Bethany and Concordia

An Evangelical, millenialist pastor named John Hagee has written an article for the Jewish Daily Forward. In it, Hagee presents some reasons why Christian zionists support the present-day nation of Israel. He writes,

On May 23, pastors, ministers and priests at more than 1,500 churches in all 50 states and over 50 foreign countries will dedicate their Sunday services to teaching the importance of Christian support for Israel.

Some of our members, or our neighbors, may wonder if we will join with those churches, or whether we should. The answer to that stems from the theology of Christian zionism. Zion is the name for the hill where the Jebusites had established the city of Jerusalem, and which King David later captured and made his capital. It became symbolic of the entire city, and ultimately, for the nation of Israel. Zionism is quite different, though the word is related. It describes a movement in which people attach special historic and theological importance to the existence of an earthly nation of Jews. It goes further than respect for the Jewish people as the nation from which our Savior, the Messiah, was born. It goes further even than recognizing a spiritual significance to ancient Israel that is connected to our present-day faith in Jesus.

In the words of John Hagee: “As is the case for many Jews, our support for Israel starts with God’s promises in the Hebrew Bible, but it does not end there.” By the Hebrew Bible, Hagee means the Old Testament scriptures. I suppose that the promises he references are the ones that describe a future kingdom of peace, ruled by the Messiah, when all enemies will be vanquished. Orthodox Christianity considers those promises to be fulfilled spiritually by Jesus right now, though their fulfillment will be revealed to all on the Last Day, which will be the First Day of our bodily eternal life in paradise. Millenialists, however, look for an outward earthly kingdom in which the Messiah will subjugate all outward enemies and reign as a sovereign potentate. This is not a new teaching; many Jews have made the same error for thousands of years. Hagee and others have, knowingly or not, imported such ideas into their Christian worldview. They support this notion with forced explanations of Bible passages under the guise of a “literal” interpretation. Unfortunately, those explanations usually do not allow the text of the Bible to stand on its own.

Hagee continues:

Christian Zionists recognize that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Jewish people. As I have stressed to my Christian audiences for years: If you take away the Jewish contribution to Christianity, there would be no Christianity.

I beg to differ. It was not the Jewish people who provided the doctrine of holy scripture. That came from God Himself, in spite of those to whom He spoke. The Jewish people, as such, have their beginning in Babylon, after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the first Temple in 586 B.C. They are called “Jewish” because the kingdom Nebuchadnezzar destroyed was Judah, named for one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Today’s Jewish traditions and worship are indeed very old, dating back to that 6th century before Christ. Yet we should not imagine that Jewish worship is the same as the worship of Israel. Jewish worship centers in synagogues, which became the organizational model for early Christian congregations. It was a tradition designed to preserve the precious doctrine among the generations of Jews, despite the absence of the most important element of Israelite worship: the Temple in Jerusalem, and before it, the Tabernacle.

Today’s Judaism is quite different from Israelite worship, say, during the reign of King Josiah, or during the period of the Judges. Judaism’s roots are found in Israelite worship and doctrine, but the two are different. More importantly, a major focus of both ancient Israelite worship and ancient Judaism has been lost in present-day Judaism. That focus is echoed today only among the “messianic Jews” (those who recognize that Jesus is the Messiah) and Christians. It is the redemptive, justifying atonement of the Messiah, who through His own suffering and death, would provide forgiveness and remission of sins for all Israelites and for Gentiles, to be received through faith alone. The significance of this is only understood when we know the deep depravity and guilt of original sin, which cannot be erased or mitigated by the efforts of mortal man. This is all taught throughout the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, but it is lost to modern-day Judaism.

Hagee writes, “From the patriarchs to the prophets, from Jesus and his family to the men who wrote down the Bible, Jewish people have provided us with the fundamentals of our faith.” The patriarchs were not Jews, nor even Israelites. Jesus and the apostles were indeed Jews, of the kind disowned today by their unbelieving Jewish families. They all believed and taught that Jesus is the Messiah. For this, most of them were killed. I don’t hold that fact against modern day Jews, but mention it only because Hagee would have us thank present-day Jews for their contribution to our Christian faith. History shows this to be senseless.

