Concordia Journal | Fall 2015

Fall 2015C

oncordia Journalvolum

e41

|num

ber 4

COncordiaournal volume 41 | number 4J Fall 2015

No Lions of Gory Mane

Tending Our Common Home

Gods Dwelling Place

Walter A. Maier (18931950)

Concordia Seminary801 Seminary PlaceSt. Louis, MO 63105

Martin CheMnitz and JaCob andreae, ChurCh Order (1569) CheMnitzs Works, VoluMe 9

VISIT CPH.ORG/CHURCHORDER

never before in english

2015 Concordia Publishing House 595247_03

Never before has there been a full-scale English translation of a Reformation-era Lutheran church order (the governing documents and liturgy for a regional church). Now, for the first time, the 1569 Church Order by Chemnitz and Andreae is available.

Written by authors of the Formula of Concord (1577), the capstone of the Lutheran Confessions.

Regulates worship practices for an entire region, showing how ceremonies and adiaphora are to be understood and how individuality in worship is limited for the sake of Christian harmony.

Sets forth the customary, liturgical form of worship that was inherited from the Medieval and Ancient Church, including Gregorian chant and the use of Latin together with the common language of the people.

Welfare for the poor

Education and school governance

Dispute resolution

Doctrinal standards

Doctrinal supervision

Marriage and divorce

Worship style and uniformity

The Church Order shows how faith was put into action in churches and schools in areas such as:

Exclusive subscriber digital access via ATLAS to Concordia Journal &

Concordia Theology Monthly:http://search.ebscohost.comUser ID: ATL0102231ps

Password: subscriberTechnical problems?

Email [email protected]

COncordiaournalJ

(ISSN 0145-7233)

Issued by the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, the Concordia Journal is the successor of Lehre und Wehre (1855-1929), begun by C. F. W. Walther, a founder of The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod. Lehre und Wehre was absorbed by the Concordia Theological Monthly (1930-1974) which was also published by the faculty of Concordia Seminary as the official theological periodical of the Synod.

Concordia Journal is abstracted in Internationale Zeitschriftenschau fr Bibelwissenschaft unde Grenzgebiete, New Testament Abstracts, Old Testament Abstracts, and Religious and Theological Abstracts. It is indexed in ATLA Religion Database/ATLAS and Christian Periodicals Index. Article and issue photocopies in 16mm microfilm, 35mm microfilm, and 105mm microfiche are available from National Archive Publishing (www.napubco.com).

Books submitted for review should be sent to the editor. Manuscripts submitted for publication should conform to a Chicago Manual of Style. Email submission ([email protected]) as a Word attachment is preferred. Editorial decisions about submissions include peer review. Manuscripts that display Greek or Hebrew text should utilize BibleWorks fonts (www.bibleworks.com/fonts.html). Copyright 1994-2009 BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

The Concordia Journal (ISSN 0145-7233) is published quarterly (Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall). The annual subscription rate is $25 (individuals) and $75 (institutions) payable to Concordia Seminary, 801 Seminary Place, St. Louis, MO 63105. New subscriptions and renewals also available at http://store.csl.edu. Periodicals postage paid at St. Louis, MO and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to Concordia Journal, Concordia Seminary, 801 Seminary Place, St. Louis, MO 63105-3199.

Copyright by Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri 2015www.csl.edu | www.concordiatheology.org

publisher Dale A. Meyer President

Executive EDITOR Charles Arand Dean of Theological Research and Publication

EDITOR Travis J. Scholl Managing Editor of Theological Publications

assistant editor Melanie Appelbaum

assistant Andrew Jones

graphic designer Michelle Meier

David AdamsCharles ArandAndrew BarteltJoel BiermannGerhard BodeKent BurresonAnthony CookTimothy DostThomas Egger Joel ElowskyJeffrey GibbsBenjamin Haupt

Erik HerrmannTodd JonesJeffrey Kloha David LewisRichard MarrsDavid MaxwellDale MeyerGlenn NielsenJoel OkamotoJeffrey OschwaldDavid PeterPaul Raabe

Victor RajPaul Robinson Mark RockenbachRobert RosinTimothy SaleskaLeopoldo Snchez M.David SchmittBruce SchuchardWilliam SchumacherMark SeifridKou SeyingJames Voelz

Faculty

All correspondence should be sent to:CONCORDIA JOURNAL

801 Seminary PlaceSt. Louis, Missouri 63105

314-505-7117cj @csl.edu

Fall 2015

COncordiaournalJ

CONTENTS

volume 41 | number 4

EDITORIALs

285 Editors Note

286 Living and Active Dale A. Meyer

ARTICLES

293 No Lions of Gory Mane: Persecution or Loss of Predominance in American Christianity

Michael Knippa

307 Tending Our Common Home: Reflections on Laudato Si

Charles P. Arand

319 Gods Dwelling Place Richard Davenport

329 Walter A. Maier (18931950): Sixty-five Years into the Historical Record

Paul L. Maier

337 HOMILETICAL HELPS

363 BOOK REVIEWS

editoRIALS

COncordiaournalJ

Concordia Journal/Fall 2015 285

Editors Note

If anyone still wonders whether religion still makes its presence felt in our public life, the long summer-into-fall of 2015 should have erased any lingering doubt. Religion not only made its own instant headlines (Pope Franciss encyclical then his trip to the United States, the shooting at Mother Emanuel in Charleston, Kim Davis . . . to name just a few), but it also inflected nearly all the major news stories (the ongoing executions and desecration of sacred sites by ISIS, Planned Parenthood, the migrant crisis out of Syria . . . to name a few more).

So, what is a Christian to do with all this? There are no easy answers, at least not for those who (supposedly) hold Christ and culture in paradox. But a few page turns away from here, Michael Knippa begins to shine a light on a way forward. He begins in the careful distinction between persecution and what he calls the loss of Christian pre-dominance in American society, opting for the latter as the more accurate description of what North American Christians now face. We could alternatively call it the loss of privilege or a post-Christendom era, but I think Knippas term carries less baggage, and hence moves us further down the road. I will leave the rest of his nuanced argu-ment for you to discern for yourself. It is well worth the reading, and we have simulta-neously published his article on ConcordiaTheology.org to continue the conversation.

If anything, this is a time for such careful, collective discernment (another important word for Knippa). Knee-jerk reactions rarely get anyone very far. But in bewildering times such as these, they get us even less. Wisdom takes its time and doesnt bother looking for its answers on Facebook. Fortunately, winter is close upon us, and we enter into the slow time of the calendar. Long nights make for slow time, for deep breaths, for deeper reflection.

So, it is a good time once again to enter into Advent time. Waiting. Expectation. Surprise. God has yet something to do with this world. And with us.

Travis J. SchollManaging Editor of Theological Publications

On the cover: the image is the logo for Concordia Seminarys Center for the Care of Creation, led by Professor Charles Arand. The center offers a range of resources for pastors and congregations at www.togetherwithallcreatures.org.

286

Living and Active

President Meyer preached the following for the opening of the 20152016 academic year.

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of mar-row, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no crea-ture is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Heb 4:1213)

And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. Look at the people sitting around you. All crea-tures, especially you and I, are naked and exposed before God. Thats not a pretty sight, all of us here naked and exposed; it is, as they say, too much information. But that is the way the eternal judge sees us and that should put the fear of God into us all. Now you certainly dont hear about the fear of God in contemporary American culture, our culture with its omnipresent media reinforcing our self-centered quest for happiness. But you and I are to be different. We are baptized. When you entered the chapel, you may have noticed a small square of granite in the sidewalk right before the door. That granite inlay cryptically says, Ecclesiastes 5:1. Thats code, a reminder that you and I must give an account to the eternal Judge. Ecclesiastes 5:12 says:

Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they are doing evil. Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few.

Honestly, I also dont hear the fear of God talked about much in church. I sus-pect thats why mainline American denominations are not growing. To be sure, the global Christian church is growing. Im told the Mekane Yesus Lutheran Church in Ethiopia is baptizing nine hundred people a day, but in America its a different story. The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod has lost 18 percent of its members in the last forty years. Dont you think the devil has his hand in this decline? If the devil can tempt us into indifference about the coming judgment, why would we have a passion-ate love for the only One who can deliver us from eternal death? If we are indifferent to the fear of God, how can we truly love our God and Savior? You can be sure there will be no indifference when Jesus comes back to judge us, naked and exposed.

Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling; Naked, come to Thee for dress; Helpless, look to Thee for grace; Foul, I to the fountain flyWash me, Savior, or I die.


There are many temptations the devil uses to make Americans indifferent to the fear and love of God. Let me identify three that the old evil foe uses to our harm.1 The first is what Ive already been talking about, indifference to the coming judgment, and therefore, no fear and love of our God and Savior. When we are indifferent or only give lip service to judgment, the result is that Jesus and the gospel are confined to the past. Thats so important; let me repeat it. When we are indifferent or only give lip service to judgment, the result is that Jesus and the gospel are confined to the past. Now to be sure, what Jesus did during his visible ministry is the source and essence of our salvation, but if we only talk about it as a first-century event, we end up being cura-tors of a museum instead of proclaimers of something awesome now and for eternity. Do you think its possible that people may not be coming to our churches because they dont like going to museums? I do know people who like to go to museums but most of them dont go every week. The devil doesnt mind us saying that Jesus died for our sins so long as we leave it in the past, in the museum, and are indifferent to his return in judgment. Thats the devils first way of weakening the church.

The second temptation is the word church. What pops into your mind when I say the word church? Maybe you think of the building. Maybe you think of a church service. Im going to eight oclock church. Maybe you think of a congregation called Trinity Lutheran Church with its school, its properties, its employees, its bylaws and constitution, its groups and its members. When we hear the word church, we tend to think of a Christian institution. Guess what? There was no institutional Christian church in the decades after Jesus died, rose and ascended, not in the way we think of it. There was no institutional Christian church that first Pentecost when thousands and thousands of believers were added. In fact, the word Christian didnt exist at Pentecost. The word Christian came later, in Antioch in Acts 11:26. At Pentecost, the people who followed Jesus were known as people of the Way because they fol-lowed him who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 14:6). They were a small group within Judaism. Judaism had various groups, like the Pharisees and Sadducees and Essenes and now this little group of people who had started to follow Jesus of Nazareth, the people of the Way. It wasnt until after AD 70, some forty years after Pentecost, that the church was generally considered something separate from Judaism. Now what does this mean? Thats the great Lutheran question, what does this mean? It means what we confess in the explanation to the Third Article of the Apostles Creed:

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith. In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.

Theres nothing there about the church being buildings and budgets, institution-al things. The church in its essence is people who publicly confess and follow the One who is the way, the truth and the life.

288

In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian Church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers. On the Last Day He will raise me and all the dead, and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ. This is most certainly true.

The third temptation of the devil concerns this book, the Bible. Guess what? Most people in the early church couldnt read or write. Its estimated that only 10 percent of the people in the Roman Empire were literate.2 John 8:6 tells us that Jesus could write. Paul was a scholar; he could read and write. Peter? Im not so sure. They were as intelligent as we are but most people couldnt read or write. Its interesting to watch people in worship when the Bible lessons are read. Many look down and follow along in the bulletin or look up and follow the words on the screen. Thats not the way it was back at the time of Pentecost. Why would they have a bulletin? Most of them couldnt read! The Holy Spirit got Jesus into their hearts when church people spoke about Jesus, about who Jesus is, what Jesus did, what he does, how he fulfills the proph-ecies and the wonderful promises he makes to his followers. When Paul said, Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ, he was speaking literally (Rom 10:17). And so our text from Hebrews says:

The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

What does this mean? Martin Luther said, God be praised, a seven-year-old child knows what the church is: holy believers and the little sheep who hear the voice of their shepherd.3 Again, Luther says in the Small Catechism, We should fear and love God that we do not despise preaching and His Word, but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it.4 And so the devil tempts us to confine Jesus to the past and to sup-pose that the church is just another institution. We easily fall to those temptations when we forget that the word is the viva vox evangelii, the living and active word of the gospel. Therefore we pray, Almighty God, grant to your church your Holy Spirit and the wisdom that comes down from above, that your word may not be bound (and put on a shelf) but have free course and be preached to the joy and edifying of Christs holy people.5

All this points to the living and active word spoken in church by people who will soon see Jesus in judgment. All of this points to the importance of connections and conversations.6 I love taking walks and I love walking through Washington University. Wash U is a world-class school, but people dont acknowledge you when you meet on the sidewalk. They dont have the friendly culture of Concordia Seminary. So I thought it was strange the other day when I was looking at construction at their athletic com-plex. A man, maybe sixty years old, smiled and greeted me. He introduced himself as the head football coach. I said, Im Dale Meyer and I work at Concordia Seminary.

289Concordia Journal/Fall 2015

He said, Im a Christian, too. I try to bring it to bear on what I do here. Id love to talk more with you. You see, connections and conversations! A pastor needs a study where he obviously studies, but the pastors office should be where you connect and converse with people. Ive noticed that the pastors of healthy and growing churches arent in the institutional office as much as they are out with people, out with church members, and out in the community. Their offices are their feet, their cars, and their cell phones. God intends his word to be alive in connections and conversations. And about this book, the Bible? Johannes Gutenbergs invention of moveable type is a great blessing. We are doubly blessed to speak, hear, and read the living voice of the gospel. But when you open the Bible and when you study theology, take it as the Spirit intends it for you, the living and active word of God that will transform you. When you pre-pare to minister to others, lift the words off the page, get your head out of the book and manuscript. Speak the living and active word from your heart to their hearts.

The word alive through connections and conversations is like fireworks. Pop, pop, pop, pop. Sometimes it is just one pop and ah from the crowd. Sometimes several pops, but oh, the finale! Pop, pop, pop, pop, ah, ah, ah, awe, awe, awe. Thats the way the word of God should be, living and active. Sometimes simple insights. Ah! Other times, more insights. Ah becomes increasing awe. And oh, when the finale comes! Pop, pop, pop, living and active, living and active. Pop, pop, pop, word alive, word alive, light from above. And that day you and I wont appear naked and exposed before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness My beauty are, my glorious dress; Midst flaming worlds, in these arrayed, With joy shall I lift up my head.7

The finale is coming and the Spirit of our Lord Jesus is getting us ready by his word, his word alive, living and active through connections and conversations. Amen.

Dale A. MeyerPresident

Endnotes1 Martin Luther, A Mighty Fortress, Lutheran Service Book, 656, 1.2 William Harris in Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian

Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 4, 7.3 Smalcald Articles, XII.4 Luthers Small Catechism, The Third Commandment.5 Lutheran Service Book, Collect 102.6 Connections and conversations comes from Nancy Ammerman. Connections and conversations are

the building blocks of the new kinds of religious communities our best students will learn to lead. Theological Education, 49, no. 1 (2014): 33.

7 Lutheran Service Book, 563, 1.

ARTICLES

COncordiaournalJ


Michael Knippa is a PhD candidate at Concordia Seminary and teaches theology at Lutheran High School South in St. Louis, Missouri. He studies systematic theology with a primary research focus on the interaction between politics and theology.

No Lions of Gory Mane Persecution or Loss of Predominance in American Christianity

Michael Knippa

Early in his career, well before the posting of the 95 Theses, Martin Luther lec-tured on the Psalms at the University of Wittenberg. When he came to Psalm 69, he (following Augustine) noted the words of the Psalm . . . hardly touch us, for we do not see in ourselves such things as were in the martyrs, when those words were read with relish.1 What concerns us here is not so much the interpretive principles at work in Luthers exegesis but rather Luthers evaluation of his contemporary setting: the church, so far as he could see it from Wittenberg somewhere between 15131515, did not face the threat of martyrdom or persecution. Instead, the danger facing the church, Luther argued, was spiritual apathy.2 The beginning of the Reformation, though, radically reshaped Luthers assessment of the challenges facing the church, so much so that in 1522 he could comment, It is the nature of the divine word to be heartily received by a few, but to be persecuted ruthlessly by many.3

Today some voices in the United States are calling for American Christians to make a similar shift in their thinking.4 In addition to movies and books that are solely based upon the premise of the persecution of Christians in the United States, several politicians and political commentators are suggesting that the church in America is being persecuted.5 Very recently the decision in the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges led several prominent Christian leaders to predict that persecution will soon come upon the church in America en masse.6 Other Christian leaders are not just warn-ing of, but actually stating privately and publicly, that the church in the United States is being persecuted.7 All of this forces us to consider this contentious, but deeply impor-tant, question: is the church in the United States being persecuted?

