** READING THIS BLOG **

This is not my regular Blog. This blog was created to post an account of my journey from being a Protestant Minister to being a Catholic.

The account is not necessarily chronological, but it is deliberately ordered. I hope the order I have chosen will help it all make sense.

NOTE: You need to read the posts from earliest to latest to read them in order.

You can simply START HERE and click the link I have placed on the bottom of each post to go to the next post in order.

 

Epilogue

April, 2007

I apologise to you, dear reader, for the length and garbled nature of this record of my journey. I am painfully aware that many key facts and events have been left out of this version. Some by design and some because they simply don't exist in written form.

Some day I will get around to typing up an account of my journey from a Brethren congregation in the country, through a short stint with an Assemblies of God Pentecostal group, a year of despair inspired by John Calvin to be finally baptised as a Lutheran at the age of 20.

Our experiences since becoming Catholic are another story. The only part that is relevant to this account is that the Lutheran authorities continued to harass me in various ways over the next five years, culminating (please God) in issuing legal summons and debt collectors demanding (and refusing to negotiate) that I 'repay' a significant amount money for my seminary training. Only the charity of some Catholic friends saved us from bankruptcy.

Our respective families are talking to us again now, but most of my Lutheran friends have not spoken to me since the call I informed them I was resigning to become Catholic. Out of 65 Lutheran pastors I have records of a meaningful and regular interaction with before my resignation, only 2 still talk freely with me on occasion. Some others have approached me with questions now and then, on the condition of anonymity. They are afraid to ask the questions openly. There are some extraordinary individuals still asking tough questions within the Lutheran community in Australia and I tip my hat to them. May God guide them home soon!

There is much more I could say, but I will leave this account of our journey with this comment. I never dreamed of becoming a Catholic, it was the last thing I wanted. Seriously! Since becoming a Catholic I have been at peace in mind, body and soul in a way I never felt before. For all it's flaws, nuts, heretics, sinners, enthusiasts and idiots (including me) ... Christ is the head of this house! This glorious, cracked, flawed and complex Church is the only true home for me. I hope you can join us, if you're not already here.



Next?: I'm done here. You can read my regular blog HERE.

Catholicism in the Wild

I have just finished wiping up the kitchen floor after your latest adventure. It would distract me too much to describe it here, suffice to say it involved noodles, grated cheese, an apple and a green crayon. They say green stuff is good for you don't they?

So, what happened next?

That first day I was welcomed by some friendly yet wary Centacare - Marriage Education staff who were obviously wondering what they could do with this strange person. The only Lutherans they had met in the past had been marrying a Catholic person and preparing for a marriage in a Catholic Church. Not quite the same deal as an ex-Minister I guess. After being shown around the office by three different people I was relieved when they gave me some data entry work to do. After a frustrating hour wrestling with their antiquated database, I politely asked if they were attached to the current form of the database, or if I could make some adjustments to speed up my data entry. After I assured them I would save a backup copy of the old database they agreed. Two days later they were so profuse in their praise for the new system,it was almost embarrassing.

(For the boffins out there, I'm no programmer. I simply took Access and gave them some simple workable forms which gave them access to their common inquiries with one or two mouse clicks. I have done much more complex things since, but this achievement still ranks highest for pure impact on my workplace :))

I was moved onto the admin team for an upcoming national conference and worked on the technical side of the organisation. Sitting in on those meetings was an education for a new Catholic let me tell you! It was a joint venture between Centacare and a secular counselling organisation. The theory was that the bulk of the conference featured keynote speakers and workshops focused on the secular professional skills of relationship counselors, while the Catholics were rewarded for their greater than 50% financial and 100% administrative support for the conference by way of a 'Catholic' half day preceding the conference.

Between one keynote speaker advocating abortion, divorce and euthanasia, another giving practical masturbation tips, and workshops including a specialist session on 'Sero-discordant couples' (counselling tips for when one homosexual has aids and his male partner does not), I can't say what I found more amazing. What surprised me was not so much the blatant disregard for Church teaching, nor the almost universal ignorance that they were doing so, but my own lack of concern.

I couldn't understand my own reaction! Such concentrated error would have sent me into a tail spin only a year earlier, so why was I so calm (if a little sad for them and their future contacts) about this monumental rejection of Christian teaching? I realised that, for the first time ever I was completely sure that these people did not represent Christ's teaching, and that it wasn't up to me to prove that! Even when a religious sister gave an astoundingly horrid interpretation of the account of the disciples on the road to Emmaus, I sat watching calmly. I was sad for her and for those listening, but I felt no compulsion to leap up and shout the defence of the Bible or Church teaching. Not that I did this much before, but I always had to fight the compulsion!

I realised I was peaceful in that nothing I could say or do could make the truth any more true than it already is! In those days I actually felt a heady thrill at being so completely secure in the truth of the faith. I still feel it now. I now hold two different roles involved in upholding and teaching the faith in Scripture and of Marriage and the Family, but I am free to do so now out of love for the people I interact with, and not in a kind of desperate attempt to convince myself of the 'truth' I am arguing for.

As I said to one Lutheran pastor who accused me of fleeing from the hard problems, "Running away from the problems? The Catholic Church has many more false teachers and nuts than any Protestant group I know. The difference isn't that the problems aren't there, nor that the hard questions are not being asked. The difference is that Catholics have the answers!"

Next: Epilogue

In Between Worlds

June 23, 2002

Life has been no less eventful since I last wrote. I have simply lacked the motivation to write. Or perhaps I lacked the sense of anything definite to write about. I write this in the lounge room of our rented house a few suburbs away from my old parish. Over a year has passed since I preached my last sermon, packed our bags and left the parish manse to move here 3 days later.

The most profound change has been a deep and lasting peace about our lives in faith since we became Catholics. Another very important change has been our newest family member! The newest little addition to the family has certainly stirred things up a lot, even before he or she is born, the baby has been causing all kinds of trouble. We can't wait to meet him or her! :) In a very real sense this baby is an incarnation of the decision to be Catholic, to be open to all that God wants for us in life, love and family.

So what has happened? The six weeks after my resignation were extremely difficult in many ways. The congregation knew we were leaving to become Catholic so they kept asking themselves, "Was everything he taught us Catholic, or Lutheran?" When I was asked this question I always answered "Everything I taught in this parish was 100% Lutheran, and 100% Catholic." It was true. I can look back on my sermons, classes and writing and be confident that I never taught anything I wasn't convinced was consistent with the Church Fathers, nor did I teach anything that went beyond the boundaries of my authority as a Lutheran minister.

Some parishioners doubted that the Eucharist I presided over in that interim were 'valid' in a Lutheran sense since I obviously didn't believe they were valid. Senior Lutheran theologians were quick to reassure the congregations that, according to Lutheran teaching, since I carried out the rites according to the Lutheran rubric that it was 'valid'.

I attempted to listen carefully to all the hurts, anger and complaints of my parishioners. I was surprised at how many of them assumed it was all about them, or at least all about that parish. Most were angry at me for abandoning them. I had been the first young man in that parish for some time and, if the parishioners words are anything to go by, had brought a sense of hope and excitement to the parish. Numbers were rising, people were feeling more excited about being a Lutheran. Some were even bravely adopting Luther's recommendation to cross themselves in private prayer and even *gasp* in the Church! Now they felt as if they had been taken for a ride. I heard what they said, and I could understand why they were feeling that way. Unfortunately I could not answer all their questions clearly and fully. While still acting as a Lutheran minister, my relationship with them was one based on trust that I fulfill my vow to teach only what the Lutheran Church of Australia teaches. It would have been a betrayal of that position of trust to use my position as spiritual authority in the Lutheran Church to attempt to undermine their faith in that organisation's teachings.

Besides these considerations, The presidents had explicitly forbidden me to speak about my questions and concerns with the Lutheran teachings, or about Catholicism, with any Lutheran. I honoured their demand while I was serving out my time as a Lutheran minister, in spite of the fact it meant passing up many opportunities to defend myself against unjust accusations.

When the news of my resignation became public I was faced with abusive e-mails, anonymous angry phone calls, heated accusations from strangers and old classmates and friends, even threats of violence against myself, my wife and children. After a particularly horrid caller reduced my wife to tears, I begged the District President to intervene in some way. He said he could understand the people's hurt, and that he felt some himself, but he would do what he could. What he did do was print a description of my resignation which suggested that the two of us resigning from the ministry at that time had done so in an underhand and deceitful manner, without bringing our questions to those who could have answered them. He didn't actually print the questions of course. The unofficial version passed by word of mouth was much worse.

The Catholic priest who had provided quiet moral support when we needed it through the whole process suddenly came into his own. He put up the Bond money for the rental property, arranged several key white goods for us from the local Catholic seconds shop, and made sure we were looked after in other ways too. All of this without any expectation that we attend his parish! (We had moved into a neighbouring suburb.)

