Reformed Evangelical Synod of America

Author Archive

What Should Faithful Lutherans in the ELCA Do?

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary; gagnon@pts.edu

Sept. 30, 2009

I give my permission for this article to be circulated widely in print, email, and on the web.—RG

With a process that gives new meaning to the expression “stacked deck,” the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August 2009 voted to allow for the blessing of homosexual unions and the rostering of pastors in homosexual relationships. I salute the efforts of the renewal group Lutheran CORE, which courageously fought against the homosexualist agenda at the assembly (I had the great privilege of addressing them). Just this past weekend they had a meeting attended by 1200 persons that began the process of defining a new vision and structure for those who recognize the ELCA’s hard-left departure from normative Christian faith and practice.

How should faithful Lutherans—that is, Lutherans who affirm the male-female requirement for sexual unions so important to Jesus and the scriptural witness to him—deal with these new heretical and immoral actions? In particular, do the recent actions of the Churchwide Assembly justify beginning a trajectory that will lead eventually to disaffiliation with the denominational structure known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America? Let me suggest a syllogism that goes something like this:

A       MAJOR PREMISE

A denomination renders itself illegitimate when, through enactment, it willfully ordains persons actively involved in adultery, incest, polyamory, or like acts, and blesses sexual unions constituted by such behavior.

B       MINOR PREMISE

Adult-committed homosexual practice is, according to Scripture, at least as bad as—and probably worse than—adult-consensual adultery and adult-committed incest and polyamory.

C       CONCLUSION

A denomination renders itself illegitimate when, through enactment, it willfully ordains homosexually active persons and blesses homosexual unions.

Simply put, would you stay in perpetuity in a denomination that officially sanctioned adult-consensual incest, adultery, and polyamory (i.e. concurrent multiple-partner unions) and even set up as leaders of the church persons who engaged unrepentantly in such immorality? If the answer is “no,” consider this: Scripture treats homosexual practice of any sort as at least as bad as, and probably worse than, these offenses. And the ELCA hierarchy has now endorsed adult-committed homosexual practice.

Few will contest the major premise (A) that a denomination ceases to be a faithful representation of the body of Christ to the world once it endorses adultery or consensual, adult-committed incest or polyamory. Perhaps a few would argue for the continuing legitimacy of a church that both blessed such unions and rostered leaders unrepentantly involved in such unions. Yet such advocates would be a tiny minority that could be identified and isolated as extremists.

The main point of contention will be over the minor premise (B); namely, over whether adult-committed homosexual practice is at least as bad as (and probably worse than) consensual adultery and adult-committed incest or polyamory. Yet the point can be easily demonstrated by three considerations. As I note in an online piece entitled “How Bad Is Homosexual Practice according to Scripture and Does Scripture’s Indictment Apply to Committed Homosexual Unions?” (http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/HomosexHowBadIsIt.pdf):

1. Homosexual practice, committed or otherwise, is the violation that most clearly and radically offends against God’s intentional creation of humans as “male and female” (Gen 1:27) and definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman (Gen 2:24). According to the story in Genesis 2, the differentiation into man and woman is the sole differentiation produced by the removal of a “rib” or (in my view a better rendering) “side” from the originally undifferentiated human. It is precisely because out of one flesh came two sexes (a story line that makes a transcendent point about the exclusivity of male-female complementarity) that the two sexes, and only the two sexes, can (re-)unite into one flesh (2:24). Since Jesus gave priority to these two texts from the creation stories in Genesis when he defined normative and prescriptive sexual ethics for his disciples, they have to be given special attention by us. Paul also clearly has the creation texts in the background of his indictments of homosexual practice in Rom 1:24-27 and 1 Cor 6:9.

1. Every text that treats the issue of homosexual practice in Scripture treats it as a high offense abhorrent to God. That this is so is evident from (a) the triad of stories about extreme depravity, Ham, Sodom, and Gibeah (which incidentally are no more limited in their implications to coercive acts of same-sex acts than is an indicting story about coercive sex with one’s parent limited in its implications only to coercive acts of adult incest), to (b) the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic legal and narrative materials that rail against the homoerotic associations of theqedeshim as an “abomination” or “abhorrent practice” (men who in a cultic context served as the passive receptive sexual partners for other men), to (c) the Levitical prohibitions (where the term “abomination” or “abhorrent practice” is specifically attached to man-male intercourse), to (d) texts in Ezekiel that refer to man-male intercourse by the metonym “abomination” or “abhorrent act,” to (e) Paul’s singling out of homosexual practice in Romans 1:24-27 (compare 1 Cor 6:9) as a specially reprehensible instance, along with idolatry, of humans suppressing the truth accessible in the material creation set in motion by the Creator, labeling it sexual “uncleanness,” “dishonorable” or “degrading,” “contrary to nature,” and an “indecent” or “shameful” act. These views are also amply confirmed in texts from both early Judaism and early Christianity after the New Testament period, where only bestiality appears to rank as a greater sexual offense, at least among “consensual” acts. There is, to be sure, some disagreement in early Judaism over whether sex with one’s parent is worse, comparable, or less severe, though most texts suggest a slightly lesser degree of severity. Yet while Scripture makes some exceptions, particularly in ancient Israel, for some forms of incest (though never for man-mother, man-child, man-sibling) and for sexual unions involving more than two partners (though a monogamy standard was always imposed on women), it makes absolutely no exceptions for same-sex intercourse. Indeed, every single text in Scripture that discusses sex, whether narrative, law, proverb, poetry, moral exhortation, or metaphor, presupposes a male-female prerequisite. There are no exceptions anywhere in Scripture.

