Volume 5 1

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Maranatha Baptist University Maranatha Baptist Seminary

Volume 5, Number 1

SPRING 2015

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal www.mbu.edu/TheStudy

ISSN 2160-1623

Published semi-annually by Maranatha Baptist University and Maranatha Baptist Seminary 745 W. Main Street Watertown, Wisconsin 53094 920.261.9300 www.mbu.edu www.mbu.edu/seminary

Marty Marriott, President Larry R. Oats, Editor

Communication and books for review should be addressed to the Editor: seminary@mbu.edu, or Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal 745 W. Main Street Watertown, WI 53094 The Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is published two times a year (spring and fall).

The Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is a ministry of Maranatha Baptist University and Maranatha Baptist Seminary.

Copyright Š 2015 by Maranatha Baptist University.

All rights reserved. Materials in this publication may not be reproduced without the permission of the Editor, except for reproduction for classroom use by students or professors.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Volume Five, Number One

Every Baptist a Missionary Johann G. Oncken and Disciple-Making in Europe _____ 1 David Saxon School Choice and Intellectual Freedom _____________ 27 Michael Dean A Brief Evaluation of Lutheran Theology _____________ 53 Fred Moritz Theological Misinterpretations of the Confessing Church ___________________________________ 75 Matthew Spurlock Book Review _________________________________________ 87

Introduction The purpose of the Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is to provide for our constituency, and for others who may be interested, articles from a Baptist, dispensational, and conservative theological position. Articles are academic and practical, biblical and theological, focused on the needs of the pastor and church leader, and, above all, faithful to God’s Word.

The education of a person in ministry, whether he or she is serving in vocational ministry or as a volunteer, is a continuing process. For that reason, Maranatha publishes the Theological Journal to assist individuals in their ongoing education. Through the Journal, Sunesis, and other venues, Maranatha Baptist University and Seminary seek to assist God’s servants in whatever ways we are able. Our faculty are available to speak in churches and conferences on the topics on which they write, as well as in other areas of their expertise.

We trust that you will be blessed and challenged as you read this issue of the Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal.

Marty Marriott President Larry R. Oats Editor www.mbu.edu www.mbu.edu/seminary www.mbu.edu/TheStudy

MBTJ 5/1: 1–25

“Every Baptist a Missionary” Johann G. Oncken and Disciple-Making in Europe David Saxon1 Disciples of Jesus Christ are acutely conscious of their inability to replicate themselves. It is not a natural process.

A miracle is necessary every time another person embraces Christ in repentant faith and sets out on the path of following Christ. Nevertheless, disciples can be supremely confident that sowing seed will result in a harvest because God is calling out a people for His name, and the Great Commission is His chosen method of producing disciples.

The history of the Baptist denomination contains many examples of successful disciple-making disciples. Because the story of the Baptist denomination is usually told from the vantage point of English-speaking Baptists, one of the greatest of these Baptists may be overlooked. Every Baptist should know the story of the Father of European Baptists, Johann Gerhard Oncken. He dedicated his life to making disciples, and the effects of his ministry are still being felt around the world today.

Birth to New Birth Oncken was born into a Lutheran home in Varel, in the Duchy of Oldenburg on the North Sea, on January 26,

1 Dr. David Saxon is Professor of Bible and Church History at Maranatha Baptist University.

2

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

1800.2 His father was away from home when he was born, working with conspirators who were seeking to overthrow Napoleon. When the plot was discovered, the older Oncken fled to England. He died there, never seeing his son or knowing he had one.

Oncken was reared by his grandmother, a severe woman who made sure he was a good Lutheran. The Lutheran church in that part of Germany was quite dead, and Oncken experienced no spiritual influences in early life. Oncken later stated “that neither from any of his teachers or from the Lutheran pastor, did he receive a single true direction of salvation by Jesus Christ.”3 In 1814 a Scottish businessman came to Varel, liked Oncken, and invited him to return to Scotland with him.

Oncken jumped at the chance. The businessman’s wife was Presbyterian, and the family gave Oncken his first Bible. He traveled extensively while in the man’s employ, visiting England, France, and Germany.

While in England for an extended period of business, Oncken stayed with a godly family that attended a Congregational church. The father openly prayed for Oncken’s salvation during daily family devotions. After months of exposure to the gospel, Oncken visited Great Queen Street Methodist chapel in London, heard the gospel, and was saved. The key verse in his salvation was Romans 8:1: “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.”

He immediately became passionate about sharing his faith with friends and coworkers, sacrificing a portion of his lunch money to purchase tracts. He got a cold response from Most of the biographical details come from the only Englishlanguage biography of Oncken: John Hunt Cooke, Johann Gerhard Oncken: His Life and Work (London: S. W. Partridge & Co., 1908).

3 Cooke, 16.

2

Every Baptist a Missionary

3

most of them, but within a short time after his salvation, he had the joy of seeing one of his neighbors in the apartment building profess faith in Christ. He knew he wanted to spend his life sharing the gospel.

Missionary Oncken’s passion to share the gospel—distributing tracts, writing letters to his mother and other relatives, and sharing the gospel regularly—came to the attention of the Congregationalist organizers of the Continental Society, an organization founded in 1819 to send missionaries to Continental Europe. In 1823 the Society appointed Oncken as a missionary to Germany and sent him to Hamburg.

Oncken joined an English Reformed Church in Hamburg (transferring his membership from the Independent church he had joined in London) and began attempting to evangelize his neighbors. His pastor, T. W. Matthews, invited him to live in his home and supported his work among the Germans.

Matthews also provided a large room in which Oncken could hold preaching services, which he began to do in 1824.

Cooke reports the remarkable growth that ensued: At his first meeting on January 7th 1827 [sic, the date should be 1824] ten persons came out of curiosity to hear the new English religion, as his message was contemptuously called, and one soul was converted to God. The name of that first convert was C. F. Lange, who afterwards became a valuable helper in his work. At the next meeting 18, at the following 30, and on February 8th 180 attended; on February 24th the crowd was so great that

4

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal about 100 were turned away for want of room; many came smiling and left weeping.4

Soon the established Union Church (the Lutherans and Reformed had merged in Germany and were the statesponsored church) began harassing him. Fined, Oncken refused to pay and had his possessions seized. The meeting room provided by Matthews had to be discontinued, but Oncken held private meetings in cellars, alleyways, private homes, and wherever he could get a hearing. The persecution and his incessant activities caused people to flock to hear him, and the mission prospered.

Hamburg was a very religious city, but Oncken discovered widespread biblical illiteracy. Only one Lutheran pastor in the entire city believed in the deity of Christ.

Oncken believed that revival would follow if he could get the Scriptures into the hands of his German countrymen. In 1828 he opened a bookstore, primarily for the distribution of Bibles. Through his contacts in Scotland, he connected with the Edinburgh Bible Society, becoming its agent in 1828. For the next fifty years (until 1878), he and his coworkers distributed Bibles provided by that society. According to its records, he distributed two million Bibles. A byproduct of starting this business was that Oncken was able to gain citizenship in Hamburg on April 25, 1828.

While this sketch will not focus on Oncken’s family life, it is worth noting that he was a family man and experienced the blessings and trials of domestic life. In 1828 he married Sarah Mann of London. She became fluent in German and was a great asset to his ministry. Between 1829 and 1844, Sarah bore him four daughters and three sons. They had their share of heartache, with a daughter dying of cholera at a few months of age, a daughter dying of an illness at age 5, and their youngest son dying in a fire at the age of 8 while 4

Cooke, 26.

Every Baptist a Missionary

5

Oncken was away preaching. Oncken was left with five children, one of whom was 15 months old when Sarah passed away in 1845. Two years later, he married another British lady named Ann Dogshun, and they served together until her death in 1873. She was loved both by Oncken’s children and the Hamburg congregation. Finally, in 1875 Oncken married Jane Clark, a member of Spurgeon’s Tabernacle; she outlived him, caring for him during his final days in Zurich.

Becoming a Baptist In 1826 two evangelical Lutheran ministers had offered to pay for Oncken’s ministerial education if he would commit to the Lutheran ministry. He declined on the basis that he already had misgivings about infant baptism. When his first daughter was born in 1829, he declined to present her for sprinkling.

Pastor Matthews urged Oncken to present his child for baptism and preached a sermon on infant baptism to convince him. The weakness of Matthews’ argument cemented Oncken’s resolution to pursue believer’s baptism.

Matthews evidently made a poor case for infant baptism, as two Methodists who were present in the assembly subsequently became Baptists, and Matthews himself—now studying the question in earnest—went to England a few months later and received baptism from Baptists there. He later became pastor of a Baptist church in Boston. Oncken, meanwhile, continued to study the Scriptures.

In 1829 an American sea captain named Tubbs while visiting Hamburg had his ship detained for six months because of ice. He was a member of Sansom Street Baptist Church in Philadelphia. Having met Oncken and the little

6

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

group of disciples gathered around him, he began holding Bible studies with them and explaining Baptist doctrine to them. Testing everything by the Scriptures, Oncken became convinced of believer’s baptism.

There was no one in Germany, however, to baptize him.

He wrote to Robert Haldane in Scotland for advice; Haldane suggested he baptize himself, citing the example of John Smyth. Oncken saw no biblical precedent for this and rejected the advice. He then wrote to Joseph Ivimey, a notable Baptist pastor in London. Ivimey invited him to come to London to be baptized. That was not practical (and would be no testimony to the German believers), so Oncken continued to pray about the matter and await the Lord’s will.

He talked with British and American visitors to Hamburg.

Nevertheless, he was unsure how to proceed.

Captain Tubbs returned to America and told his pastor and other leaders of the Triennial Convention about Oncken and his situation. Founded in 1814, the Triennial Convention was the national missionary-sending agency of the American Baptists. One of those leaders was Barnas Sears, a professor at Hamilton Literary Theological Institute in New York. In 1833 Sears went to Europe for academic studies primarily at Halle. While in Germany, Sears went to Hamburg to find Oncken.5 Oncken had been praying and waiting for over four years.

Because of Oncken’s busy preaching schedule, there was some delay in Sears being able to connect with the German, but finally they were able to do so. Sears was delighted to find a small group of believers who had become thoroughly convinced of believer’s baptism. They desired baptism, but Hamburg had a law against immersion. The American professor and the small band of Germans were not deterred, 5 Sears went on to become successively president of Newton Theological Seminary and Brown University.

Every Baptist a Missionary

7

but they were cautious. On April 22, 1834, Sears, Oncken, Oncken’s wife, and five others rowed to an island in the middle of the Elbe River and were baptized at midnight.

Oncken later wrote, All was dark; we had neither the prospect nor the hope of success. We were compelled blindly to follow our Master.

Not one of us entertained the slightest hope that the Almighty would, by this feeble commencement, convey his thoughts of peace to thousands, and spread afar his ancient apostolic truth. Conviction impelled us onwards; we could not but act as we did, come what might. But, although externally all was dark, within us all was light. In those memorable days which followed, my heart was so joyous, it seemed to me, as I walked through the streets of Hamburg, as if everybody must know I had put on Christ by baptism.6

The next day, Sears ordained Oncken, although the German had no formal education. The American professor then presided over the establishment of the first Baptist church in Germany and “the oldest surviving Baptist church in Europe.”7 Shortly thereafter, Sears petitioned the American Triennial Convention to give financial support to Oncken’s work in Hamburg. “If we consider the pagan state of that great city,” reasoned Sears, “we must look upon this missionary labor of private brethren as truly apostolical.”

Sears conceded that “great results had not yet been witnessed, but everything wears an encouraging aspect.” The

Cooke, 49.

H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman, 1987), 471.

6 7

8

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

professor especially commended the atmosphere of Christian love that characterized the embryonic church at Hamburg.8 Hamburg The new church met in Oncken’s home at No. 7 Englische Planke in Hamburg, using the bottom floor as a Bible bookstore. The bookstore grew rapidly and was soon moved to larger facilities near the center of the city.

The Continental Society severed connections with Oncken upon receiving word of his baptism. Through the instrumentality of Sears, Oncken was accepted as a missionary of the Triennial Convention in America (later, the American Baptist Missionary Union [ABMU]). In addition to seeking to win people to Christ, his primary heartbeat, Oncken also believed strongly that Baptist teachings best reflected the New Testament. If he met a fellow believer, he usually sought to convince the person of Baptist convictions.

And he could be very persuasive.

Julius Köbner, having been saved in 1826, met Oncken shortly after Oncken was baptized. Oncken convinced him of Baptist theology and baptized him in 1836. A Danish Jew, Köbner had a burden for Denmark. He accompanied Oncken on numerous missionary forays into Denmark and saw a Baptist witness established in Scandinavia.

Gottfried Wilhelm Lehmann grew up in Berlin and was influenced by Mennonites. His interest in tract distribution brought him into contact with Oncken, and they were friends before either was a Baptist. Oncken convinced him of Baptist views and baptized him, his wife, and four others outside Berlin in 1836. Lehmann became pastor of this small assembly. In 1840 Oncken suggested he seek ordination from the British Baptists. Lehmann received this ordination in London on June 29, 1840. His church in Berlin grew to 8

Cooke, 230–231.

Every Baptist a Missionary

9

100 members in 1841 and was forced to move out of his house into new facilities. By 1842 the Berlin congregation surpassed 300 members.

Oncken, Köbner, and Lehmann made an amazing triumvirate. The German Christians nicknamed them the Kleeblatt, or “cloverleaf.” From the hubs in Hamburg and Berlin, these men and their associates fanned out, distributing vast amounts of literature, seeing professions of faith, and gathering them into Baptist churches. To organize the literature distribution, Oncken founded the Hamburg Tract Society in 1836, which eventually worked in conjunction with “the Religious Tract Society of London, the American Bible and Tract Society, the Scottish National Bible Society, and other Christian literary institutions.”9 Oncken’s work in Hamburg and across Germany faced severe persecution from the local political units and from the established state-church. Conventicle laws in many German states required an authorized representative of the Established Church in any assembly of five or more persons not consisting of family members. Oncken applied for permission to hold devotio domestica (family devotions) for his house-church in Hamburg, but his request was denied for obvious reasons. The chief Lutheran pastor in Hamburg, A. J. Rambach, was a severe opponent of the Baptists, whom he called “a fanatical Anabaptist sect.”10 He urged the Hamburg government to apply conventicle laws directly against the Baptists.

Cooke, 90.

Wayne A. Detzler, “Johann Gerhard Oncken’s Long Road to Toleration,” JETS 36.2 (June 1993): 231.

9

10

10

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Hamburg authorities arrested Oncken and placed him in the notorious Winserbaum prison in both 1839 and 1840.