I had applied for several jobs but had been knocked back. It was only on the Friday before the Sunday I finished up that a man who I had never met (or written to) called to say I had an interview on Monday morning at Centacare (Catholic Family Services). When I sounded surprised, he said it had been arranged by the Archbishop the day before. We moved our things into this much smaller house from Monday to Wednesday and I went to the interview on Thursday. I had no idea what to expect but they were kind enough. After some time it became clear that I was well qualified in areas that the Archbishop had advised I not take on at this early stage. Very wise, I thought at the time, to protect a hurting young ex-pastor from the rigors of Catholic teaching and theology. Although the real concern was probably to protect Catholic teaching and theology from a hurting young ex- pastor!

In any case I was given a job starting the following Monday as an administrative assistant to the Marriage Education Team. I went home to tell my wife and you children that we would eat the following week after all. We spent our last $16 on fish and chips for dinner on Friday evening and ate packaged noodles and powdered soup on the weekend. You children thought it was a fine change! Thank God for you! You have kept me sane, I am sure, by constantly reminding me that I am loved, that what I say and do is important because I am your father, and that the best thing I can do for you is act with love and integrity. Thank God for you!

Next: Catholicism in the Wild

Misunderstandings and Misinformation

The Lutheran Church of Australia demands at least three months notice for a resignation of a pastor. I had negotiated this down to six weeks, but I still had to act as a pastor for six weeks, and preside over five more invalid Eucharistic ceremonies.

Over the next few weeks I exhausted myself getting around to every single person who asked me to talk to them about my leaving. I cannot recall everything I said during those long personal exchanges save that I took great pains not to share anything that might undermine their faith or say anything I would not have said as a faithful Pastor of the Lutheran Church of Australia.

I believe I did everything I could to be as gentle and understanding to my people, hearing their anger and hurt without attempting to justify myself. While I still wore the mantle of a Lutheran pastor I was resolved to be faithful to my vows to the last day of my pastorate.

Where there was anger and hurt, I accepted blame. Where there was confusion, I attempted to answer directly from the Lutheran Confessions, or by referring people to other reliable pastors for pastoral care. Where people asked for my personal reasons I answered that I was no longer convinced of the Lutheran position and so I felt it was not honest to continue. I constantly and gently assured every parishioner that I had never knowingly taught anything that was not clearly taught by the Lutheran Church of Australia.

Although this was a painful and exhausting time, dealing with the pastoral issues created by my resignation distracted me from the real pain of conversion for a time.

About this time the district president printed a series of comments about myself and the other pastor who had resigned. The comments were to the effect that I had acted deceitfully and behind his back in seeking entry into the Catholic Church, and had rejected help offered for psychological issues.

Ironically I later discovered that when he had met with the Archbishop to ask him to 'call off' his priests, the Archbishop had given a guarantee that no priest would come seeking contact with Lutheran ministers, but said 'if they come knocking' they would find his door open. The district president then reported this discussion to us as "[The Archbishop] says the Catholic door is closed to you until you are finished with the Lutheran process."

I wrote to the district president asking him to clarify his comments in light of several hundred e-mails I had sent and received, records of hundreds of phone calls and other correspondence showing that I had been up-front and open about my questions until specifically told to be more discrete by himself.

The reply I got was a brief and terse phone call suggesting that I not push the matter while they were still considering what to do about my car loan and seminary loans.

Next: In Between Worlds

After the Announcement

It is now Monday morning after the announcement. I slept well after getting the previous scribble down. Before that I was thrashing about unable to sleep. It’s about 8AM and all is quiet in our home.

I’m taking some time now to reflect on the reactions of people I have told so far. Dr’s Fisher, Flemming and Fr Greg all respected the bravery of the step. Until Thursday I had rejected the tag of bravery, but now I can only say that, if bravery is to stand before gut wrenching fear and do what must be done in cold blood, this was the bravest thing I have done yet.

Fr Greg has offered money and pastoral support, Fr Flemming has called us constantly and visited us where possible. Fr Fisher has upheld the integrity of the Church, even defending the Lutherans, while still going into bat for us when it counted. Nicholas and Mary Tonti-Filipini have been available and excellent friends when we so desperately needed friends.

My two best Lutheran friends (laymen) have been constant in their support and camaraderie no matter what their personal opinions.

My mother in law has been a rock. She has openly displayed frustration, hurt, sadness, angst and despair, but she has never wavered in her expression of unconditional love for us. She did suggest reading the entire Scriptures through three times before making any decision.

My father in law has taken it pretty hard. He has expressed his anger in a number of ways, calling me a number of unpleasant names, refusing to listen to my gentle attempts at explanation, and telling my wife she is “killing him” by going along with me. I can understand his hurt and his reaction but this doesn’t make it any easier to deal with, especially for my wife.

My sister in law, who lives with us, has been invaluable as the only woman my wife feels has understood and empathised with her. She has been a rock in many emotional ways for my wife, and for both of us by helping with the children and the upkeep of the house. She does not understand the reasons but has been close enough to see the hurt and angst and has been able to be a support. Thank God for her.

My darling wife deserves a whole book to acclaim her behaviour and bravery during this period. Our marriage has grown much stronger by constant reflection, sharing and shared tears. We have come to this point together. She has sought answers as much as she was able and attempted to relate to all the issues. In her efforts to think through the questions, I think she has surpassed the ability of many pastors I know without the benefit any of their training and experience. She is, by far, the most dedicated, practical, intelligent, Godly and beautiful person I know. I am immensely proud to call her my wife!

Next: Misunderstandings and Misinformation

Telling Our Friends and Family

We informed the few Catholics we knew and they were very supportive. Not that we should have been surprised by that, they had been gentle and careful the whole journey and had conducted themselves with great integrity. No pressure was put on us at any point by Catholics, and some Catholics had defended Lutheran doctrine more ably than any Lutheran I know.

I used the few days between Thursday and Sunday to call those I wanted to tell with my own mouth. My classmates and mentors, my family and friends were shocked and I have not heard from many of them since that call.

On Sunday I had to announce it to my two congregations. During the announcements, after the whole service, I read from a prepared statement. I choked on the words at the first service, then greeted them with tears at my normal station at the door after the service. Only a few were openly sorry to hear the news, most were shocked and had no words, a significant minority were openly hostile.

I somehow composed myself (with much prayer begging God for help) and fronted up for the second service.

The reaction at both places was as if I had contracted a terminal disease.

The second (and larger) congregation were particularly teary and some even struggled to say anything at all. I can still see every one of the procession of anguished faces, some unable to speak, others babbling through tears, still others pleading that I reconsider. We had many approach us with disappointment we had not shared our doubt with them before. I tried to explain why this would have been impossible but they need time for this to sink in. One lady will need much, much more talk time to work it through.

We went to lunch at a good friend and parishioner’s house and were bombarded with questions and theological challenges from a guest (also a good man) which didn’t help the situation. I answered them all as carefully and politely as I could. While he admitted to being stumped by my questions, he remained firmly convinced I was wrong.

I got back to my office to find a parishioner had drawn up a sketchy two year plan for my ‘working through’ the issue (similar to Dr Stolz’s plan). I pointed out the similarities with the plans already presented to me, but this fellow is determined to convince me to stay.

On top of such a hard day I played indoor soccer that night (and won 9-1 by the way) and returned home to celebrate a friend’s birthday as per previous arrangement.

Once again, the constant visits and calls from Fr Greg Pritchard, Fr Anthony Fisher and Fr John Flemming have been our strength and sole consolation in this hard time. We look forward to lunching with Nick and Mary (an excellent catholic couple) tomorrow.

I am so thoroughly exhausted, yet feel at peace within myself for the first time in the last year. I love my wife, my son, my daughter and I love that very soon I will receive communion for the first time.

Hold a seat for me at the table, I’m coming home!

Next: After the Announcement

The Resignation

Even as I steeled myself in my office to pen my resignation, my wife sensed my struggle and composed the letter of resignation herself, which I altered in small ways before she and I submitted the resignation in person on Thursday the 15th of March 2001.

Dear [District President]

Through prayer, intense reflection and a desire to submit to the will of God I have come to the conclusion that I cannot, in good conscience, reaffirm the ordination vows that are required later this year to continue in Lutheran ministry. Given my current convictions, I cannot continue to uphold these vows with honesty or integrity. To do so would not be fair to you, to my parishioners, to the Lutheran Church of Australia, nor to myself or my family. Therefore I must ask you to accept this letter as my resignation from the position of pastor of the [ ] Lutheran Parish and from the office of public ministry in the Lutheran Church of Australia.