1. The male-female prerequisite is the foundation or prior analogue for defining other critical sexual norms. Jesus himself clearly predicated his view of marital monogamy and indissolubility on the foundation of Gen 1:27 and 2:24, texts that have only one thing in common: the fact that an acceptable sexual bond before God entails as its first prerequisite (after the assumption of an intra-human bond) a man and a woman (Mark 10:6-9; Matt 19:4-6). Jesus argued that the “twoness” of the sexes ordained by God at creation was the foundation for limiting the number of persons in a sexual bond to two, whether concurrently (as in polygamy) or serially (as in repetitive divorce and remarriage). The foundation can hardly be less significant than the regulation predicated on it; indeed, it must be the reverse. Moreover, the dissolution of an otherwise natural union is not more severe than the active entrance into an inherently unnatural union (active entrance into an incestuous bond would be a parallel case in point). The principle by which same-sex intercourse is rejected is also the principle by which incest, even of an adult and consensual sort, is rejected. Incest is wrong because, as Lev 18:6 states, it involves sexual intercourse with “the flesh of one’s own flesh.” In other words, it involves the attempted merger with someone who is already too much of a formal or structural same on a familial level. The degree of formal or structural sameness is felt even more keenly in the case of homosexual practice, only now on the level of sex or gender, because sex or gender is a more integral component of sexual relations, and more foundationally defines it, than is and does the degree of blood relatedness. So the prohibition of incest can be, and probably was, analogically derived from the more foundational prohibition of same-sex intercourse. Certainly, as noted above, there was more accommodation to some forms of incest in the Old Testament than ever there was to homosexual practice. Adultery becomes an applicable offense only when the sexual bond that the offender is cheating on is a valid sexual bond. It would be absurd to charge a man in an incestuous union or in a pedophilic union with adultery for having sexual relations with a person outside that pair-bond. One can’t cheat against a union that was immoral from the beginning.

For further study: Additional brief arguments are put forward in my online article, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues” (http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexScripReallySays.doc.pdf), especially p. 7 under “5. Significance” and p. 1 under “1. Jesus.” For more on the analogy with incest and polyamory see my “Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender” (7 pgs.; http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexIncestPolyAnalogy.pdf).  For a more extensive analysis of Scripture texts, see my The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon, 2001; 500 pgs.); my 55-page contribution in Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress, 2003); and, with some updating, my 120-page “Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice?” in Reformed Review 59 (2005): 19-130, esp. pp. 46-100 (online: http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf; table of contents athttp://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoReformedReviewTableCont.pdf).

The Exploitation-Promiscuity and Orientation Arguments

Claims have been made by ELCA “homosexualists” that Scripture’s indictment of homosexual practice is an indictment only of promiscuous or exploitative forms of homosexual practice and not an absolute indictment of homosexual practice per se. This argument is akin to asserting that Scripture’s indictment of incest or the New Testament’s implicit indictment of polygamy extends only to promiscuous or exploitative forms of these relationships and not to adult-committed forms. The exploitation-promiscuity claim shows ignorance of the historical record. Both the conception and reality of adult-committed homosexual relationships existed in the ancient world. Moreover, we have texts where Greco-Roman moralists and Church Fathers acknowledge the presence of love and commitment in homosexual unions and yet still reject the unions as unnatural and immoral. Finally, Paul gives numerous indications that his indictment of homosexual practice is absolute, including his echoing of creation texts, his nature argument, his indictment of lesbianism, his stress on the mutuality of affections, his derivation of the term “men-lying-with-males” (arsenokoitai) from the absolute prohibitions in Leviticus, and the historical context of early Judaism’s absolute opposition.

As even Louis Crompton, a homosexual historian and author of a massive and influential historical-cultural study of homosexuality, has written:

According to [one] interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian. (Homosexuality and Civilization [Harvard University Press, 2003], p. 114)

Note the similar comments by the lesbian New Testament scholar Bernadette Brooten, who has written the most important book on lesbianism in antiquity and its relation to Rom 1:26, who criticized both John Boswell and Robin Scroggs for their use of an exploitation argument:

Boswell . . . argued that . . . “The early Christian church does not appear to have opposed homosexual behavior per se.” The sources on female homoeroticism that I present in this book run absolutely counter to [this conclusion]…. The ancient sources, which rarely speak of sexual relations between women and girls, undermine Robin Scroggs’s theory that Paul opposed homosexuality as pederasty. (Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996], 11, 361)

In addition, the claim that the ancients knew nothing akin to our concept of homosexual “orientation” and had no conception of congenital influences on homosexual development is also false. Such theories did exist in the Greco-Roman world. Some are close to modern theories, others more distant, but all presuppose the critical point that at least some homosexual behavior is traceable to influences beyond a person’s control. Also erroneous is the claim that knowledge of homosexual orientation would have made a significant difference to Paul’s indictment of homosexual practice. Let’s remember that Paul defined sin in Romans 7 as an innate impulse passed on by an ancestor, running through the members of the human body, and never entirely within human control.

As classicist Thomas K. Hubbard notes in his magisterial sourcebook of texts relating to homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world:

Homosexuality in this era [viz., of the early imperial age of Rome] may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation. (Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook, 386)

Classicist and church historian William Schoedel in a significant article on “Same-Sex Eros: Paul and the Greco-Roman Tradition” (an article that, incidentally, favors ecclesiastical acceptance of homosexual unions) states that “some support” exists in Philo for thinking that Paul might be speaking in Rom 1:26-27 “only of same-sex acts performed by those who are by nature heterosexual.” But he then dismisses the suggestion:

But such a phenomenon does not excuse some other form of same-sex eros in the mind of a person like Philo. Moreover, we would expect Paul to make that form of the argument more explicit if he intended it. . . . Paul’s wholesale attack on Greco-Roman culture makes better sense if, like Josephus and Philo, he lumps all forms of same-sex eros together as a mark of Gentile decadence. (Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture, pp. 67-68)

Schoedel also acknowledges that a “conception of a psychological disorder socially engendered or reinforced and genetically transmitted may be presupposed” for Philo (p. 56).

