Thursday, May 14, 2015

Abortion and Birth Control

QUESTIONS CONCERNING ABORTION AND BIRTH CONTROL

  1. Is it good to let a discussion on abortion and birth control start without a firm theological foundation concerning God's created orders?
  2. Is it Christian to answer questions about these controversial subjects from a pragmatic and utilitarian point of view?
  3. Can we speak of God's will without considering the family (the marriage relationship and the parents and children relationship) an order of creation?
  4. Can a Christian let the exception allowed by the Mosaic Law for the "hardness of the heart" be valid for him and his own heart (reborn)?
  5. Has not the hard-heartedness of man brought on the deplorable situations we are facing in our sick society?
  6. Does not the finger of Christ pointing to Genesis ("from the beginning") imply that the "putting asunder" must be applied in all areas that concern the creative orders? (For instance putting asunder what God has joined together in marriage as well as in parenthood.)
  7. Is it a Godly marriage which on the one hand enjoys the highest evidence of unity of the flesh in sexual intercourse, but on the other hand refuses to recognize God's order of creation as an intended reason for this union?
  8. Is not something essential eliminated from marriage and intercourse when the potential life is eliminated?
  9. What is the similarity between "putting asunder"the mother from the child in abortion and the separating of potential parents from their children by contraceptive measures?
  10. When is a marriage responsibly faithful to God as well as to the personal relations between the spouses? Is contraception unfaithfulness to God?
  11. If the absence of children does not, in principle, call into question the full meaning and purpose of marriage, is it not called into question if the willingness to have children is lacking, and moreover is lacking most of the time?
  12. Is the push for "planned parenthood" and "abortion" a war of the present generation against the unborn generation?
  13. Is the so-called population bomb to be made harmless by acts against God's created orders of marriage and family?
  14. Can a Christian allow his "calculated" need for "security" (prosperity, egocentrical emphasis) to take precedence over confidence and faith in God?
  15. Does the present ease of contraception or abortion present the responsible Christian spouses with a new and stronger temptation to misuse and, thereby, often destroy their marriage?
Dr. Martin J. Naumann, Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, IL
March 31, 1971

Thursday, May 7, 2015

"The Tragedy of Birth Control"

By Prof. Martin J. Naumann, D.D.

It is difficult to convince people of right and wrong concerning something universally accepted. There is therefore a point of no return in the morals of a people or individual where it seems senseless to call to attention that something is radically wrong. As, for instance, in the case of birth control. The discussion is not anymore whether it is right or wrong to practice birth control, but only how it might best and most efficiently be done and whether or not the state or the schools engage in furthering it.

It is therefore only to the person that still is bound by the Word of God that we can address ourselves in regard to this question. Nor will it be possible to talk of this matter before establishing the basis for a judgment of right and wrong in all matters of right and wrong. In the area of birth control there are a number of Scriptural principles that must be stated and confirmed on the basis of study of God's Word.

The area basic to all considerations involving the life of men in general and in particular is anthropology. What is man? Man is a creature of God created in His image. What is the image of God? At least a part of God's original creation is still precious even after the fall. Man lost righteousness and holiness and yet God gives His Son for man's rescue. What is man? He is a creature responsible to God for his life and living. What is Life? Here we must speak of it not biologically but theologically. Man has a Life in God from eternity to eternity. God and man stand in relation as individuals. Man is alone responsible to God. God sees each man alone.

Being created in God's image is to be able to speak to God when spoken to by God. Responsibility is the ability to answer and the duty to answer. Man answerable to God is man in the image of God. There is no person that God has not seen or planned in His providence from eternity and whom God does not want in eternity. The free will of man cannot inhibit God's plans, but God's providence does not inhibit man's free will in external matters and in matters leading him away from God to hell. The fact that we are not able to harmonize in our mind the relation between the providence of God and the free will of man does not give us a right to act as if we were not responsible or as if God could be blamed for our mistakes. We simply and in faith accept both realities: the providence of God and the free decisions of man.