Sarah pled with the authorities to release Oncken when Lydia, his daughter, fell seriously ill. Oncken was offered release if he would promise not to preach. He declined.

Finally, in 1840 he was released as Lydia grew close to death.

Rather than staying home, he went to Copenhagen and presided over the baptism of seven people. Lydia died while he was away. The oft-heard charges that these early German Baptists were fanatical had some truth to it.

Oncken’s co-pastor, KÜbner, and his deacon, Lange, were also arrested. Once, Oncken heard singing from a cell above his, and, recognizing the voice as that of his co-pastor, he chimed in and the two of them sang in the jail like Paul and Silas.

The tide finally turned in 1842, when a great fire devastated Hamburg. Over three days, 2000 homes were destroyed, 30,000 people were rendered homeless, 100 were injured, and about 50 died.11 Oncken and his assistants, especially Lange, stepped up and heroically served the suffering people. The Baptists had just secured a four-story warehouse for their use. Oncken immediately invited the authorities to use three of the stories as emergency housing for people dispossessed by the fire. They showed love and compassion to the very people who had harassed and persecuted them for the previous decade. Both the populace and the government rapidly changed their opinion of the Baptists.

Nevertheless, in 1843 Oncken went to prison yet again for administering the sacraments without proper ordination.

Hamburg was beginning to shift its policies away from persecution, however, and he was released after just four

11

Ibid., 240.

Every Baptist a Missionary

11

days.12 Later that year vandals harmed the Baptists’ property, and Oncken’s old enemy Police Chief Binder aggressively defended the Baptists. Oncken wrote, O, what a change! The senator at the head of the police has shown me in this affair the utmost kindness. For nearly 23 years I had this person for my bitterest foe, who hunted me during that period like a partridge on the mountains, but now he is my friend and my protector.13

In the face of such opposition, the Hamburg church grew to 380 by 1845, and in 1847 the first building was erected.

In 1867 the church had grown to the point that a new spacious church was constructed, with seating for over 1400. Charles Haddon Spurgeon preached at the opening of that building and tells this remarkable story: I remember in the life of my dear friend, Mr. Oncken, of Hamburg, when he began to baptize people in the Alster contrary to the law. He was brought up before the burgomaster, and that worthy magistrate put him several times in prison. At last Mr. Burgomaster said, “I tell you what it is, Mr. Oncken; the law must be obeyed. Do you see that little finger of mine? As long as that little finger will move, I will put you down in your illegal baptisms.” “Well,” said my brave old friend, “Mr. Burgomaster, with all respect to you, I do see that little finger of yours; but do you see that great hand of God? I am afraid that you do not see it as I do. But, as long as that great hand of God is with me, you cannot put me down.” I opened Mr. Oncken’s chapel in Hamburg some years afterwards, and I had a most 12 13

Ibid., 237.

Detzler, 240.

12

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal respectable audience gathered together to hear me preach the gospel, and in the center of that audience sat the Burgomaster. He was far more rejoiced to be there than to be carrying out an oppressive law. His little finger had ceased its movements against the Baptist, and there he sat to show what the power of God’s right arm could do; for he was listening to the Word of God from a Baptist preacher, in a meeting-house built by the man whom he had been called upon to put down. 14

In 1848 in the context of revolutions sweeping Europe, the citizens of Hamburg gathered and voted to grant every citizen full religious freedom. Oncken was among the voters, and Baptists benefited greatly from this extension of religious freedom to all. By that time, there were 1,500 Baptists in Germany and 26 congregations.15 Hamburg extended full toleration to the Baptists in 1857, and in 1866 complete toleration of all religious bodies was finally declared.

By 1850 Oncken’s church was supporting three missionaries and had raised funds to sponsor the planting of 20 churches in Germany. The key to this rapid expansion was a discipleship mindset. In 1849 thirty German Baptist churches (with 56 representatives), all of which traced their birth to Oncken and his associates’ work, formed together the Union of Associated Churches of Baptized Christians in Germany and Denmark. Their charter emphasized discipleship.16 14 Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Zedekiah; or, the Man Who Could Not Say ‘No,’ ” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 36, Sermon #2178 (London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1890). Sermon preached March 30, 1890. Quote taken from Baptist History class notes of Dr. Fred Moritz.

15 Detzler, 240.

16 Allan Effa, “Diaspora Strategist: The Missionary Work of Johann Oncken,” July 2007. “Featured Article” at www. globalmissiology.org: 9–10.

Every Baptist a Missionary



   

13

The charter urged each church to have a missions committee, to take up regular offerings for missions work, and to participate in periodic missions conferences.

The committees generally met monthly to discuss missions strategies.

The Union divided into four regional associations, and each developed its own mission-support mechanisms.

The charter recommended the establishment of youth groups in each church. The youth were taught how to evangelize and were mobilized to share the gospel.

Laymen were encouraged to evangelize as they carried out their daily tasks, and funds were set up to supplement the income of laymen who suffered financially because they devoted time to evangelism.

In short, Oncken’s motto, “Every Baptist a Missionary,” permeated the Union.

European Ministry Oncken himself was the most successful missionary sent out of Hamburg. In addition to leading his church, Oncken began traveling across Europe, preaching the gospel and Baptist convictions. He preached in Denmark, England, Lithuania, Switzerland, and many other places.

His biographer randomly selected one of Oncken’s missionary letters to the ABMU from 1846. The following is a summary of Oncken’s itinerary:

14

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal 







   

17

Oncken traveled to Breslau in Silesia, won two Roman Catholics to Christ, who quickly brought four others to salvation. Oncken then baptized these six people and organized them into a Baptist church. He ordained a pastor to minister to them and spent several weeks giving them instruction.

He moved on to Stettin in Prussia, where he discovered that 120 persons had been baptized in the last few months. He ministered among them, gave them money and ordered Bibles for them from the Depot. He also learned of revival in five or six surrounding villages, in which 49 people had been baptized earlier that year.

He visited a Moravian settlement at Niesky and was welcomed graciously by the minister, who brought up baptism. They enjoyed spirited conversation, with the minister admitting that infant baptism had no support in Scripture.

From there he traveled to Thorn, where he had religious conversation with a small group of members of the State Church. Although not winning them to Baptist views, he believed “his testimony had not been in vain.” His biographer concludes, “If very definite in faith, Mr. Oncken was broad in charity.”

“He then went on to Schneidenmuhl, where he was disheartened by a cold formal reception, for nothing seemed to repel him like religious frost.”17 Coming to Schwetz, he met a procession of Poles, singing songs to the Virgin Mary. He gave them tracts.

On the Lord’s Day, he preached at a Mennonite Church. Then in the evening, he preached again in a barn to about 100 people.

Over the next few weeks, he visited and preached at Graudenz, Garnsee, Saalfeldt, Allenstein, Warteburg, Cooke, 95.

Every Baptist a Missionary





 

15

“and other adjacent places, and making some evangelical efforts at each.”18 Arriving in Konigsberg, he was arrested and ordered to return to Hamburg. He left but went on to Elbing, where he was again arrested and ordered to return home. Before leaving, he gathered the believers there and preached and exhorted until late at night.

He left the next morning at 4:00 and took a 48-hour train ride to Berlin, during which he witnessed to several people on the train. Arriving in Berlin, he spent four or five days with the Baptist believers in that city.

He then returned to Stettin, helped to organize a church there, evaded the police who were searching for him, and finally arrived safely back in Hamburg.

The biographer indicates that this was a typical missionary tour.

The following month he traveled to England to raise money to build a new chapel in Hamburg and was able to collect 450 pounds. He reported that 73 people had been added to the Hamburg church that year by baptism, raising the membership to 326.

As in Hamburg, Oncken and his associates faced almost continuous persecution for the first few decades of their work in Germany. At this time, Germany consisted of thirty-six independent states, and many of them were as repressive as Hamburg had been. The disunity of Germany did mean, however, that Oncken and his associates could evade persecution by fleeing from one state into another.

18

Cooke, 96.

16

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal During his many missionary journeys, his safety and even his life were often endangered by the fury of fanatical mobs, and until 1848 he was also subjected to expulsions, fines, and imprisonment by the police. In the duchy of Hesse-Gassel, even a reward was offered for his apprehension. In Denmark, he was declared an outlaw, and a judicial decree was issued threatening with the severest penalties any person concealing his whereabouts while in the country, and offering a reward of twenty dollars to any person causing his arrest or giving precise information as to where he could be found. Mr. Oncken later wrote about this: “Our baptisms all took place under cover of the night and on my missionary tours, which were frequently extensive, I was banished successively from almost every State in Germany. I could never travel as an honest man by daylight, but was compelled to journey on foot in the darkness, to hold services, examine candidates, administer the ordinances, and form churches in the dead of night, and take care to be across the frontiers before break of day for fear of my pursuers.�19

Given the spectacular results Oncken enjoyed, one might be inclined to question his theology of evangelism. On the contrary, Oncken was a careful theologian. Consider the following excerpts from a letter written to the son of a British friend who had not yet come to Christ: The reason why faith is represented in the Holy Scriptures as of such paramount importance, does not arise from any inherent efficacy in faith itself, but because true faith forgets and rejects everything on earth and in heaven, and looks to and grasps the Lord Jesus Christ and His work. . . . We do not wish you to go to heaven, my dear boy, without good works, for you never will enter those holy gates without them, but we wish you to bring such works as are perfect: The works of the Lord Jesus Christ who had

19

Cooke, 102.

Every Baptist a Missionary

17

no sin, neither was any guile found in his mouth. . . . Faith, then, dear Martin, upholds and defends the most perfect works that can be conceived: for it rests upon the glorious work of our dear Redeemer. If such be the case, it follows as a matter of course that in our own lives we shall tread as closely in the footsteps of our Lord, as present imperfection allows, but never, never can our imperfect obedience gain us an admission to heaven.”20

Oncken was, in fact, decidedly Calvinistic, but he was warm-hearted toward any who preached the gospel. In a letter to Sarah while she was in Edinburgh before they were married, Oncken wrote, I am sorry to say that though God has some witnesses of the faith in Hamburg, there is not one serious German I have met, with whom I can agree in doctrines, they are all Arminians without exception, and a holy Arminian I can love as well as a Calvanist [sic], but there are no English Methodists among the Germans. 21

Under Oncken’s direction, the German Baptists sent missionaries to Denmark, Finland, Poland, Holland, Switzerland, Russia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Africa. Many European countries owe their Baptist origins to Oncken and his colleagues. Each of these countries has its own story, some of which are vast and fascinating in themselves. Here we can only sketch some of them.

20 21

Cooke, 127–128.

Ibid., 42–43.

18

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal 







Denmark, 1838. Oncken and Köbner established the first Baptist church in Köbner’s home country. The Danish authorities launched vigorous persecution of the Baptists, urged to it by the established Lutheran Church. Nevertheless, by 1892 the largest body of dissenters in the country was Baptist.22 Netherlands, 1845. A Dutch Reformed minister, J. E. Feisser, was defrocked for questioning infant baptism in the early 1840s. Oncken sent Köbner to meet him, and Köbner won him to Baptist views. In May 1845 Köbner baptized Feisser and six others and formed them into a Baptist church in Gasselte-Nijveen.

Hungary, 1846. Hungarian carpenters who were working in Hamburg after the great fire came into contact with Oncken and the Baptists and were converted. They returned to Hungary and established a Baptist church in Budapest. Within a few years, it was scattered by persecution. Nearly thirty years later, Oncken sent Heinrich Meyer to Hungary, and he succeeded in establishing another Baptist church in Budapest, baptizing eight converts on August 26, 1874. One of the persons baptized by Meyer was Kornya Mihaly. He began studying the Scriptures, and in 1877 Oncken ordained him to gospel ministry. He began a dynamic preaching ministry in which is it said that he baptized 11,000 Hungarians before his death in 1917.

Switzerland, 1847. Oncken made a preaching tour of Switzerland, locating several house churches that already practiced believer’s baptism. He helped several organize as Baptist churches, and he distributed literature. His assistant, Friederich Maier,

22 G. Winfred Hervey, The Story of Baptist Missions in Foreign Lands: From the Time of Carey to the Present Date (St. Louis: C. R. Barns, 1892), 799–803.

Every Baptist a Missionary





23 24

19

planted a Baptist church in Zurich in 1849, which became the hub for Baptist missionary activity in the country. The Swiss churches joined the Baptist Union in Germany in 1870.

Austria, 1847. Some Austrian workers who had helped in Hamburg after the great fire adopted Baptist views through Oncken’s influence. They invited Oncken to preach in Vienna in 1847, where he saw a number of professions of faith. Returning twice more in 1848, Oncken encouraged the Austrian believers to organize, but government oppression there was fierce.

A British missionary came to Austria to aid the work and saw a number of conversions and baptisms, but his entire house church was arrested and imprisoned

by Austrian authorities in 1850. It was nearly twenty years later before the first Austrian Baptist church could be organized, and freedom of religion did not come to Austria until early the next century. Oncken’s son, W. S. Oncken, ministered in Austria for some time.23 Sweden, 1849. F. O. Nilsson, baptized by Oncken in 1847, began preaching in Sweden in 1849. Banished from Sweden in 1852, he organized a Swedish Baptist church in America. Before he left, he baptized Andreas Wiberg, who had been convinced by Oncken of Baptist views the previous year. Wiberg’s extensive efforts brought success and persecution from the established Lutheran Church.24

McBeth, 477–478.

Hervey, 807–817.

20

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal 

Russia, 1864. In 1864 Oncken preached in St. Petersburg and led a number of Russian Mennonites to the Lord, and they established the first Russian Baptist church three years later. Shortly after he first arrived, Oncken met with the President of the Ministry for the Interior, Count Sievers. The Count informed Oncken that people in Russia were free to hold whatever faith they chose, but proselytizing was strictly forbidden, and Oncken’s was evidently a proselytizing faith. To this, Oncken replied,

Your Excellence, everything depends on what you understand by proselytizing; if the charge brought against us means that our primary object is to put people under water, we repudiate the charge. We Baptists give to baptism a different place in theology from almost all other sects. We do not hold that it is necessary to get to heaven; we believe it has no connection with it, and if a person came to me wishing to be baptized in order to get to heaven, I would not comply with such a request. We hold that simple faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work saves the soul; and we believe that God has called us to preach this great truth among the millions throughout Europe, who have rejected all revealed truth and who form a most dangerous element to all good governments. Our primary object is, therefore, to win souls to Christ.25

The Count was not persuaded and told Oncken he must leave the country. Oncken wrote in his journal that he found four German Baptists living in St. Petersburg when he arrived. During his time there, eight Russians professed faith in Christ and requested baptism; Oncken got to know them and became convinced of the reality of the profession of seven of them. On the night before he left the city, he baptized the

25

Cooke, 147.

