Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!hsdndev!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: A pastoral letter to the members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Message-ID: Date: 24 Jun 91 05:45:30 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston Lines: 152 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , jackk@leland.stanford.edu (Jack Kouloheris) writes: >In article math1h3@ELROY.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes: >> >>Is the 'priesthood of believers' still alive in 'liberal' churches? Does >>anybody still believe that an ordinary person should be able to read the >>Scriptures and understand them? >> > >Actually, I believe the situation is quite the reverse....it seems to me >that it is the ultra-conservative churches that are beginning to deny the >'priesthood of the believer' and 'the competency of the soul in spiritual >matters'. These two principles were in important in the statement of the >Baptist Faith and Message published by the Southern Baptist Convention. >Recently, however, the trend has been to enforce one central interpretation >of scripture. Here you are running up against another doctrine which is clearly taught in the Scriptures. Namely that Christians should not practice fellowship with those who teach false doctrine. See in particular Romans 16:17-18, although ultimately this doctrine can be traced back to the command, 'You shall have no other gods.' I don't know that much of the history of the Baptists, but it appears to me that they have been slow to learn this. What should we judge to be 'false doctrine?' We can't just base this on a difference of opinion. However if something is clearly taught in Scripture, and someone teaches contrary doctrine, and we admonish them, yet they persist and do not repent, then we cannot practice fellowship with them. An example I might use has to do with the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper. This is clearly taught in Scripture, for Christ said 'This is my body' and 'This is my blood.' Also Paul wrote, "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord," (1 Cor 11:27) and, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanksa participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"--1 Cor 10:16. So I could not practice fellowship with someone who taught that the bread and wine only represent Christ's body and blood. But then some people believe they can determine the moment when the real presence takes place. Now it is Lutheran doctrine that the real presence is effected by Christ's words (the 'Words of Institution'), and these words are always repeated when we celebrate the sacrament. This is similar to Luther's explanation of Baptism, where he said that Baptism is not just water, which of itself has no power, but water connected with the Word of God. But Scripture does not indicate when the real presence takes place, and furthermore, as far as I can tell, it does not edify us to know when this takes place. We need only to believe and trust Christ's words, 'take, eat, this is my body...take, drink, this is my blood.' Now if you choose to believe that the real presence takes place *when* the Words of Institution are spoken, there may be no harm in that. But if you start telling me that I have to argree with you on *when* the real presence takes place, then you are going beyond scripture, and violating my conscience and my priesthood. >Another trend I dound disturbing was the slow abandonment of the traditional >Baptist view on separation of church and state. Baptists have, in the past, >been wary of mixing the two due to the historical persecution of, for instance, >the anabaptists. Today, with their rise to political power, the Southern >Baptists have been quite willing to encourage laws that favor the mixing of >church and state. It is rather interesting that the trend among Lutherans has been the opposite. Luther, of course, worked under the protection of his Elector, Frederick of Saxony, and Lutheran churches, as a consequence of the treaty ending the thirty years war (correct my history if I'm wrong) were 'state' churches. (the religion of a political entity was determined by the prince/duke/whatever). But the Lutherans that came to the US about 150 years ago came here because they saw that the state church had abandoned the historic Lutheran faith, and that the state persecuted those that wanted to exercise that faith. And so Lutherans in this country have a very healthy respect for the separation of church and state. Incidentally, the separation of church and state is a *biblical* doctrine. For Christ said, "Give to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, but give to God that which is God's". >For these reasons, I decided to leave the Southern Baptist denomination >after 26 years, and join a local Lutheran congregation (which most >Baptists would consider a "liberal" denomination), as I found it more >closely followed principles formerly held dear by the Baptists. >I welcome any discussion the people may have on these trends in >traditionally conservative protestant churches. There are Lutherans and then there are Lutherans. I would probably consider the ELCA 'liberal', the LCMS 'moderate' (and still fighting) and the WELS and ELS 'conservative'. Then there is TAALC, which split off from the ELCA, and which appears to be charismatic. These labels can be misleading. I still run into ex-LCMS people who tell me how 'strict' the LCMS is or was, but I don't associate 'strict' with 'conservative.' Then again, what you seem to be showing us is that labels such as 'Lutheran' or 'Baptist' aren't very reliable, either. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [Do you have any references other than Rom 16:17-18? There are a number of reference about using excommunication in the case of moral offenses, but I can't immediately think of one suggesting it for doctrinal disagreement. The Rom passage condemns those who would cause dissensions and offenses, as well as people who use wiles to deceive the innocent. This seems somewhat different from saying to keep yourself separate from people who disagree with you theologically. The closest thing I can find is 2 Jn 1:9-10: "Everyone who does not abide in the teachings of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God ... Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching." However in context this seems specifically directed against those who deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. It may not necessarily be applied to all disagreements. One passage that has often been used to argue for unity of doctrine is Eph 4:5: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism", though again it doesn't say what to do when unity doesn't exist. One could probably even argue that Rom 16:17 and Eph 4:5 oppose splitting the church on doctrinal grounds. "You shall have no other gods" is interesting, but like Eph 4:5, having one God does not necessarily say what to do when people disagree about what God wants us to do. The NT in general, and particularly the Pastorals, talks a lot about false teachers. Oddly enough, mostly it just condemns them. It doesn't normally say to eject those who believe things that are false. Note that the emphasis is primarily on condemnation of people who teach false doctrines from false motivations. The implication is that false doctrine can come only from a desire for influence and power. It is less clear what to do when genuine disagreements exist within the body of Christ. (Of course historically there has been a tendency to say that everyone who disagreements does so from corrupt motives. This sort of automatic ad hominem seems to have become unconvincing in the last century or so.) In most cases Paul seems to counsel toleration, as in the case of eating meat. Note also Titus 3:9, which prohibits controversies over the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. (As moderator, I agree completely.) It also prohibits having anything to do with anyone who causes divisions. Should we apply this to people who refuse to have communion with those who differ on eucharistic theology? --clh]