Despite the idyllic setting of my parish, the wonderful people within it, the very positive signs of spiritual growth, and the joy I have in leading these special congregations, I cannot continue to lead and teach people in the way of their
salvation when I can no longer believe in that which must be taught according to the Lutheran doctrinal statements. In making this decision I do not believe I am taking the easy road. The cost to me in terms of personal loss is high - income, vocation and home; some family, friendships among parishioners and fellow pastors, and investment of seven and a half years in preparing for and working in this role. my wife and I are sustained in our heartache by the knowledge that God will never forsake us, and will lead us to His truth. As you are aware, my struggles in the Lutheran Church doctrine have been in various areas - particularly of authority and biblical interpretation - and I have prayed and searched hard for solutions for my peace of mind and soul. I believe the only possible answer calls me to return to Luther’s own church - the Roman Catholic Church. Although I am sad to leave so many good things, my sadness is deepest in believing that the Lutheran Church has neglected to teach and uphold some of the most profound and wonderful doctrines of the whole Catholic Church. Dialogue with many Lutheran leaders, pastors and parishioners shows me that I cannot hold any real hope of the various Lutheran communions returning to Rome. So, for the sake my family’s souls, and also of my own, we must obey the call of our Lord, and return to His Church. I have felt honoured to be a part of the Victorian District of the LCA and I thank you for your leadership and your counsel in many ways during my time prior to study, during study and vicarage, and now in the parish. I hope that those who seek to form opinions on the reasons and motivation for my resignation will do so in mind of the deep grief it causes myself and wife, and that they will take into account the integrity of deciding not taking a vow that I can no longer uphold in good conscience. I pray that the church that I have served and been blessed by in many ways now blesses my parting from it.

Yours in Christ

I attached a private letter to respond to some of his points raised in recent meetings which included the following paragraphs;

I agree that my discussions with other brothers who share these questions has spurred me on to come to my conclusions much more quickly than if I had been left to discover the Truth alone. I realise that my own upbringing, personality, and church experience have increased the intensity of the questioning and the need for answers. I freely acknowledge that this crisis in my faith has been triggered by the authority questions raised by Pastor’s Conference and General Synod last July.

But, even if I could ever fully comprehend and resolve each and every one of factors, it would not bring me a single step closer to resolving the matter of what is Truth and what is falsehood. It may help me to feel better about teaching falsehood, but it will hardly convince me that falsehood is, in fact, Truth.

It is all very well to identify the factors which brought me to this point but removing
these factors, or working them though, or explaining them away, will not take me back. My current stress and emotional distress caused by acting as a Lutheran minister are not just the result of psychological factors, they are the symptoms of a crisis of truth. I believe one thing, and I am called upon daily to live according to another.

In case you are tempted to doubt my conviction, let me spell out the real reason for my current angst. I no longer hold any doubt as to what Truth is, and where it is to be found. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church. I believe that Christ gave the Church his living authority incarnate in the magisterium and in the chair of St Peter, and that to believe and act otherwise is to reject Christ’s own authority and command. I believe that Christ gives His gifts to His Church through the ordained priesthood handed down by valid succession of bishops. I believe that
the sacraments I preside over are, at best, an imitation of the true Sacraments.
Finally, if there is any doubt about the strength of my need and desire to return to Rome, If I believe that Rome is the true Church and I do not return to her, my very salvation is in danger. [Lumen Gentium, 14]

Dr Stolz came over that night to thrash out the details. He was sad but seemed almost relieved. I think he wasn’t sure what to do with me and that I had saved him a huge worry by resigning.

We were told about six weeks was the rough date of our final service.

Next: Telling Our Friends and Family

The Aftermath

I met with the President and Vice President who trotted out all the ‘old faithfuls’ ;

· You are too young to make these sorts of decisions
· It springs from issues you have with your father
· It springs from your Fundamentalist background
· It is just a normal crisis period in your ministry
· You need a long term think about it (two years was suggested)
· You would be guilty of ‘abandoning the cause’.

To which he added the new point;

· You are merely trying to be like your friend (who was also aksing these questions)

The fact that I was asking these questions long before I met my friend and had come to my conclusions via my own reasoning and in discussion with many other Lutheran pastors seems to have escaped them.

He gave me about a week to think about it (although it was about two weeks till a decision need to be made) and wanted a commitment from me for one to two years of further ‘process’ in working the matter through. This two years would include some special leave and time spent at Luther Seminary in re-education.

I tried to call his attention to the anguish I felt acting in a role I no longer believed in but he (and many others) failed to understand that I did not believe the Lutheran standpoint. He reaffirmed that I would still be required to affirm my vows in a few weeks.

I prayed and laboured over the decision for two long days and nights, but had to face the fact that if I took the vows I would be lying to myself and all the people I loved in the parish. I could not sin against my conscience, so I decided to submit my resignation early to stop any uncertainty on other’s behalf.

As I attempted to compose the letter I struggled with all the good reasons to remain a Lutheran pastor. The comfortable house, the respected position in the community, the promise of future study and leadership, the long term financial security and the respect and affirmation from family. I could see the pain of lost friends, angry and hurt family, and financial ruin looming over my young family and desperately preferred any solution that would avoid this catastrophe.

In the end there was no way to avoid the fact I could not live a lie, nor could the Lutherans ever answer my questions. So the decision was ‘when’ and not ‘if’. Even knowing this I could not pen the first word of a resignation letter. I was shaking with hurt, frustration and a deep sense of being completely alone before the decison. I had tried so hard all my life to do the right thing, to be faithful to Christ's call. And now I was being asked to sacrifice all security, friends, family and perhaps even my own wife and children.

I knew my wife had taken a keen interest in the questions I was asking and that she was as dissapointed as I was with the weak answers offered by Lutherans. On the other hand I knew she had been asked by a Catholic contact, "If Peter died tonight, would you still seek to become Catholic?" and she had not been able to answer. Her parents and friends, even my president were pressuring her to remain Lutheran. I knew of several ministers in the USA who's wives had divorced them when they became Catholic and taken the children away to avoid Catholic influences. I was not entirely certain what my wife would do.

I wrote down all the reasons to remain Lutheran on one side of a ledger and the reasons to become Catholic on the other side. The Lutheran side had many, many good reasons. But none of them stacked up against the truth. I gritted my teeth, and bent myself to the task of writing the resignation letter.

Next: The Resignation

The Fallout

The answering papers were, frankly, disappointing. Two papers amounted to little more than a protracted suggestion that we will struggle for answers the end of our life but never find any surety till after death. The third paper, in answer to my friend’s paper, was more helpful in that it clearly contrasted the Lutheran position over against the position we had espoused. But saying “that is not Lutheran” does not amount to the same thing as saying “that is not truth” unless one presupposes that Lutheran = Truth.

Ironically, this is the very assumption required in Lutheran ordination vows, and the assumption we were questioning. It was interesting to note that less than half of the Lutheran pastors at the forum (eighteen including the three of us) could agree with the Confessional Lutheran doctrines outlined by the third paper.

One more paper was distributed which simply attacked the option of personal conversion as a means of dealing with the catholic question. He said it lacked courage, integrity and reason. To be honest we couldn’t make head or tail of the logic of his paper. I later joked that he seemed to have simply gathered together a bunch of insults and plastered them to the option he didn’t want us to consider. Seriously though, his main points all seemed to be based on the assumption that we were considering becoming Catholics because we thought that Catholics were better at being Lutheran.

All in all it was a confused bunch of blokes what went to lunch at ‘half time’ that day. The three of us had been asking the questions for at least a year already, the others for much longer than I had, but only now had most of the others even begun to comprehend the questions, let alone wrestle with them. A significant minority made no attempt to engage the questions at all.

Some genuinely struggled to understand. Not a few successfully followed the arguments but could not accept the logic because of its inevitable end point. Once you ask these questions, they confided in hished voices, all roads lead to Rome! There was some hurt and even some barely concealed hostility but, on the whole, they were just a confused bunch faced with a question they could not answer. I was particularly stung by the behaviour of three of my seminary classmates who had been asked to sit in on the day. They deliberately and pointedly refused to greet me, discuss anything with me, or even stand in the same general space as me during the lunch break. I had spent six years studying and carousing with these men in seminary not so long ago, I was a groomsman for one of them! None of them have spoken more than two words to me since that day.

At lunch I was required to sit with a vice president and a retired professor of NT theology. They asked me gently but bluntly if there was any point in continuing the discussion. I replied that they needed to understand the issue because so many men are struggling with it, but that I was unlikely to change my mind given their best efforts had come to naught that day. When the vice president asked how, then, could they best ‘pastor’ me from this point on, I broke down and could not complete my reply. The pressure of living with the tension of these questions had drained me so much that once the floodgates opened it was all I could do to compose myself for the session after lunch. They gently promised to do their best to pastor me through the difficult days ahead. While I do not doubt their good intentions, I have not heard from nor seen that vice president since that day.

After lunch we heard some more debate, but every point simply reinforced the gap between the Lutheran position and ours. The only debate seemed to be between those who claimed this disagreement (with the Lutheran position) was no big deal, and the minority who held (somewhat uncomfortably) to the Lutheran position.

All in all the ‘summit’ simply confirmed the Lutheran doctrine floundered when faced with logical questions, and that only a few Lutheran pastors actually held to the ‘Lutheran’ position in any case.

I arranged to meet with the president and vice president on the following Tuesday.

Next: The Aftermath

The Diet of Box Hill - Part IV

This paper was offered in response to my friend's paper.

A Response to: ‘Ten Key Questions That Have Led Me To Where I Am Today’. for the Summit on March 9, 2001

Introduction.
This paper has raised some important issues for discussion. Interestingly, I believe that most of them are well covered and answered by the Theses of Agreement (TA). Here, too, we find the scriptural and confessional references that enable us to grapple with the ten key questions.