Every Baptist a Missionary

21

seven, the first people to be scripturally baptized in St. Petersburg in modern times.

In 1869 Oncken again visited Russia, this time penetrating far into the interior (as far as Odessa), visiting hundreds of villages, and preaching the gospel hundreds of times. Many baptisms and several small churches resulted.

The travels were extremely difficult and physically taxing (he was 69 years old), but the Lord preserved him. From Russia he visited Bulgaria and Romania, meeting brethren in each country and preaching the gospel.

The believers in Russia—especially Southern Russia— experienced severe persecution, and many Baptists found themselves in Russian prisons. Oncken persuaded his Baptist friends in England to approach Dean Stanley of the Anglican Church about this persecution. When Czar Alexander II visited London in 1874, Stanley approached the Czar’s entourage about the persecution, and the result was the almost complete ending of the persecutions until the Czar’s death.

Oncken also baptized and trained the church planters who founded the first Baptist churches in Romania and the upper Balkans.

In 1853 Oncken traveled to America. Shortly after his arrival, while traveling by train between New York and Boston, he was involved in a tragic accident, in which the train plummeted into a ravine. He was injured and experienced head pain for years afterward, but his life was remarkably spared. Over fifty fellow passengers died in the crash.

Despite the injuries sustained, he continued his ministry across America. In a letter to his home church, Oncken admitted that he felt great apprehension every time he got on

22

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

a train thereafter, but he coveted their prayers for him as he reckoned he had about 10,000 miles of travel ahead of him in the U.S. before he could return home. Preaching among German immigrants, he helped establish a strong German Baptist Church, which spread rapidly across America. Before returning to Germany, he had consecrated 48 German church planters to work among the immigrants in America.

One of the men baptized with Oncken by Barnas Sears in 1834 was J. H. Krueger. Krueger preceded Oncken to America in 1852 and planted a German Baptist church in Peoria, Illinois. The grandparents of my friend and colleague, Dr. Fred Moritz, raised their family in that church.

What kind of man was J. G. Oncken? Despite his complete lack of formal theological training, like Spurgeon, Moody, Bob Jones, and many others, he was burdened that young German Christians have an opportunity for ministerial training. In 1848 he began training young men for ministry, developing courses of study that included grammar, theology, and church history. Gradually, demand grew, leading to the birth of Hamburg Baptist Seminary in 1880. The school continued to train pastors for several generations.

An episode in 1855 gives a taste of his personality.

Oncken visited Spurgeon shortly after the young preacher became pastor of New Park Street Church in London. He asked James Spurgeon, Charles’ brother, to arrange an interview. Spurgeon sent back word that he had no time for chats, saying, in typical Spurgeon fashion, that if the angel Gabriel asked for a chat, he’d say, “Gladly, after I go to heaven.” Oncken returned a response that he “asked not for a chat but to lay before him the case of himself and his eighty fellow labourers, and he demanded an interview in their name and in the name of their common Master and for the promotion of His cause.” Spurgeon met with Oncken, and New Park Street Church took on the Hamburg mission for 90

Every Baptist a Missionary

23

pounds a year. Spurgeon and Oncken had a warm friendship from then on.26 Oncken, of course, was not perfect. Eventually, his strong leadership led to contention, and churches had to assert their autonomy. This controversy is known as the Hamburg Streit. Oncken argued that the Hamburg church was the “mother church,” and other churches should affiliate with her as daughters. Köbner and Lehmann wisely argued for autonomous Baptist churches. As he aged, Oncken appears to have become somewhat autocratic. Fortunately, Oncken’s successor in Hamburg was able to patch things up, avoiding a rupture in the Baptist Union.27 At the age of 79, Oncken suffered a stroke from which he only slowly recovered. By this time, he had relinquished his headship over the book depot, the mission, and the church.

Dr. Bickel, a German who had studied at Rochester Theological Seminary and served a pastorate in the US, succeeded him as head of the German Mission. Oncken’s successor as pastor of the Hamburg Baptist Church was Mr. Kemnitz. In 1881 Oncken retired to Zurich. He suffered from ill health for several years but lived to age 83, dying on January 2, 1884.

Conclusion Cooke reports the following results of Oncken’s work: At the time of his death the statistics of the Union of German Baptists showed more than 150 churches, with 31,438 members, and 17,000 children in Sunday Schools.

26 27

Cooke, 159.

McBeth, 476.

24

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal This does not give the entire results, for there had been formed Baptist centres in Austria, Bulgaria, Roumania [sic], Hungary, Poland, Holland, Switzerland, Trans-Caucasia, and throughout Russia. German Baptist churches had also been planted in South Africa, in the United States, some outlying places on the American Continent, and one in the neighbourhood of Mount Ararat, all really the outcome of Mr. Oncken’s work. Still later reports show that God is blessing the work by its continuance with greater success and more rapid advance than ever, so that at the time this book is written there are in connection with the German Baptist Union 280 churches with 1222 preaching stations, having a total membership of 54,000; 771 Sunday Schools with 31,500 scholars. Emenating [sic] from the small beginnings in Hamburg, the movement has spread into Denmark, Russia, and Poland, and in each of these countries there are now Baptist Unions with a total membership of about 60,000 grouped in 173 churches. 28

Statistics, however, are not the whole story. Oncken passionately believed in discipleship: one believer multiplying his influence by investing in others, who can then do the same. Historian Leon McBeth called Oncken a “one-man mission society, theological seminary, and literature distribution center. Seldom has one person contributed so much to the development of a denomination, nor left his stamp more indelibly upon it.”29 This is a just statement, but Oncken alone clearly could not have achieved such results.

Oncken taught his converts that every Baptist is a missionary, and the work spread across Continental Europe like fire in the prairie. Oncken was truly the “The Father of Continental Baptists” by being a disciple-making disciple.

Let us give Oncken the last word, written to his son William from New York in 1854: 28 29

Cooke, 60–61.

McBeth, 470.

Every Baptist a Missionary You must not be discouraged in your Christian course by the discovery of your sinful propensities—these will be gradually more fully revealed to you. God does not convert the sinner, to show to him how good he is, but how weak, helpless, sinful and depraved he is, that thus all selfdependence may be destroyed. But then the Spirit of Christ who teaches us this bitter lesson concerning ourselves, also shows us from the Holy Scriptures what a gracious, faithful and almighty Saviour we have, and that through the grace and strength of Him we can do all things. The two great truths which from the day of our conversion to the day we enter into heaven the Lord teaches those who shall be saved are in reference to ourselves that we are poor, lost, helpless sinners, who, if left to themselves, must perish for ever, and in reference to God, that out of boundless compassion He has sent His only begotten Son into the world to atone for the guilt of all who should believe in Him, and then in this glorious Saviour more—infinitely more—has been brought back to all who believe in Him, than ever was lost by Adam’s transgression and our own sin. . . . Oh, how would my heart rejoice if God should prepare you to enter in and continue the blessed work in Germany when I shall have been removed from the field of labour. There is, after all, nothing great on earth, my dear Willy, but to glorify God in our own salvation, and then to be honoured in saving others. 30

30

Cooke, 139–141.

25

26

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

MBTJ 5/1: 27-51

School Choice and Intellectual Freedom Michael Dean1 Education policy is like any other policy. The only question that really matters is, “Who gets the money?”

Because whoever has the money will decide where and how children will be educated. “School choice” is the policy that parents—not the state—control the money allotted to educate their children.2 School choice has many justifications. Educationally, it produces a better product. Economically, it costs less.

Socially, it reinforces family and non-political “mediating” structures. Morally, it permits assertion of fixed standards of conduct. Spiritually, it permits escape from the intellectual schizophrenia that divides the world into six days under one set of rules and a seventh day under another.

These arguments have merit. This article, however, examines school choice as a matter of political philosophy.

Social Questions and Answers by Process: Democratic Education in the Free Market of Ideas Two fundamental questions confront every society. First, how does society determine what its values and goals will be?

That is, what should society be and do? Second, once the first Michael D. Dean, Esq., is the General Counsel for First Freedoms Foundation, Inc. 2 It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss whether the state should be involved in education at all. At present, there is no realistic possibility that it will remove itself, so this paper deals only with the practical political situation as it actually exists.

1

28

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

question is settled, how are citizens convinced to act in accordance with that decision?

Education, even more than politics, is the primary forum in which America addresses these questions. According to “common school” mythology, public education is the democratic process by which students both synthesize and assimilate the answers to society’s great questions. Public schools provide a “market place” free from “private” dogmas where all students participate equally in the give and take of ideas.

By dint of sheer numbers—over 90% of American children attend public schools—“common schooling” is the dominant philosophy of American education. Even those who dispute that education is the “self-synthesis” of social values must still concede that the whole point of education is to develop knowledge, values, beliefs and habits that will continue to guide students once they reach adulthood.

Fly in the Ointment: The Nature of the Child and Who Will Decide?

Despite our reverence for the “free market of ideas,” there are fundamental problems with the myth. A free intellectual market between students and teachers is no less absurd than a free economic market between adults and children.

In economics, we have the good sense to prohibit such “bargains.” In education, however, such arrangements are unavoidable, and the values, beliefs and presuppositions projected by teachers are by far the most influential at the exact times when students are least capable of “informed consent” about what they are being taught. Thus the question is not whether children will be influenced, but rather who will do the influencing. The American political system has developed two possible answers to this question of “sovereignty”—either the state or the parents will control.

School Choice

29

The Dilemma of State-Sovereign Education Government educationists argue that, as a general rule, the state must be sovereign. Parents simply cannot be trusted to do what is best for society. Left to their own ways, they will choose individualistic educations for their children, which perpetuate their own bigotries at the expense of the common good. Private schools are undemocratic by their very nature, selectively discriminating against both people and ideas.3 Common schools, on the other hand, if appropriately managed, ensure that children learn to value equality, tolerance, and the general interests of the collective. Social stability simply cannot exist unless a substantial majority of citizens participate in the unifying, democratizing experience of the “common school.”

Public schools are thus both the foundation of American democracy and indispensable to its preservation. As a matter of public policy, therefore, public education must remain the only viable option for the vast majority of children.

The union of government and school, however, contains an inherent conflict. The essence of government is Although it also beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the sociological aspects of school choice, a brief comment is necessary because the charges of racism against school choice are so pervasive.

As a practical matter, the vision of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is largely unrealized. The great enclaves of segregation are still urban public schools, not private schools. Court-ordered integration has often exacerbated social problems and created new ones more intractable than ever.

In contrast to “top down” solutions to social problems, school choice recognizes that it is beyond the right or ability of government to know what is best for every child. Because school choice is “consumer driven,” it facilitates creation of a wider variety of schools from which parents may select the education most appropriate for their children.

3

30

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

compulsion—a fact at odds with the ideal of selfdetermination and free thought which is the essence of free society.

[S]ome scholars have suggested that any government seeking legitimacy must preserve the liberal postulates of the autonomous individual and the value-neutral state.

Any attempt to indoctrinate “official” values is inconsistent with the perspective of individual autonomy and, therefore, ought to weaken legitimacy. Inculcating values in children, however, is both essential and unavoidable, even in the public schools. The first amendment therefore functions, at best, only to protect the appearance of individual autonomy. Yet by preserving such appearances, government can retain its legitimacy while permitting official and private power elites to socialize and indoctrinate the populace to support “accepted” beliefs. 4

Thus, government schools cannot really practice intellectual autonomy. Despite the professed value of “free inquiry” and self-determination, collective beliefs and values must predominate—even to the extent that the general public must be deceived to maintain the aura of legitimacy on which popular government is based.

The Dilemma of Parent-Sovereign Education In contrast, school choice recognizes that, historically, parents have been primarily responsible for socialization.

Politically, school choice also recognizes that individual freedom must predominate over the collective—that the “melding experience” of America is freedom itself, not conformity perpetuated under the illusion of autonomy.

Since the family is the most decentralized unit of authority capable of socialization, it is far more likely than the state to perpetuate traditions of individual freedom.

4 Stanley Ingber, “Socialization, Indoctrination, or the ‘Pall of Orthodoxy’: Value Training in the Public Schools,” University of Illinois Law Review 1 (1987): 71.

School Choice

31

America survived and prospered without government schools, and a government which practices tolerance in honest fact and not in pretense is the best possible lesson in liberality and acceptance of diversity.5 School choice, however, faces the same social problems as state education. Individuals coexist without compulsion only so long as they share common values and beliefs. Early in America’s development, that cohesion was produced by a fairly universal conception of social arrangements referred to broadly as “Judeo-Christianity” or, occasionally, as “panProtestantism.”

Government education advocates respond that not only do we no longer have such a dominant worldview within our social and political institutions, it is unconstitutional and repressive to impose such a view upon minority segments of society.6 More extreme advocates even argue that children The recent fervor for “multiculturalism” in government schools is, to a great degree, the guilt reflex of the very institutions which for decades attempted to eradicate diversity. (As with earlier “top down” integration policies, these efforts have also been frequently counter-productive, even in purely social terms.)

The landmark parents’ rights cases resulted from state efforts to impose uniformity. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a Supreme Court generally considered “reactionary” declared that children were not “mere creatures of the state” and held unconstitutional Oregon’s attempt to force all children to attend government schools. In Meyer v. Nebraska, the same Court held unconstitutional a Nebraska law prohibiting teaching of the German language, the purpose of which was to subjugate German cultural heritage.

6 One might argue with some justification that the loss of a general Judeo-Christian worldview and resulting cultural Balkanization are the direct results of two government policies. (1) Constitutional decisions in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s purposely disestablished that view from American schools and, ultimately, from American society. (2) Government first enforced slavery of blacks, then deliberately segregated them and other minorities from participation and opportunity in society—frequently with the 5

32

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

have a right to be educated “free” from such narrow and oppressive beliefs. (Of course, the problem remains that children not educated according to their parents’ views will nevertheless be educated according to someone else’s.)

In the last half century, the loss of this pervasive worldview threatens the tribalization of American society unless some other unifying factor takes its place. We must therefore obtain cohesion in some other way, and that way is the democratizing experience of public education.

Examining the Metaphor The great, Norman Rockwell-esque ideal of American polity is that everyone has an equal opportunity to obtain a hearing for his views in the “free” market of ideas—a “neutral” public arena in which those ideas are challenged and tried, and from which “truth” emerges based on the merits of the ideas alone. Because this public arena is a “free” forum, ideas perish or prevail solely on their own merits, not on the ability of their holders to maintain a captive audience insulated from opposing views.