Speaking for Christian Zionists, Hagee also writes something with which I heartily agree: “Israel is not the cause of militant Islam’s hatred of America, but an ally in the fight against militant Islam.” Islamofascists use Israel as a convenient excuse and a favorite punching bag, but their real target is personal freedom and the Christian worldview behind it.

Hagee writes that the focus of Christian zionists on May 23rd will include “God’s promise in Genesis 12:3 that He will bless those who bless Israel.” If you look up that verse, you will see that it does not mention Israel by name. It says “you,” meaning Abraham and the nation that would come from him. The promise in Genesis 12 does include Israel, but not in the way Christian zionists would have us believe. Israel was the beginning of the “great nation” descended from Abraham. The purpose of this nation was not to bless those who bless it, but that through it, “all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” That is fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah, who has provided salvation not only for Israelites, but for every nation. Other blessings of God upon the Israelites were fulfilled between the Exodus from Egypt and the Ascension of Jesus into heaven. After that, many believed in Jesus as the Messiah, and finally, the time of Temple worship came to a permanent end when the second Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.

If we want to be a genuine blessing to the present-day Jews, we will hand them a copy of the Letter to the Hebrews and repeat what the apostle Paul wrote in Galatians 3:7-9 (NKJV), “Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, ‘In you all the nations shall be blessed.’ So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.” The faith Paul mentions is faith in the true Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

That brings me to the false identification of present-day Israel with ancient Israel. There are only two similarities between them: their citizens are primarily descendants of the patriarch Jacob, and they roughly occupy the same physical territory. In all other respects, they are different. The ancient nation of Israel does still exist, but it is hidden in this world. Its members include all those who belong to the Messiah, Jesus, by faith. Some are in heaven already, including such Israelites as Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Rahab, Ruth, David, Hezekiah, Elijah, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, John the Baptizer, the apostle Nathaniel, the pastor Titus, the evangelist Luke, the confessor Athanasius, and the reformer Luther. Others still live on the earth. The root of Israel is described in the Old Testament, but the wild branch of the Gentiles has been grafted in by faith (Romans 11:17), while many original branches have broken away because of unbelief. Yet unbelieving Jews may yet believe, and some are converted all the time (v. 23).

The true Israel is the Church. It is not a democracy, like the modern-day nation of Israel, but remains a monarchy. Our king is the Messiah, Jesus, who has fulfilled the prophecies of His victory and will return to end this world of sorrow and bring us into His everlasting kingdom of glory. Christians are Israelites, citizens of this world while also citizens of heaven. We live in the time of fulfillment, in the “millennium” that so many are awaiting. We pray weekly that God will open the hearts of Jewish people to believe in their Messiah. We would have them blessed with all that God promised to their forefathers, but as long as they reject their true God and Messiah, we shall not call them the true “Israel.”

Soul Cafe is really a church! Beyond being a youth center on 12th St. in Hood River, it’s a congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). That’s the largest church body in the United States that calls itself “Lutheran.” We also call ourselves “Lutheran,” but we mean something different by it than does the ELCA. We consider the label “Lutheran,” when applied to a church, to mean the particular confession of faith to which that church holds in its teaching. Specifically, we consider a Lutheran church to be one that holds (without compromise) the teachings confessed in the Lutheran Confessions, because they fully and faithfully agree with the Bible.

Soul Cafe’s church body, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, acknowledges that the Lutheran Confessions have historical importance, but no normative importance over present-day Lutheran teaching. Therefore, we would not describe the ELCA with the adjective “Lutheran.” Appropriately enough, Soul Cafe seems to avoid that label.

If you’d like to confirm for yourself that Soul Cafe is a congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, have a look at its web site. Be sure to scroll to the bottom. If you’re still not convinced, you can look it up in the ELCA congregation directory.

