This goes way back to some discussions with Steve from Stupid Church People. Now I don't claim that Lutheranism fixes everything. You'll find the same human flaws in the Lutheran Church that you find everywhere else. But I would like to make the claim that it is virtually a different religion from what goes on at a megachurch. (Steve, feel free to mentally add "or so we believe" after any statement.)
The difference comes down to two of the fundamental questions that define religious communities as communities: "Who are we?" and "What are we doing?" The Lutheran answer is sacramental, which makes the Lutheran understanding of "church" different from that of evangelicalism different in kind rather than in degree.
"Who are we?" Our definition as Christians is baptismal. In baptism, we believe that God forgave our sin, thus defining us as his family, binding us both to himself and to each other. Because this sacrament is God's word and work rather than ours, it's not something we can undo or unmake any more than you can undo your earthly family. You can run from it and reject it, but you can't unmake it.
"What are we doing?" Evangelicals go to the megachurch to get jazzed on praise & worship, hear some healthy principles for living, engage in some kind of activity/workshop, or get connected to some kind of small group? Lutherans go to church to hear the Gospel and celebrate the Lord's Supper. Forgiveness is at the root of both, and is shaped in different ways. Lutheran preaching is preaching Christ and declaring peace in his name. It prepares us for the Lord's Supper, in which we believe Jesus himself gives us his body and blood to eat and drink for the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. If God creates creates and defines the community through baptism, then he sustains it through the Supper.
So why's this make it a different religion?
First of all, it defines the church service as the place where Christ meets his people to forgive their sins, to give them his gifts. This makes the very idea of leaving church to get closer to Jesus absurd to a Lutheran, though this thought is frequent among disaffected evangelicals. Do I find Jesus giving me his body and blood elsewhere? No. Was I baptized into reading the Bible by myself? No. And at the same time, this sacramental definition of the church to some degree trivializes the institutional aspects--so maybe the last pastor was a jerk, the denominational bureaucrats are conniving politicians, and the guy in the pew next to me is a fake. Well, they're not the reason we're here. They don't define us. The Lutheran Church is not a cult of personality, whereas megachurches by definition have to be.
Second, it defines pastoral ministry completely differently. Ministry in evangelicalism has become about spearheading programs and launching sweet new ideas to rack up the numbers. The sacramental character of the Lutheran church leads to an understanding of the pastor as a steward of the mysteries of God. He might be an unfaithful servant, but he remains a servant nonetheless. One way or another, his fundamental job is to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments, and his relationship to the people as "shepherd" is to give them God's gifts through those things. Lutheran pastoral activity is about proclaiming the forgiveness of sins, serving people at the Supper and directing them to a life defined by their baptism. That requires that he both knows and loves his people--not the faceless mass of people, but the actual individuals in the pew. That's why Lutherans who know their faith tend to be so opposed to the Church Growth Movement infecting some parts of our synod. They see how it takes the ministry and redefines it to be about programs and numbers instead of preaching and administering the sacraments. They see how it takes the pastor and removes him from his role of shepherd, which requires that personal touch, and turns him into a distant celebrity.
Third, it defines the congregation as forgiven sinners. Not sinners in various degrees of self-improvement, but sinners who need to be forgiven every Sunday. I don't think Lutheranism encourages the kind of fake piety associated with evangelicalism because we don't pretend that Christians don't sin. We preach it, teach it, and confess it at the beginning of every service. Not witnessing to five unsaved friends or belonging to a small group isn't what makes you a bad Christian--denying that you are a real sinner in need of real forgiveness is. Despising the sacraments (which is the same thing) is. And at the same time, it makes revelations of gross hypocrisy less earth-shattering--we always knew there were sinners here, so it's no big shock that sometimes some of them fall in the most scandalous way. It doesn't make it hurt less, but it doesn't cause us to question our whole religion because we never were told religion wouldn't be like that.
Fourth, it finds the power of God in the mundane and the weak. Just bread and wine? Just water? Well, that's where the kingdom of God is, and I'll one-up you--those things only are what they are because the Son of God died on a cross, and that's where you really see God's power and glory. Not in the Culture War of the Religious Right. Not in the messianic promises of Democratic presidential candidates. Not in Christian pop stars. And not in the power, popularity, or prestige of your CEO-pastor.
And as a fifth, minor point, it eliminates the need for "Christian trinkets," a.k.a. "Protestant relics." God has defined me as his own and sanctified my life in baptism. I don't need a "Tickle me Jesus," a "Lord's Gym" T-shirt, or a salvation board game to be a real Christian. I need God's word in baptism, I need Christ's body and blood, and I need to hear what he says about himself and me. That's why there's no Lutheran antecedent to Lifeway.