Writing in 1984, Father Richard John Neuhaus remarked, What has happened in recent decades is a redefinition of what constitutes the real world.8 Certainly many of the trends that Neuhaus observed in 1984 have continued and even, accelerated in recent years. The real world of Americas public square in 2015 is a vastly different arena than it was in the 1950s, the 1980s, or even the early 2000s.9 However, this paper will argue that Neuhauss assertion that lions of gory mane are not in prospect for the Christian church in the United States remains a valid assessment of our contempo-

294

rary situation.10 The lions of gory mane (a line Neuhaus takes from a hymn) and the Roman amphitheaters of antiquity that housed them, are a long way from Washington, DC.11 Of course, the intention of this argument is not to deny the experience of perse-cution that some Christians in American do in fact endure.12 Rather, our argument is that the Christian church must carefully discern whether these individual experiences are normative for the entire church, and accordingly, whether or not the church in the United States should publically claim that it is enduring persecution. Certain tools will be proposed to aid in this process of discernment and a case will be made that endorses the continued validity of Neuhauss assessment. Finally, an alternative understanding of the challenges currently faced by the church in America, namely the loss of predomi-nance, will be briefly proposed.

Discerning, Not DefiningAccounts of martyrdom and stories of persecution have received wide attention

and circulation throughout the history of the church. From the Te Deum, to the various individual and collected Acts of the Martyrs, to the modern day organization The Voice of the Martyrs, the Christian tradition has and continues to remember those who have suffered and those who have been killed for the faith. Most people have an intuitive grasp of what persecution is: the unjust application of coercive violence against a per-son or group of people because of their beliefs. However, Christian theology has never settled on a strict, universal definition of what persecution is and what it is not. That is to say, the meaning of persecution has largely been assumed rather than thoroughly, and finally, articulated.13 This can be seen in Epitome of Article X of the Formula of Concord, which turns upon the issue of adiaphora in a time of persecution but does not define what exactly constitutes a time of persecution.14 The Solid Declaration of the Formula is more explicit in explaining that a time of persecution is particularly when the opponents are striving either through violence and coercion or through craft and deceit to suppress pure teaching and subtly to slip their false teachings back into our churches.15 It is important to recognize, though, that even this articulation of persecution is tailored to the circumstance that Article X is consideringnamely the danger posed to the gospel in Germany by the re-introduction of certain medieval rites under the Augsburg and Leipzig Interims after the defeat of the Smalcald League by the Catholic Emperor Charles V.16 It does not have in view individual Christians who might experience persecution in the public or private spheres, but rather is concerned with the institution of the church, its liturgical practice, and the liturgical calendar.17 It, like almost all definitions of persecution, is incomplete.18

The lack of an absolutely precise, universally valid Christian definition of perse-cution actually ought to be seen as a virtue to be maintained rather than as a deficiency that ought to be corrected. The historical circumstances, dangers, intensity, and dura-tion of any particular incident of persecution are always dependent upon the localized, personal experiences of those facing the coercion. Sometimes persecution is sporadic and regional; other times it is systematic and sustained on a national or imperial scale.19 Sometimes persecution can be linked with certain doctrines or religious symbols; other


times it might coalesce around ethnic or socio-economic lines. Sometimes persecution is carried out through brutal mob violence (we remember what Paul endured on several occasions) and at other times it is insidiously methodical and bureaucratic (we think of the Christians under some recent Communist regimes). Trying to draw a precise defini-tion of persecution is thus not only difficult but also counter-productive. Persecution is not universal, uniform, or simplistic; it is rather particular, amorphous, and complex. One strict definition, one list where one needs to check all the boxes in order to be called persecution, simply will not do. What is, and what is not, persecution will always be a matter of careful discernment for the church to prayerfully conduct in the specific times and locations to which God has called it.

Discernment, though, is tricky business.20 Two extremes must be avoided. The first is to make our measure of persecution so extreme (i.e., you are persecuted only if you are a martyr), or the topic of persecution so politically incorrect, as to rule it out of existence or consideration.21 The other extreme is to elide the historic division between suffering as a Christian and being persecuted as a Christian.22 The danger here is that we end up calling all Christian suffering persecution and, in so doing, make the term into nothing more than a synonym. The Scriptures (not to mention the tradition of Lutheran theology itself23) call us to distinguish between suffering and persecution. As Jeffrey Gibbs notes in his discussion of the final part of the Beatitudes in Matthew 5, the dependent clause whenever people insult you in 5:11 makes it clear that, unlike the first seven beatitudes (5:39), the final two Beatitudes (5:1012) will not always apply to every disciple, nor will all experience such reproach in the same way. . . . It will not always be the case that all of Jesus disciples are persecuted at all times.24 The church must reject both of these errors; the church is not always and everywhere perse-cuted but it has, does, and will face persecution. How are we to discern the difference, the way between these two dangerous extremes?

Learning to Be DiscerningThe first, and foremost, thing for the church to understand about persecu-

tion is that its presence or absence is a fact that the church has to determine for itself. Christians, in other words, should never depend upon other people telling them that they are being persecuted.25 Related to this is the critical reality that the church must ground discussion and comprehension of persecution not primarily in any sociological or political account, but rather squarely and thoroughly in the scriptural storyboth in the discussion about and response to persecution. While the latter point will be addressed below, the former point must never slip from Christians minds: when persecution is discussed, or even claimed, the conversation should never be rooted in apprehension, surprise, fear, or panic.26 The New Testament repeatedly warns Christians that persecu-tion is quite possible, while at the same time assuring Christians that there is nothing in persecutionnot even death itselfthat needs to be feared. As Jesus Christ says three times in his sending of the disciples in Matthew 10: Do not be afraid.27 Accordingly, Christians should view with alarm claims or warnings of persecution that have no con-solation or promise of the gospel attached to them, for such a manner of speaking of

296

persecution is foreign to the scriptural witness. Instead, when Christians speak of perse-cution with one another, they should be able to recognize both the dreadful reality of the persecution at hand while also acknowledging, joyfully, that there is nothing that shall separate them from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus, their Lord (Rom 8:3539).

Another consideration to use in discernment is for the church to look across its experience throughout the world in this time. As Saint Paul reminds us, the church is the body of Christ and in our day God has arranged for the body of Christ to come into greater global awareness. Christians now have a much broader understanding of the worldwide character of those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord: they are indeed from every tribe, language, nation, and family of the earth. Attendant to this growing aware-ness has been an increased knowledge that many Christians in other parts of the world routinely experience oppression, threats, violent coercion, and death on account of their confession of Christ.28 This persecution is of deepest concern to the body of Christ, for if one part suffers, every part suffers with it (1 Cor 12:26). The church must under-stand the struggles and challenges in one place in light of suffering in another part of the world, for in so doing the church honors the body of Christ.

In addition to looking across the world, the church can also look back through its pilgrimage on earth to discern persecution in the present day.29 This exercise can cut two ways. First, the church can question whether claims of persecution in a previous era were as sound or grounded as they were, or are, popularly imagined. For instance, it might be tempting to think that the early church faced violent persecution right up to the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, when, according to Eusebius, there were several Roman emperors before that time that did not persecute Christians.30 While the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church that blood was not shed continuously.31 Similarly, Dean Zweck has recently taken a fresh look at the persecution that drove some German Lutherans to immigrate to Australia in the nineteenth century. While he notes that the persecution in Germany was real he also concludes that the telling of that history needs to be nuanced.32 Second, though, we are also able to look historically into the darkest days and times of Christian persecutionperhaps even finding that they were worse than we could have imagined. Both of these realities should invoke in us a strong sense of humility, a great sense of duty, and perhaps even a little trepidation, before we apply the word persecution to our contemporary experience.