The dilemma of man is that he cannot see God in the framework of his own logic. The problem is expressed in the familiar question of election: Cur alii prae aliis? Why (are) some (saved and) not others?

If man is fully responsible, and if man's life is one bounded by God's eternity, and if potentially every person born into this world is an heir of everlasting life, and if this is true of all children born into this world, where does man get the authority to decide which of his children (potentially speaking) is to be born into this chance of everlasting life God intends for all men?

We realize that modern man decides right and wrong mainly on the basis of utilitarian and pragmatic thinking. Man does not consider moral right and wrong. For man today everything is either useful or useless, good or harmful, beautiful or ugly, but never right and wrong in the moral sense. This is the ethic of man in general and in particular in our day. This is situation ethics.

All the arguments for birth control, even those brought by the "churches" are on the basis of self-service, i.e. self-preservation. Even the talk of love and service to mankind is only a pretense of love, a sham, a shield for self-service.

Count all the reasons given for bith control: Health, life, education, fortune, room to live, better facilities for man, etc., not to speak at all of the refusal to undergo the rigors of bearing and raising children.

All the sad state of humanity, the starvation in over-populated portions of the world, etc., are nothing else but the result of the sins of mankind. Poverty in one spot accuses the prosperity of another. Lack of food and clothing is an accusation against the profligacy of the over-dressed and over-fed.

It is in the Christian congregation if at no other spot of the world that the truth of God's will and commandment must be clearly seen. All children are souls intended for God's kingdom. Any drive for missions is made ridiculous by the talk of birth control. As the church is to propagate itself by the power of the Gospel so are Christians to increase the family of God by increasing in the place where love and missions should start—in the family. Raise the average of the Lutheran family and you would have a natural and God-given increase of the church without counting the souls won by the preaching of the testimony among unbelievers.

On the other hand, neglect the doctrine of God's will and the immorality of man and you will not only make mission work ridiculous (except in a social sense) but will cause offense among those who are to learn responsibility to God above all.

Any method or way of birth control and abortion is immoral no matter what the circumstances might be, except where man must weigh in a responsible way one life against another. Only the gravest concern for the life of a living soul can justify a Christian's contemplation of bith control as a good way of serving mankind.

The extreme result of utilitarian thinking are evident in the attempted extermination of useless, harmful, burdensome existences as practised [sic] by the NAZI government that not only killed many Jews but many incurably ill, insane, etc.

The duty of one human to the other is to provide an environment in which all may have life. It is not for us to limit life in order to make the enjoyment of the environment more pleasant for the fewer number. (E.g. U.S. surplus foods could keep alive any increase in the world population; besides this it would be good for a civilization like ours whose two major problems seem to be overweight and lack of parking space!)

(This unpublished editorial was transcribed from the personal notes of Dr. Naumann by the Rev. Jeffrey C. Kinery, Pastor of Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church, Brownwood, Texas.)

Friday, April 24, 2015

Martin Luther Humor

I stumbled upon this a while back and thought I might share it on this blog. The original can be found here.


Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Brief Instruction on Holy Communion (various translations compared)

Last week, this post offered the text of a "Brief Instruction on Holy Communion," as found in the early 20th-century Abridged Treasury of Prayers. A footnote noted that the 2005 Lutheran Book of Prayer included a version of this text with updated language, but that Confession and Absolution was inexplicably cut from the list of means of forgiveness. In case anyone is interested, the text from the relevant section is here offered from the German and from both English translations. The full text of the 2005 translation can be found online here.

Edit, 10/24/2015: The text from the 1956 revision of the Treasury of Prayers: Abridged has been added, as this is the first edition in which the means of grace was cut down from four to three. The Lutheran Book of Prayer, perhaps due to an editorial oversight, simply copied the number of means of forgiveness from the text of the 1956 revision.