Soul Cafe’s web site uses some of the code language of homosexual advocacy (“open and affirming”), extending it to accept and affirm many different social choices that the Bible considers to be sinful. It promotes an organization called “Lutherans Concerned/North America,” which advocates the acceptance of homosexuality in Lutheran churches, contrary to several passages in Holy Scripture. The person it calls “pastor” has written several statements there that show a radical separation from historic Christianity. She alludes to the Lutheran Confessions (specifically, Augsburg Confession article 7), but only to claim that most of what the Confessions say should be considered “adiaphora,” meaning “that which is neither commanded by God nor forbidden.” The effect is to dismiss the Confessions, as well as much of the Bible’s doctrinal content as a matter of mere personal opinion. More troubling, she seems to deny the trinitarian foundation of the Ecumenical Creeds:

I have learned that the Trinity is not some complex theological doctrine. The Trinity is the experience of God the Father/Mother, Son, and Holy Spirit in relation, in community with one another and in relation, in community with all the world. The Trinity is the perichoretic God—the God who circulates and dances through the neighborhood, working healing and wholeness.

Any church that persistently denies the Trinity, or even the authority of God’s Word in all matters of faith and life, is not a Christian church, though it may still claim to be. Christianity is not a matter of being nice to others, nor a matter of merely living a certain way. It is a matter of what we believe, which then flows naturally into the way we live. When we confess that God’s Word is right about our sins, and then trust in the forgiveness He applies through Jesus Christ, we have begun to be Christians. This faith continues with a confession that God is right about everything else that His Word addresses. Unfortunately, the heritage of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America includes theological liberalism, which does not consider the Bible to be God’s Word. Therefore, there is very little to prevent a congregation like Soul Cafe from completely losing the character and doctrine of the Christian Church.

We should pray for our friends and neighbors influenced by such places as Soul Cafe, and do what we can to help them avoid such places. We can offer them so much more, beginning with the certainty that Jesus Christ is God’s Son, and has died and physically risen to life again as the atoning sacrifice for every sin — even sinful life choices like homosexuality. Some may still not be convinced that Soul Cafe is a church. Remember Matthew 7:15-20, where Jesus predicted such things:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is splitting over its recent decision to ordain openly practicing homosexuals as ministers. While we may rejoice that some recognize that God’s Word should not be compromised, it must be pointed out that there are many other areas where the teaching of the ELCA departs dramatically from self-interpreted Holy Scripture. For example, the Bible claims to be the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and completely sufficient Word of God. ELCA disagrees. The Bible assigns gender-based roles to men and women, particularly in churches. ELCA disagrees. The list could go on.

We should pray for our friends in ELCA churches, and those who will be leaving the ELCA, encouraging them to stand upon God’s pure and unchanging Word alone, no matter what the world around us may think of it.

Gene Edward Veith quotes Anthony Sacramone, describing the way the Christian Church responds to a hostile culture. For a long time now, many have assumed that the American culture we live in somehow promotes, or at least allows Christian values. It has become evident over the years that this is not only untrue, but that our culture has been actively undermining and deconstructing Christian values. The goal of this strategy is the destruction of the Church, even here in the United States. Understand that when I write “Church,” I mean genuine believers everywhere who gather around God’s Word and Sacraments, not the visible institutions of this world that we call “churches.” It is the Church of Jesus Christ to which our culture is hostile, and this is evident in those congregations and church bodies that have abdicated the pure teaching of holy scripture. Those are the ones that our culture affirms, while faithful congregations and church bodies are condemned as “haters” and “intolerant.”

So it has ever been in this fallen world, and the sooner we accept the reality, the better prepared we Christians will be. In the article that Veith quotes, Sacramone points to the ways various denominations have established a foothold in the hostile culture. For Lutherans, he mentions Christian day schools, while for Roman Catholics and others, he mentions hospitals. He points out that socialized medicine may eliminate the most important characteristics of Christian hospitals, but our hostile culture has long attempted to compromise the foothold of Christian schools, too. In this phase of the struggle, things may be going better for our schools than for hospitals, but the next phase may bring something else. An evaluation of the current public school curriculum reveals an active agenda there that is hostile toward Christianity, and bent upon programming students with a secular worldview. This presents serious challenges to Christian parents, who are often at a disadvantage in the time they have available to spend with their children. At the moment, I am thankful that my own family is able to provide a Christian school at home, and I am happy to offer materials like this for families and schools that can make some use of it.