Similarly, Martti Nissinen, who has written the best book on the Bible and homosexuality from a homosexualist perspective and whose work I heavily critique in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, acknowledges in one of his more candid moments:

Paul does not mention tribades or kinaidoi, that is, female and male persons who were habitually involved in homoerotic relationships, but if he knew about them (and there is every reason to believe that he did), it is difficult to think that, because of their apparent ‘orientation,’ he would not have included them in Romans 1:24-27. . . . For him, there is no individual inversion or inclination that would make this conduct less culpable. . . . Presumably nothing would have made Paul approve homoerotic behavior. (Homoeroticism in the Biblical World [Fortress, 1998], 109-12)

The ecclesiast who claims that the authors of Scripture would not have opposed a committed homosexual union entered into by homosexually-oriented persons simply doesn’t know the historical evidence well; or, if knowing it, has deliberately sought to hide the historical evidence to others in the church. Our so-called “new knowledge” about homosexuality is not so new after all.

For further study: For a brief presentation of evidence against the use of exploitation and orientation arguments see again my “What the EvidenceReally Says,” especially “3. Rom 1:24-27 and the Erroneous ‘Exploitation Argument’” on pp. 3-4; my “How Bad Is Homosexual Practice according to Scripture and Does Scripture’s Indictment Apply to Committed Homosexual Unions?,” especially pp. 6-8; and my “Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice?,” especially pp. 62-83. For a look at the Greco-Roman evidence for committed homosexual relationships and the conception thereof see my “A Book Not to Be Embraced: A Critical Review Essay on Stacy Johnson’s A Time to Embrace” [Part 1: the Scottish Journal of Theology article] (Mar. 2008; 16 pgs.; online: http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonSJT2.pdf), especially pp. 5-8; and for a more detailed look at orientation theory in antiquity see my article “Does the Bible Regard Same-Sex Intercourse as Intrinsically Sinful?” in Christian Sexuality: Normative and Pastoral Principles (ed. R. E. Saltzman; Minneapolis: Kirk House, 2003), 106-55, especially pp. 141-46.

Since it is the case that Scripture treats homosexual practice per se as at least as bad as, and probably worse than, adult-committed forms of incest and polyamory and adult-consensual forms of adultery, the ELCA Churchwide Assembly by its recent decisions has forced the faithful, against their will, to give sober and painful reconsideration of long-term affiliation with the ELCA.

Scripture does not offer any refuge for those who claim that their “bound conscience” requires them to support committed homosexual unions. The argument about unity in Rom 14:1-15:13 applies only to what the Stoics calledadiaphora, matters of indifference such as diet and calendar, not matters of significance involving sexual immorality (contrast Paul’s remarks in 13:12-14; 6:19-22 with 1:24; 8:12-14; 11:21-22; 1 Cor 6:9-20; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19-21; 1 Thess 4:2-8; Eph 4:17-19; 5:3-6; 1 Tim 1:9-11). When Paul encountered some at Corinth who prided themselves in their ability to “tolerate” a case of adult-consensual incest (1 Cor 5), he didn’t say, “respect the bound consciences” of those who think adult-consensual incest is acceptable. He didn’t put church unity over church purity; rather he defined church unity christologically rather than sociologically. Unity around immorality wasn’t worth a warm bucket of spit. Only the unity centered around the will of Christ is worth anything. So Paul insisted “in the name of the Lord Jesus” that they put the offender outside the community for the sake of the offender (who needed a wake-up call lest he be excluded from God’s kingdom), for the sake of the church (lest members get the mistaken notion that sexually impure behavior does not incur God’s judgment), and for the sake of God (who redeemed the community with the precious blood of the Jesus, the new Passover lamb, and who can still “take us out”).

The ELCA has gone beyond the Corinthian community. It has allowed for sexual immorality that Paul (and Jesus) would have regarded as even more extreme than the specific case of incest at Corinth. Furthermore, it has not only tolerated such immorality but also allowed for its blessing and the rostering as active leaders of the church the very persons engaging in the immorality. Moreover, unlike Corinth, this outcome is not just a recent development but part of an orchestrated effort for promoting homosexual behavior over the past decade. The faithful in the ELCA have been more than patient.

At some point—perhaps not immediately but surely down the line—those who remain in the ELCA run the risk of becoming enabling accomplices to a regime that has betrayed the illustrious heritage of the Lutheran communion, to say nothing of the worldwide church, Scripture, and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. No doubt there is pain ahead, but also the joy that comes from dying to self and living for God. May God grant them wisdom and courage in their future decisions, which only they can make.

© 2009 Robert A. J. Gagnon Used by permission.

Like many “Bible Believing Evangelicals” I was baptized into a church that could not answer my questions, try as they might. They instilled in me a love for Holy Scripture, a passion for mission, and a complete confidence in the saving power of Jesus Christ the Lord, God the Son and the Holy Trinity for which I will ever be grateful. Today they continue to challenge me by their passion for Christ and the resources they devote to that mission though I can no longer walk in that Christian “Way” and remain true to my own deeply held convictions.

From that starting point till today, I have relied upon many guides. One of the first intellectual guides was J.I. Packer, the Anglican Puritan Scholar. Anglican? Puritan? Calvinist? That shocked me. I’d grown up in a church that look sideways at people vaguely like him and considered them as poor deluded souls who really didn’t believe the Bible like we did.

Unfortunately, the people who believed the Bible like we did seemed to rely on this “half-heathen” Anglican to articulate what “we” believed about the Bible. (Now, nobody actually came out and called Dr. Packer a “half heathen” of any variety, but we were always quite sure that people like him – and now like me – were really half heathens, except when we needed them to do some of our dirty apologetic work that is!)  We let him do the heavy lifting at least at first  until he’d schooled us well in that craft.