In Abrams v. United States (1919), Justice Holmes coined the “market” metaphor to express his faith in this free exchange of ideas. “[T]he best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” (In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., a later court revealed more clearly the premise implicit in such a market: “Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea.”7) The “market of ideas” is a powerful metaphor, implying similarity with, and borrowing luster from, the American free market—the most powerful economic engine in the history of the world. And since that metaphor is the primary apparent sanction of those claiming a Judeo-Christian worldview —leading inevitably (and understandably) to caustic resentment against Judeo-Christianity and society by those unjustly excluded.

7 The troubling corollary of such a proposition is that there is no such thing as true idea, either.

School Choice

33

justification for transferring authority from parents to state, it is imperative to determine whether it is really apt.

Markets and the Limitation of Ideas The Nature of Markets Markets of any nature, whether intellectual, economic, artistic, and so on, are aggregates of human action. They are amoral, merely reflecting the characters and aptitudes of the specific individuals that comprise them.

Economic markets, for example, do not guarantee technological or material “progress.” They merely facilitate progress if the market players are capable of and inclined to such a thing. Historically, some cultures have achieved material and technological progress, some have not.

Likewise, intellectual markets guarantee neither moral nor intellectual progress. They merely reflect the morality, intelligence, character and acumen of those able and permitted to participate in them. As with economic progress, some cultures have achieved intellectual progress, some have not.

Thus, an intellectual market provides no inherent guarantee that the ideas which prevail are better or truer or more useful than ideas which fail. Unquestioning faith in the “market of ideas” is merely an implicit, self-laudatory assessment that its participants are wise, capable and honest seekers, unburdened with anti-intellectual concerns about votes, egos, biases, profits, reputations, pensions, or book royalties.

The Nature of Freedom Examining the “market” metaphor also requires a look at “freedom,” because “freedom of speech” and “academic freedom” are inseparable from the “market of ideas.” Political considerations have gotten us into the habit of qualitative nomenclature such as the “free world,” but freedom is

34

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

relative and subjective. Bluntly, freedom is the ability to do what one wishes. It is the ability to act—to do.

This definition may offend moral sensibilities, because we customarily (and commendably) associate a moral content with personal freedom, usually asking “ought we?” as well as “can we?” But freedom is separable from morality. A despot may be evil, but he is certainly more free (in the usual sense of the word) than the martyr whom he holds in prison.

When evaluating the “free market of ideas,” therefore, we must bear in mind that any exclusion or restriction of a point of view is, to the degree of the limitation, an admission that we really do not believe in the efficacy of a totally unrestricted intellectual market.

Notwithstanding, American jurisprudence has developed the dubious distinction between freedom of “thought” and freedom of “action.” Again, however, the freedom to act is the only freedom that really makes much difference. A prisoner has complete freedom to think whatever he chooses, but he certainly is not “free” to speak or to act as we ordinarily use that term.

Inherent Limitations Following from the preceding discussion, it is obvious that there is simply no universal “market” in which all are “free” and able to participate and in which all ideas and points of view are considered equally and “without bias.”

Every market of any kind, especially the market of ideas, reflects inherent human limitations.

In his seminal essay, Individualism and Economic Order, F.A. Hayek wrote, The peculiar character of the problem of rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently

School Choice

35

contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.8

To the obvious rejoinder that experts in a field can be assembled to provide the “best” opinions, he replied, “[T]his is of course merely shifting the difficulty to the problem of selecting the experts.”

Even more important, markets do not guarantee a “neutral” search for truth. We are accustomed to claims of “objectivity” and “neutrality,” but only an omniscient God could be truly “neutral,” unburdened by circumstances of time and perspective. Hayek continued, What I wish to point out is that, even assuming that this problem can be readily solved, it is only a small part of the wider problem. . . . . [A] little reflection will show that there is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge . . . the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place.9

Again, there is no such thing as a “universal” market. If “truth” is a function of the market, then truth is merely the accident of time and place. Thus, the more loudly a speaker proclaims his unbiased ability to consider all points of view, the more surely he is a sycophant or, worse, a self-deluded ignoramus incognizant of his own intellectual and moral limitations.

Education and the Limitation of Ideas Felt Presuppositions and Worldview Every cohesive society has some worldview or belief system which its individual members hold more or less in F. A. Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948), 77.

9 Ibid., 80.

8

36

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

common. Not every individual engages in systematic reflection on reality, life and meaning, of course, but everyone still has some conception of reality on which he bases his actions and decisions.

Such conceptions are based on intuitions about the nature of things: how to tell right from wrong, what is “true,” how things “ought” to be, and so on. These fundamental intuitions I will call “felt presuppositions” because every belief system is ultimately based on “self-evident” presuppositions which are assumed and not proven. Such intuitions are articles of quasi-religious faith, in some respects insusceptible to reason and experience, the customary means of proof.10 For example, no beliefs are more fundamental to western civilization than the notions that all men are “created” equal, that all possess inalienable rights, and that such rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet despite the indispensability of these notions, some of the most brilliant minds in history claimed only “self-evidence” in their support.

In sum, though felt presuppositions are ultimately insusceptible to “absolute” proof, they are nevertheless vital because they govern the approaches we take and the conclusions we make when confronted with social problems.

Primacy of Elementary Education Education is not merely “technical” learning objectives and the experiences designed to achieve them. Instead, it is

10 This is not to discount natural law bases of common reason and experience, nor is it to take sides in the debate between “classical” and “presuppositionalist” philosophy and apologetics.

But classical natural law thinkers, pagan Cicero and Christian Aquinas among them, did refer frequently to “recta ratio,” not “sola ratio.” Even more basic, they began with the “self-evident” assumptions that there is such a thing as “reason” and that “reason is reasonable.”

School Choice

37

the sum total of the learner’s experiences—all environmental influences which affect his thoughts and actions.

The “actors” which control that environment always communicate some worldview. It is impossible to engage in any kind of human action (education in particular) without evincing some conception of “the way things are.” That conception may be coherent or chaotic, intentional or inadvertent. It need not even be communicated consciously, but it is communicated nonetheless.

Through this process, children intuitively come to “know” certain felt presuppositions when they are young and least able to understand what is being done to them. Transmission of a worldview is almost always implicit. Only rarely is a teacher aware of what he is doing, and even more rarely is he honest enough to state explicitly the presuppositions he is attempting to teach.

Consider the familiar issue of “religion and state.” When authority figures in government schools consider all matters of human significance without reference to God, students cannot help but conclude intuitively that government considers theistic beliefs irrelevant. Thus the subconscious predispositions of generations of students have been imbued with the state’s operational assumptions that neither the probability nor the consequences of God’s existence are of sufficient magnitude to factor into their behavioral calculations.

I am unconcerned here with whether it is rational, ethical or constitutional to include theological concerns in public education or public policy decisions. I only point out that one set of predispositions is being advanced and another rejected under a fundamentally dishonest guise of “neutrality.”

The “religion” question is probably the most familiar instance of creating subrational predispositions, but the identical process goes on in much more subtle ways regarding virtually all subjects and ideas. Given the nature of the child, it is impossible for such a process not to occur.

However, educators and power elites should at least

38

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

acknowledge that their asserted “free market of ideas” and “democratic processes” are, to a degree, disingenuous.

Education and the Control of Ideas The Democratic Ideal John Dewey made it clear that America would look to democratic education to establish social goals and achieve loyalty to them. In My Pedagogic Creed he stated, By law and punishment, by social agitation and discussion, society can regulate and form itself in a more or less haphazard and chance way. But through education society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the direction in which it wishes to move.11

Dewey believed that children would be naturally loyal to democratic decisions in which they themselves participated.

I believe that the only true education comes through the stimulation of the child’s powers by the demands of the social situations in which he finds himself. Through these demands he is stimulated to act as a member of a unity, to emerge from his original narrowness of action and feeling and to conceive of himself from the standpoint of the welfare of the group to which he belongs. 12

Thus Dewey believed that the school should replace all other social institutions as the primary determinant of social goals and values.

John Dewey, My Pedagogic Creed (New York: E. L. Kellog, 1897), 17.

12 Ibid., 3.

11

School Choice

39

Economic Limitations Despite Dewey’s mystic reverence for democratic education, the idea of an “intellectual free market” in government schools has serious problems. A “free” economic market is, by definition, one in which government regulation is minimized. Government exists only to maintain the rules of the market, and participation is based on persuasion, not legal compulsion. In contrast, American public education is one of the most pervasive monopolies in history, controlling by law almost all dollars available for education. The mere fact that disposable income is taken for government education means that most families are deprived of freedom to choose an alternative.

Only the wealthier or most sacrificial parents have any choice other than state-provided education. Thus, government deprives the great majority of the public of free choice merely by eliminating their capacity to choose anything else.

Religious education is an obvious example. Strict separationists talk about the “wall of separation,” but for the last 150 years, government has extended its “wall” at breakneck pace. Not only has its rapacious jurisdictional appetite consumed one enclave of the public life after another, its voracious economic appetite has devoured ever increasing percentages of private wealth (through taxes, inflation and regulation) to fund the advance.

It is ironic that those advocates most willing to fall from the edge of the world defending a student’s ineffable right to wear a smutty t-shirt are oblivious to Leviathan’s economic annihilation of personal liberty. These same advocates generally labor indefatigably erecting an impermeable wall of separation between church and state, yet they are oblivious to the rampant destruction of the most important constitutional wall of all—that between government and citizen. In fact, the very justification for government taxation and control of education is the fear of what parents might do if left to their own devices. Thus, while government education might conceivably be justified on other grounds, borrowing

40

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

metaphoric luster from free unwarranted and disingenuous.

economic

markets

is

Systemic Limitations In government schools themselves, the “market of ideas” is supposedly guarded by “academic freedom,” and we reflexively envision government education as an open forum.

Whatever discretion a teacher has, however, exists within a very limited ambit.

A carefully controlled environment is inherent in the idea of school itself, particularly in elementary grades where shaping thought and belief is most critical. Professor Ingber’s “elite” decide who will be permitted to teach, which subjects will be taught, which curricula and texts will be used, which teaching methods will be permitted, which books and materials will be available or feted in the library and which will not be purchased.

Political Limitations: Truth and the Views of the Dominant Forces If “truth” is merely a function of the market, then whoever controls the market controls truth. In The Common Law, Justice Holmes was candid about the way society really functions.

So when it comes to the development of a corpus juris, the ultimate question is what do the dominant forces of the community want and do they want it hard enough to disregard whatever inhibitions may stand in the way. 13

This conclusion is disturbingly consistent with Ingber’s views that the first amendment functions best as a subterfuge, preserving the appearance of individual autonomy so that the general populace do not suspect official

13 Oliver Wendell Holmes, His Books, Notices, and Uncollected Papers, ed. Harry C. Shriver (New York: Central Book, 1936), 187.

School Choice

41

and private power elites of indoctrinating students to support “accepted” beliefs.”

GOVERNMENT-DOMINANT EDUCATION: PERPETUATING THE ILLUSION State Sovereignty and the Market The Illusion of Competition As we have seen, an “intellectual market” of six-year olds is ludicrous. Elementary and secondary government schooling is not at all about preserving the market of ideas in larger society, it is about restricting that market to establish ideas which government hopes will persevere into adulthood. Government education exists precisely to prevent an adult population with unacceptably diverse ideas.

As Ingber points out, however, this restriction must be accomplished as a subterfuge to perpetuate the apparent legitimacy of the “popular” state. Government education has dishonestly turned its greatest weakness—the deliberate exclusion and suppression of impermissibly divergent ideas—into its greatest propaganda piece: the preservation of “intellectual freedom” and “diversity.”

In light of this mindset, the advent of “political correctness” should hardly shock. It is a direct result of people educated in a system based on exclusion of ideas in the name of neutrality and tolerance. The result of such a system may well be the greatest intolerance of all: a society full of people who in good conscience deliberately exclude viewpoints (and their adherents) from meaningful participation in social processes—all in the name of tolerance, liberalism and open-mindedness which they believe they truly possesses.

The Illusion of Self-Determination Government education controls ideas in least three specific ways. The first is obvious. In most states, for

42

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

example, schools must teach specifically in favor of democratic processes and against antagonistic processes such as communism or socialism. Other more controversial regulations require teaching of human growth and development, environmental education, values clarification, outcome-based education, and so on.

Second, and less overt, is the deliberate exclusion of theistic belief. Though most teachers are unaware, it is still legally permissible to teach “about” religion. But it has been held violative of the First Amendment for a teacher to say, “I believe.” While the system permits authority figures to model approved beliefs, it absolutely prohibits the modeling of other beliefs. One who believes that this kind of policy is “neutral” toward theistic belief would probably enjoy a football game in which one team is not permitted on the field.

Third, and least discernible of all, is the effect of the inherently cynical character of the market process itself discussed below.

Products of the Process By disguising the philosophical presuppositions on which it is based, American public education perpetuates perhaps the most restricted experience of all—one in which the child is manipulated to accept certain presuppositions without any awareness of the implicit forces and ideas which have shaped his thinking.

Specifically, this means that any “divisive” beliefs must yield to the common democratic good. Thomas Jefferson once wrote to a director of the University of Virginia, By bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality. 14

14 Herbert Baxter Adam, Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia (Washington: Government Printing Office (1888), 91.

School Choice

43

Jefferson’s vision has been remarkably powerful, and the deliberate substitution of democratic process for individual belief has historically been dubbed America’s “civil religion.”

Civil Religion and Displacement of Theistic Principle One familiar result of American civil religion is the progressive exclusion from public life of those with theistic viewpoints. At the beginning of our constitutional history, the free exercise clause actually meant something. Whether or not the wall of separation was a valid metaphor in our early history, it still was of little significance because government (federal government in particular) had very little to do with lives of citizens.

Over time, however, government has expanded into more and more areas of the public life previously reserved to private action. Concurrently, the United States Supreme Court developed the “wall of separation” doctrine, which prohibits integration of theistic beliefs and governmental activity. The result is that as government keeps “moving the wall,” individuals acting out of a theistic worldview are necessarily “quarantined” in a few limited, ever-shrinking sectors of the public life.

As these principles filtered down into elementary and secondary schools, it inevitably resulted in the nowdominant view that religion is of purely private concern and has no place in public life. What Jefferson viewed as the “softening of asperities,” others view as the removal of objective cultural standards by which to judge and restrict government action.

Civil Religion and Displacement of Moral Principle The removal of transcendent religious principle from public life has been a high profile affair. Much less noticeably, however, democratic education has also removed traditional moral and civil standards by its disastrous merging of morality and legality.

44

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Popular savants bemoan the loss of “civility,” but that phenomenon is to be expected. Morality and civility have traditionally been a function of private authority imposing standards of conduct thought to be rational and desirable, making possible the learning of moral and social codes more restrictive than those imposed by government.

