Learning through the Sacraments

A fascinating blogger named Molly Sabourin who describes herself as an "orthodox Christian" writes a brief, but impassioned article entitled "And Yet Love Happens." She explains how she no longer feels obliged to be an apologist for her Christian faith... especially in the face of terrible tragedies, suffering, and grief. At the heart of her withdrawal from apologetics, she notes that she is instead centered in the Sacraments of the Church, which I would agree with of course- for truly the community of faith is marked by these means of grace. The mysteries of the faith after all-the Sacraments-are the means of grace by which faith is born. Through means such as Baptism, Absolution, and the Eucharist, the people of God die and rise with Christ, receive the full and free forgiveness of their sins by Christ Himself, hearts and minds are nurtured for the kingdom of God, and the children of God are fed and nourished by the body and blood Christ in with and under the bread and the wine.


Anyway, this is what Ms. Sabourin has to say in this brief, but beautiful article:

I feel no obligation anymore to explain God, or why I believe in the Resurrection of Christ despite the universality of death and suffering. I won't pretend that suicide bombers, plane crashes and children with cancer don't make my insides crawl with horror. The truth is I have no real answers to give, and that any I concocted would be speculative at best. Being confronted by tragedy is like a bucket of ice water to the head. Death and suffering, the way they breathe all hot and heavy down my neck, won't let me sleep, or forget that I am vulnerable - just as vulnerable as any and everyone else - to having my comfortable little existence shred to pieces in a heartbeat.

I feel no responsibility to whitewash the pain of being broken with glossy euphemisms proposing that sense can be made of injustice. Thirteen years ago I surrendered my opinions and dependence on reason to the ancient teachings of the Church - I retired my time consuming (wasting?) quest to figure things out (Who, what, where, when, why is God, exactly?) and learned through the sacraments to make peace with the Mystery that is God and His mercy, the Holy Trinity, salvation. And now I'm no longer in the mood for a debate about the peripherals, not when the end is all around me and my only real source of courage is, mysteriously enough, self-denial. No, I will not try and appease your anger, your disillusionment, your doubts; but God help me weep with you when you weep and love you, serve you, just exactly as you are, lest the monsters, pride and despair, sink their teeth into my soul.

It's God, All God, and Nothing but God (so help me, God!)

So I'm studying the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord and I'm on article II: "Free Will, or Human Power." The status of the controversy which was resolved by the Formula of Concord (formula for peace between the controversial theological points) concerns what power, if any, sinful human beings have to cooperate or participate with God's work of converting to faith in Christ. The following says it all:

In order to explain this controversy in a Christian way, according to the guidance of God's Word, and to decide it by His grace, our doctrine, faith, and confession are as follows:

In spiritual and divine things the unregenerate person's intellect, heart, and will are utterly unable, by his natural powers, to understand, believe, accept, think, will, begin, effect, do, work, or concur in working anything. They are entirely dead to what is good (Ephesians 2:5). They are corrupt. So in mankind's nature since the fall, before regeneration, there is not the least spark of spiritual power remaining or present. No person can prepare himself for God's grace or accept the grace God offers. A person is not capable of grace for and of himself. He cannot apply or accommodate himself to it. By his own powers he is not able to aid, do, work, or agree in working anything toward his conversion. He cannot do this fully, halfway, or even in part—not even in the smallest or most trivial part. He is sin's servant (John 8:34) and the devil's captive, by whom he is moved (Ephesians 2:2; 2 Timothy 2:26). Therefore, the natural free will according its perverted disposition and nature is strong and active only to do what is displeasing and contrary to God (Genesis 6:5).

In other words, there is nothing —absolutely nothing!— we can to bring ourselves to saving faith in Jesus Christ my Lord or even to prepare ourselves for grace. Nothing, nada, nichts, rien, niente! And so what a miracle of God's mercy that He uses His precious means of grace to call us to faith... that (despite all this) we are called by the Gospel, enlightened with His gifts, sanctified and kept in the true faith. Glory to God in the highest! Thanks be to God!

Source: Formula, Solid Declaration, II:6-7, "Concordia, the Lutheran Confessions: A Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord" (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), first edition, p. 551.

Why Luther Is Not Protestant

Today's post is a re-post from Pastor Peters, wherein he comments ably on the article "Why Luther Is Not Quite Protestant," by Phillip Carey of Eastern University. Enjoy...  

[In the article,] Carey examines the logic of faith in a sacramental promise.  In other words, he spends his time comparing and contrasting the role of faith and the promises of God that form the means of grace.  He sees in Luther something not quite in keeping with the way Protestants generally see things.  This is the catholic Luther (the only real Luther) who does not make faith itself the primary foundation upon which conversion, baptismal regeneration, absolution, and the Lord's Supper are based.  According to Carey this is, at least in part, the reason why there is "no revivalist tradition native to Lutheranism" and why the revivalist tradition of Protestantism is foreign to Lutheran understanding of the working of God and the faith that apprehends His work.

For Protestants (read this Calvinists, especially), the certainty of salvation rests upon faith.  Carey has put it this way:  Whoever believes in Christ is saved (major premise); I believe in Christ (minor premise); therefore, I am saved (conclusion).  But for Luther it did not work this way.  For Luther, justification does not require either a conversion experience or a decision.  These are acts of the will that detract from Christ and His work.  The minor premise in all of Luther's approach is "Christ never lies but only tells the truth" - not "I believe..."

So for Luther the certainty rests not on MY faith but on CHRIST and His Word/Promise:  It looks like this, according to Carey:  Christ said "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (major premise); Christ never lies but always tells the truth (minor premise); therefore, I am baptized (I have new life in Christ, I am saved, etc.) -- conclusion.

The sacramental Word is wholly external.  There is a great difference between having faith in Christ and depending upon that faith for your new life, justification, and salvation.  The efficacy is in the sacramental Word and not in the faith itself.  This is key to Luther and the key difference between Lutherans and the Protestants.

This is especially pointed when it comes to sacramental absolution.  Calvin thought it wise and good pastoral practice to offer private absolution but not as a sacramental act.  Instead, Calvin saw this as a conditional statement -- conditional upon faith in Christ -- but for Luther this is the unconditional Word of Christ that does what it promises.

Calvin:

    Christ promises absolution to those who believe in Him.

    I believe in Christ.

    [Therefore,] I am absolved of all my sins.

Luther:

    Christ says "I absolve you of all your sins in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

    Christ never lies but always tells the truth.

    [Therefore,] I am absolved of all my sins.

For Luther, to NOT believe in this absolution is to call Christ a liar while for Calvin the priest can never say these words unconditionally and the absolved must posit his assurance in his or her faith to know that he or she is forgiven.

We could go on and on.... in the end, Carey sees Luther's understanding of justification tied to sacramental piety -- a very catholic understanding, indeed.  While there is much to consider in this article, it does highlight the issues within the LCMS about borrowing from those whose revivalist traditions are in direct conflict with our understanding of the means of grace and the efficacy of Christ's Word and promise.  It goes to the heart of what takes place on Sunday morning and to the nature of what should be sung as the hymns or songs of the faithful.  It challenges those who use the language or vocabulary of Protestantism to speak to those outside the Church and the duplicity of a witness which says one thing and means something other (or maybe not, if, indeed, those who do this have lost touch with the efficacy of Christ's Word and promise as the minor premise of this sacramental piety and liturgical life).

HT: Catching Up On My Reading