But after those lessons were over, it was to men like Packer we looked to many issues and, thereby, a whole new world was opened  beyond the confines of our Sunday School quarterlies… a strange world with a link to a Christian past we did not understand and a love for things that did not go together in our minds… loving  the Bible, pointing people to Jesus Christ, PRAYER BOOKS? Could I have misread that Packer actually used one of those things?  Learning that such a book contained those dreaded man-made creeds at one time would have made me nearly apoplectic. We eschewed creeds you see, much preferring confessions! (Please don’t ask me why, I don’t know now!). But for a lad whose first lisping words could have been “No Creed But  Christ!” I found myself strangely drawn to the world J.I. Packer represented.

In the exotic rain forest that is my theological mind these days, Dr. Packer is not quite so exotic as I found him at first I must admit. I likely would and do disagree with this dear saint at points or say things in a different way. We delight to read different things I suspect. I do not pretend I shall ever share  his brilliance. I have only gotten to shake his hand one time in this world though I have often used the joke he told to promote infant baptism that day when I heard him speaking at a Texas “Bible” church (sans Anglican “dog collar”!) If the opportunity arises again, I shall certainly take  it would he give me some time to pick his brain!

But whatever progress in the truth I have made, J.I. Packer’s work – by God’s grace and for His glory – was instrumental in instigating and promoting that growth. For that I say “Thank you Jesus” and “Thank’s to  you too, Dr. Packer”.

Affirming the Apostles’ Creed by J.I. Packer is available in paperback by Crossway Books. Until Reformation Day, October 31st, it’s also available in a Free Kindle Edition! I don’t have a Kindle, but I have downloaded the free Kindle app on my iphone and took advantage of this offer!

For most people the word “Free” is enough to prompt a download, but in case you’re wondering what the book is about, here’s it’s publisher’s description:

The Apostles’ Creed, the oldest and most beautifully succinct summary of Christian beliefs, is also a deeply personal profession of faith. Noted theologian J. I. Packer examines the meaning and implications of each phrase of this great creed, providing insightful material for personal and group study and devotional use.

For those today embarking on the path I started nearly 30 years ago, this work on the Apostle’s Creed by Dr. J.I. Packer will be a fine doorway to the “strange new world” of the historic church. Enjoy the journey!

Do you have a question about the Reformed Evangelical Synod of America? Join the club!

It’s not an official club, but it does have it’s own web page – a “Frequently Asked Questions” page!

As more questions come, more answers will be forthcoming.

As always, your prayers are solicited! Thank you for remembering us in prayer.

The Reformed Evangelical Synod of America is developing Guidelines for Catechesis to guide congregations in the implementation of regular catechesis of both those preparing for baptism and those baptized in infancy.

Your thoughts on the task of catechesis in the Post Modern West are welcome as comments.  Your experience catechizing those preparing for baptism, catechizing youth, and engaging in the ongoing catechesis of entire congregations is welcome.

Let us know your experience and findings.

Let us know the catechism(s) you have used.

Your discussion of how to address issues such as the breakdown of the family in the church, the glorification of “youth culture”, pervasive biblical illiteracy, and other impediments facing the catechist today are welcome.

For the 17th Lord’s Day after Trinity (Proper 24b) the readings are:

Isaiah 50:4-10
Psalm 116:1-9
1 Peter 4:12-19
Mark 8:27-38

In our Gospel reading today, we’re confronted with the very real danger that we may claim to follow Jesus Christ, but in reality be His adversary, His Satan. Why? Because despite our profession of faith – it’s quite possible that, like the Apostle Peter, our plans for our life, our understanding of our mission is at odds with what Jesus is about. I’m not talking about demon possession, but I am talking about wasting our lives by living them without regard to Jesus’ priorities. Have you ever thought about confronting “The Satan in Me?”

But I’m getting ahead of myself. As Jesus is marching towards Jerusalem He first stops to clarify for His disciples just who He is and what His mission is about! Some say He’s doing this in Casesarea Phillipi because that Herod is less of a danger to Him than the Herod (Antipas) who ruled over Jerusalem. Perhaps so. That makes sense – John 6:15 reminds us that people would gladly have made him just the kind of King the Romans would put to death instantly.

Whatever else was going on behind the scenes, Caesarea Phillipi was a hot bed of idolatry and also Emperor worship. There in one of the most pagan places that could be near the Holy Land, where the ugliness of paganism was so apparent, where the power of darkness was unquestioned, Jesus asks “who do people say that I am?”

Whatever their answer, it would stand in direct contrast to the statement made by the region itself: that Caesar is Lord. So who is Jesus?

The first answers they gave – who the people said Jesus might be were predictable and safe: “Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say You are one of the other prophets.”

These answers required no commitment on the part of those giving them. They are piously repeating what they’ve heard  but not sticking their own necks out.

So Jesus asks them emphatically – so who do YOU say that I am?

This answer will change the course of their lives. They have seen Him heal and do the works only the Messiah can do. The backdrop behind them is a city dedicated to Caesar as Lord.  Their answer could get them killed by the Romans. Their answer could make them hated by their own people even more than they despised those hayseed Galileans anyway.  The way they answer might also mean that, in addition to the cost they’d paid to follow Jesus already, there might be more they had to do.

So it was a costly answer they were being asked to make.

In the early church, Christians could be spared a painful death if they would only tell their Roman Captors that “Caesar is Lord”. But saying “Jesus is Lord” could get them tortured, killed or killed by being thrown to wild animals.

What do you say if you’re trapped in Nazi Germany and you’re a stone’s throw from the headquarters of the Secret Police and you’re walking with an “enemy of the state” who asks you if what you believe about what they’re doing?

What do you say? Jesus asked them and Jesus looks us in the eye and asks us – “Who do YOU say that I am?” And the question remains – are you willing to risk your life on the answer?