However, since the Viet Nam era Tinker case, government schools are prevented from imposing behavioral standards higher than the “outer limits of legality” prescribed by the Constitution. Thus, as social limits have become identical to legal limits during children’s formative years, behavior has tended ineluctably toward the lowest common denominator.

A fearful by-product of the “legalization” of America is that the American public now views government as the only legitimate source of limitation on personal freedom. A free society, however, is based on self control, not imposed control. Once government is seen as the only legitimate sanction remaining, society is one small step from a police state.

Civil Religion and De Facto Cynicism This removal of transcendent principle is not new, however. In the fourth century B.C., the Cynics first formulated the organized doctrine that the ultimate nature of reality is unknowable. Therefore, instead of wasting time speculating about knowledge impossible to obtain, Cynics devoted themselves strictly to “this worldly” concerns. (“Virtue” was still in vogue, and the Cynic Diogenes walked about with a lantern looking for an honest man.)

In more recent times, Hume and Kant much more thoroughly demolished any confidence that ultimate reality is knowable. Prior to their work, epistemology had always been subsequent to cosmology. Hume and Kant reversed the order. Without the assumption of the efficacy of reason, it became increasingly obvious that nothing could be known “for sure.”

School Choice

45

Augustus Comte provided an historical characterization for these views. Man’s early, ignorant stage was “religious” in which he looked for truth through revelation. Man’s second stage was “philosophical” in which he looked for ultimate answers through speculative reason. Finally, man has now reached the enlightened “scientific” stage in which the only knowledge of significance is empirical and experiential.

As logic took its course, Cynicism led to Sophism. And just as the Cynics in ancient times, modern education— particularly elementary education where it most counts—has totally abandoned any search for ultimate meaning, either religiously or philosophically. Elementary and secondary curricula are utterly devoid of any discussion of the nature of truth or questions of ultimate significance. Hastened by public education’s removal of objective religious and moral principles from consideration, the same skepticism now dominates modern intellectual life. The significance of this void is not so much that students intentionally disbelieve in transcendent principles, but rather that they intuitively absorb the state’s operant presuppositions that such concerns are irrelevant and inappropriate. State education thus teaches students its own brand of institutional cynicism. Far more deadly than producing students without some faith or belief in the nature of things, this system produces students without even the capability of recognizing their own narrow presuppositions.

For “philosophers,” such cynicism may be a functional way to live. But as a practical matter for society, it destroys the very fabric on which the vast majority of society has traditionally based their lives and by which self-restraint has seemed reasonable. Like the Cynics, American society is obsessed exclusively with “this worldly” concerns. Unlike the Cynics, however, “virtue” is not still in vogue.

46

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal PARENT-DOMINANT EDUCATION: ACKNOWLEDGING REALITY Parental Sovereignty and the Market

Acknowledging Personal Limits School choice does not engage in disingenuous posturing about “unbiased” and “neutral” education. It acknowledges human limitations, readily admitting that the universal cannot be replicated in the individual. It demands for parents the personal liberty to engage in individual decisions about education and permits other parents the same liberty.

Competition among Equals School choice posits a market of ideas no less than public education. However, school choice is honest in recognizing that an intellectual market is meaningless among children generally lacking the intellectual sophistication and moral constitution to believe and do other than what they are told.

In contrast to the phony market advertised by government education, the market of ideas proposed by school choice is meaningful—one in which a would-be educator must convince a competent adult that the educator’s particular approach to education is most suited for that parent’s child. Like their counterparts in the economic market, the “sellers” of education must convince the “buyers” that purchase of a particular product is the best possible use of the buyer’s resources.

Products of the Process School choice accomplishes the ideal which state education only professes—preventing imposition of official “state doctrine.” With choice, parents have the actual capability to obtain an education based on transcendent spiritual or moral presuppositions rather than the cynicism of the government monopoly. It makes possible real intellectual and cultural diversity.

School Choice

47

Still, choice does not ignore the need for social cohesion.

The real melding experience of America was and is freedom.15 A free society best obtains tolerance by exhibiting tolerance— not by surreptitiously repressing real diversity.

A SUGGESTION FOR ACTION: TAKING THE OFFENSIVE The Retreat Individualists are at a disadvantage against statists because they have inherent reservations about employing political force rather than individual persuasion. In contrast, statists believe government compulsion is fundamentally moral to modify and shape otherwise free choices of citizens.

An individualist’s inhibitions make it inevitable that he will be more reticent than the statist to use taxation and other forms of official compulsion to impose his views, so the current dominance of government education over individual liberty is understandable.

How then, may individual liberty in education and society be recovered?

The Offensive Moral and Intellectual Offensive Fundamental change in popular government usually occurs only when the populace at large believes in the 15 In addition to mere liberty, commonly accepted moral and behavioral restraints are also indispensable to what the founding fathers called “ordered liberty.” It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss how common moral assumptions arise apart from government compulsion. As only one example, C.S. Lewis noted moral axioms common to all religions which he called the Tao. It is not the selection of a particular set of moral absolutes that makes government education so destructive, but rather the implicit denial that confidence in moral absolutes is even possible.

48

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

fairness or morality of the change. Unfortunately, it is still reflexive among major segments of the population that opposing public education means supporting ignorance. (We have a great deal of work to do.)

The first step of the counter-offensive thus must be to establish that parental sovereignty is the policy truly in keeping with American traditions of personal liberty and tolerance. As to liberty, it is outrageous that government taxes a parent into oblivion, uses that money to educate his child in ways or with views and beliefs with which he disagrees, then bids him go elsewhere if he objects.

As to tolerance, unlike the forced conformity of government education, school choice both respects intellectual and cultural diversity and preserves its possibility. We should not fear that choice allows other parents to educate their children as strong Moslems or Catholics. Nor should we fear that Black or Hispanic parents will take education into their own hands and produce self-confident children and powerful cultural and economic communities. Instead, we should fear what may happen if such groups are marginalized and manipulated by an unresponsive educational system controlled by elite political interest groups.

School choice is the truly “democratic” process, because it involves virtually every parent in the decision process.

Education is no longer the exclusive domain of the elite in charge of government agencies. The real melding experience of America is individual liberty, not imposed conformity masquerading as tolerance.

Legal Offensive On the legal and constitutional front, we must look to established principles with which the courts are familiar because few successful offensives are mounted as outright assaults on established principle.

First, we must ask courts to give the public “intellectual informed consent.” That is, ask the courts to deal honestly with the philosophical issues. Cease, either deliberately or

School Choice

49

accidentally, from perpetuating the false notion that government schools somehow tolerate unrestricted diversity in an intellectually neutral forum.

Second, the courts must scrutinize their traditional compartmental analyses. The interminable calls for separation of religious and secular functions seem simple enough applied to church and state as discreet corporate entities, but when applied to the real parties in interest— individuals with integrated theistic beliefs—they amount to psychological vivisection.

Education is not easily divisible into discreet “religious” and “non-religious” functions. Virtually every comprehensive religion speaks to social and political questions as well as to purely “spiritual” concerns. If both theistic and non-theistic belief systems address the same issues, it is hardly “neutral” to exclude one set of views from consideration.

The greater the effort necessary to parse the conjunction of church and state in education, the more obvious it should be that such issues may be nonjusticiable. School choice solves the problem—not by providing better legal analysis, but by eliminating education as a “state action” altogether.

Buying education with a voucher is itself no more an establishment of state religion than buying kosher with food stamps or a social security check. That a significant number of parents would purchase education from a religious provider simply proves that education is a religiously integrated enterprise for a great number of people—one in which the state’s secular monopoly amounts to invidious discrimination and religious disestablishment on a massive scale.

Third, it is customary to speak of “accommodating” religious people. This presupposes that it is the state which is legitimate and that the individual believing parent must go like a mendicant, hat in hand, begging for something which legitimately belongs to the state.

In truth, it is the state which has distorted the normal equilibrium of human action. Left alone to make their own

50

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

economic decisions, a great percentage of the populace would seek religious or morally distinctive educations. It is incredibly cynical to claim that school choice will have a “religious effect” when in reality it would merely facilitate the restoration of cultural equilibrium. School choice merely allows the public to do with their money what they would have done anyway had government not taxed it away to begin with.

Fourth, we must cease viewing individuals, religious or not, as members of ostracized factions at war with each other. Citizens voluntarily associate in groups based on race, religion, ethnic background, labor interests and political interests. Unless checked, the state through economic and political pressure will gain the ability to eradicate free choices which make such individual distinctions possible. The real war is not between the “public” and religious or ethnic minorities, but between the state and individual citizens.

Fifth, the courts must recognize that individual and familial liberties are meaningless if government succeeds in destroying citizens’ economic ability to exercise them. A government is despotic in direct proportion to the extent that it taxes away the economic ability of the people to speak, associate, assemble, publish or practice religion. If government taxes away the marginal ability of individual citizens to engage in those vital functions, their exercise will become the exclusive domains of massive corporations, foundations, trade organizations and bureaucracies economically powerful enough to overcome governmental impediments.

Without too much exaggeration, the fundamental evil challenged by the American Revolution—economic dominance of government over private citizen—is virtually lost in the modern civil libertarian’s weird fascination with felons and topless dancers. The courts must be re-sensitized to government’s economic threat to liberty. Once sensitized, they will be much less reticent to accept policies which return a measure of control to individuals.

School Choice

51

Political Offensive Government education proponents have masterfully succeeded in building a quasi-religious devotion to government schooling. Once that devotion has been tempered by exposing the fallacies of the system, it will be much easier for individual members of the public to understand that their best interests are served by deciding themselves how to spend their own money.

It is unrealistic to believe that government will cease funding education. So as long as government remains in that business, the ideal mechanism would be “Individual Education Accounts,” which provide each child with a fixed dollar amount for education based on the child’s particular educational needs. Funds not used for a current year would be rolled over into an individual account and made available for post-secondary technical, professional or academic training.

Such a device gives parents a real incentive to maximize results and minimize cost. Once accustomed to actually making their own decisions with their own money, parents will never go “back to the farm.”

CONCLUSION It is statists who are terrorized by real diversity. They are more than willing to sacrifice history’s greatest experiment in liberty for the security of the hive. Educational choice is not the end of intellectual and cultural diversity; it is the last, best hope for its preservation.

Educational choice is truly the greatest public policy issue of the century. Who controls the schools, controls the future.

52

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

MBTJ 5/1: 53–74

A Brief Evaluation of Lutheran Theology Fred Moritz1 The Reformation was characterized by at least two distinct movements, the Magisterial Reformation and the Radical Reformation. At the outset it is important to understand the nature of the two groups.

Magisterial Reformation The Magisterial Reformers are so called because their reform efforts were supported by at least some ruling authorities, or magistrates, and because they believed the civil magistrates ought to enforce the true faith. This term is used to distinguish them from the radical reformers (Anabaptists), whose efforts had no magisterial support.

The Reformers are also called “magisterial” because the word magister can mean “teacher,” and the Magisterial Reformation strongly emphasized the authority of teachers.2

Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin are considered Magisterial Reformers because their forms of the reformation movements were supported by the magistrates or the political authorities in their various countries.

Frederick the Wise supported Luther while he was a professor at the university he founded, but Frederick also hid

Dr. Fred Moritz is Professor of Systematic Theology at Maranatha Baptist Seminary.

2 Steven Lawson, “The Reformation and the Men Behind It” http://www.ligonier.org/blog/reformation-and-men-behind-it/.

Accessed November 8, 2014.

1

54

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Luther in Wartburg Castle in Eisenach to protect him from the Roman Catholics. Zwingli and Calvin were both supported by the city councils in their respective cities of Zurich and Geneva.

Since the term “magister” also means “teacher,” the Magisterial Reformation is also characterized by an emphasis on the authority of a teacher. This is made evident in the prominence of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli as leaders of the reform movements in their respective areas of ministry. Because of their authority, they were often criticized by Radical Reformers as being too much like the Roman Popes. For example, Radical Reformer Andreas von Bodenstein Karlstadt referred to the Wittenberg theologians as the “new papists.”3

“Radical” Reformers The Radical Reformation consists of the most diverse group of theologians of any of the other movements. In fact, the only characteristic that all radical reformers share is their rejection of the Catholic Church and the protestant churches. In his classic, The Radical Reformation, George Huntston Williams classified the radicals as Anabaptists, Spiritualists, or Evangelical Rationalists. Anabaptists such as Menno Simons and Balthasar Hübmaier were pacifists who rejected infant baptism and were strict Biblicists.

Caspar Schwenkfeld was a Spiritualist who emphasized the inner witness of the Spirit to such an extent that he rejected the “external matters” such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper as unnecessary. Evangelical Rationalist Michael Servetus emphasized the use of reason in addition to Scripture. This led to his rejection of the Trinity and his execution as a heretic in Geneva. 4

“The Magisterial Reformation,” http://www.reformation happens.com/movements/magisterial/. Accessed October 26, 2014.

4 “The Radical Reformation,” http://www.reformationhappens. com/movements/radical/. Accessed October 26, 2014.

3

Lutheran Theology

55

We use radical “of, 1. relating to, or proceeding from a root: as (a) of or growing from the root of a plant <radical tubers> (b) of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root; (c) of or relating to a mathematical root; (d) designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue <radical surgery> <radical mastectomy> 2. of or relating to the origin: fundamental.”5 Thus, the “radical” reformers aimed to build their churches on the “root” of the New Testament model. Philip Schaff describes the difference between the two groups: The Reformers aimed to reform the old Church by the Bible; the Radicals attempted to build a new Church from the Bible. The former maintained the historic continuity; the latter went directly to the apostolic age, and ignored the intervening centuries as an apostasy. The Reformers founded a popular state-church, including all citizens with their families; the Anabaptists organized on the voluntary principle select congregations of baptized believers, separated from the world and from the State. Nothing is more characteristic of radicalism and sectarianism than an utter want of historical sense and respect for the past. In its extreme form it rejects even the Bible as an external authority, and relies on inward inspiration. This was the case with the Zwickau Prophets who threatened to break up Luther’s work at Wittenberg.

The Radicals made use of the right of protest against the Reformation, which the Reformers so effectually exercised against popery. They raised a protest against Protestantism. They charged the Reformers with inconsistency and semi-popery; yea, with the worst kind of popery. They denounced the state-church as worldly and corrupt, and its ministers as mercenaries. They were charged in turn with pharisaical pride, with revolutionary and socialistic tendencies. They were cruelly persecuted by imprisonment, exile, torture, fire and sword, and almost totally suppressed in Protestant as well as in Roman 5 “Radical,” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ radical. Accessed November 8, 2014.