1) TA-V demonstrates that we do not hold to the first ecclesiology mentiond in the paper: ‘The Church, essentially or properly so called, the One Holy Christian Church, the Una Sancta, the Church Universal, is the people of God (1 Peter 2:9), the communion or congregation of saints, which Christ has called, enlightened and gathered through the Holy Spirit by the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments, which he has thus created to be his Spiritual Body’ V.1. Many scriptural references follow. No denomination can claim exclusive title to the one, holy and catholic church. The LCA has never made this claim of exclusivity. The RCC, however, makes this claim in ‘Dominus Jesus’ when it says that ‘the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church’. Non catholic churches ‘derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church’ (para. 16). It admits that ‘the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church’ (para. 17). But then it says that if they have not ‘preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery’, they ‘are not Churches in the proper sense’ (para. 17). Although the TA use the term ‘invisible’ to describe the true church, it also uses the term ‘hidden’, a much better description. The body of Christ is known only to Christ, who himself is hidden from our eyes, albeit ‘revealed’ in word and sacraments. The LCA has been wary of entering into communion with other churches not because it believes it is the only true church, but because it believes that true unity is centered in the pure preaching of the gospel and the right institution of the sacraments (CA 7).

2) The Sacraments and liturgy are not synonymous. Nor is the reality of the church based on the historic liturgy. The liturgy does not bring the church into existence; that is the task of the word and Sacraments (Eph 2, R 10:14-15; Titus 3). Scripture does not restrict the church to one historic liturgy; it simply gives us a skeletal sketch of the liturgy (Cf Col 3). The early church did not have the ecumenical creeds, for example. David, however, rightly warns the church not to abandon the historic liturgy.

3) Cf TA V.11; CRCR Statement: ‘Gospel and Scripture’. The locus of Christ’s authority is the word (Jn 8:31-32). Christ gave his keys to the church. The church also receives from Christ pastors who exercise Christ’s authority of the keys in the church. No one in the church claims authority; authority is a gift of the risen Christ to his church through his word. For Lutherans the word is interpreted by the great consensus of pastors, theologians and laity and given to us in the confessions, which always remain for us the ‘norma normata’. Tradition is also an important feature of this interpretation (cf my concluding remarks). LCA Synods do not create doctrine, they give assent to scriptural doctrine that comes to them through the confessions.

4)I agree that the church has no right to change its doctrinal foundation. At the same time, it is not tradition which leads the church to deny the ordination of women, but Scripture. Sadly, no doctrine is safe from falsification as the NT shows (Mt 7:15f.; Gal 1-3; 2 Peter 2; the Corinthian church etc.). But how does Paul correct errors? Through the word!

5) TA VI.1: ‘The NT ministry is the office instituted by Christ for the public administration of the means of grace....’ Many passages from Scripture are then adduced. That is the agreement reached and confessed by the LCA. I do not know of anyone who disagrees with this statement. The authority of the minister is always from above, from Christ through his word.

6) CF TA VI. 7-8. ‘The Lord calls individuals into the office of the ministry through the Christian congregations, Acts 13:1-4, and the Christian congregation, either alone or together with other congregations, or through properly appointed representatives, calls qualified persons (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9; 2 Tim 2:24-25; Acts 1:24) into the office of the ministry publicly to exercise the functions of this office. The minister of the Word is thus called by the Lord through his Church, and by the Church as through human agency and authority, but in obedience to the command of the Lord’ (TA VI.7).

It is Christ through his church who validates the ministry of the Lutheran Church. Our ministry is valid because we are calling candidates into the ministry by the command of Christ. There seems to be the implication in this question that unless the church has the hierarchical episcopate one cannot have a properly authorised ministry. CA 28 recognises the divine authority of the episcopate but only insofar as it gains its authority from the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. When it exercises secular power, its authority is seen as ‘de iure humano’. The Lutheran Church of the 16th century did not see the break in the continuity of the orders as ‘radical’; the confessions do not even discuss the subject! The confessions do operate with the concept of a succession of ordained ministers (SA 111.20 and Tr 72), as well as a succession of apostolic teaching. Holding faithfully to the apostolic teaching is the true apostolic succession.

7) The Lutheran Church does not see the historic episcopate as being of the esse of the church. For this reason it cannot be an essential mark of the church . The historic episcopate cannot be traced to the ‘very beginning of the church’. The NT makes no distinction between bishops and elders. Their nomenclature is used interchangeably. It is with Ignatius that the bishop begins to take precedence over the elder and is seen to be especially important for truth and unity; but even here it is too early to speak of the historic episcopate. The historic episcopate does not guarantee orthodoxy. Many bishops have taught false doctrines. The essential marks of the church are the word and sacraments. Why should the LCA want to create an episcopate in the historical succession? Does the imposition of hands by a bishop give a pastor greater authority than God’s word?

8) Cf TA V.1. The LCA is catholic because it proclaims the gospel and rightly administers the sacraments, which are the essence of the catholic church, the una sancta. The LCA’s catholicism is therefore in no way contingent upon communion with the bishop of Rome.

9) The RCC was not ‘there first’. That honour belongs to the Orthodox Church. Even so, priority does not depend on being first. It depends on the word and sacraments. The Lutheran Church has always claimed to be a continuation of the true church of
Christ. Luther did not want to start a new church, but he was excommunicated. Was that a sin of schism? Schism is not always evil; not if it means separating oneself from apostasy or heresy (R 16:17). Rome has remained faithful to many doctrines. But it has departed from other articles of the catholic faith. Many doctrines have been developed over the last 2000 years which find no foundation in Scripture — the assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences etc. And what are we to make of celibacy? Despite JDDJ Rome still adheres to Trent and its anathemas of justification by faith alone. It is noteworthy that justification by faith alone is not confessed by the RCC in JDDJ. ‘Dominus Jesus’ does not verify Rome’s orthodoxy. Whilst it properly says that salvation is through Christ alone, it is inclusivistic, i.e. it allows for people without faith in Christ to be saved. Inclusivism is also taught by Vatican II. ‘They also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience’ (Vatican II; cf ‘Dominus Jesus, para. 8, 20-22). In other words one can receive the grace of God apart from the gospel and Scripture. This concept that one can be an ‘anonymous Christian’ is ludicrous. It is explicitly rejected by Scripture; it is certainly not implicit in Scripture. Here the teaching office of the RCC is opposed to Scripture. That is the inevitable result of rejecting ‘sola Scriptura’. Inclusivism shows clearly why Rome could not confess justification by faith alone in JDDJ — it would have breached Roman Catholic doctrine. ‘Are the continuing differences between Lutheran and Roman Christians so serious as to continue to justify schism?’ As long as Rome disallows justification by faith alone the answer, sadly, is ‘Yes!’

10) The unity of the church’s faith Ratzinger speaks of is a myth in the RCC. There is a wide spectrum of theology taught in that church by its members. All of us here today know that the grossest heresies can be found in the church. Not that the Lutheran Church is pure in this respect as has been rightly said. Furthermore, a unity of faith is of no value unless that faith is grounded in Scripture. A church can be united in teaching false doctrine and following human opinions! eg those churches which ordain women; no obedience of Christ here. But unity of faith in Jesus is a product of the church proclaiming the gospel and administering the sacraments according to Christ’s institution. Unity is a gift of God (Eph 4). As for the church’s authority, where does that come from? Does it not come from Christ as mediated to the church through the Scriptures?

With respect to the author, this paper does not do him justice. He is a solid thinker who expresses himself clearly and well. I can only suppose he missunderstood the questions we were asking and set out to prove that my friend's approach was not very Lutheran. We had already figured that out! We were hoping for an answer to the questions.

Next: The Fallout

The Diet of Box Hill - Part III

The following paper was presented and read in response to my paper.

THEOLOGICAL SUMMIT (9th March 2001)
Response to Theological Issues of Peter

Introduction: The Lutheran Perspective of “Dialectic,” the necessary tension, a necessary partnership, together with undeserved grace.

Peter's Issues:1.

The Church: Divine and Human. Divine in its creation by the Holy Spirit, but also human, a congregation of people, simul iustus et peccator. Human in full of frailty, may err in doctrine and practice. Those who are one in the Spirit, despite appearances; accepting the message of God’s reconciliation in Christ. The Church created from the proclamation of the Word, and the ministry for that proclamation are essentially and intimately bound together. Church is both the means and end of
God’s saving grace. Both must be stressed — ministry and people, divine and human, transcendent and imminent.

Priesthood of believers/Ministry: God’s offer of reconciliation in Christ comes to people through the proclamation of the Church (2 Cor. 5:20). The validity of the proclamation does not depend on a privileged class, but the Lord of the Church firstly gives the ministry of the Gospel to all believers (I Peter 2:9; Matt. 18:15-20).The priesthood of believers has an essential connection with the ordained ministry of the Word. As Christ created the Church) his body, he also founded a ministry which proclaims the Word with his immediate authority and mandate (Malt. 28:18-20; 262&28; Luke 24:47. The gift of the Spirit was promised for this ministry (John 20:22-23). At Pentecost this ministry began in the power of the Spirit, the twelve first carrying out Christ’s mandate Through the apostles there is not a succession of episcopacy, but a succession of faith in God’s grace.

