journal of lutheran mission - september 2014 | v1 no 2

Mission September 2014 | Vol. 2 | No. 2

Journal of Lutheran

From the President

The Holy Cross and Missions

hat do missions and persecution have to do with each other? Why is the

“holy cross,” as Luther called the seventh mark of the Church, the theme of this issue of the Journal of Lutheran Mission? In John 15:20, Jesus said, “A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.” Christians who go out into the world can and should expect to be treated as our master, Jesus, was treated. The message of the Gospel is either received with great joy, or it is rejected. With the rejection of the Gospel comes persecution. The Lord promises that His Word will not return empty and that He will work all things for a blessing and the good of His Church.

The articles in this issue of the journal are from the International Lutheran Council (ILC)’s fifth world seminary conference — centered on the theme “Suffering,

Persecution and Martyrdom as a Mark of the Church” — held in Palanga, Lithuania, Aug. 8–11, 2013. The Lutheran churches of the world have faced persecution in different forms. For instance, during the Communist rule in Lithuania, half of all the Lutheran pastors were imprisoned and executed — a higher percentage than any other religious group. Lutherans in Africa face persecution from Islam, while here in the Western world, particularly in Europe and the United States, the culture and secular governments are becoming increasingly

hostile to the Church. These papers represent the voice of Lutheranism from around the world, explore how the Church has suffered and offer insight into how we might face the challenge of proclaiming the Gospel to a hostile world.

Although we can and must expect persecution and opposition to the proclamation of the Gospel and resistance to planting Lutheran churches around the world, we have the promise of Jesus that the gates of hell will not prevail against the

Church. In the midst of trouble and suffering, we can expect a blessing from our gracious Lord.

President Matthew C. Harrison

W

“For I decided to know nothing

among you except Jesus

Christ and Him crucified”

(1 Cor. 2:2).

The Journal of Lutheran MissionContributing Editors

Rev. Dr. Charles Arand, faculty, Concordia Seminary, St. LouisDavid Berger, faculty, Concordia Seminary, St. LouisRev. Dr. Steve Briel, chairman, Board for National Mission, LCMSRev. Allan Buss, parish pastor, Belvidere, Ill.Rev. Roberto Bustamante, faculty, Concordia Seminary, Buenos AiresRev. Dr. Albert B. Collver III, director, Office of International Mission Regional OperationsRev. Thomas Dunseth, director of deaf ministry, Lutheran Friends of the Deaf, New YorkRev. Dr. Charles Evanson, LCMS missionary, LithuaniaRev. Nilo Figur, area counselor for Latin America and the Caribbean, Lutheran Hour MinistriesRev. Roosevelt Gray, director, LCMS Black MinistryRev. Dr. Carlos Hernandez, director, LCMS Hispanic MinistryRev. Dr. John Kleinig, emeritus lecturer, Australian Lutheran CollegeRev. Ted Krey, regional director, Latin America and the Caribbean, LCMSRev. Todd Kollbaum, director, Rural and Small Town Mission, LCMS Deaconess Dr. Cynthia Lumley, principal, Westfield Theological House, CambridgeRev. Dr. Gottfried Martin, parish pastor, BerlinRev. Dr. Naomichi Masaki, faculty, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort WayneRev. Dan McMiller, director, Missionary Recruitment, LCMSRev. Dr. Tilahun Mendedo, president, Concordia College, SelmaRev. Nabil Nour, fifth vice-president, LCMSRev. Dr. Steve Oliver, LCMS missionary, TaiwanRev. Dr. Michael Paul, parish pastor, Evansville, Ind.Rev. Roger Paavola, president, LCMS Mid-South DistrictRev. Dr. Darius Petkunis, rector, Lithuanian Lutheran SeminaryRev. Dr. Andrew Pfeiffer, faculty, Australian Lutheran CollegeRev. Dr. Timothy Quill, faculty, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort WayneRev. Dr. David Rakotonirina, bishop, Antananarivo Synod of the Malagasy Lutheran ChurchRev. Dr. Victor Raj, faculty, Concordia Seminary, St. LouisDeaconess Grace Rao, director, Deaconess Ministry, LCMSRev. Geoff Robinson, mission executive, Indiana DistrictRev. Dr. Carl Rockrohr, dean, Mekane Yesus Seminary, LCMS Missionary, EthiopiaRev. Robert Roethemeyer, faculty, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort WayneRev. Dr. Brian Saunders, president, LCMS Iowa East DistrictRev. Steve Schave, director, Urban and Inner City Mission, LCMS Rev. Dr. Detlev Schultz, faculty, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort WayneRev. Dr. William Schumacher, faculty, Concordia Seminary, St. LouisRev. Bernie Seter, chairman, Board for International Mission, LCMS Rev. Kou Seying, parish pastor/Hmong ministry, Merced, Calif.Rev. Alexey Streltsov, rector, Lutheran Theological Seminary, SiberiaRev. Martin Teigen, parish pastor/Hispanic ministry, North Mankato, Minn.Rev. Dr. Wilhelm Weber, Jr., bishop, Lutheran Church in Southern Africa Rev. Dr. E. A. W. Weber, retired professor and rector, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Enhlanhleni (KwaZulu-Natal)Rev. John Wille, president, LCMS South Wisconsin District

Executive EditorsRev. Bart Day, executive director, LCMS Office of National MissionRev. Randy Golter, executive director, LCMS Office of International Mission

Table of Contents Why Synod Missions? by Albert B. Collver III ........................................................................................... 6

Christian Martyrdom: Some Reflections by William Weinrich ........................................................ 9

Greetings to the Fifth International Lutheran Council Seminaries Conference by Hans-Jörg Voigt ............................................................................................. 16

Sub Cruce Revelata: The Cross as a Mark of the Church — An Exegetical Perspective by Roberto E. Bustamante ..................................................................................................... 18

Suffering, Persecution and Martyrdom as a Mark of the Church: How Has This Affected Theological Education? A Practical Perspective from Africa by Joseph Omolo ................................................................................................................................................ 28

A Confessional, Dogmatic View of Martyrdom and the Cross by Lawrence R. Rast, Jr........................................................................................................ 36

The Holy Cross: Suffering, Persecution and Martyrdom — a Mark of the Church in the Modern Age by Albert B. Collver III ........................................................................... 50

Suffering, Persecution and Martyrdom as a Mark of the Church in Europe by Darius Petkunas ............................................................................................................................ 52

Book Review: Improving Preaching by Listening to Listeners: Sunday Service Preaching in the Malagasy Lutheran Church by Robert H. Bennett ........................................... 58

Book Review: Joining Jesus on His Mission How to Be an Everyday Missionary by Geoffrey L. Robinson ........................................................................................ 60

Book Review: Protestant Missionaries to the Middle East: Ambassadors of Christ or Culture? by Albert B. Collver III ........................................................................................ 64

September 2014 | Vol. 1 | No. 2

A periodical of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s Offices of National and International Mission.

© 2014 The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Reproduction of a single article or column for parish use only does not require permission of The Journal of Lutheran Mission. Such reproductions, however, should credit The Journal of Lutheran Mission as the source. Cover images are not reproducible without permission. Also, photos and images credited to sources outside the LCMS are not to be copied.

Editorial office: 1333 S. Kirkwood Road, St. Louis, MO 63122-7294, 314-996-1202

Published by The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod.

Please direct queries to [email protected].

This journal may also be found at www.lcms.org/journaloflutheranmission.

Mission

Journal of Lutheran

Member: Associated Church Press Evangelical Press Association (ISSN 2334-1998)

http://www.lcms.org/journalofluthermission

http://www.lcms.org/journalofluthermission

6 Journal of Lutheran Mission | The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Why Synod Missions? by Albert B. Collver III

The Synod hasa rich history of

foreign mission work and its

future warrants a coordinated

effort.

Introduction

When the Missouri Synod was formed in 1847, it was following the example of the Apostolic Church as described in Acts 15.

Naturally, therefore, it included among its other goals, “mission.”1 Using Acts 15:3’s “great joy” at the report of the conversion of the Gentiles to the Faith as its basis, Article III of the Synod Constitution states among its objectives is to “extend that Gospel witness into all the world.” This is “mission.” During the earliest days of the Synod, mission was primarily pursued in North America (the United States and Canada). Later, this work extended outside the boundaries of North America. Ironically, the extension of Missouri Synod mission into South America was not seen as foreign mission, as that work led to the creation of a district of the Missouri Synod.

The foreign mission work of the Missouri Synod began in earnest in 1872, when the Synodical Con-ference was formed with a goal of helping the founding Synods engage in this key expression of mission. Ini-tially, the Synodical Conference did not send missionaries but supported the activities of Lutheran missionaries who separated from various mission societies due to doctrinal reasons, including some missionaries who had been with the Leipzig Mission Society in India. In 1880, pastors were sent to Australia. In 1884, at the Synodical Conference convention, an appeal was made to send a missionary to

1 “Constitution of the Missouri Synod,” Preamble. Handbook 2013, 9.

Japan.2 The 1887 Synod Convention resolved “that the Synod empower the Board of Foreign Missions to take the introductory steps toward the opening of heathen mis-sions also beyond our own country on behalf of Synod.”3 Discussion about where to begin foreign missions focused on Ceylon (the Tamil speakers in present day India and Sri Lanka). Soon, the Synod turned its eyes toward begin-

ning mission work in Japan. But this was short lived. “Up to 1892 every-thing had been surging forward, but then a reversal set in. The Sino-Jap-anese War also hampered mission work. Only six months after Synod’s resolution was passed, Lehre und Wehre issued a ten-page article on church conditions in Japan and indi-cated how work was becoming ever more difficult.”4 The Synod would not return to the idea of mission in Japan until after World War II. In 1894 (47 years after the founding of the Synod),5 the Synod officially began foreign mission work in India. Since that beginning in 1894, the Synod’s work (as defined by sending funds or

2 Koppelmann, Herman H. “Missouri Synod Undertakes Foreign Missions.” Concordia Theological Monthly 22, no. 8 (1951): 552–566.3 Ibid.4 Ibid., 565.5 It has been noted that it seems to take a church body about 50 years to begin engaging in foreign missions. This was true not only for the Missouri Synod, but also for a number of our partner churches as well. As the article, “Ecclesiology, Mission and Partner Relations: What it Means that Lutheran Mission Plants Lutheran Churches,” in the previous issue of the Journal of Lutheran Missions, March 2014, noted, there is a life cycle moving toward a responsible Lutheran church. Some time is needed to develop the structures of a church body before it can seriously engage in foreign missions (seminaries, structures of governance, capacity to address theological issues, et al.).

When a congregation or district engages in

short-term or overseas mission work, keep in mind the whole of the church and coordinate

with the Synod’s official mission efforts. In the long run, this will help

create an enduring and long-term Gospel presence in the foreign

mission field.

7Journal of Lutheran Mission | The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

personnel) has extended into more than 90 countries. Rather than employ existing mission societies in

either Europe or America, the Synod from its inception intended to integrate foreign mission work into its life together, so that “the diversities of gifts should be for the common profit.” The Synod also was concerned about planting Lutheran congregations and maintaining doc-trinal purity (Synod Constitution, Article VI, which says members of Synod will not participate “in heterodox tract and missionary activities”), which the history of 19th cen-tury mission societies demonstrates was difficult to do apart from a church body. The expansion of the Missouri Synod in the late-19th and early-20th centuries poised the Synod for a large expansion into foreign missions after World War II, when much of the world was opened due to the economic and military influence of the United States. To maximize the Synod’s mission efforts, the 1965 Synod Convention created the Board for Foreign Missions. The intention was for the Synod’s mission board to be the primary organ for the Synod’s mission efforts overseas. Congregations and districts conducted foreign missions through the Synod’s mission board. Prior to the jet age in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the only practical way to engage in foreign mission work was through an entity like a synod or a mission board. With the advent of relatively inexpensive jet travel to foreign lands, it became possible for individual districts and congregations — even rela-tively small mission societies — to engage in short term trips and even send their own missionaries longer term.

With the proliferation of “missionaries” from Mis-souri Synod congregations and districts, a situation arose where confusion developed regarding who was a mission-ary from the Missouri Synod and who was not. Foreign partners often see any LCMS group, congregation, pastor, individual as an official Missouri Synod missionary. To alleviate this confusion, the 1983 Synod convention adopted Res. 5–37, which identified the Mission Board “as the only sending agency through which workers and funds are sent to the mission areas of the Synod.” This was done to avoid confusion and competition on the mission field, when Districts and other entities have sent mission-aries (clergymen, teachers, etc.) to foreign mission fields at their expense.

Since the 1983 convention resolution, ease of world travel has only increased as has mission zeal among members of the Synod (both congregations and rostered workers, not to mention congregational members). Both of these developments are good for mission work. Con-

gregations and districts are engaged in short-term trips more than ever before. Some are even taking on larger projects. There is no doubt that this has brought blessing to people overseas and to individual people who par-ticipate in them. At the same time, it has caused some confusion among Missouri Synod partners, even caus-ing some to question if the Synod’s desire to do mission through the mission board is an antiquated leftover from days gone by. Rather than an obsolete relic, however, the desire to work together as a Synod in mission is perhaps even more important today than it was in the early 1980s.

The Internet has opened global communications and has made it very easy to make connections with various overseas church groups that are willing to change their name from Baptists, or Anglican or Evangelical Faith Temple to “Lutheran” as soon as funds are sent. Ameri-can pragmatism always has sought ways to minimize expense and enhance cooperation in order to avoid dupli-cation of efforts. If a pan-Christian mission society is performing a good and useful task in a foreign country, pragmatism calls for cooperation. Ever since the dawn of relatively easy commercial travel (end of the 17th cen-tury and beginning of the 18th century), this has been the siren call of Protestant missions. Yet the Missouri Synod rightly seeks to avoid heterodox tract and mission societ-ies, choosing instead to do Lutheran missions by planting Lutheran churches.

Many districts and congregations of the synods who display mission zeal become engaged with groups over-seas without realizing who is or is not a partner church of the LCMS. In some cases, this leads to cooperation and projects with groups that hold doctrinal positions differ-ent than those of the Missouri Synod. The LCMS currently has 35 partner churches (a list of partner churches can be found here: www.lcms.org/partnerchurches), and a grow-ing number of emerging relationships that, Lord willing, will lead to pulpit and altar fellowship. Some of these emerging relationships even developed due to the efforts of districts and congregations of the Synod. Now more than ever is the need for coordination and working the Synod’s mission effort.

Long-term career missionaries provide invaluable experience and knowledge, as well as stability in the rela-tionship between the Synod and her partners. They also assist in the management of projects with partners. As any congregation that has engaged in short-term mission trips knows, there can be challenges in communication between people, as well as differing expectations. Synod

http://lcms.org/partnerchurches


missions also help provide long-term commitment that is difficult for a congregation or district to maintain much beyond a few years, let alone for decades.

The present day has opened a number of possibilities for mission work and for new partners. Most of these emerging relations are not “mission” work in the sense of a Christian proclaiming the Gospel to a people group who have never heard the Gospel before, but involve working with an existing church (perhaps one that the Missouri Synod has previously had little or no contact with). Such work can be engaged most effectively in a church-to-church relationship, rather than through indi-vidual relationships. In fact, a few of the LCMS “new” mission activities have come about when congregations that began a project overseas become fatigued or are no longer able to support it. The church-to-church aspect of contemporary mission work further emphasizes the advantage of Synod mission work.

Short-term mission trips are a reality of the pres-ent age. Changes in geopolitics or the strong economic position of America may alter that in the future, but for the present, they are a reality in which we work. Along with the good, challenges emerge too. Those considering foreign mission engagement should keep in mind these realities: stewardship and the purpose of the Synod, “that the diversities of gifts should be for the common profit.” Practically speaking, this means congregations and dis-tricts with mission zeal and passion for foreign work should consider supporting the projects of the Synod and the Synod’s missionaries. When a congregation or district engages in short-term or overseas mission work, keep in mind the whole of the church and coordinate with the Synod’s official mission efforts. In the long run, this will help create an enduring and long-term Gospel presence in the foreign mission field.

The Rev. Dr. Albert Collver III is the LCMS director of Church Relations; LCMS director of Regional Operations for the Office of International Mission and executive secretary of the International Lutheran Council.


Christian Martyrdom: Some Reflectionsby William Weinrich

Dr. Weinrich’s historical ref-

erences regarding Christian

persecution and martyrdom

provide insight and encourage-

ment for Christians now facing

persecution.

ccording to John 15:20, in the Upper Room Je-sus said to His disciples, “A slave is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted me, they will

also persecute you.” In these words, our Lord foretells and forewarns us that we live in the last days. Later in the Gospel of John, we are told that when Jesus received the sour wine, He said, “It is com-pleted,” and handed over the Holy Spirit (John 19:30). The last days commenced with the death of Jesus, which is to say that the last days (sub cruce) have as their essential mark the confrontation of Chris-tian faith with the world. In his First Letter the Apostle Peter makes this point quite explicitly: “Beloved, do not be astonished at the fiery tri-al when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you” (1 Peter 4:12). One who is baptized into Christ must ex-pect the destiny of Christ. The Gospel of John does not allow us to ameliorate this point. In this Gospel, the Evangelist conjoins the gift of the Spirit and the story of Thomas. Upon the risen Jesus’ command to touch His side and His hands, Thomas recognizes Je-sus to be his Lord and his God (John 20:24–29). This is a distinctly martyrological moment: Communion in the passion of Jesus, at the same time, bears within it the con-fession of Jesus as Lord and God. The last days demand such communion and such confession. Here, we might point out that the idea of “the last days” is not so much a chronological reality as it is the rality of the cross in the world. When the world is not confronted by the cross, it does not experience the fullness of “the last days.”

A Christians have faced hostility and rejection at some time and in some place ever since the foundation of the Church. Yet special factors, new to our experience, may be mentioned which make the theme of persecution and martyrdom understandable and pastorally necessary at the present time. A recent report of the Vatican on the

persecution of Christians throughout the world makes mention of two of these special factors. In part, the report states the following:

“Credible research has reached the shocking con-clusion that an estimate of more than 100,000 Chris-tians are violently killed because of some relation to their faith every year. Other Christians and other believers are subjected to forced displacement, to the destruction of their places of worship, to rape and to the abduction of their lead-ers … In addition, in some Western countries where

historically the Christian presence has been an in-tegral part of society, a trend emerges that tends to marginalize Christianity in public life, to ignore historic and social contributions and even to re-strict the ability of faith communities to carry out social charitable services.”

Groups such as Persecution.org concur with such findings: According to this group, some “two hundred million Christians currently live under persecution.” And the number is rising. Concerning active persecution of Christians, Persecution.org mentions especially places like Africa and the Middle East. In Egypt, the ancient and

When commanded to deny God and to disobey

His will so that one might claim oneself for the powers of futility, the only response of

one who is Christian is to acknowledge one’s

freedom from such non-entities and one’s free allegiance to the God who truly is and who

alone creates.


traditional Coptic Christians face increasing hostility, and according to one observer “what has happened in Iraq and Syria is de facto ethnic cleansing of Christians” (Neil Hicks of Human Rights First).

There are two major threats in the world to Lutheran churches: the rise of an expansionist, jihadist Islam, which is unwilling to give place to Christian communities, and the increasing dominance of Western secular egalitarianism, which claims that traditional Christian thinking and habit are intolerant and discriminatory, and so secularists also are unwilling to tolerate Christian influence in the public square. Those of us who live in Western Europe or in the United States are well aware of the social and even legal forces which intend to define Christian faith as a mere private opinion and rob it of any legitimate public or social role. This is, to be sure, a new phenomenon, and our people are largely ill-prepared for this emerging challenge. Since the time of Constantine, biblical perspectives and understandings have determined the social habits of the Western world, which in turn have been more or less enshrined by custom and law. Although our theology might teach us that we are to live a theology of the cross, our experience of being Christian in the world has for a long time been uncontested and without serious public challenge (at least this is true of Western Europe and the USA). That is no longer the case. Christian convictions increasingly represent a minority view, and traditional Christian social and legal protections no longer hold sway.

Today, being a Christian in the world is contested and is facing serious challenges — in some places with murderous consequences. It benefits us all to contemplate how we might best prepare ourselves and our people to meet this existential challenge. I would like to offer some reflections on stories of early Christian martyrdom as narrated in early Christian martyr texts. It is quite evident that early Christians thought about the reality of martyrdom as a Christian reality and consciously prepared themselves for this eventuality. Indeed, our very first evidence for an emerging martyr cult makes this clear. In the Martyrdom of Polycarp (c. 157), we are told that upon the death of Polycarp the Christians gathered his bones and buried them “in a suitable place.”What made the location “suitable” is then described: “Gathering here, as we are able, in joy and gladness, the Lord will permit us to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom, both as a memorial for those who have already struggled and for the training and preparation of those who will

[in the future struggle]” (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 18).1 The language suggests that on the anniversary date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, the Christian community gathered at the place of his burial and there commemorated the death of past martyrs (probably through the reading of martyr narratives), and by prayer and exhortation prepared the living for future suffering. Moreover, the language suggests that this took place within, or in conjunction with, a Eucharistic service. It is instructive to note that the Eucharist was regarded as a proper occasion for martyrological reflection. To commune with the Body and Blood of Christ was to be bound with Him who was Himself the “faithful witness” (Rev. 1:5) and received the crown of life: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46). Union with Christ’s body and blood unites the faithful to the goal and destiny of Christian faith, namely, to that perfection whereby the confession of the mouth is instantiated by the sacrifice of one’s life for the true confession. The death of the martyr was itself “witness” and “demonstration” that in Christ God had overcome death by the new creation of the resurrection.2 Participation in the Supper of the Lord, therefore, bears within itself the destiny of martyrdom — should that be according to God’s will and purpose.3 As we think about the present circumstances of our Lutheran churches in the world and about how best to prepare our people for future suffering, we should not forget the great resource we have in the Sacrament of the Altar. For it is not merely that which “strengthens” faith but is itself the reality of life over death: “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my

1“The birthday of his martyrdom” — a striking expression but quite typical of early thinking about martyrdom: the death of the martyr was, in fact, his/her entry into life.2 It may be helpful here to remind ourselves that the term “martyr” did not designate one who had only given an oral witness before an unbelieving audience. The term referred exclusively to those who had died, and in their death itself were “martyr.” The witness of the martyr was the death itself. One who gave an oral witness but yet did not suffer death for that witness was called a “confessor.”3 In the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks of the future suffering of his followers within the Upper Room discourse. The Synoptic Gospels have no such discourse, while John has the discourse, but no explicit institution narrative. One may well interpret John 13–17 as a catechesis on the implications of partaking in the Supper, of the life received and then lived. Ignatius of Antioch gives an early tradition of a conversation between the risen Jesus and his disciples: Jesus commands them to touch him and see that he is not a “bodiless spirit.” “And straightway they touched him and believed, being closely united to his flesh and blood. For this reason they despised death, indeed were found to be superior to death” (Smyrn. 3:2). In my judgment, the last two sentences speak of the disciples partaking of the Eucharist and then, and for that reason, proving to be “superior to death” in their various bold confessions and also martyrdoms.


blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:54).

Early Christian thinking about martyrdom did not arise from general notions of courageous conviction and heroic death. While one may find references to classical heroes in early exhortations to martyrdom (ex. Tertullian, Ad martyras), these did not provide the substance of early Christian martyr theology. For that, the prototype was clear; the passion and death of Jesus were the pre-eminent paradigm. Nor was his death regarded in general terms. Were that the case, his death would possess no meaningful martyrological significance. The death of the martyr possessed nothing natural about it; rather, it was a conflict with the powers of evil in which the martyr fought precisely by the willing submission to those powers. In considering the passion and death of Jesus as paradigm, certain features are of importance.

In his little exhortation To the martyrs, Tertullian interprets Eph. 4:30 as a martyr text: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” Tertullian thus connects the reality of the Baptism with the difficulties of persecution and martyrdom. In the case of the martyrs, the Spirit which has sealed them at Baptism has also led them to the moment of their martyr sufferings. Now in the face of such sufferings, the martyrs are exhorted not to “grieve” that Spirit of God by denial of Christ and apostasy. For should they deny Christ, they would thereby cause the Spirit to flee from them. The thinking behind this little exhortation requires some further comment.

The New Testament speaks of Baptism as a begetting from above (John 3:3) or as a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17). Through Baptism, therefore, the sinner has received a new identity, a new personhood which is defined by a new set of relationships and obligations. This new identity is not natural, nor of the flesh. It is of the Spirit, and so this new identity is grounded in God and is directed toward the resurrection of the dead. Paul speaks of this new identity given in Baptism: “For we have received the Spirit of the adoption into sonship, by which [Spirit] we cry out, ‘Abba, Father!’” (Rom. 8:15; also Gal. 4:5–7). The identity of the baptized is that of child/son of the heavenly Father. There is in this conviction a distinctly ascetic, other-worldly aspect, which makes all earthly, natural, fleshly relationships radically penultimate. In early martyr texts, this is especially expressed in relation to earthly familial ties and to the claims of imperial authority and power. In this context, it is important to remember that Christian

faith cannot be reduced to private opinion. Christian truth does not understand itself to be an opinion which may be added to or subtracted from the storehouse of other opinions. Rooted in Baptism, Christian faith makes a claim concerning the fundamental, irreducible reality of the human person. Hence, the common, recurring confession of the Christian martyr: sum Christianus; “I am a Christian.” To make that claim was not merely to state that one believed so-and-so to be true. It was a claim of personal identity that re-ordered one’s basic social, familial and political allegiances. Christian martyrdom, therefore, was intrinsically a statement that had social, familial and political implications. Christian martyrdom was not an act of heroism that was personal and individual. It was an essentially public act that called into question any ultimate, transcendent attachment to that which was not God. What characterizes all martyr stories is the report of public trials and public spectacles. The martyr stands before the world and gives witness, first with the mouth, then with his death. This is why martyrdom must be regarded as a fundamentally ecclesial act.4 In his death, the martyr makes clear that no earthly attachment — not that of family, not that of nation or ruler — was an ultimate good (optimum bonum). That which alone was ultimately true and good was the confession of faith, “I am a Christian.”5 A couple of examples will suffice.

