Women Ministers in WELS

Watch the Richard Jungkuntz disciples at work in WELS.

From Bailing Water:

Interested observer said...
You quoted the ELS position: "Therefore women shall not read the Scripture lessons in the divine service, preach the sermon, adminster Baptism or distribute the Lord's Supper, for these things are intimately related to the pastoral office (1 Timothy 4:13-14, 1 Corinthians 4:1)."

All of the duties described involve authoritative preaching or ministry. The WELS position says women may not serve in the public ministry when it involves exercising authority over me. I see no difference at all in these two statements. Where is the contradiction, please?

December 4, 2007 9:52 PM


Carl M. said...
Interested Observer,

The Wisconsin Synod has said that women may commune women and men (if someone else "fences" the altar). The ELS says women may not commune men or women.

The Wisconsin Synod says women may read the readings, the ELS says they may not.

The Wisconsin Synod says women may be in the pastoral office serving men (such as performing baptisms, counseling and so forth) as long as they do not "excercise authority" over them. The ELS says women may not be in the pastoral office.

Carl M.

December 4, 2007 10:41 PM


Anonymous said...
Have you read one of the most recent WLQs? Good article by Tom Nass about this whole subject. You are misrepresenting the WELS position.

December 4, 2007 10:46 PM


Interested observerf said...
Carl M: I have never seen anything anywhere in the Wisconsin Synod where women are allowed to commune "women and men" or where women are allowed to read the Scriptures in a mixed public worship service. Neither have you. You are either terribly ignorant or intentionally misrepresenting WELS doctrine.

December 4, 2007 10:49 PM


Interested Observer said...
Carl M: You said, "The Wisconsin Synod says women may be in the pastoral office serving men (such as performing baptisms, counseling and so forth) as long as they do not "excercise authority" over them."

Show me any statement, any document, any WELS leader or teacher that says this. You will not be able to.

This is simply, unequivocally, not true.

December 4, 2007 10:53 PM


Carl M. said...
No, I read very carefully, you ought to as well. Read the Wiscosnin Synod's COP declaration on women communing others. They say there is nothing wrong with it, but it "wouldn't be wise" because people would not understand. The same with women lectors. Wisconsin Synod cautions against such practices are always based on giving offense not in that the practice is inherently wrong.

Carl M.

December 4, 2007 10:54 PM


Intgerested Observer said...
Carl,

No, you need the read the statement again. It was talking only about women communing women, not women and men as you claimed.

December 4, 2007 11:04 PM


Carl M. said...
No, they say that it is not an exercise of autority (if someone else fences the table) and women may commune men, though it wouldn't be "wise." And it has happened. Ask Pastor Herman John.

Regardless, it doesn't matter for the WS already calls women into the Office of the Holy Ministry and they may serve as pastor as long as they don't exercise authority over men (and we have seen how that is twisted and turned). This runs contrary to the Scriptures.

Carl M.

December 4, 2007 11:20 PM


Interested observer said...
Carl: Where on earth are you getting this "fencing the table" terminology? Are you just making it up? And again, the statement of the COP nowhere -- absolutely nowhere -- says that women may commune men. Produce the exactg wording from the COP statement to back up your claim. You will not be able to do so, because it does not say what you claim. If you can't be honest about this, you need to be quiet. Your words are changing from being uninformed to simply lies.

December 4, 2007 11:29 PM


Carl M. said...
No, you produce what you claim to be true.

And be careful because simply because Nass or whoever says women can commune women,but it is not wise, doesn't mean they have not said, women can commune men, but it would not be wise.

"Fencing the table" is a common term used in theologicil circles that means admitting or preventing people from communing.

Carl M.

December 4, 2007 11:36 PM


Carl M. said...
From the WELS Q/A

"WELS does not consider women who lawfully assume certain duties of the pastoral office to be pastors, does not call them pastors, and does not intend to call them pastors."

Now, if it walks like a duck....

Carl M.

December 5, 2007 12:14 AM


Anonymous said...
Is it true that the WELS synod calls women into the Office of the Holy Ministry?

December 5, 2007 12:19 AM


Anonymous said...
WELS doesn't have an OHM, but yes, women are allowed to perform ministry functions as long as they don't involve authority (in very elastic terms) over men.

December 5, 2007 6:48 AM


AP said...
"Where is the contradiction, please?"

Here is the contradiction. WELS says "women may participate in all the offices and activities of public gospel ministry where the service does not involve authority over men." Thus, when deciding which roles women may have in the ministry, WELS says, they can do anything so long as it doesn't involve exercising authority over men--hence it is okay for women to commune women (but we don't do it now because it might offend our brothers in the ELS.) By this logic, women could be pastors too, so long as they were only pastors to other women. In other words, the only thing that keeps women out of the pastoral ministry in the WELS is the exercise of authority over men.

The ELS also says that only men can be pastors because women can't have authority over men, but takes it one step further by saying that regardless of who they are exercising authority over, women can't be pastors or do the things that pastors do (preach and admister the sacrament) becuase God has restricted the pastor ministry to qualified men. But I'm not the only one to notice this discrepancy. This is a big issue right now for some in the ELS. Look at DP Janke's Fall report to the WELS AZ/CA district--this isn't something I made up. Any ELS folks care to back me up on this?

AP

December 5, 2007 10:29 AM


Anonymous said...
AP,

I agree that it is a theoretical difference in approach, but I'm not sure that this is a practical difference that would even manifest itself in the real world. I guess you could come up with some hypothetical about a shipwreck in the middle of the Pacific and only women survive and they start a church on their deserted island and have a woman "pastor". But outside of that, I'm not sure the theoretical difference between the WELS and ELS would ever impact anything in the real world.

December 5, 2007 10:59 AM


AP said...
"I agree that it is a theoretical difference in approach, but I'm not sure that this is a practical difference that would even manifest itself in the real world."

Allow me to explain why I see it as more than that. The way I read the WELS position, the only thing in the Bible that prevents women from being pastors is the issue of authority.

ELS says, yes, women shouldn't excercise authority over men, but that there is another reason women shouldn't be pastors--God has restricted the office of the pastoral ministry to qualified men.

So, the WELS and ELS say the Bible says different things about who may be in the ministry. That is more than just a "theoretical difference in approach."

AP

December 5, 2007 11:12 AM


Anonymous said...
"ELS says, yes, women shouldn't excercise authority over men, but that there is another reason women shouldn't be pastors--God has restricted the office of the pastoral ministry to qualified men."

But is that really an entirely different reason? It's really just the same reason from two different sides:

1. Women can't be pastors because they can't be in authority over men.

2. Scripture says pastors must be men, because men are the ones to be in authority.

Seems like basically the same reason, seen from two different sides.

December 5, 2007 11:15 AM


AP said...
"Scripture says pastors must be men, because men are the ones to be in authority."

That isn't what it says though. It says that Pastors must be men because scripture says they must be men. The WELS adds another "because" to it, which has the effect of qualifying the statement before the "because," which leads to some in the WELS saying, "women can do the same things as pastors as long as we don't call them pastors and they aren't exercising authority over men."

AP

December 5, 2007 12:12 PM


OJN said...
As AP has clearly noted, there is a profound difference between the WELS and ELS position on the Ministry, one that many within the ELS are deeply concerned about, but don't talk about publicly, which is good, but ultimately they will have to and some are ready to. I hate to sound so cryptic but I know of a prominent ELS pastor who has said the above. They are hoping that the WELS gets its act together on this issue. The WELS "fully human" in the Nicene Creed portended this fissure, some in the ELS saw this, some in the WELS as well.

FWIW (and that may not be much)

OJN

December 5, 2007 6:56 PM


Anonymous said...
A few posts back AP wrote: "ELS says, yes, women shouldn't excercise authority over men, but that there is another reason women shouldn't be pastors--God has restricted the office of the pastoral ministry to qualified men." This in itself brings up an issue that no one has yet mentioned: that by saying "God has restricted the office" the ELS is saying that there is a concrete office of the Pastoral Ministry that is mandated by God. I believe that this is something that the WELS statement on ministry does not affirm.

December 7, 2007 11:37 AM

***

GJ - Wawautosa allows the Wisconsin sect to make up whatever they want because they are the only ones capable of interpreting the Scriptures. Also, they hold themselves above the Book of Concord, not bound by it. That may sound like Gnosticism to some.

In fact, their seminary professor John Brug supported the ordination of women at least a decade ago, in The Popes Speak, aka Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly. A number of conference papers have stated the same concept: there is nothing in the Scriptures against women's ordination. As I said before, Lutherans are now used to rationalistic propositions and finding some citation to support it.

There is a divide between the ELS clergy and the WELS leaders on this topic and many others. Sometimes the ELS has been loosey-goosey. Now WELS is on the cutting edge of apostasy. The ELS clergy can complain all they want. Schmeling and Pope John will do exactly what they are told by Wayne Mueller and others.

The not wise gambit is clever because it allows the sect to push the cracked door open a few more inches each year. Watch Church and Change or the Episcopal Church to learn what will happen next. Soon the new Wisconsin sect pastor will be introduced with his wife (or Life Partner) as the new "ministry team." They will be young and cute and "so excited about our future ministry here."