Ordination/Call: The Church ordains through the laying on of hands. Not implying that a special kind of succession or character is handed on to the one being ordained; rather a setting aside, a giving of mandate for proclamation, a giving of authority for the forgiveness of sins, a receiving of a person by the Church as a gift from the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 6:6; 8:17; 13:3; 2 Cor. 3:6ff, 5:19; Eph. 4:11). The Lord graciously calls men into the ministry, through the congregation and the Church. The office of the Ministry is divine and human: Both called by the Lord and the Church, and a minister of the Lord and the Church. Efficacy does not depend on ranking, but on the command of Christ and the ministry of Word and Sacrament.

Revelation and the Church (Scriptures & Confessions): Scripture has authority because under the guidance of the Holy Spirit people of God put in writing the original testimony of the prophets and apostles of God’s revelation to humanity God is always speaking in every word of the Bible, now as then, graciously creating faith. A certainty through the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. The Confessions are a certain understanding of Scripture through the Church’s exegetical and dogmatic tradition, a tradition we receive with thanks, by the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit. We are both free to accept them as a correct expression of the truth of God’s Word, and see their authority and depend for their authority on the Scriptures. Distinction from the Roman Church is they are always subject to and measured by Scripture.

Theology of Glory/Theology of the Cross: A theology of glory looks for evidence, certainty, results and certainty in self. A theology of the cross is about God’s undeserved grace, ministry working despite the evidence, certainty not in self, but in the ongoing gracious call of Christ. It is a theology that wrestles with all the uncertainty of the divine and the human: divinely impacting the office of the ministry through the presence and call of Christ; human as we are stewards of the mysteries of God in the clay jars that we are. In the end, it is all about grace.

There is a fundamental issue expressed within this paper, that I believe underpins and is essential to a true understanding and appreciation of
1. The Church
2. Priesthood and Believers and Ministry
3. Ordination/Call
4. Revelation and the Church (Scriptures & Confession)
5. Theology of Glory/Theology of the Cross.

Fundamental issue presented: Repeated reference to “My claim” to exercise the authority of Christ. What does this mean? “To announce the forgiveness of sins in Word and Sacrament” What right do I have to do this?

Lutherans believe we’re created by God, reconciled through Jesus Christ, called, gathered, enlightened and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. This is not something I claim but how God claims me. If I make this my claim I am trying to make a claim for my own effort and I am no longer in the position of response to and reception of the work of grace. This is a fundamental tenet of God’s relationship with humanity. This is not negotiable. Our whole relationship with God is about trust and faith, a work of God, not or my own achievement or arrival. To adopt the framework of claim can lead into absolutism negating God’s power and freedom to challenge, enlighten, surprise and liberate. I am always servant in the midst of grace — to demand a claim is to shift out of the servant role. The church is servant of the Lord and I willingly join with others in this servanthood.

To exist out of claim is to remove myself from the source of grace to a legal context. Living according to the right of claim appears to create certainty but it actually leads to bondage for the pastor and those he ministers to. The Gospel brings freedom to every person. Freedom for the pastor means having heard the call of Christ to go in trust with the message of reconciliation to each person. Firstly having experienced that message myself I can speak of its power to reconcile and create new life, to
bring light in darkness, to feed where there is hunger. The authority, responsibility, invitation and blessing the Church gives me is to announce this message in Word and Sacrament.

The Church cannot create certainty or authority for the individual person or pastor; this always comes from Christ’s working within me and within the Church. Christ says to Peter “Feed my Sheep” and the pastor and the Church hear this as addressed to themselves. Christ thus sends the pastor through the Church to feed, nourish and shepherd the people.

The sense of this will wax and wane but ultimately I am always one of the sheep, called to hear, follow and obey the One Good Shepherd. One of the communion in
Christ who receives and gives, is both equal with and set apart for the special purpose of Word and Sacrament. This is the authority I am given and can claim.

Did you spot the answer to my question? Neither did I.

Next: The Diet of Box Hill - Part IV (The response to my friend's Paper)

The Diet of Box Hill - Part II

At the same 'Summit' my two friends tabled their papers as well. I include one of those papers here,

TEN KEY QUESITONS THAT HAVE LED ME TO WHERE I AM TODAY.
for the Summit on 9th March, 2001

1) In ecumenical theology, two ecclesiologies are possible: 1) The true Church of Christ on earth is a visible reality which is manifested and recognised by certain “marks” and is to be identified with a particular denomination to the extent that it preserves these “marks” in their fullness/purity; or 2) the true Church of Christ is an invisible reality that consists of the spiritual communion of true believers who are known only to God, and who may be found in any denomination, or indeed, even beyond the bounds of organised Christianity. I do not believe the second option to be valid: the church is the body of Christ, and Christ is incarnate (he is not “the invisible man”). It is my understanding that historically the Lutheran Church (and even more specifically, the LCA) has held the former definition, and has regarded itself to be the true church because it alone has perfectly preserved the true Word and Sacraments.

For this reason, we have been wary of entering into communion other churches, because of a perceived lack of purity in the preservation of these marks. If so, is the Lutheran Church not claiming to be the one holy catholic church, and, if so, how is this claim to be justified?

2) The Lutheran Church holds that the true church is present wherever the Word and Sacraments (the liturgy of the church) are celebrated. If the church does not have an organic reality apart from the event of the celebration of the liturgy, what happens when it abandons on a large scale the very liturgy that is supposed to bring it into existence?

3) What is the locus of Christ’s authority in the Lutheran Church? Who can claim to be the “you” in Luke 10:16 today and on what grounds? How is this authority validated, ie. communicated incarnationally from Christ himself? Whether authority is claimed by the presidents, the pastors conference, the synod, the local congregation, the confessions, the Theses of Agreement or the theologians of the church, on what grounds would we regard such authority to be validated?

4) When the LCA came into existence, the first Synod adopted a doctrinal position that said the ordination of men only was “binding upon all Christendom”. 35 years later, the same institution held a vote which potentially could have overthrown this “binding” practice. Apart from the question as to whether the truth can be determined by a vote, did this action not invalidate the authority of Synod itself? For while making doctrinal pronouncements which are binding for the LCA, it does not consider these statements to be binding upon itself for its future confession of faith. Hence no doctrine, currently considered “binding” by the church, can be safe from revision or rejection by the Synod in the future.

5) I do not believe the Lutheran Church will ever reach agreement on the doctrine of the ministry, since there is an inherent ambiguity in the Lutheran tradition on the matter of whether the authority of the ministry comes from ‘above’ or ‘below’ (popularly referred to as a ‘high’ and ‘low’ view of the ministry). Is there any way of resolving these tensions without ultimately choosing either between a fully catholic understanding of orders or congregationalism?

6) The LCA regards the external validation of the call by the church to be essential to the ordained ministry, for it is by this external validation that authority to exercise the ministry is conferred from those who already have it (understanding that one cannot exercise the office without the authority to do so, and that only those who have the authority can confer it upon others). Although the Augsburg Confession recognises the authority of the episcopate (CA 28), the 16th Century saw a radical break in the continuity of the orders when the bishops of the church did not validate Lutheran ordinations. How then can we consider the ministry of the Lutheran Church to be validly authorised?

7) The historic episcopate and Episcopal succession has, since the very beginning of the church, been regarded as essential to the church, since by this succession a tangible continuity of authority has been maintained with the apostles who were first commissioned by Christ. The LCA does not have bishops and cannot create an episcopate simply by giving them authority ‘from below’ since such authority must be given by Christ (ie. ‘from above’). Is it not therefore clear that we lack one of the essential marks of the church, and that this ‘lack’ cannot be repaired?

8) Some Lutheran theologians and pastors have claimed that the Lutheran Church is an “evangelical catholic” church. On what grounds can the Lutheran Church of Australia claim to be “catholic”? Is it even possible to reach a clear agreement on what it means to be “catholic” if communion with the bishop of Rome is not included in that definition?

9) Sasse: “Gentlemen, if there were no Lutheran Church, where would you go? You would go back to Rome. But why go back to Rome? Is it not full of evils? Yes, but they have preserved the sacraments.” Given the priority of the Roman Catholic Church (ie. it was there first--we broke away from it, not vice versa, despite the old “Luther never wanted to start a new church” line), Lutherans are guilty of committing the sin of schism by continuing to separate themselves from the Roman communion. The evil of schism may be justified if it is undertaken in order to avoid a greater evil, eg. heresy or apostasy. Yet it is evident from the bi-lateral dialogues and agreed statements, and from Rome’s own official documents, that the Roman church has remained faithful to the catholic faith, when many other churches, Lutheran churches included, have apostatised. Rome has not only remained faithful in the face of contemporary attacks upon the ordained ministry, the inerrancy of
scripture and the sanctity of life and marriage from liberalism and feminism, it has recently proven its orthodoxy in such documents as the Joint Declaration on Justification and the declaration Dominus Jesus. Are the continuing differences between Lutheran and Roman Christians so serious as to continue to justify schism?