In the second century Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs the proconsul, Saturninus, demands that the Christians honor the emperor with oath and prayer: “We [Romans] are a religious people, and our religion is a simple one: we swear by the genius of our lord, the emperor, and we offer prayers for his health … . Swear by the genius of our lord, the emperor.”6 It is clear that the proconsul thinks that the Christians owe the emperor a pledge of allegiance. He is “our lord” (noster dominus). That such an oath suggests an ultimate allegiance is clear from the fact that the punishment for not swearing by the emperor’s genius is death. To live requires allegiance to an earthly, political power. In response to the proconsul’s demand, the Christian Speratus replies, “I do not recognize the

4 In his treatise On the Churches and Councils Luther lists martyrdom as one of the marks (notae) of the Church.5 From this perspective we can understand why the martyr was a special object of honor and veneration. By his voluntary, steadfast death he gave form to the first commandment: “You shall love the Lord, your God, will your heart, soul and mind” (Matt. 23:37).6 All citations are from Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford Early Christian Texts; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). Here Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs 3–5 (Musurillo, 86/87).


rule (imperium) of this world. Rather, I serve that God whom no man sees or can see with these eyes.” Another Christian, Cittinus, says, “We have no one whom we fear except our Lord (domnum nostrum), God, who is in heaven.” To this Donata adds, “Pay honor to Caesar as Caesar, however, give fear to God.” Thereupon various Christians said, “I am Christian,” and Speratus too said, “I am Christian,” and, we are informed, “All concurred with him.”7 In this simple early martyr text we see quite clearly that the question in play is this: Who is the true Lord in the world? The confession “I am Christian” is nothing other than the claim that all earthly powers are penultimate and cannot legitimately claim ultimate loyalty. This is a central idea in early martyr thinking, and we must shortly return to this aspect of early Christian martyrology.

But it was not only political attachments that are rendered secondary and penultimate in early martyr texts. Family ties as well are surrendered up and sundered altogether. Perhaps the most poignant example of this is to be found in the Passion of Perpetua (c. 202). When Perpetua, a young, noble woman, is arraigned before the Roman magistrate, her father appears and begs her not to dishonor her family and bring upon it ill-repute and social disgrace: “Do not abandon me to the reproach of men. Think of your brothers, of your mother, of your aunt; also consider your child … . Give up your pride! You will destroy us all.” Later, when the Christians were brought to a public hearing at the forum, Perpetua is again confronted by her father who has brought along with him Perpetua’s small child. He says to Perpetua, “Sacrifice—have mercy on your infant.” Urged by the governor to take pity upon her father and infant, Perpetua is officially asked, “Are you Christian?” And she said, “Christiana sum.”8 The claim to Christian identity bears within itself the claim that all family ties and associations and obligations are temporal, penultimate and may not assume our deepest loyalties. In Perpetua’s confession “I am Christian,” she embodies the words of Jesus: “Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me” (Matt 10:37-38).

Let us turn now to what is the central issue in all early martyr accounts, and that is the question of idolatry.

7 Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs 6–10 (Musurillo, 86/87-88/89).8 Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas 5–6 (Musurillo, 112/13–114/15).

We have already referred to the words of Speratus in the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs: “I do not recognize the rule (imperium) of this world. Rather, I serve that God whom no man sees or can see with these eyes.” It is an interesting fact that in early Christian martyr texts the primary confession of the martyr is not, as we might expect, belief in Jesus and the resurrection of the dead. The central confession is to God as the Creator of all things living. The late second century Martyrdom of Apollonius (c 180) gives a good example of this. When Apollonius is brought before the court, the proconsul, Perennis, asks him, “Apollonius, are you a Christian?” To this inquiry Apollonius responds, “Yes, I am a Christian, and for that reason I worship and fear the God who made heaven and earth, and sea, and all that is in them.”9 The confession of Apollonius is not explicitly that of the second article of the creed, nor of the third article. It is a confession of the first article: “I believe in God the Creator.”10

In the context of martyrdom this cannot be an abstract claim such as “I believe that God has created the world.” Luther’s explanation of the First Article is to the point: “I believe that God has made me and all creatures.” Let us again emphasize: The confession of the martyr, Christianus sum, was not merely a statement of membership in a particular religious group. The confession Christianus sum was a confession of personal identity; it expressed who one was not merely what one believed to be true. It is this fact that made the question of idolatry so trenchant, for the question central to all martyr stories is this: Who is it who possesses the power to kill and to make alive? The claim concerning the martyr’s identity is at the same time a claim concerning the true God!

The narratives of early Christian martyrdoms are stories of conflict. In such stories there is no neutral ground.11 The Christian is either to sacrifice to the gods or he is not to sacrifice; he is either to confess or he is to deny; he is to live or he is to die. Within this existential moment for the martyr lies the conflict between God and the false gods. Let us take a few other examples of interrogations by Roman officials and the responses

9 Martyrdom of Apollonius 2 (Musurillo, 91).10 This confession of God as Creator occurs frequently. See the Martyrdom of Justin 2.5 (Musurillo, 43); Martyrdom of Carpus 10 (Musurillo, 23); Martyrdom of Pionius 8 (Musurillo, 147); Acts of Cyprian 1 (Musurillo, 169); Martyrdom of Fructuosus 2 (Musurillo, 179).11 For a more complete treatment of this issue, see William C. Weinrich, “Death and Martyrdom: An Important Aspect of Early Christian Eschatology,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 66.4 (2002): 32–38.


of Christian martyrs. According to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the martyr is commanded: “Swear [to the gods] and I will let you go. Curse Christ.” To this Polycarp responds: “For 86 years I have been his servant, and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme against my King and Savior?”12 In the Martyrdom of Apollonius the martyr is commanded to sacrifice to the gods and to the image of the emperor Commodus. When Apollonius refuses, the proconsul says, “I shall grant you a day’s time, that you may take some thought about your life.” Upon Apollonius’ continuing refusal, the proconsul urges: “I advise you to change your mind and to venerate and worship the gods, which we all venerate and worship, and to continue to live among us.” To this Apollonius says: “It is the God of the heavens whom I worship, and him alone do I venerate, who breathed into all men a living soul and daily pours life into all.”13 Finally, we mention a third example. According to the Martyrdom of Pionius, the presbyter Pionius is arrested and reminded of the imperial edict that all should “sacrifice to the gods.” To this Pionius replies: “We are aware of the commandment of God ordering us to worship him alone.” To this response of Pionius, Sabina and Asclepiades add their voices: “We obey the living God.”

It is clear from these interchanges that the question in play is this: Who has the power to give and to take away life? The Roman magistrates believe that such power lies in their hands: They may stay the execution of Christians and release them, or they may exact the punishment of death. What does the Christian believe? In the moment of decision/confession, the Christian must declare his ultimate faith. Faith is directed either toward the gods, or it is directed toward God the Creator. By refusing to offer sacrifice to the gods, the martyr rejects the claim of the magistrates that they possess the power to give life. Rather, in the refusal to live on the court’s terms, the martyr confesses that it is God the Creator, and He only, who possesses the power to give and to take away life.14 The life that the magistrate offers in exchange for sacrifice to the gods is a verdict of death, for those gods are no gods and have no life in them. The gods, and indeed all earthly

12 Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 (Musurillo, 9).13 Martyrdom of Apollonius 10–13 (Musurillo, 93, 95).14 From time to time the martyr will remind the human judge that his authority is itself derived from God in whose hands alone all power resides. The judge, whatever his verdict, is a servant of God, and for that reason how the judge disposes of his authority and power will become an issue at his own judgment on the last day.

power, are intrinsically futile and empty when placed in opposition to Him who is the Creator of all things. Thus, when commanded to deny God and to disobey His will so that one might claim oneself for the powers of futility, the only response of one who is Christian is to acknowledge one’s freedom from such non-entities and one’s free allegiance to the God who truly is and who alone creates. Thus, when the Roman proconsul demands of Apollonius that he sacrifice to the gods so that he might continue to live, Apollonius replies: “I have become a man who fears God so that I may not revere idols made with hands. Therefore, I will not bow down to gold or silver, bronze or iron, or before false gods made of stone or wood, who can neither see nor hear; for these are but the work of craftsmen, workers in gold and bronze; they are the carving of men and have no life of their own.”15 Similarly, when Carpus is commanded to sacrifice to the gods, he responds: “May the gods be destroyed who have not made heaven and earth.” Upon further pressure to sacrifice, he says: “The living do not offer sacrifice to the dead.”16

Idolatry is a form the dominion of death assumes, and to worship dead idols is not to live but to succumb to the power of death. When, therefore, the martyr willingly receives the judgment of death from the hands of the earthly power and takes this judgment upon himself in martyrdom, he confesses that the one, true God is the Creator who has given him life and will give him life again in the resurrection of the dead. It is the deep paradox, it is the deep truth of martyrdom that in it the real and proper relationship between God and the world is revealed. The martyr’s death witnesses to the fact that the only source of man’s life and hope is God Himself. Thus martyrdom, for those who see, reveals the living God. In the Martyrdom of Fructuosus, it is reported that after his martyrdom, the heavens were opened, revealing the bishop with his deacons “rising crowned up to heaven, with the stakes to which they had been bound still intact.” The Roman consul, Aemilianus, was summoned to see this as well: “Come and see how those whom you have condemned

15 Martyrdom of Apollonius 14 (Musurillo, 94–95). The translation of this passage by Musurillo is inadequate: “I am a pious man, and I may not worship artificial idols. Hence I do not bow before gold.” We may paraphrase the meaning as follows: Through Baptism I have become a man who reveres the true God. That has freed me from the false reverence to gods made by hands, and so in no way am I now going to bow down to such lifeless deities, as you command me to do. The future tense with double negative is the most forceful way to express a negative in the Greek text: “I will by no means bow down!”16 Martyrdom of Carpus 10–12 (Musurillo, 22–23, 24–25).


to death today have been restored to heaven and to their hopes.” However we are told, “When Aemilianus came, he was not worthy to behold them.”17

According to Persecution.org, Bishop Thomas of the Coptic Church recently said concerning the contemporary period in Egypt, “We are passing through a dark tunnel of violence, feeling the grief of death and injustice. But we are committed to the love that never fails. We are pressed hard on every side, but not crushed.” This last sentence echoes the sentiment of the Apostle Paul concerning his own apostolic sufferings: “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed” (2 Cor. 4:8). In the New Testament the theme of imitating Christ in his suffering and death is connected with suffering under earthly powers and human opposition. 1 Peter 2:21 is classic: “For to this have you been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.” Nowhere in the New Testament is this idea more vivid than in Paul’s reflections on his own apostolicity. Precisely because he was an apostle his life was an icon of his preaching. When Paul asserts, “We preach Christ crucified … the power of God and the Wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:23–24), he implies that his life stands under that proclamation and is given form by that proclamation. Thus, when against certain detractors, Paul must defend his apostolicity, and he does so by referencing his sufferings for Christ. Consider these remarkable statements of Paul (2 Cor. 4:9–11):

“We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over

17 Martyrdom of Fructuosus 5 (Musurillo, 183). The paradox of martyrdom that when one dies, in fact one has won the victory and so lives is illustrated graphically in the Passion of Perpetua 10 (Musurillo, 118/19). In a vision Perpetua sees her own coming martyrdom. She is wrestling with a huge Egyptian (the devil). After some struggle, “I [i.e. Perpetua] put my two hands together linking the fingers of one hand with those of the other and thus I got hold of his head. He fell flat on his face and I stepped on his head. The crowd began to shout and my assistants started to sing psalms. Then I walked up to the trainer and took the [victor’s] branch. He kissed me and said to me, ‘Peace be with you, my daughter!’ I began to walk in triumph towards the Gate of Life (Porta Sanavivaria).” Although depicted as a triumph, this is evidently an account of Perpetua’s death. She steps upon the head of the Egyptian, a sign of his death and of her triumph. However, in the reality of her martyrdom it is she who is killed. Her walking toward the Porta Sanavivarium imitates the walk of those gladiators who had survived their fight. But in the reality of her martyrdom she does not walk to the Gate of Life in the arena but to the Gate of Life into heaven.

to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.”

Paul directs our eyes to his flesh/body. To see in it the marks of his suffering is to recognize him as an apostle who for that reason is an image of the life of Christ.18 Indeed, to speak of his sufferings as an apostle Paul at times adopts the language of Jesus’ passion. In 2 Cor. 12:7–10, Paul refers to his apostolic sufferings as “a thorn in the flesh” As did Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Paul asked three times that these sufferings be removed from him. To this the Lord said, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power reaches its goal in weakness.” Behind such statements lies the conviction of Paul that the cross of Jesus is the form of the apostolic life. Suffering for Jesus is not merely the result of adverse fate or of the unlucky circumstance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is the calling of the apostle to be the image of the Crucified in the world (Acts 9:16). When, therefore, the church confesses herself to be “apostolic,” she acknowledges this fact to be true as well as of her own sojourn in the world. If the church is apostolic, then she is martyrological as well.19

Of course, this does not mean that every Christian will be called upon to suffer rejection, persecution or martyrdom. Yet, this does not give us leave to ameliorate the demands of being baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ. Perhaps no Lutheran thinker reflected more deeply upon the condescension of Christ than did Hermann Bezzel, the successor of Wilhelm Loehe at the diaconal institute in Neuendettelsau. For Bezzel, the Lord’s words to Paul, “My power is perfected in weakness,” was not only a hermeneutical perspective for interpreting the whole of the Scriptures. It was also a by-word for that service to which all Christians are called. “That [passage] is in reality the rubric which stands over the life of Jesus.” It expresses the mystery of His person whereby the Almighty makes Himself known and gives

18 In 2 Cor. 11:23–33 Paul lists his sufferings at the hands of his persecutors. Interestingly, the literary form he adopts for this is that of the res gestae which was commonly used to praise the victories of a king or emperor. Thus, Paul’s various sufferings are (paradoxically) interpreted as his victories! In the literature of martyrdom Christians often saw in the suffering martyr the image of the cross or of Christ. In the Letter of the Lyons Martyrs the holy Blandina “was hung on a post and exposed as bait for the wild animals that were let loose on her. She seemed to hang there in the form of a cross.” Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.1.41 [Musurillo, 74–75].19 Here it is well to be reminded that Christology, apostolicity and ecclesiology are mutually inherent. The apostle was an image of Christ, and the church is an image of the apostle (see 1 Thess. 1:5–10).

http://www.persecution.org


himself as one who is weak and humble. “That which is small in power, that power which perfects itself in weakness, is not a power in and of itself; it is not a power which is self-consciously a power. Rather, such a power achieves something only if God adopts it as his own.”20 When Jesus, sorrowful even to death, prays to his Father to remove the cup of suffering from him, he nonetheless places himself under the will of the Father: “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Matt. 26:39). The Gospel of John presents us with Jesus as he who has received the Father’s reply, and so he sets himself to do the Father’s will: “Now is my soul troubled. But what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.” (John 12:27–28). To live according to the cross is to do the Father’s will. In the Lord’s Prayer we are taught to pray: “Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” When upon the cross Jesus says, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” (Luke 23:46), he reveals how God’s will is done: Faith — committing one’s life to God — doing God’s will. These are but different ways of saying the same thing. Therefore, in his First Letter the Apostle Peter adopts these words of Jesus in order to exhort Christians under duress to faithful and holy living: “Therefore, let those who suffer according to God’s will do right and entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good” (1 Peter 4:19). Christian faith is essentially ascetic. It knows that the things of this world are but temporary and fleeting. To place one’s hope on them is to lose sight of that which abides. Thus, the entirety of the Christian life is to be, as it were, a bloodless martyrdom, faith lived through a hope which lies in God.

The simple Christians of Scilla suffered in the second century. Yet, Christian preaching kept them in memory. In the early fifth century, Saint Augustine preached on their anniversary. But of what relevance was the story to his audience? Augustine knew that the time of overt persecution was in the past. The Roman Empire in which his congregation lived was now Christian in conviction and habit: “There is no persecutor raging, no plunderer despoiling, no torturer working on you.” Yet, says Augustine, many are adopting the necessities of life as well as the superfluities of life as their persecutors: “How many evil deeds are committed as if for the sake of necessities, for food, for clothing, for health, for a friend; and all these

20 These are words interpreting Bezzel by Manfred Seitz (Hermann Bezzel: Theologie-Darstellung-Form seiner Verkündigung [München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1960], 161 (my translation). This book is an excellent introduction and presentation of Bezzel’s theology.

things which are being desired are in fact being lost. But if you make light of these things in the present, God will give you them for eternity. Make light of health, you will have immortality; make light of death, you will have life; make light of honor, you will have a crown; make light of the friendship of man, you will have the friendship of God.” As the holy martyrs “preferred to live by dying, in order not to die by living,” as the holy martyrs “despised life by loving life,” so the Christian in his/her daily life is to live the life of Christ by despising the things of the world: “Do you seek well-being? Make light of it, and you shall have it. You deny Christ, being afraid of spoiling your friendship with men; confess Christ, and you will enjoy the friendship of the city of the angels, the city of the patriarchs, the city of the prophets, the city of the apostles, the city of all the martyrs, the city of all the good faithful. Christ himself established it forever” (Ps. 48:8).21

Augustine used the self-denial of the Christian martyr as a paradigm for the daily life of all Christians. Martyrdom is in the first instance not an event but a spiritual habitus. It is a stance toward the world as that which is temporary and secondary and toward God as He who is Lord and Savior. Within this habitus lies the confession: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” Indeed, this spiritual habitus is itself the instantiation of the confession: “God has made me.” To prepare our people for the coming strife, we must teach them to be Christians so that they may, with robust faith and in a living hope, confess and say, “Christianus sum.”

The Rev. Dr. William Weinrich is professor of Historical Theology and former academic dean at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Ind.

21 Augustine, Sermon 299D “On the Birthday of the Holy Scillitan Martyrs” (WSA III/8:256–262).


Greetingsto the Fifth International Lutheran Council Seminaries ConferenceAug. 8–11, 2013, Palanga, Lithuania by Hans-Jörg Voigt

We are saved from slavery to

the world by the outstretched

arms of Christ Jesus.

My dear brothers in Christ, it is a special

honor for me to greet you, the leaders of the

Confessional Lutheran Seminaries Con-

ference, on behalf of the International Lutheran Council

(ILC) and the ILC Executive Committee. I greet you with

Is. 26:1–2: “In that day this song will be sung in the land

of Judah: ‘We have a strong city; he sets up salvation as

walls and bulwarks. Open the gates, that the righteous na-

tion that keeps faith may enter in.’”

Last Sunday’s readings remind us of Jerusalem and

the people of God. Persecution and suffering are part of

the life of God’s people, and the Old

Testament perspective teaches that

very clearly. Therefore, God’s people

are seeking a strong city fortified with

walls and bulwarks. There is safety

only in the city of God.

Jesus teaches us: “I am the door. If

anyone enters by Me, he will be saved”

(John 10:9). In the Gothic Cathedral

of Naumburg, a small city south of

Leipzig, there is a marvelous choir

screen. It separates the nave from the choir. In the middle

of the choir screen, there is a small gate that is formed

by a sculptured crucifixion of Christ. As you enter the

choir toward the altar chancel, you must pass under the

outstretched arms of Christ the crucified.

That is, of course, the message of the Gospel: We are

saved from slavery to the world by the outstretched arms

of Christ Jesus, entering into the celestial Jerusalem by

Baptism. Thus, all our persecutions and sufferings are

merely preliminary; we’ve passed through!

I am personally interested in the subject and theme

of your conference. Growing up in

East Germany under the Communist

regime, I can well understand the

situation that prevailed in the Baltic

states, in Russia and Belorussia.

May God richly bless this Fifth

International Lutheran Council

Seminaries Conference in the

presence of Him who said, “I am the

gate,” and who has protected us by

His outstretched arms. Thank you.

The Rev. Hans-Jörg Voigt is bishop of Germany’s Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church (SELK) and the chairman of the International Lutheran Council.

Persecution and suffering are part of the life of God’s

people.


Sub Cruce Revelata: The Cross as a Mark of the Church — An Exegetical Perspective by Roberto E. Bustamante

How do the Scriptures

answer the tough questions

when it comes to the topic

of suffering?

IntroductionO LORD, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, “With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth?” (Ex. 32:11–12)

Alas, O Lord God, why have you brought this people over the Jordan at all, to give us into the hands of the Amorites, to destroy us? (Joshua 7:7)

Why did I not die at birth, come out from the womb and expire? Why did the knees receive me? Or why the breasts, that I should nurse? (Job 3:11–12)

O God, why do you cast us off forever? Why does your anger smoke against the sheep of your pasture? (Psalm 74:1)

Why do you make me see iniquity, and why do you idly look at wrong? (Hab.1:3)

Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? (Matt. 27:46)

Suffering always retains its scandalous side. It always demands an answer to its intrinsic “why?” Ancient polytheists solved the problem by dividing

their pantheon into good and evil gods. The problem of theodicy becomes a serious one, when Gottfried Leibniz’s four premises meet one another: where (1) there is just one God (2) who represents goodness and justice, and where (3) God’s power in this world and (4) suffering are taken to be real.1 The picture can get even worse: how to answer the theodician questions (i.e., Why? How is it possible?), when the ones who suffer are those who have already entered the eschatological sphere of salvation (i.e., the Church)?

The theme of our convention moves around what Martin Luther did with this problem in his 1539 writing Von den Consiliis und Kirchen (On the Councils and the Church[es].1 Luther not only accepts the Church’s suf-fering as a possibility or a fact, but he even lifts it up to the constitutive category of “mark of the Church” (nota ecclesiae), that is to say: suffering, persecution and mar-tyrdom, together with the other six previous marks, allow the “poor confused person”2 to know “what, who, and where the Church is.”3 Is that not too much?

Let’s examine the question of the suffering of the Church from a bib-lical perspective. Even though — as it will become evident in my treat-ment of the topic — I consider the Old Testament canon to be founda-tional in this regard, I will reduce my approach to the New Testament canon, and this, to be honest, is due to my scholarly limitations. Another narrowing down of my focus relates to the not-always-recognized differ-

ence between the apostles’ suffering (qua apostles) and the Church’s suffering. Though certainly related, these are different aspects of suffering not to be confused. The apostles stand in persona Christi vis-à-vis the Church, even with respect to their sufferings that, as with the Church, constitute their own distinctive marks. This will leave outside the scope of our work cherished texts such as 2 Cor. 1:3–7; 11:21–12:21; Phil. 3:10–11; or Col. 1:24–29; and other texts in which Paul deals with his apostolic

1 Martin Luther. “On the Councils and the Church(es)” in: Luther’s Works, Vol. 41: Church and Ministry, eds. Eric W. Gritsch and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia PA: Fortress Press, 1966), 9–178.2 Ibid, 41, 148.3 Ibid, 41, 143.

[The Scriptures] provide perspective on

our suffering within the context of our

participation in Christ’s own storied-with-

suffering body.


status and experience. After this Marcion-like mutilating use of the knife, I better begin to use my pen, lest I fall under Tertullian’s accusation.4

This commentary considers three narratives into which the New Testament authors frame their account of the Church’s suffering (sections 2–4). Far from exhaust-ing the topic, we open three of the several doors that give us an entrance into the multifaceted drama that frames our suffering within the context of salvation. This, I hope, will help us to have at least a provisional grasp of how Scriptures handle our hard theodician questions while providing perspective on Luther’s understanding of how the holy cross coheres with the New Testament account (section 5).

Suffering as Participation in Christ’s Own Story18 If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you (εἰ ὁ κόσμος ὑμᾶς μισεῖ, γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐμὲ πρῶτον ὑμῶν μεμίσηκεν). 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you: “A servant is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you (εἰ ἐμὲ ἐδίωξαν, καὶ ὑμᾶς διώξουσιν). If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. (John 15:18–21)

The final arrival of Jesus’ “hour” (John 13:1), long expected throughout the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, inaugurates a new focus of attention in Jesus’ discourse. Now, for the first time, it is the experience of the disciples during and after “the hour” that constitutes the content of Jesus’ extended speech, acts and prayer.5 In line with the wisdom tradition in which it is rooted, our farewell discourse anchors prophetic announcements and exhor-tations in connection with both mediate and immediate future experience upon the solid ground of a set of reaf-

4 Irenaeus of Lyons. “Against Heresies,” in: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, eds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885) 4:38, 1:521. Tertullian. “The Five Books Against Marcion,” in: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, eds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885) Bk. 4, Ch. 12, 3:363.5 Gail R. O’Day. “The Gospel of John” in: The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 9 (Nashville TN: Abingdon Press, 1994), 762.

firmations of Jesus’ identity and the disciples’ intimacy with him. Now, what Jesus announces here is not a mere possibility but a certain fact, for the simple reason the disciples’ experience of opposition is nothing else than their insertion into an already well-established cosmic confrontation between Jesus and the world on account of the world’s ignorance and rejection of the sending Father.6 This defines the Church’s suffering not only within a Christological matrix (διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου — v. 21), just as St. Augustine articulates it: “They will hate me in you, they will persecute me in you, and your word, just because it is mine,”7 , but also in the Trinitarian conflict with the world (ὅτι οὐκ οἴδασιν τὸν πέμψαντά με — v. 21), just as John Chrysostom puts it: “The Father also is insulted together with them.”8

Another paradigmatic text that locates the suffering of the Church within the narrative plot of Jesus’ own suffering is the Synoptic discourse on “the cost of the discipleship:”

34 And calling the crowd to him with his disci-ples, He said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me (εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἀκολουθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι). 35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it (ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ἀπολέσει τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου σώσει αὐτήν). 36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? 37 For what can a man give in return for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when He comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:34–38 )Here, the Church’s suffering as participation in

Christ’s story is set into the frame of this absolutely

6 Ramsey J. Michaels. “1 Peter” in: World Biblical Commentary, Vol. 49 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 2010), 821.7 Saint Augustine of Hippo. “Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John,” in: St. Augustine: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. John Gibb and James Innes (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), Tractate 88, Ch. 2, 7:356.8 Saint John Chrysostom. “Homilies on the Gospel of Saint John and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 14 (Peabody Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), 283.


radical and inescapable demand. Nobody is left aside (προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν ὄχλον σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ — v. 34; ὃς ἐὰν/ἂν — vv. 35, 38), and nothing is left aside, since one’s whole existence is at stake (τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἄνθρωπον κερδῆσαι τὸν κόσμον ὅλον καὶ ζημιωθῆναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; — v. 36). The cross that the multitude is summoned to take up (ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ — v. 34), far from being a mere metaphor for common dai-ly-life problems, has the concrete entailment of the actual wooden machine with which the Roman Empire publicly eliminated and warned against political and social prob-lems.9 That is to say, following Him (εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἀκολουθεῖν — v. 34) is of one piece with the con-crete and deadly consequences of bearing witness of Him and His words in the midst of this adulterous and sinful

world (ἀπολέσει τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου — v. 35).