56

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Catholic countries. The age was not ripe for unlimited religious liberty and congregational self-government. The Anabaptists perished bravely as martyrs of conscience. 6

The purpose of this article is to describe the basic tenets of Lutheran theology so Baptist pastors and lay people can better understand the religious setting in which they live and minister.

Similarities between Lutheran and other Reformation Theologies Similarities exist between Lutheran and other Protestant theologies for several reasons. For one, Lutheran, Covenant, and Anglican theologies are all Augustinian at their source.

Another reason for similarities must be that the theme of justification by faith was the dominant theme of the Protestant reformation. “The Reformation creeds emphasize in particular those issues that were especially in conflict, such as the doctrines of grace, faith, justification, the church, and sacraments.”7 Historic Lutheran theology finds itself in agreement with the historic creeds of Christendom, and thus in agreement with other Protestant theologies on those points. Thus, the

Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 8: 71–72 [emphasis mine]. In referring to the Radical Reformers, “Luther called them martyrs of the devil; but Leonhard Kaeser, to whom he wrote a letter of comfort, and whom he held up as a model martyr to the heretical martyrs (see Letters, ed. De Wette, III. 179), was not a Lutheran, as he thought, but the pastor of an Anabaptist congregation at Scherding. He was burnt Aug. 18, 1527, by order of the bishop of Passau. See Cornelius, II. 56.”

7 John H. Leith, ed., Creeds of the Churches—A Reader in Christian Doctrine from the Bible to the Present (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1963), 62.

6

Lutheran Theology

57

heart of Lutheran theology is “sola scriptura,” “sola gratia,” and “sola fide”8 (Scripture alone, grace alone, faith alone).

Lutheran Confessions of Faith Lutheran Theology also reveals marked distinctions from other Reformation traditions. Lutheran authorities are very clear in answering the question: “What is a Lutheran?”

“While there are a variety of ways one could answer this question, one very important answer is simply this, ‘A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.’ The Book of Concord contains the Lutheran confessions of faith.”9 The Book of Concord communicates the heart of Lutheranism.

After Luther’s death in 1546, significant controversies broke out in the Lutheran Church. After much debate and struggle, the Formula of Concord in 1577 put an end to these doctrinal controversies and the Lutheran Church was able to move ahead united in what it believed, taught and confessed. In 1580, all the confessional writings mentioned here were gathered into a single volume, the Book of Concord. Concord is a word that means, ‘harmony.’ The Formula of Concord was summarized in a version known as the ‘Epitome’ of the Formula of Concord. This document too is included in the Book of Concord. 10

We understand Lutheran Theology through its doctrinal confessions.

8 David M. Haara, Pastor of Family of Christ Lutheran Church, Tampa, FL. Interview by author, Tampa, July 3, 2013. I am indebted to Pastor Haara for graciously spending an extended period of time with me.

9 “What is a Lutheran?” http://bookofconcord.org/whatisa lutheran.php.

10 Ibid.

58

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal The History of the Lutheran Confessions

The Wisconsin Synod gives a succinct description of the various confessions.

The Small Catechism (1529 AD)11 Martin Luther wrote the Small Catechism as a brief summary of the basic truths of the Christian faith. It was primarily intended to educate the laity and was designed as a tool that parents could use to teach their children. It provides summaries or explanations of the Ten Commandments, the Apostles Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Sacrament of Baptism, the Sacrament of the Altar (Holy Communion), and the Ministry of the Keys and Confession.

The Large Catechism (1529 AD) Covering in greater depth the same doctrines and subjects as the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism was really a series of edited sermons of Martin Luther. It was intended primarily as a tool that could be used by pastors and teachers to broaden their knowledge of the teachings of the Bible.

The Augsburg Confession (1530 AD) Written by Luther’s colleague Philip Melanchthon, this statement of faith is often viewed as the chief Lutheran confession. It was presented by the followers of Luther to Emperor Charles V at the imperial diet (assembly) meeting in Augsburg, Germany. It was intended to be a summary of the chief articles of the Christian faith as understood and taught

by Lutherans in contrast to the errors that were being taught by the Roman Catholic Church.

11 This entire section is taken from “The Lutheran Confessions.” http://www.wels.net/what-we-believe/statements-beliefs/ lutheran-confessions.

Lutheran Theology

59

The Apology (Defense) of the Augsburg Confession (1531 AD) After the Roman theologians had condemned many of the teachings of the Augsburg Confession, Philip Melanchthon authored this lengthy defense of the Augsburg Confession.

Smalcald Articles (1536 AD) The Smalcald Articles were written by Luther in late 1536 for presentation and discussion at a church council that had been planned by Pope Paul III. On June 4, 1536, Pope Paul III announced that a council would be held to deal with the concerns of the Protestants. In these articles Luther indicated on which points Lutherans would not compromise.

Lutherans at once recognized their value as a statement of pure evangelical and biblical doctrine.

The Formula of Concord (1577 AD) In the years following Luther’s death, Lutherans had become divided over a number of doctrinal issues. Written primarily by Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz, and David Chytraeus, the Formula of Concord (or “agreement”) was a detailed restatement of many of the truths contained in the Augsburg Confession and was intended to be a statement that all genuine Lutherans could adopt. It was signed by over 8,100 pastors and theologians, as well as by over 50 governmental leaders. The Solid Declaration is the unabridged version. The Epitome is an abridged version intended for congregations to study.

Distinctive Teachings of Lutheranism This study will follow the outline of the Augsburg Confession with necessary additions and comments. “The Augsburg Confession, in part because of its historical

60

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

significance and in part because of its intrinsic merit, became the most influential of all the Lutheran creeds.”12 “The first part of the Confession deals with matters of faith and draws on the Schwabach Articles, which had been written by Martin Luther.”13 The confession is essentially a dialogue with Rome. The second half deals with church abuses and makes use of the Torgau Articles, which had been written in preparation for the Augsburg Diet.14 The Confession is divided into two divisions entitled “The Chief Articles of Faith” and “Abuses Corrected.”15 A reading of the Confession reveals that the first twenty-one articles were attempting to set forth the faith of the Lutherans in a positive manner and to show that they were in the “mainstream” of historic doctrine. The last seven articles reveal the abuses the Lutherans discerned within Roman Catholicism and which they sought to correct.

The Articles of the Augsburg Confession The first article on “God” draws from the Nicene Creed and confesses that God is one, and that He is a Trinity.

The second article on “Original Sin” declares that all men since the fall of Adam are sinners. This article introduces Lutheran sacramentalism and states that the result of sin condemns and brings eternal death “upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.”16 The third article on “The Son of God” follows the Apostles’ Creed and confesses the virgin birth, the deity, death, burial, 12 Leith, 64. The Confession may be found at http://www.lcms. org/lutheranconfessions.

13 Ibid.

14 Haara interview, July 3, 2013.

15 http://www.lcms.org/lutheranconfessions. The titles of the articles are taken from the Confession as found in Leith, 67–107.

The translation and titles in the online document are slightly different.

16 Ibid.

Lutheran Theology

61

resurrection, and ascension of Christ. It speaks of his present session in heaven and his ministry to believers through the Holy Spirit. It also states belief in the return of Christ to judge the living and the dead. This historic affirmation concerning Christology is the tie to the Lutheran view of the real presence of Christ in the elements of communion. The full deity and full humanity of Christ is a mystery, and Lutherans view the real presence of Christ in the “sacramental union” as a mystery in the same way.17 The fourth article on “Justification” states the great truth of justification by faith in Christ’s finished work. “Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight.”18 The fifth article, “The Office of the Ministry,” again reveals the perplexing Lutheran mix of grace and the sacraments. It says: “That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ’s sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ’s sake. They condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.”19 The sixth article “The New Obedience” affirms that justifying faith will produce good works. It specifically denies David Haara interview. http://lcms.org/bookofconcord/augsburgconfession.asp.

19 Ibid. Apparently the statement against the Anabaptists refers to the abuses of the Zwickau Prophets.

17 18

62

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

that these works secure merit, especially the merit of justification.

The seventh article on “The Church” defines the church as “the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.”20 The eighth article describes “What the Church Is.” This article recognizes that the church is properly the assembly of all believers. It also confesses that many unsaved people are in the churches. This article seemingly admits the necessary lack of regenerate membership in Lutheran churches. We must observe that a regenerate membership cannot exist when unsaved people are made part of the church through the door of infant baptism. The last article statement in the section criticizes the Donatists for their insistence on a regenerate membership. The full section reads: Although the Church is properly the congregation of saints and true believers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled among the believers, it is allowable to use the sacraments which are administered by evil men, according to the saying of Christ, “The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat,” etc.

[Matt. 23:2]. Both the sacraments and the Word are effective because of the institution and commandment of Christ, even when administered by evil men.

We condemn the Donatists, and all like them, who denied it to be allowable to use the ministry of evil men in

20 Ibid. This is practically identical to Calvin’s statement: “Hence the form of the Church appears and stands forth conspicuous to our view. Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail, ‘Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them’ (Mt. 18:20).” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), IV, i, 9.

Lutheran Theology

63

the Church, and who thought the ministry of evil men to be unprofitable and of no effect.21

The ninth article on “Baptism” states the Lutheran view on the subject. “Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism, are received into God’s grace. They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.”22 The tenth article “The Holy Supper of the Lord” is brief. It states: “Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.”23 This article teaches the “real presence” of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament. It also teaches that both bread and wine are to be distributed to the communicants, and it rejects other views.

This sets the stage for the Lutheran position on the ubiquity (omnipresence) of Christ’s body. The roots of this doctrine are found in the reasoning of William of Occam.

Occam proceeded still further, dialectically postulating, at least, the possibility of the “repletive existence” (and thus of the ubiquity) of the body of Christ. He accordingly taught, (1) the actual “repletive existence” of God; (2) the local presence of the body of Christ in heaven; (3) the non-quantitative, definitive presence in many places of the body of Christ in the host; and the possibility of the ubiquity of this body in the universe.24

21 “The Augsburg Confession,” http://els.org/beliefs/augsburg confession/#articleVIII. Accessed January 1, 2015.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzogg Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Baker, 19509

64

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Luther rejected the Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. Rather, he adopted “the teaching of the consubstantiation (of Occam), postulating, without any attempt at explanation, the substantial coexistence of the bread and the body of Christ in the Eucharist.”25 The eleventh article on “Confession” retains confession as a practice.

The twelfth article is entitled “Repentance.” It states: Of repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these two parts: One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance. They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin. The Novatians also are condemned; who would not absolve such as had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance. They also are rejected who do not teach that remission of sins comes through faith but command us to merit grace through satisfactions of our own.26

Note that the statement denies eternal security. The statement affirms that the church in some way offers absolution to the repentant. The statement condemns the reprint, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc12.i.html.

Accessed February 23, 2015.

25 Ibid.

26 http://www.evangelicallutheransynod.org/augsburgconfession/#articleVIII. Accessed January 1, 2015.

Lutheran Theology

65

Anabaptist position on security. The statement likewise rejects the Catholic teaching on meritocracy.

The thirteenth article “The Use of the Sacraments” states that the sacraments are a means of awakening faith.

The fourteenth article is on “Order in the Church.” It states that only those who are called should teach or administer the sacraments.

The fifteenth article on “Church Usages” deals with ecclesiastical “holy days.” The statement affirms that they may be observed, but they are not binding upon believers.

This statement again renounces meritocracy.

The sixteenth article discusses “Civil Government.” This article affirms that Christians may participate in civil government and hold office. It also affirms that government is ordained of God and should be preserved. It rejects the Anabaptist position of not participating in civil government.

Finally, it states that Christians are duty bound to obey civil law. “Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men Acts 5:29.”27 The seventeenth article discusses “The Return of Christ to Judgment.” It affirms Lutheran belief that Scripture teaches that Christ will return and that there will be a judgment of the saved and the lost. It goes on to state of Lutheran pastors: “They condemn the Anabaptists, who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils. They condemn also others who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed.”28 Ibid.

Ibid. The last statement apparently opposes Melchoir Hoffman’s view of eschatology. Hoffman believed that Strasbourg would be the New Jerusalem and that he himself was the Prophet 27 28

66

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

The eighteenth article is on “Freedom of the Will.” The opening statement succinctly states: “Of Free Will they teach that man’s will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word.”29 The nineteenth article “The Cause of Sin” attributes sin to the perverted will of sinful men.

The twentieth article on “Faith and Good Works” is extensive. The statement affirms that justification comes only by grace through faith. It reaffirms the Lutheran rejection of good works as a means of gaining merit with God. It teaches that good works naturally follow justification, and they are the will of God for the Christian. The summation crystallizes the statement: Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the Second Commandment. Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man’s help. And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart. Wherefore Christ said, John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing; and the Church sings: Lacking Thy divine favor, There is nothing found in man, Naught in him is harmless.30

Elijah chosen to announce the event. mennosimons.net/melchiorhoffman.html.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

See

http://www.

Lutheran Theology

67

The twenty-first article addresses “The Cult of the Saints.”

The article positively states that the memory of the saints is to be preserved “that we may follow their faith and good works.” It specifically states that the saints are not to be addressed in prayer. It further states that Christ is the only one to whom believers are to pray. It affirms that Jesus has promised to answer the prayers of believers.

This concludes the section in which the Lutherans articulated their doctrinal beliefs. They closed this section by saying: This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. There is, however, disagreement on certain Abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected. 31

The twenty-second article begins the second major division of the Confession. It deals, as Haara noted, with abuses the Lutherans observed in their controversy with Rome. The twenty-second article addresses the subject “Of 31

Ibid.

68

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Both Kinds in the Sacrament.” As the last article ended with a summary of the first division, this article is prefaced with a preamble-like statement that sets the tone for the last articles. It states: Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience. Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. Having thus excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent. Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies.

But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches. 32

The article then states that the Lutherans gave their sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to the people in both kinds (both bread and wine). It states that their practice followed the biblical pattern and historic precedent. The argument assumes the real presence of Christ in the elements, calling the wine “the blood of Christ.”33 The twenty-third article, “The Marriage of Priests,” argues for allowing priests to marry based on Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 7. The article speaks of the scandals among the 32 33

Ibid.

Ibid.

Lutheran Theology

69

priests and thus argues for marriage on a practical level as an antidote to immorality.

The twenty-fourth article speaks of “The Mass.” The article begins in an interesting manner that also reveals something of the Lutheran view of worship. It states: “Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been added to teach the people.”34 The article then goes on to repudiate the Roman abuses of the Mass.

One of the Catholic abuses of the mass related to money.