Kleine Gebets-Schatz (c. 1890):

"Der liebreiche Gott hat viele und mancherlei Mittel gegeben, die armen Sünder der Vergebung ihrer Sünden gewiß zu machen. Solche Mittel sind die Predigt des Evangeliums, die heilige Taufe, die Absolution, und ein solches ist auch das heilige Abendmahl. Thue du nicht die vorwitzige Frage, warum Gott nicht ein, sondern vier Mittel gegeben habe, sondern danke vielmehr Gott, daß er so überreichlich dafür gesorgt hat, uns der Vergebung unserer Sünden theilhaftig, froh und gewiß zu machen."

Abridged Treasury of Prayers (c. 1906):

"God, rich in love, has provided a great diversity of means to render poor sinners certain of the forgiveness of their sins. These means are the preaching of the Gospel, Holy Baptism, Absolution, and also Holy Communion. Do not be too inquisitive in asking why God has instituted four means instead of one, for the purpose of conveying to us the forgiveness of our sin and making us sure and certain of this, but rather thank him for these rich provisions."

Treasury of Prayers: Abridged (1956):

"God, rich in love, has provided the means which poor sinners need to render them certain of the forgiveness of their sins. These means are the preaching of the Gospel, Holy Baptism, and Holy Communion. Do not be sinfully inquisitive by asking why God has instituted three means instead of one for the purpose of conveying to us the forgiveness of our sins and making us sure and certain of this, but rather thank Him for these rich provisions."

Lutheran Book of Prayer (2005):

"God, rich in love, has provided the means that poor sinners need to render them certain of the forgiveness of their sins. These means are the preaching of the Gospel, Holy Baptism, and Holy Communion. Do not be sinfully inquisitive, asking why God has instituted three means instead of one for the purpose of conveying to us the forgiveness of our sins and making us sure and certain of this, but rather thank Him for these rich provisions."

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Brief Instruction on Holy Communion

Why do you intend to go to Holy Communion?

This question each communicant should put to himself, before he approaches the Table of the Lord. For there are not a few who go to the Lord's Supper either quite thoughtlessly and stupidly, or with quite the wrong intention. Some go from mere force of habit; others, only because they are held to it by their parents; others again, because they consider it a meritorious deed to go to the Lord's Supper; still others, because they wish to acquire or retain before men the appearance and name of a pious Christian. It is no wonder, if such communicants derive no blessing from the Holy Supper, but grow worse as time goes on.

A communicant who wishes to receive the Lord's Supper to his salvation, must, in first place, fully realize what the Lord's Supper is, and for what purpose it was instituted by Christ; and, in second place, he must have a heart worthy and well prepared.

Those have an entirely wrong conception of the Holy Sacrament who consider it merely an empty memorial, instituted only for the purpose of remembering the sufferings and death of Christ. No indeed, Holy Communion is that exalted, blessed mystery, by means of which Christ gives us, in the consecrated bread, his body to eat, and in the consecrated wine, his blood to drink—the very body he assumed from the Virgin Mary, and gave into death on the cross for our sins; and the very blood he shed on the cross for the remission of our sin. True, we cannot see this with our eyes, taste it with our mouth, or grasp it with our mind, but we are to believe it, because our Lord and Savior says: Take and eat, this is my body; drink ye all of it, this is my blood. This same Savior of ours is true, who will certainly bring to pass what He has promised in the words of His testament; He is of infinite wisdom and knows of ways and means to fulfill his promises, even when beyond our understanding; He too is almighty, with Him nothing is impossible; He is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think. If we earnestly believe that we receive the true body and blood of our Savior—true God and man in one person—in Holy Communion, and not mere bread and wine, we shall then approach the Table of the Lord, not thoughtlessly and lightly, but in deepest reverence and humility of heart, saying in the words of the centurion, Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldest come under my roof.

The benefit derived from Holy Communion is of a threefold nature.