Finally, the Lutheran distinction of the two reigns of God (that is, that Christ reigns in the church through the gospel and in the world through law and reason) can be of great service to the church as it seeks to discern if, and where, persecution is occurring. Take, for example, the Catholic Archdiocese of New Jersey, which in 2013, began to sell gravestones and mausoleums to bereaved families who were burying their deceased in its cemetery. Soon, local sellers of headstones and mausoleums noticed a drop in their business, banded together, and got the government of New Jersey to pass new restrictions that forbade the Archdiocese (or any other religious cemetery, for that matter) from operating a funeral home or selling monuments, grave headers, or mauso-leums.33 What can be made of this? Is it persecution or simply blatant economic protec-tionism? Certainly, it is the latter.34


To take things a step further, consider a proposal put forward by the religious scholar Stephen Prothero in a recent essay. After noting that the state of New York had added two days of Muslim observance to the public school holiday calendar, Prothero asks where this practice will end in a religiously diverse society. Why shouldnt Hindu holidays also be added? After pressing his ad absurdum argument, he contends that, these [religious] holidays cannot be endlessly multiplied without subtracting from the core mission of public schools.35 As such, he counsels that the school calendar of public education institutions should be wiped clean of any religious holidayswhether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or other. If this proposal were adopted would it be perse-cution? Here, admittedly, Christians would have more to lose than other faith com-munities but only because they have more holidays on the public calendar than others do. Such a rearrangement, as Protheros argument runs at least, would not be persecu-tion but merely represent the loss of Christian predominance in determining the public school calendar.

As these two examples help illustrate, the doctrine of the two reigns of God keeps us from confusing a loss of Christian influence in the political realm or upon a particu-lar secular issue with being persecuted for the sake of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The reign of Christ through the gospel has little to do with the churchs business interests or with the arrangement of the secular calendar.36 The two reigns also help us notice the reverse situation, which is when governments are directly targeting Christians with vio-lent coercion precisely because of their confession of Jesus Christ or their proclamation of his message. Of course, it must be recognized that sometimes the borders between the two reigns of God can be murky, and Christians will sometimes have different read-ings of the political situations that they are in. Yet such difficulties should not discount the importance that the teaching of the two reigns of God should have in the churchs discernment of persecution.

No Lions of Gory ManeHaving laid out some guides for discernment, it is now possible to argue more

fully that the Christian church in America should not publically claim persecution. It is perhaps beneficial to focus upon one story that might be used to argue for the church claiming persecution in the United States. One of the most well-known, ongoing, and widely covered is that of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, an evangelical Christian col-lege ministry. In 2000, Tufts University de-recognized InterVarsity because it required its student leaders to agree to a statement of faith and certain behavioral standards.37 Tufts created a policy that all comers to any campus organization and organization leadership posts had to be accepted.38 In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the universitys policy. As long as the all-comers rule was evenly applied to every campus organization, it was legal and universities with an all-comers policy could de-recognize InterVarsity.39 InterVarsity has since been de-recognized by many other colleges and universities, most notably the California State University system (which is composed of twenty-three schools).40 Is this persecution?

It is easy for many to say yes in this case. It seems rather clear that this group,

298

and not others, was targeted specifically for its Christian beliefs. And yet, despite all this, InterVarsity does not claim persecution for itself. We were marginalized, not persecuted, one InterVarsity worker has stated.41 The unwillingness on the part of InterVarsity to claim persecution ought to be instructive for the Christian church at large in the United States. Certainly, there are instances of persecution of Christians in the United States, and the church has, is, and will face obstacles, challenges, and even hostility. However, the Christian church in the United States has traditionally discerned, and should continue to, that these instances of hostility and persecution are not normative for the entire experience of American Christians and therefore claims of general persecution should not be made.

The church in the American public square should not claim public persecution for several reasons. First, most warnings and claims of the church in the United States are either politically oriented or lack scriptural consolation. In other words, they mostly appear to be fear mongering in tone and design. As such, they perhaps point more to the political captivity of the church than they do to the actual state of the bride of Christ.42

Second, as the church in America looks to the historical pilgrimage of the people of God, Christians in the United State must honestly admit their prosperous, even privileged, position. Christians in America have built some of the most extensive church organizations (denominations and parachurch organizations) and infrastruc-tures (church complexes and church buildings, schools, colleges, seminaries, retirement homes, nursing homes, retreat camps, radio networks, and more) that Christian history has ever witnessed. The church in the United States continues to have tax-exempt status and receive various other forms of preferable treatment (as do other religious groups in America) from local, state, and federal government. Furthermore, the government of the United State has rarely, if ever, tried to directly and unabashedly interfere or oppose the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ or otherwise regulate the preaching and teaching of the Christian church. Such a position would have been unimaginable to the early Christians.

Third, any public claim by the church in the United States to general perse-cution would be a failure to demonstrate love, concern, and proper respect towards Christian brothers and sisters throughout the world who daily face coercive persecution and death. To claim that the opposition or challenges present in our context is persecu-tion is to equivocate and trivialize the experience of the noble army of martyrs and to ignore the parts of Christs body that are suffering violence, forced exile, and death.43 Furthermore, claiming persecution would deeply damage the credibility of our public witness in the world and in Americas public square.44 The warning and challenge of Alan Nobles recent words should be taken seriously: If evangelicals want to have a persuasive voice in a pluralist society, a voice that can defend Christians from serious persecution, then we must be able to discern accurately when we are truly victims of oppressionand when this victimization is only imagined.45

Finally, the tendency to think one is being persecuted can often lead to a soft or hard confirmation bias in which a narrative of persecution is developed that begins to see every decision and every political move as another instance of Christians being


persecuted. In short, in claiming persecution the church is always in danger of becom-ing consumed with the idea of persecution rather than proclaiming the Lord Jesus Christ until he comes again.46 An obsession with persecution likely is, or at the very least can become, idolatrous. This is a reality that the church has long recognized and sought to combat; it would be foolish for us to not similarly be aware of, and vigilantly guard against, this temptation.47

An Alternative Understanding for Our Contemporary SituationsRather than being persecuted, Christianity in the United States is losing the

rather absolute predominance that it once held in America.48 Although the sources of this loss are complex, at least two can be briefly explored here: change in America and the political captivity of the American church.

First, America continues to change, as it always has (and always will). Specifically, the number of Americans reporting no religious affiliation continues to climb while the number of Christians, though still a majority, is shrinking.49 In order to understand the effect that these religious shifts are having on the American public the analysis of Philip Gorski is helpful.50 Gorski contends that the American constitution establishes two opposing principlesreligious freedom and civic inclusionthat must be continually rebalanced.51 Each time America has gone through a major cultural or religious shift, it has sought to rebalance the relationship between these two competing aims.52 Thus, the wall of separation between church and state is higher in some plac-es, lower in others; it is well defended at certain spots but virtually unmanned in others; and it is really more serpentine than straight. As a result, the boundaries between the two great estates [church and state] are not always clear-cut. There are zones of loud contestation marked by red lines, settledboundaries that are rarely frequented, and also points of quiet cooperation.53 If Gorskis analysis is correct, then the United States is in the midst of a rebalancing between religious liberty and civil inclusion.54 In this shift, Christians occupy less space (i.e., there are fewer of them) than they once did. As a result, Christians and the Christian church might lose some of the political accommo-dations that previously accompanied their dominance.

On this note we could return to the case of InterVarsity. Clearly, the all-comers policy that several universities are enacting favors the principle of civic inclusion over the religious freedom principle.55 The wall of separation is being adjusted and as a result InterVarsity lost some of the accommodations that it had previously enjoyed. However, even this re-adjustment did not stop InterVarsity from being able to be pres-ent and operate at the various universities that de-recognized it. It has made their work more costly, both organizationally and personally, but not impossible. InterVarsity continues its mission.56 To return to Gorskis account, even though civil inclusion expanded its domain, it did not entirely eliminate religious freedom. It is interesting, also, that the one of the largest concerns that Christian institutions have expressed in light of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling is that they might lose their tax-exempt sta-tus.57 This may indeed one day be the case, and the loss of preferable tax arrangements might be a very difficult thing for some Christian institutions to endure. Yet, it remains

300

highly unlikely, even rather inconceivable, that Christians in the United States will lose everything. As Neuhaus observed long ago, even if, as some fear, we were by domestic madness or external forces to succumb to a form of totalitarianism, it would likely be marked by a measure of tolerance for the expression of religion.58 Despite the changing public square, it is important to recognize that America remains a very religious country that will likely continue to deeply value religious freedom for a long time to come.

