, and church leaders.

GRADUATE PROGRAMS • Master of Religion • Master of Divinity • Master of Sacred Theology • Doctor of Ministry

CERTIFICATE PROGRAMS • Faith & Life Certificate • Pastoral Ministry Certificate • Youth & Family Certificate • Elijah Project Ministry Certificate

ILT gives students access to a world class library containing over 35,000 physical volumes as well as 10,000 full text volumes online.

31

Institute of Lutheran Theology • 910 4th St • Brookings, SD • www.ILT.org • (605)-692-9337

PRESORT STD NON PROFIT U.S. POSTAGE PAID BROOKINGS, SD PERMIT NO.36

910 4th St • Brookings, SD • 605-692-9337 • www.ilt.org 32