In the first place, by a worthy communion we receive forgiveness of sin and the assurance thereof. God, rich in love, has provided a great diversity of means to render poor sinners certain of the forgiveness of their sins. These means are the preaching of the Gospel, Holy Baptism, Absolution, and also Holy Communion. Do not be too inquisitive in asking why God has instituted four means instead of one, for the purpose of conveying to us the forgiveness of our sin and making us sure and certain of this, but rather thank him for these rich provisions. Whoever knows from personal experience how hard it is for a soul under conviction of sin to believe that his sins are forgiven, will realize the greatness of God's grace and providing care in giving us not merely one, but several means of becoming certain of the forgiveness of sin. As surely, therefore, as you, with your mouth, partake of your Lord's body, given into death for the remission of your sins, and partake of your Lord's blood, shed for the remission of your sins, so certain you are to be of having the forgiveness of sin for your own.

The second benefit of Holy Communion is life—not our natural life received at birth and sustained by food and drink, but the new spiritual life that begins in regeneration through Holy Baptism, and consists in faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and in the love of God and our neighbor. But since this new life is weak and imperfect as yet, hence in need of constant growth, our Lord has designated his Holy Supper as a spiritual nourishment for the strengthening of this spiritual life. Of this Luther writes: “Holy Communion is well called a food for the soul, as it nourishes and strengthens the new man; for while we are born again by Baptism, man retains his old nature in his flesh and blood, and there are so many obstacles and temptations on the part of the devil and the world, that we often grow faint and weary and at times even falter. So the Lord's Supper is given for a daily food and nourishment, that faith may be refreshed and strengthened and not repulsed in this battle, but even grow stronger and stronger; for the new life is of such a nature, that it must constantly grow and progress. Again, this new life has a great deal to endure, for the devil is an enemy of great wrath; when he finds that he cannot take us by a bold stroke, we resisting him and attacking our old Adam, he tries all his wiles, presents all his allurements, and does not desist until he has tired us out, so that we either abandon our faith, or turn listless or impatient. But when our heart is in this condition, being about to succumb, we have the comfort that it can, in this Sacrament be again strengthened and refreshed.”

The third benefit is eternal salvation; because even as sin, unforgiven, bars us from salvation, so forgiveness of sin opens the door to eternal salvation, “For where there is forgiveness of sin, there is also life and salvation.” Now, all depends on communing worthily and well prepared, if we would receive this threefold, salutary benefit. This, however, is not a worthiness according to the law, but according to the gospel. It does not consist in absolute freedom from sin and perfection of life, but rather in fully realizing our unworthiness and sinfulness, in having a contrite heart that is spiritually poor, in earnestly desiring the forgiveness of sins, also taking comfort in this forgiveness, or at least trying to, in considering our sins great indeed, but relying and depending solely on our Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, those are unworthy and ill prepared who either, in the conceit of self-righteousness, fancy they need no forgiveness of sin—like the Pharisee who prayed thus with himself, “Lord, I thank Thee that I am not as other men are,”—or who wholly despair of the forgiveness of sin, as did Cain—who said, “My punishment is greater than I can bear,”—and who will not let you relieve them of their thoughts of despair. There is another class of unworthy communicants, who persist in their wicked purposes and continue to serve sin knowingly, or who live in a state of relentless enmity with their neighbors. When such unworthy communicants receive the Lord's Supper, they too receive the body and blood of Christ, but they receive it to judgment, and to their greater damnation. For this very purpose St. Paul adds the earnest warning, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.” And whoever recognizes in himself these marks of an unworthy communicant should not presume to go to the Lord's Table in such condition. We do not mean that he should stay away permanently, but he should forthwith come to himself, and turn penitent from being impenitent.