The second phenomenon leading to a loss of Christian predominance is the political captivity of the American church. Stanley Hauerwas expresses the problem this way: I believe that we are in a mess because as Christians in America we are more American than Christian.59 In other words, in our pluralistic age partisan political thinking and American national/cultural identity have more pervasive and persuasive formative power than does religion in general, or Christianity in particular. As Robert Putnam found in his study of religion in America, When religion and politics were initially inconsistent [in those studied], religious commitment, not political commit-ment, was more likely to change.60 As Putnam memorably exposed in his visit to Concordia Seminarys theological symposium in 2007, this tendency occurs not just in political opinion, but even appears in the area of doctrinal belief.61 William Cavanaugh calls this a migration of the holy since the kinds of public devotion formerly associ-ated with Christianity in the West never did go away, but largely migrated to a new realm defined by the nation state.62 This phenomenon further helps us to understand the loss of Christians predominance in America: a Christian ethic and public witness is by no means guaranteed even among those who identify as Christian. If this truly is the case, it should not surprise us if the Christian church continues to find itself in a less predominant position and if, as a result of this, it loses some of the accommoda-tions and privileges that were once attendant to its more dominant position. Perhaps if anything, the church in the United States should be thankful that even in the face of the decline of its power in the public arena, the church has experienced very little direct challenge to the continued proclamation of gospel in our society at large: the message of Christ continues to be proclaimed daily through innumerable mediums and messengers. This should neither be taken for granted nor assumed to be the normal condition in which most of followers of Christ have, or ever will, live.

But, What If . . .Of course, one could always contend that this could all change tomorrow, just

as it did for Luther and the Reformers. Indeed, it could; the Scriptures give no prom-ise of worldly stability. What if persecution were to swiftly befall the Christian church in America all at once? Would the work of the Holy Spirit cease? Would the body of Christ fail? Would the purposes of God be thwarted? No is the only answer that the scriptural witness knows to these question.63

This question gives us an opportunity to return to a point made, but not elabo-rated, above: the Christian experience of persecution must be grounded in the scriptural story. It is important to notice how easy it is for our cultural or political outlook to con-trol our response to persecution. Speaking broadly, one of the first moves that American


Christians tend to make when they see persecution in the rest of the world is to appeal to the right of religious freedom and demand an end to the persecution.64 Although this might be a justified response in the American political context, and the freedom of reli-gion a cherished good, this is not the primary response that the Scriptures, or the history of the Christian tradition, teach. When Luther responded to persecution in his own day, he relied heavily upon Christs words: Pray for those who persecute you (Mt 5:44). For instance, when Luther spoke about Duke George of Saxony (a bitter foe of the Reformation) he said, Certainly I have prayed for him with all my heart. . . . I ask you and yours to commend him to the Lord in your prayers.65 In 1527 Luther wrote a let-ter to the Christians in Halle after the murder of their pastor, George Winkler. The cir-cumstances of the murder were unclear, but there were some strong suspicions that the church authorities might have been involved since George was killed returning to Halle after being summoned to an ecclesiastical hearing for his administration of both bread and wine in communion.66 Even in these uncertain and tragic circumstances, though, Luther did not change his counsel for prayer and forgiveness:

But forgive your enemies and pray for them and do good to them, that is the true Christians virtue. . . . Accordingly, I beg you and exhort you, my dear brothers and friends, to do as Christ did and leave this disturb-ing matter, which rightly pains and grieves you so, to him who is the just Judge, as St. Peter teaches us. Take care that you do not become hostile to anyone because of it, or engender hatred or spread evil gossip, or curse and desire revenge. You would do wrong to be so hard hearted as not to be stirred by this murder, or if you acceded to it and did not wholeheart-edly condemn it. It would be equally wrong to curse the murderers, desire revenge, or nurse hostility rather than pray for them . . . we are to have mercy on these persons and, so long as there is hope that they may come to know and to better themselves, pray that God may mercifully enable them to repent of their murder and evil. We would not be helped by their condemnation but would greatly rejoice if they would be saved through our prayers and kindness.67

When persecution does come upon Christians, it is not a call to hatred, vindic-tiveness, revenge, malice, pettiness, or victimhood. Instead, it is yet another opportunity to call upon the Lord in every circumstance.68

ConclusionThis article has argued that rather than claiming or warning of imminent and

impending persecution, it is more accurate and helpful to understand that the church is losing predominance in the United States and, as a result of this, that Christians in America may face more challenges in the public square than they have been accustomed to in the past. Within a prayerful, ongoing process of discernment the church (wherever and whenever it may be) must listen carefully, look both across and throughout the body of Christ, and use the two reigns of God to help recognize the presence or absence

302

of persecution. Implicit in this argument is an acknowledgement that the current politi-cal and cultural environment that Christians in America find themselves is not, by a long shot, the most challenging, threatening, or dangerous circumstance in which the church has sought to proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord. This reality could change one day. Yet even if it does, even if the worst worries of some come true, there is still nothing to fearfor the church has the promises of Christ.69

Endnotes1 Luthers Works eds. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann, 56 vols. American Edition (St. Louis

and Philadelphia: Concordia Publishing House and Fortress Press, 19581986), 10:353. 2 Ibid.: For now peace attacks more than the sword did formerly, clothing more than nakedness, food

more than hunger, security more than difficulty, abundance more than poverty, and the opposite of everything the apostle lists in Romans 8:35 . . . Therefore, as the apostles applied the psalms to their own time against the Jews, their enemies, the martyrs to their own time against the persecutors, the teachers to their own time against the heretics (as blessed Augustine does nearly everywhere), so we, too, must now pray and apply them against the half-Christians and those who serve the Lord only in a carnal and formal way. Especially should we pray for the princes and priests of the church, where this evil is particularly prevalent. This does not mean that we must rage and be indig-nant against them, blaspheme and disparage them, since this would have no constructive result. But we must grieve and have compassion and commiserate with the church and pray with and for them (italics added).

3 LW 43:62. The resistance, and outright persecution, that the evangelical cause encountered caused Luther and others too look back upon the travails of Jan Hus and other Christian martyrs for inspiration and consolation. See Robert Kolb, Saint John Hus and Jerome Savonarola, Confessor of God: The Lutheran Canonization of Late Medieval Martyrs, Concordia Journal 17 (1991): 404418.

4 Susan Stabile has identified some of the conflicts that have contributed to the increased discussion of persecution in the United States among Christians over recent years. See Susan J. Stabile, What is Religious Persecution in a Pluralist Society? Villanova Law Review 59 (2014): 753770.

5 See the movie Persecuted, directed by Daniel Lusko, (2014, Millennium Entertainment). Perhaps the most well-known book on the topic is David Limbaugh, Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity (New York: Harper Perennial, 2004). See also Stabile, 753.

6 For example: Jay Gota, Christian leaders slam US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, warn Christians of looming persecution, Christianity Today, June 27, 2015 http://www.christiantoday.com/article/chris-tian.leaders.slam.us.supreme.court.ruling.on.gay.marriage.warn.christians.of.looming.persecution/57301.htm

7 For instance, in 2014 Dr. Jim Garlow declared that evangelical Christians in America are experiencing full-blown persecution like we have not seen previously in America. . . . The kind of persecution we find in the rest of the world, we are now experiencing here. See the podcasts: http://www.wallbuilderslive.com/listen.asp?cs=high&mf=mp3&fileName=WBLive2014-01-06.

8 Richard John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 99.9 The pace of societal change has even surprised social liberals. See, for instance, Marriage Equality in

America: So far, so fast The Economist, October 11, 2014, http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21623671-week-americas-supreme-court-dealt-supporters-gay-marriage-great-victory-we-look.

10 Neuhaus, 129. Persecution, and especially martyrdom, often brings great clarity to the church; our contemporary situation, it will be argued, is more opaque.

11 The Son of God Goes Forth to War (see the Lutheran Service Book, hymn 661). Damnatio ad bestias (condemnation to the beasts) was a common form of Roman punishment that was particularly popular with the crowds. See Boris A. Paschke, The Roman ad bestias Execution as a Possible Historical Background for 1 Peter 5:8, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28 no. 4 (2006): 489500.Paschkes argument is adopted and strengthened by David G. Horrell, Bradley Arnold, and Travis B. Williams, Visuality, Vivid Description, and the Message of 1 Peter: The Significance of the Roaring Lion (1 Peter 5:8), Journal of Biblical Literature 132 no. 3 (2013): 697716.

12 Undoubtedly, there are Christians in the United States who have, do, and will suffer coercive pressure or violence precisely because they are following Christ in their particular vocations.