MLC has called itself the sect's College of Ministry for years. No objections. Male teachers have been ordained. Sure, that was dumber than licking a pump handle in New Ulm in January, but they are still doing it. Lawrence Olson (D.Min., Fuller Seminary) has been running a parish minister program for men and women for years. In time the distinctions will collapse.

***

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Women Ministers in WELS":

This from a WELS pastor in Washington State when confronted with allowing the women in the congregation to read the liturgy during the Sunday morning divine service:
"........Second, as far as antiphonal forms in worship, I saw your statement that our synod accepting the practice means nothing to you unless they can back it up with Scripture. The proper way to look at any activity done in our New Testament time of freedom from ceremonial law is that we can enjoy our NT freedom in any ways that are not condemned by the Word of God. For example, many of our churches use a bell to signal the start of worship. You could very easily say, “Since they can’t back up the use of a bell with a Bible verse, it’s wrong.” In fact, you and I might even go back into world history and find some pagans that used to use bells in some paganistic way and try to equate that to a Christian church that uses one. This is not the proper way to look at the subject.

Thirdly, 1 Cor. 14:34,35 and 1 Tim. 2:11,12 command that a woman is not to be teaching or instructing men with her sermon in formal worship. If you look closely at 1 Cor. 14, the context is that she should not “prophesy” with the result that her prophecy is “weighed” by the listeners (literally in Greek, “judged”). 1 Cor. 14 does not refer to an antiphonal reading, because we do not “judge” what God tells us like we “judge” a message that an individual is giving. It is talking about an individual’s preaching instruction. Certainly in a case where a woman is not up front reading (such as in an antiphonal form), these verses are not violated.

You did include a “Q and A” on lectors from the synod website, and I’ll be honest with you, Brett, that lectors are an area that you correctly have indicated our synod needs to exercise great caution with. I certainly agree with you that we need to think carefully about this. The gist of the thinking is that since 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 exclude women from delivering their preaching instruction to men, some in our circles might want to use women as readers but not preachers. However, the difference I see between antiphonal singing/reading and functioning as a lector is that a woman is in a physical position (up front) that some might perceive as un-submissive. If I were attending church with a woman functioning as a lector, I admit that I would be uncomfortable with that position. I can’t see myself ever making use of women lectors. At best, those who might like to make use of this practice are in a very gray area. At worst, it could be done in a wrong way (as the Q and A answer stated).

Lastly, please keep in mind that if you do want to hold to the position you described in your e-mails, we would have to condemn:
Women soloists
Women’s choirs
Antiphonal singing
As far as I know, these have not caused you offense in the past, but these are all ways women proclaim law and gospel in and to the worship assembly, and are also ways that our synod has accepted as not only in line with Scripture, but also edifying to our people."

The WELS is following Rome by removing the relationship between doctrine and practice. They say this is the doctrine and then they say that the application of the doctrine can be a myriad of things and all without violating the doctrine.

Brett Meyer

***

GJ - The tap-dancing Wawautosi act quoted above is typical Wisconsin justification for anything they do. Note the ceremonial law gambit. They use an essay by Carl Lawrenz on ceremonial law (in the Book of Concord?) to serve as the expansion clause for their new/old fads. They do not admit following Rome (three-year lectionary, gay-friendly liturgical colors) or ELCA (women teaching men, women in authority over men, Lavender Mafia). They are expressing their New Testament freedom.

Episcopal Church in Numerical and Spiritual Decline

Lawsuits and Lavender Mafia Fail To Increase Membership

Episcopal Church Interim Report Reveals Drop in Church Attendance

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
12/2/2007

An Interim Report, prepared by the House of Deputies Committee of the Episcopal Church, shows the denomination continuing to decline with a 41 percent attendance drop attributed directly to congregations departing over the sexual innovations in the church.

In assessing facts and trends, the State of the Church report, which worked closely with Dr. Kirk Hadaway, Director of Research at the Episcopal Church Center, indicated the need for a "plan for action" at all levels of the denomination in response to membership drops. In a manner similar to other mainline Protestant denominations in the United States, the statistics for The Episcopal Church indicate declining membership and attendance, declines that have become more severe in the last several years.

The facts are these:

In 2006, the number of Episcopal churches growing by 10 percent or more decreased, and the number declining in membership by 10 percent increased. Average Sunday Attendance (ASA) also dropped by three percent in 2006 compared to one percent the previous year. An estimated 41 percent of the attendance drop can be attributed to the departure of congregations from their dioceses. Almost half (49%) of all parishes and missions had an Average Sunday Attendance (ASA) of 70 or less. The norm - nearly two-thirds (63%) of Episcopal congregations--had an ASA of 100 or less. Seven new campus ministries, focusing on youth, were planted in 2006.

The report neglected to mention that the average age of Episcopalians attending these parishes is now in the mid sixties.

According to the report, an increased number of congregations reported "serious conflict" from 2001 through 2005. The consecration of V. Gene Robinson was one of the frequently mentioned sources of conflict in 2005.

Homosexuals in the church argued that there would be an influx of homosexuals and lesbians with the consecration of Robinson. It never happened. Dioceses like Dallas have grown slightly because of a clear understanding and presentation of the gospel, even though it lost one single parish of 3,500 souls.

(GJ - When WELS discovered feminism, Dorothy Sonntage left to join ELCA.)

The real reason why the Episcopal Church is in decline is the discontent of orthodox parishes, many of whom have realigned with orthodox Anglican dioceses of the Global South, mainly Africa and Latin America.

Rifts have only widened following the consecration of openly homoerotic Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire in 2003. The Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop has said that those leaving the national church accounted for less than one percent of the total number of U.S. Episcopal parishes.

The beneficiary of these departures has been the Pittsburgh-based Anglican Communion Network.

A recent report on their 2007 activities revealed that they now have 10 dioceses, 5 convocations and International Conferences, serving 250,000 congregants, whose clergy and parishes "continued unabated".

Every month several orthodox cardinal parishes announce that they are leaving The Episcopal Church, with the latest figures showing that approximately 1,000 parishioners are departing weekly for an African Anglican jurisdiction.

The reasons given include the departure from Holy Scripture as supremely authoritative, the acceptance of sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage, and Gnosticism.

In assessing the Interim Reports facts and trends, other areas of concern in the national church included the "failure of some dioceses to fully support the program of The Episcopal Church at the national level," which, in turn, negatively impacts its domestic operations and overseas mission work.

Four Episcopal dioceses have begun to take steps to leave the Episcopal Church and align themselves with orthodox Anglican archbishops. The Diocese of Forth Worth in Texas recently voted to approve constitutional amendments and remove language that states the diocese accedes to The Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons.

This coming week, the Diocese of San Joaquin may well become the first Episcopal diocese in the U.S. to take a final vote and leave the national church. The diocese has been invited to align with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of South America.

The Diocese of Pittsburgh, under its leader the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, is also preparing his diocese to form a separate Anglican "ecclesial structure" in North America that would remain faithful to the theology of Global South Anglicans. Duncan says The Episcopal Church has "failed" the communion and rejected "obvious scriptural teaching."

The interim report did list some areas of growth in The Episcopal Church. Support for the church's relief and development organization (ERD) increased from under $9 million to nearly $40 million where giving per member either continued to increase or remained steady.

The report also revealed a reorganization of the staff at the national Church Center in New York City which hopes to better utilize resources nationally and locally to support the mission of the church.

(GJ - Does that sound like WELS, reorganizing every two years?)

The report went on to recognize three inter-related concerns that include Identity, Mission and Organization.

The report felt it necessary to ask; what does it mean to be an Episcopalian? What are our core values? How are we differentiated from other Christian faith traditions? What are our strengths and weaknesses? Where are our opportunities?

"We cannot be leaders within our Church nor in the global community if we are unsure who we are or where God is calling us to go. Criticisms that we need to be more proactive (suggesting that we have allowed outsiders to set our agenda and dictate our identity), or that we are aggressively reactive (that is, we have been defending our polity to the extreme), both relate to our understanding and embrace of God's kingdom and the Salvation we are offered in Jesus Christ-- or to our lack of such understanding and engagement."

The report said there was a need for a sense of: "urgency in evangelism, urgency in leadership development, urgency in outreach, urgency in structural reorganization--but first and foremost, urgency in more clearly defining who we are, where God is calling us to go, and how we should "press ahead" in mission in response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

(GJ - When elderly men have so much urgency, it is usually from their diuretics.)

The report called for a re-kindling of enthusiasm for both evangelism and mission. "Such efforts will emphasize equally spiritual renewal for our existing long-time members, and Christian formation for our newer and younger members." (GJ - Paul Kelm is known for rekindling Enthusiasm through spiritual renewal programs.)

The report did not touch on massive advertising campaigns the church has already undertaken with no visible results or the failure of the 20/20 program to double church attendance by 2020.

(GJ - Does this sound like Jerry Kieschnick's Ablaze!(TM) ?)

The report also said that Church Center staff turnover has been high, and morale problematic.

The report was signed by the following persons, none of whom are known to be orthodox. (GJ - That would be like having Wayne Mueller, James Huebner, David Valleskey, Larry Olson, and Wally Oelhaven sign a similar report for WELS!)

