The Quotable Finkelstein

Freddy Finkelstein at Bailing Water said...
Anon @ 03/23/2009-09:01AM,

My apologies for confusing/offending you – be assured that my intention is certainly not to drive you away from WELS. Obviously, writing on a WELS blog, to WELS Lutherans, one feels justified in making many assumptions regarding general understanding of Church Fellowship. I have debated Church Fellowship issues a number of times with laymen in our Synod, so perhaps I should have known better. Making assumptions does not seem to be possible any longer. Rather than turn this into an essay contest (after all, I don't want to gain the reputation for writing long blog posts...), I'll direct you to John Brug's Church Fellowship: Working Together for the Truth. It is a gentle introduction to the Scriptural teaching of Church Fellowship. Anon @ 03/22/2009-05:27PM recommended this work as well (although he did so in a way that make me wonder if I may have missed a point of application that Brug emphasizes – if so, I would ask him to point out which sections of Brug he has in mind...). I have read Brug's book, although I must admit it has been several years ago now, and I appreciate it for what it is – I keep several copies on my shelf to give away to friends, family, and new members of our congregation, as the topic comes up.

However, for discussion of Fellowship among Confessional Lutherans, I reach first for Seth Erlandsson's Church Fellowship: What does the Bible say? (also published by NPH). Although it is much shorter than Brug's book, it is also much more pointed, and has much more information that is interesting to a Confessional Lutheran. Indeed, I think that it has been mis-titled. It should have been, Church Fellowship: What does the Bible say, What do the Confessions say, and What is the testimony of the orthodox Lutheran teachers of the past? As a description of style, Rev. Erlandsson, who was writing to the Swedish Lutheran church, has been referred to by my pastor as, “A warrior in the heat of battle” – and this comes across rather directly.

In addition, I frequently refer to the NPH title, Essays on Church Fellowship. One particular essay in this collection, Egbert Schaller's "Concerning Christian Brotherhood and Christian Fellowship," which distinguishes the “Brotherhood,” which is invisible, from the visible recognition of Christian Brothers, is particularly enlightening. Here are a few quotes:

“It should not require extensive demonstration to establish active fellowship as an essential fruit of the Christian brotherhood. Fellowship is the confessional act of belonging together which Christians own one another” (pg. 159).

“The critical question is: What must be the basis of Christan fellowship? ...Let us begin by stating that, while the basis of the Christian brotherhood is regeneration and true faith, the basis for recognition and the practical exercise of Christian fellowship is not regeneration and faith. The reason obviously is that recognition must precede fellowshipping, and recognition must have as its object something that can be seen. Faith cannot be seen. Hence, it is impossible to recognize a brother by his faith, and equally impossible to fellowship with him on that basis... Personal faith cannot be the basis of Christian fellowship. Instead, Christian fellowship can be based only on profession of faith, by word and deed, which is something else again... This passage [referring to 1 John 4:1-3], in urging discrimination and recognition of the spirit that is in men, sets up the confession of a man as basis of recognition... We must now amplify the statement that confession is the basis for fellowship by saying that the deciding factor in establishing Christian fellowship is that of a common and correct confession” (pp. 160-161).

“Out of the confusion of those who have been unwilling or unable to analyze the scriptural doctrine of the communion of saints and the fellowship of believers, there has come a welter of confused attitudes, theories, principles, and practice in matters of fellowship. Symptomatic and not actually new is the proposal of selective fellowship..., a practical recognition of individual Christians or congregations, by word or deed, which ignores synodical affiliation. It argues for the right to call a man a brother and treat him as a brother when he is formally separated by synodical lines. ...Membership in a church body is confessionally decisive for conclusive action regarding fellowship. ...We are not concerned with whether or not [one] is a Christian. Christianity in others is a matter of faith with us, not of determination. But practical fellowship is purely a matter of outward confession” (pp. 162-163).

“Can anyone who does not recognize heterodox affiliations be said to practice in accordance with God's Word? Is not that a contradiction in terms? If a man, or a congregation, does these two things simultaneously: (a) Make a verbal confession that is correct; and (b) Make and uphold a second confession by affiliation with a heterodox church body – then those two confessions form one whole. And together they form one false confession. ...Fellowship practiced under such circumstances constitutes recognition of a confession which is thoroughly in conflict with divine truth” (pg. 164).

