I am conflicted. On the one hand, I sincerely want to be a High-Church Calvinist because I believe the Bible teaches that the Church is the institution God has ordained to be our spiritual “mother” (as Augustine put it). I believe the Bible when it talks about the power God has attached to the preaching of Christ; I believe the Bible when it links baptism to what Christ has done for me, and therefore to my salvation; I believe the Bible when it says that if I do not eat the body and if I do not drink the blood of Christ, I do not have eternal life. I believe that the Church holds the keys of the kingdom, and that the Lord Jesus Christ has entrusted her with maintaining the discipline of the body.
On the other hand, I can’t truly be a High-Church Calvinist, because the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches have become tyrannical and have run me out. That’s a long story, but suffice it to say that my family and I are the fruit of the imperfection of the Church.
So where is someone who desires to be a High-Church Calvinist to go in a rural town where the local “Reformed” theonomic church has already participated in the tyrannical rail-running, where the only guy who remotely came close to preaching Christ was canned in favor of RickWarrenism and where almost every choice is either mainline liberalism or low-church protestant enthusiasts? Well, I guess that someone and his family would have to go to the little Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) church.
Enter Issues, Etc. When my family and I first started attending the local Lutheran church, I wanted to try to acclimate as much as a Calvinist could. So I found Issues, Etc. online by searching for any MP3s of Rod Rosenbladt besides the White Horse Inn. I appreciated Todd Wilken’s commitment to justification, the contrast between Law and Gospel and his criteria for evaluating sermons. Although, those same things became frustrating and bitter as I sat in Sunday morning worship missing ALL of those things except for the Confession and Absolution section of the liturgy.
Todd probably doesn’t remember me, probably doesn’t care, and that’s okay. If he helps confused Christians understand justification and the fact that every sermon should be the proclamation of Christ, then I’ll root for the guy. I do have to air a bewildering frustration of mine about Todd, though. As I listened to archives of Issues, Etc., I heard him occasionally address the topic of Reformed covenant theology. He was less than generous. In fact, his practice seemed to be to interview LUTHERAN pastors about what Reformed covenant theologians believed. Together they concluded that if the Reformed believe that there was ANY covenant of works at ANY point in history, then that must allow them to say that we are all under a covenant of works NOW. That strikes me as being as wise as having two Reformed guys who have only been to Reformed schools interview each other about some point of Lutheran theology. Why not interview someone who actually holds the position? (Todd made it crystal clear that he didn’t understand covenant theology AT ALL). So I tried to dialog with him. I emailed him on more than one occasion. Now, I will be the first one to admit that I am not the brightest bulb on the tree. But having studied under the most brilliant covenant theologian of all time, and having written a book on the subject, I thought that–even if Todd ended up disagreeing with the Reformed on covenant theology–we could at least dialog about it in the interests of intellectual honesty and edification. No such luck. On the air, Todd would read any other email I sent him. But he roundly and soundly ignored every email having to do with covenant theology.
Sorry. I had to vent. This post is actually about Issues, Etc., ecclesiastical authority and my own tortured soul. Since Todd seemed to have become irritated with me, I gave up listening to Issues, Etc. (I just listen to Christocentric sermons online… since I’m not hearing any on Sundays). Then, today, I ran across the Riddleblog. There, Kim said this about the death of Issues, Etc.
The program will be totally independent, and free (blessedly so) from control of the LCMS “ABlaze” types.
So my questions — as one who desires to be a High Church Calvinist, but who providentially can’t be — are: If the Church tells you–even if it does so by means of a particular party to which you are staunchly opposed–that you may not say or teach something, then whence comes the authority to continue saying and teaching those things? Even if you are convinced on the basis of God’s Word that the party that is in control of the Church is absolutely wrong, isn’t it still the Church? How do you sort through the two conflicting imperatives to submit to those in authority over you and to proclaim the gospel? Or is the answer to leave that church? And if the answer is to leave, how much longer will it be until there is no such thing as catholicity any more because each local congregation is convinced that all other local congregations are unworthy to be united with?
I don’t want Todd and Jeff to tone down the Gospel at all. But as someone who thought he understood how things worked, I am confused about how to prioritize submission and obedience. After all, whenever you DON’T choose to submit to ecclesiastical authority when it is one of two conflicting authorities, you’d better believe that those church officers will let you know how evil and wicked you are for disobeying and rebelling. Perhaps that is how Luther and Calvin each felt…
Here’s an episode of Issues, Etc. that will warm your sweet little Reformed heart:
http://207.57.94.117/podcast/156020309H1p.mp3
Feb. 3, 2009, the Wilken had a very good hour-long interview with Kim Riddelbarger about the 5 points.
Kim made the excellent point (which he got from Rosenbladt)– that it’s better to talk to each other about our theological differences than to talk about each other!
As to the ecclesiology, it is one thing to put major emphasis on the congregation as a visible church and another to expect your church body to be a visible church. This was actually a big fight between the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Wisconsin thought that all polity was an adiaphoron, or indifferent matter. We could arrange it all for human convenience. So there was no reason to distinguish that which God had instituted and that which man added for the sake of good order. Missouri said you had to maintain that distinction. Synod is not church. Synod may be given a lot of overseeing power. And the congregations have an interest in doctrinal agreement. But the machinery to maintain that is not considered God-ordained.
And as the bodies grow in scale and cultural change increases, I think hard questions need to be asked about how best to maintain orthodoxy, work together effectively, and not get bureaucratically entrenched. You may have to suffer some connections or disconnections that are not ideal while the dust settles. That is not your fault.
It’s an honor to have you stop by, Rick! Thanks for the insight.