Ms. Cindi Bartol & Ms. Debby Melnyk, Vice-Chair
Mr. Arthur Bjontegard & Mr. Alfred D. Price, Chair
The Very Rev. Ashton J. Brooks
Ms. Hillary Dowling Raining
The Rev. Andrew Cooley
The Hon. Maggie Tinsman
The Rev. Zabron A. Davis
John Wood Goldsack, Esq.
The Rev. Ann Fontaine
The Rev. Martin Yabroff (resigned)Cn.
Kathryn Weathersby McCormick, Secretary

Lutheran Book List

The most neglected authors among Lutherans today.
Ichabod fans want:

1. The book list repeated.
2. More information about conservative Lutherans from the past.

Best Lutheran Books To Read

I often refer to the eight-volume Luther's Sermons, but that is the old edition. The new version is seven volumes, the eight condensed into four plus the three house-postil volumes. All seven cost about $35, surely one of the best bargains of all time.

I subscribe to the motto of Walther, which he borrowed: "Not many, but much." Read the same good Lutheran books repeatedly rather than try to have all the books. My guide for authors and music composers is the same: The deader, the better. (Tupac's early demise from lead poisoning does not put him on my music list.)

First Priority
The seven-volume set of Luther's Sermons is the best way to read the Reformer. I like What Luther Says, which is now one volume, but that consists of short passages. The sermon set gives us Luther at his best.

The Book of Concord. I prefer the Concordia Triglotta, but I admit the book is massive and not user-friendly. Although people have criticized the Tappert edition for some comments and translations, Tappert the man was far more Lutheran than the WELS-ELS-LCMS leaders of today.

One way to have a Triglotta light is to get the Repristination Press version of the English translation. Unfortunately, that does not include the Historical Introductions by Bente, which are well worth studying.

Augsburg used to publish the Large Catechism (Luther again) as a solo volume. I have been appalled by so-called conservative Lutherans who argue a case in direct opposition to the Large Catechism. For example, they claim a discussion about the facts is slanderous. Discussing someone's published false doctrine is also counted as slander. They also oppose convicted criminal clergy being identified as such.

These conservative Lutherans claim a quia subscription to the Book of Concord, but they must mean they have forsitan (perhaps)subscription.

So I advocate a study of Luther's Sermons and the Book of Concord before any other books.

Some other good Luther books include: Day by Day We Magnify Thee (Augsburg Fortress)and Luther's Family Devotions.

Second Priority
The second greatest theologian of Christendom is Martin Chemnitz. Someone who knows the Book of Concord will be quite familiar with Luther, who wrote the parts after the Ecumenical Creeds, and Melanchthon, who wrote the Augsburg Confession and the Defense (Apology) of the Augsburg Confession. Chemnitz was the chief editor of the Formula of Concord, 1580, and likely the author of its most eloquent passages.

Chemnitz was a student of Luther and Melanchthon. More tomorrow.

Conference of Defenestrated ELS Congregations

Just say "No!" to papacies.

Below are links to the congregations kicked out of the Little Sect on the Prairie by Pope John the Malefactor. Apparently he got into a Twelve Step program to cure his addiction, because the ousters finally stopped. Or perhaps someone explained that Christ cleansed the Temple by attacking the money-changers, not by venerating them.

***

For more information on the ACLC, or if you are looking for a congregation to join or be served by, please contact Pastor Rolf Preus:

rolfpreus@msn.com
(701) 788-2096.

Congregations in the
Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches

Faith, Litchfield,
Illinois

First American
Lutheran (First Confessional Lutheran Parish), Mayville, North Dakota

First Evanger (First
Confessional Lutheran Parish),
Fertile, Minnesota

Grace (First
Confessional Lutheran Parish), Crookston, Minnesota

Reformation, Hillsboro,
Oregon

St. Mary Evangelical Lutheran
Chapel, Des Moines, Iowa

St.
Timothy, Williamsburg, Iowa

St. Paul,
Escondido, California

Wayfarer's Chapel, Fillmore,
California

And others

 

Norm Teigen's Review of Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant

Holy Baptism, by Norma Boeckler

Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant: a book review by Norm Teigen

Greg Jackson, a Lutheran, has published a new book Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant A Doctrinal Comparison of Three Christian Confessions. This book is worthy of careful study.

Jackson's book is intended to be a catechism by which people may grow in their religious (read Lutheran) faith. The book is not a denunciation of the Catholic or the Reformed traditions as one might have feared by reading the title.

I think that this book would be of value to people who are trying to learn more about their Lutheran faith. By seeing what various faiths have to say about Christian doctrine one can learn more about one's own faith. I think Lutheran pastors looking for background information on the subject would find this book useful.

I found the book useful because I haven't thought about these subjects for a while.

The book is divided into three parts: Areas of Agreement, Areas of Partial Agreement, and Complete Disagreement.

The three faith traditions are, in Jackson's classification, agreed on the the use of Scripture, the Trinity, and Natural Law. There is partial disagreement on the meaning and importance of the Sacraments. The three traditions completely disagree on Justification, Purgatory, the Infallible Pope, on various doctrines concerning the Virgin Mary, and on interpretations of Martin Luther versus the Papacy.

I don't agree with the author on his interpretation of civil government. Jackson says that "A tyrant is a servant of God since tyranny is a better form of government than anarchy" and I'm not able to conceive that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Pol Pot could be considered servants of God in any sense. My conclusion is that Lutherans who study Lutheran theology haven't read much in the theory of civil government beyond their own seminary reading lists.

I think that one of the best points that Jackson makes is in the importance of the Scriptures as a measuring rod of doctrine. Jackson carefully lists the relevant passages and I am glad that he printed them out because I might not have looked them up.

Jackson knows something about the Church Fathers and again he prints out the quotations. I admit that I have heard of the Church Fathers but don't know very much about them ('Don't know much about the-ol-ogy, don't know much about es-cha-tol-ogy').

Jackson's book does not carry the imprimatur/nihil obstat of any of the organized Lutheran synods. Some might hesitate to read a book that has not been approved by a reputable Lutheran Doctrinal Committee.

That Jackson's book is not so endorsed might very well make it more worthy to be read. Jackson is his own man. He is, in a certain sense, a prophet who stands outside the walls of organized Lutheranism. He might need an editor to brush up a few cobwebs but he doesn't choose an editor who will tell him what to write.

The late J.A.O. Preus supposedly said that "by their footnotes ye shall know them." Jackson is careful to document his sources. He doesn't throw in comments from political right-wingers, which is a personal bug-a-boo for me. He knows his Church Fathers. When he quotes Luther he uses Ewald Plass's What Luther Says, which tells me that he has read more of the Church Fathers than he has Martin Luther.

Jackson might consider for future study a catechism on modernism. What should a pastor say to a couple who don't know much about the Christian traditions of faith but are troubled by ideas saturating American culture.

How does one answer the question of, what I call, the Here-and-Now? The Here-and-Now idea is that there is no past, there is no future, there is only the present.

What about the relativity problem? Everything is relative, there is no truth.

Jackson's book may be ordered from www.lulu.com I think it is available from another Lutheran prophet, the publisher of the Christian News.

I recommend the book.

Missouri and ELS Congregations Should Read This Interview

Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori

GJ - In the interview below, another Episcopal leader questions the legal authority of the presiding bishop to grab parish properties through her lawyer. The details are important because there are many parallels with the LCMS and the Little Sect on the Prairie. Both groups are confederations rather than papacies, no matter how the Little Popes behave. ELCA reconstituted itself to be a hierarchy, something lacking in the ALC of 1960. Probably most of the congregations that left ELCA in the last 20 years were ALC in origin or older than the papal LCA.

Congregations and pastors should never concede property rights to the District Popes or the Synodical Pope. An ecclesiastical position should not be confused with the concept of a corporate business executive.

***

Canon Bishop Says National Church Has No Legal Claim To Church Properties

An exclusive interview with the Rt. Rev. William Wantland, the retired Bishop of Eau Claire. Bishop Wantland was bishop of the diocese from 1980 - 1999. He is a canon lawyer and lives with his wife in Oklahoma. He agreed to be interviewed by VirtueOnline about church property lawsuits, a number of which are making their way through various courts in the United States.

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
11/26/2007

VOL: Bishop Wantland, because of the Dennis Canon there is the overwhelming belief, substantiated in a number of state courts, that all parish properties are held in trust for the local diocese. Is that true in all cases? If not why not?

WANTLAND: Generally speaking, there is a trust interest running from the parish to the diocese. In 1570, the British Parliament passed legislation restricting the disposal of parish property. This was carried over to New York law, where an early statute provided that the Bishop and Standing Committee would have a say in the disposition of parish property, but so would the New York Legislature. This (without reference to State bodies) was added to Title II (now Canon II. 6) shortly after the Civil War. In the 20th century, a similar Canon was enacted in Title I, adding all parish property to that requirement, not just church or chapel buildings. Most States in the U.S. follow Implied Trust principles of law, so in those States, the diocese would prevail. Several States follow Neutral Principles of Law, and in those States, the local parish might, under certain circumstances, prevail.

VOL: Recently in the State of California, the Court of Appeal reversed a lower court ruling placing three parishes at risk of losing their parishes. They reversed an Orange County Superior Court's prior ruling that three former Episcopal churches, which disaffiliated from the national denomination in 2004, did not forfeit their property. This division of the appellate court broke with nearly thirty years of California church property law, and instead ruled that hierarchical church denominations can take over local church property. Where is this going?