Now, the fact that our text (Mark 8:34–38) is still part of the Christological confrontation between Jesus and Peter (Mark 8:31–33) — notice that it is Jesus who makes this unmediated shift from messiahship to discipleship — preventing us from reducing Mark’s account of the suffering of the Church to a mere moralistic trajectory, in line with Thomas à Kempis’ Imitatio Christi or Peter Abelard’s “subjective atonement.”10 The grave summons to suffer can only be uttered within the bigger picture of the gratuitous insertion of the disciples as the third link in a chain that does not and cannot belong to them by their own right, but that is given just by divine initiative. I’m referring to the pattern that moves the Markan narrative ahead by linking Jesus’ destiny to that of John the Bap-tist (the one who is sent πρὸ προσώπου σου — Mark 1:2), and the disciples’ destiny to that of Jesus, who not only

9 Eugene M. Boring. Mark: A Commentary (London: The New Testament Library, Westminster, John Knox Press, 2006), 244.10 Gustaf Aulén. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement (New York: Macmillan, 1951). David B. Capes. “Imitatio Christi and the Gospel Genre,” in: Bulletin for Biblical Research, 13/1:1–19, 2003. Jason B. Hood. “The Cross in the New Testament: Two Thesis in Conversation with Recent Literature” in: Westminster Theological Journal Vol. 71, 2009, 281–295.

Mk. 1:1–13 Mk 1:14–5:43 Mk 6–10 Mk 11–15 Mk 16John the Baptist Preaching Persecution

(arrest)Death

Jesus Preaching Persecution(arrest)

Death Resurrection

Disciples Preaching Persecution(announced)

Time to face death?

suffers and dies like John, but also inaugurates a further chapter of the story that goes even beyond death (μετὰ τὸ ἐγερθῆναί με προάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν — Mark 14:28; 16:7).

Our sharing in this story cannot take place through a mere obedient imitation,11 not even through the dynamic correlation between the penultimate gift of conformatio Christi and the still ultimate category of Imitatio Christi.12 Our sharing in this story can only come to us as a gift (als ehn gabe und geßchenck). Only then, “when you have Christ as the foundation and chief blessing of your sal-vation, then the other part follows: that you take him as your example, give yourself in service to your neighbor just as you see that Christ has given himself for you.”13

But, how is it that the Church has a share in some-one else’s historical events (i.e., Jesus’ suf-ferings)? The ghosts of a medieval Chri-stomysticism and a Romanticist/Idealist “empathy” with Christ lurk around for our

modern-shaped way of doing exegesis, in which the only possibilities remaining are the human factors either of the rebellious world’s obstinacy in mistreating us, just as they did Christ, or of the Church’s masochistic obsession with reproducing Christ’s stigmata. The New Testament has a different answer to that question. The Church par-ticipates in Christ’s storied-with-suffering body through sacramental mediation. For it is the water and blood that sprang out of the Crucified’s side (καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ — John 19:34) at the precise moment when the Church was being founded (John 19:26–27)14 with which we are baptized into His death and resurrection (εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν — Rom. 6:3–4), into that storied-with-suffering body (ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν — 1 Cor. 12:13) , as we are given a share in that one suffering and risen body, in spite of us being

11 Thomas à Kempis. The Imitation of Christ (Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1989). Michaels, 262.12 Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The Cost of Discipleship (New York: MacMillan, 1963), 44.13 Martin Luther. “A Brief Instruction On What To Look For And Expect In The Gospels” in: Luther’s Works, Vol. 35: Word and Sacrament, eds. E. Theodore Bachmann and Helmut T. Lehamnn (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), 120.14 R. Aland Culpepper. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 134.


many (κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ — 1 Cor. 10:16–17).

Suffering as παιδείας κυρίου 4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the dis-cipline of the Lord (παιδείας κυρίου), nor be weary when reproved by him (ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόμενος).6 For the Lord disciplines (παιδεύει) the one he loves, and chastises (μαστιγοῖ) every son whom he receives.” 7 It is for discipline that you have to endure (εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε). God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline (παιδεύει)? 8 If you are left without discipline (παιδείας), in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined (παιδευτὰς) us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be sub-ject to the Father of spirits and live (καὶ ζήσομεν)? 10 For they disciplined (ἐπαίδευον) us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness (εἰς τὸ μεταλαβεῖν τῆς ἁγιότητος αὐτοῦ). 11 For the moment all discipline (παιδεία) seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peace-ful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it (καρπὸν εἰρηνικὸν τοῖς δι᾽ αὐτῆς γεγυμνασμένοις ἀποδίδωσιν δικαιοσύνης) (Heb. 12:4–11).There is a second type of narrative that we want to

consider here, with which the New Testament frames the suffering of the Church, and that moves along the lines of Jewish wisdom tradition. Wisdom tradition, already highly-developed during the time of the Old Testament, became a critical element during the exile in redefining Israel’s religion, now without its temple and its rituals.15 A particular characteristic of wisdom tradition is its down-to-earth understanding of reality, especially in terms of its epistemology and its moral pragmatism.16 Though the pious or righteous life is undoubtedly understood as

15 R.E. Clements. “Wisdom and Old Testament Theology” in: Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 273–281.16 Gerhard Von Rad. Wisdom in Israel (London/Valley Forge: SCM Press Ltd/Trinity Press International, 1972), 69–79.

coram deo, the main quest is how to live out this life in the world.17 In spite of the current revision of the traditional compartmentalization of categories,18 this makes an important distinction between the sage and the apocalyp-tic prophet, when dealing with the problem of suffering. To use James Voelz’ models, the sage will tend to approach the topic from a Newtonian perspective (coherent with everyday life), while the apocalypticist will do this from an Einsteinian perspective (beyond phenomenological perception).19

Elaborating on the Greek text of Prov. 3:11–12, our text (Heb. 12:3–11) rehearses the suffering story of the readers precisely in these sapiential terms. Our suffering is not a sign of dishonor20 nor of having been abandoned by our God.21 The opposite is precisely the truth: God is acting with us as a loving father who disciplines his sons out of sheer love (ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κύριος παιδεύει — v. 6), to train us in our proper relation with him as a father (εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε, ὡς υἱοῖς ὑμῖν προσφέρεται ὁ θεός — v. 7), and to shape us so we can live out the heavenly inheritance that was already won by our High Priest, Jesus Christ (εἰς τὸ μεταλαβεῖν τῆς ἁγιότητος αὐτοῦ — v. 10; καρπὸν εἰρηνικὸν τοῖς δι᾽ αὐτῆς γεγυμνασμένοις ἀποδίδωσιν δικαιοσύνης — v. 11).

Particularly since the groundbreaking work of Charles Talbert and N. Clayton Croy,22 there is a strong schol-arly consensus regarding the non-punitive character our text ascribes to the suffering of the readers. Rather than being a correcting or chastising “law” (notice that the punitive verbs in Proverbs, ἐλέγχω and μαστιγόω, are left untouched)23, the readers are to “read” their suffer-ings as the evangelical “indicative” with which their father

17 James L. Crenshaw. Education In Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence (New York: Doubleday, 1998), p. 52. Craig G. Bartholomew and Ryan P. O’Dowd. Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction (Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Nottingham: Apollos, 2011), 24–28.18 Benjamin G. Wright III and Lawrence M. Wills. Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism, SBL Symposium Series (Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005).19 James Voelz. “Reading Scripture as Lutherans in the Post-Modern Era,” in: Lutheran Quarterly Vol. 14, 2000, 309–326.20 David A. DeSilva. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 447–450.21 Chrysostom, 499–500.22 Charles Talbert (1991) and N. Clayton Croy (1998). Learning Through Suffering: The Educational Value of Suffering on the New Testament and in Its Milieu (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998).23 Gareth L. Cockerill. The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmands, 2012), 617.


affirms and establishes them as his sons.24 This, how-ever, is not always the case. Notice, for instance, 1 Cor. 11:27–31 (κρινόμενοι δὲ ὑπὸ [τοῦ] κυρίου παιδευόμεθα, ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν — v. 32) and Rev. 3:19 (ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω· ζήλευε οὖν καὶ μετανόησον) use the same kind of wisdom approach to the Church’s suffering precisely due to the necessity of repentance of sin.

Suffering as Messianic WoesJewish apocalypticists came to learn from the prophets and their own experience that this present eon is not all there is. Another era will be opened when Yahweh will finally manifest His justice, vindicating His “suffering righteous” (the people of Israel), and condemning “the sinners” (the wicked nations and those in Israel that did not remain pure.25 One particular feature of this apoca-lyptic understanding of reality is the so-called “Messianic Woes” (חישמ לש ולבח).26 The story under this motif goes like this: In the very last days, there will be a great trib-ulation upon the earth: “sickness, and downfall ... and fever, and chills, and stupor, and famine, and death, and sword, and captivity, and all plagues, and suffering” (Jubi-lees 23:13). For some apocalypticists, only the pagans will suffer; for others, both the nations (as the beginning of their final suffering) and Israel will (as a way to purge and test her.27 In this last case, however, Yahweh provides some kind of special protection for His people.28 In any case, the main function of the woes will be to mark and anticipate the imminent appearance of the Messiah, thus the labels “Messianic woes” or “birth pangs of the Messiah.”29

This is the milieu in which Christianity was born.30 Together with several other features, Jesus and the apos-

24 Ibid, 623.25 David E. Aune. “Revelation 6–16” in Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 52b (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), pp. 227–231. Charles K. Barrett. The New Testament Background: Writings from Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire That Illuminate Christian Origins (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1989), 317–344.26 Mark Dubis. “Messianic Woes in First Peter: Suffering and Eschatology in 1 Peter 4:12–19,” in Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 33 (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), 6–13.27 Dale C. Allison, Dale C. The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia PA: Fortress Press, 1985), 19–22.28 Dubis, 170–71.29 Géza Vermès. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Allen Lane/The Penguin Press, 1997), 259.30 Frederick J. Murphy. Apocalypticism in the Bible and Its World: A Comprehensive Introduction (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 227.

tles reshaped the apocalyptic motif of the Messianic Woes to fit into their account of the eschatological sufferings of the Church. A major shift in the Christian version of the Messianic Woes, as immediately will be seen, is that it is Jesus, the very Messiah, who inaugurates and becomes the primordial object of the eschatological sufferings. The Church will certainly suffer together with the sinful world, but her end-time experience will be patterned after the paradigmatic suffering of Golgotha. This, I think, makes our third narrative a particular (apocalyptic) form of the first narrative, i.e. “suffering as participation in Christ’s own story.”

Let us consider three New Testament accounts of the suffering of the Church shaped as Messianic Woes.

4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?” 5 And Jesus began to say to them, “See that no one leads you astray (βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ). 6 Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. 7 And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet (οὔπω τὸ τέλος). 8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains (ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων ταῦτα).9 But be on your guard (Βλέπετε δὲ ὑμεῖς ἑαυτούς). For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before gover-nors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them. 10 And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations. 11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. 12 And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. 13 And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake (καὶ ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ὑπὸ πάντων διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου). But the one who endures to the end will be saved (ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος οὗτος σωθήσεται).18 Pray that it may not happen in winter. 19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning (θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν τοιαύτη ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς) of the creation that God cre-ated until now, and never will be. 20 And if the Lord


had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days (διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς οὓς ἐξελέξατο ἐκολόβωσεν τὰς ἡμέρας).24 But in those days, after that tribulation (μετὰ τὴν θλῖψιν ἐκείνην), the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heav-ens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming (καὶ τότε ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον) in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect (καὶ ἐπισυνάξει τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς [αὐτοῦ]) from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. (Mark 13:4–13, 19–20, 24–27)The Synoptic Jesus pronounces

this eschatological discourse as a response to his disciples’ questions (πότε and τί τὸ σημεῖον — v. 4). But more than that, this discourse works as a strong warning (βλέπετε — vv. 5, 9, 23, 33; ἀγρυπνεῖτε — v. 33; γρηγορεῖτε — vv. 35, 36) and prom-ise to them (μὴ θροεῖσθε — v. 7; μὴ προμεριμνᾶτε — v. 11; διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς ἐκολόβωσεν τὰς ἡμέρας — v. 20; ἐπισυνάξει τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ — v. 27).

A striking feature in the text is its Christological matrix. In line with any apocalyptic discourse, Jesus does articulate a timetable in response the πότε-ques-tion (v. 4), though not to nurture their speculation, but rather to excise it (οὐκ οἴδατε πότε — vv. 33, 35), so that they may do what they must — watch! (ἀγρυπνεῖτε — v. 33; γρηγορεῖτε — vv. 35, 36). Eugene Boring points out that the same four Roman watches of the night (ἢ ὀψὲ ἢ μεσονύκτιον ἢ ἀλεκτοροφωνίας ἢ πρωΐ — v. 35) that structure Jesus’ apocalyptic understanding of history are the time-markers of the passion narrative in Mark.31 This is not — it is clear — a mere coincidence, but it bespeaks that the remaining history of the world will be a deploy-ment of the Paschal event. Now, what is more significant for our purpose here, is that not only the structure of world’s history will have this Christological pattern, but

31 Boring, 377.

notably the Church’s suffering will:32 as anointed with the same Baptism, they also will have to bear witness in the power of the Spirit and will be rejected, betrayed, handed over by friends and family, and hated to the point of death (vv. 9–13). What this deployment (exitus) of the Gospel narrative in the Church’s experience of suffering will yearn for is the final “Eucharistic” recollection (reditus) of the elects into the coming Messiah (καὶ τότε ἐπισυνάξει τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου γῆς ἕως ἄκρου οὐρανοῦ v. 27).

Our second text is 1 Peter 4:12–19:12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial (τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει) when it comes upon you to test you (πρὸς πειρασμὸν ὑμῖν), as though some-

thing strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings (ἀλλὰ καθὸ κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασιν χαίρετε), that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed (ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ χαρῆτε ἀγαλλιώμενοι). 14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed (μακάριοι), because the Spirit of glory and of

God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin at the house-hold of God (ὅτι [ὁ] καιρὸς τοῦ ἄρξασθαι τὸ κρίμα ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ θεοῦ); and if it begins with us (εἰ δὲ πρῶτον ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν), what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? (τί τὸ τέλος τῶν ἀπειθούντων τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίῳ;) 18 And “If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?” 19 There-fore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good. (1 Peter 4:12–19)

32 C. Clifton Black. Mark (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2011), p. 274. Boring, 365.

The Church will certainly suffer together with the sinful world,

but her end-time experience will be patterned after the

paradigmatic suffering of Golgotha.


Rather recently, Abson P. Joseph33 rejected Mark Dubis’ understanding34 of our particular text, under the motif of the Messianic Woes, as an “overstatement.” Joseph proposes, instead, to read it simply as an apostolic exhortation to imitate Christ. I think that Dubis’ approach makes better sense not only of the Church’s participa-tion in Christ’s sufferings (κοινωνεῖν τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασιν — v. 13), but notably of the fact that the read-ers are supposed to expect these sufferings to come, and finally of the particular dynamic with which Peter chains the Church’s suffering with the final judgment that will fall upon those who do not obey the Gospel (vv. 17–18).35

The Church’s suffering under this apocalyptic per-spective is not only a “must,” but is also the evangelical way our definite and end-time relation to each of the Trinitarian person is forged in anticipation, and this in terms of refinement (πυρώσει πρὸς πειρασμὸν — v. 12); joyful participation in his glory (χαίρετε, ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ χαρῆτε ἀγαλλιώμενοι — v. 13); empowerment with the Spirit of the Messiah; proper worship to our God (δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν — v. 16); and trust in the Creator’s power and faithfulness (κτίστῃ παρατιθέσθωσαν τὰς ψυχὰς — v. 19).

The last text to consider is the combat drama of Reve-lation 12.36 Again, we will reproduce just part of the text, following David Aune’s narrative structure:37

INTRODUCTION OF THE DRAMATIS PERSONAE: THE WOMAN AND THE DRAGON

1And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth (καὶ κράζει ὠδίνουσα καὶ βασανιζομένη τεκεῖν). 3And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems.

FIRST STAGE CONFLICT: BIRTH AND ESCAPE4bAnd the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it (ἵνα ὅταν τέκῃ τὸ τέκνον

33 Abson P. Joseph. A Narratological Reading of 1 Peter (Library of New Testament Studies, London: T & T Clark International, 2012), 115–117.34 Dubis.35 Ibid., 142–162.36 Adela Yarbro Collins. The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976).37 Aune, 657–661.

αὐτῆς καταφάγῃ). 5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up (ἡρπάσθη) to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilder-ness (ἔφυγεν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον), where she has a place prepared by God (ἡτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ), in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.

SECOND STAGE CONFLICT: DEFEAT AND EXPULSION7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8 but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down … to the earth (ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν), and his angels were thrown down with him.

INTERPRETATIVE HYMN: REJOICE AND WOE!10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God … 12 Therefore, rejoice (εὐφραίνεσθε), O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you (οὐαὶ), O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short (κατέβη ὁ διάβολος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔχων θυμὸν μέγαν, εἰδὼς ὅτι ὀλίγον καιρὸν ἔχει)!”

THIRD STAGE CONFLICT: FINAL ATTACK13And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth (ὅτε εἶδεν ὁ δράκων ὅτι ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν), he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child (ἐδίωξεν τὴν γυναῖκα ἥτις ἔτεκεν τὸν ἄρσενα). 14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilder-ness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. 15 The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with a flood. 16 But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river that the dragon had poured from his mouth. 17 Then the dragon became furious with the woman (καὶ ὠργίσθη ὁ δράκων ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικὶ) and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring (καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς), on those who keep the commandments of


God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.The identity of the woman has been a subject of con-

tention throughout the centuries: Is she Eve, Mary, the true Israel, or the Church? That she is the one who begets the Messiah (v. 5) and that she condenses clear elements of the primordial stories of Paradise (vv. 1–2, 14–15, 17) and Exodus (vv. 6, 14–16) are uncontestable facts. Now, though the continuity among these figures should not be broken, there is a common consensus that, at least after the Messiah’s birth and “rapture” (v. 5), the woman who suffers the Dragon’s attack is the Church.38

Adela Yarbro Collins rightly points out that John combines here two combat dramas: the heavenly one, between Michael and the Dragon (vv. 7–9), and the earthly one, between the Dragon and the woman, as pre-sented in stages 1 (vv. 4b–6) and 3 (vv. 13–17).39 Yarbro Collins, however, misses the point regarding the dramatic effect the insertion of the heavenly combat has on the whole narrative.40 The Dragon’s renewed attack on the woman (stage 3) is not a mere literary device to introduce Chapter 13. In the third stage conflict, the seer precisely interprets the readers’ present sufferings in terms of the eschatological attack of the Dragon upon the Church. Of special interest is how the narrative elaborates on the reasons for this attack. Three reasons are mentioned: (1) the Dragon’s awareness of his recent and crucial defeat (ὅτε εἶδεν ὁ δράκων ὅτι ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν — v. 13); (2) the Dragon’s awareness of his impending final and defin-itive defeat (εἰδὼς ὅτι ὀλίγον καιρὸν ἔχει — v. 13); and (3) the Dragon’s wrath for his continual failures (κατέβη ὁ διάβολος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔχων θυμὸν μέγαν — v. 12; καὶ ὠργίσθη ὁ δράκων ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικὶ — v. 17). Therefore, the intensity of the eschatological sufferings of the Church signals the shortage of the devil’s time (ὀλίγον καιρὸν ἔχει — v. 12) and, it is clear, the imminence of God’s final vindication of his people. The Church is to be aware of the coming hardship (οὐαὶ — v. 12b), while also facing her suffering in joyful celebration for the victory that the Lamb already obtained over our accuser (ἄρτι ἐγένετο ἡ σωτηρία — v. 10; διὰ τοῦτο εὐφραίνεσθε — v. 12a), in expectancy for the impending end (ὀλίγον καιρὸν — v. 12b), in confidence in God’s miraculous protection (τόπον ἡτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ — v. 6; ἐδόθησαν τῇ

38 Aune, p. 707. Louis A. Brighton. Revelation (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), p. 327. Robert H. Mounce. The Book of Revelation. (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmands, 1997), 24.39 Yarbro Collins, 101–155.40 Ibid, 143–144.

γυναικὶ αἱ δύο πτέρυγες τοῦ ἀετοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου — v. 14; ἐβοήθησεν ἡ γῆ τῇ γυναικὶ — v. 16), and in courageous holding to the testimony of Jesus (τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἔχειν τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ — v. 17).

ConclusionsWe have considered three narratives the New Testament uses to tell the story of the Church’s suffering. They pro-vide perspective on our suffering within the context of our participation in Christ’s own storied-with-suffering body, the Father’s assuming us as His children in the act of dis-ciplining us, and the Church’s expectant Messianic Woes.

What do these narratives stand for? What is their intended pragmatic effect upon the Church in the midst of her stories of sorrow and fragility? John Searle’s taxon-omy of illocutionary acts will help us to understand this in terms of speech-act theory.41

(1) Inasmuch as assertive acts, the suffering narratives shape/inform the Church’s understanding of reality. In tell-ing the stories, the divine storytellers illuminate the faith’s view of the suffering Church that now can realize all that is in, with, and under her shameful weakness, her painful absences, her deathful aporias. Though here we attend to God’s silencing our reason, we do have God uttering his reasons, calling “good” what in fact is “good.”42 And this makes our narratives inasmuch assertive acts theodic-ies. What kind of theodicies are these? Using Antti Laato and Johannes Moor’s typology of theodicy, even though all the New Testament narratives we have considered fall under the category of deferred theodicy (“the human mind is unable to fathom the mysterious working of the divine mind”), I consider they roughly correspond to the three following categories respectively: communion theodicy (“suffering can bring human beings closer to God”), edu-cative theodicy (“the sufferer gains a better understanding of his life through his personal suffering”), and escha-togical theodicy (“later developments would prove that human suffering had not been in vain”).43

(2) Inasmuch as directive acts, the suffering narratives

41 John R. Searle. “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts,” in: Language, Mind and Knowledge: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Keith Gunderson (Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1975), 12–20.42 Martin Luther. “Heidelberg Disputation” in: Luther’s Works, Vol. 31: Career of the Reformer, eds. Harold J. Grimm and Helmut T. Lehamnn (Philadelphia PA: Fortress Press, 1957), 53.43 Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor. “Introduction,” in: Theodicy in the World of the Bible, (Leiden/Boston Mass: Brill, 2003) vii–liv.


shape/direct the Church’s performance within reality. In telling the stories, the divine storytellers instruct the suf-fering Church how to react, behave, and position herself toward the painful facts and the Triune persons that stand behind those facts. That is to say, the narratives guide the Church to relate to her reality and her God in terms of — to mention just some features — humility, repentance, trust, hope, joy, obedience, endurance, and witness.

(3) Inasmuch as declarative acts, the suffering narra-tives shape/direct the Church’s very reality. In telling the stories, the Divine Storyteller creates what He says. Since God Himself is the one who tells the story, the very utter-ance of these narratives incorporates us in each plot as participants in Christ’s destiny, as adopted children of our loving Father who shapes us as His heirs, as the escha-tological people of God who experience in their own bodies the imminence of the final deliverance. The Jesuit John O’Donnell proposes that the merit of Hans Urs von Balthasar’s trinitarian theology is that he roots every nar-rative of suffering in “the eternal dramatic action within God himself.”44 If this is so, and I believe it is, all three narratives find their ultimate ground in that eternal “meta-narrative” in which the Father gives himself to the Son and the Son back to the Father in the eternal bond of love of the Spirit. It is this unsurpassable reality that opens itself to us in our daily experience of pain and sorrow.

Finally, how does all this cohere with Luther’s under-standing of the cross as one of the marks of the Church? Even a cursory comparison of our conclusions with Luther’s account of the seven marks of the Church will expose a clear consistency.45 Framing his understanding of the holy cross within the Third Article of the “Chil-dren’s Creed,” Luther holds to the same three pragmatic forces that we have just articulated. The Third Article story transforms the ineffable scandal of the cross into the evangelical indicative that exposes who these poor wretched people are: the una et sancta et catholica ecclesia (assertive act). Through the cross, the Holy Spirit “mor-tifies the old Adam and teaches him patience, humility, gentleness, praise and thanks, and good cheer in suf-fering,” training him in the tres virtutes theologicas that correspond to our new life in Christ: “to believe in God (and) trust him, to love him, and to place our hope in

44 John J. O’Donnell. The Mystery of the Triune God (New York: Paulist Press, 1989).45 Luther, 41, 143–166.

him.”46 Finally, and more fundamentally, the cross is a constitutive part of that activity with which the Holy Trin-ity not only creates the eschatological reality of the Church per redemptionem et vivificationem et santificationem,47 but also “God has revealed Himself and opened the deep-est abyss of His fatherly heart and His pure, inexpressible love … In addition to giving and imparting to us every-thing in heaven and upon earth, He has even given to us His Son and his Holy Spirit, who brings us to Himself.”48

This is the Church we believe to be a great reality in the world, although our eyes cannot see it. For as the body of Christ in the sacrament is hidden to our eyes, so the mystical body is hidden to any earthly eye: “Abscondita est ecclesia, latent sancti,” as Luther puts it. And yet in either case what is hidden to our perception is a great reality: This is my body.49

The Rev. Roberto E. Bustamante is a pastor in the Argentina Evangelical Lutheran Church and professor at Seminario Concordia in Buenos Aires.