When the silence broke, Peter opened his mouth and spoke up: “You are the Messiah!”

That answer changes everything.

In that very place where the Roman Emperor was worshipped Peter says that this Jesus who’s standing there with them is the Anointed One, the Messiah, the Christ, the one that all the Jewish nation had been looking forward to – the One who would bring all God’s promises to a climax!

You knew that was the right answer because Jesus told them not to tell anyone – it wasn’t God’s Time.

Now he begins to explain to them what He  meant when he said there’d be a time for fasting when the bridegroom had been taken from them (Mk. 2:19-20).

He explained to them that as the “Son of Man”, he must first become a prophetic parable like Ezekiel who was called the “Son of Man”, he must become the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 if he is to fulfill God’s call. But he must be a prophetic riddle and become the sacrifice who dies to take away the sins of God’s people before he can be the “Son of Man” of Daniel 7:13-14  and receive dominion over the nations and rule as God’s appointed King (Psalm 2; 1 Cor 15:25-28).

For Peter, it was too much to believe that in order for the Messiah to reign triumphantly he must first suffer terribly and then die redemptively.  Rise victoriously? Who’d ever heard of that?

So Peter decided to talk some sense into Jesus. What Jesus had just said wasn’t part of Peter’s agenda for the Messiah.

Think of it.

If the Real Live Messiah gets killed…what’s going to happen to his sidekicks? It can’t be good. Remember Bonnie and Clyde we’d say. Remember Ahab and Jezebel Peter might have said. The sidekicks always died too.

So Peter gives Jesus a piece of his mind only to have Jesus set him straight. Peter’s ideas are so out of touch with God’s plans, that if Peter insists on having his way, Peter will be an adversary, a “Satan”. And like Satan, Peter’s words invite Jesus to succumb to the temptations He has already defeated once (Mt 4:8-10).

You can understand Peter’s situation. We too are a people who are bent on a mission. Whether we have a “mission statement” or not, we are all people on a mission – either one bent on serving ourselves or one bent on serving Jesus Christ.

Peter’s mission became evident. Unfortunately, his mission for his life – fame, riches, and glory perhaps – were diametrically opposed to Jesus’ mission.

That’s what makes Peter’s blunder so horrendous. Like the demons who could confess Israel’s creed or Shema all day (Deut 6:4; James 2:19), Peter offers the correct confession but he is in danger, unless he repents, of putting himself at odds with the true Mission of Jesus.

How do your (our) confession and mission stack up? The most dangerous thing for orthodox believers is to congratulate ourselves on our good confession only to deceive ourselves when it comes to grasping the implications of what Jesus came to do for our own lives.

So that Peter would no longer be confused about the costliness of following Jesus the Messiah, and so we might not be, Jesus makes know the requirements of being a disciple. Jesus tells us how to align our MISSION with our CONFESSION.

Jesus offers us the Way, along with a Warning:

In a world where people follow others for what they can get, like scavengers, or hyenas tracking a herd to see what will drop away for them to pick up, some follow Jesus for what they can gain.

Jesus says – If anyone wants to be my follower, it’s time to recognize that life as you knew it – a life that you lived for yourself and for your own pleasure is over.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer said it like this: “When Jesus calls a man, He bids him come and die.”

To begin to follow we must want to follow Jesus more than we wish to follow our own hopes and dreams. We must die is to turn from our selfish ways – that means stop telling Jesus what He’s going to do! (That didn’t work for Peter. It’s never worked for me. It’s called submission to God’s plan and providence. It hurts!)

The extent to which we must follow Jesus means that, like Him, we must carry our cross.  For St. Paul in Galatians 6:14, carrying the cross had come to mean that his life had no meaning for himself or the world as he used to know it apart from what each day meant for the kingdom of Jesus Christ. We don’t want to go there – someone might call us fanatical! It might mean that our interest in Jesus Christ took the fun out of the things we used to love. People might – gasp – think we were trying to be fundamentalist fuddy-duddies! They might think we weren’t cool!

Our worst fear these days is that someone might think we’re not “relevant”! But Jesus fear is that we’ll be so relevant we’ll go to Hell. So he offers this warning.

Following Jesus IS  about no longer hanging on to our lives lived on our terms. Following Jesus means we stop trying to hold on to people, places, things and even relationships that keep us from serving Christ the Lord.   And it means that even the good things in our lives that begin to approach the status of “Lord” in our lives have to be put back in their proper place.

That’s because of Jesus’ love for us – you see, He tells us – if we are ashamed of Him now, and our lives are continually shaped and our actions governed by the fear that someone will call us a “Jesus Freak”… then when the Son of Man does return as the full inheritor of all the nations, He will be ashamed of us and we will be as doomed as those who shake their fist in His face this day.

That’s why we must ever fear the presence of the “Satan in Me.” The Satan in Me will delight in telling Jesus what to do while never listening to what Jesus requires US to do. The Satan in Me will offer a good confession of faith while doing whatever he pleases… and whatever mocks what Jesus really wants us to do.

The Satan in Me will confess that Jesus is the Messiah, and then seek his own life instead of losing his life for Jesus Christ.

How are you dealing with the Satan in You?

Please sign up to receive these prayer letters by email. We expect that in the future, growth may require that we no longer post these documents on the internet.

You may sign up via the form to the right of this page.

If you have not received this in your email, please check your email filters.

Thank you.

Below are areas in which we request your prayers:

Father Rob Lyons is the Chaplaincy Manager at Wishard Memorial Hospital in Indianapolis, IN, a Level 1 Trauma Center. He and his wife Kristen are expecting a child in October and they hope to plant a church in the Indianapolis area soon. Pray for his daily ministry, his family, his church plant and his indispensable labors on behalf of the founding of the Reformed Evangelical Synod.

