THIS IS WHO WE ARE

Given theological differences, it is proper to listen to one another carefully so we can understand our differences clearly. We do not want to tell others who they are, but instead listen to them say who they really are.

For example:

Usually in relationships people of course have differing views of each other and who each other is. To work out differences, it is vitally important that others listen to the other "straight from the horse's mouth", as it were.

For example, extroverts view introverts as "anti-social." Whereas, the introverts simply say that *who they are* is focusing on spending their energy on a few people as close friends. Introverts prefer not to talk about the weather, but about deep issues.

So the introverts are misunderstood by the extroverts.

On the other end, extroverts are usually viewed by introverts as arrogant and always wanting to be the center of attention. But the extroverts simply reply that they simply enjoy being around a lot of people, and they enjoy being the life of the party and only wish to have fun.

So the extroverts are misunderstood by the introverts.

SO HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO THEOLOGY, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY TO LUTHERANISM?

These kinds of misunderstandings are sadly all too common in the theological world. Many times different branches and denominations of Christianity apply their own preconceived notions of who they themselves are, and take them and place them on other kinds of Christians.

In fact, many times how people think will come out practically in their interactions with other Christians, especially at the Lord's Table. (For some it will even come out in prayer, etc.)

For example, the Roman Catholics will not commune Lutherans--nor would we want to commune with them. But Rome makes clear that they will commune the Eastern Orthodox, since they view them as having "valid" apostolic succession.

So Rome *views* or *thinks of* the Eastern Orthodox as a "sister church" that is close to her.

But how does the East view itself?

The Eastern Orthodox absolutely forbid their parishioners from communing at a Roman Catholic church (or Eastern Catholic, for that matter). The East only allows their faithful to commune at an Orthodox church. In fact, to commune elsewhere is seen as very serious, even excommunicating oneself.

So the East *views* of *thinks of* herself not as a "sister church" with Rome. Instead, she views Rome as in error and herself as the truth.

***So what does this have to do with Lutheranism?***

I remember when I was evangelical and reformed, and how I thought of the Lutherans during that time. At the time, I *viewed* them and *thought of* them as just another denomination of Christianity. (Rome and the East were not Christian at all, of course, under such thinking.) After all, they taught justification by faith alone, so they had the Gospel. I just thought they were wrong on those naughty sacraments.

I had no problem saying they were welcome to come to my church's version of the Lord's Supper. I didn't see what the big deal was. I mean, we're all Christians, right? I mean I don't think I would have communed at a Lutheran church, because they had naughty sacraments. But they were welcome to commune at mine. It was, after all, simply a memorial or simply a spiritual presence by faith.

I was offended that they would not commune with me.

I was offended that Luther told Zwingli that he was "of another spirit."

I didn't understand what the big deal was.

After all, Lutheranism was "just another denomination" among many. Just another valid choice, right?

***Now that I'm Lutheran, I totally understand.***

You see, we Lutherans do *not*, I repeat, we do NOT view ourselves the way our evangelical and reformed friends view us.

We do NOT think of ourselves as just another "valid choice" of many denominations.

We do NOT think of the Lord's Supper as simply a memorial or only a "spiritual presence."

No indeed.

We view ourselves as an entire *branch* of Christianity.

In fact, we view Lutheranism as where the Gospel is preached most purely.

And we consider other branches and denominations as heterodox.

This is why we cannot in good conscience partake of Holy Communion anywhere else than with those Lutheran churches we are in fellowship with. This is why historically our Confessions and historic Lutheranism has always taken this position.

To take communion at a church that denies the Real Presence would aid and abet that false view of the Supper. In fact, to us, with all due respect to our friends, that false view is blasphemous.

How Christ instituted the Supper means everything to us.

HOW DID CHRIST INSTITUTE THE HOLY SUPPER?

Christ did not institute a supper that was only a memorial where one only remembers in action what He did.

Christ did not institute a supper that points us back to ourselves wondering if we have faith.

Christ did not institute a supper that has us raise ourselves up by faith to feed on Him only spiritually.

No indeed.

Christ furthermore did not institute a supper that atones for the sins of the living not present, nor did He institute a supper that forgives the sins of the dead.

No indeed.

Christ instituted His Most Holy Supper as His True Body and True Blood, given to us to eat, in our mouths, for the forgiveness of all of our sins.

*That* is the Holy Sacrament of the Altar.

SO WHO ARE WE?

So now you can hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

We Lutherans are not just another denomination of Christianity.

We Lutherans do not view all denominations as equally valid.

We Lutherans believe that justification by faith alone must stay central at all times.

We Lutherans reject any sort of turning oneself to their own faith.

We Lutherans believe the Gospel is always outside of us.

We Lutherans see the Word spoken and the Sacraments administered as vital for assurance of salvation and comfort.

We Lutherans see pastoral care as connected to the comfort of the Word and Sacraments.

We Lutherans see *this* Good News as truly Good News, and to be proclaimed to the world.

***So, my fellow Lutherans, please do not let others tell you who you are.***

****For those who really want to know who we are, our Confessions are summarized in the Book of Concord. www.bookofconcord.org ****

This is who we are.

We are simply beggars.

This is most certainly true.

Eastern Orthodoxy and Original Sin

I recently had a nice amicable conversation with a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. From the outset, I admit that I am no expert on Eastern Orthodoxy, but I do believe that they certainly have some excellent insights in Christian theology. But their doctrine of sin is not one of them.

If I am understanding correctly, sin in Eastern Orthodoxy is what happens when we act contrary to God. In other words, people are not sinful by nature and only become sinners when they actually sin. The East rejects the classic Christian doctrine of original sin in favor of what they call Ancestral Sin.

Naturally, our conversation came back to the topic of infants. Moreover, it led to the topic of justification and righteousness. And these are the arenas where it seems to me at least, that Eastern Orthodoxy drops the ball.

The person I was discussing this topic with asserted that to be a sinner, a person must have knowledge and choice of the will. This necessarily excludes infants. He also went on to make the claim that becoming righteous is also through a choice of the will. This also necessarily excludes infants. And there is the problem.

Infants, in this person's (EO) theology, are neither righteous nor unrighteous; neither sinner nor saint. Yet they all go to heaven. And that's fine, I don't have a problem with universal infant salvation. But there must be a basis for it, wouldn't you think? And here is where the man I was chatting with had no answer.

The first thing I posited to him is that only justified persons will enter heaven, and to be justified is also to be righteous. Thus, I questioned on what basis infants can be righteous and justified. Keep in mind, he had already asserted that infants are neither righteous nor unrighteous. He then questioned whether infants need justification at all.

So he wants universal infant salvation apart from justification and righteousness.

Here is where the person with whom I was chatting had no answer. He would not go the obvious route, because to do so would be to affirm that Luther had it right and deny the EO stances on righteousness and justification.

In other words, infants, just like the rest of us, must be imputed and clothed with the righteousness of Christ. The only alternative to this stance is that there are people in heaven that are neither righteous nor unrighteous. There are people there who are saved by innocence apart from justification.

Or, perhaps we could concoct a different path to salvation apart from the blood of Christ. I don't know, but I do know that the guy I was chatting with could not answer any of this.

Perhaps this is not an official stance of the Eastern Orthodox, but given their rejection of concupiscence, this stance makes sense in light of Orthodoxy.

Eastern Orthodoxy: Still one big (functionally Pelagian) mystery. Don't fall for the smells and bells and beautiful iconography of the East. It's still a works religion at its core.

Perhaps some persons who are more knowledgeable of the East can comment here.

+Pax+