10) “Only the unity of the Church’s faith and her authority, which is binding on each member, assures us that we are not following human opinions and adhering to self-made party groupings but that we belong to the Lord and are obeying him.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion. How does a Lutheran answer this statement?

Yes, this document does fit onto one A4 page if you leave out the spaces, make the font quite small and reduce the margin size to bare minimums! You almost have to meet the author to understand why. ;)

Next: The Diet of Box Hill - Part III (The responses)

The Diet of Box Hill - Part I

Since writing the preceding page almost two weeks have passed. I shall endeavour to pick up where I left off, albeit in the past tense. I wrote a draft copy of my one A4 page submission (which was all we were allowed) and shared it with my peers.

My Paper read as follows,

Each week I stand at the front of my congregations and say ‘on behalf of my Lord Jesus Christ and by his command, I forgive you’. I claim to speak with the authority of Jesus Christ as I forgive the sins of those gathered there. This claim is repeated in the consecration and administration of the Sacraments where I claim to be called by Christ himself into this ministry, authorized by Him to speak with the same authority as if the Words came from His own mouth. On what basis can I make this claim? Not everyone is given this authority, so how can I be sure I have it?

I was taught in Seminary: ‘Because Christ called you through His Church, hands were laid on you, and the Church declared you one of it’s apostolic ministers.’ But I am not called to the Uniting Church, nor to the Anglican Church, nor to the Mormons. In fact, I am only called to those people in the communion called the LCA. My call, my authorization, came solely from the LCA. The question is; has Christ given the LCA such authority to pass on?

I could rely on my own conscience under Scripture telling me that the Lutheran Church has Christ’s authority, in spite of all the opinions and arguments to the contrary. Or I could simply trust the interpretations of the senior theologians of the LCA. But, even among Lutherans in Australia, we have a wide range of opinions on key doctrines. The recent debate regarding women’s ordination, for example, put on public display the huge variance of opinions on the doctrines of Church, Ministry, Sacraments, the Holy Spirit, and these impact significantly on all the major articles of faith. So how do I know which interpretation is right and why the rest are wrong?

While I believe that God clearly reveals his truth to us for our salvation in the Word,
experience tells me that I can fall into error no matter how sincerely I seek the truth. I have been wrong, even when I earnestly and sincerely studied the Scriptures and submitted to them. But then Lutherans would not even pretend that my own interpretation, that of the CTICR, that of pastor’s conference, or even that of the whole Synod could not err. So how do I know if our interpretation of Scripture which validates my ministry is truth? What if we are wrong?

The Christian Church has never really believed that an individual can rely on their own interpretation for the truth. Christians from the earliest times have looked to those called, appointed and authorized by Christ to speak His Word into each new context with His own authority. But, just because someone claims to be one of Christ’s apostolic ministers does not make that claim true. So how do I spot the truly authorized ministers from ones making false claims? More importantly for my own conscience, what about MY claims? My claim to speak with Christ’s authority stems from the LCA’s own interpretation of the Word. Is it possible that they are wrong, or are they somehow free from the possibility of reading the Scriptures wrongly?

It boils down to this. I stand and claim to exercise the authority of Christ each Sunday, and most days of the week by who I claim to be, and by what I claim to do. If my claims are true, wonderful! If they are false claims, then I am the worst kind of impostor and fraud. I am no longer convinced that the LCA can claim Christ’s authority to ordain, forgive, or any such thing, with any surety. So how can I, in good conscience, stand in my congregation THIS SUNDAY to speak and act as if these claims were true?

Next: The Diet of Box Hill - Part II

Summoned to a Summit

Since I have last written much has occurred. It has become increasingly difficult to carry on preaching and teaching the Lutheran doctrines in good conscience.

I made my president aware of my struggle and at the same time a close friend, another pastor, who is also wrestling with these matters, resigned as an active minister of the LCA. He had received a new call. He would have enjoyed the situation and ministry of such a call thoroughly had he not had theological doubts. It was, in fact, everything he wanted in a parish. He could not, however, bring himself to re-take the installation vows required any time a pastor takes up a new call. He had been told that if he did not take up the offered call he would be removed from his current position. In other words, he had to either take the vows or quit the ministry. His situation is made more complex by the fact he is divorced and remarried to a divorced lady. The annulments are under way but there is no guarantee of them being granted.

So he has refused the vows, resigned as a Lutheran minister and stepped out in faith pending the annulments.

At this stage, after losing two young pastors in such a short time, (another pastor had resigned late in the previous year), to the same questions and doubts, the district president and his council decided to let the whole state know what was happening. A regular newsletter from the president to all pastors contained, without our consent, information and opinions we had shared with the president in confidence. The letter informed all pastors of our district that the three of us who were considering these questions had been assigned ‘mentors’ to guide us in the study of the issues. The president also called what he called a ‘summit’ which will be held soon, to cover the theological questions arising from the issue.

The summit will be comprised of about fifteen to twenty pastors of the district who will attempt to answer our questions or at least assess the situation. We have been required to present a one page summery of the questions in advance so that respondents will have time to prepare their answering papers.

I feel very much afraid at this point. Not of knowing what to say, or of clearly asking my questions. I am not afraid of the questions, or of hearing the answers. I am afraid I will not be heard at all. I am afraid this is a political stunt to effectively damn us and the questions we have been asking, without actually entering into discussion of the questions themselves. I am afraid this is a set up.

Next: The Diet of Box Hill - Part I

Those Catholics and Their Mary

I’d like to relate something of my journey to the catholic faith in terms of devotion and doctrine.

The usual accusation against Catholics is that they advocate worship of Mary. I am (now) amused at how easy it is to defend this doctrine and devotion, and how deliberately antagonistic to Catholicism one has to be to ignore the evidence.

Protestants claim that the Marian devotions Catholics practice are idol worship in that they ‘place Mary above (or beside) God.

To go into all the absurd accusations Protestants level at Marian devotion would produce a volume more suited for curing insomnia than a constructive debate, but I shall attempt to deal briefly with the most common here.

A. Objections to May being called ‘Mother of God’. This objection can be dismissed almost immediately since the rejection of Mary as ‘Mother of God’ has been considered formal heresy since the great councils clearly defined the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. I should point out that Lutherans, or the Confessions at least, do ascribe to Mary as Mother of God. Luther himself calls her Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and even asks for her intercession at the beginning and end of his commentary on the Magnificat!

B. The charge of Idolatry is equally absurd. We pray only to God, but we can ask others to pray for us, and with us. In fact the Scripture urge us to do so. Sometimes we ask those Christians we know in the flesh. Other times we might ask those who are already in heaven with God.

C. There is not enough space here to deal with the “It’s not in Scripture” routine. I recommend Joyce Little’s book titled “Church and the Culture War” which changed my thinking on Mary, and on faith. We’ve dealt well enough with sola Scriptura before and I intend to look at the area of Marian trust later so that’s enough here for now.

More has happened, I need to leave this topic for a moment.

Next: Summoned to a Summit

The reasons (part two)

Let us return to the remaining answers of my colleague pastors. Answers (d) (e) and (f), which amount to one thing. They all asked me to wait.

They believed (or expressed the belief) that five or ten years in the parish would remove these questions. Some held this belief because they held that factors such as growing up, gaining experience, being busy or other such things would change my thinking, or distract me from deeper questions.

Others believed that the questions were new questions for our church and thus the church needed time to come up with some answers.

In order to fully answer such responses I began to list the most notable people in history, and currently living, who have wrestled with this question. The variety of centuries they lived in, ages in which they faced the questions, and reasons for considering them, showed that this sort of question cannot be discounted as merely an accident of present circumstances.

While it may be true that some circumstances may perpetually distract me from such questions, what integrity exists in busily functioning on the false presupposition that my ministry is founded on truth?

Having reached this point I made my dilemma clear to my district president.

Unfortunately he interpreted my dilemma as being limited to the question: “How can authority work in the LCA?” And thus conclude that there is no authoritative answer to these questions. He sent me to the psychologist to help me think through why I was asking the questions.

Even as I sit here writing this I am still hurt and annoyed that both my president and the psychologist are convinced that there are no final answers to these questions and that I am being irrational to expect answers. The idea, I think, was to enable me to cope with unanswered questions. But, as I mentioned earlier, even if I was able to live with unanswered questions, I can’t continue to function as if I had the answers!

Leaving aside the arguments about these questions, I’d like to relate something of my journey to the catholic faith in terms of devotion and doctrine.

Next: Those Catholics and Their Mary

The 'reasons' for my dilemma

I sat down to work through (again) the suggestions of my fellow pastors, in-laws, friends and other lay people as to what my problem was. Some of the “reasons” they offered for my dilemma included:

a) I irrationally expect the truth to be knowable
b) I lack faith in God and His Word
c) I am turning ‘liberal’
d) I don’t have enough to do in my parish (too much time for thinking obviously)
e) Its just that I’m young, new pastor, in the first stage of development
f) I need to be patient in waiting for the answers coming from the CTICR (3-9 years)
g) I need to stop thinking and simply believe

I thought these through and discounted b) and g) immediately since my belief wasn’t the problem. I wanted to believe and was able to do so, but was not sure exactly what to believe!

