Our entire lives

...All Works and all Societies are bad.
The Just shall live by faith!, he cried in dread,
And men and women of the world were glad,
Who never trembled in their useful lives.

-- W.H. Auden, "Luther"

"Eleutherius,-" "the Free Man-" Martin Luther sometimes called himself, punning on his own name. Auden was wrong about one thing: he who has never trembled cannot understand Luther, his theology, or the Truth that set him free.

Today is Reformation Day- the 486th anniversary of the day that Martin Luther is reputed to have nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. That door was in effect the "bulletin board" of the University of Wittenberg, at which Luther was a professor of theology. His intent (assuming that he actually posted them, which some historians- notably Roman Catholic historians Joseph Lortz and Erwin Iserloh- dispute) was simply to provoke debate concerning the efficacy and meaning of indulgences- formal remissions of the "temporal" penalties of sin. Often- contrary, it should be noted, to actual Roman Catholic doctrine- indulgences were brazenly sold for money (in lieu of the accepted practice of asking for an optional donation) in order to finance various church projects (in the case of the specific indulgence to which Luther objected, the building of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome). It was the shameless hawking of indulgences to Luther's parishioners by Dominican Johann Tetzel which inspired the Theses. Ironically, from the point of view of strict Catholic doctrine, Luther was right, and Tetzel was wrong. But the Roman Catholic church, as institutions (ecclesiastical and otherwise) often do, reacted instinctively to defend itself as an institution rather than to defend the integrity of its own teaching. Had it reacted otherwise, history might have been much different.

Most contemporary Catholic scholars find little- if anything at all- theologically objectionable about the content of the Theses; in fact, some claim (though I find their argument unpersuasive) that it was not actually the theology of indulgences Luther disputed at this point, but merely popular practices concerning them. In any event, it was their hostile reception by the Catholic church of Luther's day (combined with the heavy-handed tactics of certain Catholic theologians, which undercut nearly successful subsequent efforts by the papacy at reconciliation) which was the occasion of the Protestant Reformation.

In any case, the dispute would ultimately become how God not only saves but transforms human beings. Does it happen- as Catholicism, and, to a lesser extent, "Evangelicalism" insist- through the cooperation of the human will with God's grace? Or- as Luther and Calvin insisted- are we saved (forgiven) and even given faith gratuitously, without any cooperation of our own wills, our wills being rather transformed both as to their trust in God's promises and their moral orientation and holiness through that trust, by God's grace?

Catholicism, of course, is no more formally Pelagian (teaching salvation by works) than the classical Reformation is antinomian (teaching salvation without moral transformation). Both charges are polemical distortions which, unfortunately, continue to be defended by well-meaning but ill-informed apologists for their respective camps. The Lutheran (and classical Calvinist) objection to the Roman Catholic position remains, however, essentially Paul's argument in Romans 11:6: that ontologically grace cannot be combined with works without ceasing to be grace; that finally both salvation and moral transformation- which nobody disagrees always, in practice, accompany each other- must either be all God's doing or all man's, and that any attempt to combine the two is, to speak in mathematical terms, to multiply grace by zero. The result is not grace (however the formulator may intend it to be), but zero. One can no more be saved by both grace and works than a woman can be a sort of pregnant! Any requirement of works in the economy of salvation (as opposed to the admission that, in the saved, works are always present as the inevitable product and symptom of true faith) means, as a practical matter, that it is that particle of human cooperation with grace that is the difference between salvation and damnation.

Note, once again, that Catholicism does not deny that our works and our faith are ultimately God's doing within us. Neither does most "Evangelicalism." Both fall back on what Wesley called "previent grace:" a kind of generalized help given by God's grace to those who are properly disposed in believing and thus in being saved. But then, from whence comes that proper disposition? If it is of works, as Paul points out, it is no more of grace!

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, reached by theologians of the Roman Catholic church and the Lutheran World Federation some years ago, is careful to emphasize that both Catholicism and Lutheranism (however poorly the latter tradition is represented by the LWF and its American representative, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, for whom theological accommodation is far more the theological bottom line than justification) agree that we are saved by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith. However, concern for "making ecumenical nice-nice" implied far more agreement than, in fact, exists. "Justification," "grace," and "faith" are each terms that are defined differently by Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism; merely agreeing on those words really solves nothing!

For Lutherans, justification is God's ongoing, forensic declaration of forgiveness and righteousness- a creative declaration, to be sure, which brings about what it declares, but nonetheless fundamentally the basis for our standing before God as a forensic declaration; for Catholics, it is merely the admittance into a relationship with God in which- if one's will cooperates with God's help as offered in the Sacraments- such a relationship may be maintained and augmented.

For Lutherans, grace is God's wholly unmerited favor, and the sole basis of both our salvation and our transformation- as Paul insists, in no way dependent as cause upon either antecedent or consequent works; for Catholics, it is gratia infusa- that help in cooperating with God offered through the Sacraments (Lutherans would argue that faith is strengthened and- in the case of infant baptism- even established through the Sacraments, but that the Word and the Sacraments are efficacious only to the degree that divinely-created and enabled faith lays hold upon the promises they contain; Catholics teach that they are efficacious mechanically, ex opere operato, by the mere working of the work- so long as we ourselves do not interpose an obstacle).