The hostility of culture toward our faith is worth much meditation and prayer. Maybe there are other ways for us to establish a foothold for our faith, or to raise our children to be the future of the Church. But finally, we must concede that our own strength is not enough. The Church is founded upon the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God, and only upon that foundation will she stand through the End.

We just had a long-needed evangelism meeting at Bethany two days before I’m writing this. One of the things we talked about was improving the first impression that we give to our visitors. Over at the Blog of Veith that I mentioned in the previous post, there is a short article and discussion about the way people tend to pick a church. Since the blog entry is short, I’ll quote the whole thing below.

This weekend I talked with someone whom I think highly of who told me all of the different churches he has been a member of. At various times, depending on where he has lived, he has attended Presbyterian, Anglican, Bible, Evangelical Covenant, Campbellite, Christian Missionary Alliance, non-denominational, and house churches.

Whereas for me (even before I became a Lutheran), the criteria for which church I joined had to do with what it believed. For him–and I suspect there are a great many like him, possibly a majority of evangelicals–the criteria has to do with the people in the different congregations, the kind of “fellowship” they experience and whether they like the pastor. Theology is something held by the individual, with these different churches being more or less OK with whatever the individual member believes, within a few parameters, so that these churches today assert few theological distinctives for themselves.

According to the Lutheran mindset, the heart of a church body, the basis of fellowship, and the definition of unity must be its confession. Whereas for much of American Christianity, fellowship and unity are the heart of a church body, which allows for diverse confessions.

This difference between the two different ways of evaluating a church is something we probably have known about before, but we should also take it into account when we think about evangelism.
The primary goal of evangelism is to tell the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who do not believe it, but we also have the further goal of leading those souls to an orthodox Christian Church where they will be fed the bread of life regularly in the Divine Service. We naturally believe that our own congregation is the most qualified for that, to God’s credit alone, but what if these evangelism prospects finally visit our church only to find themselves uncomfortable with the “fellowship” of our members or the “likability” of the pastor (things Veith mentioned above)? Might we get the doctrine and the Divine Service right, only to fail in the way we treat each other and our guests?

This reminds me strongly of 1 Corinthians 13, the “love chapter,” which is often used at weddings. Read the first three verses of that chapter and see how they apply. You will probably also want to head over to Veith’s blog at the link above, and read the comments left by his readers.

One comment I found particularly interesting described a couple’s experience visiting two different churches. Among other things, the writer said, “after four weeks we’d only had 3 couples actually put forth effort to welcome us (passing smiles, handwaves, and ‘Hi’s’ don’t count).” She contrasted that with the other church, where “I think there were two adults who did not talk to us – one hand waved – one didn’t talk at all.” I’ve always thought that two or three warm greetings from the members is sufficient welcome for our guests, but here is a couple who were more impressed when nearly the entire congregation made an effort to speak to them. It shows how every one of our members can have a real influence on the ongoing work of evangelism, simply through the way we respond when guests visit on Sunday.

Several years ago I met Pastor Todd Wilken and Mr. Jeff Schwartz though they probably don’t remember me, because it was at the Marvin Schwan Retreat Center for one of the Worldview Seminars that was being held there. Those men were the host and producer, respectively, of a radio talk show aired in the St. Louis area and also broadcast online. It was a successful outreach of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, but this year during Holy Week, the LCMS cancelled the show. Speculations abound, but to me it seems highly likely that the value of the show was much lower in the eyes of synod administrators, because its allegiance to the Gospel and the Lutheran Confessions was stronger than its allegiance to the synod. Though the show did not flaunt this, it was evident in its “Christ-centered, cross-focused” operation.

The good news is that the show “Issues, Etc.” has been reborn as an independent endeavor. You can listen to past shows, or live streams of current shows online. Podcast and iTunes links are also available for those who prefer them. The new show began broadcasting this week, and I have to say that it’s better than ever.