But are those of weak faith to be classed with the unworthy communicants? Not at all; for such are very welcome guests at Christ's Table, as are indeed weak in faith and frail in walk, but keenly feel their weakness, and yearn to become stronger. Such the Lord will in no wise cast out; He rather invites them, inasmuch as He instituted this Holy Supper, especially for the weak and the frail, that they might gather strength from this spiritual food. To them He says: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” and again, “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”



The above article was first (?) published in Der Kleine Gebets-Schatz: Auszug aus dem zu St. Louis, Mo., erschienenen größeren ev.-luth. Gebets-Schatz, nebst neuen Anhängen (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, c. 1890), and republished shortly thereafter in English in The Abridged Treasury of Prayers: An Epitome from the Larger Gebets-Schatz (St. Louis: CPH, c. 1906). It seems to have been written by the Rev. Th. Brohm (1808-1881), one of the pastors who took part in the Stephanite immigration. An updated version was recently published in the Lutheran Book of Prayer (St. Louis: CPH, 2005), albeit with one major revision: the number of means of forgiveness was reduced, from four to three, with Absolution receiving the cut—due, no doubt, to Reformed influences on the LCMS. In a separate article, I will copy the original German, the 1906 translation, and the 2005 translation of that section for the purposes of comparison.

Edit, 10/24/2015: The alteration mentioned in the above paragraph did not, it turns out, originate with the Lutheran Book of Prayer. Instead, the change appears to have been made in 1956, when CPH "slightly revised" and republished the Treasury of Prayer: Abridged (St. Louis: CPH, 1956). The other, linked article will be updated to include the 1956 revision.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Propositions on Unevangelical Practice


The following propositions were presented by President H.C. Schwan at the 1862 convention of the Central District of the Missouri Synod. Theses 1-24 were discussed at the convention, but theses 25-32 were not discussed due to lack of time; however, all 32 were printed together in the Central District proceedings. This translation was largely made by P. T. Buszin and was originally printed in the May, 1945, issue of Concordia Theological Monthly.

Edit, 6/2/2015: Dr. Matthew Becker completed his own translation of these theses several years ago; his translation, complete with notes, can be found here.

Edit, 6/3/2015: The original German theses can be found here.