For Lutherans, faith is radical, existential trust in God's promises; for Catholics, it is implicit or explicit subscription to the teachings of the Church. Lutherans further, it should be noted, reject the common "Evangelical" notion (more often, I suspect, a practical attitude rather than a formal teaching) that faith saves meritoriously- as, in effect a virtue, or as an attribute of the individual, rather than instrumentally- i.e., as the means by which God's grace reaches us. It should be emphasized, in all charity, that Catholicism would agree that even our good works are ultimately a consequence of grace. In fact, virtually all Christians would agree on this point. Regrettably, though, Lutherans and Calvinists seem to be just about the only ones who see the danger in theological formulations and popular attitudes which imply otherwise, and take that danger seriously.

Both Lutherans and Catholics agree with the clear and consistent biblical teaching that Baptism is God's work, rather than ours, and is ordinarily (though not absolutely) necessary for salvation, insomuch as it is in Baptism that God's promises are specifically addressed and applied to the individual believer. Lutherans see a strong correlation between "Evangelicalism's" "decision for Christ" (which can only be motivated by the pre-existence of faith in one's heart), its asking Jesus into one's heart (again, if He were not already there, the impulse to issue the invitation wouldn't be there, either) and Rome's notion of the "cooperation" of the natural will with grace; both ultimately deny the sola gratia.

Both Lutherans and Catholics agree that the body and blood of Christ are truly present in the Lord's Supper- Catholics through transubstantiation, i.e., the transformation of bread and wine through the mediation of an ordained priest into the body and blood of Christ, and Lutherans (who- contrary to the nearly universal belief of Catholics, Calvinists, and generic "Evangelicals" alike- do not dogmatically believe in consubstantiation, i.e., the simultaneous co-existence of bread and body, as well as wine and blood, in the species; I was admittedly taught this, and catechetical materials in use by the Missouri Synod admittedly still teach it, but such a view in fact goes far beyond either Luther or the Confessions) confess simply that the body and blood of Christ are really present by means of the Word (in the form of the verba; the un-Lutheran teaching of receptionism, i.e., the notion that the faith of the recipient makes the body and blood of Christ present, is often mistakenly taught and believed, especially in the ELCA); that St. Paul- whatever he meant by the word- refers to what is eaten in the Sacrament as bread; and that to speak of a non-bodily presence of the body of Christ, as Calvinism does, is to indulge in an oxymoron.

Reformation Day ought to be far more than a day for partisan pep rallies among Lutherans. Indeed, it should always involve a certain degree of mourning that the visible unity of the Church was broken by Leo X in excommunicating Luther and those who held to beliefs clearly found in the writings of the Church Fathers, both East and West. What we celebrate today is nothing more or less than the Faith once delivered to the saints. However counter-cultural it might be, Reformation Day is a day to stand up for that faith against the morally and logically flabby relativism, Modernism, and Post-Modernism of our American culture, and its inroads in the Church.

Especially at a time in which the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod- traditionally the epitome of confessional Lutheranism in the United States- has been so thoroughly infiltrated by the errors of American "Evangelicalism," it is a time to reflect that we are saved by God's grace- and not, as the "canned sermon" issued by one district headquarters for use during the district convention suggested, by asking Jesus into our hearts; and that we are sanctified, not by making our lives "purpose driven," or asking ourselves what Jesus would do, or any of the other works righteous formulas for self-sanctification peddled in the popular Christian culture. It is a time to remember that people are both brought to Christ and sanctified, not by human efforts and programs (including counting coup on people we mention Jesus to!), but by the lavish, startling, and wholly undeserved grace of God toward sinners who have first been broken by the Law.

And being broken means breaking with every delusion of the Old Adam that we are merely sorta sick in trespasses and sins apart from Christ, rather than dead. It means giving up our sinful ambition to achieve either salvation or sanctification- or for that matter, to do evangelism- by the efforts of our own wills or cleverness. It means saying not, "Lord, I thank you that I am not as others are," whether the "others" be the unconverted, Roman Catholics, or "Evangelicals," but rather "God be merciful to me, a sinner-" knowing that only such prayer avails.

It means bearing in mind something which was posted on a church door long ago: "When our Lord Jesus Christ said, 'Repent,' He willed that our entire lives be lives of repentance." It means living our baptisms, dying to sin and rising again daily . And to do that, we need to be taught. That need does not lessen after we have been Christians for fifty years, or sixty, or seventy. It does not become smaller if we become Doctors of Theology. Martin Luther confessed that he himself needed to study his own catechism every day he lived. Disciples are both made and preserved by baptizing and teaching. Disciples metaphorically return to the font to die and rise again every day in contrition and repentance. And disciples must be taught anew, over and over and over again, not only what the Lord commands us, but what He has done and continues to do for us. Unless this happens, disciples stop being disciples.