If you have the time, and you are the sort of person that enjoys thoughtful conversation about important things, please give it a try. You can find all the information you need at http://www.issuesetc.org.

Lutheran author Gene Edward Veith highlights an article from the Washington Post, noting that many young people have embraced the Latin mass (that is, the centuries-old order of worship conducted in Latin), now that the Pope has authorized its use in a wider context. While we don’t use the Divine Service in Latin, what we use is basically the same service as the Latin Mass. In fact, we still use the Latin/Greek names of many parts of the Divine Service (Kyrie Eleison, Gloria in Excelsis, etc.), as well as the Sundays of the church year. In recent years, many churches have been tempted to abandon the traditional heritage of the Divine Service, with the notion that young people would prefer worship that resembles their popular entertainment. That includes projected still or motion pictures, soft rock or jazz music, and (most tragically) the replacement of teaching that sometimes causes discomfort with messages that come across as “more practical.” For example, “God’s principles for getting out of debt and staying that way.” (I have no problem with God’s principles concerning debt, as long as they really are what the title claims. I would only object to placing this kind of teaching in the Divine Service, where God comes to us for the purpose of giving eternal life, and we respond appropriately.)

Attendance at the Sunday noon Mass at St. John the Beloved in McLean has doubled to 400 people since it began celebrating in Latin. Most of the worshipers are under 40, said the Rev. Franklyn McAfee.

Younger parishioners “are more reflective,” McAfee said. “They want something uplifting when they go to church. They don’t want something they can get outside.”

Some voices in recent years have also criticized the order of worship, hymns, etc. that we use, saying they are not uplifting enough. I would understand this criticism if I found that our worship did not teach the Gospel of forgiveness in Christ, but it does. So I can only imagine that such critics are looking for a different message. Reading the quote that Veith pulls from the Washington Post, I find it interesting that some of the young people who now prefer the Latin mass consider it to be more uplifting. Unfortunately, the distinctive teachings of the Roman Catholic Church also replace the Gospel with a message that has no power to save. Those teachings lead the hearers to rely upon their own merits in addition to God’s grace, and this effectively makes salvation uncertain — even impossible. However, most Roman Catholic errors arose in the Middle Ages, and the Latin mass was already written by that time. So if the young people flocking to the Latin mass pay close attention to the words of the Divine Service, then they will certainly be uplifted by the Gospel.

I hope that the members of Bethany and Concordia already know my answers to these questions, but if you don’t, I welcome you to ask them. The following is Appendix II of the book What’s Going On Among the Lutherans. If you know anyone who may be concerned that their church ought to teach and practice according to what the Bible says, then you should discuss these questions with them. These questions focus primarily on the “liberal theology” (a somewhat technical term) that has been rampant in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for some time now. Liberal theology is not the only thing that challenges biblical teaching and practice, but it is one of them.

The following questions are provided to assist our readers in determining the theological position of their pastors.

These questions should be asked exactly as worded. Your pastor should be able to answer them with a simple yes or no.

1. Inspiration and Inerrancy

   Do you personally believe that the writers of the Bible were so controlled by the Holy Spirit that they wrote exactly what God wanted them to write?

   Do you personally believe that the Bible contains no errors or contradictions?

2. Creation

   Do you personally believe that God created everything in six 24-hour days as recorded in Scripture?

3. Adam and Eve

   Do you personally believe that Adam and Eve were real, historical people? What about Jonah, Noah, and Job?

4. The Words of Jesus

   Do you personally believe that the Words of Jesus, as recorded in the New Testament, were all actually spoken by him?

5. Miracles

   Do you personally believe that every miracle recorded in the Bible was a real, historical event?

6. The Virgin Birth

   Do you personally believe that Jesus did not have a human father?

   Do you personally believe that the Bible and therefore the Apostles Creed contains myth?

7. Deity of Christ

   Do you personally believe that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man?

8. The Trinity

   Do you personally believe that the Bible teaches of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit — three Persons in one God?