32 Theses Against Unevangelical Practice
Presented at the Central District of the Missouri Synod, 1862
  1.  Evangelical practice consists not in this, that we teach and treat nothing except the evangelical message (the Gospel), but in this, that we treat everything in evangelical fashion.
  2. This means that since we expect justification before God, the renewal of the heart, and the fruits of the Spirits only through the Gospel, we in everything that we do have this one thing in mind, to give free course and sway to the Gospel.
  3. For this very reason, when we follow evangelical practice, we do not discard the Law or make its edges dull through bringing in the Gospel, but we rather preach it with all the more seriousness in its full severity, however in evangelical fashion.
  4. The Law is used in an evangelical way if it is employed solely for the purpose of preparing the soil for the evangelical message (the Gospel) and of submitting a divine norm for the manifestations of the new life which spontaneously arises through the evangelical message.
  5. It is not evangelical practice to cast the pearls before the swine, but much less is it evangelical practice to keep them in one's own pocket.
  6. Evangelical practice drops not one iota of the things which God demands, but it demands nothing else and no more than faith and love.
  7. Evangelical practice demands manifestation of faith and love if we desire to be saved, but it does not issue commands about their various manifestations as far as aim, amount, and mode are concerned.
  8. Evangelical practice demands fulfillment of even the smallest letter of the Law, but it does not make the state of grace dependent on the keeping of the Law.
  9. Evangelical practice endeavors indeed to prepare the way for the operations of the Gospel by the Law; but it does not endeavor to aid the Gospel in its real functions by the Law; and since it expects the fruits of the Spirit to be produced solely by the Gospel, it is willing to wait for them, too.
  10. Evangelical practice considers nothing an essential gain that does not come through the Gospel, that is, through faith; therefore it rather bears with all manner of defects, imperfections, and sins than to remove them merely in an external manner.
  11. Evangelical practice limits pastoral care (Seelsorge) to specific applications of the Law and the Gospel; the scrutiny and judging of the hearts it leaves to God, the Searcher of hearts.
  12. Evangelical practice insists on good human order, but still more does it insist on Christian liberty, and for that reason it lets adiaphora remain real adiaphora, that is, it leaves the decision concerning them to the conscience of the individual.
  13. Evangelical practice is faithful in little things; yet it considers matters in their larger aspects and totality more important than individual details.
  14. To be wise as serpents, to redeem the time, not to let Satan gain an advantage over us, to become all things to all men in order that by all means some might be saved, are likewise elements of evangelical practice.
  15. Evangelical practice is equally far removed from Antinomian and from legalistic practice.
  16. Evangelical knowledge and disposition should issue in evangelical practice, but do so rather seldom and slowly.
  17. Usually we do not advance beyond legalism, or we fall into Antinomian laxity; to such an extent the Gospel is foreign to our nature.
  18. There is danger in both directions. For us at present the greater danger is still in the direction of legalism.
  19. Apart from the natural tendency of the old Adam and our origin in pietistic circles, etc., our present situation and the necessary reaction against the prevailing moral laxity in principles and in life are responsible for this state of affairs.
  20. Or how many are there not who secretly fear more to give the blessing of the Gospel to an unworthy person than to deny them to a poor sinner or to curtail them? Whose conscience is not hindering him to follow the example of Paul and to become all things to all men? But where this is the case, one surely still finds legalistic practice.
  21. Legalistic practice does not consist in this, that one does not treat anything except the Law, but in this, that one treats everything in a legalistic manner, that is, in such a way that one's main aim is to see to it that he Law gets its due and that one tries to accomplish through the Law or even through laws what only the Gospel can accomplish.
  22. In addition, the more (as is often the case where the inner motive power really still is the Law) fiery zeal asserts itself which not even permits love to be the queen of all commandments, which spurns Christian wisdom as its counselor, and which even when it appears merely to teach, to reprove or to admonish, in reality applies coercion, and at that the worst kind of it, namely, moral coercion—all the more unevangelical our practice gets to be.
  23. Unevangelical, legalistic practice is found not only in churches and congregations, but likewise in schools and in the homes, and besides in our fraternal intercourse.
  24. The instances of unevangelical practice which are still most frequent with us in the realm of ministerial work, the cure of souls, and congregational government are perhaps the following:
    a.       In sermons: overabundant castigation (durchgeisseln) of individual sins, unwholesome conditions or perhaps even of matters of personal dislike—the portraying of well-known sins of well-known persons, instead of laying bare the bitter roots out of which all evil fruits grow—mere so-called testifying without real instruction and admonition—unnecessary or premature or unedifying polemics—urging that repentance and faith be manifested, instead of preaching that which produces repentance and faith—a pietistic classification of the hearers—attaching conditions to the Gospel promises (Verklausulierung des Evangelii)—preaching faith preponderatingly as to its sanctifying power—presentation of the grace of God only to build demands on such presentation;
    b.      With respect to Confession and the Lord’s Supper:
    To demand more for admission than is absolutely required for its salutary use—schoolroom catechizing and inquisitorial searching of the heart of those announcing—postponing reproof till announcement for Communion or Confession—to use refusal of Holy Communion as a coercive, terrifying or disciplinary means—to refuse even when a state of unrepentance cannot be proved;
    c.       With respect to Baptism:
    To be either entirely unwilling to baptize children of heretics or unbelieving people who, however, are in contact with the Word (die unter dem Schall des Wortes leben), even if there is no intrusion in somebody else’s domain (in ein fremd Amt greifen) or only after various human guarantees have been given—to put the acceptance of sponsors on a level with admission to Holy Communion;
    d.      At marriages:
    To refuse to perform marriages of people who are outside the congregation even if they are not manifestly wicked—a meticulous insistence on a certain form of parental consent and of engagement;
    e.      At funerals.
    Absolute refusal of burial in the case of all who did not somehow belong to the congregation or at least requested the visit of the pastor—adherence to the principle that at every funeral the salvation or damnation of the deceased must be asserted publicly, that sins have to be castigated and the occasion must be used to take a fling (anzustechen) at the sins and failings of the survivors;
    f.        In the care of souls:
    Constant trimming and pressing (hobeln und feilen) on everybody till all wrinkles have been removed—acceptance of every kind of gossip (Zuträgereien)—mixing into house, family, and matrimonial matters even if no public offense has been given—to judge of one’s attitude of heart on the basis of a few words and works—the application of moral coercion through exaggeration, etc.;
    g.       In congregational government and church discipline:
    Exaggerated demands at the reception of new members—a denial of, or peremptory fixing of time limits for; participation in the spiritual treasures of the Church as a guest, especially for attendance at the Lord’s Table—mandatory imposition of dues on church members, requiring the same amount from all—or coercive taxing of the individuals—use of church discipline as a measure against matters which are not evident, mortal sins, or even against self-provoked sins—to consider a person as convicted in his own mind or as opposing maliciously because he is not able to reply to the arguments and  charges uttered against him, or even assents—to lay more weight on the correct form of the proceedings than on the achieving of the purpose of the confessions of sins which may have to be made—the endeavor to make the chasm between those who are in and those who are outside the congregation really large, instead of building bridges for the opponents and for those who are on the outside.
  25. Legalistic practice in itself makes the Gospel law, the Law a taskmaster (but not unto Christ); it makes confession a torture, the cure of souls hypocritical fawning; the Sacrament a testimony and seal that one is acceptable (to the pastor); it makes Christian liberty a mere pretense, church discipline an oppression of consciences, the people painfully meticulous, self-righteously pharisaical, and the church a police institution.
    1. Legalistic practice has the appearance of greater conscientiousness, courage, and quicker success only for the blind. Looked at carefully it lacks true courage to allow God to reign and His Word to work. Its conscientiousness is that of an erring conscience and in itself one of the greatest hindrances of the working of the Law as well as of the Gospel.
    2. Legalistic practice behooves no church less than the Evangelical Lutheran.
    3. To make fine customs of old established churches the standard for such as are in process of establishment—is not Lutheran.
    4. There are plenty of things in which we cannot avoid giving offense; let us not give it by unnecessary severity in practice.
    5. Let us courageously make an end of all unevangelical practice; but let us not forget that there is but one step from legalistic to antinomian practice.
    6. Antinomian practice would beware of legalism and would effect everything only by the Gospel. But since it lacks the severity of the Law it also lacks the fervor of the Gospel. Therefore it will result in laxity and undisciplined conduct.
    7. If we fall from legalistic into antinomian practice, evil has become worse.