There is admittedly a rather diminished market for the daily death of baptism or for teaching about the things the Lord has commanded us these days. In order to appreciate the Gospel, one must first be broken by the Law. And guilt- as well as personal responsibility- are out of style. Ours is in age in which people have no inclination to make confession; they would rather make excuses. "Sin" is no part of the modern thought world. And a culture which refuses to entertain the notion of personal guilt will be wholly unable to even understand the concept of grace. It will be unable to fathom what Luther and Paul were talking about.

That's the flaw in the Missouri Synod's Ablaze!(c) program-that-is-not-a-program-but-a movement. If we are losing members, it is not (at least primarily) because we have been indolent in evangelism. It is because we are doing evangelism in a culture whose conscience is seared- and which is ill-prepared to hear the Gospel, because it has erected such stout defenses against the Law. Merely "counting coup" on people to whom you mention Jesus does no good at all; the process of evangelism involves both Law and Gospel- and their proclamation, rather than their sale. The Holy Spirit both makes the appointments and closes the deal; our task is simply to give a reason for the hope that is in us when He brings us to the moment, not in artificially contrived situations but in the context of our own every day vocations. To see evangelism otherwise is to stumble into the same self-oriented mind set which Luther reacted against, and into the works righteous error of the very "Evangelicals" from whom the Ablaze!(c) concept is borrowed.

Transformation of mind-set and world view are required. We need to teach in order to make disciples, now as never before. And teaching begins with making it clear from the outset what a Savior is for- and with refusing to compromise on what the people to whom we witness need saving from, either before or after baptism.

You have to tremble before you know what Luther was talking about. We live in an age which has forgotten how to tremble. It is not up to us to develop a program or an approach which will teach it how. It's up to the Holy Spirit to overcome the hard-heartedness of the age. Our task is simply to faithfully proclaim the Word through which He does it in the context in which He has placed us in life. It is not an accident that God's "evangelism program-" the Great Commission, to which Ablaze!(c) aficionados so often point- is in fact at such variance from the Ablaze!(c) program itself. From Matthew 28:

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (NKJV)

The KJV's use of "teach" in verse 18, it should be noted, is a mistranslation. The word means "make disciples." How? By baptizing and teaching. Not that the order in which they are mentioned means anything in particular, but the old Baptist argument is simply wrong: in point of fact, Jesus mentions baptizing before He mentions teaching!

Baptize and teach. That is the evangelism program Christ Himself has given us. He has given us no other. Evangelism for the average Christian, once again, is to simply give an account of the hope that is in us in the vocation to which we have been called, so that the Holy Spirit can work through the Word as we have spoken it to draw those whom we encounter to the place where they can be further taught, and baptized. But make no mistake: there is no evangelism without teaching, both before and after baptism. Those who would draw a contrast between insisting on solid, evangelical (in the good sense) doctrine and outreach are simply talking through their hats. The Great Commission explicitly requires that sound teaching be a part of our outreach! How can people ever learn to tremble- and tremble they must, before the Gospel even makes sense to them- unless those who tell them the Good News know their doctrine well enough to understand the difference between Law and Gospel? How can people be brought to the foot of the cross as broken sinners, or helped to look upon the Crucifed, and live, until they can see a difference our culture cannot comprehend: the difference between merit and mercy, between works and grace?

But what is contemplated is not the presumptuous "soul winning" of the "Evangelicals." There is only one Soul Winner! Like baptism and faith and our own good works, evangelism is, once again, ultimately God's work, rather than being our work at all. Our job is to baptize and to teach.

Breaking down the wall of stone around a heart is never the work of a moment. It is the work of a lifetime. It is a work that is ongoing even in believers. It requires not simply mentioning the name of Jesus, or even "witnessing" in the pushy, off-putting way most of us think of the term. Nor does it require "seeker-friendly" worship services. It requires catechesis. It requires baptism, and teaching. It is a process in which the hearts of every single one of us will be enrolled until the day we die.

It requires, not human salesmanship or cleverness, but God's mighty power in His Word and His Sacraments. It requires that we be broken so that we may be healed, and that people learn to die daily so that they might rise again daily. Only God can convince them of that need through the Law, or help them to do it through the Gospel in Holy Baptism. The only tools or programs that will avail are the Law and the Gospel, the Word and the Sacraments.

We live in an age which has forgotten how to tremble. But he who has never trembled will know neither what Luther was talking about, or the freedom he found in the Gospel. Only God the Holy Spirit can teach contemporary Americans to tremble, and only He can introduce them to that Freedom. Our job is simply to give an account of the hope that is in us, and then- corporately- to baptize and to teach through those God has called to do these things in our midst.

Once one knows that freedom, one's life continues to be one of repentance rather than achievement. But as Luther discovered, once one knows the grace of God, one need never tremble again.

But the one who would win a righteousness of his own can never know that peace- or that freedom. And only the Holy Spirit can crush us to the point where He can set us free- as He did Martin Luther.