“But it is evident that for a long time this also has been the public and most grievous complaint of all good men that Masses have been basely profaned and applied to purposes of lucre. For it is not unknown how far this abuse obtains in all the churches by what manner of men Masses are said only for fees or stipends, and how many celebrate them contrary to the Canons.”35 Another abuse was the heresy that Christ’s death made satisfaction for original sin and the Mass makes satisfaction for daily sins. The statement appeals to Hebrews 10 in stating that Christ’s death was sufficient to make satisfaction for all sins.

The Confession views the Mass as a sacrament, but also as a remembrance of Christ’s work. It says: But Christ commands us, Luke 22:19: This do in remembrance of Me; therefore the Mass was instituted that the faith of those who use the Sacrament should remember what benefits it receives through Christ, and cheer and comfort the anxious conscience. For to remember Christ is to remember His benefits, and to realize that they are truly

34 35

Ibid.

Ibid.

70

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal offered unto us. Nor is it enough only to remember the history; for this also the Jews and the ungodly can remember. Wherefore the Mass is to be used to this end, that there the Sacrament [Communion] may be administered to them that have need of consolation; as Ambrose says: Because I always sin, I am always bound to take the medicine. [Therefore this Sacrament requires faith, and is used in vain without faith.]36

The twenty-fifth article discusses â&#x20AC;&#x153;Confession.â&#x20AC;? The opening paragraph of the statement reveals again the sacramentalism of this Reformation body.

Confession in the churches is not abolished among us; for it is not usual to give the body of the Lord, except to them that have been previously examined and absolved.

And the people are most carefully taught concerning faith in the absolution, about which formerly there was profound silence. Our people are taught that they should highly prize the absolution, as being the voice of God, and pronounced

by Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s command. The power of the Keys is set forth in its beauty and they are reminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, also, that God requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding from heaven, and that such faith in Christ truly obtains and receives the forgiveness of sins. Aforetime satisfactions were immoderately extolled; of faith and the merit of Christ and the righteousness of faith no mention was made; wherefore, on this point, our churches are by no means to be blamed.

For this even our adversaries must needs concede to us that the doctrine concerning repentance has been most diligently treated and laid open by our teachers. 37

The statement does not require the naming of all known sins to the priest. Lutheranism argues for justification by faith for a permanent sacrifice for sin by Christ and still teaches confession and absolution by the church.

36 37

Ibid. http://lcms.org/bookofconcord/augsburgconfession.asp.

Lutheran Theology

71

The twenty-sixth article carries the title “The Distinction of Foods.” It condemns the meritocracy that fasts produced.

It also affirms that these practices go beyond the teachings of Scripture.

The twenty-seventh article deals with “Monastic Vows.” It condemns the practice for several reasons, including the corruption the monasteries produced, and the commandments that were laid on monks beyond the teachings of Scripture: “In Augustine’s time they were free associations. Afterward, when discipline was corrupted, vows were everywhere added for the purpose of restoring discipline, as in a carefully planned prison.”38 The twenty-eighth article speaks to “The Power of the Bishops.” The statement opens by saying: “There has been great controversy concerning the Power of Bishops, in which some have awkwardly confounded the power of the Church and the power of the sword.”39 It viewed the legitimate power of the bishops as specifically limited. “But this is their opinion, that the power of the Keys, or the power of the bishops, according to the Gospel, is a power or commandment of God, to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer Sacraments.” It further stated: “This power is exercised only by teaching or preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments, according to their calling either to many or to individuals.”40 The article called for a form of separation of church and state: Therefore the power of the Church and the civil power must not be confounded. The power of the Church has its own commission to teach the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments. Let it not break into the office of another; let it not transfer the kingdoms of this world; let it not abrogate the laws of civil rulers; let it not abolish lawful obedience; let it not interfere with judgments concerning civil 38 39 40

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

72

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal ordinances or contracts; let it not prescribe laws to civil rulers concerning the form of the Commonwealth. As Christ says, John 18:36: My kingdom is not of this world; also Luke 12:14: Who made Me a judge or a divider over you?

Paul also says, Phil. 3:20: Our citizenship is in heaven; 2 Cor. 10:4: The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the casting down of imaginations.

After this manner our teachers discriminate between the duties of both these powers, and command that both be honored and acknowledged as gifts and blessings of God. 41

The very next paragraph did seem to allow for a bishop to hold both civil and ecclesiastical office: “If bishops have any power of the sword, that power they have, not as bishops, by the commission of the Gospel, but by human law having received it of kings and emperors for the civil administration of what is theirs. This, however, is another office than the ministry of the Gospel.”42 The article also objects to the abuse of bishops creating traditions not taught by Scripture. It concludes by appealing to 1 Peter 5:3 as a proscription of bishops acting as lords over the churches.

Reason in Lutheran Theology The place of reason in theology must be understood in any theological system. This is a function of Prolegomena in the study of systematic theology. It is an issue of tension in Lutheran theology, and it should have been noticeable by now. E. Brooks Holifield observes that Luther seemed to work in paradoxes. He “disparaged natural reason as a foe to faith.”43 This produced certain positions, such as:

Ibid.

Ibid.

43 E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America—Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 398.

41 42

Lutheran Theology

73

“Christ was fully God and fully human at the same time.”

“Believers were totally sinful and totally righteous at the same time.”

“The grounding of the gospel was the paradoxical revelation of God in the suffering and dying of Jesus on the cross.”

“In Luther’s theology, the cross was the foundation for the doctrine that the justification of the sinful was a sheer gift of grace to be gratefully accepted in faith, not a reward for spiritual or moral achievement.”

“Luther defended theological positions—such as the corporeal presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacramental bread and wine, or the doctrine that the baptismal water contained and conveyed a saving spiritual grace—that his critics derided as irrational. In turn, he saw his critics as more devoted to Aristotle than to a gospel that was ‘foolishness to the wise.’”44

The issue of the “corporeal presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacramental bread and wine” was an issue of debate among Lutheran theologians. They differed on the “ubiquity of Christ’s body,” a philosophical position which was Luther’s justification for his view of consubstantiation in the Eucharist.45 Conclusion It is important to note just how far Lutheranism did not come in its journey out of Rome. Luther was excommunicated on January 3, 1521.46 The Augsburg Confession was written nine years later, in 1530. At that time the Lutherans were still affirming doctrinal unity with Rome Ibid.

David Haara, interview of July 3, 2013, confirmed that the concept of the ubiquity of Christ’s body deals with the real presence of Christ’s body in Communion.

46 http://bookofconcord.org/decet-romanum.php.

44 45

74

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

and seeking to reform what they called “abuses” in the Catholic Church.

Lutheran sacramentalism is also readily apparent. By now we have seen that Lutheranism ties baptism and regeneration together. We have seen how the system affirms the real presence of Christ in the elements of the Eucharist.

We have seen here that they still viewed their liturgical services as a Mass.

The issue of the ubiquity of Christ’s body is a conundrum.

Luther sought to reject the transubstantiation of the Catholic mass and yet maintain the real presence of Christ’s body in the elements of the Eucharist.

In spite of the sacramentalism in the system, the emphasis on God’s grace and justification by faith leaps out at the reader of the doctrinal statements. The great issue in presenting the Gospel to Lutherans is the question of trust.

Is one trusting the finished work of Christ without any work as the Bible teaches? Or, is a person trusting that the grace of God is somehow communicated through the sacraments?

Scripture is clear that we enter into this personal relationship with God apart from any work of our own.

Romans 3:28 states: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” In the very next chapter the Apostle Paul reinforces this truth with the example of Abraham: “For what saith the scripture?

Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:3–5). God justifies us by our faith in Christ without any work of our own. Scripture teaches justification by faith alone.

The opposition to works and meritocracy is reflective of that emphasis, and it is also reflective of Luther’s own conversion experience. The Lutheran position on law and grace is the most biblical of the reformed traditions on this subject.

MBTJ 5/1: 75â&#x20AC;&#x201C;86

Theological Misinterpretations of the Confessing Church Matthew Spurlock1 Before the Third Reich obtained full political power in Germany, there was an effort to unify the Protestant churches, mostly Lutheran, into one church, merged with the ideologies of the Nazi state. Though there was much support from a large portion of Protestants, known as the Deutsche Christen (German Christians), who supported such an effort, there were also those who opposed the effort. The opposition would eventually form what became known as the Bekennende Kirche (Confessing Church). Though they were astute enough to recognize the dangerous propositions being purported by the German Christians and the Nazi regime, their significant misinterpretation regarding Lutheran theological positions and the development of a creed based upon the neo-orthodox positions of Karl Barth left the Confessing Church with little more than a weak protest against the Nazi government and a weak stance on the atrocities the Third Reich committed. An examination of the origination of the Confessing Church, its actions (or lack thereof) throughout the Nazi rise of power, and its demise in the aftermath of World War II will demonstrate that such theological positions hindered the Confessing Church from aggressively opposing de FĂźhrer.

1 Matthew Spurlock is a student at Maranatha Baptist Seminary. Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal usually publishes one article each year written by a seminary student.

76

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal The Need for the Confessing Church

As the Nazi party began to rise, so did the German Christian movement. This movement was officially known as Glaubensbewegung Deutsche Christen (the German Christian Faith Movement).2 Though the Nazi party did not desire to back a particular church group initially, there was a growing number of Protestant clergy who felt a strong need for a “conservative, Lutheran and above all German form of doctrine, and various church groups were formed throwing their confessional weight behind the Nazi movement.”3 The result was that “by June 6, 1932, the German Christian Faith Movement had an organizational structure similar to that of the National Socialist party.”4 Such a hierarchy of structure, found similarly within the Catholic Church and other denominations, no longer seeks to allow Christ to be head of the church, but sinful man. This was the case for the German Christians. Before they began to follow Hitler, they were devoted to the doctrines of Martin Luther.

As this movement began to gain momentum, the German Christians desired to incorporate “the twenty-seven Protestant regional churches into a united German Evangelical Reich church headed by a Reich bishop with close ties to Hitler.”5 It is clear that this forfeited the autonomy of the local church. Hockenos elaborates on this fact, stating that “their goal to integrate Christianity and National Socialism in a racially pure ‘people’s church’ was a Ernst Christian Helmreich, The German Churches under Hitler: Background, Struggle, and Epilogue (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979), 127.

3 Jeremy Begbie, “The Confessing Church and the Nazis: A Struggle for Theological Truth,” Anvil, A Journal of Theology and Mission 2.2 (Summer 1985): 117–118.

4 Helmreich, 127.

5 Matthew D. Hockenos, A Church Divided: German Protestants Confront the Nazi Past (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001), 15.

2

The Confessing Church

77

direct challenge not only to the autonomy of the regional churches but to Lutheran and Reformed doctrinal principles as well.”6 The adherence to Lutheran theology gripped the people tightly; and as Hitler became Chancellor, the excitement behind the Nazi movement fanned excitement among the German Christians.

Hitler became Reich Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. At this time, “nearly all of those pastors who would become members of the Confessing Church anticipated cooperation rather than confrontation with National Socialism.”7 At Hitler’s rise to Chancellor, “Protestant churchmen across the country shared in general enthusiasm for his nationalist, anticommunist and anti-Semitic rhetoric.”8 Soon after Hitler became Chancellor, he appointed Ludwig Müller as Reich Bishop of the German Christians and initiated the Reich Civil Service Law of April 1933. Civil servants who were not of Aryan descent, as well as opponents of the Nazi regime, were forced to retire from civil service.

This included clergy, as they were financially supported by the state. 9 At this point, there was unrest in those who would form the Confessing Church. Begbie notes that “church resistance to the Nazis began first and foremost as a church struggle, without any question of political resistance.”10 Such political resistance was unthinkable at this time, since it would be contrary to the Lutheran two-kingdom doctrine!

The German Christian influence reached into the Old Prussian and Land Churches. These areas were where “the Ibid.

Donald D. Wall, “The Confessing Church and the Second World War,” Journal of Church and State (Winter 1981): 15.

8 Hockenos, 17.

9 Jordan J. Ballor, “The Aryan Clause, the Confessing Church, and the Ecumenical Movement: Barth and Bonhoeffer on Natural Theology, 1933–1935,” Scottish Journal of Theology 59.3 (August 2006): 267.

10 Begbie, 118.

6 7

78

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

administration and governing authorities of the Land Churches came largely under control of German Christians, who accepted the policies of the National Church Administration headed by Bishop Mϋller.”11 Jantzen notes that “despite these significant differences in their ecclesiastical contexts, however, all three districts endured significant levels of church-political conflict—not least in the form of strife between fellow clergymen.”12 The Beginning of the Confessing Church Protestant clergymen, who were disturbed by the Nazi regime’s ecclesiastical policies, had joined Martin Niemöller’s Pastor’s Emergency League.13 On 29 May 1934, 138 church delegates attended a synod at Barmen and pledged supported a new “Confessing Church” (Bekenntniskirche).

This was a significant move towards consolidated resistance against the influence of the German Christians.14 Their main concern with the Nazi influence was the perpetration of its beliefs within the German Christian churches. The German Christians openly accepted the Nazi’s “highly politicized and secularized theology that subverted scripture and the inherited Lutheran and Reformed confessions with Fϋhrerworship, German völkischness, and explicitly racial antiSemitism.”15 Baranowski states that those that represented the Confessing Church “sought to preserve the purity of the gospel as stated in the Old and New Testaments and again brought to light in the historic Lutheran and Reformed Helmreich, 413.

Kyle Jantzen, “Propoganda, Perserverance, and Protest: Strategies for Clerical Survival Amid the German Church Struggle,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 70.2 (June 2001): 297.

13 Wall, 16.

14 Begbie, 119.

15 Shelley Baranowski, “Consent and Dissent: The Confessing Church and Conservative Opposition to National Socialism,” The Journal of Modern History 59.1 (March 1987): 58.

11 12

The Confessing Church

79

Confessional statements.”16 This was accomplished primarily through Karl Barth and the Barmen Declaration.

The Barman Declaration affirmed the Confessing Church’s loyalty to Christ and set forth the limits of secular government.17 Barth took this opportunity to insert much of his neo-orthodox positions, including the rejection of natural (general) theology. Ballor notes that “the relation of the Barmen Declaration to the Confessing Church and the relation of the Confessing Church to the broader ecumenical world both revolved around Barth’s ‘No!’ to natural theology.”18 This Declaration, although not ideal for all clergy involved in the formation of the Confessing Church, sought the preeminence of Christ.