You'll never understand the Lutheran Church just by looking at it as "liturgical" (by the way, our liturgy beats anything Marty Haugen ever dreamed up) or at its tendency for smaller, more intimate congregations. Even those things are outgrowths of its sacramental character. And sure, you'll find Lutheran churches that have pretty much lost any sense of what it means to be Lutheran. You'll find the same flawed, annoying people. You'll find groupthink and power politics. But those things aren't what make the Lutheran Church what it is. Those things fade into the background when you see Jesus' sacramental activity and presence in and underneath it all. A faithless pastor might be a puppet of Satan--but that's all he is. A puppet. The sacraments he serves are still Christ's, the Lord's words, "Your sins are forgiven" and "This is my body" remain true, and so his word and presence in the Gospel, baptism and the Supper remain larger and greater than any surface problem the Church could ever have.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
A Different Kind of Religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

27 comments:
Nicely done. Thanks.
Amen.
Thank you; very well said.
There are times I think you need to be locked up in a room and made to write and think. This is one of them. A post that is truly meet, right, and salutary. Thank you, Josh. Blessings!
Josh, your distinctions here are so clear. Thank you.
They remind me of Luther's remark to Zwingli at Marburg: "You and I are of a different spirit." After all, our Lord has called us to teach "everything" He commanded (Matt. 28:19-20), not just a cafeteria line of doctrinal choices. By the way, that brings up another distinction between Confessional Lutheranism and American evangelicalism. That distinction is purity of doctrine vs. self-made preferences in belief.
Evangelicals, wile favoring either an Armenian or Calvinist approach, float precariously somewhere the two poles. Being Bibliocentric, evangelicalism permits folks to choose and blend perspectives at will, sometimes out of convenience. We all have heard how the e"emergent church," rejoices in carrying ongoing discussion and discovery of what it calls truth. They love searching and refining and thinking they are the ones to get closer to God.
Lutheranism, on the other hand, is Christocentric. Our Lord's crucifixion and resurrection are not separate with the adversitive, "but,". The same Lord Jesus did both for us poor, miserable, sinners. Justification by grace through faith fin Christ alone is the doctrine whichholds everything together. Likewise, everything our Lord has taught and promised hangs on that one, central article of faith.
What's even more astounding in the distinction between Confessional Lutheranism and American evangelicalism? Confessional Lutherans have no need to distinguish between head knowledge and heartfelt faith. For us, doctrine forms practice--especially in worship--and does not stand opposed to it. Word and Sacrament are not just one particle of teaching. Our Lord works one hundred percent in both for us and our salvation till He comes again. God's Word, no human trtends or experiences, is our great heritage. "Lord, keep us steadfast in Your Word!" (LSB 655, stanza 1)
Amen! Preach it, Brother!
So, when are you going to write a book?
Thanks for this :-)
As one who has been on both sides of this discussion (Lutheranism and Evangelicalism) also, let me say that you have definitely nailed these differences and explained them well.
Thanks!
T.C.
While I come from an Evangelical background, I do understand your generalities. And in all honesty, most of it is true for many Evangelical churches out there. I thank God that the church I attend is much closer to the things that you mention than the megachurch mentality.
Church in the way that you describe it is humble and seeks to serve rather than accumulate.
Great points. I've linked to you. http://refincher.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/lutheran-inside-out/
I really like how you have put our distinctiveness forward in such a clear way. Thanks you. I will point some of my confused folks to this well written explanation.
So if it's a different religion, then non-Lutherans are not Christians?
Just the Calvinists.
I'm open to argument, but I'm unsure I believe that Lutheranism's "tendency for smaller, more intimate congregations" is a consequence of the "outgrowth of its sacramental character."
Josh,
Thank you for the thoughtful reflection.
Pax,
+Mason
Jim, good luck catechizing and confirming hundreds of kids. The Lutheran understanding of the fellowship, ministry & sacraments requires that the pastor actually know his people. That's why the megachurch circus-service is fundamentally contradictory to Lutheranism, not a mere adiaphoron.
Of course, the Presbyterian understanding of church discipline is ALSO fundamentally contradictory to the megachurch circus-service. You can't prove you are a church by excommunicating members, if you don't know their sins.
So if there *is* a Lutheran megachurch, is that a place that has "pretty much lost any sense of what it means to be Lutheran?" Like ?
Josh,
I like (relatively) small and intimate churches, and do not doubt that they allow better pastoral oversight. I was only questioning whether the Lutheran understanding of fellowship & etc. actually accounts for the small size of so many Lutheran churches today.
As in: Maybe Lutheran churches tend to be small because of their sacramental character. But perhaps they're small because they're often ethnic enclaves with little practical interest in evangelism.
Overall growth is not inconsistent with small churches -- it just requires that "parent" churches plant new churches when the parent church starts to get too big for effective pastoral oversight.
Josh, I am going to link this to my page, if you don't mind.
I think 1200 members is a gray area, Joel. But it's borderline...it's getting to the point where you have multiple congregations that just so happen to use the same building, which is the vibe that website gives off.