46 Ibid, 165.47 Ibid, 144.48 The Large Catechism (1529), in: The Lutheran Confessions: A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord, eds. Paul T. McCain, Robert C. Baker, Gene E. Veith and Edward A. Engelbrecht (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 432.49 Hermann Sasse. This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 392.


Suffering, Persecution and Martyrdom as a Mark of the Church: How Has This Affected Theological Education? A Practical Perspective from Africa by Joseph Omolo

Bishop Omolo explains

the relationship between

suffering, persecution and

martyrdom and Lutheran

theology and its impact on

international theological

education.

Introduction

In this writing, I wish to emphasize that I am not going to just repeat the biblical witness on suffering and martyrdom, nor am I going to just spit out the

Lutheran Confessional understanding of Luther’s “Seven Marks of the Church.” Rather, I hope to reveal that the witness born in the Holy Scriptures and in the Luther-an Confessions — especially in the seventh mark of the Church as pointed out by Dr. Martin Luther — were pres-ent in his day, and such signs remain present today, helping us to under-stand how such marks shape the life of the Church, not only in Africa, but also in other parts of the world.

Although no one willingly wel-comes suffering and persecution, it is necessary to note here that suffering is part of the life of the Church of Christ and that Christians should see this as both a challenge and encouragement.

Biblical Witness on Suffering and MartyrdomWhen our Lord Jesus Christ came upon the city of Jerusalem late in His earthly ministry, He spoke of her in less than glowing terms, saying: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing” (Matt. 23:37).

Isaiah, Jeremiah and Elijah are but three of the Old Testament prophets who supply evidence in support of the spoken Word of the incarnate God noted above. These prophets were persecuted for their faithfulness to God and His Word. Rather than being honored and revered

for faithful proclamation, they were instead ridiculed and, in Elijah’s case, hunted down like a criminal to be killed.

The persecution of the voice of the living God finds its climax, when the Son of God is despised and rejected, just as Isaiah prophesied (Isaiah 53). After the resurrection and the ascension of the Lord Himself, the Early Church experienced severe persecution at the hands of both the Jews and the Roman government. The arrest of the apos-

tles (Peter and John in Acts 3) is the very first example to be mentioned in the Early Church. As opposition and persecution intensified, the apos-tles/disciples fled out of Jerusalem, and wherever they went, they car-ried with them the message of the Gospel. The open stoning of Steven in Acts 7 evidenced the greatest persecution. Worse still, the apostle Paul gives a complete listing of his own persecution when he records, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the following: “Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty

lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:24–28).

In the light of the marks of the church presented by Luther, and grounded in the teaching and life of Jesus, it is evident

that the true church will always experience suffering in different

ways.


Such biblically-attested marks of persecution and martyrdom are not the only ones that could be named. The history of the Church Fathers also attest to this; some were burned alive, others skinned alive and still others given to lions to be torn into pieces, as they bore witness by their blood (martyria). As all these were happening, the Church continued to be strong in faith.

Now, you need not wonder what happens to faithful pastoral servants of Christ when the world ridicules and persecutes them. All those who witnessed by their blood generally received the treatment that was imposed upon them just as the crucified Lord God Himself and His apostles, prophets and evangelists did. In the baptismal call, the child of God is to deny oneself; take up the cross, which is the denial of self; and follow Jesus. But to follow Jesus often leads to one’s personal cross of suffering, per-secution and perhaps even martyrdom.

Lutheran Confessions on Suffering and MartyrdomTo speak of suffering and persecution as a mark of the Church needs some clarification. First, it is necessary to briefly explain what the word “church” means in the Lutheran definition.

The Lutheran Confessions speak of the Church and her marks in this manner: “Our churches teach that one holy Church is to remain forever.” What is the Church? The word “church” (Greek ekklesia) means “to call out.” This term was used by the Jews for a “remnant com-munity,” such as the Qumran community who created the Dead Sea Scrolls and who founded this term, rather than the name for a synagogue or gathering (Matt. 18:17) used by the Jews. The Greeks used this term to refer to people assembling in the cities for clubs or organizations. Later in the New Testament, this term jumps to its full meaning as “ones who are called out” (Acts 7:38). In its context, Jesus is using this term to expand His claim of Messiahship (Matt. 16:21–23; 26:28). The Church is the body of Christ. It is the place where two or more gather in the name of Christ. Our confessions further describe the Church as the “Communion of Saints among whom the Gospel is purely preached and the Sacraments rightly administered” (Augsburg Confession VII). For Luther, the Church is a group of holy saints and the sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd” (Smalcald Articles XII 2). This is where the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given: the “Keys of Heaven” that only Jesus holds (Rev. 1:18).

How do the confessions speak of the Church and her marks? Our churches teach that one holy Church is to

remain forever. The Church is the congregation of saints (Ps. 149:1) in which the Gospel is purely taught and the Sacraments are correctly administered. For the true unity of the Church, it is enough to agree about the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. It is not necessary that human traditions — that is, rites or ceremonies instituted by men — should be the same everywhere. As Paul says, “One Lord, one faith, one Bap-tism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:5–6).1 In the Apology, this concept is further developed and clari-fied when the confessors say: He (Jesus) teaches that the Church has been covered by a lot of evils, so that this stumbling block may not offend the pious, and so that we may know that the Word and Sacraments are powerful even when administered by the wicked.

Then, the Apology adds how the Church may be rec-ognized in such a situation. Lutherans have come to call these signs of recognition of the Church the “Marks of the Church.” The Apology states: “We add the marks: the pure teaching of the Gospel and the Sacraments. This Church is properly the pillar of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). For it keeps the pure Gospel as Paul says in 1 Cor. 3:11. The ‘foundation’ is the true knowledge of Christ and faith.”2

Earlier, the Apology clarified that the Church is not merely an outward association, but that it is primar-ily one of faith and confession. Here I quote again: “But the Church is not only the fellowship of outward objects and rites, as other governments, but at its core, it is a fel-lowship of faith and of the Holy Spirit in hearts. Yet this fellowship has outward marks so that it can be recognized. These marks are the pure doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments in accordance with the Gospel of Christ. This Church alone is called Christ’s body, which Christ renews, sanctifies and governs, by His Spirit. Paul testifies about this when he says, “And gave Him as head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all’” (Eph. 1:22–23). He adds the outward marks, the Word and Sacraments. Paul continues to speak: “Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word, so that He might present the Church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25–27)

1 Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions. P. T. McCain, ed. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 34.2 Ibid, 146.


In the Confession, we have presented this sentence almost word for word. The Church is defined by the Third Article of the Creed, which teaches us to believe that there is a holy catholic Church. The wicked indeed are not a holy church. The words that follow, namely, “the commu-nion of saints,” seem to be added in order to explain what the Church signifies: “the congregation of saints, who have with each other the fellowship of the same Gospel or doctrine and the same Holy Spirit.”3

Luther in Context: The Marks of the ChurchIn his writing, On the Councils and the Church(es), Dr. Martin Luther lists seven marks of identifying the Church. First, the holy Christian people are recognized by their possession of the holy Word of God. To be sure, not all have it in equal measure, as St. Paul says (I Cor. 3:12–14). Some possess the Word in its complete purity; others do not.4 Second, God’s people are recognized by the holy Sacrament of Baptism wherever it is taught, believed and administered correctly according to Christ’s ordinance. That, too, is a public sign.5

Third, God’s people are rec-ognized by the holy sacrament of the altar, wherever it is rightly administered, believed and received, according to Christ’s institution. This, too, is a public sign.6

Fourth, God’s people are recognized by the Office of the Keys exercised publicly.7

Fifth, the Church is recognized externally by the fact that it consecrates or calls ministers or has offices that it is to administer. There must be bishops, pastors or preach-ers, who publicly and privately give, administer and use the aforementioned four things or holy possessions on behalf of and in the name of the Church.8

3 Ibid, 144.4 Martin Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 41: Luther’s works, Vol. 41: Church and Ministry III, J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, eds. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 148.5 Ibid, 151.6 Ibid, 152.7 Ibid, 153.8 Ibid, 154.

Sixth, the holy Christian people are externally recog-nized by prayer, public praise and thanksgiving to God. Where you see and hear the Lord’s Prayer prayed and taught, Psalms or other spiritual songs sung in accor-dance with the Word of God and the true faith, as well as the use of the creeds, the Ten Commandments and the catechism in public, you may rest assured that a holy Christian people of God are present.9

Seventh, the holy Christian people are externally rec-ognized by the holy possession of the sacred cross. They must endure every misfortune and persecution, all kinds of trials and evil from the devil, the world and the flesh (as the Lord’s Prayer indicates) by inward sadness, timidity, fear, outward poverty, contempt, illness and weakness, in

order to become like their head, who is Christ. And the only reason they must suffer is that they steadfastly adhere to Christ and God’s Word, enduring this for the sake of Christ: “Blessed are you when men persecute you on My account” (Matt. 5:11). They must be pious, quiet, obe-dient, and prepared to serve the government and everybody with life and goods, doing no one any harm.10

It is relatively easy to see how and what Luther was getting at when he called these the seven marks of the Church. They are

for strengthening the faith of those called by the Gospel.11

If one reads the entire document, one may note that all of these signs are under attack by the devil, the world and even one’s own flesh. This is so because, properly understood, they support or proclaim the Gospel itself. All these marks are centered in and on Christ, who is the head of His Church.

Such signs as Luther proclaimed in the seventh mark are present not merely in the African context, but virtu-ally wherever the Gospel is proclaimed in its truth and purity and the Sacraments administered rightly as the Lord bids His Church. And they have been so in every time and in various places from time immemorial and

9 Ibid, 164.10 Ibid, 164–165.11 Luther, 164–165.

It is imperative that a true genuine theology starts,

reflects and is completed at the foot of Christ’s cross.

With proper Lutheran Hermeneutical Principles of

interpretation, proper teaching of the Theology of the Cross is the Key to understanding,

doing and living true Christian life.


will continue to be until the Lord comes back to take His bride, the Church.

Contextual Analysis of Suffering, Persecution and Martyrdom as a Mark of the Church

Bearing the Cross Contextually: The Seventh Sign in the African Context

Luther says that Christian people are externally recog-nized by the holy possession of the sacred cross. How can this affect the life of a pastor in his pastoral work? This concept must be somewhat clarified. I want to men-tion two types of suffering that a Christian may endure, namely, suffering on an individual or at a corporate level.

On the one hand, sometimes a pastor may find him-self in difficulties with a congregation or a parish due to his own sinful/selfish behaviors. In such a situation, rather than seeing God calling him to repentance, he may adopt a suffering complex which in reality is merely the baggage of a misguided or misinterpreted “theology of Glory” or selfish theology — or of greed and selfishness. A pastor may be rejected not for faithfulness to Christ and His gospel, but because he has acted unilaterally, as God Himself, not merely His servant. If “the mark of the Sacred Cross” is present in this instance, it is upon the congregation and not a pastor.

On the corporate level, some congregations and par-ishes may refuse to support or put up with their pastors’ physical needs because the congregation has an under-developed sense of stewardship. Or the pastor may deny following misinformed teachings, rejecting wrong doc-trines or improper ethics the congregation may want to adopt. The congregation may impose such frustrations to force the pastor to adhere to their needs. In such a circumstance, I believe, bearing the cross falls in the cat-egory of “the mark of the Sacred Cross,” on the part of the pastor — and most times upon his family as well. A very clear example is now prevalent in connection with congregations (church bodies — the Swedish Lutheran Church, etc.) which want to adopt and enforce the ordina-tion of women in the name of human rights; or a situation whereby a parish denies a pastor on nepotism ground (we want a pastor or a church leader from our clan, tribe and the like). In such a situation, the persecution (bearing of the Holy Cross, in Luther’s language) is imposed on the innocent pastor.

There also may be another form of persecution we may call corporate persecution. Let me give an exam-

ple. A young and developing church like The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Kenya may have some wealthy but corrupt donors who may attempt to influence or enforce some kind of ill policies to the leadership of the church. Such donors may work to influence or give support only under certain conditions. Unless the receiving institution abides by their conditions, business will not be as usual. Such donors may even work to build their separate “king-doms” alongside the normal duly-elected leadership of the young church to create more problems and cause perse-cutions to such a young church. Knowing very well the financial ability of such young institution/church, such corrupt donor(s) may work to create and finance a parallel team whose duties will be influenced to cause problems, even to falsely accuse the leadership of the church, even in a court of law, with the view to frustrate and even shame the church leadership of the young church. If such things happen, it is the cross of Christ being imposed to those who carry it.

Luther continues to clarify such signs of the Chris-tians’ sufferings, encouraging that such are marks of the true church. In Luther’s time, persecution came to him and sometimes to his followers in different ways. As the devil continuously attacked Luther from different corners, he became strengthened and more sharpened in his theol-ogy of the cross.12 Again, Luther continued to emphasize that, “They (Christians) must endure every misfortune and persecution, all kinds of trials and evil from the devil, the world and the flesh (as the Lord’s Prayer indicates) by

12 Among Luther’s most faithful followers were members of his own order. As early as 1519, Jakob Spreng, the prior of the Augustinian monastery in Antwerp, defended Luther’s teachings. In 1521, the Diet of Worms put Luther under the ban, called him a devil in human form, and branded his teaching heretical. In the parts of Germany where Lutheranism was strongest, the terms of this edict were never carried out. Luther’s own prince, Frederick the Wise, refused to set his name to it, and, instead of prosecuting Luther, he had him taken into protective custody.In the Netherlands, however, political conditions were different. These lands were directly under the emperor. Here the Edict of Worms was carried out to the letter. In Antwerp, Jakob Spreng and his successor Henry von Zütphen were arrested and threatened with execution. The remaining Augustinians were undeterred and continued to preach with great success, and so the whole monastery was laid to the ground and all the monks imprisoned. When the scholastics of the famous University of Louvain made it known that the friars would either have to recant or be burned at the stake, all but three renounced Lutheran teaching. The three confessors were convicted of heresy and condemned to death at the stake. The fate of one of them, Lambert Thorn, is not quite clear. He remained in prison and was not executed until 1528. Luther sent him a letter of comfort in 1524. But the other two, Heinrich Voes and Johann Esch, died martyrs’ deaths at the market place in Brussels, July 1, 1523 — the first blood witnesses of the Reformation.


inward sadness, timidity, fear, outward poverty, contempt, illness and weakness, in order to become like their head, Christ. And the only reason they must suffer is that they steadfastly adhere to Christ and God’s Word, enduring this for the sake of Christ, Matthew (5:11).13

Suffering, Persecution and Martyrdom: Some Practical Aspects from Africa: Ugandan Case

Needless to say, Christians suffer not for them to gain any glory, rather it is a normal and ordi-nary life they as witnesses to Christ — their Lord. Sometimes such per-secutions may come from the hands of the worldly kings working to sup-press Christian religion, as in the case of Uganda martyrs. The Uganda Martyrs were Christian converts who were murdered for their faith in the historical kingdom of Buganda, now part of Uganda. The reasons for their murder are explained in connection to the personal selfishness of the king and also political ambition. It is said that the first group was murdered, because of their refusal to offer sacrifices to the tradi-tional gods and due to their resistance to King Mwanga’s homosexual practices. The killings of some more faithful Christians continued in Buganda for some time, as several faithful members of the church experienced. One exam-ple to mention is Anglican Archbishop, Janani Luwum, murdered in 1977 by president Idi Amin Dada of Uganda.

The Kenyan and Somalia Context

Although Kenya is considered largely as a Christian coun-try, with Muslim population of only about 10 percent and 78 percent Christian, there is evidence that Christians are persecuted in the country, though not as officially as the cases mentioned above in Uganda by some past regimes. As we can see, even if majority of Kenyans are Christians, the Kenyan constitution authorizes courts based on Islamic Sharia law to adjudicate personal issues such as marriage, divorce and inheritance among Mus-lims. The al-Shabab terrorist group, which has been for sometime controlling much of the neighboring Somalia, has been causing various problems against the population of Kenya.

13 Luther, 164–165.

Kenyan refugee camps have been overflowing with Somali people who have been driven from their homes. These camps offer no protection, as refugee pastors and evangelists are sometimes threatened with assault or death by the terrorists. In Jan. 17, 2013, Pastor Juliun Mukonzi was killed and 11 other believers injured, when jihadists bombed a church in Kenya. On Sept. 30, a grenade was thrown into a Sunday school service in Kenya, killing one child and wounding eight others. In that bombing, one

parent was reported dead. Though the leadership of that church thought to cancel Sunday school the Sunday that followed, most children insisted they wanted to meet as usual and continue with prayers!

Somalia

By Jan. 15, 2010, the Muslim Popu-lation in Somalia was 99.95 percent of the population, while Christians were less than .05 percent. Al-Shabab, a well-organized Muslim terrorist group, has been in control of much of Somalia. Based on the teachings

of the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad, draconian brutalities — death by stoning for adultery, execution of converts from Islam to Christ, and chopping off hands and feet for stealing — are commonplace. A Christian man in Mogadishu was accused of trying to convert a Muslim boy and executed. Another believer refused to betray his teacher in the faith, and his young sons were beheaded. An evangelist bringing Bibles into the country was discovered and shot. Other Christians and converts have lost their families, jobs and homes. Christians are forced to hide their faith since even owning a Bible is punishable by death. Yet, despite all this, believers still gather, and there is a great desire for the Gospel.

In all these examples it is evident that, they (believ-ers) must endure every misfortune. They must endure persecution. They must endure all kinds of trials. Yes, they must endure evil from the devil, the world and the flesh. They (believers) must endure inward sadness. They must endure timidity, fear. They must endure outward poverty. They must endure contempt. They must endure illness. They must endure weakness, writes Martin Luther.14 How

14 Luther, 165.

In bringing the message of the Gospel,

the message of the Cross, one needs to seriously take into consideration the

cultural beliefs and practices of that

particular culture.


do all these influence theological education, as we work to train and form pastors for our churches?

Toward Lutheran Seminaries’ Response to Suffer-ing, Persecution and Martyrdom as a Mark of the Church In an African context where theological education is coupled with several contextual challenges (Encul-turation theology of the Roman Catholic, Syncretistic theology, health and wealth theology, and the quest for African theology to mention just a some), the sound of biblical theology of the cross forms a point of departure in presenting the theology of suffering, persecution and martyrdom as the mark of the true Church. This becomes a true challenge when forming seminary curriculum and working with pastors in the congregations. Let me briefly highlight few of these points to illustrate the contextual background:

Enculturation Theology of the Roman Catholic Church

It has been claimed that Roman Catholics have been very successful in many parts of Africa, due to their ritualis-tic type of worship and their teaching on the doctrine of saints. If this claim holds true, it can further be argued that ritualistic worship and the doctrine of saints have some affinities with the veneration of ancestors in the African traditional religious practices. How does the-ology properly counteract this belief and practice in the African context?

Syncretism

The move to revive the African Traditional Religious philosophy and practices, mingled with Christian wor-ship and practice came about in the 20th century in Africa.15 Many clergy from the mainline churches, who wanted to start their own churches, claimed that African religious beliefs were neglected in their contemporary Christianity — the mainline churches. After the Bible was translated into some native African languages, some Africans started to react seriously, and without proper hermeneutical principles, there developed various inter-pretations. As the African natives read the Bible in their own languages, several of them adopted the allegorical method of interpretation, while others looked for some passages which could help them answer some questions troubling them in their lives. The claim that the mission-

15 David Barrett, Schism and Renewal in Africa: An Analysis of Six Thousand Contemporary Religious Movements (Nairobi, Kenya: Oxford University Press, 1968).

aries within the mainline churches did not answer their spiritual questions became so prevalent, as many Africans within the ministry in the churches felt that they were being mistreated by their missionaries. Consequently, the Christian religion in those areas became what John Taylor calls a “classroom religion.”16 While in the church, the people worshiped and behaved as the missionaries taught and did, but when they went back to their villages, they practiced their African Traditional Religious faith, espe-cially in times of crisis.

It is still evident that even at this time people (many African Christians) still revert to animistic belief and practices in times of difficulties, be it in times of death in the family, illness or any such calamity. How does this sit-uation inform us when we prepare and form a pastor for a Lutheran congregation in Africa today?

Health and Wealth Theology

The health and wealth theological practice is very prevalent in African Initiated Churches and the new Pen-tecostal churches. These churches are booming and have very large followings, since they scratch where it itches in Africa today. Sundkler and Simojoki have pointed out some similarities in the African traditional healing system with the healing system practiced by many Afri-can Initiated Churches (AIC). In the (AIC)17 the so-called “healing ministry” attracts many people, especially in the developing countries because of the economical dif-ficulties and widespread health problems. In the AICs, fighting demonic spirits is a common phenomenon — the worship is not complete until the demon is exorcised. This type of “spiritual warfare worship” grounds its power around “the prophet” or the spiritual leader, the diviner, etc. In times of crisis, people go to such leaders seeking healing, etc. The influence of health and wealth theology (theology of glory) is still a problem to be reckoned with in Africa.18 It is an evidential phenomenon that many so called “evangelical churches” in Africa are at this time swimming in a Pentecostal/charismatic ocean with the slogan: “come see a miracle and get healed.” The mission-ary methods of several evangelical churches are geared toward spiritual warfare. Going around several cities

16 John V. Taylor, The Primal Vision (Elva, Scotland: Robert Canigham & Sons Ltd., 1963).17 Bengt Sundkler, Christian Ministry in Africa (London: SCM Press, 1960), 14. Anssi Simojoki, “The Ministry of the Church and the Call of Mission: Africa Reflection,” in The Office of the Ministry, ed. John R. Fehrmann and Daniel Preus (Crestwood, MO: Luther Academy, 1996).18 Simojoki, “The Ministry of the Church.”


in Africa — Kenya in particular — one sees deliverance and miracle churches conducting their spiritual meetings in open-air places.19 As people would sing and dance to piercing amplified music, these churches conduct prayers for the sick and exorcise demons. Spiritual warfare wor-ship reflects how people understand and want to deal with the existence of evil and suffering. What does the Bible teach about the existence of evil and suffering, and how can this message be communicated in this context relevantly? It is imperative to present clearly the theology of suffering, persecution and martyrdom in our theologi-cal studies in the seminary to equip the pastoral students, not forgetting Christians with the truth of the Gospel.

African Theology

African theology has taken root in many African univer-sities, Bible colleges and many other schools. With the influence of the African theology, many theologians are seeking theological common ground by encouraging com-promise of denominational theological convictions for a common contextual theology. John Mugambi, for exam-ple, one of the leading professor in Nairobi University, is of the opinion that private Bible colleges or universities should not teach their denominational theological con-victions because it divides people on denominational lines.20 Mbiti indicates that African Traditional Religion (ATR) has the same religious inspirational potentials as Islam and Judaism, and contains somewhat the same rev-elation.21 For Mbiti, the God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament is the same one who revealed himself in ATR. The practice of Christians going back to consult the traditional religious healers (witch doctors, diviners, etc.) in times of problems is a crisis to be dealt with in African theological education.22

Summary and Conclusion Some of the great enemies of the Church in our time may be grouped as: Traditional Cultural Religiosities; polit-ical oppressors; Muslim jihadists (al-Qaida, al-Shabab,

19 Ibid.20 Mugambi, From Liberation to Reconstruction.21 John Mbiti, “Peace and Reconciliation in African Religion and Christianity,” Dialogue & Alliance 7 (Spring–Summer 1993): 17–32, and John Mbiti, “Hearts Cannot be Lent: In Search of Peace and Reconciliation in African Traditional Society,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 20, no. 1 (1999): 1–12.22 For more information on Christians reverting to Spiritism at times of crisis, see Nelson Unwene, “Some Annang Christians Revert to Spiritism in Crisis Situations” (Ph.D. diss., Concordia Theological Seminary, 1981).

Taliban and other Muslim terrorists); the Liberal wing of Christianity; the new Pentecostalism with their health and wealth theologies — theology of glory; and post-modern ideologies. The Church must be aware of her enemies to make her stand firm, ready with Word and Sacrament, and proper proclamation of the Gospel. For all these challenges, coming from within and without, the proper teaching of the Lutheran theology of the cross is the answer.

In bringing the message of the Gospel, the message of the Cross, one needs to seriously take into consideration the cultural beliefs and practices of that particular culture. However, in this process, the theological education has to carefully guard itself against what Gene Veith calls, “a merely cultural religion,” that which has been fueled by “accommodationists,” “synthesists,” and “separatists,” who tend to down-play the transcendental aspect of religion at the expense of divinizing culture.23 Rather, a balance must be done in balancing the transcendental and immanent nature of the theological study. In the light of the marks of the church presented by Luther, and grounded in the teaching and life of Jesus, it is evident that the true church will always experience suffering in different ways.

It is imperative that a true genuine theology starts, reflects and is completed at the foot of Christ’s cross. With proper Lutheran Hermeneutical Principles of interpreta-tion, proper teaching of the Theology of the Cross is the Key to understanding, doing and living true Christian life. As Christ told his disciple, “he who wants to follow Me must deny himself, take up his cross and follow Me. For he who loves his life will lose it, but he who readily loses his life for Me and for the Gospel will save it.” These words have encouraged many faithful believers through-out all ages, providing peace to those who truly follow Christ, knowing where they came from and where they are going.

The Right Rev. Dr. Joseph Ochola Omolo is bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Kenya Lake Diocese and rector of Matongo Lutheran Theological College, Kenya.

23 In Angus J. L. Menuge, ed. Christ and Culture in Dialogue (St. Louis MO: Concordia Academic Press, 1999), 18.


A Confessional, Dogmatic View of Martyrdom and the Cross by Lawrence R. Rast, Jr.

This article considers

martyrdom and the cross

from the perspective of

the Lutheran Confessions

and the Lutheran dogmatic

tradition in a historical

context.