    Wednesday, February 4, 2015

    Fall 1938 Conference of Liturgical Society of St. James

    The Fall Conference of the Liturgical Society of St. James met at St. Matthew's Lutheran Church, 415 W. 145th St., New York City, on Monday and Tuesday, November 14 and 15. Beginning with choral matins, conducted by the undersigned, the conference heard a "Manual for a Women's Altar Guild" presented in his usually interesting style by Rev. Carl F. Wiedmann, M. A., of Woodcliff, N.J. "The Slavic Liturgy" was the topic presented by the Re. Paul Slavik, who, besides giving the fascinating details of its structure, also chanted various parts in the unique tones still maintained in the Lutheran Church of Slovakia. "A Study of the Collect" was presented by Rev. Martin Steege of East Rutherford, N.J., who traced the origin of many of the collects still in use among us back to the sixth century. The afternoon session was concluded by singing the Gregorian chants for the Eucharist under the leadership of Rev. Carl Bergen, of Leonia, N.J., precentor of the society.

    The sessions of Tuesday morning were begun with a celebration of Holy Communion. The children's choir of St. Matthew's Lutheran School led the congregation in singing the Gregorian chants. The beauty and simplicity of these chants can best be appreciated when one hears them sung by such a group of fresh children's voices. The undersigned then read a paper on "The Liturgy for the Sunday-school," in which the basic aims and the materials suitable for such a liturgy were presented. The sessions were brought to a close by a paper on "The Origin and Development of the Church-year," read by Mr. Adolf Wismar, c.r.m.

    Brooklyn, N.Y.
    Walter C. Daib

    The Lutheran Witness, Vol. 57, no. 25 (December 13, 1938), p. 429.