Jim, the pastoral theology I learned in seminary, which was directly connected to our theology of the sacraments, was incompatible with arena-style church. Closed communion in a church too big for the pastor to know what the laity actually believe is pretty much self contradictory. My observation is that when you have a lot of Lutherans in a city, they tend to congregate in multiple parishes rather than trying to conglomerate everything into a single megachurch.
The other extreme, however, is what I call the "sacrament factory" model of church. This also lends itself to enormous, faceless churches because any personal relationship of the pastor with the people is "pietism."
Jim,
your last post was entirely incorrect historically (at least from the historic LCMS perspective). The LCMS used to plant churches like crazy -- exactly because they opporated in a sound catechesis-closed communion way. If you go to one of the heartlands of lutheranism -- Fort Wayne and its surroundings -- you find a lutheran church every five miles, or so, in every direction in the country and way more in the city. That's what Josh is talking about. There was growth -- and therefore church planting.
Josh,
Thanks for this. It rings, with a few edits, very true of the Catholic Church as well...of which I'm a member. I've sent it along to quite a few friends and parishioners and asked them if, while noting this is written by a Lutheran, rings true for them. Overwhelming "yes" in response. Thanks
Interesting remark, Tom H. Sounds like you and the Catholics you know have a rather "Lutheranized" understanding of the sacraments.
The Catholic Church is nothing if not sacramental. Birth by Baptism, living out our Baptism sustained by the Eucharist in Faith, Hope and Charity.
I didn't say it's not sacramental. But traditional Catholic sacramentality, at least as encapsulated in Tridentine dogma, is about being or becoming worthy of God rather than about God meeting you while you are yet a sinner and forgiving your sins. Notice, for example, the near absence of any mention of forgiveness in the CCC's section on the Lord's Supper, or recall the medieval teaching that mortal sin destroys the grace of baptism.
This has wide-ranging ramifications in the Catholic doctrine and practice of the ministry (for example, private Masses), sacramental practice (notice the relative absence of forgiveness from the CCC's section on the Lord's Supper), and vocation.
However, it is true that in recent decades, there has been some attempt to see baptism as having some kind of lasting value. Ratzinger himself does not seem uninfluenced by his own studies of Luther.
Josh,
Suffice it to say I enjoyed the post and found seminal truths (small T) in it that those outside Lutheranism can relate to.
As far as the Cathechism's over-emphasis or under-emphasis of important truths of the sacraments...ok. The Catholic Cliff's Notes to the faith are hardly perfect. They've been addendum'd twice to correct such wrong emphases already (capital punishment etc.) I've never stood up at Mass and professed my faith in the CCC.
As far as the Pope's being influenced by Luther. Sure, maybe. Why not? Readings of Tertellion and Origin can have, and have had, quite significant influence on the Church and individual christians as well. None of the three died within the Church. All three had their own paticular brilliance. cool. So?
So, thanks again for the post.
To your questions Josh..."who are we" and "what are we doing"...
To the first...I am not sure evangelicals would define baptismal any different than what you have said here... nor would they define Christianity different either. My understanding of baptism would be that it is the defining moment.
As to the second... it seems that as you have described it both evangelicals and lutherans go to church, be it mega or not, for an experience. In the midst of that experience they believe that they connect with God in a real way.
Yes it may be different in method, but at it's core, personally I don't see much difference. Through the church experience each believes they make a connection... many leave the Lutheran church I am sure to seek a more exciting evangelical way, and many are leaving evangelical mega-churches for a return to something far more simpler and returning to the liturgical sacramental way.
And to the five points of your treatise... good stuff. I like the distinctives of the Lutheran church as you portray them. In theory it sounds perfect.
Hi, there,
I have read some on Luther but know little about modern Lutheranism in America, so I can't comment on that.
I just wanted to respond to the negative comments on "megachurches" -- they aren't all as you've depicted, you know. I was a member of a wonderful Christ-centered Christian Church that grew from about 1300 to about 2300 over the 9 years I was there. The sermons were not feel-good how-to-improve-your-confidence or whatever sermons -- they were biblically-based sermons, some topical, some expositional (I particularly enjoyed the series's on James and on Jeremiah). We celebrated communion every Sunday just as in Lutheran and Catholic churches. A church this size still has its downsides -- I recall our minister lamenting the day he realized he could no longer remember all the members' names. But size has benefits too -- we had many opportunities for service and activities (short-term service missions, Habitat for Humanity house-building, lots of activities for kids and teens, etc.) Large churches are not a priori bad or unbiblical churches. Churches of all sizes can mess up and get their priorities out of whack.
"Cult of personality"...I do wonder about that, though. One reason (among many) that people were drawn to this large church was the quality of the preaching, and the qualities of the preacher -- a good speaker, a kind person, and an obviously sincere believer. But if he'd left...how many people would have followed? I sometimes wondered if our church wasn't reaching the size where, at 3 morning services daily, we wouldn't be better off doing a church plant. But I wouldn't have wanted to move to the new church and miss Tom's preaching...
Post a Comment