WANTLAND: It is going to the California Supreme Court, which has already agreed to hear the matter.

VOL: Attorney Eric C. Sohlgren said the decision puts one division of the appellate court in direct conflict with other California court of appeal decisions that for almost thirty years have rejected the idea that a court must automatically defer to a church denomination in church property disputes. He said that idea offends basic principles of fairness and property ownership. Do you agree?

WANTLAND: The latest Appellate Court decision certainly offends the previously settled law in California. However, nothing would prevent the California Supreme Court from rejecting the Neutral Principles idea, and moving to Implied Trust.

VOL: It is also alleged that all properties are also held in trust for the National Church. Is that automatically true if the diocese can also lay claim?

WANTLAND: What is the National Church? We commonly use that title, but the so-called National Church has no current machinery for holding title to property outside of New York. While the Canons in both Title I and II recognize an interest in parish property for the diocese, this only re-states law that has been a part of our Church for over 400 years. Further, a careful reading of the Dennis Canon does not grant any real interest in diocesan property to 815 2nd Avenue.

VOL: What exactly is the National Church? Is it an ecclesiastical body or strictly an administrative body?

WANTLAND: The so-called National Church is an administrative body with very limited authority. It has defined itself in a number of documents over the years as a confederation of dioceses. Neither General Convention nor Executive Council has any jurisdiction over dioceses granted in either the Church Constitution or Canons.

VOL: In the 'which came first, the chicken or the egg', is the national church a product of General Convention, or are the dioceses the product of the national church and General Convention?

WANTLAND: The Episcopal Church came into being in 1789. Dioceses preceded the existence of TEC by a number of years. For example, the Diocese of Connecticut not only existed for years before 1789, but elected a bishop and had him consecrated in Scotland in 1784. New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia also elected bishops and had them consecrated in England in 1787. Clearly, the dioceses came together to create the Episcopal Church by adopting a Constitution and Canons and a Book of Common Prayer. The dioceses created the Episcopal Church, and not the other way round.

VOL: If the national church or general convention is the product of dioceses and not the other way round, then what legal claim can the national church make in court for parish properties?

WANTLAND: The only way TEC could even claim a trust interest in parish property is to rely on the imprecise language of the so-called Dennis Canon. However, prior to 1979, the so-called National Church never claimed any trust interest in parish or diocesan property. A basic principle of trust law is that two people can agree to create a trust interest in property which one of the parties owns. However, a third party cannot then claim a trust interest in that property without the consent of the original parties. While it might be possible, I am not personally aware of any diocese which has recognized the interest of 815 2nd Avenue in any property. To the contrary, a number of dioceses have specifically rejected any claim of the so-called National Church to property within those dioceses. With the possible exception of the Diocese of California, I am not aware of any parishes voluntarily granting an interest in their property to 815. In the absence of such a granting of trust interest, I doubt any court would uphold it.

VOL: Does the Presiding Bishop have any canonical authority in a diocese, any diocese, either liberal or conservative?

WANTLAND: The authority and duties of the Presiding Bishop are set forth in Canon I. 2. 4. In regard to dioceses, the PB shall consult with the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese if there be a vacancy in the office of bishop, but the PB has no authority to act, only to consult. Further, the PB is to visit every diocese, and takes order for the consecration of bishops within a diocese. No other duties in regard to dioceses are delineated. All other duties apply to the administrative structure of the Episcopal Church.

VOL: Mrs. Jefferts Schori, while holding the title of Presiding Bishop, is in reality the bishop of nothing. She has no diocese, unlike the Archbishop of Canterbury who is both the titular head of the Anglican Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury. In that case, does she have any legitimate (legal or ecclesiastical) authority over the leadership of a Diocese?

WANTLAND: The Presiding Bishop has no authority over the leadership of a diocese, except if charges are brought against a bishop. The PB does have certain responsibilities in regard to the charges, as set forth in Title IV of the Canons. However, there is absolutely NO authority in any instance over Standing Committees, Diocesan Councils, or other diocesan leadership.

VOL: Ft. Worth Bishop Jack Iker said to his diocese recently that "there is no such thing as "the national Church." We are a confederation of Dioceses, related to each other by our participation in General Convention. He went on to say that from the earliest days of the beginnings of the Episcopal Church in this country, including the formation of dioceses and eventually the creation of the General Convention itself, there has been a strong mistrust of centralized authority that is deeply rooted in our history as Episcopalians. We do not have an Archbishop in this Church, who has authority over other Bishops and their Dioceses. Instead, we have a Presiding Bishop, with very limited canonical responsibilities, mainly administrative in nature." Do you agree with him?

WANTLAND: Bishop Iker has stated precisely what I feel the situation to be.

VOL: Mrs. Schori has said she will allow the sale of properties back to the parishes, even to other religious groups, but not to another Anglican jurisdiction. In your mind is that legal? Can she in fact do that? Is she breaking some federal statute by saying that a property sale can be restricted because she says so?

WANTLAND: Federal law does not apply here. The law of the State rules. I would simply observe that the previous Presiding Bishop declared in Louisiana that the so-called National Church had no interest in property disputes between a parish and the diocese, and would not intervene unless asked to do so by the diocese. Therefore, if a diocese is negotiating with a parish to avoid a costly lawsuit, what right does a Presiding Bishop have to dictate terms? None whatsoever.

VOL: Recently the Diocese of Western Michigan sold their cathedral to an independent evangelical mega church without apparently a whimper from the national church or David Booth Beers, Mrs. Schori's attorney. But when the pro-cathedral in El Paso, Texas, under the ecclesiastical authority of then Bishop Jeffrey Steenson in the Diocese of the Rio Grande, wanted to leave the diocese and TEC, I was told by Steenson that Beers raised all hell. Steenson told me that he did not want to litigate and furthermore the parish gave the diocese $2 million as part of the deal! Why do you think Beers ignored one situation and yet weighed in on another?

WANTLAND: Because of prejudice against so-called conservatives.

VOL: David Booth Beers bills out his time at $600.00 an hour less 15% discount for TEC at a cool $510.00 an hour, so I have been told. Presumably he has a team working with him. He seems to be everywhere, - Virginia and Philadelphia (recently). I can't imagine that at the end of the day millions of dollars in legal fees are being given to him by the national church. Where, in your opinion, is the money coming from?

WANTLAND: The money, in all probability, is coming from the endowment funds of TEC, which funds are more than $200,000,000.00.

VOL: A number of bishops, including yourself, have asked Mrs. Jefferts Schori where the money is coming from for the present litigation, but she has not replied. Why is that?

WANTLAND: I was one of the bishops to raise this question. To date we have received no answer. My guess is that TEC doesn't want to start the precedent of providing full and complete information about anything. The name of the game is "spin".

VOL: Is it possible that litigation costs could, in the end, bankrupt the Episcopal Church?

WANTLAND: I doubt it. While the cost of litigation is ridiculous, I don't think it will deplete the endowment funds.

VOL: Can the Trust Funds be raided without accountability and financial responsibility to pay legal costs?

WANTLAND: Some of the trust funds are unrestricted, and can be used however 815 2nd Avenue sees fit. Others are restricted, and cannot be legally used for purposes other than stated in the establishment of those funds. In any instance, the matter of our Treasurer (Ellen Cooke) who went to jail for misuse of trust funds proves that there must be accountability.

VOL: In the end, if the National Church takes possession of dioceses that will be 90 per cent empty, is the victory anything more than pyrrhic?

WANTLAND: In the highly unlikely event this were to occur, it is not really a victory of anything. What do you do with property you can't use? History has shown that it gets sold at a great loss.

VOL: With empty or near empty churches which will have to be sold in the open market, what is the ultimate victory for the National Church?

WANTLAND: The only victory is for the forces of Satan and secular humanism.

VOL: Thank you Bishop Wantland.

NOTE: This story may be posted on Blogs and used by newspapers. The content may not be changed and full credit and links to VirtueOnline must be posted. www.virtueonline.org

Giving Up in Missouri Synod

Mission Vision

From the Purple Palace:


LCMS membership down, donations up in ‘06
By Joe Isenhower Jr.

With more than a third of the 6,073 LCMS congregations not reporting statistical information for 2006, approximate totals indicate that baptized membership Synodwide decreased by 22,867 (to 2,417,999) and confirmed membership fell by 13,876 (to 1,856,783) during the year.

On the other hand, total giving to congregations rose by an estimated $58,639,820 (to $1,355,458,558) for 2006, and the amount for work beyond congregations increased by about $6 million, compared with 2005. The average amount given during 2006, per-communicant member, increased by $36.76 over the previous year, to $730.

Comparing year-end 2006 to figures reported for Dec. 31, 2005, the numbers of children baptized, as well as teenagers and adults confirmed, also were down, although gains were recorded in the area of Christian education -- particularly the number of children in weekday religion classes, the number of those classes, the number of vacation Bible schools, Sunday schools, and children enrolled in Sunday schools.

Average attendance at weekly worship services was 172.5 in 2006, compared with 164.2 in 2005.

To reach the approximate numbers, the Synod's Office of Rosters and Statistics tallied up new information on 2006 reporting forms returned by congregations, adding figures carried over from previous years for the congregations not reporting.