“We do not, in other words, feel bound to declare anyone a Christian, by word or act of fellowship, simply because we believe or hope he may be one. ...Only if we refrain from trying to see the invisible and content ourselves with careful weighing of the visible, audible evidence, can we truly establish fellowship with brethren and successfully avoid syncretistic affiliations” (pg. 166).

When I begin conversations regarding Church Fellowship with my Evangelical friends, I usually begin with these three references:

Mark and Avoid
"Now I beseach you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16:17-18)

Anyone, Anything
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8-9)

Full Agreement
"Now I beseach you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Corinthians 1:10)

Generally, this is enough for someone with respect for the authority of Scripture to become very thoughtful (and in my experience, we have great opportunity on this basis to correct Evangelicals and guide them to purity in doctrine – they have an ingrained respect for God's Word and its authority). If necessary, I usually follow up with 2 John 9-11, Philippians 1:27-2:11 (which emphasizes not only unity, but that which perpetuates it, humility), and Ephesians 4:2-16 (which describes how Christians function as a unit).

Hope this helps,

Freddy Finkelstein

March 23, 2009 2:48 PM
Freddy Finkelstein said...
Anon @ 03/23/2009-11:32AM,

You state: “One also sees a politicking increasing in the synod over the years. The very nature of politicking implies a division in direction and possibly some doctrines.”

I agree. Of course, in any organization there is a political reality. In WELS, we pride ourselves on our humility, unity, and brotherliness, and rely on these attributes as we come together in Convention to make decisions and move forward together. We find politicking to be utterly distasteful, because, as you rightly point out, it is evidence of disunity. And this is as it should be, when disunity is not the reality.

But what is the reality, today? I suggest that disunity is manifest, and growing, and that as much as we hate to admit it, so is the politics. But what is the alternative? How will we be returned to a state of unity in doctrine and practice if solid pastors are not positioned for leadership?

Many good conservative pastors, in a spirit of peace and conciliation, and wishing to avoid confrontation, may play their own form of politics by “rushing toward the center,” while more liberal pastors, perhaps on the Church Growth end of the spectrum, remain immovable. And what is the result? Anyone who has studied Mathematics knows what the Gaussian or Normal distribution looks like – you know, the Bell Curve. Further, anyone who has studied Mathematics knows what happens when the data sampling from the right side of the Mean moves left toward the center – the Mean moves left with the data. Likewise, a machinist does not need to be a rocket scientist to know what happens when the metal on the right-hand side of a piece of bar stock is shaved off – the center of mass of the whole moves left. Church Growthers, who have their noses stuck in statistics tables every day, know this reality quite well. Thirty years ago, they began their efforts – perhaps with the best of evangelical intentions – while our good-hearted conservative pastors indulged them. And this has continued, as Church Growth supporters have continued to hold their ground, become more outspoken, and gained a strong following among the clergy and laity, and as our good-hearted conservative pastors have continued to indulge them for the sake of peace. Today, Church Growth perspectives have grown to such prominence and power in our Synod as to be virtually normative among the laity and clergy of this generation. Will our good-hearted conservative pastors continue to chase the Mean, as it continues to move left?

Of course, this raises a different question. What would a Confessional pastor do? Would he continue to indulge in order to maintain a peaceful political unity, or would he stand his ground regardless of the commotion it creates? If there are any Confessional pastors left in our Synod, I would expect that, very soon, the public discussion regarding many of these issues will become quite noticeable and rather animate.

If not, however, I have another political reality of which we must be cognizant. For as much as we layman may spout in public forum, or even privately among the brothers in our congregations, what we say ultimately has very little organizational impact. We are not members of Synod, proper. I was reminded of this as I read Manthey's paper, 15 Years Under the MOV over on Ichabod. The fact is, only pastors, male teachers, and congregations as corporate entities are members of synod. The only voice that laymen have is as representatives of their congregations during Convention. I'm not saying this is good or bad, it is just the reality. Therefore, we must choose our delegates very carefully, and educate them fully. Even so, not much will happen without Confessional leadership among the clergy.

Freddy Finkelstein

March 23, 2009 4:02 PM