Deacon Greg Elsbernd on the Lord’s Day October 4th (the commemoration of Sts. Francis and Clare of Assisi) will take solemn vows upon the commencement of his ministry in Cincinnati, OH. His ministry will be known as the St. Francis Hermitage and consist of a ministry of intercession, service to the poor, and evangelism. Pray for him as he takes these vows connected to his ministry and he seeks to establish a faithful witness to Jesus Christ in this major urban area. We pray his labors in Cincinnati will be blessed to the spiritual help of many people.

Mr. Jerry Grigsby is an applicant seeking ordination to the diaconate. Pray for his ministry in nursing homes and as he considers how the Lord may use him further in that area. He is also in the Cincinnati area. Pray for him in his studies and application process.

We also ask your prayer for the Lord to raise up women who will help establish a similar order for the spiritual formation of women for confirmation, service and the order of Deaconess.

Mr. Michael Pilkinton has been involved in extensive studies in apologetics and has a vision for creating Christian video for evangelism and discipleship. Pray for him as he enters a time of spiritual formation for future ministry.

Bishop Chuck Huckaby Please continue to pray for St. Andrews Church in Lawrenceburg that the Lord will draw together a people to praise His Name. Pray for men who are approaching the synod about possible affiliation. Pray for the financial resources necessary to pursue the local work of the church and the work of the Synod.

Thank you for your prayers on our behalf.

Cordially in Christ,

+Chuck Huckaby

Reformed Evangelical Synod of America

Jesus Heals A Deaf Mute

A sermon from Mark 7:31-37.

It’s easy to come to one of the miracle stories of our Lord’s life and be jaded. If we’ve gone to church for a while, we’ve probably heard these stories a million times. So what? We’ve heard these miracle stories before you know. We’ve probably even prayed for miracles ourselves but nothing quite like what Jesus did has ever happened to us has it.

Familiarity breeds contempt, and unless we pay attention, familiarity with the stories of Jesus’ miracles can let us miss God’s message for us this morning. May God help us NOT to be so bored with His Word!

Jesus is travelling far from Jerusalem – you know the place where the “experts” were sent from to trap Him and where He would be ultimately crucified. He’s travelling in a land who knew they were under God’s judgment.  They’d sided with the enemies of God’s people after they had been blessed by the Lord through Solomon. What betrayal! What traitors! Hear what the prophet says in Jeremiah 47:4 – “The time has come for the Philistines to be destroyed, along with their allies from Tyre and Sidon. Yes, the LORD is destroying the remnant of the Philistines, those colonists from the island of Crete.” NLT

So where is Jesus? He is not where the those who felt they were sure of God’s blessing lived, that is, in Jerusalem. Jesus was performing His miracles amongst those who knew themselves to be cursed. He’s walking among the Ten Towns (Decapolis) where the Gentiles are so thick the Jews of that region were considered “second class” because they lived some place defiled.

Have you ever felt you were some place which was so bad that, for whatever reason, Jesus could not reach you there? Some place so hopeless that Jesus would never visit where you find yourself stuck? Our Jesus walks today in the hopeless places – and however much they seem “God forsaken” –those who will receive Him may be surprised just how frequently He visits there just as He visited Tyre and Sidon.

While there were many in Jerusalem who did not notice His visitation – and were thankful whenever the news of Jesus died down – there were people who were eager for Him to arrive and when they knew Jesus came to supposedly “God Forsaken” places, they cried out for Him to visit their friend, perhaps a family member, who was a deaf-mute.  They begged for a miracle!

“Draw near Jesus!” they asked. Communicate your blessing and healing power. Touch our friend in his brokenness and weakness. Remove his humiliation! Heal him!

Who is the person who healed this man that day?

He is the one who touched a man whom many others would look at and ask “Who sinned? This man or his parents?” (cf.  John 9:2) He’s the one who dares to touch you and I in our squalor and weakness.

Jesus is the one who looks to heaven and beseeches the Heavenly Father to pour out blessing and healing in a land considered by the nice religious people as pagan to say the least. He is the one who at the Father’s right hand prays for us in our plight as well. That is why scripture tells us to consider this one who looks to heaven and intercedes for the broken and urges us to realize that He prays for us too: “Therefore [Hebrews says] He is able, once and forever, to save those who come to God through Him. He lives forever to intercede with God on their behalf.” Heb 7:25 NLT

Jesus is the one who sighed as he draws near this pitiful man. Jesus groaned with the groaning all creation cries out with until the curse is removed (Rom 8:23; 2 Cor 5:2,4). He sighs for this man just as he wept for his friend Lazarus (John 11:35).

This one who weeps over sinners will weep over your plight, your struggles, your heart break when you cry out to Him.

Jesus commanded “Be Opened” and this man’s ears were open. A miracle happened at Jesus’ word.

And today when people cry out to this Jesus who said “Be opened” and the Deaf-Mute could hear and speak – this Jesus comes to shattered places and shattered lives and does amazing things for people who know they have no other option and they turn to Him!

Note the response of the people – when others will crucify Him, these people

They can’t stay quiet!

They acclaim Him as the one who fulfills Isaiah’s messianic promise:

Say to those who have an anxious heart, “Be strong; fear not! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God. He will come and save you.” Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy. Isa 35:4-5 ESV

And guess what – It’s no fluke! In Acts 3:1-10 we read about a man who saw the Apostles and thought “money”.  Instead this lame man was healed.

That healing shows the messianic promise fulfilled in Jesus, persists wherever, whenever, and however Jesus wishes it to in order to spread His kingdom.

It’s no fluke, the One who drew near to hopeless people in a hopeless “God-forsaken” place did not die, nor did His power. He rose again and lives at the Father’s right hand interceding, praying and caring for all those who come to God through Him.

It’s no fluke, the One who drew near a hopeless man draws near to all the hopeless who cry out to Him!

He sighs over our tears and our plight.