The number of “back-door losses” -- the number of adults removed from congregational rosters (not counting deaths and transfers) -- for 2006 was reported at 37,413. That figure is 3,853 fewer than the back-door losses reported for 2005, although the fact that a lower percentage of congregations reported 2006 statistics likely affected that total.

“Professions of faith” are tallied only from reporting congregations. For 2006, that figure shows a decline of 2,475 (from 13,114 reported for 2005).

“The end result cannot be totally accurate,” Synod Secretary Raymond Hartwig said of efforts to obtain reliable statistics when more than a third of LCMS congregations do not report requested information.

“It would be really helpful if congregations consistently returned their statistical report forms,” he said, adding that statistics gathered for 2005 were boosted by “a concerted effort” to obtain accurate numbers that would assure more equitable representation by delegates at the 2007 Synod convention.

For that concerted effort, staffs of the 35 LCMS districts helped gather information from their congregations, compared with simply using the information from reporting forms and the carried-over figures for 2006.

The result was that 81 percent of Synod congregations reported their statistics for 2005, compared with 64 percent reporting for 2006.

“At the same time,” Hartwig told Reporter, “congregations are reporting new information that is very helpful and demonstrates the zeal for the Gospel that motivates congregations to do more to reach out in their communities.”

He said that examples of that zeal are “83 congregations known to be hosting satellite worship sites -- an increase of 18 over 2005, and more than 300 congregations providing regular specialized worship opportunities -- 117 to serve language or ethnic needs and 187 to serve the needs of the vision- or hearing-impaired.”

He referred to the information that congregations reported about their specialized ministries as the result of “a new special request that we intend to continue in years to come, which should be particularly helpful to persons interested in locating congregations that serve specific needs.”

Gene Weeke, the Synod's director of Business Services (including the Office of Rosters and Statistics) added that although the new form for specialized ministries is not part of the officially-reported statistics gathered from congregations, the statistics office is considering including information from that form on the Synod's Web site, “perhaps through the congregation-locator feature that offers information about individual congregations.”

Hartwig said that results of information from the 2,292 congregations that reported via the new “specialized ministries” form indicate that they conducted a total of 15,834 specialized ministries in 2006, including 2,125 Lutheran schools that they sponsor, 5,371 “other educational opportunities,” 4,873 “human-care efforts,” 2,157 “media efforts,” and 1,308 “ministries to special needs” such as those among the developmentally disabled, the elderly, and armed forces personnel.

“We're excited about the possible benefits in providing this information,” Weeke told Reporter, “for congregations and for those seeking out congregations that offer such ministries.”

Hartwig added that in addition to statistical information from individual congregations, district presidents also report official information. For 2006, they reported 6,073 Synod-member congregations (29 more than 2005), as well as an increase in new church starts. For 2006, new church starts totaled 73 (23 more than in 2005), with 11 of those becoming Synod-member congregations by the end of 2006.

“Our year-end reporting process will benefit greatly from better response,” Hartwig said, “but much of the information we did receive from 2006 certainly provides good reason to rejoice and be glad for the blessings that the Lord of the church continues to shower on The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod.”

Among official acts reported for 2006:


28,507 children were baptized (down 3,194).

21,493 teenagers were confirmed (down 3,079).

16,092 adults were confirmed (down 2,592).
In the Christian education category:


3,902 weekday religion classes (down 20).

184,983 students in weekday religion classes (up 49).

25,924 non-members in weekday classes (up 1,846).

3,847 vacation Bible schools (up 43).

5,183 Sunday schools (up 77).

425,499 enrolled in Sunday school (up 1,541).
Membership and attendance statistics for 2006 will be included in The Lutheran Annual for 2008, available from Concordia Publishing House by year's end.

Posted Nov. 12, 2007

Dixie Byzantine Edits Ichabod Caption

Dixie's Caption - "Lutherans - Mother Beckons"


A Lutheran becoming Orthodox is like…

…a Lutheran going to Fuller Seminary or Willow Creek? I don’t quite understand the simile Lutheran pastor and blogger, Dr. Gregory Jackson, attempts to form, short of, perhaps, the act of not being Lutheran?

Anyway…I thought his caption under the picture of the Hagia Sophia was funny. If we drop a few letters though…

Seriously, I get around. I know there are Lutheran pastors/congregations that attempt the Willow Creek worshiptainment strategy. And some try to meld into the American Evangelical landscape without a Lutheran distinction. And some even embrace various things normally associated with Eastern Orthodoxy (icons, Orthodox prayers, etc.). What passes for Lutheranism in America these days is a mixed bag. But a wise Lutheran once told me: ‘One doesn’t become Orthodox because of dissatisfaction with the former church. One becomes Orthodox when one sees Orthodoxy as the True Church.’

No one goes down the Willow Creek path because they see that as the “True Church”. Similarly, no one travels the Fuller Seminary path for the same reason. But when one travels East…the stakes are decidedly higher and the prize decidedly different.

***

GJ - My caption, as you may recall, was - Lutherans, The Mother Ship Beckons.

My point has always been - Have an honest confession of faith. I find the Recessional Lutherans, who are dishonestly leading people away from the Lutheran Confessions, the worst kind of cowards.

I am not surprised that people do not find any satisfaction in the Lutheran Church of today. In general, the clergy have either sold out to Fuller/Willow Creek (the vast majority) or to Rome/Constantinople. If these ministers no longer favor the Book of Concord, they should say so and quit annoying the minority who see the work of Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz as the high-point of Christian theology. There were other great theologians afterwards, but none reached the supremacy of those three gifted and brilliant teachers of the Gospel.

Eastern Orthodox Statement on Purgatory

Romantic, Catholic View of Purgatory.
How different is the Eastern Orthodox view? See below.

Read this before you semi-pope!

From an Eastern Orthodoxy information site:

In the third sitting of the Council, Julian, after mutual congratulations, showed that the principal points of dispute between the Greeks and Latins were in the doctrine (a) on the procession of the Holy Ghost, (b) on azymes in the Eucharist, (c) on purgatory, and (d) on the Papal supremacy; and then asked them which of these subjects was to be discussed first. The Greeks delayed discussing the first point till the opening of the Œcumenical Council, and promised to give a speedy answer about the others as soon as the Emperor's advice should be heard. The Emperor fixed upon one of the two last subjects to commence discussions upon. [1] The Latins agreed to discuss upon purgatory.

In the fifth sitting (June 4) Cardinal Julian gave the following definition of the Latin doctrine on purgatory: "From the time of the Apostles," he said, "the Church of Rome has taught, that the souls departed from this world, pure and free from every taint,—namely, the souls of saints,—immediately enter the regions of bliss. The souls of those who after their baptism have sinned, but have afterwards sincerely repented and confessed their sins, though unable to perform the epitimia laid upon them by their spiritual father, or bring forth fruits of repentance sufficient to atone for their sins, these souls are purified by the fire of purgatory, some sooner, others slower, according, to their sins; and then, after their purification, depart for the land of eternal bliss. The prayers of the priest, liturgies, and deeds of charity conduce much to their purification. The souls of those dead in mortal sin, or in original sin, go straight to punishment. [2]

The Greeks demanded a written exposition of this doctrine. When they received it, Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion of Nice each wrote their remarks on it, which afterwards served as a general answer to the doctrine of the Latins. [3]

When giving in this answer (June 14th), Bessarion explained the difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on this subject. The Latins, he said, allow that now, and until the day of the last judgment, departed souls are purified by fire, and are thus liberated from their sins; so that, he who has sinned the most will be a longer time undergoing purification, whereas he whose sins are less will be absolved the sooner, with the aid of the Church; but in the future life they allow the eternal, and not the purgatorial fire. Thus the Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire, and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, understanding that the temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they for a time depart into a place of darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of the Divine light, and are purified—that is, liberated from this place of darkness and woe—by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and not by fire. The Greeks also believe, that until the union of the souls to the bodies, as the souls of sinners do not suffer full punishment, so also those of the saints do not enjoy entire bliss. But the Latins, agreeing with the Greeks in the first point, do not allow the last one, affirming that the souls of saints have already received their full heavenly reward. [4]

In the following sitting the Latins presented a defence of their doctrine on purgatory. As much as can be concluded from the answer given by the Greeks to it, they tried to prove their doctrine by the words of 2 Mac. xii. 42, 46, where it is said that Judas Maccabaeus "sent to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering," remarking at the same time "that it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin." They also quoted the words of Jesus Christ, "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (S. Matt. xii. 32.) But their especial defence was founded on the words of the Apostle S. Paul (I Cor. iii. 11, 15): "For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." Different extracts were also made by the Latins from the works of the Eastern Fathers—Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John Damascene, Dionysius the Areopagite, Theodoret, Gregory of Nyssa; and the Western—Augustine, Ambrose, and Gregory the Great. They did not also forget to quote the authority of the Church of Rome in defence of their doctrine, and to make use of their usual sophistries.

To all this the Orthodox party gave a clear and satisfactory answer. [5] They remarked, that the words quoted from the book of Maccabees, and our Saviour's words, can only prove that some sins will be forgiven after death; but whether by means of punishment by fire, or by other means, nothing was known for certain. Besides, what has forgiveness of sins to do with punishment by fire and tortures? Only one of these two things can happen: either punishment or forgiveness, and not both at once.