Introduction

Let us consider martyrdom and the cross from the perspective of the Lutheran Confessions and the Lutheran dogmatic tradition. However,

please note that I am, in respect to my discipline, a his-torian. What that means in the context of this writing is that, while we will look at the confessional witness to mar-tyrdom and the cross, we will also place this witness in a historical context for the sake of learning how Lutherans have actually lived the relationship that proceeds from their dogmatic commitments.

Luther’s theological breakthrough has been more than adequately chronicled and examined. Scholars like Marc Lienhard and others have demon-strated the centrality of Christ.1 And yet, despite the insightful and careful work of such thinkers, many contin-ue to simplify Luther’s thinking to the point of absurdity.

On more than several occasions within recent months, I have en-countered people who should know better than to refer to Luther or “Lu-theranism’s” position on death and resurrection of Christ as “Gospel reductionism.” The argument goes something like this: Luther taught rightly that we are saved by grace alone through faith because of Christ. However, this theological insight has been reduced to the crass and largely meaning-less presentation of the Gospel, usually within sermons, to something like the following: you have sinned; Jesus died and rose to take away your sins; believe this and you are saved. This, again, is wrongly identified by some

1 Marc Lienhard, Luther, Witness to Jesus Christ: Stages and Themes of the Reformer’s Christology (Minneapolis MN: Augsburg, 1982).

as Gospel reductionism. It is not. Gospel reductionism, properly defined, is the teaching identified with the for-mer faculty majority of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis during the 1960s and 1970s, which identified the Gospel as the one doctrine of the Scriptures and which limited the authority of the Bible to the argument that it carried this one doctrine of the Gospel. Care must be taken when using theological formulations that are deeply embedded in specific historical contexts.

However, this does not change the fact that such a pre-sentation as outlined above, while it does communicate the basics of the Gospel, is in fact theologically reduction-

ist and does not sufficiently capture the fullness of the biblical witness regarding the Gospel as it is rightly confessed by Lutherans.

Martin Luther, Theologia Crucis and Life under the CrossFor Luther, the Gospel centered in the cross of Jesus Christ was the core of biblical witness. His well-known thesis 20 of the Heidelberg Dis-putation captures this reality: “He

deserves to be called a theologian, however, who compre-hends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.”2 With his excommunication from the church (Exsurge Domine,) and condemnation at the Diet of Worms, Luther lived under the reality that his life might be forfeit at any moment for the last quarter cen-tury of his life.

2 Hermann Sasse. “Luther’s Theology of the Cross,” in: Briefe an Lutherische Pastoren, Nr. 18, trans. Arnold J. Koelpin (October, 1951), http://www.wlsessays.net/files/SasseCross.pdf; Heino O. Kadai, “Luther’s Theology of the Cross,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 63 (1999): 169–204, http://media.ctsfw.edu/303.

Care must be taken when using theological

formulations that are deeply embedded in specific historical

contexts.

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/SasseCross.pdf

http://media.ctsfw.edu/303


In the context of that reality, Luther lived a remarkably “normal” life. He married and had children. He suffered health issues, like many of us as we age, and he did rather well for himself financially. Yet each day was lived under the threat of death — of martyrdom and the cross. This reality, and the difficulties of life in 16th century Ger-many, led Luther consistently to think about death. He would argue that this was not born of morbidity, but that it was part of the Christian life.

In 1527, Luther published “Whether One May Flee from a Deadly Plague.” In it, he considered the variety of responses that Christians may have, both good and evil, to the threats to this body and life. Sounding remarkably pastoral, Luther states that, “Since it is generally true of Christians that few are strong and many are weak, one simply cannot place the same burden upon everyone.” Yet he recognizes that there are condemnable actions, for instance, in avoiding death. Of course, there are times one should not be condemned for such. On the other hand, simple fear of death can lead to condemnation. As he writes: “For instance, in the case of a man who is imprisoned for the sake of God’s word. In such a situation everyone has Christ’s plain mandate and command not to flee but rather to suffer death, as he says, ‘Whoever denies me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven’ and ‘Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul,’” Matthew 10.”3

But what about if there is no issue of disobedience involved? Here Luther distinguishes between following one’s vocation and living out the life of faith. For example, if one is a parent or guardian and children are involved, one is obligated to care for them no matter what the risk to one’s own well-being. On the other hand, “Where no such emergency exists and where enough people are available for nursing and taking care of the sick and where, voluntarily or by orders, those who are weak in faith make provision so that there is no need for addi-tional helpers, or where the sick do not want them and have refused their services, I judge that they have an equal choice either to flee or to remain.”

His conclusion is sound: “If someone is sufficiently bold and strong in his faith, let him stay in God’s name; that is certainly no sin. If someone is weak and fearful, let him flee in God’s name as long as he does not neglect

3 Martin Luther, “Whether One May Flee from a Deadly Plague,” in Timothy F. Lull, Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings (Minneapolis MN: Fortress, 1989), 737–38.

his duty toward his neighbor but has made adequate pro-vision for others to provide nursing care. To flee from death to save one’s life is a natural tendency, implanted by God and not forbidden, unless it be against God and neighbor…”4

In a nice summary, he instructs Christians on how to think about death.

“You ought to think this way: Very well, by God’s decree the enemy has sent us poison and deadly offal. Therefore I shall ask God mercifully to pro-tect us. Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine and take it. I shall avoid places and person where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus per-chance infect and pollute others, and so cause their death as a result of my negligence. If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me and I have done what he has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either my own death or the death of others. If my neighbor needs me, however, I shall not avoid place or person but will go freely”5 It is all a matter of perspective. Because Christ has

suffered death, once for all, we need no longer fear death. Indeed, Christ’s death is our death and his resurrection is our resurrection. As such, death no longer holds us in its terrifying grip. In his “A Sermon on Preparing to Die,” he points us away from ourselves to Christ:

“Tenth, you must not view or ponder death as such, not in yourself or in your nature, nor in those who were killed by God’s wrath and were overcome by death. If you do that, you will be lost and defeated with them. But you must resolutely turn your gaze, the thoughts of your heart, and all your sense away from this picture and look at death closely and untiringly only as seen in those who died in God’s grace and who have overcome death, particularly in Christ and then also in all his saints.In such pictures death will not appear terrible and gruesome. No, it will seem contemptible and dead, slain and overcome in life. For Christ is nothing other than sheer life, as his saints are likewise. The more profoundly you impress that image upon your heart and gaze upon it, the more the image of death will pale and vanish of itself without struggle or

4 Luther, “Whether One May Flee,” 739–40.5 Luther, “Whether One May Flee,” 749, 755.


battle. Thus your hearth will be at peace and you will be able to die calmly in Christ and with Christ”6

The Augsburg Confession and Life Under the CrossThe immediate precursor of the Diet of Augsburg, and thus the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, was the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. Though the First Diet of Speyer (1526) had decreed that until a general council for Germany be held, it was necessary for each estate to regulate it own religious affairs (cuius regio, eius religio), the present Diet mandated that it be illegal for any person to join any false faith or sect. This mandate prompted the evangelical party to register its protest and testimony that, “in mat-ters pertaining to the glory of God and the salvation of our souls, every man must himself give an answer to God for his conduct so that in this respect no man can conceal him-self behind other people’s acts or behind majority resolutions.” Further, because the doctrine of the evangel-icals was founded upon the Word of God, they would not deny their position “unless we are shown to be in error by a Council, or by the holy, pure, divine biblical Scriptures.” Such a denial of their position would entail much more than a mere politicizing move in order to gain the emperor’s favor.

In order to combat the problems that faced the dis-united church, Charles V called for a Diet at Augsburg in 1530. To present the evangelical faith at this meeting, the Elector of Saxony, John Frederick appointed Luther, Justus Jonas, Johannes Bugenhagen and Philip Mel-anchthon with the task of summarizing the differences between the evangelicals and the papists. Melanchthon, due to Luther’s absence at Augsburg, became the chief author of the evangelical’s apology. Though essentially completed by May 11, Melanchthon continually involved himself in the process of revision. Still, the Confession, having been prepared and readied for presentation, was read for the first time publicly, June 25, 1530.

The document itself is ecumenical in scope and irenic in nature, seeking to downplay the differences of opinion

6 Martin Luther, “A Sermon on Preparing to Die,” in Timothy F. Lull, Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 643.

that were giving rise to hostilities between the evangelical party and the Romanists. Still, it is truly a Reformation document and positively puts forth the predominant ideas of the evangelical party. As such, it is necessary now that we look at this work in terms of its nature as a repre-sentative document of the evangelical cause.

The first article of the Augsburg Confession treats God. The evangelicals placed this article first, not only because it is fundamental, but also to show the catholic nature of the evangelical movement. This group did not reject the

time-honored formulations of the early church and its councils. Rather, they affirmed the expressions of the councils and thereby indicated their rightful place in the flow of the church and its history.

Articles II and II, which speak of original sin and the Son of God respectively, are also catholic in nature. The first confesses that all men are conceived and born sinful and so are in need of the Savior, who is confessed in the third. However, as one delves into the language of the articles more closely, the evangelical position begins to become clearer.

Though still adhering to the church’s historical posi-tion, the Confession now begins to hint at the principle which determines the very existence of the evangelical party. Article II condemns the Pelagians and those “who deny that the vice of origin is sin and who obscure the glory of Christ’s merits and benefits by contending that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.” Similarly, though Article II confesses the Chalce-donian formula regarding the person of Christ, his work of atonement is said to “reconcile the Father to us and be a sacrifice not only for original guilt but also for all actual sins of men.” Further, Christ’s benefits are available to those whom he has sanctified, that is, those who believe in him. Thus, though not the primary purpose of the arti-cles, Melanchthon has still provided a clear espousal of the Reformation teachings of sola gratia and sola fidei; his purpose in introducing these ideas becomes clear in the following articles.

Articles IV–VI form the heart and center of the Augsburg Confession and inform all of the preceding and following articles. These brief articles define what it

Luther’s followers, like Luther himself,

lived under the threat of martyrdom. In some cases, they

were imprisoned and deprived of their

livelihoods. In others, they offered their very lives as a confession of

their faith.


means to be evangelical. Foremost among these is article IV which reads:

Our churches also teach that men cannot be jus-tified before God by their own strength, merits or works but are freely justified for Christ’s sake through faith when they believe that they are received into favor and that their sins are forgiven for of Christ’s sake. By His death, Christ made satisfaction for our sins. God counts this faith for righteousness in His sight (Rom. 3–4). Coming immediately upon the heels of this statement

concerning justification by faith apart from works is the article on the ministry of the church. One must recall that originally there were no titles separating the articles of the Confession, and thus, we find the important introductory words of Article V: “Ut hanc fidem consequamur.” This article takes the thought of Article IV and develops the thought more fully:

In order that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the sac-raments was instituted. For through the Word and the sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Spirit is given, and the Holy Spirit produces faith, where and when it pleases God, in those who hear the Gospel. That is to say, it is not on account of our own merits, but on account of Christ. That God justifies those who believe that they are received into favor for Christ’s sake. Furthermore, article VI also develops the personal

ramifications of the article of justification as it pertains to the individual and his Christian life when it begins, “Item docent, quod fides debat bonos fructus parere”:

Our churches also teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits and that it is necessary to do the good works commanded by God. We must do so because it is God’s will and not because we rely on such works to merit justification before God, for forgiveness of sins and justification are apprehended by faith, as Christ himself also testi-fies, “When you have done all these things, say `we are unprofitable servants’” (Luke 17:10). One of the most obvious of these good fruits is the

life of faith in Christ lived out in the context of the cross. Article XX, paragraphs 35–40, captures this reality:

Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. For

without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the Second Command-ment. Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks and trusts in man’s help. And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart. Where-fore Christ said, John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing; and the Church sings:Lacking Thy divine favor,There is nothing found in man,Naught in him is harmless.

The Roman Catholic Confutation responded to Article 20 of the Augustana by stating:

In the 20th article, which does not contain so much the confession of the princes and cities as the defense of the preachers, there is only one thing that pertains to the princes and cities: viz. concerning good works — that they do not merit the remission of sins, which, as it has been rejected and disapproved before, is also rejected and dis-approved now. For the passage in Daniel is very familiar: “Redeem thy sins with alms,” Dan. 4:27; and the address of Tobit to his son: “Alms do deliver from death and suffereth not to come into darkness,” Tobit 4:10; and that of Christ: “Give alms of such things as ye have, and behold all things are clean unto you,” Luke 11:41. If works were not meritorious, why would the wise man say: “God will render a reward of the labors of his saints?” Wisd. 10:17. Why would St. Peter so ear-nestly exhort to good works, saying: “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence by good works to make your calling and election sure?” 2 Pet. 1:19. Why would St. Paul have said: “God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love, which ye have showed toward his name?” Heb. 6:10. Nor by this do we reject Christ’s merit, but we know that our works are nothing and of no merit unless by virtue of Christ’s passion. We know that Christ is “the way, the truth and the life.”John 14:6. But Christ, as the Good Shepherd, who “began to do and teach,” Acts 1:1, has given us an example that as he has done, we also should do, John 13:15. He also went through the desert by the way of good works, which all Christians ought to pursue, and according to his command, bear the cross and follow him. Matt. 10:38; 16:24. He who bears not


the cross, neither is nor can be Christ’s disciple. In response to the Roman party, Melanchthonstrongly

countered this argument in Apology IV, “Of Human Tra-ditions in the Church:”

45] And of the mortification of the flesh and dis-cipline of the body we thus teach, just as the Confession states, that a true and not a feigned mortification occurs through the cross and afflic-tions by which God exercises us (when God breaks our will, inflicts the cross and trouble). In these we must obey God’s will, as Paul says, Rom. 12:1: Present your bodies a living sacrifice. And these are the spiritual exercises of fear and faith. 46] But in addition to this mortification which occurs through the cross [which does not depend upon our will] there is also a voluntary kind of exercise necessary, of which Christ says, Luke 21:34: Take heed to yourselves lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with sur-feiting. And Paul, 1 Cor. 9:27: I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, etc. 47] And these exercises are to be undertaken not because they are services that jus-tify, but in order to curb the flesh, lest satiety may overpower us, and render us secure and indifferent, the result of which is that men indulge and obey the dispositions of the flesh. This diligence ought to be perpetual, 48] because it has the perpetual command of God. And this prescribed form of cer-tain meats and times does nothing [as experience shows] toward curbing the flesh. For it is more lux-urious and sumptuous than other feasts [for they were at greater expense, and practiced greater glut-tony with fish and various Lenten meats than when the fasts were not observed], and not even the adversaries observe the form given in the canons.

The Death of Luther and the Interims — Context for Martyrdom and ConfessionLuther had consistently expected to die during the great part of his adult life — either from bad health or at the hand of his antagonists. He lived until Feb. 18, 1546. Shortly after his death, martyrdom and the cross came upon his followers.

In June 1546, roughly four months following Luther’s death, Charles V entered into his German War against the Smalcaldic League and soundly defeated the league at the battle of Mühlberg on the Elbe, April 24, 1547.7 Follow-ing his victory at Mühlberg, Charles convened what has come to be known as the “Armored Diet” at Augsburg (due to the presence of Charles’ army). Charles, elated with his victory over the German princes, promised he would “teach the Germans Spanish.” The Diet produced the document known as the “Augsburg Interim,” written by Julius Pflug, Michael Helding and the Lutheran Johann Agricola, which was pronounced by the emperor May 15, 1548. The purpose of this document was both theological

and political in orientation; it sought to regulate outwardly and temporally the affairs of the church, until the Council of Trent would finally settle the religious controversy precipitated by the evangelicals. It reintroduced many of the abolished Roman Cath-olic practices such as the jurisdiction of bishops, transubstantiation and the seven sacraments. These empha-ses led to the characterization that the document was a first step back toward the full Catholization of the evangelical churches.

Theologically, the document was craftily constructed. Julius Pflug

incorporated much Romanist theology into the docu-ment, but did so in terms that some Lutherans found acceptable. It effectively neutralized the “battering ram of the Reformation,” the twin points of marriage of priests and communion in both kinds, by building these points into the Interim, thus robbing the evangelicals of one of their most effective propaganda elements.

Following the proclamation of the Interim, Charles V went forth with his army and began to subjugate south-ern Germany to the Interim. The army was followed by

7 This war has generally come to be called the “Smalcald War.” Let the reader keep in mind the purposes of Charles V in pursuing this tact. He was not simply a power hungry despot, but felt he was serving God and the church by trying to restore political and religious unity to the Holy Roman Empire. See above note 2. For treatments of the Smalcald League see Thomas A. Brady, Jr., “Phases and Strategies of the Schmalkaldic League: A Perspective after 450 Years,” Archiv für Reformationgeschichte 74 (1983), 162–181; Theodore Hoyer, “The Rise and Fall of the Schmalkaldic League: The Treaty of Passau, 1552,” Concordia Theological Monthly 23 (1952), 401–417 and “The Religious Peace of Augsburg,” Concordia Theological Monthly 26 (1955), 820–830.

While there were not a large number of

Lutheran martyrs, their presence is irrefutable. Confessing the faith once delivered to the saints in accordance with the Augsburg Confession placed one in a dangerous

situation.


priests who reconsecrated the cathedrals of the South to the Roman Catholic Church. Cities such as Strassburg, Ulm and Constance were subjected to the Interim, and political power was transferred from protestant families to those loyal to Charles’ Habsburg agenda.

Meanwhile, Moritz of Saxony, who had betrayed Ernestine Saxony and usurped the electoral authority to himself by making a treaty with Charles V to the effect that Moritz would fight with the emperor in return for the guarantee of territory8 and the title of elector, helped the emperor in his efforts to subjugate Elector John Frederick by invading his land while he was away in the Smalcald War. But Moritz was uncomfortable with the provisions of the Interim and sought a Saxon solution that would enable him to gain the support of his evangel-ical subjects and at the same time keep the emperor from invading Saxony.9

Moritz’s solution to the problem was to scheme to bring about a document that would satisfy the emperor both theologically and politically. He held a number of meetings in the summer and fall of 1548 to try and achieve this end. The first meeting was held in Meissen and the introduction to the Interim was read. The clause in the Interim that states that the Interim only applied to Lutherans and not genuine Roman Catholics exposed the document as a means to bring the Lutherans back into the Roman fold. At this time, the Lutherans looked to Philip Melanchthon for leadership. It was a time for confessing, but Melanchthon was not up to the challenge. Politically, he feared for the safety of the church, and thus he formulated his position in terms of spectator-ship, making a distinction between the private opinions of the theologians and the public affairs of the Princes. Melanchthon’s position was consistent, however; being a humanist, he held to the Greek principle that truth emerges through discussion and dialogue. Melanchthon was challenged in his views by Matthias Flacius Illyricus.10

8 Namely, the protectorate of the bishops of Magdeburg and Halberstadt.9 The fear that motivated Moritz toward this end should not be underestimated; he expected the emperor to invade Saxony at any time and subject it to the same treatment which southern Germany had experienced.10 Flacius, a former student of Luther, was at this time living in Wittenberg. For background on Flacius see Oliver K. Olson, “Matthias Flacius Illyricus, 1520–1575,” in Shapers of Religious Traditions in Germany, Switzerland, and Poland, ed. Jill Raitt (New Haven and London: Yale University Pres, 1981), 1–17; Oliver K. Olson, “The Importance of Matija Vlacic,” Dialogue 15 (Summer 1976), 202–06; Jörg Baur, “Flacius — Radikale Theologie,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 72 (December 1975), 365–80.

Flacius held, as Luther had before him, that God’s truth is revealed in the Word and that the preaching of the Word of Truth binds one. Melanchthon’s view held the field at Meissen; he saw only the “danger of confession” and pro-posed that each individual must decide these matters of conscience personally.

Moritz, still seeking an answer, called a meeting at Pegau, to which he invited Bishops Pflug and Helding. Pflug refused to bend on the question of the Mass Canon. Melanchthon, on the other hand, yielded on justification by faith alone, thus bowing to the pressure of Pflug, who sought to make room for the freedom of the will. Pflug held that wile man cannot begin salvation, he is moved by the Spirit to good works which are meritorious. Thus the conclusion of Pegau is a compromise that gives up the evangelical principle of justification by faith alone — both faith and works are affirmed.

After Pegau, the idea of producing Saxon exceptions to the Interim emerged through the influence of Joachim of Brandenburg. At Torgau, the arguments began to shift from the theologians to the secular counselors, to whose ideas the theologians would subsequently react. Mel-anchthon continued to urge caution; Flacius implored confession. Many of the Roman Catholic rites begin to find their way into the compromise documents (e.g., con-firmation, the Litany etc.).

At Altzelle in the fall, Flacius realized the practi-cal implications of the interim; gradual reintroduction of Roman rites on the way toward full restoration. In response, he coined the phrase casu confessionis, which expressed the principle that if a government required the use of a rite neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture, it became a matter of confession and one was conscience-bound to defy the order for the sake of the Gospel.11

In November 1548, Saxon court officials presented a list of ceremonies to be reintroduced into the Lutheran Church. They also reestablished the authority of the pope and bishops. For all intents and purposes they yielded the entire Reformation. In the end, Melanchthon finally drew the line on two matters: 1. the Mass Canon; and 2. the

11 The wearing of the white surplice became the symbol of this principle. Flacius held that those who robed themselves with the white surplice under the command of the government denied the Gospel. The principle served to establish a line of demarcation; this is how far one could go and absolutely no farther. Nihil adiaphoron in casu confessionis et scandali. Bernard J. Verkamp, “The Limits upon Adiaphoristic Freedom: Luther and Melanchthon,” Theological Studies 36 (March 1975), 52–76.


blessing of things (consecrating oil). By achieving these two things, he felt that he had saved the Reformation from the hands of the papacy.

Moritz’s Saxon compromise was accepted Dec. 22, 1548. However, it was never effectually practiced. Though Prince George von Anhalt completed by the spring of 1549 a Kirchen Ordnung that reflected the essentials of the Saxon compromise, mysteriously the emperor removed pressure from the Saxons in the first half of 1548, and so the need for compromise disappeared. Further, the docu-ment itself was not published, though epitome editions of it did appear with irregularity during the autumn of 1549.

The document itself is very complex and confusing. It reflects Melanchthon’s theology and some have claimed that it may be an accurate portrayal of his true positions, which he had kept hidden for so long. In it, he puts forth the positions in which he would correct some of the more dangerous ideas of Luther (e.g., justification by faith alone). At the same time, pressed into this Melanchtho-nian work were certain propositions of Julius Pflug, the most famous of which is his statement concerning the freedom of the will, namely, that God does not draw man to salvation as a block or a stone.12 Still, the Flacians immediately saw the dangers of the positions put forth at the preliminary meetings to Leipzig. It now remained for them to combat the prevailing view of Melanchthon and his followers (appropriately called Philippists), much to the Princes’ chagrin.13

The Magdeburg ConfessionFlacius realized that he could not function most effectively while under the direct gaze of Melanchthon and thus left Wittenberg in 1549. He eventually came to Magdeburg, where the last vestige of political and military resistance against the efforts of Charles V and Moritz was to be

12 “Although God does not justify man by the merit of his own works which man does, but out of mercy, freely, without our merit, that the glory may not be ours, but Christ’s, through whose merit alone we are redeemed from sins and justified, yet the merciful God does not work with man as with a block, but draws him, so that his will also co-operates if he be of understanding years.” Leipzig Interim, “How Man is Justified before God,” in Henry Eyster Jacobs, The Book of Concord; or the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. With Historical Introduction, Notes, Appendexes and Indexes (Philadelphia: G. W. Frederick, 1893), 2:262.13 One effort in which Flacius was fully victorious dealt with the compromise document itself. In a brilliant propaganda move, Flacius immediately dubbed the compromise document the “Leipzig Interim,” thus attaching it inseparable in the minds of those who heard the title to the document it sought to replace, namely the hated “Augsburg Interim.” The work never lost the stigma attached to this epithet, though the original formulators never intended such a title for it.

found. In Magdeburg were Lutherans who held that they were truly committed to the doctrine which Luther him-self had taught and which Melanchthon and Wittenberg had surrendered.14 From this small pocket of resistance was soon to come forth one of the most pronounced of Lutheran Confessions of the 16th century.

