Wednesday, June 3, 2015

32 Thesen wider unevangelische Praxis

Thanks to a discussion at the ALPB Forum, an earlier post containing 32 Propositions on Unevangelical Practice has recently been receiving a large number of views. I noticed that one of the commenters on that site had asked a question about the original German, which has led me to create this post.

32 Thesen
wider unevangelische Praxis.
  1. Evangelische Praxis besteht nicht darin, daß man nichts als Evangelium, sondern daß man Alles evangelisch handelt.
  2. Darunter ist zu verstehen, daß man, weil man die Rechtfertigung vor Gott, die Erneuerung des Herzens und die Früchte des Geistes nur vom Evangelium erwartet, bei allem was man thut, das Eine im Auge hat, nämlich das Evangelium in Schwang zu bringen.
  3. Eben deshalb wird bei evang. Praxis das Gesetz nicht etwa bei Seite gestellt oder durch Einmischung von Evangelium abgestumpft, sondern vielmehr mit um so größerm Ernst in voller Schärfe, aber in evangelischer Weise gehandhabt.
  4. Evangelisch wird das Gesetz dann gebraucht, wenn man es lediglich dazu gebraucht, dem Evangelio den Boden zu bereiten und den aus dem Evangelio frei erwachsenden Erweisungen des neuen Lebens die göttliche Richtschnur vorzuhalten.
    Evangelisch wird das Evangelium dann gebraucht, wenn es Allen und unbedingt und unverkürzt dargeboten wird.
  5. Es ist nicht evangelische Praxis, die Perlen des Evangelii vor die Säue zu werfen; noch viel weniger aber, sie in der Tasche zu behalten.
  6. Evangel. Praxis erläßt kein Iota von dem, was Gott erfordert; fordert aber nichts anderes und mehr, als Glauben und Liebe.
  7. Evang. Praxis fordert Beweisung des Glaubens und der Liebe bei Seelen Seligkeit; giebt aber über die einzelnen Erweisungen derselben nach Ziel, Maß und Weise kein Gebot.
  8. Ev. Praxis fordert Erfüllung auch des kleinsten Buchstabens im Gesetz; macht aber vom Halten des Gesetzes den Gnadenstand nicht abhängig.
  9. Ev. Praxis sucht der Wirkung des Evangelii durch das Gesetz zwar vorzuarbeiten, aber nicht nachzuhelfen; und weil sie die Früchte des Geistes allein vom Evangelio erwartet, so kann sie auf dieselben auch warten.
  10. Ev. Praxis hält Alles, was nicht aus dem Evangelio d. i. aus dem Glauben erwachsen ist, für keinen wesentlichen Gewinn; trägt deshalb lieber allerlei Mängel, Uebelstände und Sünden, als daß sie dieselben bloß äußerlich beseitigt.
  11. Ev. Pr. beschränkt die Seelsorge auf specielle Application des Gesetzes und des Evangelii; das Erforschen und Richten des Herzens überläßt sie dem Herzenskündiger.
  12. Ev. Pr. hält auf gute menschliche Ordnung; vielmehr aber auf christliche Freiheit und läßt deshalb Mitteldinge auch wirklich Mitteldinge bleiben, d. h. überläßt sie schließlich dem Gewissen des Einzelnen.
  13. Ev. Pr. ist treu im Kleinen, hat aber doch mehr das Große und Ganze im Auge, als das Einzelne.
  14. Klug sein, wie die Schlangen—sich in die Zeit schicken—sich vom Satan nicht übervortheilen lassen—jedermann allerlei werden, um allenthalben etliche selig zu machen—sind auch Stücke evangelischer Praxis.
  15. Ev. Pr. ist ebensoweit von antinomistischer als von gesetzlicher Praxis entfernt.
  16. Aus evangelischer Erkenntniß und Gesinnung sollte wohl evangelische Praxis fließen; thuts aber selten und langsam.
  17. Wir bleiben meist in Gesetzlichkeit stecken, oder fallen in antinomistische Schlaffheit. So fremd ist der Natur das Evangelium.
  18. Es ist Gefahr nach beiden Seiten; für uns bis jetzt noch mehr nach der gesetzlichen Seite hin.
  19. Von dem natürlichen Hange des alten Adam, dem Herkommen aus dem Pietismus u. a. abgesehen—bringt das schon unsere hiesige Lage und die nöthige Reaction gegen die herrschende Zuchtlosigkeit in Lehre und Leben mit sich.
  20. Oder wie viel sind ihrer, die nicht heimlich doch noch mehr Angst davor hätten, einem Unwürdigen die Güter des Evangelii zu spenden, als davor, dieselben dem Bedürftigen zu versagen oder zu verkürzen? Wem stände nicht sein Gewissen im Wege, nach St. Pauli Vorgang Allen Alles zu werden?—Wo es aber so steht, da findet sich sicherlich auch noch gesetzliche Praxis.
  21. Gesetzliche Praxis besteht nicht darin, daß man nichts als Gesetz, sondern Alles gesetzlich treibt, d. h. also treibt, daß man vor Allem darauf ausgeht, daß dem Gesetz sein Recht geschehe, und daß man durchs Gesetz oder gar durch Gesetze ausrichten will, was nur das Evangelium ausrichten kann.
  22. Je mehr nun dazu noch (wie das oft geschieht, wo das innerlich Treibende eigentlich noch das Gesetz ist) der treibende Eifer schlägt, der nicht einmal die Liebe die Königin der Gebote bleiben läßt, die Weisheit als Rathgeberin verschmäht, und selbst dann, wann er nur zu lehren, zu strafen oder zu ermahnen wähnt, doch eigentlich Zwang, und zwar den schlimmsten nämlich moralischen Zwang anwendet—je unevangelischer wird die Praxis.
  23. Unevangelisch-gesetzliche Praxis findet sich nicht bloß im Kirchen- und Gemeinde- sondern auch im Schul- und Haus-Regiment, so wie im brüderlichen Verkehr.
  24. Die noch am meisten vorkommenden Beispiele im Predigtamt, Seelsorge und Gemeinderegierung möchten folgende sein:
    a.       in Predigten:
    Durchgeißeln einzelner Sünden, Uebelstände oder gar nur persönlich mißliebiger Dinge—, Abmalen bekannter Sünden bekannter Personen; anstatt die bittere Wurzel aufzudecken, aus welcher alle bösen Früchte wachsen.—Bloßes sogenanntes Zeugniß-ablegen ohne eigentliche Belehrung und Vermahnung. Unnöthiges oder verfrühtes oder unerbauliches Polemisiren.—Ermahnen zu Buße und Glauben, anstatt das zu predigen, was Buße und Glauben wirkt.—Pietistisches Classificiren der Zuhörer— Verclausuliren des Evangelii—Vorwiegende Darstellung des Glaubens nach seiner heiligenden Kraft.— Verkündigung der Gnade Gottes nur um alsobald Forderungen darauf zu bauen.
    b.      bei Beichte und heil. Abendmahl:
    Als Bedingung der Zulassung mehr fordern, als zu heilsamen Gebrauch unentbehrlich ist.—Schulmäßiges Katechismus- und inquisitorisches Herzens-Verhör.— Aufsparung dessen, was etwa zu strafen ist, auf die Anmeldung oder Beichte.—Drohen mit Abendmahlsversagung als Zwang-, Schreck- oder Zucht-Mittel.—Abweisung außer bei erweislicher Unbußfertigkeit.
    c.       bei Taufen:
    Kinder von Irrgläubigen oder Gottlosen, die doch unter dem Schalle des Wortes leben, auch wenn dabei in kein fremd Amt gegriffen wird, entweder gar nicht, oder nur unter allerlei menschlichen Garantien taufen wollen.—Zulassung zur Pathenschaft auf gleiche Linie mit Annahme zum Sacrament stellen.
    d.      bei Copulatione:
    Grundsätzliche Verweigerung derselben bei Solchen, welche außerhalb der Gemeinde stehen, auch wenn dieselben nicht offenbar gottlos sind.—Peinliches Halten auf eine bestimmte Form der elterlichen Einwilligung und Verlobung.
    e.      bei Beerdigungen:
    Unbedingtes Versagen derselben bei Allen, welche nicht irgendwie zur Gemeinde gehören, oder doch den Besuch des Pastors begehrt haben.—Befolgung des Grundsatzes, daß man jedesmal die Seligkeit oder Unseligkeit des Verstorbenen öffentlich zu bezeugen, ihre Sünden zu strafen und die Gelegenheit zu benutzen habe, die Sünden und Gebrechen der Angehörigen anzustechen.
    f.       in der Seelsorge:
    Beständiges Hobeln und Feilen an Jedermann, bis Alles fadenrecht ist.— Annahme irgendwelcher Zuträgereien.—Einmischung in Haus-, Familien- und Ehe-Sachen außer bei offenbaren Sünden.—Aus einzelnen Worten und Werken über den Herzensgrund richten.—Anwendung moralischen Zwangs durch Uebertreibung u. dgl.
    g.       in Gemeinde-Regiment und Kirchenzucht:
    Uebertriebene Anforderungen bei der Anfnahme neuer Glieder.—Versagung oder peremtorische Zeitbestimmung für den gastweisen Mitgenuß der geistlichen Gemeinde-Güter, sonderlich des heil. Abendmahls.—Gebotmäßiges Auflegen gleichmäßiger Beisteuer, oder zwangsweises Taxiren der Einzelnen.—Anwendung der Zucht gegen Dinge, die nicht offenbare Totsünden sind, oder gar gegen selbstprovocirte Sünden.—Jemand schon um deswillen als einen im Verstand überzeugten aber böslich widerstrebenden behandeln, weil er gegen die angeführten Gründe nichts mehr anzuführen weiß, oder gar beistimmt.—Mehr auf Formgerechtigkeit des Processes, als auf Erreichung des Zwecks der Zucht sehen.—Alle etwa zu leistenden öffentlichen Bekenntnisse in gleicher Form und gleichem Grade der Oeffentlichkeit verlangen.—Das Bestreben, die Kluft zwischen denen, die in- und denen, die außer der Gemeinde sind, recht groß zu machen, anstatt den Gegnern und Draußenstehenden Brücken zu bauen.—
  25. Gesetzliche Praxis, so viel an ihr ist, macht das Evangelium zum Gesetz, das Gesetz zum Zuchtmeister,—als nicht auf Christum, die Beichte zur Marter, die Seelsorge zur Hudelei, das Sacrament zum Zeugniß und Siegel, daß man—dem Pastor genüge, die christliche Freiheit zum bloßen Schein, die Kirchenzucht zur Gewissenspresse, das Volk kleinlich, peinlich, werkerisch pharisäisch und die Kirche zur Policeianstalt.
    1. Gesetzliche Praxis hat nur für die Blinden den Schein größerer Gewissenhaftigkeit, Tapferkeit und schnelleren Erfolges. Bei Licht besehen fehlt ihr der wahre Muth, Gott walten und Sein Wort wirken zu lassen; hre [sic] Gewissenhaftigkeit ist die eines irrenden Gewissens und sie selbst eins der größten Hindernisse der Wirkung sowohl des Gesetzes als des Evangelii.
    2. Keiner Kirche steht gesetzliche Praxis so übel an, als der evangelisch-lutherischen.
    3. Da, wo es gilt, die Kirche erst zu pflanzen, die schönen Ordnungen längst gepflanzter Kirchen ohne Weiteres für maaßgebend zu halten—ist nicht lutherisch.
    4. Es giebt genug Dinge, da wir nicht hindern können, daß man Anstoß an uns nimmt; geben wir keinen durch unnöthige Schroffheit in der Praxis.
    5. Machen wir getrost ein Ende mit aller unevangelischen Praxis; aber vergessen wir nicht: von gesetzlicher zu antinomischer Praxis ist bloß Ein Sprung.
    6. Antinomistiche Praxis will sich vor Gesetzlichkeit hüten und Alles mit dem bloßen Evangelio ausrichten. Ihr fehlt ab er, weil der Ernst des Gesetzes, so auch die Gluth des Evangelii. Darum ist schlaffes zuchtloses Wesen ihre Folge.
    7. Wo man aus gesetzlicher in antinomistische Praxis fällt, da ist übel ärger geworden.
    Vorstehende Thesen wurden bis zur These 24 incl. von der Synode verhandelt und gebilligt. Für die Verhandlung der übrigen 8 fehlte es an Zeit.