   Do you personally believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit — three in One — as is stated in the Athanasian Creed, one of the three great ecumenical creeds of the Christian church?

9. Atonement

   Do you personally believe that God took his anger for our sins out on Christ — that he was the final blood sacrifice that appeased God’s wrath and bought the forgiveness of our sins?

10. Resurrection

    Do you personally believe that Christ was physically raised from the dead. . . that these our physical bodies will be raised from the dead?

11. Immortality of the Soul

    Do you personally believe that man has a soul that survives the death of the physical body?

12. Homosexuality

    Do you personally believe that the Bible condemns the practices of homosexuality?

    If he… says it is no worse than any other sin, say you agree but then add: Homosexuality, like all sin requires repentance (sorrow over sins) and the faithful resolve that, with God’s help, a person can give it up and sin no more. Do you agree with that statement?

    Do you personally believe that homosexuality is an acceptable alternate lifestyle ordained by God — a gift from God to be celebrated and enjoyed?

There is great variety among Christian Churches in the way they worship. Yet in recent years, a growing number of congregations have adopted what’s being called a “contemporary” style of worship. Since I have to work Sunday mornings, I haven’t been able to experience these things first-hand. However, I do understand that this trend raises an important question. How valuable or important is the way we worship? … to us? … to God?

If the success of churches is measured in the addition of new members, then the most successful churches have different priorites than we do. The priorities and methods of “megachurches” was recently touched upon by a Wall Street Journal editorial. To such churches, the “worship style” is merely another variable that should be adjusted to attract the greatest number of new members. But we have to ask whether God agrees with this point of view.

One pastor in our synod keeps a regular weblog on current activities in his family and parish. Some of you have met Pastor Abrahamson, who is a good personal friend of mine. In a recent post on his blog, Pastor Abrahamson explains why he instructs the children in his Wednesday School about the liturgy. (“Liturgy” is the word for the order of worship that Christians use in the Divine Service.) He writes, “The point is to enable the students to know where each part of our worship services come from in the Bible, why they are used in the service–especially at this particular part; and how to explain to others who don’t know why we do things the way we do.”

He goes on to write:

So many today in Confessional Lutheran Synods are turning to contemporary worship forms as a way to keep the youth from leaving their congregations. In reality, I think that they are yearning for kings like the other nations have. Now many of them have trained up a generation which has no outward liturgical mark that would distinguish it from the Methodist church or any E.Free church. So, it’s no wonder that the kids are leaving in droves. They can’t see or feel any difference. Why should they stay? And now some leaders within Confessional Lutheranism are promoting this garbage as if it’s the answer to that loss, when it is in fact the main contributing factor to that loss. If there is no difference in worship form or format from the reformed churches, why bother with attending an Orthodox Confessional Lutheran congregation when you’re away from home?

Later in the blog post, Pastor Abrahamson presents some quotes from the Formula of Concord. (That’s one of the Lutheran Confessions, which express exactly what Lutherans believe, and are normative for our doctrine because they are in full agreement with the Bible.) The topic of these quotes is “adiaphora,” a word for the teachings or customs that are neither commanded nor forbidden in holy scripture. The quotes show that there are times when some things are not allowable, even though they would be in other circumstances. Pastor Abrahamson applies these quotes to the question of “contemporary worship,” ending with some powerful examples of the value and importance of the way we worship.

If you have some experience in these matters, or if you would just like to ask or discuss something related, this blog is an appropriate place to do so. You can leave comments on this post, though you may have to create a login for yourself first. If you would rather not discuss it in such a public setting, we can bring up the topic in our Bible classes at church.

I don’t often pass on sermons written by the living, but this one is definitely worth the time it will take you to read it. You’ll find it over at Pastor Paul McCain’s blog. This is an example of good work and good theology that is still being done in the Missouri Synod. Unfortunately, there are also many in that synod who have embraced practices and doctrines that contradict the Bible. We should remember to pray for the LCMS and its members, our brothers in Christ, that God’s name will be hallowed among them, and His will done. At the same time, keep praying for our own synod and fellowship, because we need it too.