One More Response to HRC

HRC keeps coming after me with his wrong-headed comments and questions. Instead of ignoring him or deleting his responses, I simply offer the following brief comments.

To get a better idea of his way of thinking, visit his blog at:

http://www.gottesdienst.org

HRC,
You obviously do not understand the nature of Christian faith. It is not a matter of believing a bunch of propositional statements about the Trinity or any other dogmatic formulation. Authentic faith is the trust that results from the preaching of the gospel about Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection for the forgiveness of one's sins. Dogma serves the gospel; faith is in the gospel, not in a collection of dogmas or dogmatic formulations per se, however good, right, and true they might otherwise be.

Your blog post attacking Pres. K's exegesis reveals your own misguided reading of Scripture on Elijah, Paul, and Jesus.

Did Elijah preach fire and brimstone to the unbelieving, non-Israelite, Gentile widow of Zarephath? He acted in love and restored the widow's dead child. He had compassion on the woman and her dead son.

Who among us today--after 1555, 1648, 1783, 9/11--is going to act exactly like Elijah did when he entered a mixed-faith setting with those prophets of Baal? If you could somehow get the LORD to light your wood in that mixed-faith setting, would you then seize the other religious leaders and take them out to the  nearest brook and murder them, as Elijah did? Do you not understand that not every action in Scripture is one that applies to our situation today. That particular incident occurred in the long-past historical setting of Israel's nationhood. What God allowed Elijah to do, he isn't allowing anyone who follows Jesus to do in our very different situation. The ancient nation of Israel is not identical to the church of Jesus Christ.

What do you make of the story in 1 Kings 19:9ff.? The LORD was not found in the strong wind that rent the mountains and broke the rocks into pieces, nor in the earthquake, nor in the fire. The LORD made himself known in the still small voice. "What are you doing here?" That sounds a bit like a gospel voice, but it is actually law.

I suppose if that were you, you could answer in a way similar to Elijah: "I have been very jealous for
the LORD, the God of hosts; for many in the LCMS have forsaken your covenant, compromised your altars..." And, in keeping with the biblical text, the living and true LORD would then say to you, "Don't worry about it. Return to the wilderness in which I have placed you.  Get out among the non-Christians and make a positive witness. I will make sure that not everyone bows before truly false gods of their own making."

Yes, elsewhere Elijah speaks a word of judgment to wicked Ahab. But that was only one word of the LORD and such a word isn't always given to us to speak in every situation.

I know of no pastor in the LCMS who could ever stay rostered if he prophesied along the lines of 1 Kings 21:19. Or did exactly what Elijah did with those Baal prophets. He'd end up on death row as the worst mass murderer in US history. At best we allegorize or spiritualize such words that are given in 21:19 or, better, we tie them tightly to the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us from all sins. And we note how that specific prophecy of Elijah did not come to pass because Ahab humbled himself. God showed mercy to Ahab.

Your comments about other religions, were you to share them in an interfaith setting, would not lead to the kind of repentance that AC 12 describes: contrition or terrors that strike the conscience when sin is recognized--AND FAITH, which is brought to life solely by the gospel. You might be able to get people upset and angry with you, but none of the words you indicate ought to be shared in such a setting would ever lead anyone to faith in Jesus Christ. Rather, your words come off as hypocritical and Pharisaical, as if being a good LCMS person, rather than a good Muslim or a good Jew, "because we believe in Jesus and a bunch of other things, and you don't," will get you to heaven.

Those who are grieving know the terrors that strike the heart. They don't need superficial, judgmental rantings about other religions and false gods in that setting. They need to hear the true and authentic gospel, the one that alone consoles the conscience and liberates people from the terrors of evil, sin, and death.

No one was speaking out against Pr. Morris until zealous Pharisees in the LCMS started attacking him for what he had done. As far as I know, no one who heard Pr. Morris condemned him publicly or rejected the words that he shared, except people in his own church body.

What about Paul? Re-read Acts 17. Consider the kind of witness he made to those religious people in Athens. He didn't condemn them, but sought to build upon the knowledge of God that they already had been given. Same goes for his participation in the services of the word and prayer in the many Jewish synagogues he repeatedly visited. He tried to be winsome, not religiously bigoted and hateful.

Your comments reveal a more serious theological problem in your apparent understanding, a soteriological problem. You are blind to the real scandal of Jesus, as if the parable that you quoted is about "non-Christians" and "Christians," when in fact the parable is about the rejection of God's word of grace and mercy, which alone produces the good fruits of love that follow from trust in Jesus.
How does that parable in any way relate to a pastor sharing the gospel within a civic setting? True, people can reject the gospel, but how does the pastor's own sharing of the gospel or a divine blessing in any way go against the teaching of this parable about rejecting the Son of God? If people reject what the pastor shares about the Son of God at the interfaith event, then they bear the responsibility for that rejection, not the pastor who shares the good word.

Could it be that the parable is directed against all Pharisaically-minded people? One could easily apply this parable to anyone who has been given the responsibility to care for others pastorally, through word and loving deed, but fails to heed the word. I'm thinking in particular of the exhortation that Paul gives in 1 Cor. 13 and the basic one that is given in 1 Jn 4. How are you heeding these admonitions, you who refuse to voice any compassion for the people who suffered the deaths of their children and loved ones from the actions of a crazed gunman?

How can any evangelical preacher proclaim that any one specific person who has died is in hell? What arrogance! What idolatry! That is not "rude," that is blasphemy! What an uncaring, hard-hearted, mean-spirited mindset. It makes the death of Jesus cheap, it limits his atonement, it denies the promise that Paul proclaims in Rom. 11:32 and several other places (1 Cor. 15:22-28, etc.), it rejects the hope that Peter gives in Acts 3:21, it ignores the central affirmation in John 3:16-17.

Christian Gottlieb Barth (d. 1862) once said, "Anyone who does not believe in the universal restoration is an ox, but anyone who teaches it is an ass." Those same labels should be applied to anyone who preaches, in whatever setting, that specific people and groups of people are definitely going to hell or are in fact in hell. To speak the way you have done is to put yourself in the place of God in a way that takes you well beyond the limited, finite calling you have been given. Yes, pastors and all Christians have the responsibility to speak God's words of law and promise, for the sake of leading people to the kind of repentance described in AC 12, but that is far different from proclaiming with certainty that God has in fact damned eternally those you think ought to be damned. You are not in a position to say "God damn you" about anyone who has died.