Due to the continued military resistance on the part of the city of Magdeburg, Moritz was required, follow-ing the instigation of the imperial ban against the city, to put an end to the uprising. This Moritz did in earnest, though the city, militarily outnumbered six-to-one, “sang about themselves as the last remnant of Luther’s cause — modern Maccabees.”15

That the city was willing to resist the efforts of the Elector proceeds from their understanding of Luther’s doctrine of resistance. Luther’s early writings against the Peasant’s Revolt and his clear separation of the temporal and spiritual realms gave way over time to a doctrine of resistance to the secular government, when it became manifest that authority would not permit the free proc-lamation of the Gospel. Manfred Hoffman summarizes Luther’s later thought in the following manner:

In order to preserve external life in this world God has instituted three orders, the political, eco-nomic and the ecclesiastical, which one and all are endorsed and sustained by God’s authority in the first table. In other words, Christ did not abrogate political and natural law but authenticated and confirmed it. The private citizen’s right to self-de-fense is therewith affirmed. On this basis Luther develops now the argument that the pope, and the emperor as his henchman, must be resisted by everyone because the pontiff belongs to none of the three orders and therefore possesses public authority in neither. Yet since he interferes destruc-tively in all of them he is the “apocalyptic beast

14 Robert Kolb describes the two opposing parties (“Parties, Princes, Pastors, and Peace,” Academy 34 [1977], 4): “Politically, both parties welcomed the assistance of the prince, but the Philippists were more ready to compromise their own positions to avoid tensions with their government. In contrast, Gnesio-Lutherans vociferously objected to governmental interference in the affairs of the church, and a number of them were sent into exile — a several more than once — for resisting the encroachment of the powers of the prince of the city council in the domain of the church. Ecclesiastically the Philippists often favored continuing medieval usages (such as liturgical practices) while the Gnesio-Lutheran were generally more anxious to cleanse remnants of ‘papism’ from ecclesiastical usages.”15 Olson, “Flacius,” 4. For a brief description of the siege see Ronald Ernst Diener, “The Magdeburg Centuries: A Bibliothecal and Historiographal Analysis,” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1978, 31–36.


from the abyss” Daniel prophesied (11:36), or, in Paul’s words (II. Thess.2:3), the “adversary of God,” the “man of sin,” the “son of perdition.” This rabid animal must be promptly slain by anyone coming upon it. And the emperor, making common cause with it, must be resisted by anyone being coerced into false worship. Such is the unavoidable neces-sity in this time of extreme calamity.16 The Magdeburgers professed that they were follow-

ing the tradition of thought first established by Luther, and as such, were not the ones who had transgressed the law of God. In actuality, they themselves were the rem-nant of God who alone confessed him truly in the present age. As such, they made arrangements to make their con-fession known throughout the land that others might behold the truth of the Gospel as it was still confessed at Magdeburg.17

The document that came forth, signed by the pastors and other ministers of the Magdeburg Church, set forth the doctrine of the “inferior magistrates.” Hildebrandt writes:

The main argument in this document was that the Gospel permits all natural protection autho-rized by natural laws, even where the emperor was concerned, and also that princes had an absolute

16 Manfred Hoffman, “Martin Luther: Resistance to Secular Authority,” The Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center 12 (1984–85), 47. See also Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 2 volumes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 199–202. Skinner here concludes on the basis of a passage from Luther’s table Talks (202): “The implication is that if he (the emperor) fails to perform the duties for the sake of which he has been constituted a public person, it is lawful to resist him in the same way that we are permitted to resist any other private individual who offers us unjust violence.” See also Thomas A. Brady, Jr., “Luther and the State: The Reformer’s Teaching in its Social Setting,” in Luther and the State in Modern Germany, edited by James D. Tracy, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies; v. 7 (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publications, 1986), 40: “Luther’s fear of disorder and mistrust of the Common Man endured through his career. They were not touched by volte-face after the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, when he reversed his condemnation of resistance to the emperor. At most this decision, which smoothed his prince’s path into the Schmalkaldic League, represents a shift in his location of true authority (Obrigkeit) from the emperor to the princes. Nor did the famous affirmation of resistance by Lutheran pastors at Magdeburg in 1550 contradict this picture, for the principle involved there — the duty of inferior magistrates to resist under certain circumstances — derived from Martin Bucer and Landgrave Philip of Hesse, not from Luther and Saxony.”17 Esther Hildebrandt (“The Magdeburg Bekenntnis as a Possible Link Between German and English Resistance Theories in the Sixteenth Century,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 71 [1980], 234) writes: The confession “was therefore never intended to be of interest simply to the Magdeburgers themselves, and this was made quite clear near the beginning of the treatise where it was stated that it was hoped that what was said would encourage Protestants everywhere.”

duty to defend the true Christian religion and their subjects against threats or attacks from fellow princes, or indeed the emperor. They were entitled, and obliged, to resist the Pope’s attempts to re-es-tablish idolatry in their territories, just as if the Turks were trying to introduce the Islamic religion into Germany.18 Further, this doctrine which the Magdeburgers pro-

fessed was not “fanatical,” that is to say, unknown in the history of the empire.

But it is of crucial significance that the Magde-burg pastors avoided the notion of the “radical reformation” that each human being had some inherent right to resist. The distinction from the “radical reformers” or the Schwärmer, as they once were called, is that the Magdeburg pastors speci-fied that the obligatory resistance was to be carried out through the structures of concrete Christian vocations (Ämter) … It was that combination, the doctrine of obligatory resistance (approved by the Formula of Concord) and the related doctrine of vocation, which made up the historically success-ful doctrine of the “Lesser Magistrates.”19 The Magdeburg confessors did not seek the desig-

nation of “radicals” for themselves, nor did they seek political anarchy. Their actions arose from a responsible conviction that they held to the true teaching of Luther and that it was their God-given responsibility to ensure that they maintained the evangelical principle, even if it meant that they had to face persecution because of it.

Yet a crucial question remains: How can one rec-oncile the doctrine of resistance in the face of Luther’s earlier advice to serve God by serving one’s neigh-bor with the Magdeburg Confession’s doctrine of the

18 Hildebrandt, 230; Oliver K. Olson, “Theology of Revolution: Magdeburg, 1550–1551,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 3 (April 1972), 67: “It is quite clear, then, that in Magdeburg ‘religious impulse and political tradition’ conspired together, so that their ‘effects were mutually increased.’ Magdeburg’s political power came directly from God himself and that should the situation demand it her [sic] might be directed against an erring emperor himself.”19 Oliver K. Olson, “Politics, Liturgics, and Integritas Sacramenti,” in Discord, Dialogue and Concord: Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula of Concord, edited by Lewis W. Spitz and Wenzel Lohff, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 78. Hildebrandt also writes (231): “This idea that the princes and inferior magistrates held their power direct from God in their own right contributed to a notion of corporate responsibility toward the empire which could, if necessary, bypass the emperor himself. The emphasis on the electors as a collegial body, ruling with the emperor, and possessing the power to depose him, was traditional, as was the concept of the integral role which all the princes played in the government of the empire.”


“Lesser Magistrate?” In the 19th century, Heinrich Heppe wrote, “In the

Magdeburg Confession for the first time the statement that Luther was the prophet sent from God, whose voice is the only valid one in the church, is a dogmatic state-ment.”20 This is certainly a provocative statement, and in a certain sense, an accurate one. For in the Magdeburg Confession21 one finds the first occurrence of Luther’s writings acting as a normative principle for the Lutheran Church. But though this may seem too dogmatic and a rejection of the protestant principle, in fact it is not. The Magdeburgers confess that their theology is in accord with Luther’s, who in turn gave form to the Augsburg Confession, which itself is a catholic document pro-ceeding from the Scriptures themselves.22 The work is

20 Heinrich Heppe, Die Enstehung und Fortbildung des Luthertums (Cassel: J. C. Kreiger’schen Buchhandlung, 1863), 213. Heppe’s thought has recently been characterized with the label “melanchthonian.” If this is truly the case, and the author who made this representation builds a good case, then Heppe’s remarks in this regard become more understandable. Lowell H. Zuck, “Heinrich Heppe: A Melanchthonian Liberal in the Nineteenth Century German-Reformed Church,” Church History 51 (December 1982), 419–433. Zuck asserts (424–26) that Heppe “believed that evangelical Protestantism entered history as a longing for personal redemption, not as a dogma and a doctrine.” Not surprisingly he found fault with the “Genuine Lutheran” (Flacian) party which appealed to “an excessively literal understanding of Luther’s teachings” and “was no longer content with grounding its Protestant tenets on scripture but constructed a system in which every proposition had its unalterable dogmatic background.” See also Lowell H. Zuck, “Melanchthonianism and Reformed Theology in the Late Sixteenth Century” in Controversy and Conciliation: The Reformation and the Palatinate, edited by Derk Visser (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1986).21 The German title is Bekenntnis Unterricht und Vermanung der Pfarrhern und der Prediger der Christlichen Kirchen zu Magdeburg (Magdeburg: 1550). The confession will hereafter be abbreviated MC. The text of the confession incorporated in this paper is from a translation by Oliver K. Olson, formerly of Marquette University. A recent translation appeared just after this essay was prepared. See The Magdeburg Confession: 13th of April 1550 AD, Matthew Colvin, trans., George Grant, intro (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012). See also David M. Whitford, Tyranny and Resistance: The Magdeburg Confession and the Lutheran Tradition (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2001).22 Heppe’s criticism is inaccurate in that it sees Luther as the only voice that has normative value for the church. In fact the Magdeburger’s use Luther as a norm only in so far as he agrees with the principle of justification by faith as held by the church catholic throughout the ages. The progression is as follows (MC, preface): “First, then, in this text we simply repeat in brief, and will not now dispute, the chief articles of doctrine brought to light by Luther and presented at Augsburg as Christian, orthodox and catholic, and until now unconquered, as those which agree with the prophetic and apostolic doctrine, with the Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian creed, together with the purer church of all times.” Again the author writes (MC, Chief Articles of Christian Doctrine): “We refer the reader to the many writing of the man of God, Martin Luther, and of those like him, for a more complete treatment and for solid foundations. And as often as necessary we

characterized throughout by a firm upholding of the doc-trine of justification by faith.

Still the formal principle is very prominent in the pref-ace where Luther is mentioned no less than nine times. The writer here does not invoke Luther simply as an authority in his own right, but because Luther is a sure and certain place to find the evangelical principle expli-cated. Luther, in the organic tradition of the Scripture, the ecumenical creeds and the Augsburg Confession, has professed the concept of justification by faith and there-fore is a trustworthy authority on this matter. Not that Luther or the creeds take precedence over the Scriptures, for the Word of God alone is the basis on which the Mag-deburgers build. “The Major premise we shall prove in the second part of our book with solid arguments from the Word of God.”23 Like both the Augsburg Confession and Smalcald Articles, Scripture is not referred to in a mere formal sense, as a disjointed reservoir of texts that can be dipped into simply to prove a point, rather the Scripture is solicited as evidence of the parity between the Gospel which they proclaim and which is likewise incorporated into the Magdeburg text.24

Still Luther and his doctrine as expressed in the Augsburg Confession remain the gauge by which doc-trine is judged. Why such a strong emphasis on Luther? The Smalcald League had been recently defeated, and the Interim imposed by the emperor, but far worse, the evangelicals themselves had capitulated the center of the Reformation and the confession of Luther to the Roman-ists by giving up the sola gratia in the Leipzig Interim. The historical situation of the Magdeburgers forced them to include, as strongly as they did, the subscription to the writings of Luther. They felt that unless they confessed the work of this man of God, it would be lost forever.25

ourselves are ready to demonstrate the sources and true foundations of all this doctrine and of our confession from the prophetic scriptures, the apostles and the consensus of he purer church of all ages.” This citation marks the only mention of Luther in the doctrinal section of the Magdeburg Confession apart from the epilogue. Still, though Heppe wrote in a negative sense, it is likely the Magdeburgers would have taken it as the highest honor.23 MC, Syllogism.24 See above notes 9 and 24.25 Heppe fails to take into account the historical circumstances which led to the Magdeburger’s motives in producing the Confession. As a result his criticism mentioned above is too strong. The Magdeburg Confession appeals to Luther because he agrees with the purer church of all ages and because his confession is in danger of disappearing.


Nevertheless, the confession of Luther’s, which is the doctrine of Christ himself, was first made at Augsburg, out of the deep faith and to the glory of the confessors, not, once again in Augsburg, has been cast aside through a horrible crime against the conscience by many German princes and estates, subdued only the fortune of the recent war.26

So we find in the Magdeburg Confession that Luther is appealed to as a formal principle, derived from and standing in the stream of the church catholic. As such, he is depicted in both prophetic and Pauline terms. The first sentence of the preface reads: “By his immense favor, God raised up Dr. Martin Luther, without doubt, the third Elijah,”27 who proved this status “with many signal testi-monies and successes.”28 Further, he “delivered to us” the “articles of doctrine” which enable us “to confess Christ as did the thief on the cross.”29 Additionally, by bring-ing these doctrines to light, Luther inspired the German princes to present before Caesar and the whole Roman Empire the truth of the Gospel so that “the poor sheep with only this confession of truth immediately stopped the mouths and jaws of the hostile wolves.”30

However, all talk of a formal principle in this docu-ment presupposes a material principle that guides and governs the whole piece. The first section of the document is divided into seven sections: 1. God and the distinction of persons; 2. Creation, the cause of sin and the chief kinds of sin; 3. Law; 4. the Gospel and Justification; 5. the Sacraments; 6. the Church, its ministers and their powers; 7. the political and domestic orders and the powers of each. This arrangement proceeds from the Confessors purpose of explicating the Christian faith according to Luther’s, as expressed in the Augsburg Confession and the

26 MC, Preface. 27 The referent here is Mal. 4:5–6: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.” This coming was fulfilled in the person of John the Baptist (see Luke 1:17). The first to call Luther the “third Elijah” was Zwingli, who did so in 1519.28 The language here invokes the biblical picture portrayed in Joshua 1:6–9.29 See 1 Cor. 15:3 where Paul tells of how he “delivered over to you as of first importance” the doctrine of Christ’s atonement and the Sacrament of the Altar.30 The imagery here conjures up the impression of Paul appealing to Caesar and testifying before him, as well as the early Christian accounts of the martyrs (see “The Passion of Perpetua and Feliciats,” chapter 6, in The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, edited by Herbert Musurillo [Oxford University Press, 1972]).

church catholic, as it finds application in the doctrine of resistance.

The reason for this division: All knowledge of God is knowledge whether of his nature or of his will; disclosed whether in creation or in his revealed Word, so that by the ministry of law, Gospel and sacraments through men called to this ministry a church may be brought forth, and that the domes-tic and the political orders should serve primarily the growth of the church, or, when they do not pursue the latter goal, that they serve at least civil society.31 These articles are arranged in such a manner as to

present the chief articles of faith as confessed by the evan-gelical party in the church with the result that the reader will see that the application of the evangelical principle in the Magdeburger’s context was the doctrine of resistance. As in the cases of both the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles, the chief unifying thought of the Magdeburg Confession is its insistence on the doctrine of justification by faith. In this sense the Magdeburg Confes-sion is truly a Lutheran confession. In like manner to its predecessor, the Augsburg Confession, the article on God contains the Nicene reference to the Trinity and the Chal-cedonian formulation concerning the person of Christ and breaches the article of sola fide:

He will render to each one according to his deeds, that is, to those who have repented and believed in Him, He will grant possession of the divine inheritance in eternal life; the others (who are) impenitent and unbelieving He will subject together with the devils to the punishment of dam-nation and eternal death.32 In the article on the law, one finds a positive statement

of the evangelical principle.For God does not want to show His own will in the law, that men by performing the law can attain justice and life though its works, or that they ought to strive to attain (these), but that despair-ing and frightened by their sins and the wrath of God against their sins, they, mortified by the law, seek and receive in the Gospel liberation obtained through Christ, from sin, from the wrath of God and death and have righteousness through faith

31 MC, The Chief Articles of Doctrine.32 MC, Chief Articles, Chapter 1.


in Him.33 The article on justification, Chapter 4 in the

Confession, forms the heart and center of the document. It is the longest article in the Confession and presents the Reformation teachings of Solus Christus,34 forensic application of Christ’s righteousness,35 sola fidei,36 alien righteousness37 and others. The evangelical principle is explicated with all force as the nucleus of the Christian faith and the means by which all doctrine is to be judged. Article after article is determined by the principles of sola gratia and sola fidei as explicated in Chapter 4.

So, when the Confession rejects the views of the other parties, it also does so solely on the basis of the article of justification. The adiaphorists, including Philip Melanch-thon especially, are rejected because they 1) do not offer a distinction between inherent righteousness and the alien righteousness of Christ; 2) they reject the exclusivum, namely, that man is justified sola fidei and say that good works are necessary to salvation; and 3) they hold to the freedom of the will before the coming of the Holy Spir-it.38 The case with the Papists and other sects is similar. The affinity that the Magdeburg Confession displays to Luther’s language concerning the papacy in the Smalcald Articles is striking:

They give him (the pope) power not only over the living but also over the dead and over the angels themselves. By these things it comes to pass that instead of the Vicar of Christ, he is truly the Vicar of the devil, and Antichrist, ruling in the temple of God, as prophesied by Daniel, Christ and Paul.39 Thus, when we come to the seventh chapter, which

acts as a springboard into section two on the doctrine of the lesser magistrates, we find the necessary application of the evangelical principle.

In these things, just as the subjects of necessity owe

33 MC, Chief Article, Chapter 3.34 “by him and on account of him alone he freely wills to recover those who repent and believe in the name of his Son.”35 “When God remits or does not impute sin to a man, to whoever he wills, when together with that remission is conjoined absolution from the punishment of eternal death, as is a courtroom remission of the guilt has added remission of the civil penalty.”36 “The application (of Christ’s righteousness) is made by faith alone in adults who repent in this manner.”37 “God at the same time also imputes the total righteousness of the Son, that is, he pronounces that they have all the virtues of his Son, and so in his sight they are just with an alien, or (Christ’s) own righteousness.”38 MC, Chief Articles, Chapter 6, 10.39 MC, Chief Articles, Chapter 6.

obedience to their magistrates, the children and the rest of the family to their parents and to the Lord, for the sake of God, so also by contrast, when magistrates and parents, themselves seduce their (charges) from true piety and decency, they are not owed obedience from the Word of God; for when they make a practice of persecuting true piety and decency, then they empty themselves of the honor of the magistrate and parents in God’s sight, and the consciences of their charges and from the ordi-nation of God are now made the ordination of the devil, against whose order their can and ought to be resistance.40 Thus, when the Magdeburg Confession appealed to

the writings of Luther for the justification of its position, it did so not simply in a formal sense, but rather invoked the evangelical principles of sola gratia and sola fidei, which were embodied in the writings of Luther.41 Like the Augsburg Confession and Luther in the Smalcald Articles, the Magdeburg Confession is a document cen-tered on the principles of sola gratia and sola fidei as a type of all-Christian confession. The Confession is a pastoral document that rehearses the evangelical faith in such a manner as to show its application in the life of the Christian, when he must obey God rather than men. This principle proceeds from the articles of sola gratia and sola fidei as their natural outgrowth, just as the confessors entered their protest at Speyer in 1529 and assembled before the Empire at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. This same principle moved Luther to compose his Smalcald Articles as both his testament of faith and for presenta-tion to the proposed council at Mantua, and now it finds expression in the persecution that has come upon the city of Magdeburg, on account of its refusal to concede to the papistic Interims. The confessors of Magdeburg do not simply dogmatize the evangelical principle on the basis

40 MC, Chief Articles, Chapter 7.41 The Formula of Concord followed the Magdeburg Confession in this point. Seebass writes (78): “only those writings were included in the Formula of Concord ‘in which Luther reinterpreted the confessional and catechetic tradition of the church. The choice thus decided was not only historic but was, in a deeper sense, also substantially motivated.’” And again (79): “It could seem that the Formula of Concord had elevated Luther and his writings to the canon of the confessions of faith. This, however, did not happen. The formula intended to accept Luther only `in wisdom and measure, as Doctor Luther . . . expressly asserts by way of distinction that the Word of God is and remains the sole rule and norm of all doctrine, and that no one’s writings dare to be put on a par with it, but that everything must be subjected to it.’ Luther’s writings are indirectly subordinated to confessional writings, and these themselves are considered the key to the Scripture and guide to its use.”


of Luther’s writings as a formal principle; they were faced with a life and death battle for the very survival of Luther’s confession. Melanchthon and the Philippists had betrayed the doctrine of the Lutheran Church as embodied in the Augsburg Confession and Smalcald Articles. At the risk of their goods, fame children and wives, the pastors and other ministers of the Magdeburg Church confessed the truth of the Gospel as it had been handed over to them by their spiritual father, Martin Luther. They were ready to face martyrdom and the cross. And they did.

Examples of Martyrdom: Antonius Corvinus and Baldo LupetinoLuther’s followers, like Luther himself, lived under the threat of martyrdom. In some cases, they were impris-oned and deprived of their livelihoods. In others, they offered their very lives as a confession of their faith. Two examples follow:

Antonio Corvinus was born Feb. 27, 1501.42 Given his uncertain parentage (he may have been a bastard), it is not surprising to find that he entered the Cistercian monas-tery in Loccum, Lower Saxony, in 1519. Shortly thereafter, he became a supporter of Luther and was driven out. He used the opportunity to study at Wittenberg under Luther and Melanchthon, and later served pastorates in Goslar and Witzenhausen. He advised Philip of Hesse, drafted a church order, and led the reformation in northern areas of Germany.

In 1548, the Roman Catholic ruler Erich II (of Braun-schweig-Calenberg-Göttingen) accepted the Augsburg Interim. Corvinus, along with other Lutheran pastors, protested vigorously against the Interim, which led to his arrest and jailing, Nov. 2, 1549.

Shortly before his incarceration, he wrote to Mel-anchthon and encouraged him to reject the Interim, also encouraging him to “return to his pristine candor, his pristine sincerity and his pristine constancy,” and “to think, say, write and do what is becoming to Philip, the Christian teacher, not the court philosopher.” Peace, indeed, was desirable, but it must not be obtained by dis-tracting the churches. Christ had also declared that He did not come to bring peace, but the sword. Even the pagan Horace has said: “Si fractus illabitur orbis, impavidum

42 Nanne van der Zijpp, “Corvinus, Antonius (1501–1553),” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, http://www.gameo.org/index.php?title=Corvinus,_Antonius_(1501-1553, accessed August 4, 2013.

ferient ruinae.” How much more should Christians avoid cowardice! One must not court the cross wantonly, but it must be borne courageously when for the sake of truth it cannot be avoided, etc.43

Of course, Corvinus did not persuade Melanchthon. Happily for Corvinus, his conditions were relatively com-fortable, perhaps defeating the purpose of trying to force his acceptance of the Interim. He was released, Oct. 1, 1552. He re-entered active ministry in Hannover and died shortly thereafter, April 11, 1553. Bente claims that it was his incarceration that led to his death.

Baldo Lupetino was born into Venetian nobility, though his birth date is uncertain (either 1492 or 1502). In the mid-1530s, he entered a Franciscan monastery in Lower Labin. During Lent in 1541, he openly advocated Lutheran ideas, denying the freedom of the will and argu-ing that Christ had fully atoned for human sin. He also reportedly addressed the doctrine of predestination. He was arrested in December 1542 and tried in 1543, 1547 and 1556, where he was sentenced to life in prison and then death.44

Oliver Olson argues, “As long as the Smalcald League remained in power, Venice was reluctant to offend the evangelical princes. But on the very day of the League’s defeat, April 24, 1547, Doge Francesco Dona opened his city to the Sant’ Uffizio and appointed three lay represen-tatives of the Council of Ten, Nicola Tiepolo, Francesco Contarmi and Antonio Venier, to cooperate with the cler-ical members, the Patriarch, the Father Inquisitor and Della Casa as Sages on Heresy — Savii sulv eresi.”45

43 F. Bente, Historical Introductions to the Book of Concord (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1965), 101.44 Luther himself wrote regarding Lupetino: “We have found out that your country Italy is the location of pious and honest men in sad trouble, the devotees of pure Christian faith. It is said that they are going through hard persecutions only because they embraced the Gospel and because they want to glorify it and spread it everywhere. Therefore we, who carefully try to follow the letter of the Holy Gospel and uphold it in all churches, are overwhelmed with deep and honest sympathy toward those God-loving men; because our Christian hearts understand the great suffering and bitter tears of those who suffer for the evangelical truth. As we have been notified that, by the order of the Roman Pope, among other men Baldo Lupetino has also been charged, a man with noteworthy virtues and profound knowledge, and that he is locked up in prison with his life in danger, we felt that it is our duty to intervene on his behalf and on the behalf of others.” Martin Luther’s Briefwechsel, Vol. 10, Briefe 1542–1544, Nr. 3884 (pp. 327–328); See also Mirko Breyer, “About the man from Istria, friar Baldo Lupetina (1502–1556),” Istra 14/2 (1976): 38, http://www.flacius.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=110%3Alutherovo-pismo&catid=57%3Abaldo-lupetina&Itemid=64&lang=en, accessed August 4, 2013.45 Olson, “Baldo Lupetino: Venetian Martyr,” Lutheran Quarterly: 11.

http://www.gameo.org/index.php?title=Corvinus,_Antonius_

http://www.gameo.org/index.php?title=Corvinus,_Antonius_

http://www.flacius.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=110%3Alutherovo-pismo&catid=57%3Abaldo-lupetina&Itemid=64&lang=en




Following the last trial, he was officially degraded and executed, likely during the night of Sept. 17–18, 1556. Olson describes the execution as follows:

At the dead hour of midnight, the prisoner was taken from his cell and put into a gondola or Vene-tian boat, attended only, besides the sailors, by a single priest, to act as confessor. He was rowed out into the sea beyond the Two Castles, where another boat was waiting. A plank was then laid across the two gondolas, upon which the prisoner, having his body chained, and a heavy stone affixed to his feet, was placed; and, on a signal given, the gondolas retiring from one another, he was precip-itated into the deep.While there were not a large number of Lutheran mar-

tyrs, their presence is irrefutable. Confessing the faith once delivered to the saints in accordance with the Augs-burg Confession placed one in a dangerous situation.

Conclusion — Peace, the Cross and The Formula of ConcordBy 1555, the political and military situation had calmed. In fact, with the Religious Peace of Augsburg of that year, the principle of cuius regio eius religio became the law of the Holy Roman Empire. Under it, Lutherans enjoyed legal recognition as a confession and the immediate threat of martyrdom was removed.

The Peace itself stated the following:§ 15. [Protection of the Adherents of the Confes-sion of Augsburg] And in order that such peace is respected and maintained despite the religious chasm, as is necessary in the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation and between his Roman Imperial Majesty and Us, on the one hand, and the electors, princes, and estates of the Holy Empire of the German nation, on the other, therefore His Imperial Majesty, and We, and the electors, princes, and estates of the Holy Empire will not make war upon any estate of the empire on account of the Augsburg Confession and the doctrine, religion, and faith of the same, nor injure nor do violence to those estates that hold it, nor force them, against their conscience, knowledge, and will, to abandon the religion, faith, church usages, ordinances, and ceremonies of the Augsburg Confession, where these have been established, or may hereafter be established, in their principalities, lands, and dominions. Nor shall We, through mandate or in

any other way, trouble or disparage them, but shall let them quietly and peacefully enjoy their religion, faith, church usages, ordinances, and ceremonies, as well as their possessions, real and personal property, lands, people, dominions, governments, honors, and rights. Further, a complete peace within the disputed Christian religion shall be attained only by Christian, friendly, and peaceful means through his Imperial and Royal Majesties, the honorable princes, and by threat of punish-ment for breach of the Public Peace.For Roman Catholics it stated: § 16. [Protection of the Adherents of the Catho-lic Faith] On the other hand, the estates that have accepted the Augsburg Confession shall suffer His Imperial Majesty, Us, and the electors, princes, and other estates of the Holy Empire, who adhere to the old religion, to abide in like manner by their religion, faith, church usages, ordinances, and cer-emonies. They shall also leave undisturbed their possessions, real and personal property, lands, people, dominions, government, honors, and rights, rents, interest, and tithes 46 Though the Religious Peace of Augsburg was viewed

by all involved in the Empire as being provisional in nature, it proved to be solid enough to last over the fol-lowing century, even through the Thirty Years War. During the remainder of the 16th century, the Roman Catholics (The Council of Trent), the Reformed Tradition (with its many local confessions), and the Lutheran Con-fession (the Formula of Concord), further refined their theological positions and established them confessionally for their future followers.

