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