    The Society of the Incarnate Word

    During the early-to-mid-twentieth century, a number of different Lutheran liturgical groups appeared, blossomed, and passed away. The most well-known of these groups was and remains the Liturgical Society of St. James, but there were a number of smaller, less well-known groups as well, such as the Society of St. Ambrose, and the Society of the Incarnate Word.

    The Society of the Incarnate Word was always a relatively small organization, particularly when compared to the Society of St. James and the Valparaiso Institute of Liturgical Studies. It nevertheless gained a certain level of popularity among young pastors and seminarians within the LCMS. Its members were expected to follow a daily rule and observe certain monastic-style practices, such as fasting, Scriptural meditation, and praying the Divine Office (Matins and Vespers).

    In 1960, the Society's former Superior gave the rational for the choice of name: "our concern [was] that sacramental life be emphasized; since apart from the activity of the Incarnate Word in the Gospel and the sacraments, Christians are not nourished nor are men brought to faith in Christ."

    The Society's stated goal was "to work for a fuller sacramental life in the Church, and for the return of the Holy Eucharist to the central point of the worship life in the Church, and to make known, preserve and promote a full, liturgical, devotional and cultural life in our Church, guided by the heritage and standards of sixteenth-century Lutheran practice."

    Beginning in 1959, the Society began publishing a series of tracts, eventually publishing a total of thirty different tracts:

    The Royal Priesthood
    Holy Absolution: A Voice from Heaven
    The Sign of the Cross
    The Weekly Celebration of the Holy Eucharist
    Are You a Catholic?
    What Is a Parent?
    Holy Baptism
    Private Confession and Absolution
    What Is this Church Year?
    The Holy Name of Jesus
    Pray for the Dead?
    "I Will Go unto the Altar of God"
    How Often Should I Receive the Sacrament?
    The Virgin Mary
    The Incarnation
    One Cup
    Whosoever Shall Eat and Drink Unworthily
    The Sacred Ministry
    What Is the Augsburg Confession?
    What Is a Sacrament?
    Holy Confirmation
    Holy Marriage
    First Communion
    The Offertory
    What Shall I Call Him?
    Interracial Marriage
    Sex
    From One—Every Nation
    Love and Hate
    The Table Prayers of Blessed Martin Luther

    Most of these tracts are available online in a re-typeset and in some cases slightly modified form here.

    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.