Option a) posed a problem for a while. What if there is simply no way of knowing the truth? Am I avoiding this possibility simply to comfort myself with absolutes that do not exists? The answer to this accusation is detailed, many faceted and yet simple, and comes from one source: the Truth itself.

Firstly, if there were no truth then nothing would function at all. Not physically, mentally or spiritually. No matter what reality is, no matter how mistaken our view of it, there remains a reality for our mistakes to be measured against. Even Desecrate, who is uncertain of the nature of reality, insists on the surety of his own existence. Without truth, nothing exists to consider in any case.

Secondly, all the revelation we have access to would be contradicted and make no sense at all if reality was not accessible as far as faith and morals were concerned. The very existence of nature, the end of logic, the musings of the philosophers are enough to point to the existence of an ultimate reality. The Scriptures themselves deal with this reality not only as if it exists, but as if we can know it clearly.

If we suggest that reality or truth are not clearly knowable we must discount revelation, and thus Christianity, altogether. The Scriptures are not simply a collection of pious writings or spiritual reflections. The Scriptures are united in their witness to the one truth. The witness to the truth evident in the unified witness of creation, history, logic, philosophy, and in the person of Jesus Christ. If there is no knowing the truth, there is no Christ. Thus, no salvation.

Which brings me to the third point, which is really what the other two guard us from.

If there is no way or hope of finding truth, then all is meaningless. This life (if indeed it is a life) becomes a pointless and despairing existence which cannot reasonably hope for any sure end save the condemnation of whatever greater being awaits us after it is over. And if there is no such after, nor a greater being, that makes our actions and lives here equally as pointless, perhaps even more so.

Let us imagine, for a horrid moment, that there is no God, no eternal existence. Epicurius considered this idea, and held to it, and concluded that to enjoy or find fulfilment in the ‘now’ was the only point of our existence. The past is irrecoverable, the future unknowable, only the present is accessible. He reasoned that achieving a certain satisfaction in this present moment was the best one could hope for. He taught that this satisfaction was achievable by moderate living and the betterment of self and others. His followers soon degenerated into living the maxim ‘eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die’.

If you look around you I am sure, no matter when or where you are reading this, you will see ample evidence to show that this maxim is alive and well today. The fact that this maxim, containing the denial of truth beyond our earthly existence, has survived and thrived through countless generations is not without its own irony.

There are some who espouse a sort of middle ground between Epicurius ad his debauching followers. They suggest that a comfortable life, tempered with and aim to the betterment of other peoples lives is the most virtuous existence possible. But this attempt doesn’t make sense within its own parameters. If there is no truth, no ultimate reality or being, no afterlife, and no way of knowing what is right or wrong, then ALL attempts at virtue are doomed to failure. How can we know what we do achieves any real betterment of ourselves or society? How can we judge any such things with our subjective senses and thought processes. We see, again and again, children discussing parents in patronising fashion, suggesting that they cannot be blamed for their mistakes since ‘they acted on what they believed was right’ (which, of course, the children think is wrong).

By this very system I can never be sure if my actions are improving life for others or destroying it unwittingly. To rely on the motive of such actions is even more subjective.

So what then can a person who does not hope for truth hope for? In spite of the fact that Descarte seemed unsure of anything save his own existence, doubting the reliability of his own senses, the fact remains that the senses themselves do pass information and sensations to us. In other words, no matter how we doubt the ability of our senses to relate the truth to us, the fact that our senses relate something to us is knowable.

Even if these senses are themselves the invention of our imagination, the very fact that such things are invented is real.

So the only reality to work with is that of our own subjective perceptions. If we concentrate on that we have achieved the greatest hope possible for those who do not believe we can know truth. To gratify these senses is the only real goal of such an existence. Exactly how one would gratify the senses is subjective in itself.

In any case, to hold this view of truth would prohibit preaching, or asserting any norm at all.

Next: The Reasons: Part Two

The Visit to the Psychologist

So I went to see this psychologist, who was also a Uniting Church Minister.

The fellow listened to my account of the situation rather nervously before finally asking me “why do you think you are here?” I thought about it for a second and replied; “I think both you and my president believe there are no answers to my questions and so you wish to ‘equip’ me to deal with a world full of unanswered questions.”

He was working with a particular theory of counselling. This theory assumes that the client’s angst is caused by the tension between an irrational presupposition (eg: everyone I know must like me) and reality (eg: some people don’t). In other words, he assumed that my angst was caused by my struggle with irrational expectations. In this case the irrational expectation was that I hoped to know truth, and he assumed this was not possible!

Aside from the amazing assumption that one can never know the truth (and that wanting to be able to know truth is irrational), this fellow failed to see that his own argument contradicted itself. In effect he, and others, were suggesting that it is irrational to expect the ultimate goal of reason to exist and be accessible. Sort of like saying “there are no absolutes … except this one.”

Incidently, he concluded that there were no psychological 'issues' in my case and that my problem was a theological one. I was glad somebody could see that! But, since the bulk of the cost of the sessions were to come out of my own pocket I refused to pursue them further. I wrote a letter to my president to say that psychology was not going to answer my questions.

Next: The Reasons for My Dilemma

Bothering Friends and Presidents

From the time of my return to Melbourne till about Christmas, I vigorously pursued the answers to these questions with anyone who would talk to me about it.

Soon, however, my persistent questions of the Lutheran position made my fellow pastors uncomfortable and they began to withdraw from our company and friendship. At the advice of my president I stopped worrying other pastors with my questions (save the few he had instructed me to talk to) and followed his instructions as faithfully as I could.

I maintained e-mail contact with two seminary professors but neither convinced me of anything substantial. I should add here that one of them produced some very clever and inventive ways of justifying the Lutheran claims to catholicity, even if they didn’t stand up to the final ‘how do you know?’ question. The trouble was that he was almost the only Lutheran in the world who held that position, so it couldn't be taken seriously as a 'Lutheran' position. I also kept up some conversation with my confessor father and my zone counsellor. Neither had any answers save some amateur psychology which dodged the questions altogether.

My district president offered his own theory that I was merely experiencing one of the many (expected) crisis in a young pastor’s ministry. He also hinted that my relationship with my father might have influenced my thinking. He ‘strongly advised’ that I see a psychologist (a specific man he recommended) for a while to sort things out.

Next: The Visit to the Psychologist

The Third and Fourth

Having said this about synod, (that is; that it’s infallibility is questionable at best), there are some who simply don’t believe there is an infallible way to know truth, and so they advocate synod as a good sociological method to arrive at a mutual decision. This was my third answer.

Synod then takes the role of a decision making machine which expresses the will of the people of the LCA and nothing more. Presumably then, the LCA as a body, becomes nothing more than a cooperating body of people who confess similar things. Hence the vote at synod was treated, by some, as a test to see if there were still enough of us in agreement to maintain the LCA as one synod.

People with this view either find their ‘infallible’ truth somewhere else (see above under Sola Scriptura), from their own subjective convictions, or deny that there is any such thing as truth which is accessible to us. To the latter group, (who deny we can know anything for sure), the LCA becomes simply one of many valid expressions of humanity’s search for God. No absolute truth here.

The Fourth Answer, though less frequent, is that the person is convinced they know truth and they base their lives on this truth. It should be obvious by now why this answer did not impress me.

Besides, as a friend once said, preaching a truth based on a personal conviction has only a legitimate audience of one. That is; If I am deciding what is true for me, then I may only preach this truth to the one person it is true for. Me!

I’m sorry to have spent so much time on the arguments I have been wrestling with. I admit I wrote them more for my own benefit than anything else. Now I return to the story.

Next: Bothering Friends and Presidents

The Second Lutheran Answer

The second answer I received to the question “How do I know truth?” was; “We decide in Synod.” There are two variations of this answer (which make up two of my four answers) so I’ll treat them separately. The first of the two treats synod as the final authority of our church.

Invested in synod is all the authority of the LCA and so, if the LCA has any authority to decide, the synod exercises that authority.

When one of my colleagues asked his fellow pastors “What gives this synod the right to decide this issue?” He received the answer: “Synod gives synod the right!” In other words, the LCA gives itself the right to decide what Scripture says. The assumption behind this is that the LCA possesses the authority of the whole church to make such decisions. Yet the only evidence or argument we can use to support the LCA’s claim to his authority is the LCA’s own interpretation of Scripture.

I began to wonder not only if the LCA is right in claiming such authority, but is the LCA even a legitimate part of the Church? To justify the validity of any claim made by the LCA one needs to rely on that very ‘claimed’ authority. Of course, this would be true of any church group. The implication is that the authority and infallibility of any group’s decisions is reliant on the infallibility of its decision making process, and of those involved in that process. The problem is that the LCA deliberately and openly rejects any notion of its own infallibility. Yet it builds its ‘infallible truths’ on this fallible foundation!