13 This is also the case with many legal, philosophical, and political documents that discuss the topic of persecution. See Jaakko Kuoanen, Whats So Special about Persecution? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (2014): 129140. Kuoanen arrives at the following definition of persecution: an asymmetrical and systemic threat


of severe and sustained harm that is inflicted discriminatorily and unjustly (ibid., 138).14 Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert, eds., The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical

Lutheran Church, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 515516.15 Ibid., 636.3 16 See Irene Dingel, The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to the Formula of Concord

(15481580), Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture, 15501675, Robert Kolb ed. (Boston: Brill, 2008), 1822 and 3439.17 The article ends Dissonantia ieiunii non dissolvit conconantiam fidei, that is, Dissimilarity in fasting

shall not destroy the unity of faith. 18 In 2010 a group of Evangelical scholars released Bad Urach Statement: Towards an evangelical theology

of suffering, persecution, and martyrdom for the global church in mission (available online: http://www.iirf.eu/filead-min/user_upload/PDFs/Bad_Urach_Statement.pdf) in which a definition and theology of persecution is developed. This statement, though, has not received much attention in the church at large.

19 We know of no persecution by the Roman Government until 64 [AD], and there was no general persecution until Decius. Between 64 and 250 there were only isolated, local persecutions; and even if the total number of victims was quite considerable (as I think it probably was), most individual outbreaks must usually have been quite brief. Even the general persecution of Decius lasted little more than a year, and the second general per-secution, that of Valerian in 2579, less than three years. The third and last general persecution, by Diocletian and his colleagues from 303 onwards (the so-called Great Persecution), continued for only about two years in the West, although it went on a good deal longer in the East. In the intervals between these general persecutions . . . Christians enjoyed something like complete peace over most of the empire and in addition the capacity of the Christian churches to own property was recognized, at least under some emperors. G. E. M. De Ste Croix, Christian Persecution, Martyrdom, and Orthodoxy, ed. Michael Whitby and Joseph Streeter (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 106107 (emphasis added).

20 The controversy surrounding FC X demonstrates this well. One party, Philip Melanchthon and his fol-lowers, believed that secular authorities had a right to play a role in the externals of church life (Dingel, 38). For them, then, the imposition of certain rites was not persecution, but rather the rightful exercise of the authorities power. For Matius Flacius and his followers, on the other hand, secular authorities did not have such a right and, therefore, the church was indisputably in a state of persecution. See Dingel, 3839.

21 See Candida Moss, The Myth of Christian Persecution (New York: Harper One, 2013) and James A. Kelhoffer, Withstanding Persecution as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament: Reflections on the Resulting Ethical and Hermeneutical Quandary, Dialog: A Journal of Theology 50 no. 2 (Summer 2011): 120132.

22 Are Christians in America persecuted? The short answer is Yes, all the time. . . Persecution is the normal experience of every Christian everywhere. Kevin DeYoung, Are Christians in America Persecuted? The Gospel Coalition, April 15, 2014, http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2014/04/15/are-chris-tians-in-america-persecuted/.

23 When Luther discuss bearing the sacred cross as a mark of the church, he makes suffering and perse-cution distinct categories that fall under the theology of the cross (LW 41:164).

24 Jeffrey Gibbs, Matthew 1:111:1, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: CPH, 2006), 253254.25 In fact, when this does occur the church should be deeply wary of being co-opted by any particular

political party or specific ideological narrative. As R. R. Reno recently remarked, Sadly, our faith is often manipu-lated, perverted, and betrayed for the sake of worldly ambitions. In those instances, brotherly love requires strong criticism. R. R. Reno, Letters, First Things (August/September 2015): 10.

26 As Greensburg notes, many early church fathers taught that martyrdom is not to be sought out; nei-ther is it to be feared. L. A. Greenberg, My Share of Gods Reward: Exploring the Roles and Formulations of the Afterlife in Early Christian Martyrdom (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2009), 119.

27 See Gibbs, 527532.28 See Religious Hostilities Reach Six-Year High PEW Research Center, January 14, 2014, http://www.

pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/. 29 See Hebrews 1112.30 Toward the later part of the third century Christians could be found at very high levels in Roman soci-

ety. See William Tabbernee, Eusebiuss Theology of Persecution: As Seen in the Various Editions of his Church History, Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 no. 3 (1997): 319334. See also emphasis added in endnote xvi.

31 The Bad Urach Statement rightly cautions the church against using this oft-cited quotation of Tertullian in a formulaic or overly-triumphalist manner: The fruit of martyrdom remains a grace from God (Jn 12:24). We must therefore avoid a triumphalistic use of the popular saying of church father Tertullian from North Africa that the blood of the martyrs is the seed for new Christians (p. 23). On a similar vein, it is important to

304

remember that just because the church sometimes thrives in times of persecution does not mean that it will auto-matically thrive whenever it faces persecution.

32 He continues: The reality is that the king was no ogre, no Hitler, and the Lutherans who stayed in Prussia ended up gaining the concessions they needed to stay truly Lutheran. The reality is that Kavel and the Old-Lutherans were uncharitable in designatingthe Reformed church and the union as heathen, they were stubborn in spurning the kings attempts to grant them concessions and meet their objections, they were unorthodox in insisting that there is only one form of church government that is scriptural, and they were unjustified in regarding themselves as the only true Lutheran church. Rev. Dr. Dean Zweck, Suffering and Persecution as a Mark of the Church: A Perspective from Australia, Lutheran Theological Journal 47 no. 3 (December 2013): 166167.

33 A Grave Business, The Economist, July 25, 2015, http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21659737-tussle-over-headstones-new-jersey-may-end-up-supreme-court-grave-business. The Archdiocese is now suing to overturn the law. See James Barron, Archdiocese Disputes Ban on It Selling Headstones, New York Times, July 20, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/nyregion/archdiocese-disputes-ban-on-it-selling-headstones.html?_r=0.

34 The disruption of the Archdioceses gravestone business is not the same thing as the upending of the silversmiths guild in the city of Ephesus in Acts 19.

35 Stephen Prothero, When Every Day is a Religious Holiday: In the name of inclusivity, the school year is becoming off-limits to teaching. How about zero holidays? Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/stephen-prothero-when-every-day-is-a-religious-holiday-1425943088.

36 Or, for that matter, with the so-called blue laws that mainly restrict the commerce of certain businesses on Sundays that are common in many states and counties.

37 David French, Ready Always to Give an Answer: Campus Christians flourish amid adversity National Review (September 7, 2015): 3234.

38 Hypothetically, under this policy a socialist could lead the campus Republicans and an avid hunter the PETA campus chapter.

39 For a critique of the courts ruling, see Harvey A. Silverman, A Campus Crusade against the Constitution: Limiting First Amendment rights for Christians undercuts rights for everyone else. Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/harvey-a-silverglate-a-campus-crusade-against-the-consti-tution-1411081302.

40 See Brook Mertz, Cal State retracts recognition for InterVarsity on all 23 campuses, USA Today, September 18, 2014, http://college.usatoday.com/2014/09/18/cal-state-retracts-recognition-for-intervarsity-on-all-23-campuses/

41 French, 34.42 On this problem, see James Davidson Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of

Christianity in the Late Modern World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), esp. essay II, chap. 6. 43 In societies such as ours, which place no formal liabilities upon being Christian, the contriving of per-

secution can only trivialize the very real persecution of Christians elsewhere. Neuhaus, 129. 44 Even some opponents of the church in the United State recognize the extreme suffering of Christians

in other parts of the world and are unimpressed by any American Christian claim to persecution. See Robert Boston, Persecution Complex, Church & State (March 2014): 1316.

45 Alan Noble, The Evangelical Persecution Complex, The Atlantic, August 4, 2014, http://www.the-atlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/the-evangelical-persecution-complex/375506/

46 Luther was insistent that Christians must resist being preoccupied with the affliction itself because it ren-ders no sense of its transitory nature. According to Jesuss words in John 16:1622, and 16:33 affliction will last but a little while. Luther commented on verses 2022 of this text as follows. Sadness will not last forever; it will turn into joy. John C. Clark, Martin Luthers View of Cross-Bearing, Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (July-September 2006): 343.

47 There is evidence that the early church struggled with what to do about the enthusiasm of many Christians for martyrdom. This can be seen in the different recensions of the Martyrdom of Carpus and Papylus. In the Greek recension, a woman named Agathonice sees two Christian martyrs being burned to death, has a vision, and then jumps upon the flames herself. In the Latin version of the Acta Agathonice does not throw herself upon the fire voluntarily but is brought before the proconsul and ordered to sacrifice to the emperor; after refusing, she is burned to death. See Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 2736. The tension between seeking out martyrdom and unsolicited persecution/martyrdom is also evident in the writings of several early church fathers. As Bowersock notes, the rush toward a voluntary martyrdom became so alarming that they [the church fathers] gradually developed a sharp discrimination between solicited martyrdom and the more traditional kind that came as a result of persecution. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, and


Lactantius, all great spokesman of the early church, attempted to stop this enthusiasm and reserve the ranks of the martyrs for those who endured suffering and death in the face of persecution. G. W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 4.