The key-note of the confession was the unique Lordship of Christ over every area of life together with the rejection of any other ultimate authority in faith and conduct. The Confessing Church now regarded herself as the one true Evangelical Church in Germany, although de facto there were two churches: the Confessing Church and the German Evangelical Church under Mϋller.19

Though the Reformed, United and Lutheran churches came to a shaky agreement to the Barman Declaration, many Lutherans opposed Barth’s theology because it “challenged four of the conservative Lutheran’s most sacred tenets: the law-gospel dialectic, the orders of creation or divine orders, natural revelation, and the orthodox Lutheran understanding of Martin Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms.”20 Although they began moving in the right direction by separating from the Third Reich, the Lutheran ideology of church and state both appointed by God kept 16 17 18 19 20

Helmreich, 420.

Wall, 16.

Ballor, 276.

Begbie, 119.

Hockenos, 23.

80

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

them from being “unable to conceive seriously of becoming a ‘free’ church, that is, one dependent entirely on the contribution of a voluntary membership.”21 Those in the Confessing Church were not only facing outside opposition, but there were also internal conflicts between the radical and conservative wings of the Confessing Church. Hockenos notes that “some pastors and church leaders in the Niemöller wing of the Confessing Church believed that it was necessary to publically protest state laws and decrees that interfered with the church’s control over its administrative, financial, legal, and pastoral offices.”22 Indeed, Karl Barth’s position had many opponents. Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth disagreed on the Jewish question and the Aryan clause.23 Barth saw the need to be separate from the state, but “many of the leaders of Confessing Church (especially bishops such as Hans Meiser, Theophil Wurm, and August Marahrens) wanted to be recognized by the state and thereby maintain contact with the rest of the Protestant Church.”24 This continual desire to be tied to the government was rooted in their Lutheran theology.

The influence of Lutheran theology was significantly strong within Germany and their ideology and theology contributed towards many of the actions (or inactions) of both groups. Begbie notes that “theologians and clergy in the Lutheran tradition had thus long been schooled to preach obedience to the ruling authorities, basing their arguments on traditional interpretations of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 3:17.”25 Also, it must be noted that the Confessing Church was never completely cut off from state funds. Helmreich states that “in general, the Confessing church pastors and congregations continued to be financed through the 21 22 23 24 25

Baronowski, 65.

Hockenos, 17.

Ballor, 270.

Ballor, 380.

Begbie, 125.

The Confessing Church

81

customary church taxes, church money (Kirchgeld), income from lands, state subsidies, and church collections.”26 Barth recognized this, as “he held that the failure of the Confessing Church to offer a ‘more comprehensive resistance’ to the political evil of National Socialism was rooted deeply in traditional Lutheran theology.”27 Although the Confessing Church was rooted deeply in Lutheran theology, their association with Barth’s neoorthodoxy did not aid in their efforts. Ultimately, the Confessing Church was unable to effectively stand against the rise of Nazism. Begbie notes this by stating that “an enormously significant factor was that the churches were theologically ill-equipped and unprepared to come to grips with the immense power of Nazi ideology and the profound issues it raised for the life and witness of the church.”28 Wall concurs by stating that the Church’s “commitment to the fatherland and sense of loyalty to the German people were at least as strong as its moral indignation against National Socialism.”29 This commitment no doubt derived from the influence of Lutheran theology. However, the anti-semitism which also derived from Lutheran theology was far more disastrous.

Silence of the Confessing Church On August 2, 1934, the German President Hindenburg died. The previous day, the cabinet had enacted the “Law Concerning the Highest State Office of the Reich.” This law abolished the office of the President, merging the position’s powers with those of the Chancellor. Thus, Hitler was now the head of state as well as of the government in a newly titled position, Fϋhrer of Germany. “This action gave Hitler ultimate power over Germany, which gave Bishop Mϋller 26 27 28 29

Helmreich, 416.

Wall, 18.

Begbie, 123.

Wall, 33.

82

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

further motivation towards his goal of ‘one God, one Volk and one Church.’”30 The aggression by the Nazi regime intensified. Begbie notes that “police were harassing pastors not only in the Prussian Confessing Churches but also in other Land Churches. Many were denied the right to preach, their houses were searched, some were dismissed or pensioned, some 700 were arrested, and some placed in concentration camps.”31 Martin Niemöller, one of the Confessing Church founders, was imprisoned on 1 July, 1937. The Church was also being influenced from within as well. Members of the Lutheran Council were moderates within the Confessing Church. Although they considered themselves a part of the Confessing Church, they were winning others to their Lutheran positions.

Using the two kingdoms doctrine, these moderates could, on the one hand, celebrate the German revolution and the national awakening, and also accept anti-Jewish laws, while they could work, on the other hand, inside the church against the Aryan paragraph. The political sphere was given independence. It was thus impossible to criticize the political order. Thus both conservative and liberal moderates could affirm the Nazi policy. 32

Niemöller’s imprisonment, along with the moderates’ determination to accommodate the Nazi regime, caused many within the Church to become increasingly cautious.33 However, actions by the Nazi regime such as “the arrest of pastors and church members who acted on their own religious convictions were not viewed in a political framework

Begbie, 119.

Ibid, 120.

32 Arne Rasmusson, “‘Deprive Them of Their Pathos’: Karl Barth and the Nazi Revolution Revisited,” Modern Theology 23.3 (July 2007): 373.

33 Wall, 17.

30 31

The Confessing Church

83

by which Christians could have connected these arrests to the growing oppression of Jews and others under Nazism.”34 These violent acts increased through the months, and before “the Munich Agreement in September 1938, when war seemed imminent, three members of the provisional administration, Martin Albertz, Hans Böhm, and Fritz Mϋller, wrote and circulated a prayer service of confession and intercession.”35 Within this prayer, there was an omission of prayers for Hitler, Sudeten Germans and a German victory. “Included were a confession of specific sins of the German people and prayers for all peoples of the world and for peace.”36 The prayer was circulated in the SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, where they received public criticism and disassociation.37 Those in the Confessing Church were branded as traitors to their country and were continually drawing the Gestapo’s attention. Though the church’s desire in their minds was to be biblical, they were drawing political lines. Such actions were of little effect to turn the tide. “As war loomed and Nazi propaganda stirred national loyalties and revived the anger at Germany’s defeat in 1918, patriotism stirred in the churches as well as in the general population.”38 Even though the Confessing Church rejected the German War Crusade, they could not publicly denounce Hitler’s aggressive attacks as unjust.39 This was due to their theological position, as Barnett states: “Reaching back for the certainties of Lutheran tradition, church leaders felt

Victoria Barnett, For The Soul of the People: Prostestant Protest Against Hitler (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 60.

35 Wall, 19.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 Barnett, 92.

39 Wall, 21.

34

84

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

bound by their loyalties to throne and altar.”40 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian who was opposed to war, “was explicit that the Confessing Church should not yield on any point to the Nazi state or those elements in the official church that cooperated with the state.”41 Though there were some such as Bonhoeffer that opposed the Nazi regime, the Church as a whole was silent on Germany’s encroachment toward war. Wall states that “there was no response at all to Hitler’s dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in March, 1939, or to the Polish crisis in the summer of that year.”42 Hockenos identifies this sin of omission by the Confessing Church: Although a unified response from the Confessing Church was virtually impossible, the real stumbling block to an official Confessing Church protest was not the confessional, organizational, or even political divisions but the traditional antipathy toward Judaism derived from centuries of Lutheran teaching that the Jew was a godless outcast who would always be a danger to a Christian nation unless he converted to Christianity.43

This distain for the Jewish people, plagued by centuries of Lutheran theology, not only supported a criminal government, but also stood silent as Jews were being eradicated. Begbie concurs, stating that “the traditional quietist attitude of Lutheranism towards the state had a large part to play, together with a significant anti-Semitic strain within contemporary Lutheran theology.”44

Barnett, 37.

Ibid, 96.

42 Donald D. Wall, “The Confessing Church and Hitler’s Foreign Policy: The Czechoslovakian Crisis of 1938,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 44.3 (September 1976): 436.

43 Hockenos, 36.

44 Begbie, 128.

40 41

The Confessing Church

85

As the war progressed, some within the Confessing Church “came to the realization that the evil of National Socialism demanded something beyond the strictly ecclesiastical opposition prescribed by Lutheran theology and loyalty to the fatherland.”45 However, by this time, it was too late for any action to be effective against the Nazi war machine. Though Confessing Church members would defend Hebrew Christians against such Nazi policies, it was not for humanitarian reasons they did so, but for theological reasons; they only saw a Jewish Christian as a brother or sister in Christ, rather than a person made in the image of God. The success of Hitler’s anti-Semitic propaganda can be credited to “the unrelenting anti-Jewish Christian theological discourse that linked Nazi propaganda with the traditions and moral authority of the churches.”46 It is important to note that there were many bold individuals fighting against the Nazi government. Though the greatest significance of the Confessing Church was their opposition to the German Christians and the Nazi regime, they could never oppose Nazi doctrine because of the theological chains of Lutheranism that bound them.

The Confessing Church, by its own admission, fell short of fulfilling the mission of the church. It acknowledged that the Third Reich was an immoral state in which evil was not simply an accident but a principle. Yet the theology of the church called for implicit obedience to the duly constituted authorities and discouraged political resistance. 47

45

Wall, “The Confessing Church and the Second World War,”

29.

Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and The Bible In Nazi Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 7.

47 Wall, “The Confessing Church and the Second World War,” 33.

46

86

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Conclusion Though the Confessing Church recognized the dangers and atrocities of the Third Reich, their theological bond to Lutheranism disallowed them from questioning the government. Their hatred towards Jews kept them silent during the darkest hour in German history. Instead of abandoning their Lutheran doctrine, they incorporated Barthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s neo-orthodox theology into their Lutheranism as their foundation during this trying time. Such a misinterpretation of the history of biblical theology reveals the dangers of adding any other authority to the Word of God, whether that be an unfounded doctrine, a biased creed, or a faulty theology.

MBTJ 5/1: 87â&#x20AC;&#x201C;90

Book Review Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity (3 vols). Detroit: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2010. 1341 pages. Reviewed by Larry Oats.

Rolland McCune was professor of Systematic Theology at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, Michigan. He was President of the Seminary for 10 years and Dean of the Faculty for six years. Prior to that he was on the faculty of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Plymouth, MN, for 14 years, serving in the capacities of Professor, Registrar, and Dean.

McCune grew up in Indiana. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree at Taylor University, Fort Wayne, Indiana, and the Bachelor of Divinity (today this would be the Master of Divinity), Master of Theology, and Doctor of Theology degrees at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. He has travelled to the Middle East, visiting Italy, Turkey, Greece, Jordan, Israel, and Egypt. Twice he participated in the Bible Geography Seminar at the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem.

McCune began his ministry as a pastor. He was ordained by the First Baptist Church of Warsaw, Indiana. He pastored churches in Missouri and Indiana. While in Minnesota, he served on the Board of Trustees of the Minnesota Baptist Association. In 1977 he was nominated by Taylor University for honorary membership in Delta Epsilon Chi, the honor society of the American Association of Bible Colleges (today the Association for Biblical Higher Education). In 1986 he was given an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree by Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, Owatonna, Minnesota. Dr. McCune wrote Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern

88

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Evangelicalism in 2004 and has written numerous articles for various journals.

McCune’s Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity (3 vols.) is Baptist, dispensational, and fundamentalist. As such, it stands apart from the vast majority of theologies written in the past decade or more. This theology was written for pastors, not particularly for theologians. The writing is clear and concise. McCune places a strong emphasis on the scriptural basis for each doctrine and teaching. His writing style is engaging and understandable. There is nothing particularly new, for McCune’s theology is traditionally dispensational and Baptist.

This work is available in print format from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (http://www.dbts.edu/store) or Amazon, or in digital format from Logos Bible Software. It is currently a three-volume set, presumably because it was being published as it was being written. We trust that the next printing will be a one-volume edition.

Volume One covers prolegomena, bibliology, theology proper, and angelology. While his prolegomena is brief, it is a very helpful read for someone who agrees with his underlying presuppositions – a fundamentalist worldview, Baptist ecclesiology, a VanTil style of presuppositionalism, and a Calvinistic soteriology. His high view of the sovereignty of God will be refreshing to some and disturbing to others. In his prolegomena, McCune defines systematic theology as “the correlation of the various teachings or doctrines found in the Bible” (1:5). The only source for theology is “God’s self-disclosure in the Bible” (1:13); he thus rejects nature, rationalism, mysticism, experience, and even the history of doctrine as “false sources of theology” (1:17). In spite of this declaration, McCune does accept the reality of general revelation: “While this revelation is restrictive in content, it is nevertheless absolutely clear and divinely authoritative” (1:40). He also indicates a heavy reliance on the dispensational thought of Charles Ryrie (1:106). McCune rejects progressive dispensationalism as “an unwelcome aberration and wholly unsatisfactory as an approach to understanding Scripture” (1:106).

Book Review

89

McCune’s view of inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture is traditional, and his hermeneutic is clearly dispensational. In addition to a straightforward discussion of the existence of God, his personality, and his attributes, McCune includes a section on God’s providential control of the universe. Volume One concludes with a discussion of the origin, nature, and destiny of good and evil angels.

In Volume Two, McCune discusses anthropology, hamartiology, Christology, and Pneumatology. He accepts the Genesis account of man’s creation and fall as a history of actual events. He argues for traducianism and a federal view of the headship of Adam. In his section on the doctrine of sin, he takes a strong view of total depravity and the imputation of Adam’s sin.

McCune ably defends the preexistence of Christ, the virgin birth, the humanity and deity of Christ, and the work of Christ in the atonement. This volume concludes with a solid discussion of the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit and his work in the believer.

McCune, unlike most dispensationalists, argues for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Old Testament saints. He does, however, argue that the baptism of the Spirit is only for New Testament saints.

Volume Three discusses soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. His Calvinism is most evident in his explanation of the doctrine of salvation. Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect, salvation is wholly of God, regeneration precedes faith, and the elect will persevere until the end. His dispensationalism is evident in his doctrine of the church. He draws a clear distinction between Israel and the church, based on differences in their origin, purpose, and destiny. His dispensationalism is also clearly evident in his view of eschatology.

He argues for a pretribulational rapture, a tribulation with Israel as its focus, the premillennial return of Christ, and a literal kingdom centered on Christ as the Righteous King ruling from David’s throne in Jerusalem.

McCune’s strength is also his weakness. He is straightforward and focused almost exclusively on the text of Scripture. This means he does not interact with much of the current discussions of theology and he does not delve into the history of the development of doctrine. This is helpful for the pastor or layperson who is looking

90

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

for a fairly simple and direct systematic theology. It is not so helpful for the student seeking to examine the varying positions in the theological world today. McCune also tends toward the dogmatic, often identifying his conclusions without giving the reader a thorough rationale for how he reached that conclusion. That said, this is a helpful set of books for the person not well acquainted with theology and for the pastor who wants a quick read in a given area.