In explanation of the Apostle's words, they quoted the commentary of S. John Chrysostom, who, using the word fire, gives it the meaning of an eternal, and not temporary, purgatorial fire; explains the words wood, hay, stubble, in the sense of bad deeds, as food for the eternal fire; the word day, as meaning the day of the last judgment; and the words saved yet so as by fire, as meaning the preservation and continuance of the sinner's existence while suffering punishment. Keeping to this explanation, they reject the other explanation given by S. Augustine, founded on the words shall be saved, which he understood in the sense of bliss, and consequently gave quite another meaning to all this quotation. "It is very right to suppose," wrote the Orthodox teachers, "that the Greeks should understand Greek words better than foreigners. Consequently, if we cannot prove that any one of those saints, who spoke the Greek language, explains the Apostle's words, written in Greek, in a sense different to that given by the blessed John, then surely we must agree with the majority of these Church celebrities." The expressions sothenai, sozesthai, and soteria, used by heathen writers, mean in our language continuance, existence (diamenein, einai.) The very idea of the Apostle's words shows this. As fire naturally destroys, whereas those who are doomed to eternal fire are not destroyed, the Apostle says that they continue in fire, preserving and continuing their existence, though at the same time they are being burned by fire. To prove the truth of such an explanation of these words by the Apostle, (ver. 11, 15,) they make the following remarks: The Apostle divides all that is built upon the proposed foundation into two parts, never even hinting of any third, middle part. By gold, silver, stones, he means virtues; by hay, wood, stubble, that which is contrary to virtue, i. e., bad works. "Your doctrine," they continued to tell the Latins, "would perhaps have had some foundation if he (the Apostle) had divided bad works into two kinds, and bad said that one kind is purified by God, and the other worthy of eternal punishment. But he made no such division; simply naming the works entitling man to eternal bliss, i.e., virtues, and those meriting eternal punishment, i.e., sins. After which he says, 'Every man's work shall be made manifest,’ and shows when this will happen, pointing to that last day, when God will render unto all according to their merits: 'For the day,' he says, 'shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire.' Evidently, this is the day of the second coming of Christ, the coming age, the day so called in a particular sense, or as opposed to the present life, which is but night. This is the day when He will come in glory, and a fiery stream shall precede Him. (Dan. vii. 10; Ps. 1. 3; xcvii. 3; 2 S. Pet. iii. 12, 15.) All this shows us that S. Paul speaks here of the last day, and of the eternal fire prepared for sinners. 'This fire,' says he, 'shall try every man's work of what sort it is,' enlightening some works, and burning others with the workers. But when the evil deed will be destroyed by fire, the evil doers will not be destroyed also, but will continue their existence in the fire, and suffer eternally. Whereas then the Apostle does not divide sins here into mortal and venial, but deeds in general into good and bad; whereas the time of this event is referred by him to the final day, as by the Apostle Peter also; whereas, again, he attributes to the fire the power of destroying all evil actions, but not the doers; it becomes evident that the Apostle Paul does not speak of purgatorial fire, which, even in your opinion, extends not over all evil actions, but over some of the minor sins. But these words also, 'If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,' (zemiothesetai, i.e., shall lose,) shows that the Apostle speaks of the eternal tortures; they are deprived of the Divine light: whereas this cannot be spoken of those purified, as you say; for they not only do not lose anything, but even acquire a great deal, by being freed from evil, and clothed in purity and candour."

In answer to the words quoted by the Latins from Basil the Great (in his prayer for Pentecost), Epiphanius, John Damascene, and Dionysius the Areopagite, the defenders of the orthodox doctrine remarked, that these quotations did not prove anything to the advantage of the Church of Rome. They could not even find the testimony of Theodoret adduced by the Latins. "Only one Father remains," they continued, "Gregory the blessed priest of Nyssa, who, apparently, speaks more to your advantage than any of the other Fathers. Preserving all the respect due to this Father, we cannot refrain from noticing, that he was but a mortal man, and man, however great a degree of holiness he may attain, is very apt to err, especially on such subjects, which have not been examined before or determined upon in a general Council by the Fathers." The orthodox teachers, when speaking of Gregory, more than once restrict their words by the expression: "if such was his idea," and conclude their discussion upon Gregory with the following words: "we must view the general doctrine of the Church, and take the Holy Scripture as a rule for ourselves, nor paying attention to what each has written in his private capacity (idia)."

The Eastern teachers said, concerning the testimonies of the Western Fathers, that they were rather ignorant of them, not having any translation in Greek, and tried to excuse them by the circumstances under which they wrote, their misunderstanding the Apostle's words (I Cor. iii. 11, 15), the difficulty of drawing a general conclusion from many circumstances (founded on visions), &c.

As regards the weight of the opinion of the Church of Rome pointed to by the Latins, it was found by the Greeks to be inconsistent with the subject then in hand.

Lastly, to the Latin sophistries, they opposed the more valid conclusions from the principles of the doctrine of Christ, from many works of the Fathers, from the parable of Lazarus, where mention is made of Abraham's bosom,—the place of bliss,—and of hell the place of punishment; and nothing is said of any intermediate place for temporal punishments.

The Greek answer was evidently intended to show the Latins the unsoundness of their newly-invented doctrine on the one side, and the steadfastness of the orthodox party in the faith handed down to them by the Apostles and the holy Fathers, on the other. In the course of the disputes the principal question branched off into so many light and abstract questions, that as a matter of course the solution of the chief one became still more difficult. The Latins for instance asked where and how the angels fly? what was the substance of hell fire? The last question met with the following answer from Jagaris, the imperial officer: "the querist will get a satisfactory solution to his question, when he experiences the nature of that fire himself." [6]

The question on purgatory not being agreed upon, another one was proposed—that about the blissful state of the righteous, alluded to by Bessarion in his treatise on the difference of the doctrines of both Churches on the condition of the departed souls. It was asked: whether the saints, departed from this life, attained entire bliss or not? Before discussing this question, the Greeks found it necessary to have a private conference with the other members of the Council. With this intention all the members assembled in the Patriarch's cell (July 15,) and read over different testimonies of the Fathers; the Emperor bade them collect their votes. Some gave a negative answer to the question, founding it on the Apostle's words, (Heb. xi. 39,) others gave a positive answer. The next day, after a few disputes, the whole Council of Greek Bishops unanimously agreed, that though the souls of the saints, as souls, are already in the enjoyment of bliss, still when, at the general resurrection they will join their bodies, then their bliss will be greater; that then they will he enlightened like the sun. [7] This was their last answer to the Latin doctrine on the state of souls after death.

What then were the fruits of these tedious discussions? Did they conduce in any manner to the solution of the principal question concerning the union of Churches? No! The Latin theologians could neither find firm proofs for their opinions, nor would they give them up. The Greeks again would not receive a doctrine not founded on any good proofs, nor could they incline the Latins to receive the orthodox doctrine.

To the misfortune of the Greeks, their own party also became divided, a circumstance which prognosticated nothing good. Bessarion, generally speaking, was not very earnest in the defence of the orthodox cause, and if he did dispute with the Latins now and then, it was only to show off his powers of speech. [8] But meeting with a rival in Mark of Ephesus, [9] he became still more passive in the cause of orthodoxy, and began to nourish a feeling of hatred towards Mark. Obliged to answer the Latins together with him, he usually left Mark to refute their various objections alone. It was in vain, that many prudent persons tried to reconcile Bessarion to Mark at the very commencement of the former's enmity to the latter, even calling to their aid the authority of the Patriarch, who by his meek reproofs might have ended the quarrel. The invalid Joseph would on no account meddle in this affair. [10] Then again the cunning Gregory, offended that Mark did not find him worthy of being the vicar of the Patriarch of Alexandria, [11] did his utmost to set Bessarion against Mark. Apparently he esteemed Mark, sat down lower than he did in the Council, [12] voted after him, notwithstanding the Privileges of a higher patriarchal throne were on his side; when his opinion was the same as Mark's, he never spoke of himself, but always said: "I am of the same opinion as the holy Metropolitan of Ephesus." [13] But this was sheer hypocrisy. In the presence of Bessarion and the Emperor, he placed Mark lower than the Archbishop of Nicaea, [14] and found fault with everything he said, not caring about this self-contradiction. [15]

Thus it was, that as soon as the Greeks commenced discussions, there arose men who, separating from the true members of the Eastern Church, sacrificed the advantages of the Church to their own passions and advantages.

The disputes ended. More than three months had already elapsed since the opening of the Council. The Greeks remaining inactive, and suffering want in everything, [16] began to feel dull and sorry that they had left their homes.