48 While the language used by InterVarsity is appropriate for their circumstance, calling the Christian church in America marginalized is not (yet) an accurate description. Although Christianity is losing some of its influence, the United States remains a deeply religious country and the Christian church retains deep political influence in America (especially when compared to the position of the church in other Western nations and our closet neighbor, Canada). See Anna Grzymala-Busse, Nations Under God: How Churches use Moral Authority to Influence Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), esp. chap. 5.

49 See Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites US (New York: Simon &Schuster, 2010), chap. 1. See also Nones on the Rise, PEW Research Center, Oct. 9, 2012, http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/; and Michael Lipka, A Closer Look at Americas Rapidly Growing Religious Nones, PEW Research Center, May 13, 2015, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/13/a-closer-look-at-americas-rapidly-growing-religious-nones/.

50 Philip Gorski, Religious Pluralism and Democratic Inclusion: The American Recipe for Peace, Society 51 (2014): 623635.

51 Ibid., 623.52 Ibid., 624. In truth, the American Formula is better compared to a family recipe, handed down from

generation to generation, with adjustments made along the way, often on the fly, so as to include new ingredients or respond to changing conditions. Adjustments have been necessitated by the formation of new religious commu-nities and/or the arrival of new immigrant groups, whether Methodists and Baptists in the 18th century, Catholics and Jews in the 19th century, or Hindus and Muslims in the present day. Adjustments have also been spurred by institutional changes, notably, the expansion of public education or the creation of the welfare state. Successful adjustments have maintained a rough balance between religious freedom (free exercise) and civic inclusion (no establishment, no test), with the scales tipping slightly towards the former. Unsuccessful ones have tipped the bal-ance too far in one direction (total separationism) or the other (Christian nationalism).

53 Ibid., 625.54 To use Gorskis analogy, the serpentine wall between church and state might be raised higher in

some places, built up in new places, and relocated in others.55 The case of a Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses since the Obergefell v.

Hodges ruling is illuminated very well by Gorskis analysis. The value of civil inclusion is being championed by the court system as it refuses Kim Daviss legal petitions to not issue marriage licenses because of her religious convic-tion. Since this case is ongoing, it is difficult to analyze adequately. Yet it is interesting to note that even Neuhaus, who openly advocated participation in the public square, recognized that The sectarian option, seriously pur-sued, is one honorable alternative to the politics of compromise. . . . As strange as it may seem, it may happen at times that the church is most influential when it is indifferent to exercising influence. Neuhaus, 119.

56 Since InterVarsity is no longer recognized by California State as an official student organization, the group no longer receives as high of a discount on renting rooms for weekly meetings and other regular events as it would if it were still recognized. At Sonoma State, for example, costs may reach up to $30,000 for the year, accord-ing to InterVarsity area director Jenny Klouse. Mertz. See also French.

57 Laurie Goodstein and Adam Lipak, Schools Fear Gay Marriage Ruling Could End Tax Exemptions, New York Times, June 24, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/schools-fear-impact-of-gay-marriage-ruling-on-tax-status.html?_r=1.

58 Neuhaus, 129. Putnams study also supports this contention: By a wide margin, Americans see the value in religious diversity for its own sake (520). Gorski, however, is more ambivalent: Whether the rebalancing act that is currently underway will ultimately succeed is an open question (624).

59 Stanley Hauerwas, A Cross Shattered Church: Reclaiming the Theological Heart of Preaching (Brazos Press, 2009), 137.

60 Putnam, 145.61 Ibid., 540.62 William Cavanaugh, Migrations of the Holy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 2.63 As the old hymn reminds us, The kingdom ours remaineth.64 See Nik Ripkin, The Perplexities of Persecution Require a Very Different Kind of Prayer, USA

Today (March 2014): 5253. 65 LW 43:64. See also note 2, emphasis added.66 In his discussion of the case, Luther uses the two-reigns distinction to note that George was not just

306

murdered in service and obedience to secular authority, but also for the sake of the gospel, most of all because he wanted to teach and administer communion in both kinds. LW 43:149.

67 LW 43:164165.68 Cf. Revelation 6:10.69 This insight is borrowed and modified from an interview with Rowan Williams: Justin Brierley: Does Christianity have anything to fear from a sort of secularization/atheism?Rowan Williams: Christianity has, I think, first of all, nothing to fear. I do take that absolutely seriously.

It is a fundamental biblical principle. One of the first things that Jesus says to the apostles is Dont be afraid. So lets not cast it in terms of what Christianity has to fear. We have the promises of God. Its as basic as that. . . . And whats the future? Can we be confident that the church will be respected, influential, taken seriously? Well, no actually. There is no guarantee of that in the Bible or anywhere else. So lets not imagine that the welfare, the wellbeing, the advance of the kingdom of God is bound up with our being popular or influential.Sometimes it is, sometimes it isnt. It comes and goes, historically.

See In Conversation with Rowan Williams, Premier Christian Radio, March 19, 2013, http://www.pre-mierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/In-Conversation-with-Rowan-Williams.


Charles P. Arand is the Eugene E. and Nell S. Fincke Graduate Professor of Theology, director of the Center for the Care of Creation, and dean of theo-logical research and publication at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.

Francis of Assisis famous Canticle of Brother Sun, or Canticle of the Creatures, opens with the line, Praised be you, my Lord, through all your creatures.1 This famous canticle praises God by extolling the wonders of his creation. Over the centuries, it has provided the inspiration for hymns such as All Creatures of Our God and King. And now, the opening words, Blessed be supply the title for the first encyclical issued by Pope Francis that can be considered entirely his.

The much anticipated papal encyclical, Laudato Si, made its appearance on June 18, 2015. But should conservative Lutherans pay any attention to it, and if so, why? I would suggest that we should for several reasons.

First, the pope is the one person in the world who is able to attract a hearing from both Christians and non-Christians alike. This is in part because he shepherds a flock of nearly 1.2 billion people worldwide. And it is in part because he is recognized as a person who carries a great deal of moral authority. And in Franciss particular case, he carries a great deal of personal respect with his humility and generosity.

Second, an encyclical is one of the more authoritative teaching documents that a pope can issue (only an Apostolic Constitution ranks higher). Popes usually issue an encyclical to provide a moral foundation on topics of great significance. So when Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio adopted the name Francis in honor of Francis of Assisi, it soon became rumored that he might issue an encyclical on the environment.

Third, we are a church that confesses and adheres to all three articles of the creed. We have irreconcilable differences with Rome on the second and third articles related to the work of Christ and justification by faith alone that date back to the sixteenth century. But we share a number of common convictions regarding the first article of the creed as it relates to the moral issues of society and Gods continuing work in creation (creatio continua).

Finally, the encyclical has received widespread publicity in the media and around the world. The themes and issues of this encyclical have especially resonated with many in the southern hemisphere. As one of my colleagues put it, many of the young people in Latin America have cheered Laudato Si for here was a pope who was addressing

Tending Our Common Home Reflections on Laudato Si

Charles P. Arand

308

their concerns and issues. And on top of that, he was doing so in language that they understand and with a smile rather than out of anger.

In the United States, its reception has been more of a mixed bag as the docu-ment is frequently viewed through the lens of Democratic and Republican politics. It would be wrong, however, to evaluate the document in this way; Laudato Si cannot easily be cast into the camp of liberal or conservative politics.2 If one side finds support on the issue of climate change, it should also take to heart what the pope says about life issues. And if one side grimaces at the popes critique of an unfettered free market, one can welcome his arguments for life issues.

In addition, it would be a mistake to think the document signals a significant shift in Roman Catholic teaching. It is true that it may be the first encyclical that focuses entirely on the stewardship of creation. But as Francis indicates at the outset, he is building on statements of his immediate predecessors. The document reflects a long tradition of catholic social teaching as it draws upon principles such as the dignity of work, the common good, subsidiarity, and the preferential option for the poor.3 But what is new is the way Francis brings all of these together as interconnected issues while addressing matters related to the environment.

