A PERSONAL REFLECTION …

Reason, Faith and the Future of My Church.

By Lothar Schwabe

What is to become of our fore-fathers conservative heritage?

----

June 4, 2009 A Reflection On Our Heritage

By Lothar Schwabe Reason, Faith and the Future of My Church

“I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation of everyone who believes” Romans 1:16 (My confirmation verse)

When I was still an atheist my understanding was that all religions were made up by people. I viewed the Bible, which is the foundation of all Christian teachings, as just an ordinary book written by people who wanted to prove their beliefs. The teachings about Jesus were contrary to what reason would deem possible. Since reason, to my understanding, was the ultimate judge of what can be true and real, the basic teachings about the divinity of Jesus and his resurrection were false.

That all changed when I had a God-experience at age 20. I learned that reason is only one tool to discern reality. Reason is a useful tool to deal with the physical realities of this world. Faith is a useful tool to deal with the spiritual realities of this world. Faith enabled me to discern another reality, just like love enabled me to experience another reality when I met my future wife. I experienced a way to connect with Jesus that is greater than my own reason or understanding could allow me. It is indeed by faith that we have access to God. Much like the law and the gospel, both reason and faith have an important part in our life. We must distinguish between them and know where to employ each.

When I studied theology I was again confronted with an approach that anointed reason as the ultimate judge over what can be true. The historical critical theological movement of the 1950ties began with the assumption that only human reason can decide who the real Jesus was. I was now presented with a Jesus who was not unlike the Jesus of my atheistic past. This historical Jesus did not really rise from the dead except in the minds of his followers. He did not perform any miracles. Scriptures were the product of people who wanted to prove their point. People made up stories about Jesus a long time after Jesus, to further the cause of their religion.

I was impressed with the intellectual honesty of my professors, but I disagreed that human reason must be the ultimate judge. A theology that is based on reason alone can never discover more than a Jesus who is merely human. By faith I had met a Jesus whom I could only “stand under” in faith rather than “understand” with my reason. There was a reality that was much bigger than historical criticism could comprehend.

I was attracted to Luther’s theology and his understanding of the limitations of human reason. Luther’s statement in the Small Catechism, “I believe that I cannot by my own understanding (reason) or effort believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, and sanctified and kept me in true faith”, resonated with my own experience.

Upon my ordination, I affirmed my belief in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the inspired Word of God and the only source of the Church’s doctrine and the authoritative standard for the faith and life of the Church. I was asked to promise to “preach and teach the Word of God in accordance with the Confessions of the Church”. How could I now be expected to accept a new theology that gives human reason the authority to decide which parts of the Scriptures are no more applicable? How could I now be expected to accept a theology whose understanding of Scriptures is close to what I believed Scriptures to be when I was an atheist?

My church has changed from the days when we formed the ELCIC. We included

Article II, Confession of Faith, stating, “This church confesses the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the inspired Word of God” precisely because there were those who believed that Scriptures were merely a product of certain cultures and that they were made up by people who wanted to promote their own beliefs. I now read and hear that those of us, who still believe what they believed when they were ordained, are “splitting the Church”.

The conservative beliefs of people like me are still, officially, tolerated by our ELCIC. There is some political wisdom in tolerating us because we still have Article II in our constitution and we still have 90% of our lay people believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It would be unwise to come down too heavily on us old-fashioned believers and risk loosing a large portion of members.

We, in turn, are asked to be inclusive and tolerant of those who have a different understanding of Scriptures which supports a new social statement. We are requested to be accepting of individual differences for the sake of the unity of the ELCIC.

To do so we would have to admit that our beliefs are based on a wrong interpretation of the Bible. We would have to separate ourselves from 90% of Christians in the world who believe that we have a prophetic mission. We would have to surrender our belief that God calls us to repent rather than adapt to a sinful world. The gospel of tolerance would have us admit that there is no substance to our belief.

There is more to the church than the ELCIC. If leaving the ELCIC is a sin, should our church not than repent of a previous sin and return to the Roman Catholic Church? We now have a signed agreement between Roman Catholics and Lutherans on the doctrine of Justification by Faith. Very few, like Luther were kicked out of the Roman Catholic Church. Most people who followed Luther decided to leave the church because of theological differences.

There are those, whose conscience leads them to seek another community of faith. Personally, I see my call as being a dissident within the ELCIC and to suffer the consequences. I take responsibility for not seeing the drift to theological liberalism coming until long after I retired and for not speaking out earlier. As long as we keep Article II in our constitution I will stay and suffer the decline of my church. I will still pray for my church and for those who will leave the ELCIC.

The future of evangelical and conservative Lutherans in the ELCIC is full of perils. The excommunication of seven conservative Lutherans from Faith Lutheran Church in Kelowna, BC was an early indication that the patience of our leadership with us conservatives is wearing thin. Recently, our leaders decided to deny the inclusion of congregational petitions in the report to the National Convention. Congregations that sought to express their dissatisfaction with revisionist trends in the ELCIC are thus denied the voice which we traditionally granted to all congregations.

Even more worrisome is the courting of our church officials of the Anglican Church of Canada. Anglican congregations do not own their properties. If our leaders desire to gain control of congregational properties, a close union with Anglicans would be desirable. A merger may get rid of Article II of our Constitution and eliminate the strong constitutional support our conservatives have at this time. The position which Anglicans have taken in regard to the ordination of homosexual clergy fits very well with what our leaders are determined to have happen in our ELCIC.

The current strategy of having our Church accept such ordinations in exceptional cases is all that is needed to make the exception a rule in a few years hence. Establishing a beachhead is never a satisfying achievement unless such beachhead leads to a greater invasion.

I am worried where all this will lead to. Yet, the power of the Holy Spirit must not be underestimated.

“Lord, keep us steadfast in your Word.” ELW # 517