The Emperor, fearing that the discontented would prematurely leave the Council, ordered the city governor not to let any of the Greeks leave the town, nor to give any one passports without his permission and signature. He himself, having shut up the Greeks in Ferrara, settled in a monastery not far from the town, and spent his time in the field, hunting, as if he were even loath to remind himself of a business which had called him away from his Empire. [17]

As soon as the time fixed upon for the opening of the solemn sessions of the Council had arrived, the Greeks asked the Emperor to return to town and make some arrangements about the Council. The Emperor answered, that he would not even think of opening a Council, which was to be an Œcumenical one, without the ambassadors of the Western monarchs, and a more numerous assembly of Bishops than the present one. But the members of the Council instead of increasing only diminished in number. Many fell victims to a frightful epidemic; others, from fear, retired to their homes; so that at the commencement of the solemn session, out of eleven Cardinals only five remained, and out of one hundred and fifty Bishops only fifty were present. It was at this time that the Greeks received a proof of Divine protection. None of them suffered from the epidemic. [18]

One addition only was made to the Council in the person of Isidore, Metropolitan of Russia, who arrived on the 18th of August. He bad returned to Russia after the conclusion of the treaty between the Emperor and the Council of Basle (in the end of 1436). With him was to have returned Jonah, Bishop of Riazan, sent to Greece to be ordained Metropolitan. Arriving at Moscow, Isidore was received by the Grand Duke Vasili Vasilievitch with all due honour. But soon after his arrival, he began telling the Grand Duke that the Greek Church intended to unite with the Church of Rome, that a Council was convened by the Emperor and the Pope with this object in view,—to be followed by the solemn union of the East and West,—and that it was very necessary that a representative of the Russian Church should take part in the Council. The Grand Duke answered, "Our fathers and grandfathers would not even listen to an union of the Greek and Roman laws; I myself do not wish it." Isidore urged him to consent, pleading his oath given to the Patriarch of coming to the Council. "We do not command thee to join the Council in the Latin land," said the Grand Duke at last, "but thou listest not, and wilt go. Remember then the purity of our faith, and bring it back with thee." Isidore swore to remain true to Orthodoxy, and (on Sep. 8, 1437) left Moscow with Abram, Bishop of Suzdal, Vassian the Archimandrite, the Priest Simeon, and other members of the clergy and laity, in all a hundred. On quitting Russia, Isidore very soon evinced a violent inclination to side with the Latins. Received in Livonia by the Bishop of Dorpat, and the Orthodox Clergy, he first saluted the Latin cross and only afterwards kissed the holy Russian icons. The companions of Isidore were horror-struck, and from that very moment lost all their confidence in him. [19]

Endnotes
1. Syr. v. 7, 8. Synod. Flor. p. 30.

2. Syr. v. 13. Synod. Flor. p. 30.

3. Syr. v. 13. The contents of Mark's answer, not published in Greek, are mentioned by Le Quien in one of his treatises, preceding the works of S. John Damascene, edited by him. Dissert. Damas. v. p. 65, et seq. Syropulus, relating the circumstances touching this dispute, refers his readers to the acts and notes of the Council about purgatory (praktika hypomnemata peri tou pyrgatoriou, Syr. v. 5) ; but these are not published separately, and are not even to be found in the Greek manuscripts. The answer of the Greek Fathers to the question on purgatory, given on the 14th of June, 1438, (not to the Basle, but the Florentine Council,) is mentioned in the book of Martin Kruze: Turcograecia, p. 186.

4. Synod. Flor. pp. 33, 35.

5. The answer of the Greeks is usually thought to be the work entitled, peri tou katharteriou pyros biblion hen, edited together with the works of Nilus Cavasilas and the monk Barlaam, without the author's name. (Nili Archiep. Thessalon. de primatu Papae, edit. Salmasii, Hanov. 1603.) As the name of the writer of this answer is not mentioned, it is sometimes referred to Nilus Cavasilas and the monk Barlaam, though the manuscripts give no reason for doing so. (See Fabric. Bibl. Graec. Ed. Harl. t. xi. p. 384 and 678.) From the work itself it is evident that it was written (a) not in the name of one person, but many persons, who had undertaken so long a journey, hemin ponon hypostasi kata ten makran tauten apodemian tosouton; (b) that it was written to persons, who had busied themselves about the arrival of the Greeks to the Council; hymin te toson d’ hyper tes prokeimenes hemon seneleuthesthai prokatabainoumenois spoudes; (c) that it was written at the very commencement of the Council discussions, before other questions were settled. This is the reason why the persons who composed this work try to give a peaceful solution not only of this question but, if possible, of all the other ones, ouk epi tou prokeimenou nyni toutou zetematos, alla kai epi panton isos ton allon. All' ekeinon men heineka melei theo kai melesei, ... . (d) that it was written in reply to the defence (apologian) presented of the Romish doctrine on purgatory. All these circumstances direct our attention to the dispute on purgatory which took place in Ferrara, and not to any other one known to us. The writer of the History of the Florentine Council,—Dorotheus of Mitylene, remarks, that the Latins, in their second answer, adduced many testimonies from the saints, examples and arguments, using also the Apostle's words for this purpose,—saved, yet so as by fire. Synod. Flor. pp. 35, 36. All this found place in the defence also, in answer to which the Latins presented the work we have been examining. Syropulus says that it was Mark of Ephesus who wrote the answer to the Latin defence, v. 15. But this answer, as well as the first one, is not published. Le Quien, examining both these answers in his above-mentioned dissertation, quotes the principal ideas contained in this second answer of Mark. The same ideas, and in the same order, are also to be found in the work "On Purgatorial Fire," as well as the words quoted by Le Quien from Mark's second answer, ti gar koinon aphesei te kai katharsei dia pyros kai kolaseos. Dissert. Damasc. v. pp. 8, 9, 66, 67. All these arguments allow us to conclude that the work on purgatorial fire was either entirely or principally composed by Mark of Ephesus, and that it was brought forward by the Greeks in answer to the Latin defence of the doctrine on purgatory.

6. Syr. v. 16, 18; Syn. Flor. p. 35, 37.

7. Synod. Flor. 37-39.

8. It is worthy of notice, that when the Greeks, seeing the obstinate opposition of the Latins to the truth, wished to terminate all the discussions, Bessarion alone insisted that they should be continued, the subject alone being changed. "We can still say many nice things," were his words. (polla kai kala.) Syr. vii. 6.

9. Mark was commissioned to write the Latins an answer about purgatory, and not Bessarion; but Bessarion did nevertheless give in his answer also.

10. Syr. v. 14-17.

11. Syr. iv. 29.

12. Syr. iv. 32.

13. Syr. vii. 10.

14. Syr. v. 14.

15. Syr. v. 15.

16. The first pay-day of the Greeks was the 2nd of April. 691 florins were given them on one month's account, whereas their pay was due for a month and a half. Syr. iv. 28. On the second pay-day (May 12) they received 689 florins (Syr. v. 9); on the third day (June 30th) 689 florins; on Oct. 21, 1218 florins for two months. The fifth and last pay-day was at Ferrara, Jan. 12th, 1439, when 2412 florins were paid for four months (Syr. vii, 14). Thus, three months and twenty days elapsed between the third and fourth pay-day, and as much between the fourth and fifth.

17. Syr. vi. 1, 2.

18. Syr. vi. 3.

19. History of the Russian Empire by Karamzin. Ernerling’s ed. t. v. pp. 161-165.

From The History of the Council of Florence, by Ivan Ostroumoff, trans. from the Russian by Basil Popoff (Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1971), pp. 47-60. The footnotes have been renumbered, the Greek text transliterated, and the Greek letters used for itemizing some of the lines in the body were converted to English letters. All else is as original. This is one of the most important books one can read when trying to sort out the differences between the Latins and the Orthodox Church. Let the reader judge for himself who has maintained the true Faith.

+ + +
See also a superb discussion of the Homilies refuting the purgatorial fire given by St. Mark of Ephesus at this same Synod: The Soul After Death, by Fr. Seraphim Rose, App. I, pp. 196-213. Here are Fr. Seraphim's introductory remarks on these homilies:

The Orthodox teaching on the state of souls after death is one that is often not fully understood, even by Orthodox Christians themselves; and the comparatively late Latin teaching of "purgatory" has caused further confusion in people's minds. The Orthodox doctrine itself, however, is not at all ambiguous or imprecise. Perhaps the most concise Orthodox exposition of it is to be found in the writings of St. Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Florence in 1439, composed precisely in order to answer the Latin teaching on "purgatory." These writings are especially valuable to us in that coming as they do from the last of the Byzantine Fathers, before the modern era with all its theological confusions, they both point us to the sources of the Orthodox doctrine and instruct us how to approach and understand these sources. These sources are: Scripture, Patristic homilies, church services, Lives of Saints, and certain revelations and visions of life after death, such as those contained in Book IV of the Dialogues of St. Gregory the Great.

Today's academic theologians tend to mistrust the latter two or three kinds of sources, which is why they are often uneasy when speaking on this subject and sometimes prefer to keep an "agnostic reticence" with regard to it (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 259). St. Marks writings, on the other hand, show us how much "at home" with these sources genuine Orthodox theologians are; those who are "uncomfortable" with them perhaps reveal thereby an unsuspected infection with modern unbelief.

Of St. Mark's four replies on purgatory composed at the Council of Florence, the First Homily contains the most concise account of the Orthodox doctrine as against the Latin errors, and it is chiefly from it that this translation has been compiled. The other replies contain mostly illustrative material for the points discussed here, as well as answers to more specific Latin arguments.