Perhaps because the threat of martyrdom at the hands of the state had largely been removed, martyrdom and the cross were largely translated into the arena of the individ-ual Christian. Further, in the Formula of Concord (1577), persecution and the cross appear, notably, in the article on the election of grace, FC XI.

Paragraph 20: 6. That He also will protect them in

46 Emil Reich, trans., Select Documents Illustrating Mediaeval and Modern History (London: P. S. King & Son, 1905), 226–32, revised and with additional articles by Thomas A. Brady Jr., http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/Doc.67-ENG-ReligPeace1555_en.pdf, accessed August 4, 2013. For those who held to other confessions, the Peace stated: “§ 17. [Exclusion of Adherents of Other Confessions] All others, however, who are not adherents of either of the aforementioned religions are not included in this peace, but shall be altogether excluded from it.”


their great weakness against the devil, the world, and the flesh, and rule and lead them in His ways, raise them again [place His hand beneath them], when they stumble, comfort them under the cross and in temptation, and preserve them [for life eternal].Paragraph 30: For this reason the elect are described thus: My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me, and I give unto them eter-nal life (John 10:27–28); In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11); and, Although all this is very weak in them, yet they hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matt. 5:6).Paragraph 48: Moreover, this doctrine affords glorious consolation under the cross and amid temptations, namely that God in His counsel, before the time of the world, determined and decreed that He would assist us in all distresses [anxieties and perplexities], grant patience [under the cross], give consolation, excite [nourish and encourage] hope, and produce such an outcome as would contribute to our salvation. Also, as Paul in a very consolatory way treats this (Rom. 8:28–29, 35, 38–39) that God in His purpose has ordained before the time of the world by what crosses and sufferings He would conform every one of His elect to the image of His Son, and that to everyone, His cross shall and must work together for good, because they are called according to the purpose, whence Paul has concluded that it is certain and indubitable that neither tribulation, nor distress, nor death, nor life, etc., shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

The Rev. Dr. Lawrence R. Rast, Jr., is president of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Ind.


The Holy Cross: Suffering, Persecution and Martyrdom – a Mark of the Church in the Modern Age by the Albert B. Collver III

Christian suffering, per-

secution and martyrdom

continue in the modern

age, but this will be turned

into blessing by the Lord.

In the Book of Revelation, “those who had been slain” cried out with a loud voice to the Lord, “How long before you will judge and avenge our

blood on those who dwell on the earth (Rev. 6:10)?” The word used to describe the martyrs who cried out to the Lord from the altar in heaven is from the verb σφάζω (sp-hazō), the very same word used to describe Jesus as “the Lamb who had been slain.” The martyrs had been slain like their Lord, Jesus. Like the blood of Abel, the blood of the martyrs calls out to the Lord for justice and the vengeance of the Lord upon the wicked. In a similar way, the Lord’s church on earth cries out to be a witness to the world and for deliver-ance from all evil. Ironically, the more the church prays to be a witness to the world, the more likely the church is to experience the cross and suffering, which in itself becomes a witness.

Dr. Martin Luther, in his On the Councils and the Church, identified seven marks or notes of the church,1 that is, seven items that indicate the church of God is present on earth. These marks or notes of where to find the church, the people of God, are an explanation of the Augsburg Confession, Article VII, which says the church is found where “the Gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gos-pel.” In On the Councils and the Church, Luther begins with the Word of God, followed by an enumeration of the

1 Martin Luther. “On the Councils and the Church(es)” in: Luther’s Works, Vol. 41: Church and Ministry, eds. Eric W. Gritsch and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia PA: Fortress Press, 1966), 9–178.

ways the Gospel is delivered to the Lord’s people — Holy Baptism, Holy Communion, Holy Absolution and Holy Ministry. Dr. Luther also adds: prayer, public praise, and thanksgiving (Phil. 4:6); and the holy cross. Prayer, pub-lic praise, and thanksgiving provide the context in which the Word of God is proclaimed and the sacraments are administered. It is a description of what goes on where church is located, where the people of God are gathered. To all of this, Dr. Luther adds a seventh mark — the holy

cross, which includes suffering, per-secution and martyrdom.2

This theme of suffering, perse-cution and martyrdom has been a topic of theological reflection since the Book of Acts. At the beginning of the second decade of the 21st cen-tury, the church has passed through a century where more Christians, numerically, have been persecuted and martyred than at any other time in history. We live in a time when governments that once championed freedom of religion are turning in-creasingly hostile to the message of the Gospel. “Free” societies that al-

low for the public expression of nearly any thought, idea or action increasingly cannot bear to hear the witness of the Church in the public square. At the same time, Islam is spreading among people and through lands where the Gospel once held sway. If the external threats of secular humanism and Islam were not enough, the Church is also under attack from within.

2 Ibid.

At the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century,

the church has passed through a century

where more Christians, numerically, have

been persecuted and martyred than at any other time in history.


It should not surprise us that the Lord’s

people, that His holy Church, takes on the

appearance of the crucified Son of God.

In fact, it is a great honor and joy that the Lord conforms us into

his image.

Once on a trip to Kazakhstan, we visited Kazakhstan’s office of the Ministry of Religion. This man had served during the communist and post-communist periods. He was a professed agnostic, who was interested in the social phenomena called religion. He said that the communists thought they needed to persecute the church to prevent its spread. Then, he noted how the mainstream Protestant church bodies had strayed from the historic message of Christianity, particularly by adopting Western society’s agenda on sexuality. He concluded by saying, “What the communists failed to do, namely destroy the Church, liberal Christianity will succeed by eliminating the teaching of historic Christianity, allowing Islam and oth-er radical ideologies to dominate.” Indeed, as the Apostle John said, “so now many antichrists have come” (1 John 2:18).

Christ’s Church faces many ene-mies from within and without. She bears the mark of the holy cross, not as an identifier for its own sake, but as a consequence of bearing witness to and proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Church in every place bears the holy cross to some degree. The Church in some places bears what appears to be a smaller cross than the church in other places, yet no matter how small or big the cross, it serves the same purpose — a wit-ness (martyria) to the world and as Formula of Concordia XI confesses, to “conform every one of His elect to the im-age of His Son.”3 It should not surprise us that the Lord’s

3 The Large Catechism (1529), in: The Lutheran Confessions: A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord, eds. Paul T. McCain, Robert C. Baker, Gene E. Veith and Edward A. Engelbrecht (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 639.

people, that His holy Church, takes on the appearance of the crucified Son of God. In fact, it is a great honor and joy that the Lord conforms us into his image. This is why St. Paul says in Rom. 8:28, “And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good.”

The Lord Jesus works the good of His Church through the holy cross. He worked the salvation of the world on the cross. He redeemed you and me on the cross. Through the crosses, that is, the sufferings in our lives, predestined

for us before the foundation of the world, the Lord conforms us into the image of His Son. What sort of Lord predestines the holy cross? The sort of Lord who, in his divine foreknowl-edge, ensured that no suffering, cross or martyrdom would wrest you from His loving hand. This is the sort of Lord who has promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail against his Church. This is the sort of Lord who, in the words of the Augsburg Con-fession, said the Church, perpetual mansura, will endure forever. Be as-sured that suffering, persecution and

martyrdom, as evil as it is, will be turned into blessing by The Lord.

The Rev. Dr. Albert B. Collver III is the LCMS director of Church Relations; LCMS director of Regional Operations for the Office of International Mission and executive secre-tary of the International Lutheran Council.


Suffering, Persecution and Martyrdom as a Mark of the Church in Europe by Darius Petkunas

Suffering, persecution

and martyrdom — the Rev.

Dr. Petkunas talks history

and the present situation

in Europe.

Since the beginning of recorded time, many have suffered for their beliefs. In ancient Rome, the popular maxim stated “Ad astra per aspera” (To

the stars through adversities). The pagans knew nothing of the promises which God had attached to his cove-nant people; for them, willingness to suffer hardship was necessary if worthy prizes were to be gained. A lengthy catalogue of hardships endured by God’s Old Testament saints is recorded in the letter to the Hebrews, chapter 11.

When Christ promised that those who followed him would have to bear crosses for the sake of his name, he did not put this statement in the form of a proposition, as though to say willingness to bear the hatred of the world would reap great rewards. He was instead stating the simple fact that the prince of this world would see to it those who put their faith in Christ would know pain and anguish such as their Lord had so willingly taken upon himself on their behalf.

The life of the Church has been marked from the beginning by the presence of the cross, that particular form of suffering borne by those who con-fess the name of Christ. Clear signs of this can be seen in the martyrdom first of Stephen, then James of Jerusalem, then of all the apostles excepting only St. John, and by the death of early Roman Christians at the hands of Nero, and also, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Cyprian of Carthage and countless others who suffered at the hands of Diocletian, Julian the Apostate and other enemies of Christ. Persecution proved a very inefficient method of exterminating the Christian Church. It did not diminish;

it grew. As Tertullian declared, the blood of the martyrs proved to be the seed of the Church. Luther went so far as to state the possession of the cross of Christ should be regarded as among the sure signs of the Church, the holy Christian people.

In the 20th century, Marxist-Leninist communist ide-ology clearly dictated that for communism to succeed, the Church and its superstitions must be destroyed, and that

the very idea of God must be erased from man’s heart and soul. It was at first thought that scientific-atheist propaganda could accomplish this, as the Christian faith was thought to be nothing more than ignorant supersti-tion, which could be easily overcome by secular reasoning and education. These communists soon found it nec-essary to employ more direct means to destroy the Church. Thousands of priests and bishops from all the tra-ditional Christian confessions in the Soviet Union were sent to gulags, and for many of them, it was a death sen-tence. By the mid 1930s the Roman

Catholic and Lutheran Churches in Soviet Russia had disappeared. The communists sought to destroy the Or-thodox Church in the same manner. Priests and bishops were sent away to perish, and churches were torn down and plowed over. But all this proved insufficient. It was not possible to erase the idea of God from the hearts and minds of men, or at least not from all men. Every time the government relaxed its atheistic efforts, the fires of faith again sprang up. When communism failed, suppos-edly-atheist countries once again declared themselves Christian. The people publicly proclaimed that they had

The unwillingness, or even the inability, of churches to take a

bold stand and endure the consequences of recriminations and

persecution represent the elimination of the seventh sign from the church’s conscience

and life.


been and continued to be Christian people, and this con-tinues to be true.

This commentary explicates what Luther calls this seventh mark of the Church, this bearing of the cross and what he defines as the shape which the cross takes in the life of the Church in times of suffering, persecution and martyrdom. It also speaks to the present situation of the churches in Europe where law and order prevail and the oppression of Christianity is unacknowledged

Luther on the Seventh Mark of the ChurchIn his tractate on the Churches and Councils (1539),1 Luther enumerates the marks of the true Church. He characterizes it by the marks set down in Article VII of the Augsburg Confession, where the Church is described “as the assem-bly of believers among whom the Gospel is taught in its truth and purity and the sacraments are administered according to Christ’s institution.” Here, he finds the first four essential marks of the Church. The first mark of the Church “is its possession of the holy Word of God. Where this Word is preached, believed, professed, and lived, there the true ecclesia sancta catolica is to be found” regardless of its size. The second mark is the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. “Wherever it is taught, believed and administered correctly according to Christ’s mandate, that too is a public sign and a precious holy possession by which God’s people are sanc-tified.” The third mark is the Holy Sacrament of the Altar “rightly administered, believed, and received according to Christ’s institution.” Like Baptism, the altar sacrament is a public sign, a holy possession given by Christ to sanctify his people. The fourth sign is the Office of the Keys and Con-fession publicly exercised. “If a Christian sins, he should be reproved. If he will not mend his ways, he should be bound in his sin and cast out, however, if he does mend his ways he should be absolved.” The fifth sign is the consecration or calling of pastors and the Office of the Holy Ministry. “There must be bishops, pastors, or preachers who publicly and privately give, administer, and use the aforementioned four things or holy possessions in behalf or in the name of the Church or by reason of their institution by Christ.” The sixth mark: “The holy people are externally recognized by prayer, public praise, and thanksgiving to God.” Finally, “the holy Christian people are externally recognized by the holy possession of the sacred cross.”

Luther elaborates on the seventh sign by stating that

1 Martin Luther. “On the Councils and the Church(es)” in: Luther’s Works, Vol. 41: Church and Ministry, eds. Eric W. Gritsch and Helmut T. Lehamnn (Philadelphia PA: Fortress Press, 1966), 150.

Christians “must endure every misfortune and persecu-tion… all kinds of evil.” In this way, they are conformed not by their own action and decision, but by the work of the Holy Spirit. They are punished not because they have done wrong, or because “they are adulterers, murderers, thieves or rogues, but because they want to have none but Christ, and no other God. Wherever you see or hear this you may know the Holy Christian Church is here”

The source of these sufferings according to Luther is “the devil, the world and the sinful flesh. Persecution and martyrdom are not the product of paranoia or one’s own mania. They are the work of objective agents. One cannot make a close distinction between those sufferings which are caused by the devil, those which are imposed by the world, and those which have their origin in sinful flesh. All three are involved, even though empirically, it is the world which stands out most clearly.

The Shape of “the World” and its Relation to the ChurchAs in the Scriptures and so too in Luther’s theology, the term “world” does not necessarily stand for the secular versus the religious or spiritual. When Luther uses this term in connection with devil and the sinful flesh, “world” refers to everything that stands in opposition to God and seeks to silence His Word. There is nothing in Luther of the Neoplatonic notion found in Augustine’s theology, which sets civitas Dei and civitas mundi in opposition. Augustine characterized the civitas terrena as inhabited by children of Cain who devote themselves to hedonistic pleasures and earthly prosperity, while followers of Abel serve God and look to eternal life in His Heavenly City. The Church in this world is the sign which points to the Heavenly City (res signata). The history of mankind is a history of constant conflict between the two cities and their citizens. Luther leaves such thinking behind.

Luther instead distinguishes two realms of God activity — one ruled by his right hand, the other by His left. The realm of the right hand of God is “God’s kingdom” in the proper sense of the word (Geisliches regiment, reych Gottis), in which he rules spiritually through the proclamation of the Gospel. God rules by his left hand through the secular powers, the kingdoms of His present world (Weltliches regi-ment. Reych der Welt). He rules here through law and order administered by earthly powers which use earthly forms of force (“the sword”) to keep order in society.

Luther understands that these two kingdoms are quite distinct but both are necessary. He does not agree with


those who assert that the world can be ruled by the Gospel alone. He declares that where it is claimed that the Gospel provides universal principles for the earthly government there unbelievers simply mask their unbelief and use so-called Gospel principles and the rights of Christian free-dom to their own advantage. Over against this Luther states that Law that operates by threats and by force is necessary for an orderly society and justice. So considered secular government serves God’s purposes for the benefit of His people and Church. However, secular government may try to drive God form the picture and construct order and jus-tice according to its own fallen purposes.

It is Luther’s concern that both the spiritual and secular realms should know their proper place. The Christian lives under both realms and governments. He is simul justus et peccator — he is a baptized child of God whose sins are forgiven and who seeks to live in accordance with God’s law and to walk in the way of righteousness. At the same time, however, he is still a child of Adam. He is still sub-ject to temptation, to secret thoughts and desires beyond even his own understanding, always in need of forgiveness and grace. The Law stands over him with its warnings and threats, calling upon him to live a life which is in accor-dance with the will of God. Luther goes so far as to say: “That the righteous man of his accord does everything that the law demands and more, but the unrighteous do noth-ing that the law demands and for that reason it is necessary that the law should instruct, compel and constrain them to do good.” The unbeliever is not simul justus et peccator. He is a sinner who lives only in the “kingdom of the world.” He cares nothing about God’s will and follows the law in order to avoid incurring the penalties which are attached to its violation.

These two realms or kingdoms are not autonomous. They are both responsible to God. Each has its own par-ticular work to do. The Church is not to interfere in the secular realm as though it were an earthly government, nor is it to issue secular laws or look upon itself as lord over the state. For its part, the secular power does not interfere with the spiritual realm.

From this perspective Luther does not speak of the earthly kingdom in negative terms. The Peace of Augsburg (1555) would establish the principle Cuius regio, eius religio, and as a result, many territories became Lutheran, and the Lutheran Churches became territorial churches. In these territories, the worldly authority was to treat the Church benevolently, but they were not to become the secular arms of the Church, enforcing its doctrine and regulations on

the citizens. Church matters were left in the hands of spiri-tual authorities such as bishops or consistories.

Luther made it clear secular government is limited in its power and authority. Its laws and regulations are to extend no further than the physical body and physical property.

What Luther referred to as the seventh sign or mark of the Church is called into play when temporal, secular authority oversteps its limits and intrudes into spiritual affairs, where God’s Word and will should reign supreme. When this happens, Christians are to follow the example of St. Peter, who when he was told by the Jewish authorities that he must not proclaim the person and work of Christ responded that in such matters one must follow “God rather than men.”

Luther affirmed Peter’s statement at the very time when Lutherans were beginning to feel the pain of persecution and the sword for the sake of their faith. In July of 1523, Henricus Vos and Jan van der Eschen were burned at the stake in Brussels for their confession of the Gospel, and in Ducal Saxony, Duke George was attempting to ban the sale and spread of Luther’s translation of the New Tes-tament even to the point of insisting that those who had purchased copies of it must surrender them or suffer dire consequences. Luther stated emphatically that this was no time for Christians to wobble.

To suffer under these circumstances, said Luther, was to be blessed, because it meant that God deemed his people worthy to experience hardship for the sake of his Word. To voluntarily surrender under such circumstances would be tantamount “to delivering Christ up into the hands of Herod.” The New Testament and like writings were not to be surrendered voluntarily, but if these writings were snatched from their hands, they were not to resist but will-ingly endure outrage and hardship. The enduring of such hardship for the sake of the Gospel is a sign of the Church.

The Seventh Sign — A Historical PerspectiveThis seventh sign of the Church manifested itself most evi-dently when and where the faithfulness of the Church was put to the test by a strong state or government hostile to the Gospel. In the 16th century, Lutherans most often found themselves in the minority in many territories. They were ready and willing to affirm by word and action the faith which they confessed. Indeed, the Church and Christians who are determined to be faithful regardless of the cost are most likely to find themselves on the receiving end of trials and tribulations.

However, it is not necessary that the Church be in the


minority in order to find itself in a position of suffering and hardship for the sake of the Gospel. History indicates instances of hardship and even outright persecution devel-oped when secular power intruded in the life and worship of Lutheran territorial Churches, even though a majority of the citizens were baptized and communicant members of the Lutheran Church. A clear example is found in the case of Prussia where, reformed rulers were determined to intrude into the faith, confession, and worship of the Lutheran Church — a clear violation of the Lutheran understanding of the clear division between the spiritual and secular powers. This was accomplished by a series of actions undertaken by Prussian rulers, which reached a high point when Friedrich Wilhelm III announced in 1830 that the name “Lutheran” was henceforth banished from the church’s official name and then declared in 1834 that henceforth Lutheran and Reformed congregations were to use a single liturgical agenda on all altars and in all churches. The first sign of concrete suffering and perse-cution as a result of the royal edicts came in Silesia, where, as Luther had said, the clausula Petri must be followed and God rather then man must be obeyed. Pastors and congre-gations in Breslau and in outlying areas strongly opposed the introduction of the Union Agenda and absolutely refused to make use of it.

An obedient and compliant church government was quick to suspend and impede pastors who defied the royal order. The Pastors themselves refused to recognize these suspensions because they said they were members of the Lutheran Church, not of some ersatz Union Church cre-ated by the government. They continued their ministry of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments in accordance with their call and ordination. The results were the same everywhere. The police were sent by gov-ernmental authorities to search out these pastors and their congregations. Many pastors were arrested and jailed. They were given an opportunity to repent of their headstrong defiance but if they refused to do so, they were fined and imprisoned. Those who opened their doors to Lutheran services were given heavy fines and if they were unable to pay their property and goods were liable to be confiscated.

Despite the fact that all the eastern territories of Prus-sia were Lutheran, the seventh sign of the Church appeared chiefly in Silesia for it was there that Lutherans were deter-mined to be faithful in the face of hardship. Elsewhere the Prussian Lutheran Church had in the 18th century come under the influence of Rationalism and had abandoned Lutheran confessions for what were thought to be more

modern approaches to religion. The interference of the secular power into spiritual matters provoked no more than occasional grumblings here and there by those who retained some semblance of Lutheran orthodoxy. What Luther considered an important mark of the Church was circumvented, and substituted for it was a new, more reasonable mark — the mark of prosperity and public acceptance. The result was inevitable. In the course of the reign of reasonable von Hohenzollerns, Lutheranism all but disappeared.

The example of the Prussian Church shows what hap-pens when the Church either sees no need to make a clear confession of the truth of God’s Word or has allowed itself to be rendered incapable of articulating such a confession. If the Church has nothing for which it is willing to suffer it will not suffer, and it will not receive the blessing which hardship brings with it. Here, as Luther had correctly stated, the willingness to endure what a clear confession brings with it and the unwillingness to allow the secular realm to interfere in Church affairs and to the determina-tion to make a bold a clear confession and bear the cross is a clear mark of the Church.

The Situation Today: Some ObservationsToday secular governments do not ordinarily interfere directly into Church affairs. The Church’s long history of capitulation has made further interference unnecessary because now some Lutheran Churches in Europe are little more than creatures of the state in which faith has been replaced by ideology. One must be very circumspect in making such a judgment, however, because everywhere churches find it necessary to accommodate themselves in some measure to the secular regimes so that they may continue to proclaim the Gospel. Here one may point the experience of the churches under the Soviet Communist regime. It was the clear intention of the regime to annihi-late the Christian faith and the Christian Church; for her part the Church found that its very survival depended upon its willingness to collaborate with the regime to some extant. The governmental program of organized interfer-ence with the Church concentrated its central attention on outward affairs rather than direct attempts to alter the content of the Church’s confessions. The Churches found it necessary to direct their primary attention to the faithful confession of the Christian faith. Clergy and members were willing to suffer rather than abandon their confession, to suspend their Sacramental ministry, and to quietly disappear. They had everyday acquaintance with


the seventh sign to an extant not shared by their Western neighbors who enjoyed prosperity and engaged in doctri-nal and liturgical experimentation.

Care must be taken also, because many controversial issues are raised under the general banner of human rights and justice — notions which the Church would certainly never be willing to stand against. But now what floats under this banner are issues concerning human sexuality, notions concerning marriage which stand against the Word of God and Church’s teachings. Furthermore, biomedical issues and concerns about social welfare and the termination of viable pregnancies are also involved. Until recent times, the Church understood all of these issues to involve sinful dis-obedience to the Word and will of God, but now, attempts are being made to raise doubts about this. Some Lutheran churches no longer openly protest such ethical issues, but simply affirm the popular positions advocated in the public press and the secular policies articulated by politicians. Today, these issues deeply divide contemporary Lutheran-ism. The unwillingness, or even the inability, of churches to take a bold stand and endure the consequences of recrim-inations and persecution represent the elimination of the seventh sign from the church’s conscience and life.

The seventh sign has always been regarded as a sec-ondary mark of the Church. Its absence at a particular time and at particular place does not necessarily mean that the Church is no longer the true Church. However, it often happens that where the Church is unwilling to bear the pain of the cross, other marks and signs of the Church, including the pure proclamation of the Gospel, the right administration of the Sacraments, and the proper ordering of the Holy Ministry, disappear as well.

Luther would insist that one must move beyond a simple consideration of the empirical evidence to recog-nize that behind it stands the ancient consolation of “the Devil, the World and the sinful flesh.” The Church and her people contend with forces which are not merely empiri-cal and material. They are instead higher and stronger powers in heavenly places (Eph. 6:12). They must be com-bated with the power of God, whom the Church confesses and proclaims.

The Rev. Dr. Darius Petkunas is a professor and member of the faculty of Theology at the University of Helsinki.


Book ReviewImproving Preaching by Listening to Listeners: Sunday Service Preaching in the Malagasy Lutheran Church by Hans Austnaberg by Robert H. Bennett

A review of Hans Austnaberg’s

book examines typical sermons

preached at churches in

Madagascar within their social,

political and historical context.

The Lutheran Church of Madagascar has been the focus of many recent studies. What is so special about this church what makes it

different from other church bodies? Why are so many people turning their attention to this Island? Until the last 10 years or so, very few people were aware of The Lutheran Church of Madagascar. For instance, the Lutherans in South Africa had no idea that just across the Mozambique Channel there were millions of Lutherans. It was not only the Lutherans of Africa that were unaware of the growth of the Lutheran Church in Madagascar. The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod also seemed to be caught by surprise.

Historically, the Lutheran Church of Madagascar has been in fellowship with Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF). Both of these church bodies were not in fel-lowship with the LCMS. As a result of these fellowship issues, the LCMS understood little about the Mala-gasy Lutheran Church (Fiangonana Loterana Malagasy or FLM). Nevertheless, the liberalism found in both the ELCA and LWF had not penetrated the theology or prac-tice of the FLM. As it turns out these people were not only Lutheran, but they were confessional and liturgical Lutherans. They had managed to avoid the influence of women’s ordination, both their pastors and congregations continued to hold a high regard for the Holy Scripture and the teachings of Luther’s Small Catechism.