So what might we take away from the document? I would suggest several things. First, Francis provides a way of engaging those who do not share our beliefs in a post-Christian world. Second, the document provides some helpful lines of direction toward a more robust theology of creation and its use within the church. Finally, Francis encourages us to expand our horizons and embrace a comprehensive vision of the world. He challenges the church to take a global perspective in which a practical com-mitment to human beings and the environment take priority over a commitment to nationalities, ideologies, economic theories, and politics.

Our Common Home: Theme and Strategy

When Apollo 8 orbited the moon in 1968, the astronauts snapped what became one of most iconic photographs ever taken. It was the earth rising over the barren landscape of the moon set against the vast blackness of space. We may not realize it (because we are so accustomed to seeing it) but this photo forever altered humanitys vision of itself and our planet. This was the first time in all of human history that we saw the earth from outside the earth. This was our home.

The subtitle for Laudato Si, Our Common Home, provides a helpful lens to consider the document and with it, our life in this world. Now, Francis is not the first to employ the metaphor of a home with respect to creation. In the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa referred to creation as a royal lodging.4 In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther similarly employed the metaphor of a house to describe Gods construc-tion of creation in his great commentary on Genesis. And now in the twenty-first cen-tury, Francis takes the metaphor a step further by speaking of Our Common Home.

Francis uses the metaphor of a common home in order to bring into the discus-


sion all people, Christian and non-Christian alike. You might say that he calls for a family meeting to deal with issues that impact our entire household. In this, he provides a helpful way to move beyond an us-them approach.5 What might such a conversa-tion entail?

We need to begin by listening to the needs and concerns of everyone in the house. This is a consistent theme throughout the document. We need to not only hear the cry of the earth but also the cry of the poor (49). We also need to listen to the insights of science as it diagnoses the condition of our common home. And yet Francis, a trained scientist himself (chemistry), cautions that science does not offer a complete explanation of life.

And so, Francis invites non-Christians to consider the wisdom of the Christian tra-dition. He asks, Why should this document, addressed to all people of good will, include a chapter dealing with the convictions of believers? Francis is well aware that in politics and philosophy there are those who firmly reject the idea of a Creator, or consider it irrelevant, and consequently dismiss as irrational the rich contribution which religions can make towards an integral ecology and the full development of humanity (62).

He argues that we cannot afford to ignore other forms of wisdom when deal-ing with large and complex issues related to our common home. And so he invites non-Christians to consider what Christianity has to offer. In addition, he addresses his Christian flock about the Christian relation to creation. He hopes to encourage them to live in ways that not only helps creation but witnesses to the Christian message. What Is the Condition of Our Common Home?

Many communities require a home inspection before the house is trans-ferred to another party. The inspectors job is to evaluate the structure. Is it up to code? Does it have methane gas detectors and fire detectors? Are there hidden problems that may cause harm (sick home . . . sick life)? In other words, is the house in shape so as to be a home in which people can live and flourish?

One of Franciss concerns has to do with the condition of the home that we are handing on to the generations that come after us. What kind of a home will they inherit? And so Francis enlists the help of inspectors to assess the state of our home in light of our impact upon it during the last couple hundred years. The results are sober-ing. Francis summarizes the results in pretty stark terms, weve turned our home into an immense pile of filth (21). He identifies several issues.

First, will the home we bequeath our descendants include a climate that sustains the life and health of all? Here, Francis observes (and which everyone expected) that most scientists claim that it is changing for the worse due to human activity. But it is not only climate change that poses a danger, but all forms of pollution that cause dam-age to the environment and human health (23).

Second, will the home we bequeath our descendants include clean water for all? Currently, large numbers on the planet suffer from what he calls water poverty. This

310

especially affects Africa where large sectors of the population have no access to safe drinking water (28). Once again, he argues that access to safe drinkable water is a basic and universal human right that is essential to human survival and, as such, is a condition for the exercise of other human rights (30).

Third, will the home we bequeath our descendants be emptied of many of Gods creatures? Here Francis addresses the rapid loss of biodiversity especially in the oceans. Here he quotes the Filipino bishops, Who turned the wonderworld of the seas into underwater cemeteries bereft of colour and life? As a result, thousands of species will no longer give glory to God by their very existence (41). And Francis notes in the best tradition of Frederick Olmstead Law (designer of Central Park) that the privatiza-tion of certain spaces restricts peoples access to places of particular beauty. He laments, We seem to think that we can substitute an irreplaceable and irretrievable beauty with something which we have created ourselves (34).

Fourth, will the home we bequeath our descendants provide economic opportu-nity for all? It may seem surprising that Francis includes in a document on the environ-ment the issue of global inequality. But people are part of the environment as well. And here he casts an eye (I suspect) toward the United Nations when he notes that devel-oping countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of reproductive health (50).

Francis criticizes the current response to these problems as weak. For example, at one extreme, we find those who doggedly uphold the myth of progress and believe that problems of our home can simply be solved with the application of new technol-ogy and without any need for ethical considerations or deep change. On the other end of the spectrum are those who view men and women and all their interventions as no more than a threat, jeopardizing the global ecosystem, and consequently the presence of human beings on the planet should be reduced and all forms of intervention prohib-ited (60).

Francis finds these responses lacking because they are beholden to the techno-cratic mindset of modernity when our problems are not primarily technological, but anthropological. And so the issues about our environment are really questions about us: Why are we here? What is the purpose of our life in this world? What is the goal of our work and all our efforts? Apart from these deeper issues, he doubts (and I agree) that our concern for ecology will produce significant results (160). Why Have We Not Taken Care of Our Common Home?

Why do people not take care of their homes and maintain them? Some of the reasons may be a lack of money or a lack of time. But one important reason might be that if we dont feel that it is really our home, then why care about it? If we are not at home in it then it simply becomes a tem-porary shelter not a home.

Francis entitled chapter 3 The Human Roots of Our Ecological Crisis as perhaps an indirect critique of the famous 1967 article by Lynn White entitled, The


Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.6 White argued that the Christian doc-trine of dominion gave rise to the ecological problems of today. Francis acknowledges that Christianity has at times presented an inadequate anthropology that provided a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world (116). But he argues that the roots of our problems ultimately lie in a certain way of understanding human life and activity that has gone awry (101).

So what has happened? He argues that our situation today is unique within history when it comes to the influence of the human role within creation. He calls it rapidification (18). The rate of change as a result of a techno-science society exceeds in scope, scale, and speed any change that occurs naturally within creation. In other words, our adoption of a technocratic mindset has given rise to a Promethean vision of mastery over the world (116).

Francis pulls few punches in criticizing what he refers to as the dominant tech-nocratic paradigm of our modern world. This is the tendency to view the world only through the lens of empirical science with the goal of acquiring control over the world and then transforming it through technology. Francis rejects the use of this paradigm to understand the whole of realityespecially all of human life and society. Reducing all human understanding to this paradigm is ultimately responsible for the deterioration of the environment (107).

Now, Francis is no Luddite when it comes to advances in science and technolo-gy. He welcomes the ways in which science and technology have improved human well-being over the past two centuries. This includes everything from advances in medicine to the use of technology for cultivating the arts. He even praises the beauty of airplanes and skyscrapers as examples that highlight the nobility of humans and how God has enabled them to participate in his own creativity.

Franciss concern is thus not with science and technology as such. It is rather with the adoption of a technocratic mindset that blinds us to the intrinsic value of other creatures and beings. It places human beings at the center and gives absolute priority to immediate convenience in which everything else becomes relative to ones indi-vidual concerns. We assess the value of everything in terms of whether or not we find it useful to us. Francis calls this a practical relativism, a disorder that drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects (122).

Such thinking results in a use it and throw it away culture. It leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests (123). It blames population growth for environmental problems rather than extreme and selective consumerism (50). And it results in a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings (118).

Again, Francis does not reject science as a paradigm for understanding aspects of our world. What he contends, however, is that rationality and empiricism alone can-not offer a complete explanation of life nor provide a solution that can counter the destructive consequences on the environment of our actions. So rather than continuing the dominance of a technocratic paradigm to life, Francis argues that we need a dis-

312

tinctive way of looking at things that results in a lifestyle and a spirituality which can generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic paradigm (111).

In other words, what we need is a better anthropology. He asserts, There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology (118). To expand on Franciss thought, what we need is an anthropology that fits our status as

Concordia Journal | Fall 2015

Documents

Transcript of Concordia Journal | Fall 2015