The "Latin Chapter" to which St. Mark replies are those written by Julian Cardinal Cesarini (Russian translation in Pogodin, pp. 50-57), giving the Latin teaching, defined at the earlier "Union" Council of Lyons (1270), on the state of souls after death. This teaching strikes the Orthodox reader (as indeed it struck St. Mark) as one of an entirely too "literalistic" and "legalistic" character. The Latins by this time had come to regard heaven and hell as somehow "finished" and "absolute," and those in them as already possessing the fullness of the state they will have after the Last Judgment; thus, there is no need to pray for those in heaven (whose lot is already perfect) or those in hell (for they can never be delivered or cleansed from sin). But since many of the faithful die in a "middle" state—not perfect enough for heaven, but not evil enough for hell—the logic of the Latin arguments required a third place of cleansing (''purgatory"), where even those whose sins had already been forgiven had to be punished or give "satisfaction" for their sins before being sufficiently cleansed to enter heaven. These legalistic arguments of a purely human "justice" (which actually deny God's supreme goodness and love of mankind) the Latins proceeded to support by literalistic interpretations of certain Patristic texts and various visions; almost all of these interpretations are quite contrived and arbitrary, because not even the ancient Latin Fathers spoke of such a place as "purgatory," but only of the "cleansing" from sins after death, which some of them referred to (probably allegorically) as by "fire."

In the Orthodox doctrine, on the other hand, which St. Mark teaches, the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful. Even sinners destined for eternal torment can be given a certain relief from their torment in hell by these means also. There is no fire tormenting sinners now, however, either in hell (for the eternal fire will begin to torment them only after the Last Judgment), or much less in any third place like "purgatory"; all visions of fire which are seen by men are as it were images or prophecies of what will be in the future age. All forgiveness of sins after death comes solely from the goodness of God, which extends even to those in hell, with the cooperation of the prayers of men, and no "payment" or "satisfaction" is due for sins which have been forgiven.

It should be noted that St. Mark's writings concern primarily the specific point of the state of souls after death, and barely touch on the history of the events that occur to the soul immediately after death. On the latter point there is an abundant Orthodox literature, but this point was not under discussion at Florence.

Eastern Orthodoxy: Purgatory or Not?

From a layman who considered joining the Eastern Orthodox:

"When I began looking at the issues separating Catholics and Orthodox, it turned out that a lot of them were more semantic than substantive. If I became Orthodox, I would have to accept more Catholic things than I at first thought: purgatory, for example. Orthodox don’t traditionally use the word purgatory for the purification that happens after death, but they acknowledge that such a purification happens. They pray for the souls of the departed, which makes sense only if those prayers can help the departed in some way.

Rather than using the image of fire for the purification (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10–15), Orthodox often picture the soul passing through a series of "toll houses" on its road to heavenly glory. It’s a different image, but it points to the fundamental reality that the saved soul may have to undergo some form of ordeal before it is admitted to full heavenly glory.

This seemed to put the question of purgatory in the category of the "word fights" that Paul warns us against (cf. 1 Tim. 6:4–5; 2 Tim. 2:14). It doesn’t matter if the word purgatory is used to describe a particular post-death reality or if precisely the same image is used to allow us to imagine it. The fundamental reality is the same, as is its most obvious practical implication in this life: prayer for the dead. I would have to accept that whether I became Catholic or Orthodox."

Eastern Orthodoxy and Purgatory

From the Friends of the Poor Souls in Purgatory:

St. John Chrysostom - “Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice (Job 1:5), why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them” (Homilies on 1 Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).

“Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for there own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them in the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit, when the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf” (Homilies on Philippians 3:9-10 [A.D. 402]}.

St. John Chrysostom also recommends to every Christian family that they have a box at some convenient place in their home and that they put into it pennies, which will be used to have masses said for the Poor Souls.

***

GJ - Chysostom is really a nickname, meaning Golden-mouth. The world was small enough then to distinguish people by their nicknames. The Byzantine Empire had some great ones: Timothy the Weasel, Paul the Stammerer, and Copronymus (Poopy). The last nickname was earned by the emperor who had an unfortunate accident during his infant baptism.

The Recessional Lutherans, who are leading their members into Eastern Orthodoxy by way of infant communion, should read these Purgatory quotations by Chrysostom to their ovine congregations. John is not a minor figure but a major one in the history of Eastern Orthodoxy. He is one of the most recognized theologians.

Luther's Description of Purpose-Driven Church Growth Disciples

False Teachers Use Work of Others

"Note the master hand wherewith Paul portrays the character of false teachers, showing how they betray their avarice and ambition. First, they permit true teachers to lay the foundation and perform the labor; then they come and desire to do the work over, to reap the honors and the benefits. They bring about that the name and the work of the true teachers receive no regard and credit; what they themselves have brought—that is the thing. They make the poor simple-minded people to stare open-mouthed while they win them with flowery words and seduce them with fair speeches, as mentioned in Romans 16:18. These are the idle drones that consume the honey they will not and cannot make."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VII, p. 110. Second Sunday in Lent. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9; Romans 16:18.

False Doctrine Tolerated

"And such false teachers have the good fortune that all their folly is tolerated, even though the people realize how these act the fool, and rather rudely at that. They have success with it all, and people bear with them. But no patience is to be exercised toward true teachers! Their words and their works are watched with the intent of entrapping them, as complained of in Psalm 17:9 and elsewhere. When only apparently a mote is found, it is exaggerated to a very great beam. No toleration is granted. There is only judgment, condemnation and scorn. Hence the office of preaching is a grievous one. He who has not for his sole motive the benefit of his neighbor and the glory of God cannot continue therein. The true teacher must labor, and permit others to have the honor and profit of his efforts, while he receives injury and derision for his reward."
Sermons of Martin Luther, VII, p. 110. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9. Psalm 17:9.


God Punishes Ingratitude by Allowing False Teachers

"In the second place such teachers are disposed to bring the people into downright bondage and to bind their conscience by forcing laws upon them and teaching works-righteousness. The effect is that fear impels them to do what has been pounded into them, as if they were bondslaves, while their teachers command fear and attention. But the true teachers, they who give us freedom of conscience and create us lords, we soon forget, even despise. The dominion of false teachers is willingly tolerated and patiently endured; indeed, it is given high repute. All those conditions are punishments sent by God upon them who do not receive the Gospel with love and gratitude."
Sermons of Martin Luther, VII, p. 111. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9. John 5:43.

False Teachers Flay Disciples to Bone

"In the third place, false teachers flay their disciples to the bone, and cut them out of house and home, but even this is taken and endured. Such, I opine, has been our experience under the Papacy. But true preachers are even denied their bread. Yet this all perfectly squares with justice! For, since men fail to give unto those from whom they receive the Word of God, and permit the latter to serve them at their own expense, it is but fair they should give the more unto preachers of lies, whose instruction redounds to their injury. What is withheld from Christ must be given in tenfold proportion to the devil. They who refuse to give the servant of truth a single thread, must be oppressed by liars."
Sermons of Martin Luther, VII, p. 111f. Second Sunday in Lent. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9.

Avarice in False Teachers

"Fourth, false apostles forcibly take more than is given them. They seize whatever and whenever they can, thus enhancing their insatiable avarice. This, too, is excused in them."
Sermons of Martin Luther, VII, p. 112. Second Sunday in Lent. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9.

They Lord It Over Us

"Fifth, these deceitful teachers, not satisfied with having acquired our property, must exalt themselves above us and lord it over us...We bow our knees before them, worship them and kiss their feet. And we suffer it all, yes, with fearful reverence regard it as just and right. And it is just and right, for why did we not honor the Gospel by accepting and preserving it?"
Sermons of Martin Luther, VII, p. 112. Second Sunday in Lent. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9.

We Are Dogs and Foot-Rags

"Sixth, our false apostles justly reward us by smiting us in the face. That is, they consider us inferior to dogs; they abuse us, and treat us as foot-rags."
Sermons of Martin Luther, VII, p. 112. Second Sunday in Lent. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9.

False Teachers Are Peacocks

"The peacock is an image of heretics and fanatical spirits. For on the order of the peacock they, too, show themselves and strut about in their gifts, which never are outstanding. But if they could see their feet, that is the foundation of their doctrine, they would be stricken with terror, lower their crests, and humble themselves. To be sure, they, too, suffer from jealousy, because they cannot bear honest and true teachers. They want to be the whole show and want to put up with no one next to them. And they are immeasurably envious, as peacocks are. Finally, they have a raucous and unpleasant voice, that is, their doctrine is bitter and sad for afflicted and godly minds; for it casts consciences down more than it lifts them up and strengthens them."
What Luther Says, An Anthology, 3 vols., ed., Ewald Plass, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, II, p. 642.


Doctrine, True and False

The quotation below seems to make Lutheranism a brand name, but the statement is correct if we substitute “Christian Church” for “Lutheran Church.” The purpose of the Christian Church has been and continues to be an extension of what God began in the Old Testament and manifested through Jesus, the proclamation of the Gospel in Word and Sacrament. The accumulation of treasure, the growth of pension funds, the erection of monumental buildings—all are nothing without the efficacious Word.

"The Lutheran Church is a doctrinal Church. She attaches supreme importance to pure doctrine. The preaching and teaching of God's pure Word is her central activity. Say the Confessors: 'The true adornment of the churches is godly, useful, and clear doctrine.' (Triglotta, p. 401)"
W. A. Baepler, "Doctrine, True and False," The Abiding Word, ed., Theodore Laetsch, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1946, II, p. 496.