He is waiting for us to stop seeking silver and gold as that lame man learned and He is waiting for us to seek His Name!

How do we pray in light of this truth?

How do we praise in light of this truth?

How do we witness in light of this truth?

There are some people who never get healed in this life. There are martyrs – like most of the Apostles – who died for their Christian Faith. And there are those who struggle in many different ways.

But just because these things are true, we must never forget who Jesus is and the mercy and love He delights to show those who will put their trust in Him.

Our problem, for the most part, is not that we trust Jesus too much. Overwhelmingly our problem is that we trust Jesus too little. We have preconceived notions about our lives and we have a view of Jesus that demands He conform to our will.

The mercy of Jesus though is no fluke. The greatest need in our lives each day – and the greatest need of those we encounter – is to learn to entrust ourselves expectantly, in childlike trust, to the One who touches the despairing in their squalor and restores them by to power of God  so that we become part of eternity’ s chorus of souls who will give Him praise!

Will you praise Him? Will you bow? His mercy is no fluke. Why do we daily treat is as such?

Here’s an audio version of this sermon preached at St. Andrew’s Church.

John Wesley preaching at his father's grave

For a deacon in formation for the presbyterate…

Preaching is a divine enterprise and impossible apart from the Holy Spirit. Pray as Luke 11:13 encourages for the Father’s most amazing gift – the help, anointing and empowering of the Holy Spirit so that you and those who hear will increasingly grow in the grace of Christ through the Word. I have always sensed a great burden to be faithful to what I believed the text to be saying to me and those listening. I do not try to amaze myself or the listeners with too many big words, obscure quotes, or pretend to be some original language expert who says “The Greek means…” to the point that people do not trust their English language bibles to communicate the Word of God. I am a “big picture” guy who sees everything – and particular texts no less – through the sweep of Holy Scripture and therefore I aim not to declare them as individual “loose ends” but as parts of God’s great revelation and the unfolding of His plan. I preach the integrity and interrelatedness of Holy Scripture and defy those who consider themselves wise in the wisdom of this age to refute it. A resource like Alvin Schmidt’s “How Christianity Changed The World” will aid you in this task of explaining the wonders of what Jesus our Lord has done through His Body the Church concretely and objectively in history, not simply in the fond imaginations of the pious.

I remind myself and the people from time to time why the color of my stole matches the color of the paraments. As the minister of the Word I am not my own but am part of the furniture in God’s house. I as a preacher exist as a living stone in God’s Temple to declare the Word of God as Christ’s servant and not in my own service. That is why I am a man in clerical uniform – I am like any mechanic, fireman, or other person whose vocation is primarily a service instead of a “profession” per se. My service is not primarily to people but to God as the bearer of His Word for the people He providentially sends.

This is why I also preach from a lectionary. I know its inadequacies. I know that from time to time it is required that we change the text to address an urgent situation in the congregation or society. I know that other opportunities should be provided for indepth study of the text. But the most urgent need before us – the need that never departs from day to day, from age to age, in tumult and in alleged peace – is for we and those who hear us to be continually immersed into Jesus Christ. The Epistles exist to explain what this means to be sure and they must not be neglected. But study the epistles however we will, we cannot know the meaning they intend without continually reflecting on our Lord as He is revealed in the Gospels as the fulfillment of all God the Father’s promises to revealed from Adam onward. Those who would occupy the Lord’s Day mornings with extended expositions of the Torah or who preach for years through an Epistle in the name of expository preaching often claim Calvin as their guide in this. But even he, though he eschewed the lectionary, confined himself to preaching the Gospels and Acts on the Lord’s Day. How do lesser men dare to rob the Lord’s people of the Life of Christ and assume they know it as it should be known? God forgive us the horrible mischief that has been done by our reducing the Gospel to abstractions ripped from the narrative of our Lord’s life and presented as cold dogma!

Systematic theology has it’s place in preaching. Last week’s homily (in printed form at least) alluded to both Luther’s catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism. That is because they summarized a point I considered necessary to be addressed in the exposition of the text in question. Never forget that our confessions and our systematic theology must emerge from our reflection and submission to the written Word of God. Our “systems” and confessions aim to crystallize the thrilling revelation of the Saving Christ who unites us to Himself and ushers in a New Creation through His Cross, Resurrection and Ascension. We systematize in order to communicate but our systematics must never become an ax by which we chop the scriptures in pieces to conform either to our pride or our prejudice. When we do so, we have become hirelings who have attempted to master God and bend His ways to our convenience. God deliver us from that and forgive our ignorance and discipline our pride.

As you know, our lectionary covers the life of our Lord annually via the respective “Synoptic” Gospels with flourishes courtesy of St. John. Our other readings attempt to form a thematic unit to inform and expand upon the Gospel portion by way of cross reference, parallel, and biblical – theological continuity. These can be useful keys or preaching tools at times when you wonder “what should I say”? Other biblical-theological connections can be found readily in modern resources unavailable just a few years ago. For instance, Carson & Beale’s Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament will allow you to discern the proper connections between the testaments. You will learn that the Septuagint (LXX) is a fine bridge between the Hebrew and the NT Greek and that our New Testament is a Greek fundamentally shaped and informed by the Hebrew Scriptures mediated through the LXX.

Note these things now. I trust they will come alive for you as you engage in the act of studying and preaching. It’s hard when you don’t have a large congregation. But as my wife told me – preach as if you were preaching to a full cathedral. She’s absolutely right! Your audience of one deserves your full attention, because for them in that hour, you are God’s appointed messenger! The same goes for those who hear you online and those who may read your homilies on line.