The FLM continues to be a church body connected to the Word of God and the Sacraments of The Lord’s Supper and Holy Baptism. During my PhD studies in

Madagascar, those I interviewed were constantly speak-ing in terms of the presence of Jesus attached to the Word and Sacraments. Moreover, Luther’s Small Catechism was a foundational resource for the teaching of the Church. Nevertheless, one of the areas of study that was lacking in research was the content of the sermons. What were the people hearing proclaimed from the pulpits on any given Sunday in the congregations? Finally, there is a book that

answers this question, at least in part. Hans Austnaberg has done the church a great service by providing his book titled, Improving Preach-ing by Listening to Listeners: Sunday Service Preaching in the Malagasy Lutheran Church.

Austnaberg’s divides his book into two parts. The first part of the book focuses on how listeners are hearing the sermons preached by their pas-tors. The second part of the book focuses on a homiletic discussion of ethos, logos and pathos. The island of Madagascar is a very difficult place to investigate due to logistical

and economic difficulties. Therefore, one of the benefits of this book is that it provides three examples of sermons preached in various churches throughout the highlands of Madagascar. To be sure, three sermons provide only an anecdotal understanding of the preaching life of the FLM. Nevertheless, these sermons are consistent with the sermons heard by other confessional Lutheran pastors who have visited churches on the island. Austnaberg uses these sermons to determine the answers to the follow-ing questions: How do the hearers perceive the message of the sermon? How do their responses match the inten-tions of the preachers? The research demonstrated that

The island of Madagascar is a very

difficult place to investigate … one of

the benefits of this book is that it provides three

examples of sermons preached in various

churches throughout the highlands of

Madagascar.


the pastors are very effective at communicating to their congregants. The author thoughtfully demonstrates this point throughout his book. However, some readers will find the listeners responses to be the greatest advantage of this book.

What did the listeners have to say? What did they believe the content of a truly Christian sermon should be? Were these sermons living up to their expectations? The author analyzes these questions through the matrix of ethos, logos and pathos. By ethos, the author refers to the character of the preacher. When referring to logos, he means the content of the sermon. Finally, when referring to pathos, the author refers to the ability of the ethos and logos to move or correct the hearer. To those who enjoy rhetorical studies this will be an interesting read. How-ever, this book holds a greater treasure, namely, a glimpse into the psyche of the average person sitting in the pews of the FLM.

The author rightfully recognized the necessity of pro-viding his readers with the social, political, and historical context of Madagascar during the time of his research. Madagascar was enduring a time of immense political and economic difficulties brought on by a political coup which exaggerated the poverty and famine the island had already endured. What would the listeners desire to hear from their pastors? Would they be sermons that focused on the political and economic problems of the day, or would they desire sermons based on the biblical text of the lectionary? Interestingly, the hearers were only inter-ested in sermons that provided a biblical understanding of the texts and the proclamation of Jesus Christ crucified and risen for sinners. What about sermons that spoke to the problems of the day? None of the respondents thought it important enough to mention when describing their desired sermonic content. What about the use of stories in sermons? The listeners said that they could under-stand the use of stories at times, but such stories should only emphasize the biblical text and were not considered necessary. The listeners overwhelmingly made the point that they were not in church to “encounter the world” but to “encounter God” through His Word and Sacraments. What were the listeners’ thoughts about the emotional sermonic responses? While emotions will always be found in the hearts of those who hear the Word of God and receive his gifts, emotional appeals were looked down upon by those in the pews.

Much of what Austnaberg’s research uncovered is dif-ferent from what many modern listeners in American

pews might suppose. One of the most striking differences was what the listeners said about preaching in general. When asked about how individual sermons “moved them to change,” they responded that while occasionally a particular sermon might lead to a change in their lives, change was an ongoing process, “through listening to ser-mons over a period of time.”1 Therefore, the respondents found an ongoing participation in worship to be responsi-ble for changing the individuals heart rather than a single well-crafted sermon.

In Part 2 of the book, Austnaberg begins a homiletic discussion in which he analyzes the listeners’ perceived character of the pastors (ethos), the content of the ser-mons (logos), and the ability of the sermons to get a “response” from the hearers (pathos). Briefly stated, in regard to what the researcher termed ethos, he found that the clergy were held in high regard by the people. However, if a pastor’s lifestyle was in conflict with his ser-monic content, he would lose credibility with the hearers. What was the main content of every sermon (logos)? The hearers were clear, if the sermon does not preach Christ crucified and risen each week, it was not understood to be a Christian sermon. In addition, the sermon should be systematic in nature while dealing with the historical context of the biblical stories. Finally, concerning pathos, change is not something that is manipulated by the words of men, but comes through ongoing hearing of the Word and reception of the Sacraments.

As the Lutheran Church in the Western world contin-ues to learn more of this faithful witness of the Lutheran Church of Madagascar, it might question if such reports are true. Yes, they are. Moreover, the Malagasy Lutheran Church has much more to teach us about how Confes-sional Lutheranism can flourish in the animistic /spiritual context now found in the Western world.

The Rev. Dr. Robert Bennett is senior administrative pastor for Trinity Lutheran Church in Reese, Mich.

1 Hans Austnaberg. Improving Preaching by Listening to Listeners: Sunday Service Preaching in the Malagasy Lutheran Church (New York: Peter Lang, 2012), 118.


Book ReviewJoining Jesus on His Mission: How to Be an Everyday Missionary by Greg Finke by Geoffrey L. Robinson

Although Finke’s book rightly

encourages the engagement of

one’s neighbors in a relational

manner, the book is fraught with

faulty theology.

The Rev. Greg Finke in his book entitled, “Joining Jesus on His Mission: How to Be an Everyday Missionary,” asserts that Jesus is on a redemptive

mission to bring people to salvation by messing with them. This messing with them is done outside of the Means of Grace. It is done where one finds the kingdom of god. Finke invites one to join Jesus on this redemptive mission by getting into relationships with people and watching for God to act. When you see God act there may be opportunity for you to speak about your faith. The book is a call to action without pressure. The key is to just join in relationships with your neighbors.

Finke in this book demonstrates a passion for serving Christ and reaching out to the lost and erring, which is to be commended and emulated. Finke gets it right when he demonstrates throughout the book that sharing the Word of God is a relational activity. In other words, one must be in relationship with people to share the Word. Fur-ther, Finke points out that the people of God need to go out into the world and engage other people in conversa-tion, so that they might have the opportunity to share the Word of God with others.

I truly appreciate how Finke points out the univer-sal grace of God, in that God desires all men to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. There is no one whom God doesn’t want saved. That is fact. I also am appreciative of Finke’s assessment that our United States culture has changed from what it was in the 1940s and 1950s. He rightly, in my opinion, assesses the situation correctly, in that society isn’t as friendly toward Christian-ity as it once was in the U.S.

There are, however, a number of things that make me hesitant to give a wholehearted recommendation of this book:

A key point made throughout is that Jesus is acting upon people outside the Means of Grace. The terminol-

ogy used by Finke is that Jesus is “messing with,” you or other people. This idea of Jesus working outside the Means of Grace pervades the book. Finke states,

“However, Jesus is saying that if, wherever we are, we will open our eyes and look at the people around us, we can know that the Spirit of God has already been at work in their lives long before we arrived on the scene. So, Jesus says, count on it and look for it. God’s already been at work in their lives. They may not understand it. They probably don’t know it is him. But God has brought many of them to a point where they are ‘ripe’ to encounter his good news. Jesus simply wants us to open our eyes and look for these people.”1 And here is another statement that implies Jesus is

working on people outside of the Means of Grace to draw them to Himself:

“Here’s the mission lesson: If people are not ready, it is almost impossible to pick them. But once they are ready, they’ll come looking for you. … Jesus is in charge of ripening people. Our job is to watch for people who are ripe.”2 Further, Finke uses the kingdom of god in a new and

novel way in his book, at least for Lutherans. Wherever God is present and active is where one can find the king-dom of god. Finke defines the kingdom of god in this way:

“A working definition for us could be: The king-dom of god is the redemptive presence and activity of God in human lives. To say it simply, the king-dom of god is God himself. Wherever God is present and active, his kingdom is present and active. So, in the beginning when God created the physical universe, and people particularly, we were

1 Greg Finke. “Joining Jesus on His Mission: How to Be an Everyday Missionary” (Tenth Power Publishing, January 26, 2014), 31.2 Ibid, 33.


The objective justification of mankind is not a process; it is an accomplished fact. It is not something that is ongoing. Subjective

justification occurs when an individual is called into saving

faith by the Holy Spirit working through

the Gospel. It is not accomplished by Jesus messing with someone.

created to live with God and be in a loving relationship with God (Genesis 1–2). … He put into play a plan to redeem and restore the created universe, and people particularly, to himself — or, as the New Testament would say it, to his kingdom. This plan of redemption and restoration is the mission of God.”3 This is more akin to a Reformed

understanding of the kingdom of god than a Lutheran understand-ing, which distinguishes between the kingdoms of Power, Grace and Glory. Lutherans do assert that the kingdom of power finds God actively ruling over His creation; they do not assert that this kingdom of power is the same as the kingdom of grace through which God operates to call people into saving faith. In Finke’s book, there is no strong, clear and con-sistent theme of God coming to people through the Word and the Sacraments and calling them into the kingdom of Glory through these Means of Grace. In my judgment, Finke is wrong in how he understands the kingdom of god and redemption in particular. Finke writes:

“What does the kingdom of god look like when it is present and active in the life of someone living without the good news of the kingdom? When someone doesn’t yet know, or understand or believe the kingdom has come and redemption is theirs? What does the kingdom look like when it is still ripening someone toward redemption? It will usually look like human need. It will look like where love, hope or redemption are needed. We can look around and ask ourselves, “Where can grace be applied? Where can a little love and truth make a difference?” For those living within the kingdom, love is the evidence of the redemption the kingdom has brought. For those living without the kingdom, human need is the evidence that the kingdom is near and working toward bringing redemption.”4 The problem with this definition is that there is no

clear proclamation that the kingdom of grace comes

3 Ibid, 75.4 Finke, 86.

where there is the Word of God and the Sacraments. Human need cannot be the evidence that the kingdom of god is near and bringing salvation. There is human need throughout the world. In many cases, this human need is where there is no opportunity for the proclamation of the Word to occur. This is due to the fact that there are places in the world where there are no appreciable amount of Chris-tians. If the kingdom of grace comes through the Means of Grace, then it must be centered in the Word of God. Therefore, it is incorrect to say, “For those living without the kingdom, human need is the evidence that the kingdom is near and working toward bringing redemption.”

Another concern is that Finke implies in this book that Jesus Christ hasn’t completed redemption for all mankind. Finke says:

“Think of it this way: every person you see around you has a length of life. You can imagine it like a timeline. They are born. They live their days. They die. And then there is eternity. Jesus intersects every person’s timeline at various points during their life in order to begin a process of redemption and restoration to the kingdom of his Father.”5 And again Finke states:“Jesus is on a mission. He is on a grand adventure to redeem and restore human lives to the king-dom of his Father. This is nothing new. Ever since he broke out of the tomb on Easter Sunday, Jesus has been on the loose, pursuing his redemptive mission, messing with people, ripening people, preparing people to be drawn back to the Father he loves. It’s what he does.”6 And Finke further writes: “From now on, Jesus said, redemption is on the loose. The full restoration of all things is in motion. The Spirit of God is on the move in the created world and will not be turned back until all things are made new.”7

5 Ibid, 29.6 Finke, 27.7 Ibid, 80.


And again, Finke asserts:“When Jesus arrived here, he unleashed the prom-ised season of world redemption. It is happening now. Wherever God is redemptively present and active his kingdom is at work. We can seek it, rec-ognize it and join with it.”8 The objective justification of mankind is not a pro-

cess; it is an accomplished fact. It is not something that is ongoing. Subjective justification occurs when an individual is called into saving faith by the Holy Spirit working through the Gospel. It is not accomplished by Jesus messing with someone. The biblical teaching of the total depravity of man is compromised with this notion of Jesus preparing people and ripening them to accept Him as their Savior apart from the Means of Grace. The notion of ripening implies that there is some inherent good in a person that just needs some ripening to the point that one will respond to the Gospel’s call.

A final concern that I have with Finke’s book is that he seems to promote a determinism which isn’t Lutheran or scriptural. Finke claims in his book:

“Recently, I read that 30 percent of Americans know none of their neighbors. However, while that is the norm throughout the U.S., it wasn’t going to be an option for the Finke family. Why? Because we knew we were called to be neighborhood mis-sionaries. Acts 17:26 says, ‘and God determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.’ Proverbs 16:9 says, ‘In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps.’ We believe that, too.So while there were all kinds of factors that played into our deciding to live in this specific home in this specific neighborhood in this specific part of the city, in the end we believed it was the Lord who had determined the exact place where we would now live. And for what purpose had he chosen this exact place? His purpose, of course: to redeem and restore all people, including people in our new neighborhood.” 9

Finke exhibits faulty exegesis in making his point: Acts 17:26 is talking about humankind, not each individ-ual. And using Finke’s logic, one must assume since God directs each mans steps that God directs, robbery, rape, child abuse and so forth. Of course this isn’t true, since

8 Ibid, 82.9 Finke, 136–137.

God isn’t the author of evil. Another example of determinism in the book is this

excerpt:“Imagine a person is 100 steps away from the moment on their timeline when they step into believing and receiving Jesus. If they are 100 steps away from their moment, they are not ready for the ‘Jesus step’ just yet (the step when they believe and receive Jesus). However, while they may not be ready for the ‘Jesus step’, they probably are ready for the “next-step” on the journey toward Jesus. And we need to remember the ‘next-step’ on their journey is as important as the final step on their journey to Jesus. The last step into Jesus’ arms can’t happen without all those ‘next-steps happening first.”10 God doesn’t determine everything that man does, like

picking out a house and so forth. Man does have freedom of choice in the things not spiritual. A subtle determin-ism, I believe, pervades the whole of the book. This is evidenced by Finke’s working premise that a person’s sal-vation is on a timeline, (sort of dispensation-like) and that Jesus is messing with them outside of the Means of Grace.

The early church grew in large part because the Chris-tians lived lives of service to their neighbors. Dr. Alvin J. Schmidt points this out in his wonderful book, Under the Influence, where he shows that the reason the Christian church grew in such large measure was due to the fact that Christians were different in their actions. They started hospitals, orphanages, geriatric centers and the like. They served their neighbors above themselves, and this enabled them to share the hope that was within themselves: “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).

There was no ripening process that I can see in my study of Christian history in the early centuries of the Church in the way that Greg Finke describes it. Rather, there was a radical difference between Christians and the rest of the world in the way that they lived, as they treated one another and served their neighbor and God above themselves.

In conclusion, I appreciate Finke’s efforts to encour-age the engagement of people and in particular one’s

10 Ibid, 34.


neighbors in a relational manner. I am thankful for his emphasis on the Universal Grace that God teaches in His Holy Word. However, I cannot endorse this book, due to the lack of emphasis of the Holy Spirit working through the Means of Grace to call people into saving faith, and due to the many theological concerns that I have explained in this review.

The Rev. Geoffrey Robinson is mission executive for the LCMS Indiana District, Fort Wayne, Ind.


Book ReviewProtestant Missionaries to the Middle East: Ambassadors of Christ or Culture?

by Albert B. Collver III

The Rev. Dr. Albert B. Collver III

unpacks Peter Pikkert’s 2008

book on mission work in the

Middle East.

Introduction

George Santayana’s statement about history, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” is also true of Christian

missions. Peter Pikkert, a South African Baptist minister and expert in the Arabic and Turkish languages, wrote a masterful description of Christian mission1 to the Muslim in Turkey. He describes Christian mission work in Turkey to Muslims over the past 150 years and offers suggestions on how to approach mission work to the Muslim, based on history and his experience.

In the forward, Pikkert reflects on 25 years of living in the Middle East and offers a critique of Protestant missionaries who have been work-ing there in some fashion since the 1820s. Pikkert’s comments have as much to do with the changes in the mission endeavor as they do with mission to Muslims. The trends he notes are trans-de-nominational and even apply to Lutherans. First, Pikkert notes that Protestants fail to teach the history of missions. Missionaries often come to a place De Novo without rec-ognizing that, with few exceptions, other missionaries preceded their arrival. Next, Pikkert notes two significant trends in Protestant missions: (1) The lowering of aca-demic qualifications for missionaries (“dumbing down” in Pikkert’s words) and (2) “While the number of career missionaries has decreased dramatically over the years, the number of ‘short termers’ going overseas has grown in leaps and bounds. This led to an erosion of the sense of cultural depth and understanding missionaries were

1 Peter Pikkert. Protestant Missionaries to the Middle East: Ambassadors of Christ or Culture? (Hamilton, Ontario: World Evangelism Canada, 2008).

at one time in a position to accrue.” Pikkert claims that these factors — in particular a lack of understanding and knowledge of missionary history in the Middle East — constitute one of the “ ‘civilizational clashes’ between missionary and Muslim.”2

Pikkert reflects on some of the theories as to why Christianity has not been more suc-cessful in reaching Muslims, ranging from Reformation theology, which saw Islam as an anti-Christ of the last times, to Enlightenment philos-ophy, which taught the doctrine of individualism as if it were a tenant of Christianity. Pikkert identified the Enlightenment and Western Impe-rialism as significant contributors to the culture clash

between the West and Islam. The other significant factors identified by Pikkert are internal to Islam — the

loss of submission and the loss of Muslim identity — which he also cites as factors related to the clash of ideas.

Next, Pikkert reviews some of the history of Chris-tian mission in Turkey, particularly the so-called “Great Experiment” to reach the minority Orthodox Christians through education and medical missions. A part of this mission strategy employed by Protestant missionaries in the Ottoman Empire was to reach the Muslim majority by revitalizing the ancient Orthodox Churches.3 One of the challenges with this strategy is that the ancient Orthodox churches tended to regard Protestants as heretics. Another

2 Pikkert, 6.between the West and Islam. The other significant factors identified by Pikkert are internal to Islam — the loss of submission and the loss of Muslim identity — which he also cites as factors related to the clash of ideas. 3 Pikkert, 28.

According to Pikkert, the propagation of

Western culture rather than the Gospel of

Jesus is the most significant factor in

the lack of success of Christian mission in

the Middle East.


Another factor in the failure of Protestant

mission to the Muslims was the Muslim

response to Protestant Christian propaganda

literature, which often was liberal and

promoted the superiority of Western civilization over Islamic culture.

factor was that the Orthodox churches had existed for centuries as a minority alongside the Muslim majority. Evangelism to Muslims was not part of the détente that existed for centuries. In some cases, the Protestant work among the Orthodox tribes led to catastrophic results and even genocide.

Another strategy employed by Protestant missionaries involved education. As early as 1824, the Presbyterians attempted to spread “Christian knowledge” by starting a school “for the education of Syrian females.”4 Ironically, the mission-aries were more progressive about women’s rights than even Western Enlightenment society. This resulted in conflict not only among Muslims but also with mission societies back at home. Pikkert noted that Christian missionaries found the condition of Muslim women more appalling than other Western observers. An assumption of Western missionar-ies was that Christianity was healthy for civilization. The missionary endeavor was as much about civilizing the heathen as it was about spread-ing the Gospel. Pikkert notes, “Both theological liberals (social gospellers) and conservatives (fundamentalists) shared the assumption that Christianity was essential for a healthy civilization. Although at home the rift between conservatives and liberals would grow ever larger, on the mission field both were committed to the propagation of Western culture.”5 Sin became identified as ignorance. Reformed Post-Millennialism transformed itself into social gospel, making heaven on earth, that is, the benefits of Western culture and society. According to Pikkert, the propagation of Western culture rather than the Gospel of Jesus is the most significant factor in the lack of success of Christian mission in the Middle East.

Pikkert also reflected on education, a pillar of Prot-estant mission work. He notes in Istanbul, “The number of those educated in the mission schools was significant, totaling well over 100,000 students.”6 However, this Chris-tian education did not lead to a single congregation being started. As a mission strategy, the education of Muslim

4 Ibid, 29.5 Pikkert, 30.6 Ibid, 55.

children did not lead to the formation of Christian con-gregations. He describes reaching Muslims via education as the “seeker sensitive” enterprise with the seeker being Christian minorities seeking to better their lives.7 The failed strategy in Turkey in the 19th century should provide a cautionary note for similar strategies being employed today.

One of the exceptions to the “Great Experiment” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries noted by Pikkert was that of the mission efforts of the Lutherans. The Lutherans deliberately tried to reach the Muslim majority. The Lutheran Orient Mis-sion Society (LOMS), known today as Lutheran Mideast Development, decided in 1910 to reach the Kurdish people in present-day Iraq. The first LOMS missionaries arrived in Kurd-istan on Sept. 6, 1911. The LOMS sent L. O. Fossom, a pastor; Dr. Ed Edman, a physician; and two nurses. Between 1911 and 1916, the LOMS

missionaries established a Kurdish Lutheran congrega-tion. Fossom began his work by “producing a Kurdish grammar and translating into Kurdish the four Gospels, Luther’s Small Catechism, a hymnbook containing 100 hymns, and a Lutheran liturgy.”8 Later in the book, Pik-kert will refer to this Lutheran model, particularly the establishment of a congregation and holding to a liturgical order, as necessary for successful work among Muslims. The model followed by Fossom and advocated by Pikkert is quite similar to the current strategy of the Missouri Synod: “Lutheran mission leads to Lutheran congre-gations.” Unfortunately, World War I brought an end to Lutheran mission work in Kurdistan. Shortly after World War I in 1920, Fossom died, preventing the work from resuming after the war. Pikkert notes that the Protestant missionaries had negligible effect on Muslim populations and established no permanent congregations.9

Another factor in the failure of Protestant mission to the Muslims was the Muslim response to Protestant Christian propaganda literature, which often was liberal and promoted the superiority of Western civilization over

7 Ibid, 57.8 Pikkert, 70.9 Ibid, 89.


Islamic culture. Islamic scholars took note of higher crit-icism that tore through Protestant Christianity. Islamic scholars would promote the unity of the Koran in contrast to biblical textual criticism that called into question the words of the Jesus, the prophets and the apostles. Muslims could point out to each other that the Christians do not even agree what the text of the Bible is, unlike the text of the Koran on which all Muslims agree. Besides demon-strating the devastating effect of higher criticism on the Christian faith, this should serve as a cautionary tale on how certain scholarly activities in biblical criticism, including textual criticism, are not helpful to the mis-sionary endeavor. In essence, any scholarly, or so-called scholarly, activity that causes doubt about the words of Jesus and the Gospel is not helpful to the missionary endeavor.

Pikkert not only describes the 19th- and 20th-century history of Protestant mission in Turkey but also that of the early 21st century. He notes that in 2005 some 1,300 missionaries from 50 organizations and 20 countries were working in Turkey. Despite these efforts, Pikkert estimates there are only 2,500 to 3,000 Protestant Christians in Tur-key.10 He also notes that despite some positive trends, “the number of missionaries who are theologically, linguisti-cally and culturally properly equipped to share their faith with the Muslim majority … remains pathetically small.”11

Pikkert notes that while there are individual converts to Christianity, “Individual converts do not make a local church.”12 Pikkert argues against the impulse that sharing the Gospel in and of itself without intentionally starting a church is enough. He notes that house churches inevitably fail in a Muslim context, once the founding missionary departs. However, when there is an intentional effort to create a worshiping community as a church, it can and does survive the service of a particular missionary (“The house church movement has not taken off in the Middle East … They are more comfortable worshiping in a place designated for such a purpose than a house.”).13 He also notes that services must be in the indigenous language. Services in English do not allow for an indigenous church to form. Again, the model for successful mission among

10 Pikkert, 24111 Ibid, 24312 Pikkert, 24413 Ibid, 273

the Muslims is to conduct a liturgical service in the lan-guage of the people and form congregations. This is a rather remarkable insight from a Baptist, since neither of these recommendations are part of the Baptist tradi-tion. His model is compatible with the Missouri Synod’s emphasis that Lutheran mission leads to Lutheran con-gregations.

Missouri Synod’s emphasis that Lutheran mission leads to Lutheran congregations.

Finally, Pikkert offers recommendations for a way for-ward after reviewing the history, mission strategies and techniques of Protestant missions from 1800–2005. Pik-kert writes, “Both an over-emphasis on mission as Missio Dei, as well as an over-commitment to saving the world in a social and/or political sense, undermine the role of the fledgling national church in missions . . . I have concluded that the primary focus of the missionary community in the Middle East, in particular, must be the establishment of a loving, accepting community of Muslim background Christians…”14In other words, Pikkert says a church must be planted. He says that the mission enterprise must be “church centered.” Pikkert cites a survey stating why Mus-lims convert to Christianity. The top two reasons given: (1) A Christian lifestyle and witness and (2) Desire to experience forgiveness.15 Pikkert also notes Islamic wor-ship is formalistic. Because of this “some Muslims enjoy this warmth of fellowship within the framework of the liturgical aspect of church life.”16 In contrast to a contextu-alized theology, which might lose the truths of the Bible, Pikkert proposes a “Church-centered New Testament Spirituality Model” for reaching out to Muslims.17

In summary, Pikkert presents a fascinating descrip-tion of the Protestant mission effort to the Muslims (from 1800–2005), highlighting many aspects of failure while presenting a model that is not only compatible with Lutheran theology (planting churches), but one for which the Lutheran church might be the best equipped to undertake. When one considers the Finnish Lutheran mission work in Turkey, the Istanbul Lutheran Church, we see that they follow this model — planting a congrega-tion, holding liturgical worship in Turkish, and providing

14 Pikkert, 25215 Ibid, 25316 Ibid, 263.17 Ibid, 266


Christian community to Muslims who they come in con-tact with in their daily lives. Pikkert’s book is well worth the read for anyone interested in learning about mission work to Muslims.

The Rev. Dr. Albert Collver III is the LCMS director of Church Relations; LCMS director of Regional Operations for the Office of International Mission and executive secre-tary of the International Lutheran Council.

journal of lutheran mission - september 2014 | v1 no 2

Documents

lutheran churches

lutheran friends

lutheran pastors

hostile world

regional director

world seminary conference

western world

australian lutheran