There were some who insisted that the pastors alone, as ordained apostolic ministers, had been entrusted to uphold the truth and not the lay delegates who also voted at synod. There were those who advocated an ‘every member’ ballot on the matter, rather than the vote at synod. But all of these suggested methods of reaching a decision, including the one actually used, beg the question: “Does the LCA have the authority to make such a decision?” If we decide the LCA has no such authority, we must ask: “By what authority does the LCA presume to uphold the doctrines it does currently.”

Only if we could show that the LCA has the authority to determine the clear Word of God definitively in this matter can we begin to discuss the proper method the LCA could use to come to this decision. I never got that far, because I never received an answer to the first question.

Next: The Third and Fourth Answers

The First Lutheran Answer

There seemed to be four main Lutheran answers. At least, I heard four different answers from Lutherans.

Lutheran Answer One:

That the guarantee of truth is the clear Word of God in Scripture. Many Lutherans hold that Tradition, reason, the church, etc have some function of guidance BUT, they remain convinced that the only infallible guarantee of truth is the ‘clear’ Word of Scripture.

The emphasis on clear is important since, if anything about Scripture is unclear, then the reliability of any interpretation is only as good as that of the interpreter him/herself. In other words Lutherans must claim, if they hold this theory, that Scripture is so clear it needs no interpretation.

The problem, of course, is that some Scriptures are plainly not obeyed (in their literal sense) in the modern context, nor were they in ancient contexts. Imagine if we all advocated stoning of adulterers? Yet that particular Scripture is clear!

Now Lutherans claim we must read all of Scripture together in order to discern it’s clarity, and that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’ That is, the clear parts of Scripture interpret the unclear parts. Then we must ask; “Which part of Scripture applies to which other part?”. To make any such judgement is actually an act of interpretation! To interpret any text in any way that is contrary to the simplest, literal meaning is to apply and claim the authority to interpret. Something that Lutherans deny any human can claim.

But let’s say we did simply apply Scripture to interpret Scripture and came up with an answer to a current question. We could only claim whatever reliability the interpreter has as our guarantee of that answer. Did he ‘infallibly’ apply Scripture? Did he ‘infallibly’ discern what Scripture was saying in both the text he applied and the one he applied it to? Did he allow any previous training or prejudice get in the way of the ‘clear’ Word. The reality is, as soon as anyone picks up a book they interpret it.

Let us leave that aside for now and talk about the logical problems of Sola Scriptura.

The first question one can ask when our theology demands that we base everything on Sola Scriptura is: “Why?” Why insist on Scripture alone? From where do we gain this principle? And on what basis do we make it the founding principle of our theology?

There is no such principle in Scripture itself, nor can one be derived from Scripture by inference. So where else can we find support for this assertion? If we seek to prove ‘Sola Scriptura’ we can hardly go outside of the very Scriptures we are claiming to hold ‘solely’ to in order to prove our principle. That would be to contravene the very principle we are trying to prove!

It should be said that Lutherans attempt to ‘prove’ Sola Scriptura by appealing to texts which teach the reliability and necessity of Scripture, but fail to prove the only controversial part of their favourite maxim. That is, Lutherans can produce no evidence to support the ‘sola’ in ‘sola Scriptura’.

The second question is “Which Scriptures?” Do we include the deuterocanonical books, or even the Old Testament? Do we, with Luther, reject James as ‘an epistle of straw’ or Revelations? If we go along with the modern Protestant assumption that whatever is included in a Bible we buy is genuine, we are still faced with the question: “Why do we not include the 7 deuterocononical books? Even if, in a fit of magnanimous condescension, we decide to accept the full Western canon, we are still faced with the question: ‘Why?’ Especially in the face of the (slightly larger) Eastern canons. But even leaving aside all the canons in the world, we must ask why we would trust ANY of these writings as infallible?

Some Lutherans (a very few) hold to a theory of the ‘self assertion’ of the Christian canon. That is, that the canon asserted itself within the church community over the centuries. This theory is riddled with problems but, like most falsehood, contains a small part of the truth. There is no doubt that the Church cannot create the infallible Scriptures solely by human authority or effort, but she does recognise them by the divine authority Christ has given her.

It is no use asserting the ontological infallibility of Scripture without also asking the epistemological question. That is, we know God’s word is infallible by definition, but how do we know what is His word and what is not? This was probably my biggest question of that synod.

Some Lutherans like to argue that we simply accept the books that ‘everyone’ accepts. The problem with this, of course, is that Marcion together with many others through the ages have not accepted the canon as it is! Also, after Luther, many others cast doubt on James, Revelation, and the like because they contradict their own theology.

We have seen this principle at work in some of the arguments for Women’s ordination. Namely the ‘interpolation’ argument. That is, that two verses of 1 Cor 14 were actually an editorial note and were later included in the canon. It must not, (say the adherents of this theory), be regarded as apostolic, nor as ‘Scriptural’. And so, without anyone with authority to define the canon, it is whittled down to a few non-offensive passages somewhere in Galatians. No clear truth to be had there.

There are many more things to be said about the Protestant problem with Scripture, but I hope to cover the basics in the following questions.

Next: The Second Lutheran Answer

I Return to Melbourne

I returned to Melbourne lost and confused.

Logically, an infallible truth needs an infallible guarantee. The infallible guarantee Lutherans appeal to and rely on is the ‘clear’ Word of God. My problem was that I doubted my ability to infallibly interpret the Word, and I doubted everyone else’s ability to do the same.

So several possibilities presented themselves;
1. There is no truth, everything is relative
2. The is truth, but we can never be sure we know it
3. There is truth, and God has provided a means of knowing what it is.

The first answer is meaningless. In philosophy, science and theology it simply does not hold water. Besides, if it is true, it would logically disprove itself! On a practical level, it would mean that I could no longer preach and teach, claim to know truth, nor hold any sure hope of salvation.
The second answer is meaningless since it is (practically speaking) the same as the first. What is the use of absolute truth if our knowledge of it is relative? And how can we even assert that such truth is absolute if we can only ever know it exists by relative means? This is the main logical problem with the ‘Scripture alone’ argument. While never doubting Scripture’s infallibility, what use would an infallible Scripture be without infallible means to interpret it?

For anything in life and faith to ‘work’, to make sense, to provide surety, we must conclude that the third option is the only option. The other choices logically result in nihilism. (Which is why Protestant systems never make sense, they can’t make sense!)

Besides, what sort of God would set out to save His people and provide salvation for them, but leave them uncertain as to how to receive His gift of eternal life, unsure even if they are on the right track?

A God who says, “I came to save you, but I’m not going to show you how exactly – have a guess and we’ll all find out on judgement day” can hardly be described as a gracious God.

Assuming that there is truth revealed by God and that we can know it certainly, the next question is: “How do we know truth?” Several answers presented themselves immediately and, being a Lutheran pastor desirous of retaining my excellent friends and occupation, I considered the various ‘Lutheran’ answers first and foremost.

Next: The First Lutheran Answer

A Letter to A Friend

Just before the July 2000 Synod I had written the following in an e-mail to a pastor friend.

I've been thinking through the 'catholic' thing.

I assume of course that you realise by 'catholic' I mean the one true, genuine. orthodox, faith passed down from the apostles. Follow me here for a few lines:

If we are in the Lutheran church there are three main ways we can talk of the 'catholicity' of our church:

1. We ARE the true catholic church on earth (Proposed by most dogmatics texts I've read by Lutherans)

2. Being Lutheran is the best way to BE catholic

3. Who cares about catholicity, we decide what is true anyway!

I used to be pretty stuck on the second option. But I'm thinking it through more and more now. If the Lutheran Church is the BEST way to be catholic, then at what point does it cease being the BEST way to be catholic? Women's Ordination, or long before that? And if so.. which church then 'becomes' the best way to be the true catholic church.This presents another problem. If I can simply choose a 'BETTER' church to best be catholic, then what makes the particular group the 'right' one? My choice? My decision that they are closest to what I perceive the 'true catholic church' to be? I know I could suggest that I either create a group, or join a group that reflect what I believe is the truth. But this is basically saying I can decide what is true or not by my own understanding. If this is the case, how am I different from any of the splinter groups from the 1960's, or even the sectarian/Congregationalist groups about the place?The apostolic succession thing doesn't seem to hold much water if it is used in isolation to communion with Rome. It is either a succession of teaching (in which case we cannot deviate from whatever is apostolic teaching - which again seems determinative) or it is a living apostolic authority passed down from the apostles time to this day. The 'catholicity' of a succession of 'apostolic teaching' seems determinative (if that is the right word). And yet, to claim some sort of 'apostolic succession' without any real communion with the church from which it all originates makes me wonder about it's catholicity. The fact that some bishop happened to lay hands on another hardly holds any water if (for example) he has been excommunicated by the church before the event. The apostolic authority is surely void as soon as the bishop is condemned by the church which gave him that authority declares he is teaching heresy? Surely to be valid, the apostolic successor must be in communion with the church from which he claims succession?

Let me know where my arguments went off the rails please?

Thanks

Peter.

Next: I returned to Melbourne