Scripture Readings for the Lord’s Day from the Provisional Book of Common Prayer RESA:

Deuteronomy 4:1-9
Psalm 119:97-104
James 1:17-27
Mark 7:1-23

In our Gospel reading today, our Lord ignores a trivial complaint, unfolds the self-deceptions of our legalism and man-made “spirituality”, and identifies our ultimate problem – our sinful hearts. In our last three Lord’s Days, John 6 has reminded us of the absolute necessity of our union with Christ to translate us from death to life, from ‘in Adam’ to ‘in Christ’, from darkness to light, and from death to life itself because He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

As Jesus’ ministry threatens the power of the establishment leaders and they cannot dispute that true miracles have been done, experts from Jerusalem are seemingly brought in to consult how best to halt our Lord’s progress and make clear how He and His ministry cannot be of God. So they attack the disciples for failing at the point of failing to comply with one of a myriad of traditions that had been created to help the people of God obey God’s law but which had become a law unto themselves… and a system, Jesus shows, that helped corrupt hearts evade the intent of God’s Law.

The real issue is their pseudo-spirituality and pretense of godliness when their hearts are wicked. They want to appear pious. Jesus condemns them because they rejoice in practices like the practice of “Corban” which let them evade God’s will while deluding themselves and others about their hearts’ true condition. Corban was the practice of giving something to God to be held in trust. Resources that might have been used to obey the command to help frail parents were enjoyed by children instead under the pretense of Corban.

The problem is not ultimately the food from outside. In light of Christ, we realize that all food is “clean” in the sense that it cannot truly defile the soul. These “traditions” are but a symptom of our true problem – that our hearts, to paraphrase Calvin, into factories which ceaselessly generate idols. We are corrupted from the inside out and straining at gnats while swallowing camels is our favorite method for denying our corruption and seeking to look good. The world’s greatest modern thief, Bernie Madoff, was known before his arrest as a “generous philanthropist”. Like him we are thieves with smiles pretending our good will before God. Our only hope is to be incorporated into Christ as Question & Answer 20 of the Heidelberg Catechism remind us: Our need is not for a change of opinion or for new mental furniture. Our need is to be grafted into Christ and to receive his benefits! Jesus Christ is the only cure for the sickness of our sick hearts. We must be delivered by the One whom God has appointed to be for us our wisdom, righteousness (justification), sanctification and redemption (1 Cor 1:30). Luther’s Small Catechism makes the same point in its discussion of the sacrament of initiation into Christ, baptism, when it says: What does such baptizing with water signify?–Answer. It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

This amazing transformation is beyond our power. It comes only from the One who has died for sinners, risen to the Father’s right hand, and poured out His Holy Spirit to fit a people for eternal life. When confronted with the corruption of our hearts, when our deceitful legalisms are exposed for what they are, and when all human hope is lost – we are, by the grace of God, finally ready to receive Him who is all mercy and grace, the One able to transform us and give us eternal life, Jesus the Christ.

Here’s an audio version of this sermon as preached at St. Andrew’s Church

The Vincentian Canon discusses what we call the Consensus Fidelium or the “Consensus of Faithful Christians”. It refers to what has been believed by the large body of Christians in all places and at all times. Defining that is not an exact science but the task has it’s benefits in my opinion.

In our era, the American Church is primarily known for it’s herd mentality and penchant for following the latest fads. To some, the word “Evangelical” means “the church of what’s happening now” – a full dose of zeitgeist covered with a thin scriptural veneer to attempt religious respectability. The emphasis, however, is on doing what we feel is right.

A body – synod or congregation – heeding the consensus fidelium will take a different tack. They will ask “what is essentially Christian?” and to derive their answer they will begin with the study of scripture but seek to check their conclusions against the conclusions of others whom the Holy Spirit has called before us to the task of discerning God’s will. In our age that’s so suspicious of the “traditions of men” (our own favorite mindless traditions excluded of course!), seeking to learn the consensus fidelium on a matter is nothing other than a form of “historical and transcultural humility”.

Thomas Oden’s Systematic Theology “Classic Christianity” is helpful in that regard. A former worshiper of every innovation however destructive offered by “progressive Christianity”, he was converted to “paleo orthodoxy” when his experiments with theology left him cold. His advice?

“What I needed to do was listen. But I could not listen because I found my modern presuppositions constantly tyrannizing my listening. I realized that I must listen intently, actively, without reservation. Listen in such a way that my whole life depended upon hearing. Listen in such a way that I could see telescopically beyond my modern myopia, to break through walls of my modern prison, and actually hear voices from the past with different assumptions entirely about the world and time and human culture. Then I began reading the decisions of the ancient Ecumenical Councils. Only then in my forties did I begin to become a theologian.”

The day for theological experimentation at the expense of human souls is over. The day for theological restatement and the reinvigoration of the life of the Church is upon us. Our text is, of course, the whole of Holy Scripture. But with a new historical humility, our pathway to the prophetic word of the hour is through the central tradition of the Church and consistent with the prophetic word before. The day for engagement in mission is upon us as well. It is here that experimentation is called for as we seize the day and live out the Word of God afresh, yet in a way consistent with the consensus fidelium. In the first century, Christians did so by rescuing infants left to die from exposure and wild animals. In this century, Christians may accomplish the same thing by embracing in any number of ways those facing unexpected pregnancies. The times have changed but the calling remains the same.

As Reformed and Evangelical people, we emerge from the Reformation and cherish its affirmation of the “five solas”. Embracing the heritage of the Reformation is not a calling distinct from pursuing the consensus fidelium. In an age when some consider anything resembling a “denominational” term passe, we embrace the name. We recognize that our fathers in the faith affirmed these “solas” precisely because they were confronted by a schismatic hegemony that had seriously compromised the testimony of the Body of Christ. How? By departing from the ancient consensus fidelium! In pursuing a faithful restatement of the Reformed, Evangelical, Protestant, and, yes, Catholic faith for today we simply live our our calling as Reformed and Evangelical people. Because our roots run deep into history and through the historic church, that means we likewise pursue the consensus fidelium. Will you join us as we do?